The Section Drawing and Australian Archaeological · PDF fileThe Section Drawing and Australian Archaeological Practice Submitted by Jonathan Marshallsay Bachelor of Archaeology (Honours)

The Section Drawing and Australian Archaeological Practice

Submitted by

Jonathan Marshallsay

Bachelor of Archaeology (Honours)

Department of Archaeology

School of Humanities

Flinders University

Adelaide, South Australia

Australia

October 2008

ii

Table of Contents

Abstract........................................................................................ vi

Declaration................................................................................... viii

Acknowledgements...................................................................... ix

1. Introduction.............................................................................. 1

Significance of the research............................................... 5

Terminology........................................................................ 6

2. Theory...................................................................................... 8

The importance of recording stratigraphy.......................... 8

Constructing knowledge.................................................... 9

Agency and illustration....................................................... 11

Reading the section........................................................... 13

Semiotics and the illustration............................................. 14

A brief history of stratigraphy............................................. 16

Stratigraphic recording in Australia.................................... 18

Archaeological stratigraphy................................................ 23

How stratification is recorded............................................. 28

Conventions....................................................................... 32

Illustration and the text....................................................... 33

Summary........................................................................... 34

iii

3. Method..................................................................................... 35

Selection of sites................................................................ 35

Methodology....................................................................... 36

Problems............................................................................ 42

4. Analysis of the sections........................................................... 44

Datum................................................................................ 44

Orientation......................................................................... 45

Soil description................................................................... 46

Munsell data....................................................................... 48

Spit information.................................................................. 48

Hatching............................................................................. 50

Style................................................................................... 52

Referencing........................................................................ 53

Inclusions and other information........................................ 54

From pencil to publication.................................................. 55

Discussion.......................................................................... 61

5. Conclusions............................................................................. 64

Research opportunities...................................................... 71

References.................................................................................. 74

Appendix A – List of sites analysed............................................. 84

Appendix B – Data tables............................................................ 85

iv

List of Figures

2.1 Meadows Taylor’s section drawing from Hyderabad 1851 ............................. 16

2.2 Wheeler’s section drawing of the Roman fort at Segontium............................ 17

2.3 Stratham’s illustration of a shell mound at North Creek, NSW ....................... 19

2.4 Howchin’s section drawing from the notes of Captain S. A. White, 1893........ 20

2.5 Section from Devon Downs Rock Shelter....................................................... 21

2.6 Section from Mulvaney’s excavation at Kenniff Cave...................................... 22

2.7 Example of Harris Matrix (right) derived from the plan (left)............................ 27

2.8 An example of a simple outline section .......................................................... 28

2.9 An example of schematic illustration. Wheeler’s section drawing

from Brahmagiri, India..................................................................................... 29

2.10 Example of a realistic section drawing............................................................ 30

2.11 Example of a compromise section drawing..................................................... 31

3.1 Distribution of sections by site type................................................................ 37

3.2 Distribution of sections by decade................................................................... 38

4.1 Use of hatching in section drawings................................................................ 51

4.2 Red Beach shell midden................................................................................. 52

4.3 Changes in section drawing style across time................................................. 53

v

List of Tables

3.1 Definition of drawing styles ............................................................................. 39

3.2 Criteria used for analysis................................................................................. 41

4.1 Inclusion of datum information........................................................................ 44

4.2 Representation of section orientation.............................................................. 45

4.3 Representation of orientation by section type................................................. 46

4.4 Location of soil description within the diagram and text.................................. 47

4.5 Type of information presented......................................................................... 47

4.6 Inclusion of Munsell coding............................................................................. 48

4.7 Correlation of excavation spits to sections...................................................... 49

4.8 Information provided by hatching.................................................................... 50

4.9 Styles used in representation of information................................................... 52

4.10 Textual references to section drawings........................................................... 54

Front cover: Tindale's section drawing of the rock shelter at Devon Downs.(Hale and

Tindale 1930:176).

vi

Abstract

Archaeology is centred on the visual. The archaeologist's research is

intrinsically bound to analysis of the visual evidence of past cultures.

Therefore it is not surprising that great stress has been placed on the use of

the visual as a means of recording archaeology, and of presenting the

findings of archaeological research, creating in the process objects of

knowledge. These objects are themselves artefacts that can be used to

study the material culture of archaeology.

Through the study of section drawings of Australian Indigenous sites, this

thesis does just that. It firstly considers the development of stratigraphy

from its beginnings as an element of geology to its inclusion as a

mainstream practice within archaeology, and secondly, in its application

to the context of Australian archaeological practice. Analysis of the

components of the drawing is undertaken to identify the encoding and

highlighting practices embedded in the production of the illustration. In

addition the relationship between the text and the image is evaluated to

discover how information is provided by the two media.

The results of the analysis provide an insight into not only the ways in

which the section drawing is used, but also provides an insight into the

way that the construction of knowledge is developed in the context of

Australian Indigenous archaeology. Significant to the construction of

knowledge is the devaluation of the section drawing apparent over time,

especially since 1990. There has been a marked movement to textual

presentation of information and as a result the section drawing has

vii

become a symbolic entity in the context of the archaeological report. The

results suggests that this may be due to changing priorities in Australian

research. When research focused on establishing the time depth of

Indigenous occupation of Australia the section was of value in visualising

this, consequently the illustration carried more information and coding.

As research interests have changed, so too has the value of the section

drawing.

viii

Declaration

I certify that this thesis does not incorporate without acknowledgement

any material previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any

university; and that to the best of my knowledge and belief it does not

contain any material previously published or written by another person

except where due reference is made in the text.

Jon Marshallsay Date.

ix

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the contributions of a number of people,

without whose assistance and support this work would not have been

possible.

Firstly I would like to thank my supervisors Dr Heather Burke and Dr

Mike Smith, for their encouragement, advice and support throughout this

process. I would like to also thank Dr Lynley Wallis for her input in the

early stages of this thesis.

A number of members of the archaeological community within Australia

need to be acknowledged for taking the time to respond to my questions

and for providing additional material relating to their work, specifically:

Jane Balme, Alice Beale, Sandra Bowdler, Joe Dortch, Josephine Flood,

David Frankel, Richard Fullagar, Jo McDonald, Mick Morrison and Win

Mumford.

To the other faculty members at Flinders University, and my fellow

students who have provided support just by being there and listening to

me, thanks also.

Finally, my family, Julie, Rebecca and Lucy who have supported and

endured me throughout the last eight years of study, and without whose

understanding and love I would not have made it this far. My deepest

thanks!

The Section Drawing and Australian Archaeological Practice 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Archaeology is centred on the visual. The archaeologist's research is

intrinsically bound to analysis of the visual evidence of past cultures so it

is not surprising that great stress has been placed on the use of the image

as a means of recording archaeology and of presenting the findings of

archaeological research. General Pitt-Rivers, whose report on his

excavations at Cranbourne Chase in the 19th century is composed

primarily of illustrated plates is supposed to have stated: “Describe your

illustrations, do not illustrate your descriptions” (Piggott 1965:174).

At a general level the value of illustration as an essential means of

providing information has long been established (Moser & Smiles: 2005:5),

and various archaeologists have noted the power of images to shape

archaeological thought and influence the development of archaeological

theory (Moser 1992; Bradley 1997). The illustration is not only a record of

what is seen, but contains the interpretation of the recorder, and

interpretation shaped by the archaeologist's 'way of seeing'.

In terms of using the medium of illustration to convey technical

information, in order to be of value an illustration should provide an

accurate record of the artefact, site and investigation (Griffiths and Jenner

1996:1). It is seen as the ethical responsibility of the archaeologist to ensure

that this occurs (Burke and Smith, 2004: 264). To aid the archaeologist in

achieving this accuracy it is suggested that illustrations should be created

to a common set of conventions (Jones, 2001:335).

Jon Marshallsay October 2008


As well as being accurate, it is assumed that, as 'scientific illustrations',

drawings are also objective (Moser and Smiles 2005:5). However the

degree to which it is possible to achieve objectivity is questioned by many

authors. Some stress the archaeologist's influence on the choice of

information that is included in a drawing; noting that the drawing is a

summary of the subject (Hope-Taylor 1966: 108); or a selective portrayal of

details that excludes the irrelevant (Adkins and Adkins 1989: 7). The

archaeologist is in turn influenced by the requirements of the audience for

whom the illustration is intended (Adkins and Adkins 1989).

Notable as an area of debate within the literature is the view of different

authors in regard to the objectivity of the act of drawing. On one hand is

the perspective that the archaeologist is creating an accurate and purely

objective record, while on the other is the idea that the drawings should be

an expression of “personal observations and perceptions” (Hope-Taylor

1966:109). Bradley(1997: 63) sees a link between creativity, visual arts, and

the “most influential” archaeologists: archaeologists who through training

or experience in visual arts fields were able to bring new ways of seeing

into the field unrestrained by the purely objective stance. Shanks also sees

the process of drawing as more than just a representation of an object:

whereas he perceives the photograph as a “moment in time only”,

drawing is seen as an interactive process through which the subject is

“experienced” (Shanks 1992: 186).

Apart from any concern regarding the objectivity or otherwise of the

process, the primary purpose of the drawing is to record information

about a site. The recording of all aspects of the site is seen as an essential



part of any excavation due to the destructive nature of the excavation

process. As such, illustration is seen as an integral part of the process. It is

a general expectation that the illustrations will form a part of the

excavation report, and, through that, become part of the permanent record

of the site. In doing so, it is assumed that the illustration will be an

objective record, created using a set of accepted conventions (Drewett

1999:176-7).

As previously noted, the illustration not only carries the information

transcribed from the original object, but also the interpretation of it based

on the archaeologist's preconceptions and experience. In this light this

thesis considers one category of archaeological illustration — the section

drawing — and examines it in the context of Australian archaeology,

specifically in relation to Indigenous sites and how they have been

represented. This thesis is partly an analysis of the historical progression

of section drawing from its beginnings in 19th century Australia, but it

also considers the ways in which information is conveyed through the

section drawing and its relationship to the text of the report. In

conjunction with an analysis of the technical aspects and the changing

conventions of drawing, it also explores the potential connections between

the ways in which the past has been represented through such drawings

and the wider development of key understandings of Australian

archaeology.

This thesis seeks to understand how this process of recording has been

undertaken in relation to the recording of stratigraphic sections on

Australian indigenous sites, with the intent of answering three questions:



• Have conventions for representing section drawings changed over

time?

• How do the text and illustration integrate within the report?

• How does the section drawing effect our understanding of the

Australian archaeological record, and how have our changing

understandings in turn affected the ways in which we visually

represent the past?

The first question deals with the encoding of information: the way in

which the information in the section drawing is represented. As a number

of authors have noted (Adkins and Adkins 1989:8-9; Berman 1999:288;

Topper 1996:222), the use of conventions is essential and allow viewers of

the section to interpret the drawing through their understanding of the

codes, as has occurred in the discipline of geology (Prothero and Swab

2004:333). The intent of this question is to examine the section drawings to

determine whether conventions have been formulated in regard to

Australian archaeology, and, if so, what these might be.

The second question considers the way in which the text and illustration

relate to each other in providing information. A number of the papers

reviewed in the formulation of this thesis have questioned the apparent

importance placed on the text as the primary medium for conveying

'scientific' information at the expense of the illustration.

The final question considers two points. Firstly the way in which the

information recorded in the section drawing shapes the archaeological

record and is shaped by it, and secondly how Australian archaeologists,



through the ways they select and record information shape the view of the

past they create.

Significance of the research

This thesis is significant in its focus on the section drawing as an artefact

created by the archaeologist in the pursuit of their craft. Shanks and

McGuire (1996) see archaeology as a craft in which the archaeologist takes

the evidence of past material culture and through their own skills and

experience manufactures objects of knowledge in the present. In this

instance the object of knowledge is the section drawing.

The intention of this research is not only to seek an understanding of the

ways in which the section has developed, but also to develop a better

understanding of how we, as archaeologists, work and how the

supposedly neutral conventions we habitually work within are shaped by

our understanding of our profession and ourselves.

While there has been more general research done in regard to the ways in

which illustrations are used within archaeology and other

disciplines(Baigrie 1996; Moser and Smiles 2005), this work focuses

specifically on the section drawing. It looks at the way that archaeologists

fashion objects of knowledge (section drawings) from the archaeological

record and how information in the drawing is coded by the archaeologist

(Goodwin 1994).

There is no comparable study into the development of archaeological

illustration in Australia, either from a technical or historical perspective,

although others have investigated the ways in which photographs or



museum displays encode visual conventions and help to represent the

past in particular ways (Van Reybrouck 1998; Jones 2001; Moser and

Smiles 2005). It is anticipated that the results of this research will provide

an overview of the history of Australian archaeological recording, as well

as documenting the way in which stratigraphic drawing has developed in

this area, and what in turn the illustration can indicate about the

development of thought in Australian archaeology.

Terminology

Throughout this paper the following terminology has been adopted:

● 'Archaeologist' has been used to indicate not only the person

excavating the site but also the person responsible for creating the

section drawing. It is not assumed that this is always the same

person.

● 'Stratification' refers only to the deposited layers within the

excavation. The term stratigraphy is used when discussing the

study of stratification, the ways in which strata are formed, and the

cultural information embedded therein.

● 'Hatching' is used in this paper to refer the methods of graphically

differentiating strata through the use of repeated patterns or

stippling.

● The terms 'drawing', 'illustration' and 'diagram' are used

interchangeably throughout this thesis.

● The sources used for this paper use both 'rockshelter' (one word)



and 'rock shelter' (two words). The compound form rockshelter has

been used throughout this paper as a matter of consistency.



Chapter 2: Theory

This chapter has two main purposes. Firstly, in order to assist in

understanding the factors affecting the production of section drawings it

provides a brief outline of the origins of stratigraphy, and how it has been

incorporated into archaeological practice, along with a brief history the

use of stratigraphic recording in Australian archaeology. Secondly, it aims

to outline the way in which the section can be viewed for analytical

purposes. It suggests that drawing is purely an artefact created by the

archaeologist and looks at the way in which the drawing acts as a sign

representing the excavated strata, as well as the way in which it relates to

the text alongside which it is normally viewed.

The importance of recording stratigraphy

The stratigraphic record of a site provides information about how the site

was formed through both natural and human activity. It also provides the

means through which relative dating of finds within the site is established

(Barber 1994:54), as well as providing evidence of the “geologic, faunal,

and floral history of the site; and … the nature of phases of settlement”

(Joukowsky 1980:155).

The process of recording the stratigraphy of the site is intrinsically bound

to the process of excavation. Excavation has long been seen as a

destructive process. In the process of recovering the archaeological record,

the act of discovery destroys it (Barker 1982:12; Wheeler 1956). As such,

each excavation can be viewed as an unrepeatable experiment, and the

recording process is seen as an act of partial preservation.



However, an alternative view sees excavation also as a process of creation

rather than destruction, arguing that the archaeological record of the site

is only created through the process of excavation (Frankel 1993; Lucas

2001b). It is suggested that, rather than the record being destroyed, it is

only the context of the record that is affected. In this light the record is

displaced to the site archive rather than being eradicated (Lucas 2001b:43).

If this view is taken, then the drawing of the section can be seen as part of

the production of the archaeological record.

Regardless of whether archaeological excavation is seen as destructive or

creative, the imperative exists for the archaeologist to record their

observations. Along with the physical materials removed from the site, the

visual and textual records become the archaeological record, and through

them the ‘experiment’ becomes repeatable (Frankel 1993:877). The act of

recording is seen to negate the destruction, preserving the record and

allowing reconstruction of the site (Lucas 2001a:158-59).

Constructing knowledge

The process of drawing sections however, is more than just a matter of

recording what is there. The visible section is transformed into an object of

knowledge through a set of discursive practices that take place between

the archaeologist and the section (Goodwin 1994; Edgeworth 2006). To do

this the archaeologist is relying on the ways in which they have been

trained to see (Bradley 1997:63-6), and the way in which they interpret and

transform the data.

This is what Goodwin refers to as 'professional vision', the set of practices



which:

“consists of socially organized ways of seeing and understanding events that are answerable to the distinctive interests of a particular social group”. (Goodwin 1994:606)

Professional vision has three facets: coding, highlighting, and producing

and articulating material representations. Through the act of coding the

archaeologist defines the section in terms that allow comparison with

other data, for example by using Munsell codes to define soil colour.

Features that the archaeologist sees as being important are highlighted,

giving those features prominence over other aspects of the recording. The

final facet is the production of the completed section, articulating the

archaeologist's interpretation of the data (Goodwin 1994:606-8).

This view coincides with and reinforces the view expounded by Shanks

and McGuire who suggest that archaeology should be seen as a craft that

has the purpose of manufacturing knowledge, rather than being the

means of neutrally acquiring it (Shanks and McGuire 1996). In proposing

this model they see a problem with current archaeological practice

wherein there is a marked division of labour between the excavation and

its attendant recording processes and the interpretation of the data. In

other words, the tasks of drawing the section and interpreting it are the

undertaken by two different people. This means that the any

interpretation on the part of the artist is ignored, or at the least re-

interpreted by the person who has responsibility for preparing the report

on the project. This is in opposition to the view of it as a craft which treats

the processes of site work and interpretation in a holistic framework, one



where the archaeologist undertakes both the processes of reasoning, and

of the execution of tasks (Shanks and McGuire 1996: 77-8).

Considering the previous discussion, then, it can be suggested that the

section drawings produced by the archaeologist are material culture. The

illustration is created in a cultural setting - the excavation - and is thus

‘meaningfully constituted’: the drawing has been created (constituted)

using the set of rules or conventions (Goodwin's coding) that are

considered to meet the expectations of the archaeological profession

(Hodder and Hutson 2003:158-9). As such, the illustration can be analysed

in an archaeological sense, in the same way as any other facet of material

culture.

This is an approach that has been argued previously by Bateman, who

further notes that, of all of the outcomes from the excavation process, the

illustration is the one that “most meets the criteria of artifact” (Bateman

2006 as cited in Edgeworth 2006:10). Bateman sees the illustration as

having persistence beyond the excavation archive, not being subsumed

into the archival files along with the recording forms of the excavation

(Bateman 2006:72).

Agency and the illustration

Agency The issue of how we think about intentional action and the resources needed to act …

(Johnson 1999:189)

There is a long-standing belief, dating from at least the 18th century, that

the image is an objective record (Moser and Smiles 2005:5), in other words



that scientific description is neutral (Molyneaux 1997:3). This assumption

is further strengthened in the case of scientific or technical illustration,

where adherence to disciplinary conventions is seen as reinforcing the

objectivity of the illustration (Shanks 1992:185; Van Reybrouck 1998:57)

and thus providing an accurate description of the subject (Jones

2001:337).The conventions are imposed on the drawing through the

agency of archaeologist.

Hodder and Hutson (2003:99-105) discuss three different forms of agency

in relation to archaeological theory. The first considers that agency works

through people - that individuals are passive conductors of agency, which

is seen as the pre-existing norms of social structure. The second form

assumes that agency is the impact of actions on others and the material

world, whether intended or not. It focuses more on control and the use of

power. The third, and the one that Hodder and Hutson favour, is

primarily concerned with intentional action. Within the latter it is

assumed that a number of conditions are met: the agent has the

knowledge and resources to produce the action; there is an intention to

act; the action takes place; and the impact of the action is “evaluated and

responded to both at the social level … and at the individual level”

(Hodder and Hutson 2003:103).

In terms of evaluating the connection between agency and illustration, the

archaeologist/illustrator is the agent responsible for the creation of the

section drawing; using semiotic terminology, they are the interpretant

mediating between the section and the drawing. The agent is, in turn,

acted upon by a number of other agents which will have an impact on the



way in which the agent creates the illustration. While it is theoretically

possible, then, to have an objective and accurate record, in reality the role

of the interpretant affects the degree to which such objectivity can be

achieved.

Reading the section

Wheeler (1956:60) commented on the importance of the archaeologist's

ability to interpret the strata during the process of excavation: he

described this as “reading the section”. This ability is in part shaped by

the archaeologist’s knowledge and experience, both in their ability to

recognise features and through their pre-conceptions. Shelley (1996:281),

in fact, suggested that archaeologists are to an extent influenced by

“mental templates” of what they expect to see. The implication is that

what an archaeologist sees and recognises in a site will, to a certain extent,

be what the archaeologist is trained to see, or expects to see.

Wheeler (1956:60) cites as an example of this the observations of an

excavator at Tell en-Nasbeh in Palestine, who observed that the particular

site had ‘no clear stratification’. Wheeler suggested this observation was

based on two things, Firstly, the bleaching of strata by sunlight, which the

excavator failed to discern, and secondly, on the expectation of

‘continuous building-levels’ - the signs of successive destruction and

rebuilding events. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the

objectivity of the observation was distorted by the mental template of

what the excavator expected to see given the assumptions he had made

about the formation of the site.



Adkins and Adkins (1989:6-7) note that the real strength of drawings is in

the amount of information they convey. However, the drawing is only a

summary of the subject, containing only the information that the

illustrator considers relevant (Hope-Taylor 1966:108). It is through the

agency of the illustrator that decisions as to exclusion and inclusion of

information are made.

Semiotics and the illustration

Further to the concept of the illustration as material culture, semiotic

theory can be used to describe the illustration and the processes involved

in its creation, reproduction and use. There are two main approaches to

semiotics that can be considered to apply to the study of section drawings

as material culture: those of Saussure (Hodder and Hutson 2003:60;

Saussure 1983), and Peirce (Bauer 2002; Peirce 1931). Of the two the model

that is seen to be more applicable to material culture is that postulated by

Pierce (Bauer 2002; Hodder and Hutson 2003; Lele 2006).

Peirce's model has three components: the object, the sign and the

interpretant, which form a triadic relationship. The object is seen as that

which determines (causes) a sign. The sign it something determined by the

object, that determines (causes) an idea in a person's mind, the

interpretant. The interpretant is the idea so formed, not the person

(Preucel 2006:54). In this model the section drawing can be seen as the

sign, the physical stratification is the object, and the interpretant is the

mental image formed by the viewer, mediating between the object and the

sign.



Peirce's approach also recognises that signs can exist in different forms: as

icons, indexes and symbols. The icon has a formal relationship to the

object it signifies; the section drawing is iconic in its representation of the

section. Indexes establish a different relationship, they are seen as being

indicators of ‘connection’. An example of an index could be the illustration

of a stone artefact in the section drawing, as an index it points to human

presence at the site. It also acts as an icon, representing the actual artefact

itself. The third type of sign, the symbol is an arbitrary representation. In

the context of the section drawing, it could be the key that the

archaeologist uses to depict features of the drawing (Hodder and Hutson

2003:63-5; Lele 2006:51-4), or the progression of time as represented by

successive strata.

A brief history of stratigraphy

Stratigraphy has its beginnings in the science of geology. Leonardo da

Vinci made the first known recorded observations of fossils in

sedimentary rocks ca 1500 AD (Boggs 1987:3), although it does not appear

that he pursued this study further. It would take another 170 years before

Nicolas Steno postulated the principle of superposition (Boggs 1987:3),

which states that older layers are overlain by younger deposits. During

the 18th century other scientists contributed to the developing science of

geology: Robert Hooke suggested the use of fossils as a means of making

chronological comparisons between sedimentary strata, and James Hutton

developed the principle of uniformitarianism (Boggs 1987:4). It is from

this and other work that stratigraphy became a tool of archaeologists in

the 19th century.



The stratification of sediments revealed through archaeological excavation

has been recorded since the 19th century. Wheeler (1956:22) attributed the

first known section drawings to Meadows Taylor, who produced sections

of his excavations at Hyderabad in 1851 (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Meadows Taylor’s section drawing from Hyderabad 1851 (Wheeler 1956:4)

It was also around this time, 1865, that Sir John Lubbock proposed the use

of geological methods in the investigation of prehistoric peoples (Hodder

1999:105). Pitt-Rivers is noted for his approach to detailed excavation and

recording, but as Lucas (2001a:23-4) observed, he was almost oblivious to

the importance of stratigraphy. Likewise, Petrie is seen as having been a

strong proponent for the visual reporting of sites, but showed a total lack

of interest in the use of stratigraphy other than for locating his finds in a

sequence (Lucas 2001a:27).

It was not until the first half of the twentieth century that stratigraphy

became seen as an important component of archaeological study. It was

Mortimer Wheeler, who in recognising the value of stratigraphy in



defining the history of a site and through it the means of establishing its

“precise chronology” (Wheeler 1956:59,64) transformed stratigraphy from

the periphery to a core excavation methodology. Wheeler, with Kathleen

Kenyon, also made a major contribution to archaeological stratigraphy

through recognising the importance of interfaces and the extension of

stratification to include anthropogenic features such as post-holes and

trenches (Harris 1989:11).

Piggott (1965:175) saw Wheeler’s publication of his section of the Roman

fort at Segontium (Figure 2.2) as being a landmark in the definition of

stratigraphic recording by virtue of the clear and authoritative manner in

which it was drawn. Harris (1989:11) contends that Wheeler’s referencing

of layers both in illustration and text was a far more important event in

stratigraphic recording as it provided a system through which the

provenance of artefacts could be defined.

Figure 2.2: Wheeler’s section drawing of the Roman fort at Segontium (Piggott 1965:75)



Stratigraphic Recording in Australia

In Australia, as in Europe, the recording of stratigraphy began in the 19th

century. Similarly, early work was not undertaken by archaeologists, but

by geologists, civil engineers and ethnologists. Of these, some produced

section drawings of archaeological sites which will be used for the

purpose of comparison later in this paper.

One of the earliest known drawings of shell middens was undertaken by

Edwyn Stratham, a civil engineer, who recorded the layers in middens at

North Creek near Ballina in New South Wales in 1892 (Stratham 1892)

While his illustrations may not be considered acceptable in comparison to

modern work, both the illustration and the accompanying textual

description show a deep understanding of the stratigraphy in the midden.

As can be seen in the illustration (Figure 2.3), Stratham has incorporated

many of the features that would be expected to be seen in a contemporary

section drawing: a description and the dimensions of the layers,

orientation and scale, as well as providing contextual information in

regard to the adjacent topography.

Figure 2.3: Stratham’s illustration of a shell mound at North Creek, NSW.

(Stratham 1982:Plate XIV).



Of interest also is the section produced in 1919 by Walter Howchin, a

Minister of Religion and amateur geologist, it is shown below as Figure

2.4. It is important because, as Howchin noted, that apart from some

superficial deposits this was the first time that Aboriginal remains had

been found in South Australia (Howchin 1919:84).

As noted in the caption, Howchin prepared the section drawing from

notes made in the field by White. Whether White's notes included

sketches from which Howchin worked is not indicated. White does

mention however that Howchin did personally visit the site (White

1919:80).



Figure 2.4: Howchin’s section drawing from the notes of

Captain S. A. White, 1893. (White, 1919:78)

In 1929 Norman Tindale and Herbert Hale became the first archaeologists

to excavate a rock shelter in Australia(Hale and Tindale 1930). The

stratigraphy at Devon Downs figured strongly in Tindale's analysis of the

site and the classification of the artefacts found there (see Figure 2.5).

Horton (1991:153) suggests that Tindale did not fully understand the



stratification process and that he assumed that layers were indicative of

different cultural sequences. However, the excerpts from Hale and

Tindale's paper in Horton (1991:163) clearly indicate that the layers were

separated on the basis of identifiable strata (levels I to XII), and afterwards

grouped into cultural phases. Evident within the diagram is the clear

definition of interfaces between layers, (the exception being the line

surrounding the pit through levels IV to VI). This suggests that a different

status has been given to the pit inclusion. Other points of note are the use

hatchings to denote different layers, along with numbering, as espoused

by Wheeler.

Figure 2.5: Section from Devon Downs Rock Shelter. (Hale and Tindale 1930:176)



John Mulvaney is acknowledged as one of the founders of the study of

Australian prehistory, and the main proponent of scientific excavation in

the field of Australian archaeology (Moser 1996:815). In the 1960s

Mulvaney undertook excavations at Fromm’s Landing on the River

Murray in South Australia and, with Bernie Joyce, at Kenniff Cave in

Queensland (Mulvaney and Joyce 1965:147-212 ). One of the key features

of Mulvaney’s illustrations is his naturalistic approach to representing

strata, with no interface lines between layers being shown. The only solid

lines in the section indicate the boundaries (the edges of the section) and

inclusions within the strata. Also of note on the Kenniff Cave section is the

use of Munsell colours to describe the layers (Figure 2.6).

Figure 2.6. Section from Mulvaney’s excavation at Kenniff Cave (Mulvaney and Joyce 1965:161).



Mulvaney's work set the benchmark for the future of scientific excavation

in Australian archaeology. While later archaeologists may employ

different styles in section drawing, the scientific approach initiated by

Mulvaney remains. However, with the evolution of archaeological

practice other developments also have shaped the way in which sites are

recorded and challenged the ways in which archaeologists view

stratigraphy.

Archaeological Stratigraphy

The inclusion of stratigraphy into the tool kit of the archaeologist saw the

acceptance of the basic laws of stratigraphy that had been formulated

within the field of geology. These can be summarised as follows (Harris,

1989:5):

1. The Law of Superposition, which states that strata are laid down in

chronological order, with the oldest at the bottom progressing to

youngest at the surface;

2. The Law of Original Horizontality states that strata as laid down

under water will tend towards the horizontal plane;

3. The Law of Original Continuity, which states that a stratum will

continue until it ceases to exist, i.e. if you can see strata in profile,

then they are either incomplete or have been dislocated; and

4. The Law of Faunal Succession, which postulates that the sequence of

strata, even when overturned, can be determined by the relative

dating of fossils embedded in the strata.



In the 1970s Harris (1979:113) argued that stratigraphy as practised by

archaeologists was different to that practised by geologists due to the

nature of the strata involved. Harris’s first concern was the method of

deposition. Geological strata were laid down under water, covered large

areas and were solidified. In contrast, archaeological strata tended to be

unsolidified and covered discrete areas. Harris also argued that

archaeological strata exhibited a degree of complexity not found in

geology due to the inclusion of interfaces such as pits, and the presence of

anthropogenic basins of deposition: human constructions that affect the

way in which the formation of strata occurs.

Harris' other main concern was in the analogous use of fossils and

artefacts for identifying or sequencing strata, arguing that artefacts were

not the result of an evolutionary progression in the same manner as fossils

(Harris 1989:30). To remedy this, Harris put forward a set of laws of

archaeological stratigraphy based on the existing geological set but

modified to deal with the differences between the two disciplines.

The Law of Superposition was changed to deal only with the relationship

between two adjacent layers of strata rather than the relationships

between all layers of strata in a revealed section. The second law

concerning horizontal deposition was modified to take into account the

fact that cultural strata may be deposited in planes other than the

horizontal. Harris changed the third law to account for the comparatively

limited area of archaeological strata (Harris 1989:31-32).

The fourth law was seen as not applicable to archaeology, and Harris

replaced this with a ‘Law of Archaeological Succession’, which states that:



A unit of archaeological stratification takes its place in the stratigraphic sequence of a site from its position between the undermost (or earliest) of the units which lie above it and the uppermost (or latest) of all the units which lie below it and with which the unit has a physical contact, all other superpositional relationships being redundant. (Harris 1989:34).

The intent of this law is to account for the complexity of archaeological

sequences, as opposed to naturally formed strata.

It is important to note that Harris does not see the Laws of Archaeological

Stratigraphy as being applicable in all cases. Rather he sees these laws

(and his methodologies to deal with them, such as the Harris Matrix) as

being relevant to those instances where site formation is primarily due to

cultural practice, such as building (Harris 1989:xi). Harris contends that

sites where formation processes are natural, as he assumes is the case with

hunter-gather sites, are better interpreted using the Laws of Geological

Stratigraphy. However examination of any of a number of Australian

Indigenous sites such as Tunnel Cave (Dortch 1996:54 ) and Disaster Bay

(Colley 1997:6) with multiple layers of charcoal hearths, or even Capertee

(McCarthy 1948:4) with its stone fireplace, quickly disprove this assertion.

As well as being the period in which the principles of archaeological

stratigraphy were formed, the late 1960s and early 1970s in England saw a

re-evaluation of the way in which archaeological stratigraphy was being

recorded using the section drawing. This arose from the work undertaken

by Harris and Biddle in Winchester. Biddle (1969:211) was concerned with

the then popular grid system promulgated by Wheeler. He considered



that the baulk/grid system created problems when the grid was not on the

same alignment as the structures being excavated, and also with problems

in viewing (and recording) deep structures within individual squares. To

overcome these problems Biddle proposed the use of open-area

excavation by stratigraphic layers with the use of temporary baulks if

circumstance dictated. Under this system each horizontal layer would be

plotted in three dimensions using a pre-strung grid.

Harris’s main concern was that the section drawing is only a two-

dimensional representation of a single vertical surface. Firstly he saw it as

ignoring horizontal layers of the site and was therefore poorly suited to

providing chronological interpretation (Harris et al. 1993:1). Secondly, he

considered that the section drawing, in recording the stratification on the

edge of the excavation, ignored what was occurring in the body of the

trench. Features not extending to the edge of the excavation would not be

recorded.

Harris subsequently became involved in the development of two tools

designed to record the third dimension of the excavation across the whole

of the excavation area and allow analysis of the complete stratigraphic

sequence. The first of these was an extension of Biddle's earlier work,

single-context planning (Harris and Ottaway 1976:6-7). Under this

process, each stratigraphic layer is recorded on a separate sheet once it is

exposed, using a grid system similar to Biddle's for plotting purposes.

Overlaying the successive plans allows the archaeologist to gain an

accurate picture of how each stratum interfaces with those above and

below it, across the expanse of the excavation.



The second innovation Harris put forward (Harris 1975: 109-121) was the

Harris Matrix. Harris used a system of linked boxes (the matrix) to

describe the relationships between stratigraphic features (figure 2.7). This

resolved the relationship between units as either over, under or equal to

each other, both in physical and temporal terms (Harris 1975:113).

Figure 2.7. Example of Harris Matrix (right) derived from the plan (left). (Harris 1975:116)

Despite Harris and others proponents of single-context planning being

critical of the use of section drawings as the sole medium for representing

stratigraphy, they do not see them as being without relevance. Rather, the

section drawing is seen as being applicable to specific stratigraphic

problems or to describing the “internal configuration of a particular

deposit” (Roskams 2001:144). It is further argued that virtual sections,

sections synthesised from the levels plotted for the plans, could be

constructed if required, theoretically at any point across the site

depending on the granularity of the data plots (Barker 1982:87).



How stratification is recorded

The way in which information is recorded determines its viability as a

resource for future study. As previously stated, the archaeologist is

responsible for ensuring that as complete a record as possible is made of

an site. For the drawing to be of value it must be drawn “as naturalistically

and as informatively as possible” (Adkins and Adkins 1989:80).

In his discussion of stratigraphic drawing, Collis argues that stratigraphic

sections can be categorised as belonging to one of three styles (Collis

2001:88-9):

• Simple outline – a simple black and white line rendition of the

section see Figure 2.8;

Figure 2.8: An example of a simple outline section (Collis 2001:91).



• Stylised or schematic – Harris (1989:78) sees this as a form which

utilises both the linear definition of features with the addition of

shading or hatching to indicate different soil types. In this style,

individual strata are numbered and features labelled. This is the

method popularised by Wheeler (Figure 2.9).

Figure 2.9: An example of schematic illustration. Wheeler’s section drawing

from Brahmagiri, India (Lucas 2001a:46).

• Realistic or pictorial – in which the archaeologist uses different

shading to represent different layers within the section without the

use of solid lines to mark boundaries between them (Figure 2.10).

This form was originally pioneered by Gerhard Bersu (1940) in the



first half of the 20th century, using colour to differentiate between

layers in his field drawings, but monochrome in his final reports

(Collis 2001:81).

Figure 2.10: Example of a realistic section drawing. (Bersu, 1940:55)

Harris briefly comments on another style, compromise, which is a

combination of the schematic and realistic styles; he dismisses this in a

single sentence, remarking that it is not used in modern practice (Harris

1989:76). The salient features of the compromise are that the strata are

represented by a mixture of naturalistic and geometric hatching, and that

some or all of the interfaces are marked in with solid lines, as shown in

Figure 2.11.



Figure 2.11: Example of a compromise section drawing. (Bowdler 1975:37)

Each of these styles is seen to have its own shortcomings as a

representation of stratification. The stylised form is purely interpretative

and, as Collis (2001:88) has observed, is not a true record of the original

because it provides one person’s interpretation of the site and does not

usually allow for its re-interpretation by others (Collis 2001:91). The

realistic form has the benefit of not imposing subjective boundaries

between the layers, and allows for reinterpretation, though it has been

noted that this form of illustration requires a high degree of artistic skill,

otherwise the result can be “woolly” and of little benefit (Wheeler

1956:78). The final choice of the style and content of the section drawing

may well be the result of the conventions in use on the particular site.



Conventions

Conventions serve a number of purposes in the production of

archaeological illustrations. Primarily they are seen as an aid to achieving

objectivity in the representation of data (Jones 2001:335; Shanks 1982:186)

by removing artistic idiosyncrasies and promoting a standard style of

depiction. Convention is seen as one of the key tools used to shape

scientific illustration by dictating the way the image is formed, what is

omitted, what is reduced, and what is reconstructed. It has been argued

that adherence to convention is seen as being a better measure of

objectivity than the accuracy of the reproduction (Van Reybrouck 1998:60).

As convention shapes the way in which the section is transposed into the

illustration, so too, is it an important factor in the reading of the

illustration. Information encoded by the archaeologist needs to be

decoded by the reader (viewer) in order to understand the diagram:

convention, by standardising the codes used, makes interpretation open to

a wider audience. The application of standard coding as conventions also

enables easier comparison of differing data sets (Goodwin 1994:608).

Conventions have been used in geology to standardise both the

terminology used in describing stratigraphy and the symbols used to

illustrate it (Prothero and Schwab 2004:333). This is something that has not

been achieved in archaeology, even though it has been suggested that

existing geological terminology is applicable with minor additions to meet

the requirements of archaeological description (Stein 1992:76).

An attempt was made by Gasche and Tunca (1983) to develop and



promote a standard nomenclature for use in describing archaeological

stratigraphy, however this has not been widely accepted. Criticism of it

has centred on the need for a specialised terminology for archaeologists,

arguing that the standard definition of layers using archaeological terms is

restrictive and redundant (Goldberg and McPhail 2006:37).

While conventions are seen as important, their use in practice is somewhat

restricted. A number of authors have suggested that they are not readily

apparent in relation to stratigraphic illustration (Bradley 1997:68; Drewett

1999:177). Adkins and Adkins (1989) identified a set of symbols commonly

used in plans and sections to denote different soil types and inclusions.

They consider, however, that these are of more use in finished drawings,

and that the variability of site types makes the adoption of standard

symbols too difficult (Adkins and Adkins 1989:74). Conventions appear to

exist only on a site-by-site basis.

Illustration and the text

In analysing the section drawing it is important to understand that it is an

important part of the archaeological record because its value goes beyond

its role as an archival medium. Unlike images produced for artistic

purposes, scientific illustrations are meant to be seen in conjunction with

associated text (Baigrie 1996:xvii). The two are complementary, each one

explicates the other, the illustration is not there just to shed light on the

text but to convey information that cannot easily be put forward in textual

form. However, the practical use of illustrations appears to be quite

different. A number of authors have commented on the apparent view

that text (language) is seen as a more intellectual form of expression that



illustration (visual) and is given precedence in presenting information,

even in cases where illustration is more appropriate (Goddard et al.

1997:15; Topper 1996:218).

Summary

This chapter has discussed the ways in which section drawings are

created. It looks at criticisms of both the underpinning stratigraphic

assumptions and the relevance of the section drawing. Further, it has been

shown that, while it has been assumed that the section drawing is an

objective and accurate representation of the original stratification, the

factors affecting its production impose degrees of subjectivity upon it.

The remaining chapters of this thesis consider the ways in which section

drawings have been produced in the field of Australian archaeology in the

context of the theory discussed above. Central to the following analysis

and discussion are the identification of conventions, the styles used to

portray sections, and the link between the section drawing and the

associated text. The results of this analysis will then form the basis for

discussion on the way in which archaeological knowledge is constructed.

This will look at how our approach to archaeological practice has

changed, the direction of archaeological research in the Australian

environment, and place of the section drawing in modern archaeology.



Chapter 3: Method

In order to analyse the ways in which section drawings have developed in

the context of Australian archaeology it is necessary to define both the

data set and the criteria for analysis. The criteria examined were initially

identified through the practical texts related to fieldwork and the

recording of archaeological information (Barker 1982;Adkins and Adkins

1989; Burke and Smith 2004; Balme and Paterson 2006):The main focus of

analysis is the coding schemes, the symbols and devices used to construct

the language of the section drawing (Goodwin 1994:608-9). To do so the

diagrams were broken down into component parts and analysed

separately (Figure 4.4). In order to maximise the objectivity of the process

no attempt was made to make subjective comparisons between the data,

for example by rating the perceived effectiveness of sections.

Selection of Sites

This investigation was restricted to stratigraphic representations of

Indigenous site excavations within Australia. There are a number of

reason for this. First, the availability of data; a search of Australian

archaeological journals found only one historical period site with section

information. Second, by focusing on the data available for Indigenous sites

it is possible to make comparisons of stratigraphic processes across similar

sets of data, as all sites are rockshelters/caves or shell middens. Third, by

focussing on Indigenous sites and their representation, this allows for an

exploration of the way in which knowledge of the Indigenous past in

general, and of Archaeology in particular, has been constructed.



Methodology

Initially data was selected across the widest time frame possible,

commencing at the end of the 19th century in order to look at possible

trends in the development of section drawing in Australian archaeology.

This commencing date was later revised to 1930 due to the inability to

locate any data for the period 1900-1929. This also reflects the beginning of

what Horton sees as classic archaeology (Horton 1991:153). This is the

point at which sites began to be investigated primarily because they

exhibited archaeological evidence, rather than because they were fossil

sites that also contained remnants of human interaction (Horton

1991:xvii).

Initial data was selected from available reports and journals, from both

Australia and overseas, that reported Australian excavations. Further

specific information was requested from a number of archaeologists across

Australia, mostly to seek out original pre-publication drawings (site or

inked). This was necessary to establish how the section drawing changes

from the field to the published version: what information is added or

removed in the process, and what encoding took place in the

transformation. Section drawings from a total of 36 sites spanning the

period from 1930 to 2007 were collected. Thirty-four of these were rock

shelter sites, but there were also sections from two shell middens.



Figure 3.1: Distribution of sections by site type.

While the main focus of the data collection was the section drawing, the

relationship between the illustration and the text, in the case of the

published diagrams, was also considered. This was necessary to establish

how the two media supported each other: what information was only

present in the text, what was unique to the drawing, and what was

duplicated. This was mainly concerned with description of the soil colour

and composition, and features such as dating samples and inclusions in

the strata.

The collected data was then organised chronologically by date of

excavation rather than by the date published. The excavation date was

used as it is assumed that the original section drawings were made in the

field. Where the field work extended over a number of seasons the

terminal date for the excavations was used. As can be seen in the

following chart there is a bias toward sites recorded from 1960 onward.


Site type0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

34

2

RockshelterMidden


This represents not only an increase in the amount of published material

available, but importantly can be seen as an indicator of the change that

occurred at this time with the appointment of professional archaeologists

to Australian universities in the early 1960s (Mulvaney and Kamminga

1999:14-15).

Figure 3.2: Distribution of sections by decade.

Styles were discussed in the previous chapter and provide a framework

for a broad classification of the sections. There are two characteristics of

section drawings that are the defining factors for each of these styles: the

way in which individual strata are differentiated through the use of


1930

s

1940

s

1950

s

1960

s

1970

s

1980

s

1990

s

2000

s

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1

2

1

5 5

8

9

5


hatching and the manner in which interfaces between layers are defined.

The interfaces between strata can be represented in one of three ways.

Solid lines can be used to indicate all interfaces in the section, every layer

being bounded by an unbroken line. As an alternative, solid or broken

lines can be used to indicate interfaces depending on the archaeologist's

perception. The third method of representation eschews the use of lines to

indicate interfaces, relying instead on the use of hatching to indicate

different strata within the section.

Hatching may be used to define different layers of strata within the

section. This can be defined as geometric, where arbitrary patterns are

used to indicate different layers, or 'thoughtful', where shading attempts

in some way to imitate the strata represented (Webster 1963:147).

Alternatively, the strata may be presented realistically in a style similar to

Bersu (1941), or no shading/hatching may be employed at all. Table 3.1

summarises the criteria used to identify the styles.

Hatching InterfacesCompromise Natural, where possible, otherwise

geometric style hatching used.

Only shown where apparent in the

actual section.

Realistic The type of hatching used mimics the

actual strata.

No lines are used to indicate interfaces.

Simple No hatching used. All interfaces shown.

Stylised Hatching geometric with no attempt

to match the pattern to the actual

strata.

All interfaces shown as solid lines.

Table 3.1: Definition of drawing styles.

The second area considered is the metadata relating to the drawing. This is

the information that allows the reader to decode the symbols used by the

archaeologist in constructing the section drawing. A number of pieces of



metadata are considered essential: a linear scale (or scales in cases where

different horizontal and vertical scales are used); a key to symbols and

hatchings used within the drawing; orientation of the section; and labels,

either alphabetic or numeric, used to identify the layers for referencing

within the text of the report.

It became apparent during the initial analysis/coding of the data that the

criteria originally established were inadequate to address the questions.

While not a major problem, this required some redefinition of the criteria.

The initial question considered the section drawing as an autonomous

entity, with consideration only given to the information that was

represented within the diagram itself. While this was adequate to address

the technical and stylistic construction of the image it did not analyse the

relationship between the section and the text. Additional criteria were

adopted to consider where the information was recorded, and how the

text and illustration were referenced to each other.

Apart from the essential information outlined above, the inclusion of other

information relating to the section was also assessed, including dating

information relating to samples taken from within the section, and

identification of soil types within the diagram. Note was also taken of

labels indicating the definition of cultural layers within the section. All of

these items provide information that may otherwise be included purely in

textual form within the body of the text.

Most of the criteria were defined as Boolean values - either yes (Y) or no

(N); in some cases additional values were assigned, as described in the

following table.



Criteria for Analysis

Category Description

Strata Indicating whether strata were delineated in the section

Orientation Indicating whether information regarding the orientation of the section

was shown. Orientation was categorised as:

C – Cardinal, where a single letter indicating direction was displayed at

the left and right hand side of the section.

T – Title, where the orientation appeared as part of the labelling within

the drawing.

F – Figure caption, where the orientation was indicated in the caption

appearing under the section drawing.

P – Plan. The orientation was shown through the inclusion in the section

drawing of a plan view of the excavation, which was oriented to North.

Scale This is indicated as either present or absent.

Datum The inclusion of the datum was defined as being present (Y) or not (N),

or as an implied (I). The classification of implied indicated that the

datum was not marked as such but implied by the zero point on a

vertical scale.

Inclusions Inclusions were taken to mean all non-geological features of the site:

hearths, artefacts, pits etc.

Dating information This is the indication of information regarding the location of samples

taken from the excavation for dating purposes. This included not only

the location but also the identifier given to the sample, but also the date

calculated.

Cultural layers Indicates if the section drawing classifies strata in terms of the cultural

typing of artefacts found.

Strata labels Either present (Y) or not (N). Labelling is important if the section

drawing is being referenced from within the text of the report.

Excavation spits Indicates whether the position of excavation spits are indicated on the

section drawing.

Direct reference Is used to indicate the presence of direct references to the illustration

from the text.



Criteria for Analysis

Category Description

Spit reference in text In conjunction with the above criterion, note was taken of the use of

spits within the body of the article/report in describing and analysing the

excavation.

Hatching Presence or absence of hatching is one of the key indicators used for

classifying the section drawing's style.

Soil Description – was analysed for a number of reasons (1) to look at the amount of information

encoded in the section drawing (2) through the inclusion of Munsell codes as the way in which

information was encoded (3) to determine the way in which information was duplicated between

the visual and textual media.

To achieve this the following categories were included in the spreadsheet:

Soil Description (text) Indicating the presence of soil description in the text of the article (either

Y or N). The focus of the analysis was on the soil colour, and basic

description of texture and composition.

Munsell (text)

Munsell (diag.)

Indicates the use of Munsell codes for describing soil colour in the text

or the section drawing.

Drawing – colour

Drawing – composition

Text – colour

Text – composition

These four criteria are used to refine the relationship between the

illustration and the text. The analysis of these looks at the overlap of

information provided in textual and visual form.

Table 3.2: Criteria used for analysis.

Once criteria had been established, each of the collected drawings was

analysed and coded. Results of this process were recorded in an

OpenOffice spreadsheet, ranked in chronological order. This data can be

found in Appendix A.

Problems

There are a number of problems that have been identified with this

research. Firstly, the degree of variability in regard to the publication of

sections. Whether the section has been published in a monograph or a

journal article impacts on the way in which it is presented. Journal articles



provide constraints through article length and more rigidly defined

formats for the inclusion of illustrations.

Attempts were also made to obtain information from a number of

archaeologists and illustrators whose work forms part of the database for

this thesis. The information sought was original drawings, particularly the

information originally captured in the field, and excerpts from associated

notes. Fifteen people were contacted, however only six provided drawings

while four did not respond. In other cases the archaeologists contacted

were unable to access their original drawings and notes. This was either a

result of them not working in the same area, or not having access to the

archives where the information now resides due to legislative

requirements.

While the categories identified for determining the features of the section

drawings were initially derived from texts dealing with the technique of

section drawing it was found during analysis that these were not

sufficient. At several points in the analysis it became apparent that what

appears in the texts, and what is practised in the field, are two different

things for more information see Chapter4.

Finally, some of the articles were initially accessed online from electronic

copies. In some cases the scanned images that were provided suffered

from lack of clarity. It was necessary in these instances to find alternative

sources through library copies in order to be able to effectively analyse the

data. This exercise indicates one of the problems with the electronic

archiving of information.



Chapter 4: Analysis of the sections

The first part of this chapter focuses on the published versions of sections

providing an analysis of the features canvassed in the previous chapter.

The second part of the chapter considers the differences between

unpublished material, including original site drawings or copies thereof,

and the published versions.

Datum

The datum is one of the key elements of the section drawing. In the

original drawing it is included as a line across the width of the illustration

from which all measurements are taken, however in the finished

illustration it may be reduced to a discrete label on one side of the

drawing. Figure 4.1 shows the way in which the datum has been depicted

in the finished drawings. Those included as “Explicit” are where the

datum is marked as such on the illustration, “Implied” are those sections

where a vertical scale is provided showing depth below a zero point. It is

suggesting that the reader is aware of this as a conventional way of

indicating the datum.

Decade Explicit Implied Not shown1930 0 1 0

1940 0 0 2

1950 0 1 0

1960 2 2 1

1970 1 2 2

1980 0 2 6

1990 1 5 3

2000 0 3 2

4 16 16

Table 4.1: Inclusion of datum information.



Orientation

Orientation is also seen as one of the key pieces of information required on

the section, with the recording of cardinal points at the sides being seen as

the most useful (Drewett, 1999:137; MoLAS 1994). As the analysis in

Figure 4.2 shows this form of representation is the least used in relation to

the sample of Australian sites.

Decade Cardinal Title FigureCaption

None

1930 0 0 0 1

1940 0 0 0 2

1950 1 0 0 0

1960 1 3 1 0

1970 1 2 1 1

1980 1 5 1 1

1990 1 5 2 1

2000 0 1 2 2

5 16 7 8

Table 4.2: Representation of section orientation.

Two of the sites listed under the heading 'None' provide a different way of

indicating the orientation of the sections. The sections for Moonlight Head

(Zobel et al 1984:4) and Jiyer Cave (Cosgrove and Raymont 2002:31) are

accompanied by a plan view of the excavation units. These plans provide

a north orientation, but it is left to the reader to determine the orientation

of the individual sections.

A further level of analysis was undertaken to determine whether the

number of sections for a given excavation would have a bearing on the

form of labelling chosen. Figure 4.3 shows the relationship between the

section drawing and the method used to indicate the orientation. The



illustrations were categorised as: single, where only one section was

shown; complete, where all faces of the excavation were shown, typically

in a rectangular section; or multiple, where multiple contiguous faces were

illustrated without being a complete picture of the edges of the excavation.

The last case was typically used where the excavation was not a regular

rectangle.

Sections Cardinal Title FigureCaption

None

Single 4 7 7 6

Complete 1 4 0 1

Multiple 0 5 0 1

5 16 7 8

Table 4.3: Representation of orientation by section type.

The analysis by section type indicates that the use of cardinal points or

figure captions to indicate orientation occurs only in single or regular

rectangular excavations. Where more than one face of the section is

shown, the trend is to label each face of the excavation separately,

suggesting that the mode of labelling may be linked to the need to provide

decoding for the viewer.

Soil description

The analysis of soil description only looked at general information: soil

colour, and composition. While detailed soil analysis is considered an

important part of stratigraphy (Mike Smith: pers. comm.) this is usually

dealt with in text form or with specific tables and charts. The first table

(Table 4.4) summarises where the soil description is provided, while the

second (Table 4.5) indicates the type of information recorded.



Decade Sectiononly

Textonly

Both None

1930 0 1 0 0

1940 0 1 0 1

1950 0 1 0 0

1960 1 4 0 0

1970 0 2 3 0

1980 0 4 4 0

1990 0 3 1 0

2000 0 4 1 0

1 20 14 1

Table 4.4: Location of soil description within the diagram and text.

The significance of the information in Figure 4.4 is that text is clearly the

preferred method of communicating information regarding the soil within

a section. Thirty-four out of 36 articles provided information in textual

form, while 15 provided soil description in the context of the section

drawing. In only one of the 36 analysed sections was the illustration the

unique provider of information, and this was restricted to describing the

soil colour of the recorded strata.

Section Text Decade Colour Composition Colour Composition

1930 0 0 1 0

1940 0 0 0 0

1950 0 0 1 1

1960 3 2 5 5

1970 2 3 4 4

1980 5 5 7 7

1990 5 3 5 8

2000 0 1 4 5

15 14 27 30

Table 4.5: Type of information presented.



Munsell data

Despite the fact that the Munsell codes were described at the beginning of

the 20th century, and have been available in book form since 1940, little use

is made of them in section drawings. The first use of Munsell codes in the

context of an archaeological excavation in Australia appears to be Walker's

(1964) analysis of the strata at Capertee, which appeared along with

McCarthy's 1964 report on the excavation. The first Australian

archaeologist to incorporate Munsell codes within a site report was

Mulvaney, who provided them within the text of his report on Fromm's

Landing, Rockshelter No 6 (Mulvaney 1960:481) and as a key in his section

of Kenniff Cave (Mulvaney and Joyce 1965:161). The data suggests that the

codes are used in less than 8.5 per cent of illustrations, and in two thirds of

those cases the information is repeated in the text (Figure 4.6).

Decade Drawing only Text only Both Not used1930 0 0 0 1

1940 0 1 0 1

1950 0 0 0 1

1960 1 2 0 2

1970 0 1 0 4

1980 0 2 1 6

1990 0 3 1 4

2000 0 3 0 2

1 12 2 21

Table 4.6: Inclusion of Munsell coding.

Spit information

Table 4.7 shows the relationship between references to excavation spits in

the text and representation of those spits in the section drawings. As can

be seen, excavation spits are referred to in the text of approximately 45 per



cent of the sites analysed, and from 1990 onwards spits are referenced only

within the text. The excavation spits are used to locate finds and dating

information, and as the reference units for soil analysis.

Decade Section Text Both Total sites1930 0 0 0 1

1940 1 1 1 2

1950 0 0 0 1

1960 0 0 0 5

1970 1 2 0 5

1980 3 4 2 8

1990 0 3 0 9

2000 0 3 0 5

5 13 3 36

Table 4.7: Correlation of excavation spits to sections

Little information is provided to relate the spits to the section drawing.

The section from the excavation at Tandanjal (Macintosh1951:187) only

shows the spits without any indication of strata, while Disaster Bay

(Colley, 1997:45) and New Guinea II (Ossa et al 1995:27) indicate the spits

in relation to the strata. Puntutjarpa (Gould 1977:61), Cloggs Cave (Flood

1980:261) and Angophora (McDonald 1992:36) provide specific correlation

between the spits and stratigraphy and stratigraphy through tables and

diagrams. However, in other instances the only correlation between spits

and stratigraphy is provided through provision of the depth below the

surface of each spit: the reader is required to make any cross-references

with the section by measurement.



Hatching

Hatching is used not only to delineate strata but can also be used to

convey information about the strata. Hatching is one of the features of the

illustration that define its style. The information broke down into three

categories, indicating whether hatching was not used, whether it was only

used to delineate strata, or, whether it was keyed to provide other

information. This last category was further divided to indicate the type of

information be indicated by the key.

Decade Not used Strata Key – soil Key – level1930 0 1 0 0

1940 2 0 0 0

1950 0 1 0 0

1960 0 5 0 0

1970 2 0 3 0

1980 3 2 2 1

1990 6 1 2 0

2000 4 1 0 0

17 11 7 1

Table 4.8: Information provided by hatching.

Hatching, where used, is mainly a way to distinguish different strata, and

not explicitly to convey other information. Where such other information

is provided it is in the form of soil description, except for Great Mackerel

Rockshelter (McDonald 1992:38) where it is used to identify the layers : in

this case direct labelling of the layers could have been equally effective.

The data suggests that the use of hatching to convey information has

decreased since 1990, with approximately two-thirds of the sections in that

period not using any hatching.



There is little in the data that indicates any following of the approaches

put forward overseas. Where strata were recognised, the representation

appears to have trended toward the more realistic representation,

Wheeler's symbols (1956:77) not being apparent in any of the early

sections, where hatching was used. Tindale's section from Devon Downs

uses a realistic hatching, and only indicates defined layer boundaries.

Mulvaney's hatching provides an approach closer to Bersu's, and can be

seen in the work of other Australian archaeologists including Lampert

(1971) who worked with Mulvaney at Kenniff Cave. This suggests that the

styles of hatching developed as an Australian approach, and were not

greatly affected by outside influences.

Figure 4.1: Use of hatching in section drawings.

The section drawing of a shell midden at Red Beach, Queensland (Bailey

et al 1994:76) illustrates a major problem with the use of complex hatching.


1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NoneHatchings


The drawing suffers from a lack of clarity due to the lack of contrast

between different strata. Additionally, this lack of contrast renders two

symbols indicating radiocarbon dating locations almost invisible.

Figure 4.2: Red beach shell midden. Circles have been added to indicate the location of the radiocarbon samples (Bailey et al. 1994:76).

Style

The different styles used to depict sections are those previously defined in

Chapter 3. Table 4.9 summarises the styles identified in the data set.

Decade Compromise Realistic Stylised Simple1930 1 0 0 0

1940 0 0 0 2

1950 0 1 0 0

1960 1 3 1 0

1970 3 0 0 2

1980 4 2 0 2

1990 0 1 2 6

2000 0 1 0 4

9 8 3 16

Table 4.9: Styles used in representation of information.

The overall style of the sections is largely determined by the hatching

used, as can be seen by comparing Table 4.8 and Table 4.9. The figures for

the 1990 and 2000 periods indicate a strong trend toward the simple style,

with the compromise style not being seen at all.



Figure 4.3: Changes in section drawing style across time.

Referencing

Along with other measures of correlation between the text and the

illustration, the data was analysed to determine how the illustration was

referenced in the text, if at all. The data was split into those cases where

only one reference was made in the text, and those where more than one

reference was made. The reason for this was that the single occurrences

appear to be a general reference to acknowledge the figure's existence

rather than including the data from the figure in the discourse.


1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SimpleStylisedRealisticCompromise


None One More than one1930 0 0 1

1940 1 1 0

1950 0 1 0

1960 2 1 2

1970 0 2 3

1980 0 1 7

1990 0 6 3

2000 0 2 3

3 14 19

Table 4.10: Textual references to section drawings.

Another referencing problem found in the illustrations analysed was the

existence of references in the text to labels that did not exist in the section,

or instances of confusing labelling. A total of seven sections out of the 36

showed problems of this kind: Cave Bay Cave (Bowdler 1975), Puntutjarpa

(Gould 1977), Louisa Bay Cave (Vanderwal and Horton 1984), Angophora

(McDonald, 1992), Hann River 1 (Morwood and L'Oste-Brown 1995), Jiyer

Cave (Cosgrove and Raymont 2002), and Box Gully (Richards et al. 2007).

It is not possible to determine the reasons for this from the data set. It may

be the result of inadequate editing, or due to multiple authors being

involved on the problem. However, the result is the same: a lack of

cohesion between the text and the illustration.

Inclusions and other information

In looking at the presence of inclusions (anthropogenic features) in section

drawings it has to be acknowledged that, as the section represents a single

horizontal plane, only those inclusions that intersect the plane will be

shown. The most common inclusions are hearths and charcoal lenses (16),



while pits and burials are shown in four of the sections. Of the 36 sections

slightly less than one-third (11) failed to show any inclusions.

Three of the archaeologists whose work is analysed provided additional

diagrams to show the position of inclusions in relation to the section.

Macintosh (1951:187) provided separate outlines of the section showing

the distribution of charcoal, ochre, shells, bones and stone artefacts.

Lampert (Mulvaney and Golson 1971:124) superimposed the distribution

of fish hooks and stone implements over the section outline of the

excavation at Currarong, although this does not appear in his monograph

on the excavation (Lampert 1971). Likewise, Flood's work on Cloggs Cave

includes a second section, which shows the position of stone tools, bone

points, ash and charcoal: these are superimposed on the section along with

the excavation spits and dating information.

Other information visible in the published sections relates to dating.

Before discussing the overall analysis it needs to be noted that four of the

sections analysed were produced prior to the widespread introduction of

radiocarbon dating (circa 1960). The location of samples for radiocarbon

and later thermo-luminescence dating is indicated in 18 of the sections, of

which only three provided a location within the section. Thirteen of the

drawings indicated the dates calculated from the sample.

From pencil to publication

One of the initial aims of this research was to consider all stages of

stratigraphic illustration from the initial on-site drawing to the final

published form. The initial on-site drawings and the inked versions of

these are critical to the value of the archaeological record, as it is these



drawings that will form part of the site archive. As noted in the previous

chapter, only a small number of initial drawings were provided, however

these still provide an insight into the way that the drawing changes

through its various iterations.

Devon Downs

That Devon Downs should be the first excavation considered in this

research is appropriate as it is customarily seen as “Australia's classic

excavation” (Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999:11). It represents the first

controlled excavation in Australia, and through it, Tindale demonstrated

the existence of cultural and environmental change in the country prior to

European settlement.

For Devon Downs, comparison was made between the published version

(Hale and Tindale 1930:176), and Tindale's original 1929 journals and

drawings held in the South Australian Museum Archives. All references in

this section are the Museum's archival references for the material.

Tindale's notebook provides details of each day's excavation, using the

layer numbering that appears on the later published section. Apart from

Tindale's journals the archives contain section drawings of Devon Downs

at 1:10 (AA338/2/84/3), and 1:20 (AA338/2/84/4).

The first section is possibly incomplete: the shelter profile and rock falls

are inked, while the layers and inclusions are only pencilled in. The

inclusions are keyed using symbols, which are referred to on the section.

A note at the top of the illustration indicates the minimum size required

for symbols so that they will be legible when the section drawing is



reduced for reproduction. Further annotation occurs by way of description

of the soil types found in the section.

The second section drawing does not provide any stratigraphic

information. It uses a combination of pen, pencil and coloured pencil. It

provides a simple cross-section of the shelter, indicating natural rock, the

talus and the area of the excavation, but little else.

The published version of the section appears to follow the first (1:10)

drawing in the archive. Like the original, the redrawn section also

provides the location of inclusions in the section. The published section

also contains material drawn from Tindale's journals, specifically the

location of the child's burial (from aa338-1-2_0376.jpg), and the

relationship of the major rock fall and its original position on the shelter

roof (from aa338-1-2-0379.jpg). The published section follows the

compromise style, some interfaces are shown as solid lines and hatchings

vary between a realistic representation of strata to a purely geometric

pattern. Major divisions on the section, marked by heavier lines, show the

cultural phases that Tindale identified.

Puritjarra

Three versions of this section can be compared: the hand-drawn site copy

of the section; the final inked copy provided in TIFF format by Smith; and

the pre-publication version for the Journal of Quaternary Science. There are

differences between each of the three versions.

The original includes all of the features that are present in subsequent

versions, with the exception of a major pit feature which is not shown. The



drawing shows two scales, horizontal and vertical, which give distances

from the zero-point. The drawing includes a number of spot elevations,

and the location of two soil samples. On this drawing Layer III of the

section is shown with two sub-units IIIa and IIIb, which are distinguished

by the nature of rubble and rock fall material that they contain.

The inked versions of this section contain a number of changes, as would

be expected. The scales used in the drawing process have been removed,

but no other scale has been introduced. The locations for thermo-

luminescence dating samples present on the original now include sample

identification numbers, and locations and identifying labels for other

dating samples are now evident. The spot elevations have been

recalculated. All references to the sub-layers have been removed, although

the description of the sediments making up sub-layers IIIa and IIIb have

been retained. This version of the section now includes a pit that appears

at the interface between layers II and III.

Whereas the amount of information in the second version of the section

increased, the publication version has less. Where the previous version

provided some description of the sediment in the pit and in Layer III, this

information is now missing. Also missing are the spot elevations and

radiocarbon dating information that was present. Extrapolated dating

information is now presented in the left-hand margin of the illustration.

Jinmium I

Three different copies of the section from Jinmium are considered here.

One is the original pencil drawing of the section dated 2 June 1992, the



other two are finished copies that have been published in Antiquity (1996)

and Nature (1998) respectively. These drawings show differences in the

amount of information and the manner in which it is conveyed. The

original drawing shows the location of several samples used for dating, as

well as providing descriptions of soil colours and the location of some

artefactual material. All three of these are simplistic in style. There is no

use of hatchings to provide information, and all strata are delineated by

the use of lines.

In the illustration published in Antiquity (Fullagar et al. 1996:758) a

number of items have been deleted. These include the soil colour

information as well as the positions of the dating samples and artefacts.

Also excluded is a stratum of pinkish-grey soil located against the

rockshelter wall.

The illustration that appears in Nature (Roberts et al. 1998:359) is similar to

the other published section, however there are some differences. The

location of the C14 dating samples is displayed, as are descriptions of the

soil colours. Stippling is used to distinguish the sandstone inclusions in

the section, along with a key. The previously mentioned pinkish-grey

stratum that was not shown on the previous published section is once

again present in this version.

Moonlight Head

The rockshelter at Moonlight Head was excavated in 1980, and the report

published in Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria in 1984 (Zobel et al.

1984:4-5). I was fortunate to be able to access the original material for this



site. The information compared here is the original pencil drawing, the

inked drawing, and the section that appears in the final report. The

original drawings provide delineation of all strata using solid lines as well

as hatchings to indicate soil types. A key is included on the original

drawing to decode the hatching and the datum is clearly indicated. The

locations of all inclusions are shown on the original drawing.

The inked master copy and the published versions of the drawing are the

same. The section is produced as a compromise, with a mixture of

geometric and naturalistic hatchings. Interfaces are delineated through the

use of solid lines.

The only difference between the pencil and subsequent versions is that the

locations of the inclusions do not appear in the latter, being shown instead

in the Harris Matrix that forms part of the published report. The Matrix

too differs between the earlier form and the published one. In the copy in

the excavation archive symbols are used to define where the inclusions

were removed e.g. midden, hearth or rock fall: these do not appear in the

final version of the matrix. The value of the published Harris Matrix has to

be questioned as all that it shows is the identifier for each removal: the

report does not provide any indication as to what the identifier refers to.

Tunnel Cave

Tunnel Cave was excavated in 1993, and the section published in 1996 in

Australian Aboriginal Studies (Dortch 1996:54). The same versions of the

section drawings were also published in the British Archaeological Review

series in 2004 (Dortch2004:71-2).



Three original drawings were examined and compared against a

published version of the east wall of excavation G10 (Dortch 2004:72). Due

to the depth of this section it was recorded in four sections, of three which

were sighted. There is little difference between the original and published

versions. All features marked on the original appear to have been

transferred to the published drawing. The only difference is the addition

of hatching with an associated key to indicate different soil types.

Riwi

Excavated in 1999, the section was published in 2000 in Australian

Archaeology (Balme 1999:2). Three versions of sections for Riwi were

examined: a copy of the original hand-drawn version, a finished version,

and a published version. The different versions of this section, showed

little variation between the unpublished and published versions. All of the

information on the hand-drawn original was present in the published

version with only cosmetic changes to the location of information in

regard to soil colours. The finished unpublished version, showed an

enhanced stippling of a charcoal layer and also included the location of

carbon samples along with the calculated dates for the same. Both of the

published versions are in the simple style, all detail is linear with only the

inclusions being marked using stippling.

Discussion

One of the major aims of this paper was to investigate the way in which

section drawing has developed as part of the Australian archaeological

tradition. Analysis of different sections was to identify trends that may



have occurred and what conventions may have been established in the

creation of section drawings.

The data used in this study indicates that illustration is a highly individual

pursuit. While conventions appear to be utilised in other forms of

archaeological illustration there are none apparent in the production of

section drawings. Very little use appears to be made of Munsell coding for

defining colours either in text or in illustration.

Beginning with Mulvaney's work in the 1950s and 60s which closely

resembles Bersu's approach, there has been a tendency among Australian

archaeologists to favour a realistic form of representation, or at the very

least in the form that Wheeler (1956:75) described as intelligently

differentiated. In the 1980s there is evidence of a move toward mechanical

hatching (either dry- transfer or computer-generated), which is less

realistic. However, since the early 1990s there has been a trend to produce

sections that do not use hatching/stippling to differentiate strata, relying

rather on purely linear differentiation and therefore much clearer

boundaries between layers at the expense of other information.

The relationship between the text and the illustration is harder to quantify.

The degree of interrelationship can possibly be measured by the references

between the text and the illustration. In doing so, a decision was made to

consider cases where a single reference, usually in the form of a

parenthesised reference to the figure, was made as an acknowledgement

of the existence of the section drawing rather than using it as an index. In

these cases the role of the illustration is passive: there are no signs within

the body of the text referring the reader back to the image for information.



Furthermore, there is only one case in which the image references another

part of the text.

In a number of cases the text focuses on spits rather than strata when

discussing the aspects of excavation, however there are only three

instances where the spits are related to the sections (Gould 1977;

McDonald 1992; Ossa et al. 1995). Here the index refers the reader back to

a point outside of the text i.e. back to the section.

With the comparison of original and published sections difficulties arise

due to the small sample size (5). From those available it appears that

information tends to be deleted for publication rather than added, this

occurred in three of the five. In only one case was information added to

the illustration.

The use of the Harris Matrix was discussed previously. Only one of the

reports analysed included a matrix (Zobel et al. 1984:7), and this was used

to show the relationship between removals; the limited value of this is

discussed previously in this chapter. While Harris (1989) maintains that

the matrix has scope for universal application, there appears to be little

uptake, or at least little published evidence of uptake, by Australian

archaeologists working on Indigenous sites. Further investigation would

indicate the true extent to which the Harris matrix is used within

Australian archaeology.



Chapter 5: Conclusions

As stated in the introduction, the primary focus of this paper is on the

development of conventions in section drawing in Australian archaeology.

Consideration has also been given to the relationship between the

illustration and the context in which it is published and the progression

from initial onsite drawing to the final published version. The analysis

discussed in the previous chapter has provided an insight into all of these

areas.

Within the sections analysed there are distinct trends apparent over time,

even though as is discussed below, there is little evidence of a trend

towards uniformity. From the outset of the period covered there is

evidence for a distinctly Australian view of the section. While Tindale's

section from Devon Downs displays many of the features that Wheeler

espoused, it also has a tendency towards a naturalistic representation of

the strata, something which wasn't current in archaeological circles at the

time.

Mulvaney's drawings are all naturalistic, without resorting to the lack of

clarity that can occur in the style portrayed by Bersu (see Chapter 2).

Mulvaney's influence can clearly be seen in the work of Lampert at

Currarong and Burrill Lake, although Lampert's style is readily

identifiable as different. Further evidence of the naturalistic approach to

section drawing can be seen in the work of Schrire (1982), Jones (1985),

and Smith (2006).



In contrast, since 1990 there has been a trend toward a highly simplistic

style, devoid of both character and information. Minimal information is

displayed, with little more than layer interfaces being evident (see below).

If a move toward a standard style can be determined from the data, then it

is a move toward a minimalistic section.

In terms of the changing choices in technical detail used to depict sections,

commonality of style between the sections is only apparent where the

same archaeologist has been responsible for the production of the

illustrations. There is, in fact, little in the data set to show any move

towards standard styles, layout or coding. This can lead to the alienation

of the viewer if they do not know the particular coding used in the

production of the section.

A more important point to come out of the analysis is the decline over the

last two decades in the amount of information presented in published

sections. At the level of the metadata (see page 39), explicit indication of

the datum disappears, and the orientation of sections is concentrated in

the caption or title to the illustration, if it is shown at all. Soil description is

largely restricted to the text, especially in the later period (1990 onward),

and in all but one case where soil description appears in section drawings,

the same information appears in the text. Even the Munsell coding of

colour, which is widely accepted as a convention for defining soil colour,

has not been widely accepted as a means of assigning information to the

section drawing.

The overall impression given by the data is that the use of the published

section drawing as a means of conveying information has diminished



greatly, with emphasis being given repeatedly and more significantly to

textual representation. This then leads to the question of why do section

drawings continue to be included in publications at all? As Stein (1992:71)

observes, it is something that archaeologists have always done: the section

drawing is seen as an essential but unreflexive component of the report,

even if it is conveying little information. It is possible that there is still an

acceptance of Wheeler's dictum that -

The basis of scientific excavation is the accurately observed and adequately recorded section.(Wheeler 1956:22)

Additionally, the inclusion of section drawing is in itself a cultural artefact

that reflects the education and experience of the archaeologists. The

persistence of the section drawing may also be an indicator of the way in

which archaeology is carried out in Australia. As Frankel (1993:875)

observed, excavations are usually only undertaken in a small area of a site.

The majority of sites analysed in this thesis certainly conform to this

observation being based on one metre by one metre excavations. In these

cases the section drawing may provide a better recording mechanism than

open context planning, as all edges of the excavation are in close proximity

to each other.

The relationship between the text and the illustration is an important part

of the presentation and use of the drawing. In the sections analysed there

is little in the illustration that is not also to be found in the text. This is

contrary to the view that the purpose of the scientific illustration is to

reinforce the arguments made in the text (Moser 19:833) and to the need

for the text and the illustration to complement each other (Topper



1996:221). As noted in Chapter 4 there is little connection between the two,

a problem that also has been noted in historical texts (Masur 1998:1410). In

the current data several instances were noted of references made in the

text of the report to labels that did not appear in any accompanying

illustration. The meaning of the label is deferred to an indefinite object,

one that displays what Peirce refers to as Firstness: something that has the

potential to exist, but does not have any actuality (Preucel 2006:52). This

analysis confirms the suggestion of a number of authors that, as a tool for

scientific discourse, the illustration is seen as secondary to the text.

If, as indicated earlier, the section drawing is seen as a substitute for the

original section, which has in effect been destroyed as a result of the

process of excavation, then the trend in Australian archaeology indicates

that the substitute is providing markedly less information than the

original. In semiotic terms the section drawing can no longer be seen as an

iconic representation of the original, rather it has become symbolic. The

image no longer, as Leibhammer (2000:131) noted, “mediates access to the

original”. The section drawing (as published) has instead become an

artefact of archaeological ritual.

This has an impact not only on the validity of the section as a means of

conveying information, but also on the use of section drawings as an aid

to novice archaeologists learning their craft. As Joukowsky (1980:153)

suggests, the section drawing is one of the key ways in which students

learn about interpreting sections. The reliance on published material is

further compounded by problems associated with accessing archived

materials (Drewett l999:185). If the published material does not provide



the necessary information for students to learn about section drawing,

then the quality of section recording can only diminish, including the

quality of archived originals.

A corollary to this is that what the reader sees in the excavation report will

influence what they “go on to see in the field” (Bradley 1997:68). The

illustrations in the report take on a degree of authority (Molyneaux 1997:7)

and in turn help form the mental template which the archaeologist uses in

determining what they see: it shapes their professional vision. As Jones

(2001:339) notes - “the image provides the basis for determining the nature

of artefacts [or sections] retrieved through subsequent excavations”. The

production of sub-standard or meaningless section drawings can only

result in students learning to see meaningless sections.

The reliance on the text as the primary vehicle for information suggests

that there is a perception in the archaeological community that text is the

higher-end of the cognitive scale and therefore more appropriate to

reinforcing the scientific aspects of archaeology (Topper 1996:218);

Molyneaux 1997:1). As a result, the detailed section drawing has become

relegated to an archival function, preserving the archaeological record

rather than being used in the production of knowledge. This can be seen in

the comparisons made between the field and published/inked versions of

sections in the previous chapter (particularly from Puritjarra and

Jinmium), where information has been filtered out of the finished section

drawing.

In fact it can be said that section drawing goes much further than

preserving the archaeological record. A number of archaeologists have put



forward the view that through excavation and by extension the recording

of the site and the archaeologist's interpretation of it, the archaeological

record is created (Frankel 1993; Lucas 2001b). This suggests that not only is

the section drawing an artefact produced by the archaeologist, but so too

is the archaeological record itself.

Something also missing from the later reports is evidence of the

archaeologist creating the image. In the earlier reports it is possible,

through the way in which the drawings are rendered, to recognize the

individual style of the artist. The work of Mulvaney, Lampert and Smith

are all identifiable through their own styles. Returning to the semiotic

view, the drawing acts not only as an icon, standing in for the original

section, but also as an index to the archaeologist who created it. The later

styles are more mechanical and impersonal. They tend rather to become

symbols depicting a largely anonymous section prepared by an

anonymous someone, such that even the iconic value has become

devalued.

This pattern can be situated quite well within a wider understanding of

the development of Australian archaeology. The work undertaken up to

the 1960s focused on establishing long sequences to determine the length

of occupation in Australia (Murray and White 1981:257); a trend that

Murray and White see as continuing up to 1980. To this end the

rockshelter provided the ideal environment for such research: reasonably

well protected and within preserved deep strata containing long periods

of occupation. The section drawings mirror this focus, with more attention

paid to the stratigraphy in the 1960s and less later. In this sense, then, the



long visual sequences created from the stratigraphy of sites such as Devon

Downs can be understood as shaping the archaeological and popular

perceptions of the Aboriginal past. The increasing time depth of

Aboriginal Australia was reflected in increasingly complex 'slices' of that

time, encapsulated in the archaeological strata.

From the early 1980s, however, the focus of Australian archaeology

changed with archaeologists addressing issues other than the

establishment of early occupation dates, and moving Australian

archaeology out of rockshelters toward a variety of open sites. Lourandos'

theory of “intensification” was one of the prime catalysts for this (Ulm

2004:190), shifting archaeology to more social questions. This suggests that

with a general acceptance of the age of occupation in Australia and the

corresponding depths of individual deposits, as well as the addressing of

other issues such as adaptation to marginal environments, food

processing, and social change the importance of stratigraphy as a visual

means of documenting relative occupation layers diminished.

What comes through most clearly in charting the development of 60 years

of archaeological stratigraphy and its representation is that there is a need

for archaeologists to re-engage with the visual. As noted earlier,

archaeology is a visual craft, we as archaeologists deal with a visual

medium, and it is appropriate that what we produce reflects this. There is

a need to look back at what has gone before in Australia. In 1892 Walter

Howchin produced a section (see Chapter 2) that combined the graphic

representation of the strata with other pertinent information: the result

was an illustration that can stand by itself as an object of knowledge.



Likewise similar syntheses of information can be found in the more recent

work of Flood (1971:260-1) and Colley (1997:6). It is perhaps time to re-

evaluate this approach to the presentation of knowledge.

Research opportunities

The analysis undertaken in my research has only addressed a few facets of

the process of section drawing, there is scope for further investigation

along a number of lines of inquiry. More work is required to investigate

the originals and archived material in order to determine what is being

recorded. It is hoped that material in the archives is more informative than

that which is published. As previously observed by Drewett (1999:185)

however, the published information is easier to access than the archives,

which may be in private storage or otherwise unavailable: an observation

borne out by experience while researching this thesis.

As noted in Chapter 4, the data set used in this research was drawn

largely from work undertaken from 1960 onwards. While this may reflect

the amount of work being undertaken in Australia over these periods, the

opportunity exists to extend this research. Avenues that could be explored

include integrating earlier material into the database. The 19th century sites

discussed in the history were largely identified through Recovering the

Tracks (Horton, 1991): further research into early publications such as

proceedings of the various state museums and Royal Societies may

discover a wider data set that can be used provide a wider perspective on

the origins and development of section drawings in Australian

archaeology.



The focus of this thesis was on the representation of Indigenous sites

within Australia, with no attempt made to include the development of

sections in relation to post-colonisation sites. A similar study of these sites

would be useful to address not only similar questions to the ones

researched through this paper but also to provide comparative

information on the way in which the two areas have developed. For

example, has the recording of sections on post-colonisation sites shown

similar trends to those identified for Indigenous sites?

A further line of research would be to extend the study to look at the

recording of similar sites in other parts of the world. Some reports were

identified during the course of this thesis but were not analysed

(Paddayya, 1977; Chosuke 1979; Deacon 1979; Avery et al. 1997; Simms

and Russell 1997; Lavachery and Cornelissen 2000; Vaquero et al. 2001).

Extending the research to other countries would address a number of

questions, such as have Australian archaeologists developed a distinctive

view of stratigraphy? Is the decline in the quality of published section

drawings purely an Australian phenomenon shaped by changes in

research focus, or is it part of the way in which the wider archaeological

community now views the section drawing?

These and other questions provide the opportunity to further explore the

development of section drawing in relation to other aspects of Australian

and international archaeological practice. The results of the analysis

described in this thesis suggest that there is a need to re-assess the value of

the section drawing. Either we discard Wheeler's notion that the section is



the excavation, or ensure that the illustration is re-empowered as a

significant object of knowledge within our discipline.



References

Adkins, L. and Adkins, R. 1989. Archaeological Illustration. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Allen, J. (ed.) 1996. Report of the Southern Forests Archaeological Project.

School of Archaeology, La Trobe University, Bundoora.

Avery, G., Cruz-Uribe, K., Goldberg, P., Grine, F. E., Klein, R. G., Lenardi,

M. J., Marean, C. W., Rink, W. J., Schwarcz, H. P., Thackeray, A. I.

and Wilson, M. L. 1997. The 1992-1993 excavations at the Die Kelders

Middle and Later Stone Age cave site, South Africa. Journal of Field

Archaeology 24(3):263-291.

Baigrie, B. (ed.) 1996. Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical

Problems Concerning the Use of Art in Science. University of Toronto

Press, Toronto.

Bailey, G., Chappell, J. and Cribb, R. 1994. The origin of Andara shell

mounds at Weipa, north Queensland, Australia. Archaeology of

Oceania 29:69-80.

Balme, J. 2000. Excavations revealing 40,000 years of occupation at Mimbi

Caves, south central Kimberley, Western Australia. Australian

Archaeology 51:1-5.

Balme, J. and Paterson, A. 2006. (eds) Archaeology in Practice. A Student

Guide to Archaeological Analyses. Blackwell Publishing, Malden.

Barber, R. J. 1994. Doing Historical Archaeology: Exercises using Documentary,

Oral, and Material Evidence. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs.



Barker, P. 1982. Techniques of Archaeological Excavation. B T Batsford,

London.

Bateman, J. 2006. Pictures, ideas and things: the production and currency

of archaeological images, in Edgeworth, M. (ed.) Ethnographies of

Archaeological Practice. Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations.

pp.114-125.Walnut Creek, CA.

Bauer, A. 2002. Is what you see all you get?: Recognizing meaning

archaeology. Journal of Social Archaeology 2:37-52.

Berman, J. 1999. Bad hair days in the Paleolithic: modern (re)constructions of the cave man. American Anthropologist 101(2):288-304.

Bersu, G. 1940. Excavations at Little Woodbury, Wiltshire. Proceedings of

the Prehistoric Society 6(1):30-111.

Biddle, M. and Kjølbye-Biddle, B. 1969. Metres, areas and robbing. World


Bowdler, S. 1984. Hunter Hill, Hunter Island. Australian National

University Press, Canberra. Terra Australis 8.

Bradley, R. 1997. To see is to have seen: craft traditions in British field

archaeology in Molyneaux, B. (ed.), The Cultural Life of Images: Visual

Representation in Archaeology. pp.63-72. Routledge, London.

Burke, H. and Smith, C. 2004. The Archaeologist's Field Handbook. Allen and

Unwin, Crows Nest.

Chosuke, S. 1979. Cave sites in Japan. World Archaeology 10(3):340-349.



Colley, S.M. 19967. A pre- and post-contact Aboriginal shell midden at

Disaster Bay, New South Wales south coast. Australian Archaeology

45:1-19.

Collis, J. 2001. Digging Up the Past. An Introduction to Archaeological

Excavation. Sutton Publishing, Stroud.

Cosgrove, R. 1995. Late Pleistocene behavioural variation and time trends:

the case from Tasmania. Archaeology in Oceania 30:83-104.

Cosgrove R., and Raymont, E. 2002. Jiyer Cave revisited: preliminary

results from northeast Queensland rainforest. Australian Archaeology

54:29-36.

Deacon, H. J. 1979. Excavations at Boomplaas Cave – A sequence through

the Upper Pleistocene and Holocene in South Africa. World


Dortch, C. E. 1979. 33,000 year old stone and bone artifacts from Devil's

Lair, Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum

7:239-367.

Dortch, J. 1996. Late Pleistocene and recent Aboriginal occupation of

Tunnel Cave and Witchcliffe Rock Shelter, southwestern Australia.

Australian Aboriginal Studies 2:51-60.

Dortch, J. 2004. Palaeo-Environmental Change and the Persistence of

Human Occupation in South-Western Australian Forests BAR

International Series 1288, Gordon House, Oxford.

Drewett, P. 1999. Field Archaeology: An Introduction. University College

London. London.



Edgeworth, M. (ed.) 2006. Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice. Cultural

Encounters, Material Transformations. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek,

CA.

Edwards, K., and Murphy, A. 2003. A preliminary report on

archaeological investigations at Malea Rockshelter, Pilbara Region,

Western Australia. Australian Archaeology 56:44-46.

Flood, J. 1980. The Moth Hunters: Aboriginal Prehistory of the Australian Alps.

Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Frankel, D. 1993. The excavator: creator or destroyer? Antiquity 67:875-877.

Gasche, H. and Tunca, O. 1983. Guide to archaeostratigraphic

classification and terminology: definitions and principles. Journal of

Field Archaeology 10(3): 235-335.

Goodwin, C. 1994. Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96(3):

606-633.

Goldberg, P. and McPhail, R., 2006. Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology.

Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Gould, R. A. 1977. Puntutjarpa Rockshelter and the Australian Desert Culture.

Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History

54 (1).

Goddard, S., Knight, D., Goddard, J., Hamilton, S. and Rouillard, S. 1997.

Aspects of Illustration: Prehistoric Pottery. Association of

Archaeological Illustrators and Surveyors. Technical Paper No.13.



Hale, H. H. and Tindale, N. B. 1930. Notes on some human remains in the

lower Murray Valley, South Australia. Records of the South Australian

Museum 4:145-218.

Harris, E. C. 1975. The stratigraphic sequence: a question of time. World


Harris, E. C. 1979. The laws of archaeological stratigraphy. World


Harris, E. C. 1989. Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. (2nd ed.).

Academic Press, London.

Harris, E. C., Brown, M. and Brown, G. (eds), 1993. Practices of

Archaeological Stratigraphy. Academic Press, London and New York.

Harris, E. C. and Ottaway, P. J. 1976. A recording experiment on a rescue

site. Rescue News 12:6-7.

Hodder, I., and Hutson, S. 2003. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to

Interpretation in Archaeology, 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Hope-Taylor, B. 1966. Archaeological draughtsmanship: principles and

practice. Part II: ends and means. Antiquity 60:107-113.

Howchin, W. 1919. Supplementary notes on the occurrence of Aboriginal

remains. discovered by Captain S. A. White at Fulham. With

Remarks on the geological section. Transactions of the Royal Society of

South Australia 43:81-84.



Johnson, M. 1999. Archaeological Theory. An Introduction. Blackwell

Publishers, Oxford.

Jones, A. 2001. Drawn from memory: the archaeology of aesthetics and the

aesthetics of archaeology in Earlier Bronze Age Britain and the

present. World Archaeology 33(2):334-356.

Jones, R. (ed.) 1985. Archaeological research in Kakadu National Park.

Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra.

Joukowsky, M. 1980. A Complete Manual of Field Archaeology. Prentice-Hall,

London.

Lampert, R. J. 1971. Burrill Lake and Currarong: Coastal Sites in Southern New

South Wales. Australian National University Press, Canberra. Terra

Australis 1.

Lavachery, P., and Cornelissen, E. 2000. Natural and cultural spatial

patterning in the Late Holocene deposits of Shum Laka Rock Shelter,

Cameroon. Journal of Field Archaeology 27(2):153-168.

Leibhammer, N. 2000. Rendering realities. In I. Hodder (ed.) Towards

Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example of Çatalhöyük, pp.129-142.

McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

Lele, V. P. 2006. Material habits, identity, semeiotic. Journal of Social

Archaeology 6:48-70.

Lucas, G. 2001a. Critical Approaches to Fieldwork: Contemporary and

Historical Archaeological Practice. Routledge, London.



Lucas, G. 2001b. Destruction and the Rhetoric of Excavation. Norwegian

Archaeological Review 34(1):35-46.

Macintosh, N. W. G. Archaeology of Tandanjal Cave, Southwest Arnhem Land,

Oceania 21:1950-1951.

McCarthy, F. D. 1948. The Lapstone Creek excavation: two cultural

periods revealed in eastern New South Wales. Records of the

Australian Museum 22:1-34.

McCarthy, F. D. 1964. The archaeology of the Capertee Valley, New South

Wales. Records of the Australian Museum 26:197-246.

McDonald, J. 1992 The Great Mackerel Rockshelter Excavation: women in

archaeology? Australian Archaeology 35:32-42.

McDonald, J. 1992. Archaeology of the Angophora Reserve Rock Shelter: or

Helping the Police with their Enquiries. NSW National Parks and

Wildlife Service, Hurstville.

MoLAS, 1994. Archaeological Site Manual. Museum of London, London.

Molyneaux, B. (ed.) 1997. The Cultural Life of Images: Visual Representation in

Archaeology. Routledge, London.

Morwood, M. J., and L'Oste-Brown, S. 1995. Excavations at Hann River 1.

Central Cape York Peninsula. Australian Archaeology 40:221-28.

Moser, S. and Smiles, S. (eds) 2005. Envisioning the Past: Archaeology and the

Image. Blackwell Publishing, Malden.



Mulvaney, D. J. 1960. Archaeological excavations at Fromm’s Landing on

the Lower Murray River, South Australia. Proceedings of the Royal

Society of Victoria 72:53-85.

Mulvaney, D. J., Lawton, G. H. and Twidale, C. R. Archaeological

excavation of Rock Shelter No.6, Fromm's Landing, South Australia.

Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 77:479-515.

Mulvaney, D. J. and Golson, J. 1971. Aboriginal Man and Environment in

Australia. Australian National University Press. Canberra.

Mulvaney, D. J., and Joyce, E. 1965. Archaeological and geomorphological

investigations on Mt Moffatt Station, Queensland, Australia.

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 31:147-212.

Mulvaney, D. J., and Kamminga, J. 1999. Prehistory of Australia. Allen &

Unwin, Crows Nest.

Murray T., and White, J. P. 1981. Cambridge in the bush? Archaeology in

Australia and New Guinea. World Archaeology 13(2):255-263.

O'Connor, S., Veth, P. and Campbell, C. 1998. Serpent's Glen Rockshelter:

report on the first Pleistocene-aged occupation sequence from the

Western Desert. Australian Archaeology 46:12-22.

Ossa, P., Marshall, B., and Webb, C. 1995. New Guinea II: a Pleistocene site

on the Snowy River, Victoria. Archaeology in Oceania 30:22-35.

Paddayya, K. 1977. An Acheulian occupation at Hunsgi, peninsular India:

A summary of the results of two seasons of excavation (1975-6).

World Archaeology 8(3):344-355.



Preucel, R. W. 2006. Archaeological Semiotics. Blackwell Publishing, Malden.

Prothero, D. and Schwab, F. 2004. Sedimentary Geology: An Introduction to

Sedimentary Rocks and Stratigraphy (2nd ed). W. H. Freeman and

Company, New York.

Richards, T., Pavlides, C., Walshe, K., Webber, H., and Johnston, R. 2007.

Box Gully: new evidence for Aboriginal occupation of Australia

south of the Murray River prior to the last glacial maximum.

Archaeology in Oceania 42:1-11.

Roberts, R., Bird M., Olley, J., Galbraith, R., Lawson, E., Laslett, G.,

Yoshida, H., Jones, R., Fullagar, R., Jacobsen, G., and Hua, Q. 1998.

Optical and radiocarbon dating at Jinmium rock shelter in northern

Australia. Nature 393:358-362.

Roskams, S. 2001. Excavation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Saussure F. de. 1983. Course in General Linguistics (trans. R. Harris). Gerard

Duckworth & Co, London.

Shanks, M. 1992. Experiencing the Past. On the Character of Archaeology.

Routledge, London.

Shanks, M., and McGuire, R.H. 1996. The craft of archaeology. American

Antiquity 61(1):75-88.

Shelley, C. 1996a. Visual Abductive Reasoning in Archaeology. Philosophy

of Science 63 (2):278-301.



Simms, S. R., and Russell, K. W. 1997. Tur Imdai Rockshelter: Archaeology

of recent pastoralists in Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology

24(4):459-472.

Smith, M. A. 2006. Characterizing Later Pleistocene and Holocene stone

artefact assemblages from Puritjarra Rock Shelter. Records of the

Australian Museum 58:371–410.

Smith, M. A. and Ross, J. 2008. Glen Thirsty: the history and dating of a

desert well. Australian Archaeology 66:45-59.

Stein, J. K.(ed.) 1992. Deciphering a Shell Midden. Academic Press, San

Diego.

Topper, D. 1996. Towards the epistemology of scientific illustration. In B.

Baigrie (ed.), Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems

Concerning the Use of Art in Science, pp.285-47. University of Toronto

Press, Toronto.

Ulm, S. 2004. Themes in the archaeology of Mid-to-Late Holocene

Australia. In T. Murray (ed.), Archaeology from Australia, pp.187-208.

Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne.

Van Reybrouck, D. 1998. Imaging and imagining the Neanderthal: the role

of technical drawings in archaeology. Antiquity 72(1998):56-64.

Vanderwal, R. and Horton, D. 1984. Coastal Southwest Tasmania: the

prehistory of Louisa Bay and Maatsuyker Island. Australian National

University Press, Canberra. Terra Australis 9.



Vaquero, M., Vallverdu, J., Rosell, J., Pasto, I., Allue E. 2001. Neandertal

behavior at the Middle Palaeolithic site of Abric Romani, Capellades,

Spain. Journal of Field Archaeology 28(1-2):93-114.

Veth, P., McDonald, J. and White, B. 2008. Dating of Bush Turkey

Rockshelter 3 in the Calvert Ranges establishes Early Holocene

Occupation of the Little Sandy Desert, Western Australia. Australian

Archaeology 66:33-44.

Walker, P. H. 1964. Soil and landscape history in the vicinity of

archaeological sites at Glen Davis, New South Wales. Records of the

Australian Museum 26:248-63.

Webster, G. 1963. Practical archaeology: An Introduction to Archaeological

Field-work and Excavation. Black, London.

Wheeler, M. 1956. Archaeology from the Earth. Penguin,. Harmondsworth.

White, S. A. 1919. Notes on the occurrence of Aboriginal remains below

marine deposits at the Reedbeds, Fulham, near Adelaide.

Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 43:77-80.

Zobel, D., Vanderwal, R. and Frankel, D.1984. The Moonlight Head

Rockshelter. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 96(1):1-24.



Appendix A: sites analysed


Site ArchaeologistDevon Downs SA Hale, H. H. and Tindale, N. B.Lapstone Cave NSW McCarthy, F. D.Tandanjal Cave NT Macintosh, N. W. G.Fromm's Landing No.2 SA Mulvaney, D. J.Fromm's Landing No.6 SA

Mulvaney, D. J. and Joyce E. B.Capertee 3 NSW McCarthy, F. D.Jimeri I, NT Schrire C.Lake Mungo NSW Bowler J, Jones R et alCloggs Cave VIC Flood, J. M.Currarong Lampert, R. J.Puntutjarpa WA Gould, R. A.Devil's Lair WA Dortch, C. E.Cave Bay Cave Bowdler, S.Louisa Bay, TAS Vanderwal R. and Horton D.Moonlight Head VIC Zobel, D., Vanderwal, R. and Frankel, D.Nauwalabila, NT Kamminga, J. and Jones R.New Guinea II, Victoria Ossa, P., Marshall, B., and Webb, C.Great Mackerel Rockshelter WA McDonald, J.Puritjarra NT Smith, M. A. Some material unpublishedNunamira Cave, TAS Cosgrove, R.Angophora NSW McDonald, J.Disaster Bay NSW Colley, S.Jimnium NT Fullagar, R.Parmerpar Meethaner, TAS Cosgrove R.Weipa QLD (midden) Bailey, G., Chappell, J. and Cribb R.Tunnel Cave WA Dortch, J.

Edwards, K. and Murphy, A.Hann River QLD Morwood, M. J. and L'Oste Brown, S.Serpent's GlenRiwi WA Balme, J.Box Gully, Vic

Jiyer Cave, QLD Cosgrove, R. and Raymont, E.Weipa QLD (midden) Morrison, M. UnpublishedGlen Thirsty NT Smith, M. A. and Ross, J.Bush Turkey 3 WA Veth, P. McDonald J. and White, B.

Mulvaney, D. J., Lawton, G. J. and Twidale, C. R.Kenniff Cave, Qld

Malea, Pilbara WA

O'Conner Veth Campbell

Richards, T., Pavlides, C., Walshe, K., Webber, H. and Johnston, R.


Appendix B: data tables


Period Site Orie

ntat

ion

Scal

e

Dat

um

Incl

usio

ns

Styl

e

Stra

ta

Dat

ing

Cul

t Lay

ers

Stra

ta L

abel

s

Hat

chin

g

30 Devon Downs N Y I Y C Y N Y Y N Y40 Lapstone Cave N Y N Y S N N Y N N N40 Tandanjal N Y N Y S N N N N Y N50 Y Y I Y R Y N N Y N Y60 Y Y I Y R Y Y N Y N Y60 Kenniff Cave Y Y I N R Y N N Y N Y60 Capertee No3 Y Y N N C Y N N Y N Y60 Jimeri 1 Y Y Y N R Y Y N Y N Y60 Currarong Y Y Y Y C Y Y N N N Y70 Lake Mungo Y Y N Y C Y Y N N N Y70 Cloggs Cave Y Y I Y S Y Y N Y Y N70 Puntutjarpa Y Y Y Y S Y N N Y N N70 Devils Lair Y Y I Y C Y Y N Y N Y70 Cave Bay Cave Y Y N Y C Y N N N N Y80 Louisa Bay Y Y N N C Y N N N N Y80 Moonlight Head P Y I Y C Y Y N N N Y80 Nauwalabila Y Y I N R Y N N Y N N80 New Guinea II N Y N N S Y N N Y Y N80 Great Mackerel Y Y N Y C Y Y N N N Y80 Nunamira Y Y I Y S Y Y N Y N N80 Angophora Y Y N Y C Y N N Y N Y80 Disaster Bay Y Y N Y R Y Y N Y Y Y90 Puritjarra Y Y I N R Y Y N Y N Y90 Jimnium 1 Y Y I N S Y Y N Y N N90 Parmerpar Meethaner Y Y I Y S Y N N N N N90 Weipa Y Y N Y G Y Y N N N Y90 Tunnel Cave Y Y I Y G Y Y N Y N Y90 Malea Y Y Y Y S ? Y N N N N90 Hann River Y Y N Y S Y Y N Y N N90 Serpents Glen Y N N Y S Y N N N N N90 Riwi Y Y I Y S Y N N N N N00 Box Gully N Y I N S Y N N Y N N00 Jiyer Cave P Y Y N S Y N N N N N00 Weipa Y Y N N S Y Y N Y N N00 Glen Thirsty Y N N Y R Y N N Y N Y00 Bush Turkey 3 Y Y I Y S Y Y N Y N N

Exca

v. S

pits

Fromm No2Fromm No6



Period Site Mun

sell

(text

)

Spit

Ref

in T

ext

Dire

ct R

ef

Dra

win

g –

Col

our

Dra

win

g– C

ompo

sitio

n

Text

-Col

our

Text

-Com

posi

tion

30 Devon Downs N Y N N N Y N N Y N40 Lapstone Cave N Y Y N N N N N N N40 Tandanjal N N N N Y 1 N N N N50 N Y N N N 1 N N Y Y60 N Y Y N N Y N N Y Y60 Kenniff Cave N N N Y N N Y N Y Y60 Capertee No3 N Y N N N N N N Y Y60 Jimeri 1 N Y Y Y N 1 Y Y Y Y60 Currarong N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y70 Lake Mungo N Y N N N 1 N Y Y Y70 Cloggs Cave Y Y N N N Y N N N N70 Puntutjarpa Y Y N N N Y N N Y Y70 Devils Lair N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y70 Cave Bay Cave N Y N N Y 1 Y Y Y Y80 Louisa Bay N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y80 Moonlight Head N Y N N N Y Y Y N N80 Nauwalabila N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y80 New Guinea II Y Y N N Y 1 N N Y Y80 Great Mackerel N Y Y N N Y N N Y Y80 Nunamira N Y N N N Y N N Y Y80 Angophora N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y80 Disaster Bay N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y90 Puritjarra N Y Y N N Y N N Y Y90 Jimnium 1 Y Y Y N N Y N N Y Y90 Parmerpar Meethaner Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y90 Weipa N Y N N N Y N Y N Y90 Tunnel Cave N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y90 Malea N Y Y N Y 1 Y N Y Y90 Hann River Y Y N N N Y N N Y Y90 Serpents Glen Y Y N N Y 1 Y N N Y90 Riwi Y Y N N N 1 Y Y N N00 Box Gully Y Y Y N Y 1 N N Y Y00 Jiyer Cave Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y00 Weipa Y Y N N Y Y N N N Y00 Glen Thirsty N Y Y N N Y N N Y Y00 Bush Turkey 3 Y Y N N Y 1 N N Y Y

Line

ar D

ef.

Soil

Desc

(Tex

t)

Mun

sell

(Dia

g)

Fromm No2Fromm No6

Documents

The Section Drawing and Australian Archaeological · PDF fileThe Section Drawing and Australian Archaeological Practice Submitted by Jonathan Marshallsay Bachelor of Archaeology (Honours)