| Ayodhya (WAB 9:16)
Professor Peter Ucko has noted that he
was not a member of the WAC Executive in
1994, as Rowlands and Funari state he was.
Rather, he was interviewed about the Ayodhya
matter because he had been helping the WAC
President, Professor Golson, with the planning
of the Delhi Congress.
Jinmium (WAB 9:32-37)
Dr Paul Taçon asked that the following
letter be published after it proved impossible
to organize a correction from the author
of the article in question owing to scheduling
and communications difficulties.
Dear Dr. Owen,
I enjoyed your paper on Jinmium dating
in volume 9 of the World Archaeological
Bulletin. A more balanced, rational approach
to archaeological dating, such as yours,
is badly needed. However, there is a fundamental
error that needs correcting. On page 33
you state “Another indication of Jinmium's
antiquity is the scientifically-ascertained
age (30,000 years) assigned to rock art
in the site (Taçon et al. 1997), which was
based upon bees-wax figures adhering to
the walls of the rockshelter”. In the references
you then refer to a 1997 paper that has
not been published, rather than the correct
and very different paper in the journal
Antiquity. Indeed, I spoke with Graeme Ward,
editor of the workshop book you referred
to, who said the book, and the paper, will
not be published until late this year or
early next year (nothing came out in 1997).
Furthermore, it reports on a completely
different study, widely separated in space,
time and cultural affiliation. Finally,
beeswax dating was only a very small component
of the Jinmium rock-art study, with such
figures having only been produced in the
past couple hundred years (see Taçon et.
al 1997:958).The correct reference to cite
is: Taçon, P., R. Fullagar, S. Ouzman and
K. Mulvaney 1997. Cupule engravings from
Jinmium-Granilpi (northern Australia) and
beyond: exploration of a widespread and
enigmatic class of rock markings. Antiquity
71(2740:942-65.I feel strongly that a correction
should be published in the next issue of
the Bulletin so that interested scholars
may be directed to the right sources and
so our work will not be misinterpreted,
as so often happens with the enigma called
Jinmium! Finally, you will be interested
to know that a variety of evidence confirms
a lengthy occupation for Jinmium, certainly
beyond 6-10,000 years as the OSL ‘experts’
claim. However, the oldest levels of the
deposit are likely not older than other
old Australian sites, perhaps in the order
of 40,000 or more years. Future excavation,
rock art research and dating (over the next
2-3 years) will hopefully clarify matters.
Yours sincerely,
(Dr.) Paul S.C. Taçon
Head of the People and Place Research
Centre
Australian Museum
|
World
Archaeological Bulletin