My research works through the evidence-the only evidence there is-the images themselves. The Bradshaws were compared to other rock art genres.
The first aim was to test the hypothesis that the Bradshaws resemble the rock art of somewhere else so much that they probably came from there. They were put in the context of other rock art throughout the world.
Grahame Walsh (1994:40) made a sequence division of the rock art of the Kimberley. He constructed three epochs and named them: 'Archaic', 'Erudite' and 'Aborigine'. He placed the Bradshaws in the Erudite Epoch. For me the use of the word 'erudite' assumed that the cultures from the other epochs were untaught and less developed. The use of the word 'Aborigine' suggested that there was no Aboriginal constituent to the previous epochs..
John Clegg, an archaeologist of the University of Sydney feared that this presumption might arise when he said:
What scares me about this Bradshaw claim is that Aboriginal people are having their Aboriginality stolen from them yet again. You know: the [idea that the] paintings are too good-therefore somebody else did them....If there was indeed another race, that raises the question then of who are the real Aboriginals.(Smith 1995:67)
The same problem occurred to other archaeologists. The following statements were made in a press release by the Australian Archaeological Association dated 18 December 1995:
It was pointed out that there was no archaeological evidence to support the claim that the Bradshaw figures were painted by people other than the ancestors of contemporary Aboriginal people....
...Ms Claire Smith, Australian Research Council Fellow at the University of New England, said 'such interpretations are based on and encourage racist stereotypes'.