Tracking Change in Rock Art Vocabularies and Styles at Marapikurrinya (Port Hedland, Northwest Australia)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper concerns the analysis of the rock art in Marapikurrinya, NW Australia, with specific focus on the study of track motifs as indicators of demographic and social changes in an evolving environment. Following the shift from an emphasis on the exploitation of the seashore to a more generalised exploitation of both the shore and inland species, tracks become more dominant in the engravings. It is argued that this reflects change in 1) the conception of the horizontal canvas provided by the calcarinite ridges from one of an underwater representation of species to one of a dry land representation of human and other than human tracks, both of which are appreciated from a bird's eye view and 2) as signalling a shift in marking strategy, from a localised to a regional identity. 

This is a very interesting proposition, and demonstrates the utility of the analysis of track motifs as a separate class, apart from figurative or geometric motifs. In order to present their argument more cogently, I would suggest a series of modifications to the paper. As it is written now, it is more oriented to a local audience, familiar with Australian rock art studies, geographical divisions, and ethnographic classifications. In this regard, it would be helpful to create a map showing the study area in relation to a regional and national map in addition to the aerial imagery of Figure 1. The maps in Figure 2 and 3 do not indicate the study area in relation to the rest of the maps. Figure 3 is difficult to read due to the small font size and blurry lettering.

In the discussion of the archaeological background (Section 2.2), it is not clear if the archaeological nature of the shell beds has been demonstrated. It would be appropriate to cite the literature on the "stratified lithic artefacts" (line 118), so as to justify the interpretation as a cultural sequence.

In Section 2.3. Tracks in Rock Art, the discussion jumps from the Australian context to other global examples and then, back to research at Hedland, in the study area, with a discussion of the ethnographic interpretation of tracks and their placement. I would suggest a reorganisation of this section so as to introduce more clearly the issues at hand (figurative vs. geometric; functional, ritual, and other interpretations; the importance of placement in interpretation, etc.). Including reference to the research in Hedland anticipates the conclusions prior to the presentation of the data.

In order to facilitate comprehension for a broader audience, it would be useful to include a more complete description and illustration of the rock engravings under discussion. A section describing the research methods is recommended. Section 2.5. could easily be expanded to be a separate section on Methods. This would include more details about the fieldwork, the recording techniques, the determination of superpositioning and superimpositioning (with their respective definitions), the construction of the stylistic sequence, and the possible variations of the track motifs as related to the 3 stylistic periods defined for the study. The inclusion of tables would greatly enhance the discussion of the variation between periods and between sites. For example, it is not possible to differentiate the track motifs illustrated in Figure 4 by stylistic period. 

Section 2.4 could then follow the discussion of method, permitting a regional comparison.

The discussion of superimpositions (lines 285-348) needs to be revised. Several references cited are not in the bibliography, the percentage of tracks referred to in line 329 is missing, and several statements need to be expanded and explained more thoroughly. For example, explain "the form bias proposed for engraving superimposition sequences (Line 314). Explain "Previous research on the impacts of construction around the Port Hedland township have been conducted (Atkins 1990), which may be exacerbating this perceived difference (Lines 318-320). Also unclear is the sentence in lines referring to places of long engraving time depth (346-348).

The section on "identity signalling" (lines 350-362) should be expanded and included in Section 3. Conclusions, considering it is an important conclusion derived from the research.

Specific details

1. In Section 2.2 the chronology is expressed in kya (lines 97-99). 6000 kya would be equivalent to 6,000,000 years ago.
2.  Figure 5 does not have a caption. 
3.  Explain further why you consider the frequency of superimposition in the Marapikurrinya rock art my be globally significant.  (lines 252-254). The argument in this paragraph is unclear. 
4. In line 269 the reference to Figure 4 would appear to be Figure 5.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper could be improved by eliminating run-on sentences, checking punctuation, correcting the use of certain terms (for example: "under-researcher", line 38; "in collusion with", line 131; "effecting", line 106), and checking to assure subject/verb agreement (For example: "As a result of rising sea levels, Marapikurrinya as a tidal harbour  with tidal islands was formed, which were once elevated portions of a broader coastal plain, as with the Dampier Ranges", lines 89-91). 

There are several missing references in the bibliography (Munn, Green, Walker, Wright, Strehlow, ), and in some cases,  the order of authors in the text is different from that in the reference in the bibliography (for example, "Veth, Hook and Ditchfield" lines 23 and 382 [also missing the date], "Veth, Ditchfield and Hook" in bibliography; "Barham, Sullivan and Hughes", line 116, Sullivan, Hughes, and Barham in bibliography). The bibliography should follow a standardized reference style to unify the format of the citations. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript, I found your review comprehensive and very valuable in improving clarity and scope of this paper. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.  Please see the attachment.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper studies the engravings of Marapikurrinya (NW Australia), where track motifs dominate. It is proposed that stylistic change in this rock art reflects and negotiates environmental, demographic and social change. The dominance of track motifs in the most recent phases of the rock art sequence is explained as a change in marking strategy, from a localised territorial bounded art to regional social system linked to the interior desert.

The manuscript is structured in 3 sections: 1) Introduction, 2) Background (including five subsections) and 3) Conclusions. This organization is quite confusing, since methodological issues and results are merged in the lengthy Background. This makes it difficult to follow the logical reasoning and argumentation of the paper, or to understand if the conclusions are drawn from tendencies or if the author/s are selecting the compositions which they consider most relevant. An example is when it is mentioned that there are “…many examples of direct superimposition of say an emu foot over a turtle’s head” (line 268). This sentence is illustrated by Figure 4 (line 269). Since Figure 4 depicts different kinds of tracks, it is possible that the author/s may be referring to Figure 5. This figure lacks a caption of what is depicted, so it is difficult to understand the superimpositions. Thus, the change from a localized seascape identity to a regional coastal/arid zone identity, which is the main idea of this paper, should be better illustrated and reinforced with data (such as a table). It would also be useful to add a table summarizing the main environmental changes, archeological periods and stylistic phases (better if they are illustrated).

The author/s state that track motifs are generally under-researched despite their global ubiquity and broad chronological distribution. Furthermore, they are largely interpreted economically around hunting knowledge (lines 37-40 and 128-129). Lenssen Erz et al 2023, Dobrez 2017 and 2018, and Walker 1997 are quoted among the few exceptions. However, there are other papers that should be considered:

• Carden, N. 2009. Prints on the rocks: a study of the track representations from Piedra Museo locality (Southern Patagonia). Rock Art Research 26 (1): 29-43.
• Mithen, S. J. 1988. Looking and Learning: Upper Palaeolithic Art and Information Gathering. World Archaeology 19 (3): 297-327.

Both papers specifically analyze tracks (among other cues in the second case) to answer questions that are not merely economic. I also suggest checking references listed in Lenssen Erz et al. 2023.

In the Background section (2.3. Tracks in Rock Art) it is taken for granted that non-Australian readers are familiar with some regional discussions. One example is the distinction of tracks as trails and tracks as icons by Rosenfeld and Dobrez (lines 154-159). Furthermore, when discussing the link between track motifs and sand art (lines 190-196), Munn 1973 (Walbiri Iconography) should be considered as a relevant source. It is important to expand these ideas, because they are readdressed in the discussion (lines 372-375), where Munn is mentioned but not quoted.

Data are introduced in section 2.5 (Marapikurrinya Tracks: Superimposition, Sequence and Comparison), where it is mentioned that more than 8000 engravings were recorded and a stylistic sequence was built. The author/s should explain the distinction between superposition/superimposition (line 253). On the other hand, Figure 4 contains rich information on the variety of footprints, which should be further explained, especially for non-local readers who don’t understand the meaning of such variation in terms of species, animal behavior, etc.

When the rock supports are described, the author/s mention that the calcarenite facilitates motif layering through superimpositions in a way that doesn’t erase older engravings (lines 295-298). The physical properties of this rock should be better explained to understand the sentence. Why is this rock soft enough to engrave but not so soft enough to blur the underlying images? Why is it different from other rocks where the underlying engravings become eroded?

Other observations:

• line 13: replace reflects with reflect
• line 38: replace under-researcher with under-researched
• Figure 1: add north and scale, and frame the region within Australia
• Figure 2: frame the study area
• line 226: replace ocation with location
• line 329: (N: XX, %) should be completed
• line 382: replace Veth, Hook and Ditchfield with Veth et al. plus the year of publication

In summary, this manuscript needs to be better organized and to present the information on tracks with more detail. This point is especially important if the paper is meant to be a major contribution on tracks. Otherwise, it is a study of stylistic change where tracks are considered broadly.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript, I found your review comprehensive and very valuable in improving clarity and scope of this paper. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the article is much improved and has resolved most of the issues noted in the previous review. There are a few items that still require attention:

p. 6 to 7 lines 244-250. Run-on sentence, consider breaking it up

p. 8 line 305: Delete reference to thesis

p. 8 line 307: Change "In discussion superimpositions" to "In their discussion of superimpositions.... "

P. 9 line 365: Should be Figure 4

p. 10 Figure 3. This should be Figure 4. Consider labeling the three styles with numbers or letters and referencing them in the caption

p. 10 lines 378-380. check sentence wording

p. 13 line 461. Missing the percentage number

p. 13 lines 470-473. consider breaking up the sentence

p. 14. Figure 6. It would be helpful to show in a line drawing what is being interpreted as the turtle, and what is the track. Perhaps this could be superimposed on the photo with different coloured lines.

p. 15 lines 530-536. Check sentence wording. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are still problems with run-on or incomplete sentences that should be addressed (see comments above for examples)

The punctuation in the reference section should be unified.

Author Response

Thank you for these additional edits - I have gone through and fixed up run-on sentences, made tweaks to those two figures, and addressed other comments, marked up. Thanks again!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has addressed all the issues of my review and the paper is better organized, refers more detailedly to tracks and clearly expressed. I suggest to check lines 538-538 for clarity.

Author Response

Thank you!