A feasible model
The third requirement for a responsible outcome to this research was that it must be possible to construct a model to explain any resemblances found between geographical units. Such a model may not necessarily be true but it must be possible.
Images, in common with all artefacts, may be similar because they have similarities in function, use or meaning (thus the images I am using have in common those attributes which allow me to classify them as human). There are a limited number of ways of producing artefacts. These ways can develop independently. Deregowski (1995:9) has recently drawn attention to pin figures (stick figures), that are particularly good at showing movement and displaying associated accoutrements. There are similarities in methods of depiction, which could mean that the producing cultures have some sort of connection, or it could mean that the only connection is a common wish to show action.
If the cultures to which the images pertain could have had a common root, a cultural intermingling or the opportunity for a social contact through trade, ceremony or warfare, then and only then would it be possible to make a reasonable suggestion that these areas have been in some way connected.
A common ancestor
A seminar discussing 'The Origins and Significance of Northern Rock Art' was held at Melbourne University on 17 October 1996. One of the speakers was George Chaloupka. His topic was 'Parallels between dynamic figures of Arnhem Land and Kimberley Rock Art'. His address consisted mostly of slides of dynamic figures from Arnhem Land. At the end of his session he was asked this question:
Would you say there was any relationship between the art you've studied and the Bradshaw figures, any connection?
He believed that at a time of low sea level a group of people lived in Sahul on the Arafura Plain. He saw this group dividing for reasons unknown and forming two groups with related heritage and initially a common culture. He saw gradual change having an affect on both groups as time passed. When the seas began to rise both groups were forced to move ahead of it until they both finished up on what is now Australia, one group in Arnhem Land and one in the Kimberley.
The dividing group may, of course, be a construct.
Cultural contact
I was unable to locate historical evidence for the existence of trade or ceremonial connections between the Kimberley and Arnhem Land (Mulvaney 1976:72–94). Despite this, a land connection between the two areas has always existed.
The lack of current evidence of trade routes, ceremonial connections and other forms of intercommunication between Arnhem Land and the Kimberley did not imply that such could never have existed. The feasibility of some form of intercommunication in the past still exists. The two areas are within a few weeks' walk.
This model should be contrasted with the possibility of there being a similar model for cultural connection with Algeria, the other geographical unit that showed some degree of affinity to the Bradshaws in the visual analysis and no similarity in the statistical analysis.
It was difficult to construct any possible model in this instance. The vast distance involved and the lack of any trace of a progression over land in the rock art of the intervening geographical units both militated against the construction of such a model. It appeared unlikely that a culture that had had no association with the sea, such as the Tassili, would make its way to the Indian Ocean and then develop or acquire the necessary sailing and marine sustenance skills to either coast-hop to Australia or make a direct passage.
Results
Relatedness was regarded as a real possibility between the Kimberley and Arnhem Land and an impossibility between the Kimberley and Algeria.
Where a number of possible explanations exist it is prudent to take the simplest one. This model is not only the simplest but it has been established as the only realistic hypothesis from the evidence on the ground both in the Kimberley and in the larger environment of the world.