RE-EXAMINING ROCK ART IN THE CARSON DESERT: THE INTERPRETATION ANDA COMPARISON

Sean T. Carroll

DO NOT CITE IN ANY CONTEXT WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR(S)

Sean T. Carroll, University of Nevada, Reno (carroll7220@yahoo.com)There is little ethnographic information on rock art in the

Great Basin. Given that a majority of the tribes present in the

area today are Numic, this lack of ethnographic evidence presents

the idea that a majority of the rock art present is pre-Numic

(Quinlan and Woody 2003). As a result of this lack of

ethnographic information interpretation models were created.

These models for interpreting rock art that the ethnographic

record was not able to explain include the hunting magic model,

wherein rock art was seen as magic that was put in place as a

routine part of economic reproduction (Malinowski 1935), the

shamanistic model wherein Great Basin rock art is representative

of shamanic metaphors and experiences in sites that served as

locations of vision-quests (Whitley 1994), and a third model that

was presented by Quinlan and Woody that associates rock art

outside of the shamanistic or hunting models and instead ties it

to a domestic context, where rock art was instead encountered and

produced by a "broad cross-section of society in the course of

their daily routine" (Quinlan and Woody 2003: 374). By taking

these three methods for interpreting rock art and then comparing

rock art in three sites within the Great Basin it is clear that

there is examples of rock art that demonstrates supporting

evidence for all three models and reinforces the idea that there

is still much about rock art that remains unexplained.

The hunting magic model claims that rock art was produced

and used in hunting rituals where the aim was to obtain the aide

of supernatural forces to supplement hunting activities. (Heizer

and Baumhoff 1962). This aide would be displayed in the form of

an increasing presence of game in the area or helping the hunter

accomplish a hunt successful. Heizer and Baumhoff (1962) looked

at rock art sites in Nevada and explored the relationship between

the rock art sites themselves and the connection they held to

hunting activities such as ambush sites, animal trails, or

hunting locales. Heizer and Baumhoff attributed specific images

that included flayed sheep or people hunting to support the

hunting magic model, but also stated that the most important

element of the rock art sites associated with the hunting magic

model is the sites context in the hunting atmosphere. (Woody and

Quinlan 2009).

A number of problems have been associated with this model.

First, Heizer and Baumhoff do not address any of the abstract

styles of rock art that is present in, and dominates, nearly all

Great Basin rock art sites (Woody and Quinlan 2009). Heizer and

Baumhoff used one of the Great Basin sites named Lagomarsino, as

a type site for the hunting magic model. Here they cited a large

presence of bighorn sheep motifs as a supporting factor of the

hunting magic model, however, they chose to not include the

thousands of abstract motifs that are also present (Quinlan and

Woody 2001). This is also the case in a number of other model

supporting sites they reviewed (Whitley 1998a).

Another challenge to the hunting magic model claims that if

the rock art was done in order to increase the amount of game

present, why would the rock art only be of a small number? Many

Great Basin rock are sites often only number one or two

depictions of game. Also, the game depicted was often large game

such as bighorn sheep and deer, however, Fowler and Liljeblad

(1986) detail that from the ethno-historic and archaeological

data a number of other resources, including seeds, roots, and

small mammals were of equally large importance in the diet.

These later resources though are not as clearly represented as

the big game, such as sheep. However, Woody and Quinlan (2009)

state that these may be represented in the abstract imagery that

we cannot identify.

A final criticism of the hunting magic model is the over

association of hunting archaeology with rock art (Quinlan

2007a). In this regard hunting activities are seen as being

associated with the rock art sites, whereas domestic activities

are not attributed to having any representation within the rock

art. Woody and Quinlan (2009) tells that Bradley (2000) claims

that if the hunting context and associated archaeology are seen

as contributing factors in what is depicted in the rock art and

the resulting interpretation, then all on site activities that

are supported by the archaeological record in the immediate area

should also be present in the interpretation.

The second model for the interpretation of rock art in the

Great Basin is the shamanistic model. This approach to the

interpretation was developed by Reichel-Dolmattoff and was then

applied to the interpretation and study of California rock art

(Woody and Quinlan 2009). In this model of interpretation rock

art is said to portray the mental imagery that would be produced

during the state of being in a shamanistic trance (Blackburn

1977). These images would be manifested in the form of

"geometric motifs" as well as compositions of anthropomorphic

figures that represent the depiction of shamanistic rituals

(Lewis-Williams and Dowson 1988:205). Other scenes depicted in

rock art have been attributed to common shamanic themes. One

example of this is avian imagery that has been seen as

descriptive of a metaphor for shaman related soul flight or the

transformation of shamans into birds themselves (Hedges 1985).

Other depictions such as hunting or fighting scenes, as well as a

common depiction of an anthropomorph falling has been, with the

aid of the ethnographic record, associated with the trance states

and the theme of death. Here the depictions are interpreted as

being visual metaphors for the shaman entering the shamanistic

trance state (Lewis-Williams 1997).

As with the hunting magic model there are a number of

criticisms to the shamanistic model. Quinlan (2007b:5) states

that "this model aims to include indigenous theories of being

into the interpretation and explanation of rock art". This is

accomplished by assuming that the practices of shamans in the

ethnographic record provide a source of information for the

interpretation. However, issues with these ethnographic records

manifest when speculative reinterpretations of pre-ethnographic

activities are implemented into the interpretation or

explanation.

An example of the issues that the above association can

create present in the interpretations by David Whitley in his

interpretations of Great Basin and California rock art (Whitley

1992). Here Whitley uses a combination of rock art imagery and

reinterpretation of the ethnographic record. He argued that the

rock art of the Great Basin and California was produced only by

male shamans to record images that they had experienced

throughout the trance state. This in turn described rock art

sites as places where power was obtained and was therefore the

location for vision quests to take place. Other elements present

in rock are, according to Whitley, depictions of spirit helpers

who would contact the shaman during the trance state and

prescribe him instructions and powers. Whitley stated that one

such spirit helper often depicted was the bighorn sheep, which

was the spirit helper of rain shamans (Whitley 1994). Whitley

interprets scenes of the bighorn sheep being hunted by

anthropomorphs as metaphors of the shaman entering the shaman

trance and encountering the spirit helper. Whitley (1998a) also

interprets the elaborate and patterned anthropomorphs as

incorporating the geometric styling and therefore depicting the

shamans themselves wearing clothes that are meant to depict

elements of the shaman trance. Some of these have what Whitley

describes as "bird like clawed feet and a whirlwind like face"

(Whitley 1998a:157) and again these elements reflect metaphors of

the shaman trance. Finally, Whitley claims that these sites

would have been located far from either settlement or domestic

related areas and only shamans would have the access to these

sites.

Woody and Quinlan (2009) claim that at the base of Whitley’s

interpretation is an extreme reinterpretation of the ethnographic

record from the Great Basin and California. They claim that this

reinterpretation is highly speculative and inaccurate; however it

is presented as an authoritative interpretation.

Another criticism of the shamanistic model is the

overwhelming amount of domestic archaeology that has been found

in close proximity to rock art sites. Whitley addresses this

issue by stating that the rock art sites were either occupied in

different time frames or were purposely put there to display the

male spiritual dominance over women while they accomplished their

mundane daily activities (Whitley 1998b). Cannon and Woody

(2007) state that this is a reflection of the bias of some

contemporary archaeologists, rather than being the intention of

prehistoric groups.

A final criticism of this approach is presented by Woody and

Quinlan (2009) and claims that the shamanic model is based on the

visual assessment of what is depicted in the rock art itself,

rather than the landscape or context of the rock art. This is

described as focusing on the imagery of rock at the expense of

the archaeological context. This leads to an assumption that

rock art is separate from general archaeology and can provide

insight to the culture that is outside of the reach of the

supporting material record of general archaeology.

The third model for the interpretation of rock art is

described by Quinlan and Woody (2003) and herein will be

described as the domestic context model. Here they state that

the landscape context should be taken into account to describe

both the purpose and resulting interpretations of rock art. In

lieu of the hunting magic model, that states that rock art is

associated with hunting sites and was therefore only used and

viewed by hunters (Heizer and Baumhoff 1962), or the shamanistic

model, that describes rock art as the location of vision quests

that was set apart from domestic settlements and only inhabited

by shamans (Whitley 1998c), the domestic context model claims

that these interpretations are far too narrow and instead

suggests that rock art was created and encountered by a “broad

cross-section of society in the course of their daily routines”

(Quinlan and Woody 2003: 374).

Ricks and Cannon (1993) claim that rock art often occurs in

close proximity to settlement related archaeology but is often

under reported on the site records. Quinlan and Woody state that

“in Nevada there are 1,037 currently recorded rock art sites and

there are lithics reported at 188 sites and ground stone from

114” (Quinlan and Woody 2003:374). They also state that “22 site

records note other types of habitation debris such as middens and

rock rings” (Quinlan and Woody 2003:374). Finally they state

that based on the fact that "of these 1,037 rock art site reports

only 244 site reports indicate the absence or presence of

cultural remains, and as such there is enough to suggest a

relationship between residence and rock art"(Quinlan and Woody

2003:374).

The domestic context model is further supported by work in

the Warner Valley region of Oregon where, according to Ricks

(1996), rock art often appears in foraging areas and areas with

settlement debris. Supporting evidence comes from Ricks and

Cannon (1993). They state that “it appears likely that rock art

was integrated into the daily life of the prehistoric residents

of Warner Valley” (Ricks and Cannon 1993:98). Finally, further

evidence comes from Green who surveyed 106 rock arts sites in

southern Nevada and stated that “site distributions tend to

confirm the proposition that rock art marked trails and camps”

(Green 1987:161).

Quinlan and Woody (2003: 375) state that by allowing rock

art to be attributed to others outside of the realm of hunting or

shamanism, it opens the door to a much larger section of the

cultural group that may have seen and interacted with rock art.

This lends itself to the claim made by Ricoeur (1981:204), that

“the rituals associated with rock art were embedded in the social

reproduction of its makers and users” and therefore, “the

“meanings” of a space are inscribed by the actions recurrently

performed there” (Ricoeur 1981:206). Quinlan and Woody (2001)

used this association to make the claim that rock art instead was

in reference to domestic activities that were done near or

directly associated with the rock art itself. Quinlan and Woody

(2003) take this association even further and claim that it is

possible that social relationships may have also been negotiated

at or near rock art sites near the margins of settlement sites.

With such a broad range of information being able to fall

under the umbrella of the domestic context there is very little

available evidence that would discredit this model. However

Quinlan and Woody (2003) detail that this model would be

challenged with the discovery that the date of the rock art at

sites either predates or postdates the residence or activity that

took place at the site in association with the rock art. However

they claim that even predated rock art could be incorporated into

the practices of later groups whether they had a cultural

relationship or not. Bradley (1993) reports that monuments of

the past have often been reused and even have been given cultural

meanings and active social roles despite discontinuities in their

use.

Another challenge to this model is those sites located in

remote areas from settlement areas. This rock art would most

likely have not been encountered by all individuals on a daily

basis and such detract from the domestic context model. However

Quinlan and Woody (2003: 376) address these sites and state that

these remote sites “probably did not play the broader functions

that we envisage for sites with domestic associations”. Instead

these sites are more similar to the models presented by the

hunting magic and shamanistic models wherein these sites would be

secluded from the general population and therefore would require

special knowledge or special effort to reach.

Finally a last challenge to this model is presented by

Bradley (2000), who claims that access to knowledge that is

represented in rock art can be restricted by the kind of imagery

that is depicted in the rock art. Quinlan and Woody (2003: 376)

address this and state that “although the landscape context of

Great Basin rock art seems to have connected much of it with

routines of daily life, this does not imply the knowledge of its

symbolic meanings was widely shared”. As such each area

inhabited by different cultural groups may have had their own

unique symbols and meanings and therefore an all encompassing

interpretation would be near impossible.

In following with the three previously presented models, I

visited and attempted to classify three different identified rock

art sites in the Great Basin. This was done by examining the

archaeological record that was associated with the sites as well

as what was depicted in the rock art itself. The results of this

classification are presented in what follows.

The first site that was visited is recorded as site

26WA3215. In the site record it is described as talus pits and

petroglyphs. These talus pits are said to be “sized one man to

large (8 or more)” (Site recorded by Hollingsworth 1983). The

only archaeological material associated with the sites is

described as “a grinding stone that was reported but is no longer

present”. (Site recorded by Hollingsworth 1983). The site report

describes these pits as “hunting pits” and makes reference to the

possibility of being part of a “hunting trail”. A visit to this

site revealed the presence of a few pictographs. Figure one

shows an anthropomorphic figure in close proximity to what

appears to be a deer. Figure two seems to depict an

anthropomorphic figure with what seems to be a bow and arrow

aimed at a bighorn sheep. The remaining rock art is described in

the site report to represent a “lizard or a dragonfly”, see

figure three. This site seems to most closely identify with the

hunting magic model. It is not located near any extensive

domestic archaeological activity and the presence of hunting pits

further supports this association. There seem to be no geometric

motifs representative of the shamanistic model association or the

amount of domestic activity present to make this site present to

a large cultural group.

Figure 1. Anthromorphic figure with deer.

Figure 2. Anthromorphic figure with bow aimed at sheep.

Figure 3. Rock art described as lizard or dragonflies.

The next site visited was 26CH84. This site is known as

Salt Cave and was recorded as “red writings on the wall” by M.

Wheat in 1950. No available written records of excavations were

located by me, and as such the interpretation of this site is

based solely off of the pictographs present. The only record of

such even being addressed is in the site recorded by M. Wheat in

1950 which states that “a small amount of excavation would soon

disclose possibility of artifacts. At present beach pebbles

floor the cave. Present in this site are pictographs that range

from simple images of a hand, see figure four, to advanced

geometric shapes and lines, see figure five. Given the sites

distance from other areas of habitation such as Hidden Cave and

the Grimes Point and the presence of geometric shapes, this site

seems to fit with the shamanistic model, whereby an area that is

set apart from domestic areas was visited strictly by shamans.

Figure 4. Hand print style pictograph.

Figure 5. Geometric shapes and lines pictographs.

The final site that was visited is CH1. This site is also

known as the Grimes point petro-glyph trail. Located at this

site is an extensive number of petro-glyphs that include wavy

lines, anthropomorphs, “snakes”, and other animal depictions, see

figures six, seven, and eight. In the immediate vicinity are a

number of other sites including Grimes Burial Shelter, Spirit

Cave, Hanging Rock, Fish Cave, Burnt Cave, and Hidden Cave.

Previous archaeology has associated human occupation of Spirit

Cave with a date exceeding 9,000 years ago (Tuohy and Dansie

1997). Also, Hidden Cave has had near continuous occupation from

approximatly 5365 BP until approximately 810BP (Thomas 1985:11).

As a large amount of occupation and a wide range of domestic

activities that are detailed in the immediate surrounding area,

this site seems to fall in line with the domestic context model

presented by Woody and Quinlan. Grimes Point is not located in a

remote area and is visible from nearly all other archaeological

sites in the area. Given its location as well as the demographic

that would have encountered it, support is given to the idea that

Grimes Point most closely resembles the type of site that the

domestic context model represents.

Figure 6. Petroglyph from Grimes Point.

Figure 7. Petroglyph from Grimes Point.

Figure 8. Petroglyph from Grimes Point.

Throughout this paper three models have been presented to

explain, and lend themselves to the interpretation of, rock art

in the Great Basin. Each of these models has both supporting and

discrediting factors. By visiting sites in the area and

reporting on the rock art that is present at these locations, my

aim is not to tie a specific activity to these sites and use the

models as a support base. Instead I present these examples and

my interpretation of them to merely present the idea that each of

these models may be correct. The three sites presented

accurately seem to fall under the veil of one of the specific

models. However, at a moment’s notice these could each be

changed. For example, were excavations to be done at Salt Cave,

and should those excavations yield a number of artifacts

representing domestic activities the interpretation and

associated model would change. However, these serve as a good

start for further research that may be able to further define or

explain a part of archaeology that yet remains shrouded in

mystery.

Works CitedBlackburn, T. C.

1977 Biopsychological aspects of Chumash rock art. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4(1):88-94.

Bradley, R. 2000 An Archaeology of Natural Places. Routledge, London.1993 Altering the Earth: The Origins of Monuments in Britain and

Continental Europe. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Edinburgh.

Cannon, W. J. and A. Woody2007 Towards A Gender Inclusive View of Rock Art in the

Northern Great Basin. In Great Basin Rock Art: Archaeological Perspectives, edited by A. R. Quinlan, pp. 37-51.

University of Nevada Press, Reno.

Fowler, C. S., and S. Liljeblad 1986 Northern Paiute. In Great Basin, edited by W. d'

Azevedo, pp. 435-465. Handbook of North American Indians, vol.11, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Green, E. M.

1987 A Cultural Ecological Approach to the Rock Art of Southern Nevada. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Hedges, K. 1985 Rock Art Portrayals of Shamanic Transformation and

Magical Flight. In Rock ArtPapers Volume 2, edited by K. Hedges, pp. 83-94. San Diego

Museum Papers No. 18,Museum of Man, San Diego.

Heizer, R. F, and M. A. Baumhoff 1962 Prehistoric Rock Art of Nevada and Eastern California.

University of California Press, Berkeley.

Lewis-Williams, J. D. 1997 Agency, Art and Altered Consciousness: A Motif in

French (Quercy) UpperPalaeolithic Parietal Art. Antiquity 71:810-830.

Lewis-Williams, J. D. and T. A. Dowson1988 The Signs of All Times: Entoptic Phenomena in

Upper Palaeolithic art. CurrentAnthropology 29(2):201-245.

Malinowski, B. 1935 Coral Gardens and their Magic. Kegan Paul, London.

Quinlan, A. R. 2007a Great Basin Rock Art: Archaeological Perspectives. University

of Nevada Press, Reno.

2007b Integrating Rock Art with Archaeology: Symbolic Culture as Archaeology. In Great Basin Rock Art: Archaeological Perspectives, edited by A. R. Quinlan, pp. 1-8. University of Nevada Press, Reno.

Quinlan, A. R., and A. Woody 2001 Marking Time at Lagomarsino: The Competing Perspectives

of Rock Art Studies. In American Indian Rock Art, Volume 27,

edited by S. M. Freers and A. Woody, pp. 211-220. American Rock Art Research Association, Tucson, Arizona

2003 Marks of Distinction: Rock Art and Ethnic Identification in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 68(2):372-390

Ricks, M. F 1996 A Survey and Analysis of Prehistoric Rock Art of the Warner Valley

Region, Lake County, Oregon. Technical Reports 96-1. Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.

Ricks, M.F.. and W. J. Cannon1993 A Preliminary Report on the Lake County, Oregon,

Rock Art Inventory: A DataBase for Rock Art Research. In American Indian Rock Art, Vol. 12,

edited by W. D.Hyder, pp. 93-106. American Rock Art Research Association,

San Miguel,California.

Ricoeur, P.1981 Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Thomas, D.H. 1985 The Archaeology of Hidden Cave, Nevada.

Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 61(1).

Tuohy, Donald R. and Dansie, Amy. 1997 New information regarding Early Holocene

manifestations in the Western Great Basin. Tuohy, Donald R. and Dansie, Amy (eds.) Nevada Historical Society

Quarterly 40(1):24-53. 

Whitley, D. S.

1992 Shamanism and Rock Art in Far Western North America. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2(1):89-113.

1994 Shamanism, Natural Modeling and the Rock Art of Far Western North American Hunter Gatherers. In Shamanism and Rock Art in North America, edited by S. A. Turpin, pp. 1-43. Special Publication I. The Rock Art Foundation, San Antonio.

1998a History and Prehistory of the Coso Range: TheNative American Past on the Western Edge of the Great Basin. InCoso Rock Art: A New Perspective, edited by E. Younkin, pp. 29-68. Maturango Museum Publication No. 12. Maturango Press,

Ridgecrest, California

1998b Following the Shaman’s Path: a walking guide to Little Petroglyph Canyon, Coso Range, California. Maturango Press, Ridgecrest.

1998c Finding Rain in the Desert: Landscape, Gender and Far Western North American Rock-Art In The Archaeology of Rock-Art, edited by C. Chippindale and P. S. C. Tacon,p p. 11-29. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Woody, Alanah & Angus R. Quinlan2009 The Avoided Past: Great Basin Rock Art in

Archaeological Thought and Its Potential in the Study of PastIdentity. In Past, Present and Future Issues in Great Basin

Archaeology: Papers in Honor of Don D. Fowler, edited by Bryan Hockett,pp. 49-66. Cultural Resources Series No. 20