Content uploaded by Robert G. Bednarik
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert G. Bednarik on Jul 23, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
113
Rock Art Research 2017 - Volume 34, Number 1.
ORIENTATION
Developing ICRAD
Introduction
Professor Tang Huisheng’s decision to establish
the International Centre of Rock Art Dating and
the IFRAO Congress in Guiyang City (Bednarik 2016),
has led to its establishment at a ceremony at Hebei
Normal University in Shijiazhuang on 16 June 2016.
That university already possessed facilities for AMS
radiocarbon, uranium-thorium and OSL analyses. The
purpose of ICRAD is essentially twofold: the institute
will conduct its own research in age estimation of rock
art, building on the work already undertaken in China
a comprehensive archive for global information on all
objective it needs extensive international collaboration
(see p. 116).
Therefore the new facility, headed by Tang, is to
become a world repository of all relevant results. This is
a feasible goal because direct dating methodology was
introduced only in the early 1980s, and an apparently
comprehensive record of all results announced until
1995 has already been published (Bednarik 1997).
Moreover, Rowe (2012) has provided a comprehensive
record of all rock art age estimation work published in
English until about 2011. Therefore this goal of securing
a complete archive of all published work in direct rock
art dating seems quite achievable, with the help of the
international community of researchers working in
‘Direct dating’ of rock art refers to the estimation of its
age by direct physical relationship of the petroglyph or
pictogram and the dating criterion, governed by testable
(Bednarik et al. 2010). It is therefore epistemologically
seeking to determine the age of rock art (for example
through excavation, stylistic claims, iconography
or technique), which refer to deductive reasoning
regarding untestable assumptions. To illustrate with
an example: concealment of rock art by a sediment
does not always provide minimum ‘direct dating’,
because the sediment stratum may not necessarily be
of the same age as the dating criterion used, such as
the radiocarbon age of some charcoal found in it. It
follows that direct dating claims need to comply with
the rigorous requirements of science. Science expects
exacting predictions for future observations about phe-
nomena that can be measured. The regularities within
these phenomena must be described as consistent pat-
terns, explained by refutable theories cast in terms of
of refutation and repeatability of experiments: repetitio
est mater studiorum (repetition is the mother of science).
Normative epistemic relativism concedes the lack of
framework-independent facts about general veracity,
Rendering rock art age estimation scientic
In applying these fundamental principles to the age
estimation of rock art it is essential that the basis of any
in archaeology is that its principal method, excavation,
This is not because these hypotheses are necessarily
false, but because much of the evidence for them has to
be destroyed in the process of securing it: the excavation
once, and the observations made in the process cannot
-
cepted on the basis of authority, which in proper science
is not satisfactory; testability is the principal criterion of
rock art. The records made in any determination must
be presented in such a way that another researcher can
try to duplicate (or refute) the reported results. There
are two ways of testing propositions: either using the
same method, or by an alternative method. To facilitate
described in such a way that the second researcher can
re-locate it reliably. In the second case, only the rock art
These rules have to govern the nature of the records
that are to be provided for direct rock art age estimates.
To illustrate the practical application of these tenets, the
method of microerosion is considered because in its re-
cent applications these factors have already been taken
Rock Art Research 2017 - Volume 34, Number 1.
114
care of. To check the results of this method is relatively
easy, provided the analyst testing the claim can re-locate
the micro-wane that was measured originally. To facili-
tate such re-location at any future time, even centuries
from now, the following data are required:
1. The site location: this can be provided by recording
coordinates or access description.
2. The individual petroglyph analysed: a photograph
of the motif is required on which the sampling
locality is marked.
3. The precise location of the micro-wane: a micropho-
tograph indicating the location is preferably pro-
vided.
that the correct feature has been re-located.
5. Sketch of micro-wane and its context: facilitating re-
location of the micro-wane in the topography where
the context may be morphologically complex.
6. Measurements of wane widths along the micro-
wane.
The application of this protocol is still in its infancy
(but it has been applied; Tang et al. 2017; Santos et al.
in prep.), yet its general extrapolation to all methods
used in rock art age estimation is necessary to render
testability, which is the core concept of science,
there is another requirement. Petroglyphs are not
ephemeral phenomena; they persist through the cen-
turies and millennia, over timespans determined by
the durability of the mineral in question and by the
ambient environment. The only minerals so far used
the potential to permit the remeasuring of their micro-
wanes over long periods. Such data can then in turn
the wanes as a function of time is the central criterion
of the method. The rate of wane formation can be
predicted, and one of the key features of science is the
predictability of phenomena and processes.
This example illustrates precisely why the recording
of such analytical work needs to be standardised to a
protocol that will stand the test of time, and will not
same underlying principles should be applied to all
other direct dating work: it needs to be repeatable and
its results have to be testable. Wherever possible, the
prospects of applying the same or a similar method
should be encouraged by providing the information
required for such re-analysis. With some methods it
with some, such as microerosion analysis, greater
resolution is likely to be required. But the primary
concern of the analyst must be that the information
needed to test the initial result in the future is furnished
in reporting such work.
The records of ICRAD
These principles need to be applied in the way
the records of ICRAD are to be organised. To begin
way as radiocarbon results are distinguished by a
distinctive label. This certainly applies to all future
work, but perhaps it can be extended to earlier dating
catalogued by ICRAD. Such a system has already been
introduced in the microerosion work of China and
Brazil, beginning with the successful campaign in the
as ‘direct dating’ of rock art. Without such a system the
uncollated and incompatible data, and a great deal of
valuable and time-consuming work may fail to reach
its full potential.
The following numbering system has been adopted
in the case of microerosion analyses. The unique code
the site is located in, followed by the name of the
site and the number of the motif (sampled motifs are
numbered consecutively, commencing with 1 for each
motifs separated from other such assemblages by a
distance of 50 m or more in every direction). If two
or more samples are determined from one motif,
either ‘EQ’ or ‘EF’. They stand for ‘erosion analysis of
the initial analysis, in the order of day, month and
year. For instance the second micro-wane measured
on Petroglyph No. 3 of the Helanshan site complex
in Ningxia Province, China, has the code ‘China-
Professor Tang Huisheng, Director of ICRAD, conducting
field microscopy at Jiangjunya, Jinping Hill, Jiangsu
Province of China, in 2014.
115
Rock Art Research 2017 - Volume 34, Number 1.
initial micro-wane width measurements were taken
Obviously this means that ICRAD also needs to
establish a register of all the sites listed in its catalogue.
The site register must contain information about the
precise location of the sites, essential details of their
nature, and of any publications relevant to the dating
be made available publicly, so that it is accessible to
all researchers, the site register will be of restricted
access. It is the policy of the International Federation
of Rock Art Organisations (IFRAO) not to make rock
art site locations publicly available because this would
endanger them and expose them to uncontrolled
visitation, which leads at least to degradation of the
rock art, and sometimes to its destruction. However,
the direct dating register can list the contact details
of the person or agency responsible for the site in
question, to whom applications of access need to be
directed. It should also list publications relating to the
rock art dating techniques, which would currently in-
clude radiocarbon analyses of carbonate (which could
be identified by ‘RCC’), oxalate (‘RCO’), charcoal
accretions (‘RCF’); and such methods as uranium-
series analysis of carbonate (‘UC’) or ferromanganese
deposits (‘UF’); optically-stimulated luminescence
(‘OSL’); cosmogenic radiation products analysis (‘CR’);
lichenometric analysis (‘LA’) and so forth. These codes
be used in digital searches of the catalogue. In other
its potential uses in the future needs to be anticipated,
so as to obviate the need for any future changes to the
system.
Summary
Tang’s establishment of ICRAD is a major
It is therefore important that the system of its global
archive of direct dating work be designed anticipating
ways this resource will be utilised by the world’s
rock art scientists. It will need to comprise two
registers: the catalogue of all rock art direct dating
results, and the register of all sites featuring in it.
Internet, where any researcher can search its pages
for customised information, such as the compilation
of a list of rock art datings by method, by region, or by
results — the three variables that are likely to be of the
greatest interest to scholars. This catalogue will also
need to feature a comprehensive bibliography of all
publications that have ever appeared on the topic of
The ICRAD catalogue needs to be organised by
a unique numbering system, and the coding system
established by microerosion dating projects conducted
a suitable structure. It lends itself to broadening to
pursuit — those applied in the past as well as those
that can reasonably be expected to be developed in
outpace the reigning routine of opportunistic forays
into rock art dating, which are often sensationalised,
and to replace them with a systematic regime of data
acquisition. It is obvious that such a well-organised data
bank will bring order into chaos and help a good deal
in assessing the performance of individual methods.
methods that are likely to thrive from taking such a
broadly based approach. During the pioneering phase
somewhat exploratory; it is with the maturing of a
discipline that more methodical practices become pos-
sible, and that systematic acquisition of knowledge
usher in this phase.
REFERENCES
and 2016. Microerosion
dating of Xianju petroglyphs, Zhejiang Province, China.
Rock Art Research 33(1): 3–7.
, R. G. 1997. Direct dating results from rock art: a
global review. AURA Newsleer
, R. G. 2016. The International Centre of Rock Art
Dating and Conservation (ICRAD). Rock Art Research
33(1): 111–112.
and
Y. A (eds) 2010. Rock art glossary: a multilingual
dictionary, second edition. Occasional AURA Publication
16, Australian Rock Art Research Association Inc.,
Melbourne.
, M. W. 2012. Bibliography of rock art dating. Rock Art
Research 29(1): 118–131.
and R. G. in prep.
Petroglyph dating in Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.
H. 2012. New discovery of rock art and megalithic sites
in the Central Plain of China. Rock Art Research 29(2):
157–170.
and G.
Purakala
H. and
the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Rock Art Research 21(2):
161–172.
W. and R. G. 2017.
Rock Art
Research
H. and Y. 2008. Dating and some other issues on
the prehistoric site at Jiangjunya. Southeast Culture 202(2):
11–23.
RAR 34-1228
Rock Art Research 2017 - Volume 34, Number 1.
116
Call for support
-
-
-
-
-
tanghuisheng@163.com
