DO NOT CITE IN ANY CONTEXT WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR(S)
Sean T. Carroll, University of Nevada, Reno ([email protected])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 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
Top Related