A History of Removing Rock Art in South Africa

Author(s): Leila Henry

Source: The South African Archaeological Bulletin , Jun., 2007, Vol. 62, No. 185 (Jun.,
2007), pp. 44-48
Published by: South African Archaeological Society

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20474945

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20474945?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The South African
Archaeological Bulletin

This content downloaded from

201.158.189.66 on Sun, 22 Nov 2020 08:23:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 44 South African Archaeological Bulletin 62 (185): 44-48, 2007

Research Article

A HISTORY OF REMOVING ROCK ART IN SOUTH

LEILA HENRY
Rock Art Research Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, WITS, 2050, South Africa
E-mail: leila@rockart.wits.ac.za
(Received June 2006. Revised January 2007)

ABSTRACT
Many South African museums and institutions house removed rock
art panels, but little has been written about the historical context of
these removals. This paper investigates the long history of rock art
removals in South Africa. An analysis of this history reveals the
changing motivesfor removing rock art over the last century. I divide
the history of rock art removals in South Africa into three chronological
periods, each typified by a principal motivefor removal. An example of
a rock art panel removedfrom a site in the Eastern Cape Province by a
prominent South African artist during the 1940s demonstrates the
complexity of motives for removing rock art.
Keywords: Rock art removal, conservation, heritage manage
ment, museum collections, South Africa.
INTRODUCTION
Removing rock art is an ethically fraught practice. Rather
than debate the issues surrounding this practice and whether
it should or should not be done, this paper investigates the
history of rock art removals, and how the ethics surrounding
removals have changed over time. Key to this study are the
motives for removing rock art. I suggest that the history of rock
art removals can be divided into three chronological periods
according to the dominant motives for removal - motives that I
here term Collecting for Curiosity, Collecting for Conservation
and Removal for Salvage.
COLLECTING FOR CURIOSITY: LATE 1800s-1920s
Interest in collecting archaeological objects started in
Europe during the fifteenth century with the curiosity cabinets
of intellectuals and royalty during the Renaissance (Macdonald
1998). By the seventeenth century, collecting had become a
popular pursuit. These European collectors of curiosities
initially focused on things in the natural world, but with the
discovery of new lands and cultures, these cabinets of curiosities
became increasingly associated with artefacts linked to exotic
places and peoples. Cabinets of curiosity, filled with an assort
ment of different artefacts, formed the basis of museum exhibits
and other collections well into the nineteenth century (Pearce
1993). It was through these museums with their cabinets of
curiosities that people acquired knowledge of the world
(Pearce 1993; Macdonald 1998).
As European settlers colonized southern Africa, their
preoccupation with collecting objects extended to San rock art.
By the end of the nineteenth century San society had been
decimated and was no longer seen as a political threat. A sense
of nostalgia for the 'lost' San developed in the early 1900s
and settlers became interested in San culture and artefacts,
including rock art (Vinnicombe 1966).
Amongst those interested in South African rock art were
European researchers and collectors, who removed numerous
rock art panels from sites and returned to Europe with them.
One of these collectors was Dr Emil Holub who, during the
1870s and 1880s, was responsible for the largest collection of
rock art removals taken from South Africa to Europe (Fock
1967). Holub moved from Vienna to Kimberley in 1872 where
he worked as a doctor. Whilst in Kimberley he collected
engravings from a number of local sites. He also went on
several expeditions into the interior of South Africa where he
also collected rock art. He returned to Vienna in 1879 with a
large collection of natural and cultural artefacts, including rock
engravings. In 1883 he returned to South Africa for further
exploration, once again taking a large collection of artefacts
back to Vienna, including more than 200 rock engravings, most
of which were collected from the North West and Free State
Provinces. Several of these engravings were from the site
Gestoptefontein, which has since been badly damaged by
mining. The engravings collected by Holub provide a good
sample of this now devastated site (Morris 1989).
Louis Tylor, who came to South Africa in 1888, was another
foreign collector. He travelled to the Drakensberg in 1893 to
copy rock paintings and removed six painted fragments from
several rock shelters. He was shocked at the vandalism of rock
paintings, especially failed attempts at removal. Tylor made
note of which sites the removals were from, as well as their
position in the rock shelter, but did not say which fragments
were from which sites. Consequently, only one of these removals
could be traced to a site (Ward 1997). Many of the slabs were
broken during removal and have been glued back together.
The slabs are now housed at the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford.
Unlike other rock art copyists, Tylor seemed to have no great
interest in rock art and may have been in the Drakensberg as a
favour to his uncle, the famous Edward Tylor, who was Keeper
of the University Museum at Oxford (Hobart et al. 2002).
Rock engravings were in demand during this period, as
so-called 'primitive art' was fashionable and people were
offered large sums of money to remove rock art. During the
1960s, Gerard Fock, a rock art researcher, found San rock
engravings in museums in London, Scotland, Stuttgart, Prague,
Vienna, Leipzig, Paris, Saint Petersburg and Copenhagen (Fock
1967). Fock only located engravings housed in museums,
although countless engravings may be in private collections.
Rock art was also collected by South African museums. The
Natal Museum employed a stonecutter in 1905 to remove
well-preserved rock paintings after reports that many of the
paintings were fast deteriorating (Vinnicombe 1966). In 1910
A.D. Whyte and R. Clingan, an experienced stonemason,
removed twenty painted slabs from sites in the southern
Drakensberg for the Natal Museum. Unfortunately, there is no
record of from where these slabs came (Loubser 1994). Many of
these removals caused serious damage to the rock art and some
people even used dynamite to blast paintings out of rock
shelter walls (Morris 1989).
Although curiosity was the main motive for collecting rock
art during this period, some removals were undertaken for
reasons of putative conservation. The famous Linton Panel,
housed at the Iziko South African Museum in Cape Town, was

This content downloaded from

201.158.189.66 on Sun, 22 Nov 2020 08:23:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
South African Archaeological Bulletin 62 (185): 44-48, 2007 45

removed from the Maclear District, Eastern Cape

collecting rockProvince,
engravings in in 1965 after o
1917. An employee of the Provincial from
Roads the Historical Monuments
Department, Mr Comm
Mandy, was concerned by the deterioration of theArchaeological
(South African rock paint Society 1964
ings in the area and asked Dr Louis Peringuey, then and
a difficult task Director of
one boulder weighing
the South African Museum, to remove an exceptional
the crane panel it (Anon. 1969).
that was lifting
from the farm Linton for preservation
African in the Art
Rock museum. This
was officially opened in Se
removal proved an arduous taskJohannesburg
and the panel had to be
Zoological Gardens, under
carefully cut out of the rock face by a stonemason
Africana Museum - now and a
MuseumAfrica -
blacksmith. Removal commenced in ofJuly 1917
Friede. Thebut was only
museum was composed of
completed in May 1918. Three metres rocks collected
of the paintedmostly from the North W
site were
destroyed in the process of chiselling out the
Provinces panel.
(Bruce The Friede
1982). few was concerne
images left in the site have deteriorated so greatly
engravings that
in what hethere
considered to be th
would not have been much left in theings.site
Thishad the panel
desire, not with the locatio
together
the preserved
been removed. The Linton Panel is well Zoo, reveals andthe primitivist
is one of notion
the most remarkable rock paintings toremoved
nature thatfrom any prevalent
were site in at the tim
the world (Lewis-Williams 1988). ItWilliams
now has 1993).
a new The
significance
Museum of South Afric
as images from this panel form partfirst of the South
museum of its African
kind in the world and a
national coat of arms (Lewis-Williams
national
et al. visitors
2000). (Anon. 1970). Unfortunat
into decline and the collection was closed o
COLLECTING FOR CONSERVATION: 1930s-1960s
In the early 1990s, 60 of the smaller ston
From the mid 1920s South African archaeology Johannesburg,
MuseumAfrica, received leaving th
more attention as Field-Marshall collection,
Jan Smutsincluding
promotedall
the
the large ston
damaged
subject as part of his campaign to 'South by acid science
Africanise' rain and and vegetation. The
bring the country to the fore of intellectual
Institute, University circles worldwide of the Witwatersrand,
(Schlanger 2002). Along with this growth
ing 33 stones in appreciation
to the University of in 2000 (A
South African archaeology therethese arose are concern
now onabout exhibit the at the Origins C
apparent rapid deterioration of rock sity.art. Efforts were initiated
to survey and record as many of the country's
With the exception of thisrock paintings
late example, removals of rock art
as possible. Removal was considered the less
were undertaken only
frequentlyviable way
from the 1960s. toin
This decline
conserve rock art and no earnest attempts
collection was possibly duewere
to changesmade
in museum to
policies
as well as stricter
preserve paintings in situ. From 1934, logistical, pecuniary and conservation
controls problems
were
introduced regarding removals and one
associated had
with torock
removing apply toalsothe
art. Museums experienced
Historical Monuments Commission for
problems a permit
curating to rock
and storing removed remove
art (Loubser
rock art. Despite concern about the1994).
preservation of rock art,
collection for curiosity's sake remained a factor in rock art
REMOVAL to
removals during this period. Attitudes FOR SALVAGE:
San rock LATE 1960s-PRESENT
art were
influenced by primitivist notions of Fromthethe late 1960s
San as the primary motivation
simple and close for rock art
to nature. Smuts himself thought of removals
thewas to
Sanrescue as
or salvage
living
it from fossils
immediate risk and
(Schlanger 2002). Rock art was still removals
seen were as undertaken
an oddity only in extreme
made circumstances.
by a This
primitive people and was often placedpracticein thedue
was partly sphere ofmost
to the fact that nature
museums already
rather than culture. The only significance usually
had a substantial collection accorded
of rock art pieces and didto
not want
more specimens. An important component of this period was
San rock art was its aesthetic beauty.
During the period between 1934 the and 1946,
greater E.of van
appreciation Hoepen,
the significance of the context of
then Director of the National Museum,rock art. From theBloemfontein,
mid 1970s, the symbolic meaning and of rock art
A. Hoffman, removed approximately seventeen
was recognized and studied rock
(Vinnicombepaintings
1976; Lewis-Williams
from the Free State Province and 1981),an andunspecified number
by the early 1980s greater understanding of of the
rock engravings from the North West relationships between images
Province in a site had developed.
(Loubser 1994). Studies
This total included ten engravings revealed
removed from
that San painters a site
used devices such asclose
superimposi
to Lydenburg in Mpumalanga Province tion and juxtaposition
in 1934, to convey
which certain were
meanings. More
threatened by passing motorists and children
attention was also given toplaying
the fact that theon the and
San painted
site. Van Hoepen and Hoffman only recorded
engraved the
only in certain placesoriginal
in the landscape.sites
Researchers
of nine of the removed fragments realized and at least
that divorcing three
rock art images from their were
geographical
broken in the process of removal and (Loubser
painted contexts 1990). Removal
hindered their to
work of interpretation.
This period is also markedto
the museum allowed van Hoepen conveniently by increasing
undertake awareness of the
detailed study of the rock art (Loubser
problems 1994).
associated withLike
removingmany
rock art andof his were
attempts
contemporaries, van Hoepen saw San made to mitigateart
rock these problems. The removals undertaken
as belonging in
the sphere of nature and treated the duringrock
this period involved a considerable
engravings in amount
much of docu
the same way as he did the specimens mentation,of such animals he collected
as mapping, photographing and tracing sites
for the museum (Loubser, pers. comm. before, during
2006).and after removal. Efforts were also made to
Perhaps one of the last known majorcontextualize the removals by redrawing
collections was under the removed pieces
taken by Paul Friede, a photographer, together
in withthe theearly
other images in the original
1960s to formsite, as well as
an open-air rock art museum (South African
interpreting Archaeological
the pieces together with the other images in the
original
Society 1966). This is also one of the last sitecases
and the region.
of With the accelerationfor
collecting of develop
curiosity's sake, which still remained
ment, focus hasa shifted
factor inrock
to rescuing removals
art from encroaching
undertaken during this period. He developments,
began the enormous
especially dams, that directlytask
threaten ofrock art.

This content downloaded from

201.158.189.66 on Sun, 22 Nov 2020 08:23:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
46 South African Archaeological Bulletin 62 (185): 44-48, 2007

Another example
However, even when rock art is in danger, where the link
removal iswas made between the
often
avoided and the site is simply recorded before
removed rock painting andit
theis destroyed
original site is the case of the
(Maggs 1981). Balerno stone, which was removed from a site in the
Despite intentions to remove rock Limpopo-Shashi
art only confluence
when area inabsolutely
1998. The painted fragment
necessary, sometimes the situationfellwasoff the miscalculated. A site
roof of the shelter onto the ground, where it was in
near Wepener in the Free State Province
danger of being was
trampledthought
by animals that to usedbethe shelter.
endangered by the construction of Tracings
thewere Welbedacht
made of the images on Dam.
the fragment
In as well as
1973, the National Museum, with thosethe help
on the wall of the of Murray
rock shelter from which and the fragment
Roberts Construction, removed a panelcame. These images were
from the redrawn
site to under
fit together, joining
the supervision of Bert Woodhouse the imagesand
on theSam
fragmentMcllrath,
with those on the shelteran wall
experienced stonemason. The (Eastwood panel & dewas
Wit 1998). housed at the
National Museum, Bloemfontein, butIn was 1999 thenot
Nationalprotected
Heritage Resources fromAct (NHRA) was
visitors by a barrier and has subsequently been
instituted to protect damaged.
heritage, In
especially from development.
Under the NHRA,
the end it turned out that the rock shelter from rock art is protected
which theby the South African
panel
was removed was not flooded and the Heritage Resources in
images Agency the (SAHRA)
shelteras well asareprovincial
better preserved than those in the museum
heritage agencies. As (Loubser 1990).
with earlier legislation, one has to apply
Museums are well aware of the damage that
for a permit before can
removing rockbe caused
art. The Act also provides for
controls on development.
to rock art when removing it. Consequently, they Developers
have haveresorted
to notify SAHRA of
to modern technology in an attempt planned
todevelopment
remove and, panels
if heritage resources
witharethe likely to be
minimum of damage. In 1988 a rock affected,
art theysite havebelow
to undertake thean impact
level assessment.
of The
heritage
the wall of the Knellpoort Dam in the Free resources
StateagencyProvince
can then decide to stop development
was in
immediate danger of being flooded or stipulate
and a conditions
twelve-ton of development in order to
block of protect
painted stone was removed by theheritage
National Museum
resources (National Heritage and
Resourcesthe Act 1999).
The site Gestoptefontein,
Department of Water Affairs. The operation cost R50 from which000Holub in earlier
labour, equipment and transport. The removed engravings,
entire is part of a cluster
process of sites near Driekuil
of removal
was meticulously recorded, allowing Hill that are thought to be to
researchers amongst the most significant
pinpoint
exactly how and when during removal the
rock engraving sites images
in southern Africa duewere
to the variety and
distinctiveness of
damaged. Mc Ilrath, the same stonemason whomarkings had found (Hollmann, pers. comm.
removed
the Welbedacht Dam stone, undertook
2006). These sitesthe removal
are located with
on the Wonderstone mine and
Johannes Loubser of the National have been damaged
Museum asbyoverseer.
mining for decades.
FortuIn accordance
nately, the panel was surrounded
withby bedding
the NHRA, planes,
the mine employed along
archaeologist Jeremy
which workers drilled with a mounted
Hollmann in 2004pneumatic drill.impact
to undertake an archaeological
Despite this, the slab broke in two,
assessment
destroying
and mitigation a measures
small at a site
motif.
on Driekuil Hill
The release of pressure that occurred when
before it was destroyed. themapped
Hollmann slab and was
recorded the
removed also caused the heads of two figures
site and SAHRA granted to flake
permission for off.
the site toThe
be mined on
conditiononto
removed slabs were then lifted by crane that someaoftruck
the engraved rocks were
filled withremoved and a
sand. The abrasion of the ropes onsitethe
museum slabs caused
erected on the heads
the mine property. Over 100 engraved
pieces were
of several more figures to flake off. removed and
Despite most are
this housed at the site
damage, themuseum
removal was deemed successful. while The someDirectorate of Public
have been selected to be housed at the Klerksdorp
Works constructed a building aroundmuseum andthe removed
the University stones
of the Witwatersrand for in
research
1989, costing a further R10 000 purposes.
(LoubserHollmann is1990, 1994).
in the process of mappingThisand recording
display on the sidewalk outside the theNational
rest of the sitesMuseum
on Driekuil Hillincludes
before these too are
interpretation and drawings of the images
destroyed by miningand is Driekuil
activities. the most Hill is an example of
visible exhibit at the Museum (Loubser, pers.
the position comm.
that archaeologists are2006).
all too often placed in -
Concern for linking removed pieces
knowing that with
sites are besttheir
left in situ original
but aware that commercial
context is exemplified by the case interests
of the can prevail
fragmentover cultural removed
ones and that priceless
from the site Korfshoek in the Qwa Qwa
heritage may beNational
destroyed unless Park in 1997
they remove a sample.
(Ouzman 1998). The rock shelter was The same badly
concerns thatweathered and to
motivated earlier researchers
remove rock
many fragments of the wall had fallen off art still
and plague us today. Researchers
broken on the are still
floor, destroying approximatelyconcerned
six metres of the
about the deterioration of rockpainted
art (Lewis-Williams
1990).intact
shelter. One of these pieces remained However, most and researchers
it was consider removal a drastic
removed
to the Rock Art Department of the measure to be taken Museum.
National in only extreme circumstances
Here, the when rock
art is directly
rock surface of the fragment was cleaned, threatened.by
either Researchers
brushing endeavour or to preserve
using solvents, and avoiding the painted
rock art in situ areas.
by measuresThe fragment
such as erecting fences around sites,
was then photographed and traced. Adhesive
appointing patches
site managers, installing drip lineswere
and sensitizing
applied to the rock surface to repair
the public aboutfractures
proper etiquette at along
rock art sites.the
In addition,
bedding plane of the rock. Lastly, it was try
researchers ensured that the
to record, by photography slab as many
and tracing,
was stored in a stable environment.rock
The art panels
images as possible.
depicted on the
removed fragment were then analysed by not only studying
CASE STUDY: WAR2
the fragment alone, but also the remaining REMOVAL
paintings in the
shelter and those of the greater region,One of the thus contextualizing
problems with early removals is that the event of
the removed panel. The fragment removal
was was often poorly,
housed atif at all, documented.
the Oliewen An exception
is a panel July
huis Art Museum in Bloemfontein until removed from 1999,the siteafter
WAR2 in thewhichEastern Cape
it was housed at the Qwa Qwa National
Province for thePark interpretive
Africana Museum -now MuseumAfrica -in
centre. 1940 by Walter Battiss, the artist and rock art enthusiast.

This content downloaded from

201.158.189.66 on Sun, 22 Nov 2020 08:23:46 UTC UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
South African Archaeological Bulletin 62 (185): 44 48, 2007 47

Historical records (MuseumAfrica archives) make it possible to

recreate the event of removal, providing the historical context
of the removal.
Battiss was one of the early South African rock art enthusi
asts. He published two books on rock art - The Amazing
Bushman in 1939 and The Artists of the Rocks in 1948. He spent
much of his spare time looking for new rock art sites and
making copies of panels (Schoonraad 1985).
The removal at WAR2 had its inception with the desire of
the Africana Museum to acquire a rock painting to exhibit.
Reginald Kennedy, Director of the Museum, reasoned that,
housed in the museum, the removed panel would be protected
and could be admired for decades to come. The panel would
also be available to students, promoting the study of rock art. In
addition, the Africana Museum would be the first museum in
the province to display a rock painting and the panel would
attract many visitors to the Museum. Kennedy approached
Battiss in January 1940 for suggestions of rock paintings that
~~~~ -~~~rI
would be suitable for removal. Battiss had three suggestions of
well preserved and interesting rock paintings he knew in the
Eastern Cape Province, including WAR2. The Historical
Monuments Commission granted the Museum permission to
remove a panel from one of the sites, on the condition that
a professional stonemason undertook the task under the
supervision of Battiss.
There were difficulties obtaining permission to remove the
I they
most desired panel and Battiss suggested ~ approach
~ * the I
owners of other farms for permission to remove another panel.
He requested a Roving Commission so that he and the stone
mason could travel to different sites to see which paintings
were most suitable for removal. In July 1940 Battiss and Fred
FIG. 1. WAR2 removal being
Hutchings, a stonemason, set out to the Eastern Cape Province
to obtain a rock art panel. However, onceseveral engravings.
in the field, Battiss In
collection
found it necessary to "rescue" several rock trip for the
art panels from what
he deemed imminent destruction. He also horror
thought it atwouldremoving
be roc
better if the Africana Museum acquired as many panels from
Although Battiss's 1940
the trip as possible. of collecting for curio
In their search for a suitable site forcomplex.
removal, Battiss There
and was ge
Hutchings visited WAR2. The landowners rock art
were eager at a
to have that time,
Curiosity
part of the site removed for preservation. period. As se
A panel was already
coming away from the wall of the rock initial
shelter and years
Hutchings of the Con
deemed it safe to remove the panel. He confusion
carefully tapped thebetween col
panel to discern where it was loose beingand then removed
merely the an obses
unnecessary rock. The panel broke loose Battiss's
from the rock face motives
and can b
they caught it in their hands. They then tion and
carried collection, wh
the removed
panel out of the valley to the farmhousemanyand from pieces
there it was when he
transported to Johannesburg (Battiss 1941; Fig. 1). A local stone
mason, Ray Gush, had already removed CONCLUSION
a panel from the site
Over
and he gave it to Battiss for the Africana Museum. the past century
Unfortunately,
there are no records regarding the removalfrom sites
of this second panelin South A
and it is not known from where in the motives for
site it was removed. In undertaki
January 1941 Battiss returned to WAR2 factor
to mark fromhas prevailed sin
where the
panel had been removed in the shelter,vation
stating that itof had rock
been art. In
removals
removed with the permission of the Historical Monumentswere undert
Commission and was housed at the Africana threat Museum. to rock art, wh
Battiss's feelings toward removal seem complex. On the pieces of roc
particular
one hand, he believed that remarkable specific
rock paintings threats
should to the
be removed from rock shelters before they were
that thisruined and
concern for th
housed in museums where they would with
be safe. Onhasthe other
also changed.
hand, he wrote in his report to theas Historical
the Monuments
best option for c
Commission: "The spirit of the painters lastrules option.
so profoundly The main r
about the rock shelters that one feels realized
like a ghoul robbingthe the importanc
since
tombs when one removes a painting". Battiss the
set out 1970s has sho
intending
images
to collect one rock painting for the Africana Museum isbutimportant b
returned with fourteen panels of rock ships
paintings between
as well as differ

This content downloaded from

201.158.189.66 on Sun, 22 Nov 2020 08:23:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 48 South African Archaeological Bulletin 62 (185): 44-48, 2007

meanings. More recent researchFock,

has also
G. J. 1967. highlighted
South African the
rock engravings in museums in Europe.
importance of the geographical context of Association
South African Museums rockBulletin art sites.
8: 455^458.
Another major deterrent to using removal
Hobart, J., Mitchell, P. & Coote, as aA rock
J. 2002. method
art pioneer: Louis E. Tylor,
and previouslyof
preserving rock art is the impracticalities undescribed
removing painted rock fragments
slabs from ofKwaZulu
Natal, South Africa. Southern African Humanities 14: 65-78.
rock from shelter walls.
Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1981. Believing and Seeing: Symbolic Meanings in
Examining the history of removals not
Southern San only highlights
Rock Paintings. the
London: Academic Press.
complexities of motives for removing rockJ.D.art
Lewis-Williams, but
1988. The Worldalso the
of Man and pros
the World of Spirit: an
and cons of the practice. RemovingInterpretation
rock art is problematic.
of the Linton Rock Paintings. Cape Town: South African
Museum.
Rock art is inevitably damaged during the process of removal
Lewis-Williams,
and it can be very expensive to remove pieces J.D. 1990. in
Discovering
such Southern
a wayAfrican Rock
asArt. Cape
Town: David Philip.
to minimize the damage caused to the images. Once removed,
Lewis-Williams, J.D., Blundell, G., Challis, W & Hampson, J. 2000.
the pieces have to be stored or exhibited in re-examining
Threads of light: a protected, stable
a motif in southern African San rock
and dust-free environment. Another art. concern is that
South African Archaeological removals
Bulletin 55:123-136.
are divorced from their original geographical
Loubser, J.H.N. 1990. Removals and and painted
in situ conservation: strategies and
contexts. problems in rock art conservation at the National Museum,
The examples discussed also demonstrate that these prob Bloemfontein. Pictogram (3)3: 2-5.
Loubser, J.H.N. 1994. The conservation of rock engravings and rock
lems can be mitigated. On the whole, despite these problems, it
paintings: removals to museums or selected exhibitions in the field?
is desirable to remove a sample of a site that would otherwise South African Journal of Science 90(8/9): 454-456.
be destroyed. However, removing a sample of a rock art site can Macdonald, S. 1998. Exhibitions of power and powers of exhibition: an
never be a substitute for art in situ and rock art sites must be introduction to the politics of display. In: Macdonald, S. (ed.) The
fiercely protected where possible. Politics of Display: Museums, Society and Culture. London: Routledge.
Maggs, T 1981. You can't win 'em all: rescues by the Natal Museum.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Digging Stick 4(2): 4-5.
Morris, D. 1989. Conservation of rock engravings in the Northern
Thanks to Geoff Blundell for his guidance with my Cape: getting an act together. Pictogram (2)3:1-3.
Honours dissertation, from which this paper was taken. I am National Heritage Resources Act, No. 25, 28 April 1999, Vol. 406, No.
also grateful to Diana Wall at MuseumAfrica for procuring 19974.
archival material for me. Ben Smith, Catherine Namono, Lara Ouzman, S. 1998. A painted fragment of Bushman history from Qwa
Mallen and David Pearce read drafts of this paper and I am Qwa National Park, South Africa. The Digging Stick 15(2): 4-7.
grateful for their comments. Thanks also to Johannes Loubser Pearce, S.M. 1993. Museums, Objects and Collections: a Cultural Study.
Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
and Shiona Moodley for their helpful comments.
Schlanger, N. 2002. Making the past for South Africa's future: the
prehistory of Field-Marshal Smuts (1920s-1940s). Antiquity 76:
REFERENCES 200-209.
Anon. 1969. 10 000 years of art on view in city. The Star, 2 August, Schoonraad, M. 1985. Battiss and prehistoric rock art. In: Skawran, K. &
Johannesburg. Macnamara, M. (eds) Walter Battiss. Craighall: A.D. Donker.
Anon. 1970. Newsletter of the South African Archaeological Society 1(2): 1. South African Archaeological Society. 1964. Minutes of Committee Meet
Anon. 2000. Wits saves priceless rock art. Wits Reporter 18(6): 1. ing, 28 August 1964.
Battiss, W W 1939. The Amazing Bushman. Pretoria: Red Fawn Press. South African Archaeological Society. 1966. Chairman's Report for Year
Battiss, WW1941. Rock painting saved from destruction. Pretoria News, Ending June 16 1966.
27 January. Vinnicombe, P. 1966. The early recording and preservation of rock
Battiss, WW 1948. The Artists of the Rocks. Pretoria: Red Fawn Press. paintings in South Africa. Studies in Speleology 1(4): 153-162.
Bruce, H.J. 1982. The Museum of South African Rock Art: A Descriptive Vinnicombe, P. 1976. People of the Eland: Rock Paintings of the Drakensberg
Guide. Johannesburg: Africana Museum. Bushmen as a Reflection of Their Life and Thought. Pietermaritzburg:
Dowson, T.A. & Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1993. Myths, museums and south Natal University Press.
ern African rock art. South African Historical Journal 29: 44-60. Ward, V 1997. A century of change: rock art deterioration in the Natal
Eastwood, E. & de Wit, D. 1998. The Balerno stone: rescuing rock art in Drakensberg, South Africa. Natal Museum Journal of Humanities 9:
the Limpopo-Shashi confluence. The Digging Stick 15(3): 8-9. 75-97.

This content downloaded from

201.158.189.66 on Sun, 22 Nov 2020 08:23:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms