The Use of Harris Matrices in Rock Art

The Use of Harris Matrices in Rock Art Research
Oxford Handbooks Online

Edward Harris and Robert G. Gunn
The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Rock Art
Edited by Bruno David and Ian J. McNiven
Subject: Archaeology, Archaeological Methodology and Techniques

Online Publication Date: Mar 2017 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190607357.013.18
Abstract and Keywords
The Harris Matrix was developed in the 1970s to correctly interpret the sequence of data
derived from archaeological excavations. When layers of pigment are applied over
surfaces to make rock art, they also form sequences through time. Understanding motif
superimpositions is a key to understanding sequential changes in rock art repertoires.
The use of the Harris Matrix in rock art research was first proposed by Chippindale and
Taçon in the 1990s and was used to derive a firm sequence for western Arnhem Land
rock art in northern Australia. Their work was amplified in subsequent larger projects in
South Africa that clearly demonstrated the potential of the Harris Matrix in rock art
studies. Despite these successes, the Harris Matrix has been little employed elsewhere;
this chapter is a timely re-evaluation of the method and its underlying principles.
Keywords: Harris Matrix, superimposition, sequence, chronology
Introduction
The Harris Matrix is a diagrammatic way of representing how layers are superimposed:
those superimposed layers may be of soil in the ground, of accretions on objects, or—the
one of central importance to rock art studies—of paintings on walls. In many cases, the
superimposition sequence will be simple and the sequence of layers readily obvious.
Where the patterning is more complex—too difficult to make rapid sense of by simple
inspection—a graphic representation can greatly assist in visualizing the pattern of
superimposition, making the chronology easier to analyse. Harris Matrices provide such a
method.
Page 1 of 19
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use.
Subscriber: University of Groningen; date: 05 May 2018

On a painted panel, the various layers of paint are micro-strata, equivalent to soil layers
in an archaeological site. Superimposed motifs can be sequentially ordered into a relative
sequence; then, if an absolute age is known for any given motif or layer (such as by
radiocarbon dating a particular image made of charcoal), the relative sequence can be
‘locked in’ to an absolute time frame. Although Harris Matrices have been applied to soil
layers dating back to the 1970s and to rock art by a few researchers since the 1990s, the
method remains underutilized in rock art research. Here, we describe the origins of the
Harris Matrix in ‘dirt archaeology’, explore its application in rock art research, and
demonstrate its usefulness by analysing the sequence in a complex rock art site in
northern Australia.
Harris Matrices and Stratigraphy in Rock Art

The science of archaeological stratigraphy is the foundation upon which the data derived
from excavations, or from any other stratigraphic situation (such as rock art), can be
correctly interpreted. Understanding the principles of a site’s stratigraphy is the bedrock
underlying the success of archaeology as a historical discipline. Since the publication of
Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy (Harris 1979b, 1989), there can be no excuse
for an ignorance of stratigraphy or for using arbitrary excavation units that ignore
stratigraphic contexts.
The discipline of archaeology evolved from a primary interest in the collection of artefacts
from archaeological sites. Deposits, or ‘layers’ which contained the artefacts, were often
summarily removed in order to retrieve the objects of interest. Often, therefore, the
stratification of the site was not fully recorded (but see Browman & Givens 1996 for some
notable exceptions). In the 1950s, archaeological publications began to exhibit a better
understanding of the principles of archaeological stratigraphy, in particular with regard
to the nature of surfaces. The stratigraphic importance of surfaces, however, did not
come into full realization until the 1970s (Harris 2013). Thus, in that 20-year period,
controversy arose between the recording of pit sections, or profile drawings of
stratification, that showed a ‘naturalistic’ image in which surfaces were not defined by
hard lines, and those in which they were. What was not explicitly stated, and perhaps not
fully understood at the time, was that surfaces rather than deposits were the key to the
interpretation of stratification, for without the identification of the archaeological
surfaces, the ‘stratigraphic sequence’ for a site (rather than the sequence of
stratification, as shown in a profile through the depth of a site) could not be compiled.
The development of stratigraphic theory continued through the 1960s, resulting in the
identification of features such as ‘robber trenches’, describing their structural nature as
holes rather than emphasizing the stratigraphic surface unit that was created in their
making. In other words, there was a coming realization that surfaces were important for
stratigraphic analyses, but that understanding remained rooted in the mainly deposit-
oriented view of the stratification. Since the 1980s, stratigraphic principles have been
Page 2 of 19

increasingly applied systematically to investigate the sequence of artworks on surfaces

such as rock walls, standing (as opposed to fully buried) structures, and other
circumstances that involve stratification. The heightened awareness of the significance of
stratigraphy, coupled with the use of Harris Matrices, can revolutionize the analysis and
interpretation of rock art and other archaeological phenomena that are inherently
stratigraphic in nature.
Stratification is a compilation of ‘marks in time and place’ (space)—in our present

interest, the accumulation of paint on a wall. Paint ‘deposits’ are a unique type of
stratigraphic unit in that the surface of an artwork such as a painting or stencil cannot be
separated from the paint layer itself, the pigment layer being tightly bonded. Past and
present surfaces often occupy a far greater period of time than do the individual layers
themselves: a paint surface created in just a few minutes commonly endures for
hundreds, even thousands of years. This basic principle of stratigraphy was originally
outlined by James Hutton, the father of geology, in 1785 (Hutton 1788).
The value of the surface aspect of stratigraphic units in an archaeological context, not
fully understood until the last quarter of the twentieth century, expanded our
understanding and interpretation of archaeological stratigraphy. The reconstruction of an
archaeological site, of deposits on a painted panel, is the reconstruction of its surfaces;
that is to say, of the topography (spatial configuration) of the site. Such a topographic
reconstruction can only occur through reference to the site’s ‘stratigraphic sequence’, a
sequence made clear and visible through the medium of a Harris Matrix (Figure 1).
Click to view larger

Figure 1. Harris Matrix sheet with insets showing
how stratigraphic relations are drawn.
A: The motifs are in superposition. B: The two motifs

are not in superposition. C: The motifs may be
correlated because they are in common sequence.
Page 3 of 19

Provided by authors. For the competent

construction of a Harris
Matrix, and for the unambiguous graphic representation of the relative chronology of an
archaeological site, it is necessary that (1) all surfaces be recorded because these are of
primary importance to the interpretation of stratification; and (2) the Law of
Stratigraphical Succession be applied, so that redundant stratigraphic relationships can
be discarded. Harris Matrices and the principles of archaeological stratigraphy
associated with it have proved of enduring value, changing the way excavated deposits
are understood and analysed and expanding the two-dimensional paradigm (illustrated by
sections) to the four-dimensional one of the stratigraphic sequence, as illustrated in a
Harris Matrix. The advent of geographical information systems (GIS) and three-
dimensional laser scanning has added great value to that paradigm change because much
of the time-consuming recording and representation of surfaces has been alleviated by
those digital methods. What has still to happen is the equivalent revolution in analysing
rock art sequences.
Creation of Stratigraphic Sequences (Harris

Matrices)
The interpretation of an archaeological site or rock art panel’s stratigraphy and its
resolution into a stratigraphic sequence rely on the application of the Law of
Stratigraphical Succession. To best achieve such an interpretation, the units of
stratification can be compiled into the format of a Harris Matrix. In that task, the Law of
Stratigraphical Succession is of paramount importance for without its application the
stratigraphic sequence cannot be clarified and redundant relationships cannot be
deleted.
The Law of Stratigraphical Succession states that ‘A unit of archaeological stratification

takes its place in the stratigraphic sequence of a site from its position between the
undermost (or earliest) of the units which lie above it and the uppermost (or latest) of all
the units which lie below it and with which the unit has a physical contact, all other
superpositional relationships being redundant’ (Harris 1979a: 34).
The difference between stratification (all units stuck together) and a stratigraphic
sequence (units separated into relative time relationships) can be illustrated by analogy
with a spring-loaded toy, usually of an animal standing on a base that contains the spring.
The upright shape and individual parts of the animal, say a giraffe, are held together by
strings running through its body, those strings being akin to the lines of a Harris Matrix
connecting the boxes of the stratigraphic units. When the base of the toy is pressed
upwards, the animal collapses into a heap of ‘deposits’ that in effect comprises a mass of
stratification wherein the parts of the animal have many more physical relationships with
one another, most of which have to be discarded when the Law of Stratigraphical
Page 4 of 19

Succession is applied. That happens when the spring in the base of the toy is released
and the giraffe stands upright, thus creating its stratigraphic sequence from the
compacted stratified version of the animal. The main task for the archaeologist in any
stratified context is to create such a stratigraphic sequence from the compact mass of
stratification, be it composed of usual surfaces and deposits or the overlaid ‘masses’ of
rock art images or ‘deposits’. As with usual units, or rock art units, some units will not be
in superposition (physically overlaid) with others in the site, and thus multilinear
stratigraphic sequences usually pertain in most archaeological contexts. The term
‘superpose’ in geology and archaeology means to cover one thing with another (such as a
soil layer). ‘Superimpose’ is used in graphics to indicate the occurrence of one motif over
another, but where the underlying motif is largely visible (Murray & Murray 1972).
The compilation of Harris Matrices is based on a question of relative time; that is to say,
between any given units in superposition, the archaeologist asks: ‘Which came first?’ The
means by which the answers are compiled into a Harris Matrix, that is, a stratigraphic
sequence, are detailed in the second edition of Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy
(Harris 1989), which is freely available online at www.harrismatrix.com in a number of
languages.
The Value of Stratigraphic Sequences in Rock

Art Analysis
Before the advent of the Harris Matrix and its full publication in 1979, the phrase
‘stratigraphic sequence’ was little used in archaeology. Where it did appear, it generally
meant the compacted ‘sequence of stratification’ as exemplified in a section drawing or,
in the case of an art panel, a detailed recording of all motifs and their interrelationships,
which are the only physical evidence from which to compile the stratigraphic sequence.
The stratigraphic sequence of an art panel, however, is only valid for that particular art
panel and cannot represent the full stratigraphic sequence of a site if the site contains
more than one art panels. Each art panel of the site will have a different stratigraphic
sequence: a generalized sequence cannot be rationalized unless all surfaces of the art
panels have been recorded. Thus, the surfaces provide the connectors between art
panels. Indeed, if all surfaces are recorded, true sections can be compiled digitally
wherever wished to illustrate the stratigraphic depth and physical arrangement of a site
at any desired panel.
Sections illustrate the thickness or depths of deposits or art layers on a particular plane;
that is one of their values. They are of limited value in the reconstruction of a site
because that task rests with surfaces, which of course must be recorded in plan form if
the topographic history of a site is to be presented in a contoured format. So, sections
provide the depth, or layer, dimension of a site; plans fulfil the second and third
dimensions of length and width, or area; and the stratigraphic sequence supplies the
Page 5 of 19

fourth dimension of relative time. One of the roles of the contents of the art layers is to
impart dates or intervals of time to the stratigraphic sequence so that it may be
positioned in relation to gradations in absolute time or calendar years.
The remains present within a deposit are not necessarily the most reliable evidence for
the integrity of a site’s or panel’s stratigraphy because artefacts can move more or less
imperceptibly within and between layers, and art motifs can be destroyed by natural
causes before a subsequent layer is produced. Following recording of the rock art, the
resultant stratigraphic sequence becomes the main ‘pattern’ to which the analysis of the
motifs must conform. That is the ultimate value of a stratigraphic sequence: the relative
time sequence signalled by a site’s stratigraphy, as expressed in a Harris Matrix diagram.
Stratigraphic sequences have import for rock art sites and others that cannot be
excavated in the normal manner of archaeological excavations. Yet the stratification of
such sites can be arranged into stratigraphic sequences based upon the superposition, or
not, of the individual deposits/surfaces of paint. Once compiled, the extension of the
sequence to other parts of the site will depend upon analysis, for example, as that of the
imagery and chronology, in order to understand the development of the site and its
stratigraphic sequence in absolute time. The types of analysis required to achieve this
end are discussed in this chapter, but if the archaeological tasks are to be completed with
competency, the task must have a stratigraphic sequence against which those analytic
results can be verified.
The eminent nineteenth-century geologist Charles Lyell aptly noted that stratification is
‘undesignedly commemorative of former events’ (Lyell 1875: I, 3). Thus, when expressed
as a stratigraphic sequence, the sequence is an unbiased record of the past against which
all later analyses must be tested in part or in the whole. Or, to rephrase the matter:
stratigraphic sequences, being composed from the evidence of undesigned stratification,
are the unbiased testing patterns for archaeological sites. The Harris Matrix is the only
way to properly graphically represent such relative time sequences from rock art and
other archaeological sites, no matter the origins of the deposits or the nature of the
cultural and ecological material remains contained within the deposits. Harris Matrices
are of universal application and thus should be considered the ‘industry standard’ for any
archaeological site or context that has stratigraphic entities, including rock art.
Unlike archaeological excavation, where absolute chronology is routine through

radiocarbon dating and other dating techniques, in rock art studies the ability to derive
absolute dates is severely limited due to the absence or paucity of datable material. For
this reason, relative dating is of fundamental importance in studying and analysing rock
art and, with it, the importance of Harris Matrices as the most advanced method we have
to derive the maximum information from what we can reliably observe in the field. With
few indications that the problems of absolute dating of rock art will soon be resolved, this
volume’s editors have chosen the Harris Matrix as a subject deserving a full chapter, even
though previous guides to rock art studies have barely mentioned the method.
Page 6 of 19

The Harris Matrix in Rock Art Studies

The use of Harris Matrices for interpreting rock art sequences was first proposed in the
1990s (Chippindale & Taçon 1993; Loubser 1997). Chippindale and Taçon were studying
the rock art of western Arnhem Land, Australia, an area with thousands of rock art sites
(e.g., see Edwards 1979), many of which are profusely decorated with a wide variety of
colours, subjects, and manners of depiction (e.g., Chaloupka 1993). While two relative
chronologies for the region’s art already existed at the time of their study (Chaloupka
1984; Lewis 1988), these were developed using different approaches and their
interrelationships were unclear. Chippindale, knowing the success of the Harris Matrix in
addressing the complex and intricate stratigraphies then being addressed in the urban
excavations of historic London, hoped the problem of interpreting the chronology of
western Arnhem Land rock art had sufficient in common that the Harris Matrix might be
a useful method. It was. Selecting two art panels that displayed clear superimposition of
different manners recognized in the art, they were able, using the Harris Matrix, to
derive a firm sequence from them; this was reported in summary form (Chippindale &
Taçon 1993) without publishing an actual matrix. While the essential point of this first
attempt was correct, subsequent work with larger scale studies in South Africa (Russell
2000, 2012; Swart 2004), followed by studies elsewhere (Gunn, David, Delannoy, &
Katherine (in press); Gunn, Ogleby, Lee, & Whear 2010; Keyser 2001; Magar & Davila
2004), has been stronger in its analytical technique and has reported the actual sequence
in clearer graphics.
In her pioneering study, Russell (2000) examined four panels of San rock paintings
involving 255 motifs at the single site of Main Caves North in KwaZulu-Natal, South
Africa. She examined whether ‘groups of variables tended to occur in the same position in
the painted sequence and could be defined as a particular painted period’ (Russell 2000:
62). The Harris Matrix was able to highlight discernible trends in the art. Russell’s
‘periods’ correlated well with the proposed sequences of earlier researchers working in
adjacent areas of the Drakensberg, thus confirming the likely reliability of their findings.
The Harris Matrices further revealed that some select artistic traits were better
indicators of relative chronology than others (polychrome art was better than
monochrome, and paintings of eland were better than human figures for determining
relative chronology). Russell did warn, however, that changes in the manner of depiction
(usually glossed as ‘style’) from one layer to the next were not necessarily indicative of
distinct stylistic or chronological breaks, citing Australian studies that show how art
styles can differ within the context of site use and that more than one art style (such as a
manner of representation) could be found within a single period of time (Rosenfeld &
Smith 1997).
Following Russell (2000), Swart (2004) recorded and compared two widely separated
sites in the uKhahlamba-Drakensberg Park (UDP), again in South Africa, utilizing Harris
Matrices. She then compared her results with sequences from previous studies elsewhere
Page 7 of 19

in the UDP, finding regional continuity and change and some general patterns in the
structure of the art. Swart then attempted to correlate her findings with absolute dates
derived from pigment and oxalate crusts (Mazel & Watchman 1997, 2003). The results
were promising, but she suggested that ‘more site-specific absolute dating, based on
relative sequences, is necessary’ (Swart 2004: 33).
The potential of Harris Matrices to assist in the interpretation of rock art sequences has
therefore been well demonstrated, but to date remain little used in the development or
clarification of regional rock art sequences. Importantly, a method for resolving temporal
relationships between units (motifs) within multilinear rock art sequences that do not
have superimpositional links has not been fully developed. Unlike artefacts excavated
from stratified deposits, rock art is rarely recovered in readily observed, uniform layers.
Harris Matrices allow for the recognition of relationships between individual motifs but
only as individual entities. To construct motif layers or strata from the artwork (i.e.,
aggregating motifs from the same time period) from which ‘broad generalised painting
periods or phases’ (Swart 2004: 15) might be constructed, remains the most subjective
part of the interpretative process. Common artistic attributes are the usual basis for
aggregation (Chippindale & Taçon 1993; Keyser 2001). For example, Chippindale and
Taçon (1993: 36) used technique, pigment, and manner (following Chaloupka’s promoted
styles) to establish ‘equivalence’ (where motif sequence was not demonstrated). However,
Chaloupka’s proposed styles are, if at all, poorly defined, and their identification can vary
from researcher to researcher. In contrast, Russell (2000: 61) and Magar and Davila
(2004: 131) used various artistic and technical traits of the artworks for the purpose of
aggregation:
When a group of motifs share a number of attributes such as similar action,

direction and painting technique and superpositional position, I assume that they
may be contemporaneous and consequently refer to a ‘painting period’.
(Russell 2000: 61)
Russell (2000) restricts ‘style’ to motifs produced with similar pigment colour and
application (e.g., monochrome, polychrome, shaded polychrome, etc.), thus permitting
one or more styles to be present within a single ‘painting period’. Swart (2004: 20–21)
selected subject (motif type) and colour to correlate her ‘phases’ from two sites to
produce an overall descriptive sequence that was then compared and contrasted with the
sequences of previous researchers in the region. Consequently, motifs on each panel that
hold a common position in the panel sequence can be aggregated or grouped into layers
(strata) according to common artistic traits or attributes, such as colour, form, and
degree of preservation (Harris 1989: 105–119; Russell 2000: 61). The layers, then, could
consist of groups of individual motifs, interrelated ‘compositions’ (cf. Haskovec & Sullivan
1989: 68–70), ‘scenes’ (cf. Domingo-Sanz 2011), or composite ‘motifs’ (Maddock (1970):
450). At one level, a ‘visual composition’ entails the graphic unity of a suite of
contemporaneous motifs such that ‘the whole is very much more than the sum of the
parts’ (Murray & Murray 1972: 95). There are examples, however, in rock art where
Page 8 of 19

compositions may involve motifs from different chronological periods, where a later artist
has added motifs to the work of an earlier artist to produce a new composition. Or a
particular trait, such as certain distinctive manner of depicting a human figure, may not
be confined to a single brief period: it may have persisted over a extended span of time or
gone out of use and been revived at a later period. The identification of contemporaneous
compositions is in some cases readily apparent, while in others the defining relationship
of relevant motifs remains much more difficult and may require additional explanation.
Maynard (1977: 398) recognized that, whereas the majority of motifs within Australian
rock art could be readily accommodated to ‘types’, within each type certain idiosyncratic
features could be identified from an individual motif or amongst one or more groups;
these could be taken as unifying traits to identify a ‘subgroup’ of the type. Maynard
restricted her features to the exceptional and visually obvious (i.e., to those that made a
motif stand out from others at a site or from a regional pattern). Such features could be a
distinctive form (e.g., variations on X-ray), colour (e.g., repeated use of distinctive colour
combinations), size (e.g., unusually large or small motifs with other associative aspects),
or additional motif elements (e.g., ‘figure with hat’). Maynard’s choice of ‘idiosyncratic
features’ appears to have been largely intuitive because no sources are referenced.
It is these idiosyncratic features, however, that are particularly important in the next step
to interpret the Harris Matrix of an art panel. If a cluster of motifs—say, a line of human
figures in the same colour and form, painted in a similar manner, and with similar states
of preservation—appear to have been part of a single composition, then it is reasonable to
assume they were painted at the same time by the same painter. If two of these images
(say, H1 and H2) are superimposed by two fish motifs (F1 and F2), and two others of the
human figures (H3 and H4) are superimposed over two macropods (R1 and R2), then we
can safely assume that, within the site’s sequence, F1 and F2 also postdate motifs R1 and
R2, even though they are not in direct superimposition. This is a method that Chippindale
refers to as ‘finding a cultural horizontal’ (personal communication, 2016), a procedure
that complements the vertical stratigraphy of the matrix. The procedure is not perfect
because it does not take into account the possibility that H3 and H4 could have been
painted by a later painter closely copying the earlier H1 and H2 pair of figures to produce
the present row of figures. Under ideal research conditions, one could make the Harris
Matrix, then identify any contradictions or impossible stratigraphies within the vertical or
horizontal relations, and, after removing those insecure relations, repeat the analysis
with ‘cleaner’ data.
On the basis of abduction (the process of arriving at an explanatory hypothesis that

accounts for the observations), however, it can be assumed that the likelihood of a row of
figures being the product of several separate artistic events is highly unlikely and that
any additions to the original motifs would be distinguishable through minutiae (such as
chemical analysis of the pigments). Abduction, unlike deduction, does not assure the
conclusion but provides the basis of a hypothesis derived from a largely intuitive reading
Page 9 of 19

of the facts, and its validity is arrived at, in part, through the experience of the
investigator in that field (see Sebeok & Sebeok 1981).
In undertaking comparative analyses of rock art, Chippindale and Taçon (1993: 39)
further stress the importance of studying the various motif traits individually, in order to
notice the presence of any co-variance between motifs, an all-inclusive approach also
advocated by Swart (2004: 16).
The process of allocating layers or phases to particular chronological periods is an

additional step that can only be achieved when the layers can be pegged to specific
motifs that have been firmly dated.
Harris Matrix of a Simple Panel: Panel M3 at

Nawarla Gabarnmang

Figure 2. Ceiling Panel M3 at Nawarla Gabarnmang.
Photograph and photo-tracing with individual motifs
identified.
Provided by authors.
Page 10 of 19

Table 1. Panel M3 motif list.
Motif No. Colour Technique Form Motif Type Condition
13 Red Painting Linear Spear Fair
14 Red Painting Solid+Linear Fragment Fair
15 Red Painting Solid Disc Very Poor
16 White+Red Painting Solid+Outline+Infi Jawoyn Lady Good

ll
17 White+Red Painting Solid+Outline+Infi Anthropomorph Good

ll Male
18 White+Red Painting Solid+Outline Anthropomorph Fair

Male
19 Yellow Painting Solid Bream Fair
20 Yellow Painting Linear Line Fair
21 Yellow Painting Outline+Infill Irregular Design Poor
Page 11 of 19
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an
individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use.

As a simple example, Panel M3 is one of 41 art panels on the ceiling of the large rock art
site of Nawarla Gabarnmang, located on the Arnhem Land plateau in northern Australia
(see Figure 2). Nine motifs have been identified from this small panel (see Table 1).
Following the careful recording of the attributes of each motif (often requiring the use of
the digital enhancement programme DStretch; Brady & Gunn 2012; Gunn et al. 2010;
Gunn, Douglas, & Whear, 2014; Harman 2008), a Harris Matrix was constructed by
plotting the superimposition sequence of every individual motif on the panel according to
its position below or above other motifs. In all, seven instances of superimposition were
noted (see Table 2). Two of the motifs (Motifs 13 and 21) do not occur in superimposition
with other motifs (see Figure 3). Interpretation of the Harris Matrix was then undertaken
to aggregate the motifs into sequential layers (see Figure 4). As mentioned earlier, the
aggregation of the motifs remains the most subjective part of the interpretative process.
On Panel M3, the attributes of colour and preservation were selected as the most
pertinent elements for assigning motifs to a common layer.

Figure 3. Harris Matrix of Nawarla Gabarnmang
Panel M3 motifs.
Table 2. Motif superimpositions on Panel M3. Note that Motifs 13 and 21 are not
involved in superimposition.
Motif No. Underlying Motifs
17 14, 15, 16
18 16
19 17, 18
20 17
Following the development of layers, it may be apparent that adjacent layers contain
motifs with similar attributes yet, through superimposition and the different positions of
the motifs within the Harris Matrix, the motifs are assigned to different layers. These
different layers may then be combined into a single Art Phase, such as Layers 2 and 3 on
Panel M3 that both consist of elongated figures in white with red outline and fine linear
Page 12 of 19

infill (see Figure 4). In some cases, these two layers may bracket a third layer that is
dissimilar to the other two, but, given that the upper and lower layers contain similar
artistic conventions, it must also be included within this one Art Phase. Layers that do not
have a ‘companion’ layer are considered to represent a distinct Art Phase.
Whereas a sequence of Art

Phases reveals a relative
chronology, individual
motifs or phases need to
be positively linked to
some chronological marker
before any absolute
temporality can be
defined. For example, the
depiction of a horse on
Panel D at Nawarla
Gabarnmang (see later
discussion) must have
been painted after AD 1845
because horses were first
Figure 4. Interpretation of the Panel M3 Harris
introduced into the region
Matrix with base motif colour indicated (blue = by the explorer Ludwig
white; other colours as represented). Leichhardt in November of
Provided by authors. that year. Consequently,
any images that overlie the
horse motif could not have been painted prior to that date. Similarly, the radiocarbon
dating of a beeswax motif on Panel F1 to circa AD 1470 (median age) indicates that
underlying motifs must predate this approximate age and overlying motifs must postdate
it. Through the addition of such absolute ages, Harris Matrices become useful not only for
understanding the history of artworks within an individual Art Panel, but also for cross-
correlating art styles and motifs from different panels across the site where other
individual motifs with absolute ages can be incorporated into a master sequence. The
result is the construction of a chronological framework for the site and for the individual
panels’ Art Phases.
Harris Matrix of a Complex Panel: Panel D at

Nawarla Gabarnmang
Page 13 of 19

Panel D is one of the larger

and more decorated art
panels on the ceiling of
Nawarla Gabarnmang (see
Figure 5). Sixty-six motifs
have been identified from
this panel, which measures
4.7 × 3.3 metres across its
maximum dimensions.
Following the careful
Click to view larger recording of the art, a
Figure 5. Ceiling Panel D at Nawarla Gabarnmang. Harris Matrix was
Provided by authors. constructed (see Figure 6.
In all, 15 layers of
superimpositioning were derived from the matrix, with three of these layers consisting of
single motifs that could not be aligned with other motifs (see Figure 7). Interpretation of
the Harris Matrix was then undertaken on the basis of attribute similarities, although the
same attributes were not necessarily used for all motifs. For example, the motifs of the
upper layer (Layer 1) were aggregated through the use of particular polychrome colours
and X-ray designs in the fish motifs. Layer 2, which underlies Layer 1, also exhibits these
attributes. Because X-ray depictions were not used in earlier layers, Layer 2 was grouped
with Layer 1 to form an Art Phase (Figure 7).

Figure 6. Harris Matrix of Nawarla Gabarnmang
Panel D motifs.
Page 14 of 19

In contrast, Layers 13 and

14 were grouped into a
single Art Phase on the
shared basis of poorly
preserved yellow
monochrome paintings
(although many exist now
as ‘fragments’, as defined
by traces of pigment
whose shape cannot now
Click to view larger be identified). To complete
Figure 7. Interpretation of the Panel D Harris matrix the interpretation of the
with base motif colour indicated (blue = white; other panel’s Harris Matrix, the
colours as represented).
one motif not involved in
any superimposition on the
panel was assigned to
Layer 24 on the basis of colour and preservation similar to the two motifs within the layer
and also because it is less well preserved than a motif from the overlying Layer 23. More
broadly for the site, a motif not involved in superimposition may not be relatable to any
particular layer, and, hence, such a motif would be singled out as anomalous and not
included in the site’s art sequence nor would it be included in the art’s chronological
framework.
The single motif that

constitutes Layer 6 is an
image of a horse (see
Figure 8). This large image
occupies much of the panel
and hence is directly
involved in
superimposition both over
and beneath many other
motifs. Overlying motifs
must have been painted
Figure 8. Photo tracing of the horse motif (Motif 48) after 1845. Dating the
on Panel D.
underlying motifs is less
definitive because the
horse could have been
painted any time after 1845 up to the time when painting ceased in the shelter. As such,
the timing of the first arrival of horses in the region provides a maximum antiquity for all
the motifs that overlay the horse painting in Panel D, but it does not provide a minimum
age for underlying paintings. Contemporary oral testimony of Aboriginal people states
that no new motifs have been added to the site since at least circa 1935. This means that
the 18 motifs (27% of the paintings in Panel D) superposed on the horse were all painted
Page 15 of 19

during the period lasting a maximum circa 85 years, between 1845 (the underlying horse
painting) and 1935 (the uppermost recent paintings). As some motifs both below and
above the horse image were undertaken in a similar style to each other, the painting of
the horse, representing a foreign animal that came ‘from the outside’, does not mark a
distinctive break in the art style repertoire (Gunn et al., in press). We can then construct
a Harris Matrix for Panel D at Nawarla Gabarnmang that incorporates actual ages (or age
ranges) for specific motifs, as shown in Figure 7. This Harris Matrix then becomes useful
not only for understanding the history of artworks within Panel D, but also for cross-
correlating art styles and motifs from different panels across the site where other
individual motifs with associated radiocarbon dates can potentially add further to the
site’s chronological resolution.
Conclusion
Understanding motif superimpositions has long been held to be a key to understanding
sequential changes in the rock art repertoire of a site or region. Yet despite the potential
of Harris Matrices for rock art research first being flagged by Chippindale and Taçon in
1993, the method has rarely been applied to this field of research. The construction of
Harris Matrices allows stratigraphically associated motifs to be grouped into layers that
themselves form sequences. Where absolute ages can be attributed to individual motifs,
the various layers of a sequence can be attributed absolute ages or age ranges.
The use of Harris Matrices to help visually structure and interpret rock art sequences
should be considered a standard component of rock art research whenever complex
superimpositioning is involved. As Le Quellec, Duquesnoy, & Defrasne (2015) have
emphasized for the use of DStretch digital enhancement, use of a Harris Matrix allows
readers to follow the logic of the purported associations. Nevertheless, and keeping in
mind that it is the researcher who chooses which variables to analyse, when relating
layers chronologically, behaviourally, and/or thematically, ‘we should not forget that
“reading” rock figures will always involve subjectivity’ (Le Quellec et al. 2015: 11).
References
Brady, L. M., & Gunn, R. G. (2012). Digital enhancement of deteriorated and
superimposed pigment art: Methods and case studies. In J. McDonald & P. Veth (Eds.), A
companion to rock art (pp. 627–643). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Browman, D. L., & Givens, D. R. (1996). Stratigraphic excavation: The first ‘New
Archaeology’. American Anthropologist, 98(1), 80–95.
Chaloupka, G. (1984). From paleo art to casual paintings. Monograph Series 1. Darwin,
AUS: Northern Territory Museum of Arts and Sciences.
Page 16 of 19

Chaloupka, G. (1993). Journey in time: The World’s longest continuing art tradition.
Chatswood, AUS: Reed.
Chippindale, C., & Taҫon, P. S. C. (1993). Two old painted panels from Kakadu: Variation
and sequence in Arnhem Land rock-art. In J. Steinberg, A. Watchman, P. Faulstich & P. S.
C. Taçon (Eds.), Time and space: Dating and spatial considerations in rock-art research
(pp. 32–56). Occasional AURA Publication No. 8. Melbourne: Australian Rock Art
Research Association.
Domingo-Sanz, I. (2011). The rock art scenes at Injalak Hill: Alternative visual records of
indigenous social organisation and cultural practices. Australian Archaeology, 72, 15–22.
Edwards, R. (1979). Australian aboriginal art: The art of the Alligators Rivers region,
Northern Territory. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Gunn, R. G., David, B., Delannoy, J. -J., & Katherine, M. (in press). The past 500 years of
rock art at Nawarla Gabarnmang, central-western Arnhem Land. Accepted by Terra
Australis, Canberra.
Gunn, R. G., Ogleby, C. L., Lee, D., & Whear, R. L. (2010). A method to visually rationalise
superimposed pigment motifs. Rock Art Research, 27, 131–136.
Gunn, R. G., Douglas, L. C., & Whear, R. L. (2014). ‘Interpreting’ polychrome paintings
using DStretch. Rock Art Research, 31, 101–104.
Harman, J. (2008). Using decorrelation stretch to enhance rock art images. Abstract
retrieved from http://www.dstretch.com/AlgorithmDescription.html.
Harris, E. C. (1979a). The laws of archaeological stratigraphy. World Archaeology, 11,

111–117.
Harris, E. C. (1979b). Principles of archaeological stratigraphy. London: Academic Press.
Harris, E. C. (1989). Principles of archaeological stratigraphy. (2nd ed.). London:

Academic Press.
Harris, E. C. (2013). Urban sites and the stratigraphic revolution in archaeology. Papers
from the Institute of Archaeology, 23(1), 20. doi:http://doi.org/10.5334/pia.439
Haskovec, I. P., & Sullivan, H. (1989). Reflections and rejections of an Aboriginal artist. In
H. Morphy (Ed.), Animals into art (pp. 57–74). London: Unwin Hyman.
Hutton, J. (1788). Theory of the Earth. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh,
1(2), 209–304.
Keyser, J. D. (2001). Relative dating methods. In D. S. Whitley (Ed.), Handbook of rock art
research (pp. 116–138). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.
Page 17 of 19

Le Quellec, J. -L., Duquesnoy, F., & Defrasne, C. (2015). Digital image enhancement with
DStretch: Is complexity always necessary for efficiency? Digital Applications in
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 2(2015), 55–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.
2015.01.003i
Lewis, D. (1988). The rock paintings of Arnhem Land, Australia. BAR International Series
415. Oxford: BAR.
Loubser, J. H. N. (1997). The use of Harris diagrams in recording, conservation and

interpreting rock paintings. International Newsletter on Rock Art, 18, 14–21.
Lyell, C. (1875). Principles of geology (12th ed.). London: Murray.
Maddock, K. (1970). Imagery and social structure at two Dalabon rock art sites.
Anthropological Forum, 2, 444–463.
Magar, V., & Davila, V. (2004). Considerations on the dating of rock art from the Sierra de
San Francisco, Baja California. Rock Art Research, 21(2), 129–136.
Maynard, L. (1977). Classification and terminology in Australian rock art. In P. J. Ucko

(Ed.), Form in indigenous art (pp. 387–402). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal
Studies.
Mazel, A. D., & Watchman, A. L. (1997). Accelerator radiocarbon dating of Natal

Drakensberg paintings: Results and implications. Antiquity, 71, 445–449.
Mazel, A. D., & Watchman, A. L. (2003). Dating rock paintings in the uKhahlamba-
Drakensberg and the Biggarsberg, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Southern African
Humanities, 15, 59–73.
Murray, P., & Murray, L. (1972). A dictionary of art and artists. Ringwood, AUS: Penguin.
Rosenfeld, A., & Smith, C. (1997). Recent developments in radiocarbon and stylistic
methods of dating rock-art. Antiquity, 71, 405–411.
Russell, T. (2000). The application of the Harris matrix to San rock art at Main Caves
North, Kwaazulu-Natal. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 55, 60–70.
Russell, T. (2012). No one said it would be easy. Ordering San paintings using the Harris
matrix: dangerously fallascious? A reply to David Pearce. South African Archaeological
Bulletin, 67, 267–272.
Sebeok, T., & Sebeok, J. U. (1981). ‘You know my method’: A juxtaposition of Charles S.
Peirce and Sherlock Holmes. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), The play of musement (pp. 17–52).
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Swart, J. (2004). Rock art sequence in uKhahlamba-Drakensberg Par, South Africa. South
African Humanities, 16, 13–35.
Page 18 of 19

Edward Harris
National Museum of Bermuda
Robert G. Gunn
Monash Indigenous Studies Centre, Monash University; ARC Centre of Excellence for
Australian Biodiversity and Heritage
Page 19 of 19

The Use of Harris Matrices in Rock Art

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Use of Harris Matrices in Rock Art

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Use of Harris Matrices in Rock Art Research

Oxford Handbooks Online

Subject: Archaeology, Archaeological Methodology and Techniques

Abstract and Keywords

Keywords: Harris Matrix, superimposition, sequence, chronology

Subscriber: University of Groningen; date: 05 May 2018

Harris Matrices and Stratigraphy in Rock Art

Subscriber: University of Groningen; date: 05 May 2018

increasingly applied systematically to investigate the sequence of artworks on surfaces

Stratification is a compilation of ‘marks in time and place’ (space)—in our present

Click to view larger

A: The motifs are in superposition. B: The two motifs

Subscriber: University of Groningen; date: 05 May 2018

Provided by authors. For the competent

Creation of Stratigraphic Sequences (Harris

The Law of Stratigraphical Succession states that ‘A unit of archaeological stratification

Subscriber: University of Groningen; date: 05 May 2018

The Value of Stratigraphic Sequences in Rock

Subscriber: University of Groningen; date: 05 May 2018

Unlike archaeological excavation, where absolute chronology is routine through

Subscriber: University of Groningen; date: 05 May 2018

The Harris Matrix in Rock Art Studies

Subscriber: University of Groningen; date: 05 May 2018

When a group of motifs share a number of attributes such as similar action,

(Russell 2000: 61)

Subscriber: University of Groningen; date: 05 May 2018

On the basis of abduction (the process of arriving at an explanatory hypothesis that

Subscriber: University of Groningen; date: 05 May 2018

The process of allocating layers or phases to particular chronological periods is an

Harris Matrix of a Simple Panel: Panel M3 at

Click to view larger

Subscriber: University of Groningen; date: 05 May 2018

Table 1. Panel M3 motif list.

Motif No. Colour Technique Form Motif Type Condition

13 Red Painting Linear Spear Fair

14 Red Painting Solid+Linear Fragment Fair

15 Red Painting Solid Disc Very Poor

16 White+Red Painting Solid+Outline+Infi Jawoyn Lady Good

17 White+Red Painting Solid+Outline+Infi Anthropomorph Good

18 White+Red Painting Solid+Outline Anthropomorph Fair

19 Yellow Painting Solid Bream Fair

20 Yellow Painting Linear Line Fair

21 Yellow Painting Outline+Infill Irregular Design Poor

Subscriber: University of Groningen; date: 05 May 2018

Click to view larger

Motif No. Underlying Motifs

Subscriber: University of Groningen; date: 05 May 2018

Whereas a sequence of Art

Harris Matrix of a Complex Panel: Panel D at

Subscriber: University of Groningen; date: 05 May 2018

Panel D is one of the larger

Click to view larger

Subscriber: University of Groningen; date: 05 May 2018

In contrast, Layers 13 and

The single motif that

Subscriber: University of Groningen; date: 05 May 2018

Subscriber: University of Groningen; date: 05 May 2018

Harris, E. C. (1979a). The laws of archaeological stratigraphy. World Archaeology, 11,

Harris, E. C. (1979b). Principles of archaeological stratigraphy. London: Academic Press.

Harris, E. C. (1989). Principles of archaeological stratigraphy. (2nd ed.). London:

Subscriber: University of Groningen; date: 05 May 2018

Loubser, J. H. N. (1997). The use of Harris diagrams in recording, conservation and

Lyell, C. (1875). Principles of geology (12th ed.). London: Murray.