What bird is that? Identifying a probable painting of Genyornis ...

1Number 73, December 2011

AbstractA large painting of an unusual emu-like bird was recorded in western Arnhem Land. The painting and its setting are described in relation to reported megafauna depictions in the region. Concordance with palaeontological evidence suggests that the painting was of Genyornis newtoni, one of the giant ‘thunder birds’ which some palaeontologists claim became extinct around 45,000 years ago. This image raises four particular questions: Is the painting 45,000+ years old? Did Genyornis survive in Western Arnhem Land until much more recently than the palaeontological record demonstrates? Did the collective memory of the painters retain the precise details of the extinct animal for many thousands of years? Or, is it an image of some imaginary bird/creation ancestor? It is concluded that the painting is most likely a representation of Genyornis newtoni but there is insufficient evidence to indicate any age for the painting.

IntroductionIn 2008, as part of the ongoing Jawoyn Cultural Heritage

Programme, Ray Whear and Chris Morgan from the Jawoyn

Association located an art site complex in western Arnhem

Land with a range of interesting features (Gunn and Whear

2007; Gunn et al. 2010). Subsequent assessment by the authors

in 2009 recognised one of the rockshelters as containing a

possible representation of the extinct flightless bird Genyornis

newtoni (Figure 1). A photograph of the image was sent to

palaeontologist Peter Murray, who confirmed that it did indeed

have the attributes of Genyornis. Extinct fauna, such as the

thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger), have been reported in Arnhem

Land rock art since the early 1970s (e.g. Brandl 1972). In the early

1980s the probable presence of extinct megafauna depictions in

the region was highlighted and it was proposed that the rock art

‘provides a unique opportunity to search for palaeontological and

archaeological evidence of the association of man and megafauna’

(Murray and Chaloupka 1984:106). In 1984, the oldest date for

ochre in an archaeological deposit in the Kakadu region was just

20,000 years (Jones and Johnson 1985), and a maximum age for

the depicted images was assumed to be less than 20,000 years

(Murray and Chaloupka 1984:105). As Genyornis is considered

by some to have become extinct around 45,000 BP (but see

debate below), the current image may add considerably to the

potential time-depth of Arnhem Land rock art.

Given the possible implications of the site, the Jawoyn

Association provided a press release to the media (Masters 2010;

Smith 2010). The site was recorded in greater detail in May–

June 2010 to provide an initial description of the motif and a

WHAT BIRd IS THAT?Identifying a Probable Painting of Genyornis newtoni in Western Arnhem LandR.G. Gunn1, L.C. Douglas1 and R.L. Whear2

1 329 Mt Dryden Road, Lake Lonsdale, VIC 3381, Australia [email protected]

2 Jawoyn Association Aboriginal Corporation, PO Box 371, Katherine, NT 0851, Australia [email protected]

Figure 1 Photograph of the ‘Genyornis’ image (Photograph: R.G. Gunn).

2 Number 73, December 2011

What Bird is That?

discussion on the potential implications for both palaeontology

and the archaeology of rock art. Further archaeological work at

the site is planned in the near future.

The Problem of Interpreting Species in Rock ArtFor the archaeologist, formal rock art studies tend to be

undertaken through either subject or structural analysis

(Morwood 2002:148ff). Of these, ‘subject analysis is the most

common means … to reconstruct the cultural and natural

contexts of the rock artists’ (Morwood 2002:148). Morwood

(2002) provided four limitations on this process:

• it only applies to figurative art;

• the conventions used by the artist may be unknown to the

researcher and hence may make identification difficult;

• the range of subjects depicted is selective, not random or

absolute; and

• the skill of the artists can vary and anatomical errors

may occur.

In addition, while the identification of a particular bird or

animal does not ascribe or infer any particular meaning to

the motif, it is also acknowledged that many proficient artists,

in all world cultures, have produced images of creatures that

are ‘unreal’, often having combined characteristics of various

animals (such as depictions of the ‘Rainbow Snake’ which can

contain elements of snakes, fish, crocodiles, emu and kangaroo,

see Munro et al. 2010). To further complicate the issue of

identification, post-production factors, such as weathering and

superimposition over hundreds or thousands of years, can lead

to misleading distortions.

In a self-deprecating paper, Macintosh (1977) compared

his earlier attempt to interpret rock art from his own medical

perspective (Macintosh 1952) with explanations given to Elkin

(1952) by knowledgeable informants. He conceded that it was

fool-hardy for any outsider to attempt to interpret Aboriginal

rock art without the assistance of someone with appropriate

cultural knowledge. He also concluded that there were four levels

to interpretation:

• identification of the figure (motif type);

• awareness of the social context of the shelter and motifs;

• elaboration of the broader significance of the motifs; and

• the ‘inner meaning’.

He suggested that schematisation existed at each of these levels

and that the ‘key’ to unlocking this was clear to the Aboriginal

artist but not to outside researchers. This paper had, rightly, a

profound impact on rock art recording over the following

30 years.

However, Macintosh’s attempt was made in the late 1940s

when little was known about the variety and styles of Aboriginal

rock art throughout Australia, and when recordings of

Aboriginal interpretations of rock art were almost non-existent.

In the past 50 years the situation has changed substantially, with

a small number of in-depth regional studies, such as those of

Chaloupka (1993) in Arnhem Land and Walsh (2000) in the

Kimberley, providing enough detail such that even outsiders can

now recognise regional styles and local forms of schematisation.

While this rarely assists in the interpretation of social meanings,

it greatly increases the reliability of our interpretations at

the first level: that of identifying what the image probably

represents. Similarly more recent, informed studies have assisted

in recognising the range of variation in depiction of certain

motif types (e.g. Arndt 1962a, 1962b; Elkin 1952; Gunn 1992;

Maddock 1970; Merlan 1989; Mulvaney 1996; Taçon 1992). On

a species level, few would have problems with recognising the

representation of a macropod. Further afield, there has been

little reluctance in accepting paintings of extinct or locally

extinct fauna in either Europe or northern Africa (e.g. Ambrose

2006; Bahn and Vertut 1988; Holl 2002; Lhote 1973), although

the acceptance of some of the proposed ages has been more

controversial (see Balter 2008).

Further, while there has been considerable consternation

regarding the interpretation of traditional Aboriginal subjects,

the same concern has not been raised for Aboriginal depictions

of so-called contact art (Chaloupka 1993; Flood 1997; Macknight

and Gray 1970; May et al. 2010; Taçon et al. 2010). For example,

maritime historians have little trouble interpreting the type and

country of origin of non-Aboriginal watercraft (e.g. Burningham

1994). While Akerman (1998) noted that the interpretation of

extinct fauna from rock art was fraught with problems, Clegg and

Ghantous (2003) considered that the identification of contact

animals was largely through intuition and experience, suggesting

that while some animals are readily accepted (i.e. interpreted),

others are less so.

The problems inherent in identifying an object or species

are fundamental to the acceptance or rejection of the

identification. Let us present a cautionary tale from fine art

studies. The small Renaissance oil painting catalogued as the

Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci, is arguably the most famous

single piece of artwork from the Western art tradition, for

its innovation, influence and mystique (McMullen 1975).

Despite coming from an historical period around 500 years

ago of which we have considerable written information, and

although ‘we are relatively well informed about the genesis of

the Mona Lisa’ (Zöllner 2007:154), the identity of the person

portrayed cannot be proven and the date of its execution

remains speculative. Despite intense and extensive scholarship

over the past 50 years, the number of potential sitters and

the time period of its production have been narrowed down

but neither have been accepted unanimously (Clark 1973;

Kemp 2006; Marani 2000; Zöllner 2007). In fact there is some

doubt that the painting is by da Vinci – there is at least one

other candidate (Kemp and Cotte 2010; McMullen 1975:6;

but see Marani 2000:183, 340). In another example, a newly-

discovered drawing by da Vinci was subject to an exhaustive

artistic and forensic study in order to assess its authenticity

(Kemp and Cotte 2010). Researchers examined the support,

technique, materials, stylistic attributes, documentation,

comparative analysis and later restorations and concluded

that, on the basis of ‘the accumulation of interlocking reasons’

(Kemp and Cotte 2010:187), the drawing could be accepted as

being by da Vinci. Whether or not it is authentic is irrelevant

to the present discussion, as it is the methods used to assess

the drawing and the qualifications of their conclusion

that is significant in the study of the Genyornis painting

(cf. Grann 2010).


R.G. Gunn, L.C. Douglas and R.L. Whear

In the study of fine art:

In general, scholars are trained to be skeptics [sic] … Part of our

business is to ask questions and raise doubts. Consensus is rarely

arrived at, and often it takes a generation or more (Wallace, an

authority on Michelangelo’s artwork, quoted in Esterow 2010).

For the purposes of this paper then, and in the words of the

vernacular, ‘if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks

like a duck’, we accept that we have reason enough to term it a

‘duck’ (and note Dobrez 2011). The interpretation of what the

‘duck’ signifies, however, is a far more complex issue that will not

be attempted here.

Natural EnvironmentThe painting in question is located in the central Arnhem Land

plateau, in the headwaters of the Katherine River (Figure 2). It is

on the northern wall of a shallow rockshelter (Figure 3) that sits

within a larger cluster of broken sandstone stacks (Jawoyn site

No. ARN-0124).

The Arnhem Land plateau consists of sharply dissected and

horizontally-bedded Proterozoic quartz sandstone units of the

Katherine River Group and Kurrundie Sandstone (Ferenczi and

Sweet 2005:2; Nott 2003) – the orthoquartzites of Hughes and

Watchman (1983). This is a very stable rock, being cemented by

silica, and contrasts with the quartz sandstone of the northern

outliers of the plateau which are cemented by kaolin (Hughes

and Watchman 1983:74). However, in both areas silicification has

in many places casehardened and stabilised the exposed surfaces

(Needham 1992). The sheer cliffs and gorge walls have been

formed by the erosion of the underlying softer sediments and the

retreating collapse of the exposed faces. The region is tectonically

stable and the surface sandstone has become deeply weathered.

While one-third of the northern plateau consists of practically

bare rock (Christian and Aldrick 1977:16), field observations

suggest that rock outcrops decrease in size and frequency towards

the south, with exposures being largely related to the western

escarpment and the major drainage lines of the central plateau

area, and only minor exposures in the southeast corner.

The prevailing sparse savannah woodland on the plateau in

which the rockshelter is situated is eucalypt-dominated, with

a characteristic understorey of numerous leguminous and

myrtaceous shrubs, and extensive spinifex and wiry grasses at

ground level (Ferenczi and Sweet 2005:2). Elsewhere vegetation

varies greatly with the environment, ranging from wetlands

and riverine species, to tropical rainforest taxa in the deeper

sheltered gullies.

Today, the region in which the site occurs is within the

tropical monsoonal climate zone of northern Australia. This

has a well-defined wet season with an average annual rainfall of

around 1560mm, occurring between November and April, and a

contrasting dry season between May and October. Temperatures

are generally warm-to-hot with an average maximum

temperature range from 38°C in the dry season and 32°C in the

wet season. The average minimum temperature is 19°C in the

dry season and 24°C in the wet season (Bureau of Meteorology

2010). These temperatures indicate that the area is not subject

to the dramatic extremes experienced in other areas of Australia

that can have a significant impact on rock preservation.

This climate, however, only applies to the past 500 years.

Previously, there were major changes ranging from high aridity

in the late Pleistocene (80,000-8000 BP), to warmer and wetter

in the early-to-mid-Holocene (8000-4000 BP, with c.1.5 times

present precipitation), followed by a sharp drop in rainfall to

around present levels (4000-2000 BP), and then a period of high

variability up until around 500 years ago (Allen and Barton 1989;

Bourke et al. 2007; Kershaw 1986).

Watchman (2004) found oxalate crusts over petroglyphs in

nearby Kakadu National Park to be >8000 years old and has

suggested that the ‘processes leading to crust formation probably

started in the late Pleistocene or early Holocene when climatic

conditions changed from cool and dry to warm and wet’ (Watchman

1991; see also Kershaw 1986). This higher rainfall probably resulted

in a period of increased cliff failure and block collapse of the

sandstone (cf. Twidale and Campbell 2005). However, shelters

within a few kilometres of the site under discussion have remained

Figure 2 Location of Jawoyn site ARN-0124.

Figure 3 View of the rockshelter containing the painting from the northwest (Photograph: R.G. Gunn).


What Bird is That?

relatively stable and were initially occupied over 45,000 years ago

(Geneste et al. 2010). In Western Australia, the Warton sandstone

that houses much of the Kimberley rock art is a similarly very stable

white quartzose sandstone, with optical stimulated luminescence

(OSL) dating of wasp nests indicating the rockshelter surfaces have

been stable for >30,000 years (Yoshida et al. 2003). Higher rainfall

in the mid-Holocene would have presented the period of greatest

threat to rock art.

Cultural EnvironmentThe site is a shallow rockshelter within the traditional lands of

the Jawoyn people, whose lands incorporate the central, western

and southern portions of the Arnhem Land plateau (Gunn

and Whear 2007). The shelter is one of nine art sites in a small

complex (ARN-0124), in close proximity to two larger complexes

(ARN-107 and 113). The other sites within this complex show

the full range of Arnhem Land rock art from handprints to

contact motifs, indicating occupation during all recognised art

periods (cf. Chaloupka 1993).

The rock art of the Jawoyn region has a close relationship

with that of the more studied art of the northern plateau

(e.g. Brandl 1973; Chaloupka 1984, 1993; Chippindale and

Taçon 1998; Lewis 1988; May and Domingo Sanz 2010; Taçon

1987, 1989, 1993; Taçon et al. 2004). This northern art occurs

on the same sandstone type as the Jawoyn plateau art and

contains many of the same rock art styles, particularly those

from the earlier periods (Chaloupka 1993; Gunn and Whear

2007). Although direct dating of the artwork puts the more

recent works at less than 4000 years (Nelson 2000), there is

no firm chronology for the wealth of earlier artwork other

than educated guesses (see Chippindale and Taçon 1998 for

a summary). Principal amongst these is the indirect evidence

of apparent images of several other extinct fauna. Depictions

exist throughout the plateau of an animal that closely

resembles photographs and museum specimens of thylacines

(e.g. Brandl 1972; Chaloupka 1993; cf. Beresford and Bailey

1981). As the thylacine has been extinct on the mainland for

at least 3000 years (Beresford and Bailey 1981), this suggests

that the paintings of these images are greater than 3000

years old. Many of these images are in a very good state of

preservation and some overlie well-preserved artwork that

appears considerably older than that of the thylacine images.

This keystone forms the basis for much of the proposed dating

of the early art on and around the plateau (Chippindale and

Taçon 1998).

Genyornis newtoniGenyornis newtoni was a large flightless bird endemic to

Australia (Murray and Vickers-Rich 2004; Trusler et al. 2010).

It stood around 2m tall and weighed around 230kg (Figure 4).

It had a wedge-shaped head, exceptionally deep lower jaw, very

short stubby wings, and massive hind legs with robust toes.

Comparison of the attributes of the most recent palaeontological

reconstructions with those in the painting suggests a close

correlation (see below). All of the dromornithids, of which

Genyornis newtoni is one of the smallest and the most recent

survivor, had distinctive strong and manipulatory beaks, which in

tandem with their large body mass suggests they were essentially

herbivorous, with a feeding process and diet comparable to

cockatoos (Murray and Vickers-Rich 2004:256). Its primary

habitat was extensive shrubland (Murray and Vickers-Rich

2004:288) and the principle cause of its extinction was probably

the marked reduction in this vegetation habitat dominated by

fire-sensitive scleromorphic woodlands (Murray and Vickers-

Rich 2004:317). This habitat had begun to decline during the

Pliocene but its decline was greatly accelerated to a precarious

level coincident with the assumed arrival of humans onto the

continent around 50,000–55,000 BP (Bird et al. 2002; Murray

and Vickers-Rich 2004:297-307; Price and Webb 2006:968;

Prideaux et al. 2007a, 2007b).

Fossil remains, including eggshell and two sets of possible

fossilised footprints and tracks, have been found in southeastern

Australia (Rich and Gill 1976; Rich and Green 1974). Present

distributions are confined to this area of the continent, although,

in line with the well-known axiom, absence of evidence cannot

be taken as evidence of absence unless strong additional

evidence to the contrary is available. During the late Pleistocene

the vegetation of the Arnhem Land plateau contained remnant

pockets of scleromorphic woodlands providing a suitable

habitat for Genyornis (Murray and Vickers-Rich 2004:298).

The preservation of bone in the acidic sands of Arnhem Land

is notoriously poor, with little being preserved prior to 4000

BP (Allen and Barton 1989:30; Jones and Johnson 1985:222)

and hence, for taphonomic reasons, the likelihood of finding

fossil remains of any Pleistocene fauna in Arnhem Land is

extremely remote.

Interpretation of the fossil evidence suggests that Genyornis

newtoni became extinct around 45–55,000 years ago (Bird et

al. 2003; Miller et al. 1999; Roberts and Brook 2010; and note

Baynes 1995 cited in Miller et al. 1999), although the Cuddie

Springs date of c.30,000 BP (Field and Boles 1998) remains

anomalous. On the basis of DNA studies in Alaska, mammoths

and horses appear to have survived longer than the recovered

fossil record indicates (Haile et al. 2009). Hence it is possible

that Genyornis, as well as other Australian megafauna, may have

survived in particular refugia considerably later than our fossil

record implies (Vickers-Rich, pers. comm., 2010). As qualified

by Murray and Vickers-Rich (2004:288), ‘the consensus is that

they were entirely gone by about 25,000 years ago’. However,

survival will have required refugia big enough to have supported

populations large enough to remain biologically viable for

several thousand years.

If these propositions are accepted then art has survived

in these shelters for many thousands of years. However, is it

possible for pigment art to survive for the proposed 45,000 years?

Figure 4 Reconstructed skeleton and profile of Genyornis (from Murray and Vickers-Rich 2004).



Figure 5 Digital tracing of the art panel.

Table 1 Motif list for the ‘Genyornis’ panel. A=uppermost (most recent); G = underlayer (oldest); L=linear; S=solid; O=outline; I=infill; Hst=handstencil; st=stencil (plus combinations of these); mf=middle finger length.

Layer Motif No. Technique Colour Form Motif Type Size (cm)

A 7 paint yellow L simple design –


A 21 paint yellow SL flying fox 21

A 13 paint yellow SL flying fox 20


B1 15 draw red OI grid 17

B2 1 paint red OI macropod 102

C 2 paint red OI macropod+joey 87

C 3 paint red L fragment –

C 10 paint red OI bird 150

D 4 paint red fragment bird –

D 9 paint red L spear –

E 6 paint red S anthropomorph >160

F 5 paint red OI Genyornis 166

G 8 stencil red Hst right hand mf 7

G 16 stencil red Hst unknown –


G 18 stencil red Hst left hand mf 8




G 22 stencil red unknown fragment –






G 28 stencil red object st unknown 17


What Bird is That?

To date the oldest dated pigment on a rock surface in Australia

is >28,000 BP (Campbell et al. 1996), with the oldest painted

motifs reportedly dated to >17,000 BP (Roberts et al. 1997; but

note arguments against this date in Bednarik 2010:99). Hence,

while it appears that pigment may survive 25,000 years, the

possibility of poorly-protected pigment surviving 45,000 years

has still to be demonstrated.

RecordingThe site and art panel was extensively photographed with

a Nikon D90 camera using a variety of lens and lighting

combinations. To produce a detailed recording of the motif, a

36Mb digital photograph was imported into Adobe Photoshop©

(36cm x 24cm @ 300dpi) and, using layers, was traced with the

pencil tool (3 pixel diameter), followed with the paint-bucket

tool when enclosed areas were defined. One layer concentrated

on the outline and areas of heavier pigment, while a second

concentrated on the areas of lighter pigment wash. Additional

separate layers were used for the earlier stencils and later pigment

layers (cf. Gunn et al. 2010; although in this case, the D-stretch

programme proved of little use clarifying the motif shape or

superimpositioning of the panel motifs).

The PaintingThe ‘Genyornis’ image is the largest and most central of 28

paintings and stencils across the panel (Figure 5). What remains of

the painting exists as a red ochre stain (cf. Hughes and Watchman

1983:44). The image was initially painted with an outline and

a pigment and wash infill (Figure 1). Subsequently, but of an

unknown time-depth, the outline was (partially?) repainted

with a heavier line. The pigment varies in intensity across the

figure owing to wash and over-painting but for the most part

the outline is distinct. Two areas, however, are indistinct: the left

(back) leg and the bottom section of the neck. The former is due

to the deleterious effects of salt and granular exfoliation, while

the latter is due to (salt-induced?) leaf exfoliation. The motif is

1.66m long and 1.07m wide, and the base of the toe is 1.7m above

the ground. The full extent of the figure is readily reached from

a large roof-fall block below the panel.

The ‘Genyornis’ stands with its head outstretched to the right,

tending to follow the form of the rock surface, although not

constrained by it. Based on superimposition and preservation,

no other artwork on the panel appears to be contemporary with

the figure. It is not clearly depicted in either a dead or lively pose

(cf. Murray and Chaloupka 1984:111). While the image appears

over-weighted towards the head, this is exactly what would be

expected in a near-wingless, terrestrially-mobile bird, where

the body mass is centred over the massive musculature of the

hind limbs (Murray and Vickers-Rich 2004:184). The particular

pose represented is clearly deliberate as the panel would have

been large enough to have the figure positioned upright had

this been required. It appears that the figure is portrayed in a

stylised pose in which particular traits are over-emphasised (cf.

Brandl 1980:8). Of these the head shape (including blunt beak),

long neck, stubby legs, tail-less rump and large heavy feet are

the dominant features. To stress this interpretation, the figure

is painted in twisted perspective, with the feet portrayed in plan

view to better show the three-toed structure, while the body and

legs are in profile (with the left leg overlapping the right).

Although large and apparently naturalistic, the painting is

not a classic of Chaloupka’s ‘Large Naturalistic figures’ phase

as it lacks the rapidly and surely painted ‘free-flowing’ outline

and the overall weightlessness of the animals (see Murray and

Chaloupka 1984 for full definition). In contrast, the outline

of the ‘Genyornis’ is heavily applied and, overall, the figure

has a decidedly stolid, weighty and monumental appearance.

However, in line with another of the characteristics of the

phase, the legs and neck are decorated with a striped infill

while the bulk of the outlined body is filled with an ochre wash

(and with a centre-line that parallels a schematic path of the

alimentary canal; although there are insufficient indicators to

suggest incipient x-ray features). The head is well-defined and

Figure 6 Plan and section of the ‘Genyornis’ art panel.



Figure 7 Shadow movement across the ‘Genyornis’ art panel, mid-June 2010.

Figure 8 Areas of water-wash and exfoliation on the ‘Genyornis’ art panel.


What Bird is That?

somewhat triangular in shape, but with a distinctive broad and

rounded beak, in contrast to the sharp pointed beak depicted

on emus. What appears to be a representation of an eye on the

original and in photographs is in fact an area of exfoliation

over which the painting was applied. It is unlikely that this was

an intentional use of the rock surface, as the painting is not

correctly positioned to take full benefit of the mark. The thighs

and legs are stocky while the feet are massive and with rounded

toes rather than sharp pointed claws. The rump is short and

blunt and there is no indication of feathers, such as are depicted

in apparently similar-aged paintings of emu (cf. Chaloupka

1993:109). This might indicate a ‘plucked’ bird or a featherless

(burnt) carcass following cooking (cf. Murray and Vickers-

Rich 2004:205). Alternatively, it might simply indicate the

compactness of the feathers (as in the related magpie goose) in

contrast to the loose feathers of an emu (cf. Trusler et al. 2010).

The art panel contains 27 other motifs (Figure 5). Sequentially,

the ‘Genyornis’ post-dates a series of faint red handstencils

including a ‘3mf ’ handstencil (motif 20). It was subsequently

superimposed by at least four other motifs (paintings in red

and yellow, and a red ochre drawing, see Table 1). The spear that

overlies the ‘Genyornis’ figure appears to be somewhat later and

whether it was placed in reference to the ‘Genyornis’ is unknown.

Some of the more recent paintings, including an overlying

large and solid male figure, have deteriorated significantly

more than the ‘Genyornis’ image. Although the reason for such

overlying figures to be less well-preserved is unknown, it is not

an uncommon pattern across the plateau. It is possible that

it results from different climatic conditions at the times the

different layers were painted, with the underlying paintings being

produced during a significantly drier period (such as during the

late Pleistocene).

‘3mf ’ handstencils have previously been considered

contemporary with the Dynamic style (Chaloupka 1984, 1993;

although this is currently under review). Most recent guesses

have proposed that the Dynamic style is around 10,000 years

old (Chippindale and Taçon 1998) which, if approximately

correct, makes the ‘Genyornis’ painting less than 10,000 years

old. However, as no dates can be convincingly ascribed to any

Arnhem Land styles/traditions prior to c.5000 BP, this is of little

help in either supporting or refuting the age of the ‘Genyornis’

figure. The superimposition does indicate that the ‘Genyornis’ is

not amongst the earliest pigment art on the plateau.

ShelterThe shelter is within a small residual stack of a white, well-sorted,

medium-grained, quartz sandstone (Marlgowa Sandstone, the

upper sandstone in the Kombolgie Formation, Katherine River

Group: Ferenczi and Sweet 2005:43; see also Hughes and Watchman

1983). The shelter was formed by the collapse of a large block from

the northern face of the stack, presumably due to stress release

from erosional undercutting (Figure 6). The overhang housing the

‘Genyornis’ figure is some 5m long and 3m high, with a maximum

overhang of 1.5m. The panel faces slightly east of north.

Such a shallow shelter would seem to offer little protection

for the artwork within. A plot of the shadow movement in

mid-June, however, reveals that all but the lower toes of the

‘Genyornis’ are in shade from 10am (Figure 7). At other times

of the year the shade would be greater, suggesting that the

‘Genyornis’ is protected from solar extremes, which can be a

major factor in pigment deterioration and rock disintegration

throughout the year (Thorn and Dean 1995). The panel

has been subject to water-wash (Figure 8) which doubtless

accounts for the change of colour and partial erasure of those

motifs on the left side of the panel (cf. Chaloupka 1978;

Hughes and Watchman 1983).

AssessmentPalaeontologist Peter Murray examined a photograph of the

motif in question and agreed that it had eight diagnostic features

consistent with Genyornis. These were:

• a deep convex bill, very unlike any casuariiformes;

• a globular cranium;

• relatively thick neck;

• indication of a crop (emus and cassowaries lack crops);

• unusual posture of the wing (unlike the pendulous wing

posture of emus);

• the proportions of the pelvic limb showing long tibiotarsi and

stout tarsometatarsi;

• the short, broad toes terminating in blunt, robust claws; and

• a dorsal profile exactly paralleling that of reconstructed

dromornithids and quite unlike an emu or a cassowary, in

which the vertex of the back is more anterior (Peter Murray,

pers. comm., 2010).

These concurrences are also borne out through reference

to the fossil fragments and reconstructed images in

Magnificent Mihirungs, the authoritative study on extinct

Australian Dromornithidae (Murray and Vickers-Rich 2004)

(cf. Figure 9).

Previously, Murray and Chaloupka (1984:106) had argued

that ‘the recognition of a species depends on a combination of

a few distinctive features rather than overall attention to detail’,

although in certain cases ‘a single well-represented feature [could

be] deemed sufficient to distinguish [an] animal from all forms

of taxa in the artists graphic vocabulary’. Consequently, Murray

(pers. comm., 2010), considered ‘that this is as fine a depiction of

a living Genyornis as we are ever likely to see’ and, hence, from a

palaeontological perspective, the painting is highly likely to be a

representation of Genyornis newtoni.

Clegg (1978) elucidates the problems of diagnosing the subject

of prehistoric pictures (pictures without the interpretation of the

Figure 9 Common distinctive traits between the painting and Genyornis.



artist). To assist in this task, he proposed counting the common

attributes of a picture and the target species on the assumption

that ‘a picture is of that target object which it most closely

resembles’ (Clegg 1978:20) and that by using numerical data

we can achieve a more objective assessment of the comparison.

However, as only a single potential image of Genyornis has so

far been found, and as the bird itself is known only through

reconstruction, the use of this method is not appropriate at

present, although his axiom given above remains pertinent

(see below).

In considering the painting to represent species other than

Genyornis, the possibility that the motif is a poorly rendered

image of an emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae) is dismissed, as the

few emu-like images recorded from what we believe are from this

period show distinctly pointed beaks, long sinuous necks and

indications of a feather coat (Chaloupka 1993:109; Jawoyn files).

Another possible contender is the cassowary (Pizzey 1980:22).

However, while the stout legs and large feet on the cassowary are

similar, the absence of the distinctive casque (leathery helmet-

like cap), throat wattles, and large claws on the painting suggest

this is highly unlikely.

The Dromornithidae, of which Genyornis is one genus, have

been tentatively assigned to the order of Anseriformes: ducks,

geese and screamers (Murray and Vickers-Rich 2004:34-35).

Of these, the closest surviving relative of the Genyornis are

the Magpie Goose (Anseranas semipalmata) and the Crested

Screamer (Anhima cornuta). The screamer is only found in

South America, while the Magpie Goose is common on the

coastal marshlands around northern Australia (Frith 1977:44-

63) and continues to be a favoured food for Aboriginal people to

the north of the plateau. While having a common ancestry with

Genyornis, the exterior form of the Magpie Goose has several

major differences to those in the painting:

• a fourth, backwards facing, toe;

• partially webbed toes;

• narrow (thin) legs;

• prominent cranial knob; and

• an overall more slender appearance than that expressed in the

present painting.

Otherwise, the ‘Genyornis’ image under discussion here does not

have reasonable similarities with any other known avifauna.

Previous Records of Possible Extinct Megafauna in Australian Rock ArtThe initial claim of a representation of Genyornis in Aboriginal

Australian rock art was made in 1907 following the recording of

a large three-toed bird track within the petroglyph assemblage

at Yunta, South Australia (Basedow 1907, cited in Tindale 1951).

However, Basedow’s claim was not repeated in a subsequent

article that highlighted possible diprotodon footprints

(Basedow 1914). The now well-known and so-called ‘crocodile

head’ petroglyph at Panaramitee North was reported in 1929

(Hale and Tindale 1929; Mountford 1929; cf. Berndt 1987). It

was noted that the area has not had environmental conditions

suitable for crocodiles since the early Pleistocene, although the

implications were not pursued to suggest an early Pleistocene age

for the petroglyph.

Hall et al. (1951) reported petroglyphs of the tracks of a ‘giant

emu’ from Pimba in South Australia, which was followed by a

comment from Tindale (1951:381) as to the ‘distinct possibility

that in Australia man may have been a contemporary of giant

extinct birds such as Genyornis newtoni’. Tindale then draws,

somewhat extremely, on late nineteenth century Aboriginal

mythology for support in the interpretation of the petroglyphs.

Paintings of extinct fauna in Arnhem Land have long been

recognised, particularly with representations of the thylacine

(Thylacinus cynocephalus: Brandl 1972; Chaloupka 1975, 1993;

Lewis 1977, 1988), thought to have become extinct parallel with

the arrival of the dingo around 4000 years ago. Other mainland

extinct fauna reported from Arnhem Land rock art include:

• Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii: Callaby and Lewis

1977; Chaloupka 1993; Lewis 1988);

• Thylacoleo, the marsupial lion (Thylacoleo carnifex: Murray

and Chaloupka 1984);

• Sthenurus, a giant macropod (Sthenurus stirlingi: Murray and

Chaloupka 1984);

• Zaglossus, a giant echidna (Zaglossus sp.: Murray and

Chaloupka 1984); and

• Palorchestes, a marsupial tapir (Palorchestes azeal: Chaloupka

1984, 1993; Murray and Chaloupka 1984; Lewis 1986).

The Tasmanian Devil became extinct on the mainland only

some 400 years ago (Archer and Baynes 1972; Guiler 1982),

while Zaglossus became extinct in Australia around 18,000 years

ago (Murray 1978). Palorchestes and Sthenurus were extinct by

25,000 years ago (concordant with Murray and Vickers-Rich’s

2004 ‘consensus’ minimum age for Genyornis)

A possible image of Sthenurus has also been reported

from Arnhem Land, but its identification remains dubious

(Chaloupka 1984, 1993; Murray and Chaloupka 1984). The

report of an image of Thylacoleo is similarly unconvincing,

although the reporting of two possible examples in the

Kimberley region (Akerman 1998, 2009; Akerman and Willing

2009) gives some support to the possibility of the species

within Arnhem Land rock art. Of interest is Akerman’s (1998)

description of one of the Thylacoleo paintings being on a very

exposed rock wall and yet appearing to correlate with Walsh’s

Irregular Infill period, which pre-dates the better known Gwion

(or Bradshaw) paintings (Walsh 2000) and has been tentatively

dated to >17,000 BP (Roberts et al. 1997). Lewis (1984:60) also

reported on the survival of ‘old’ red Mimi art on faces fully

exposed to annual monsoonal rains. Like Lewis (1984, 1997),

Akerman also equates the early art of the Kimberley with that

found in Arnhem Land. Thylacoleo, like Genyornis, is believed

to have become extinct around 45,000 years ago (Roberts et

al. 2001; Prideaux et al. 2007a) and hence an image of the

animal further supports either the possibility of 45,000 year

old paintings or of the notion that the proposed extinction date

may be less than is generally accepted.

Collective MemoryThe question of the human capability to retain the precise details

of the extinct animal for many thousands of years is considered

highly unlikely. This is because humans have a propensity to

modify copied visual examples (cf. Clegg 1979:27-30), provide


What Bird is That?

varying interpretations from witnesses of the same incident

(e.g. Mannan and Weishmann 2003), and incorrectly relay

verbal information.

While notions of a ‘giant emu’ in the most general terms

may have persisted into the ethnographic present (Dawson

1881:92-93), we cannot accept that such detailed knowledge of

the bird’s anatomy would be reliably transmitted either orally

or visually.

ConclusionRegarding the questions that began this paper, as we do not have

a living example of a Genyornis newtoni for direct comparison

and as the red pigment stain cannot be directly dated, we cannot

present certain and indisputable proof that this is a painting

of Genyornis newtoni. However, we have taken the first steps in

a similar approach to that of fine art studies and feel we have

presented sufficient evidence that, on the basis of probability, the

painting is indeed a representation of Genyornis newtoni.

Both the Genyornis painting and the previously recorded

Palorchestes painting are large and visually dominant remnant-

red paintings on vertical surfaces. Possibly contemporary, large

and dominant paintings of macropods appear in similar contexts

in other sites on the plateau suggesting that there was a particular

and important social role for these visually outstanding paintings.

The question of the painting being at least 25,000 years

old or greater cannot be answered on present data. Similarly,

the question as to whether Genyornis was present in western

Arnhem Land, or survived until much more recently than the

palaeontological record demonstrates, cannot be resolved at

present. Finally, as the ‘Genyornis’ image is not a part of the

living Jawoyn culture, informed methods cannot determine if it

is an image of some imaginary bird/creation ancestor. However,

the undertaking of further archaeological and palaeontological

studies at this site and elsewhere may help resolve some of

these questions.

AcknowledgementsOur thanks go to the Jawoyn Association and Margaret Katherine,

traditional owner, for permission to work on their sites and to

develop this paper. David Lee and Charlotte Anderson assisted

with the fieldwork and Chris Morgan flew us out to the site.

Particular thanks go to Peter Murray and Pat Rich for discussions

on the attributes of the image, Kim Akerman, Ken Mulvaney, Bert

Roberts, Matt Cupper and Graeme Ward for discussions on the

background for, and comments on, aspects of the paper. Further,

our thanks go to Bruno David, June Ross and an anonymous

referee for their constructive and supportive criticisms of the

paper, and to Robert Bednarik for his critical insights and

comments into the problems raised by our interpretation of the

motif. The title of the paper is taken from What Bird is that? A

Guide to the Birds of Australia, a popular guide by Neville Cayley

that served bird observers from 1931 until the advent of the

more environmentally aware generation of the 1970–1980s (e.g.

Pizzey 1980 etc).

ReferencesAkerman, K. 1998 A rock painting, possibly of the now extinct marsupial

Thylacoleo (marsupial lion) from the North Kimberley, Western Australia. The

Beagle 14:117-121.

Akerman, K. 2009 Interaction between humans and megafauna depicted in

Australian rock art? Antiquity Bulletin 83(322). Retrieved 27 September 2011

from http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/akerman322/.

Akerman, K. and T. Willing 2009 An ancient rock painting of a marsupial lion,

Thylacoleo carnifex, from the Kimberley, Western Australia. Antiquity Bulletin

83(319). Retrieved 27 September 2011 from http://antiquity.ac.uk/

projgall/akerman319/.

Allen, H. and G. Barton 1989 Narradj Warde Djobkeng: White Cockatoo Dreaming

and the Prehistory of Kakadu. Oceania Monograph 37. Sydney: Oceania

Publications.

Ambrose, D. 2006 30,000 BC: Painting animality – Deleuze and prehistoric painting.

Angelaki 11(2):137-152.

Archer, M. and A. Baynes 1972 Prehistoric mammal faunas from two small caves

in the extreme southwest of Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society of

Western Australia 55:80-89.

Arndt, W. 1962a The Nargorkun-Narlinji cult. Oceania 32(4):298-320.

Arndt, W. 1962b The interpretation of Delamere lightning paintings and rock

engravings. Oceania 32(3):163-177.

Bahn, P and J. Vertut 1988 Images of the Ice Age. Leicester: Winward.

Balter, M. 2008 Going deeper into the Grotte Chauvet. Science 321:904-905.

Basedow, H. 1914 Aboriginal rock carvings of great antiquity in South Australia.

Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (London) 44:195-211.

Bednarik, R.G. 2010 Australian rock art of the Pleistocene. Rock Art Research

27(1):95-120.

Beresford, B. and G. Bailey 1981 Search for the Tasmanian Tiger. Hobart:

Blubberhead Press.

Berndt, R.M. 1987 Panaramitee magic. Records of the South Australian Museum

20:15-28.

Bird, M.I., C.S.M. Turney, L.K. Fifield, R. Jones, L.K. Ayliffe, A. Palmer, R.G. Cresswell

and S. Robertson 2002 Radiocarbon analysis of the early archaeological site of

Nauwalibila I, Arnhem Land, Australia: Implications for sample suitability and

stratigraphic integrity. Quaternary Science Reviews 21:1061-1075.

Bird, M.I., C.S.M. Turney, L.K. Fifield, M.A. Smith, G.H. Miller, R.G. Roberts and

J.W. Magee 2003 Radiocarbon dating of organic- and carbonate-carbon in

Genyornis and Dromaius eggshell using stepped combustion and stepped

acidification. Quaternary Science Reviews 22:1805-1812.

Bourke, P., S. Brockwell, P. Faulkner and B. Meehan 2007 Climate variability in

mid to late Holocene Arnhem Land Region, North Australia: Archaeological

archives of environmental and cultural change. Archaeology in Oceania

42(3):91-101.

Brandl, E.J. 1972 Thylacine designs in Arnhem Land rock paintings. Archaeology

and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 7(1):24-30.

Brandl, E.J. 1973 Australian Aboriginal Paintings in Western and Central Arnhem

Land. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Brandl, E.J. 1980 Some notes on faunal identification and Arnhem Land rock paintings.

Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Newsletter (New Series) 14:6-13.

Bureau of Meteorology 2010 Climate Statistics for Australian Locations: Jabiru

Airport. Retireved 30 September 2010 from http://www.bom.gov.au/

climate/averages/tables/cw_014198.shtml.

Burningham, N. 1994 Aboriginal nautical art: A record of the Macassans and the

pearling industry in Northern Australia. The Great Circle 16(2):139-151.

Callaby, J.H. and D.J. Lewis 1977 The Tasmanian Devil in Arnhem rock art.

Mankind 11(2):150-151.

Campbell, J., N. Cole, E. Hatte, C. Tuniz and A. Watchman 1996 Dating rock surface

accretions with Aboriginal paintings and engravings in North Queensland. In

S. Ulm, I. Lilley and A. Ross (eds), Australian Archaeology ’95: Proceedings of

the 1995 Australian Archaeological Association Annual Conference, pp.231-239.

Tempus 6. St Lucia, QLD: Anthropology Museum, Department of Anthropology

and Sociology, University of Queensland.



Cayley, N.W. 1931 What Bird is that? A Guide to the Birds of Australia. Melbourne:

Angus and Robinson.

Chaloupka, G. 1975 Fallen emblem – or lingering star? EZ Review (1):2-4.

Chaloupka, G. 1978 Rock art deterioration and conservation in the ‘Top End’ of

the Northern Territory. In C. Pearson (ed.), Conservation of Rock Art, pp.75-88.

Perth: ICCM.

Chaloupka, G. 1984 From Paleoart to Casual Paintings. Monograph Series 1.

Darwin: Northern Territory Museum of Arts and Sciences.

Chaloupka, G. 1993 Journey in Time: The World’s Longest Continuing Art Tradition.

Chatswood, NSW: Reed.

Chippindale, C. and P.S.C. Taçon 1998 The many ways of dating Arnhem Land

rock art. In C. Chippindale and P.S.C. Taçon (eds), The Archaeology of Rock-

Art, pp.90-111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Christian, C.S. and J.M. Aldrick 1977 Alligators Rivers Study: A Review Report.

Canberra: AGPS.

Clark, K. 1973 Mona Lisa. The Burlington Magazine 115(840):144-151.

Clegg, J. 1978 Pictures of striped animals: Which ones are thylacines? Archaeology

and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 13(1):19-21.

Clegg, J. 1979 Notes towards Mathesis Art. Balmain, NSW: Clegg Calendars.

Clegg, J and S. Ghantous 2003 Rock paintings of exotic animals in the Sydney Basin,

New South Wales, Australia. Before Farming 1(7):1-12.

Dawson, J. 1881 Australian Aborigines: The Languages and Customs of Several

Tribes of Aborigines in the Western District of Victoria. Melbourne: George

Robinson.

Dobrez, L. 2011 Rock art, perception and the subject/object binary. Rock Art

Research 28(1):71-83.

Elkin, A.P. 1952 Cave-painting in southern Arnhem Land. Oceania 22(4):245-255.

Esterow, M. 2010 The real thing? Art News 109(1). Retrieved 27 September 2011

from http://www.artnews.com/2010/01/01/the-real-thing/.

Ferenczi, P.A. and I.P. Sweet 2005 Mt Evelyn, Northern Territory: SD53-05, 1:125,000

Geological Map Series Explanatory Notes. Darwin: Northern Territory

Geological Survey.

Field, J.H. and W.E. Boles 1998 Genyornis newtoni and Dromaius novaehollandiae

at 30,000 BP in central northern New South Wales. Alcheringa 22:177-188.

Flood, J. 1997 Rock Art of the Dreamtime. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.

Frith, H.J. 1977 Waterfowl in Australia. Sydney: Reed.

Geneste, J-M., B. David, H. Plisson, C. Clarkson, J-J. Delannoy, F. Petchey and R.

Whear 2010 Earliest evidence for ground-edge axes: 35,400±410 cal BP from

Jawoyn Country, Arnhem Land. Australian Archaeology 71:66-69.

Grann, D. 2010 The mark of a masterpiece. The New Yorker 23 November

2010. Retrieved 27 September 2011 from http://www.newyorker.com/

reporting/2010/07/12/100712fa_fact_grann.

Guiler, E.R. 1982 Temporal and spatial distribution of the Tasmanian Devil,

Sarcophilus Harrisii (Dasyuridae: Marsupialia). Papers and Proceedings of the

Royal Society of Tasmania 116:153-163.

Gunn, R.G. 1992 Bulajang – A reappraisal of the archaeology of an Aboriginal cult.

In J. McDonald and I.P. Haskovec (eds), State of the Art: Regional Rock Art

Studies in Australia and Melanesia, pp.174-194. Occasional AURA Publication

6. Melbourne: Australian Rock Art Research Association.

Gunn, R.G., C.L. Ogleby, D. Lee and R.L. Whear 2010 A method to visually

rationalise superimposed pigment motifs. Rock Art Research 27(2):131-136.

Gunn, R.G. and R.L. Whear 2007 The Jawoyn Rock Art and Heritage Project. Rock

Art Research 24(1):5-20.

Gunn, R.G., R.L. Whear and L.C. Douglas 2010 A dingo burial from the Arnhem

Land plateau. Australian Archaeology 71:11-16.

Haile, J., D.G. Froese, R.D.E. MacPhee, R.G. Roberts, L.J. Arnold, A.V. Reyes, M.

Rasmussen, R. Nielsen, B.W. Brook, S. Robinson, M. Demuro, M.T.P. Gilbert,

K. Munch, J.J. Austin, A. Cooper, I. Barnes, P. Molleri and E. Willerslev 2009

Ancient DNA reveals late survival of mammoth and horse in interior

Alaska. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(57):22352-

22357.

Hale, H.M. and N.B. Tindale 1929 Further notes on Aboriginal rock carvings in

South Australia. South Australian Naturalist 10:30-33.

Hall, F.J., R.G. McGowan and G.F. Guleksen 1951 Aboriginal rock carvings: A

locality near Pimba, S.A. Records of the South Australian Museum 9(4):375-379.

Holl, A.F.C. 2002 Time, space, and image making: Rock art from the Dhar Tichitt

(Mauritania). African Archaeological Review 19(2):75-118.

Hughes, P.J. and A.L. Watchman 1983 The deterioration, conservation and

management of rock art sites in Kakadu National Park. In D. Gillespie (ed.),

The Rock Art Sites of Kakadu: Some Preliminary Research Findings for their

Conservation and Management, pp.37-88. Canberra: Australian National Parks

and Wildlife Service.

Jones, R. and I. Johnson 1985 Rock shelter excavations: Nourlangie and Mt

Brockman massifs. In R. Jones (ed.), Archaeological Research in Kakadu

National Park, pp.165-222. Canberra: Australian National Parks and Wildlife

Service.

Kemp, M. 2006 Leonardo da Vinci: The Marvellous Works of Nature and Man.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kemp, M. and P. Cotte (eds) 2010 Leonardo da Vinci ‘La Bella Principessa’: The

Profile Portrait of a Milanese Woman. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Kershaw, P. 1986 Climate change and Aboriginal burning in north-east Australia

during the last two glacial/interglacial cycles. Nature 322:47-49.

Lewis, D. 1977 More striped designs in Arnhem Land rock art. Archaeology and

Physical Anthropology in Oceania 12:98-111.

Lewis, D. 1984 Mimi on Bradshaw. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2:58-61.

Lewis, D. 1986 The Dreamtime animals: A reply. Archaeology in Oceania 21(2):140-

145.

Lewis, D. 1988 The Rock Paintings of Arnhem Land, Australia: Social, Ecological and

Material Culture Change in the Post-Glacial Period. BAR International Series

415. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Lewis, D. 1997 Bradshaws: The view from Arnhem Land. Australian Archaeology

44:1-16.

Lhote, H. 1973 The Search for the Tassili Frescoes. London: Hutchinson.

Macintosh, N.W.G. 1952 Paintings in Beswick Creek Cave, Northern Territory.

Oceania 22(4):256-273.

Macintosh, N.W.G. 1977 Beswick Creek Cave two decades later: A reappraisal. In P.

J. Ucko (ed.), Form in Indigenous Art: Schematisation in the Art of Aboriginal

Australia and Prehistoric Europe, pp.191-197. Canberra: Australian Institute

of Aboriginal Studies.

Macknight, C.C. and W.J. Gray 1970 Aboriginal Stone Pictures in Eastern Arnhem

Land. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aborignal Studies.

Maddock, K. 1970 Imagery and social structure at two Dalabon rock art sites.

Anthropological Forum 2:444-463.

Mannan, J.B. and U.C. Wieshmann 2003 How accurate are witness descriptions of

epileptic seizures? Seizure: European Journal of Epilepsy 12(7):444-447.

Marani, P.C. 2000 Leonardo da Vinci: The Complete Paintings. New York: Harry N.

Abrams.

Masters, E. 2010 Megafauna cave painting could be 40,000 years old. ABC News

31 May. Retrieved 27 September 2011 from http://www.abc.net.au/news/

stories/2010/05/31/2913350.htm.

May, S.K. and I.D. Domingo Sanz 2010 Making sense of scenes. Rock Art Research

27(1):35-42.

May, S.K., P.S.C. Taçon, D. Wesley and M. Travers 2010 Painting history: Indigenous

observations and depictions of the ‘other’ in northwestern Arnhem Land,

Australia. Australian Archaeology 71:57-65.

McMullen, R.1975 Mona Lisa: The Picture and the Myth. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Merlan, F. 1989 The interpretative framework of Wardaman rock art: A preliminary

report. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2:14-24.


What Bird is That?

Miller, G.H., J.W. Magee, B.J. Johnson, M.L. Fogel, N.A. Spooner, M.T. McCulloch and

L.K. Ayliffe 1999 Pleistocene extinction of Genyornis newtoni: Human impact

on Australian megafauna. Science 283:205-208.

Morwood, M.J. 2002 Visions from the Past: The Archaeology of Australian Aboriginal

Art. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

Mountford, C.P. 1929 A unique example of Aboriginal rock carving at Panaramitee

North. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 53:245-248.

Mulvaney, K. 1996 What to do on a rainy day: Reminiscences of Mirriuwung and

Gadjerong artists. Rock Art Research 13(1):3-20.

Munroe, K., P. Carrol, N. Rothwell, G. Chaloupka, A. Murphy and P. Cooke 2010

Bardayal ‘Lofty’ Nadjamerrek AO. Sydney: Museum of Contemporary Art.

Murray, P.F. 1978 Australian megamammals: Restoration of some late Pleistocene

marsupials and monotremes. Artefact 3:77-99.

Murray, P. and G. Chaloupka 1984 The Dreamtime animals: Extinct megafauna in

Arnhem Land rock art. Archaeology in Oceania 19(3):105-116.

Murray, P.F. and P. Vickers-Rich 2004 Magnificent Mihirungs: The colossal

flightless birds of the Australian Dreamtime. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press.

Needham, R.S. 1992 Geology of the Walking Trails in Kakadu National Park-Jim Jim

Falls Area. Record 1992/80. Canberra: Bureau of Mineral Resources.

Nelson, D.E. (ed.) 2000 The Beeswax Art of Northern Australia [CD ROM]. Burnaby:

Simon Fraser University.

Nott, J. 2003 Kakadu-Arnhem Land Region, Northern Territory. Retrieved 2 October

2010 from http://www.crcleme.org.au/RegLandEvol/KakaduArnhem.

pdf.

Pizzey, G. 1980 A Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Sydney: Collins.

Price, G.C. and G.E. Webb 2006 Late Pleistocene sedimentology, taphonomy and

megafauna extinction on the Darling Downs, southeastern Queensland.

Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 53:947-970.

Prideaux, G.J., J.A. Long, L.K. Ayliffe, J.C. Hellstrom, B. Pillans, W.E. Boles, M.N.

Hutchinson, R.G. Roberts, M.L. Cupper, L.J. Arnold, P.D. Devine and N.M.

Warburton 2007a An arid-adapted middle Pleistocene vertebrate fauna from

south-central Australia. Nature 445:423-425.

Prideaux, G.J., R.G. Roberts, D. Megirian, J.C. Hellstrom and J.M. Olley 2007b

Mammalian responses to Pleistocene climate change in southeastern Australia.

Geology 35:33-36.

Rich, P.V. and E.D. Gill 1976 Possible Dromornithid footprints from Pleistocene

dune sands of southern Victoria, Australia. Emu 76:221-223.

Rich, P.V. and R.H. Green. 1974 Bird footprints at South Mount Cameron, Tasmania.

Emu 74:245-248.

Roberts, R.G. and B.W. Brook 2010 And then there were none? Science 327:420-422.

Roberts, R.G., T.F. Flannery, L.K. Ayliffe, H. Yoshida, J.M. Olley, G.J. Prideaux, G.M.

Laslett, A. Baynes, M.A. Smith, R. Jones and B.L. Smith 2001 New ages for the

last Australian megafauna: Continent-wide extinction about 46,000 years ago.

Science 292:1888-1892.

Roberts, R.G., G. Walsh, A. Murray, J. Olley, R. Jones, M. Morwood, C. Tuniz, E.

Lawson, E. MacPhail, D. Bowdery and I. Naumann 1997 Luminescence dating

of rock art and mud-wasp nests in northern Australia. Nature 387:696-699.

Smith, B. 2010 Emu or genyornis? Answer holds key to age of rock paintings. The

Age 1 June. Retrieved 27 September 2011 from http://www.theage.com.au/

entertainment/art-and-design/emu-or-genyornis-answer-holds-key-

to-age-of-rock-paintings-20100531-wrch.html.

Taçon, P.S.C. 1987 Internal – external: A re-evaluation of the ‘x-ray’ concept in

western Arnhem Land rock art. Rock Art Research 4(1):36-50.

Taçon, P.S.C. 1989 From Rainbow Snakes to X-Ray Fish: The Nature of the Recent

Rock Painting Tradition of Western Arnhem Land, Australia. Unpublished

PhD thesis, Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies,

Australian National University, Canberra.

Taçon, P.S.C. 1992 ‘If you miss all this story, well bad luck’: Rock art and the validity

of ethnographic interpretation in western Arnhem Land. In M.J. Morwood

and D.R. Hobbs (eds), Rock Art and Ethnography, pp.11-18. Occasional AURA

Publication 5. Melbourne: Australian Rock Art Research Association.

Taçon, P.S.C. 1993 Regionalism in the recent rock art of western Arnhem Land,

Northern Territory. Archaeology in Oceania 28(3):112-120.

Taçon, P.S.C., S.K. May, S.J. Fallon, M. Travers, D. Wesley and R. Lamilami 2010 A

minimum age for early depictions of Southeast Asian praus in the rock art of

Arnhem Land, Northern Territory. Australian Archaeology 71:1-10.

Taçon, P.S.C., E. Nelson, C. Chippindale and G. Chaloupka 2004 The beeswax rock

art of the Northern Territory: Direct dating and a ‘book of record’. Rock Art

Research 21(2):155-160.

Thorn, A. and J.C. Dean 1995 Condition surveys: An essential management

strategy. In G.K. Ward and L.A. Ward (eds), Management of Rock Art Imagery,

pp.116-123. Occasional AURA Publication 9. Melbourne: Australian Rock Art

Research Association.

Tindale, N.B. 1951 Comments on supposed representations of giant bird tracks at

Pimba. Records of the South Australian Museum 9(4):381-382.

Trusler, P., P. Vickers-Rich and T.H. Rich 2010 The Artist and the Scientists: Bringing

Prehistory to Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Twidale, C.R. and E.M. Campbell 2005 Australian Landforms. Dural, NSW:

Rosenberg.

Walsh, G.L. 2000 Bradshaw Art of the Kimberley. Toowong, QLD: Takarakka Nowan

Ka Publications.

Watchman, A.L. 1991 Age and composition of oxalate-rich crusts in the Northern

Territory, Australia. Studies in Conservation 36(1):24-32.

Watchman, A.L. 2004 Minimum age for a petroglyph on a boulder of significance

in southern Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory, Australia. Rock Art

Research 21(2):187-195.

Yoshida, H., R.G. Roberts and J.M. Olley 2003 Progress towards single grain optical

dating of fossil mud-wasp nests and associated rock art in northern Australia.

Quaternary Science Review 22:1273-1278.

Zöllner, F. 2007 Leonardo da Vinci: The Complete Paintings and Drawings. Köln:

Taschen.

Date post:	31-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	truongkhuong
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

What bird is that? Identifying a probable painting of Genyornis ...

Documents