South African Archaeological Society

Las Pinturas Rupestres de la Patagonia by O. F. A. MenghinReview by: G. J. F.The South African Archaeological Bulletin, Vol. 11, No. 43 (Sep., 1956), p. 86Published by: South African Archaeological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3887407 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 10:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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

.

South African Archaeological Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toThe South African Archaeological Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.52 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:49:56 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

HINTS TO CONTRIBUTORS Rejection

At times we return papers insufficiently grounded on earlier work. A recently arrived savant or student from overseas may be excused, but not for long. Continued irresponsibility cannot be condoned. The fundamental difference between papers written at professional level and those poured out by the enthusiastic amateur is the appreciation of the setting, the problems and answers already proposed. This is a digestive process. It is the difference between the sub-editor and the cub-reporter, between judgment and journalism. Even if previous conclusions are rejected, the writer should give a briefly expressed reason. All this means that time and care are essential.

An opposite cause for rejection lies in papers of a 'scholastic' order, which cite a hundred and one references, but whose author has not worried to consider his material adequately.

Fundamentals There are two fundamental rules. Study and know

the material you are discussing. Cite the opinions and conclusions of those who have wrestled with similar problems.

A scientific paper should be a considered record. To benefit from the judgments of the past is to make use of the fruits of experience. To write a good article accept the responsibility of your considered judgment. Avoid personal attack; avoid offending an opponent by deliberate falsification, by abstracting a chance statement from its true context or by imputing unworthy motives to views with which you disagree. This may be good politics, but in science we are seeking for truth, not votes.

One very frequent weakness in students' papers is a failure to read and re-read a scientific paper cited.

What is in fact a purely theoretical example may be interpreted as a statement of results, so that a hypo- thetical reconstruction takes on the cloak of a finished argument. Beware of irony, both in the sources quoted, and in comments upon them. It is very easy to mistake rhetorical irony, which is intended to carry a faulty argument to its 'logical conclusion', for a logical sequitur. If irony must be used, cancel it immediately in the following sentence by showing clearly the fault in the argument used.

This failure to read a paper (especially if wve expect not to agree with its author) is becoming a very serious fault, and has frequently been commented on by local and oversea reviewers of South African publications; but it is a fault by no means confined to this country.

As the author of a scientific article we must be in a position to accept your veracity, your honesty of approach and your considered judgment. A dis- honest scientist can lead the world up the garden path to Piltdown, but no honest man expects his bank to issue forged notes: trust is the only basis upon which an editor can work. Revision

If a manuscript is returned for revision, it is done for your benefit and your prestige. The Bulletin is the channel of publication, we wish to maintain our standing by maintaining yours. Any return should therefore be accepted and the advice accompanying it should be carefully considered. We are more likely to return a good article for you to improve than to ask you to patch slovenly workmanship or bad material. If the substance is there it is worth repair. If the faults are slight, this may be an editorial matter, but time should be allowed for serious consideration of an article before it is even submitted to an editor.

REVIEW Menghin, 0. F. A. 'Las Pinturas Rupestres de la

Patagonia', Runa, vol. V, Buenos Aires, 1955.

Prof. Oswald Menghin is known to prehistorians all over the world for his Weltgeschichte der Steinzeit (now out of print). He used to be professor at Vienna University, but emigrated to Argentina after World War IL. He has made six expeditions to Patagonia and carried out extensive research work there, and is going to publish a 'Prehistory of Patagonia'. In Patagonia, as far down as Tierra del Fuego, Menghin was able to make a comprehensive study of caves and cave-paintings; he divides the Patagonian rock- art into three main groups:

(1) Negatives of Hands, especially numerous in the area of the rivers Deseado, Chico and west of Lake Muster. The hand, mostly the left, was placed against the rock and splashed over with paint. The oldest of these 'paintings' are in black and red, followed at a later period by yellow and white, while dark-red and green are the most recent. Positive prints are rather scarce. Through excavations, especially in the caves of Los Toldos, it could be

established that the oldest hand-paintings are post- glacial, about 8,000 to 9,000 years old. They would thus correspond in time with West European hands in the caves of Spain and the south of France. Paintings of hands are to be found throughout the world, including South Africa. The Patagonian hands some- times show mutilated fingers.

(2) Humans and animals, mostly hunting scenes, depicting above all guanaco, jaguar, puma and ostrich or rhea. Dancing scenes can be found occasionally.

(3) Besides rock-paintings, engravings are to be found in great numbers. They mostly show spoors of animals (guanaco, puma and rhea), also human foot- prints. In addition we find that ladders, double- meanders, zigzag lines (which might mean snakes), double rows of dots, and geometrical designs are very numerous. These last are of special interest, showing 'suns' with or without sun-rays, circles, and mazes. Menghin is of opinion that these rock-engravings (especially the labyrinths) are due to an immigration of an agricultural Europoid race some 2,000 years ago. (Europoid does not imply any of the recent European races.) G. J. F.

86

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.52 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:49:56 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions