Saturday, August 30, 2014
TALLIES IN ROCK ART:
One category of rock art symbolism that has not been
satisfactorily explained is the series or group of markings classified as a
tally. We assume that they are a tally because we would use marks like these
that way, but, of course, no-one really knows at present whether most of these
are or are not actually tallies in the sense of counting something. For want of
a better term I like to call these by the name tallyform.
There is a category of tallies that are usually fairly easy
to recognize and these are coup counts. I have written on this previously and
will again in the future, but for now I am discussing the series of markings
that look like a numerical tally and that cannot be interpreted. Attempts have
been made to identify them as Ogam writing, but most students of the field just
do not agree. The main problem to identifying these as a tally is the question
“a tally of what?”
There are some sequences in nature that are often cited as
possible reasons for keeping the tally. Advocates of Archaeoastronomy often
argue the need for agricultural people to be able to use some sort of
calendrical count to determine when is the proper time to plant. Therefore in a
tallyform a count of 28 to 30 repeating marks is often cited as representing
the lunar cycle and a 12 mark count would be identified as the lunar year.
Actually, of course we have no way of knowing whether or not this is actually
the true intention of the creator of the marks. As to the attempts to identify
these as planting calendars I have a major problem. No farmer plants his crops
according to the calendar, they plant according to the conditions. One year may
have an earlier planting season, and the next year a later planting season.
This is determined by ambient temperature and moisture, not a calendar. My grandfather in western Washington interpreted the clouds around Mount Rainier to predict weather and climate. In one
ethnographic example I recall a Native American farmer on the Great Plains
testified that he planted when the leaves of the trees were the size of a
squirrel’s ear.
Another factor to be considered is the type of mark we are
considering. I do not consider that a row of awl sharpening grooves in a rock
can be designated to be a tally, they were created for another purpose
entirely.
"Music", Purgatoire, Bent County, CO.
Photograph: Peter Faris, June 1991.
So what do we make of a line of markings in a cliff, say seventeen,
or thirty five, or many more, that does not correspond to any natural cycle we
can determine? Might it perhaps represent the number of buffalo killed by
hunters in the season, or the number of rainy days? Perhaps, but unless we are
given more information how will we ever know?
Labels:
Colorado,
music,
petroglyph,
Picketwire,
Purgatoire,
rock art,
tally,
tallyform
Saturday, August 23, 2014
“FRATERNITY
OF WAR, PLAINS INDIAN ROCK ART AT BEAR GULCH AND ATHERTON CANYON, MONTANA -
CONTINUED”
Keyser, James D.,
David A. Kaiser, George Poetschat,
And Michael W.
Taylor, 2012, Fraternity
of War,
Plains Indian Rock
Art at Bear Gulch and Atherton
Canyon, Montana,
Oregon
Archaeological Society
Press Publication
#21, Portland.
On July 12, 2014, I posted part one of a review of the wonderful
book Fraternity of War, Plains Indian
Rock Art at Bear Gulch and Atherton Canyon, Montana, by James Keyser and
George Poetschat. This 436 page volume was published by the Oregon
Archaeological Society Press (volume 21) and was written by 14 contributing
authors, edited by James D. Keyser, David A. Kaiser, George Poetschat, and
Michael W. Taylor, with technical editing by John and Mavis Greer, and
contributions by a handful of other people. Now I want to repeat here that I do
not personally know most of the people involved in this volume, but I wish I
knew them all because they have to all be outstanding experts in their
specialties, with James Keyser shepherding the process and setting his usual
high standards.
This comprehensive volume provides coverage of much of the
material found at these locations. With a record of detailed tracings of more
than 900 panels they authors could not include everything, but they put an
amazing amount of material into this volume.
In discussing chronological contexts for the sites the authors
included a fascinating ethnographic account of a rock art panel from Curley
Head, a Gros Ventre native. Speaking in 1937 from memories of his childhood
(believed to be from about 1870) Curley Head stated: “Then we crossed the Missouri River and camped at the mouth of a creek,
which empties into the river. Here the Little People had made paintings on the
cliffs and in the caves nearby. I decided to sleep near one of these cliffs to
see if I could obtain some power. I prayed and cried until I fell asleep. I had
a dream that the Little People were coming for me with a big kettle of boiling
water and each one was picking a part of my body that he wanted to eat. I woke
up and left that place right away. People always have bad dreams when they
sleep near painted cliffs (Pohrt 1937)”. (Keyser and Poetschatt 2013:23)
One of the qualities that I have most admired in Jim Keyser’s work
is the ability he has always shown to recognize and point out significant
details in the rock art. For instance, where most of us would look at the
figures painted and pecked and see that some have face painting, Keyser
carefully noted 27 different face painting designs, and illustrated them (on
page 156). He repeats this with many other details of portrayal, including
headdresses and hairstyles, including at least 13 wolf hat headdresses (pages
158-160).
Wolf hat headdresses, Keyser and
Poetschat, Fig. 2.183, p. 158.
So much of rock art literature in the past has been limited to a
record describing and illustrating what is portrayed. This has, however, never
been Jim Keyser’s modus operandi. Not only do Jim Keyser and George Poetschat spend hundreds of pages on detailed description of rock art panels and figures
in this book, they devote many, many more to detailed analysis of the
iconography and meaning of the images. Jim Keyser has always been a master at
reading the narrative in a rock art panel, and the rock art of Bear Gulch and
Atherton Canyon is presented the same way.
I hope that in
talking so much about Jim Keyser I have not shorthanded other deserving
personnel involved in this volume. As I said, I do not know most of the people
involved (although I still wish I did) and cannot fully know their contributions
and personal strengths. I have known Jim Keyser and have long had an extremely
high regard for his scholarship and work ethic, and when I think I see his hand
in the material I guess I tend to automatically attribute it to him. It is also
my firm belief that Jim would be the first to brush this off, and to pass the credit
to his co-workers. On May 20, 2014, he
wrote to me about his partner George Poetschat: “He was awarded the Crabtree award a couple years ago by
the Society for American Archaeology in recognition of his MANY contributions
to archaeology....co-authoring these publications is just one of his many
skills.” If I have wrongly
attributed any element of this book let me say that it has not been my
intention to slight any of the people involved in this marvelous publication,
and thank all of them for their contributions.
I finished the first part of my review of this book with the
following paragraph. "There is so much
material in this volume that it constitutes, in itself, a reference library of
Great Plains rock art. Clearly written, carefully cross-referenced, and full of
citations, this book will be the go-to reference for many years to come. When I
first heard of this book and decided to review it here for RockArtBlog I had no
idea of the scope of the project I would be undertaking. Needless to say this
is only the beginning and I anticipate many more postings over time about this
wonderful book and material that it contains. Congratulations and thank you to
the whole team for adding all of this knowledge to our field, and thank you as
well to the Oregon Archaeological Society for making it possible."
I see no reason to change that opinion now.
I see no reason to change that opinion now.
REFERENCE:
Keyser, James D., David A. Kaiser, George Poetschat, and Michael
W. Taylor
2012 Fraternity
of War, Plains Indian Rock Art at Bear Gulch and Atherton Canyon, Montana, Oregon Archaeological Society Press
Publication #21, Portland.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
HARMONIC CONVERGENCE IN CHACO CANYON, NEW MEXICO – AUGUST 16 & 17, 1987:
Chaco Canyon, trail to Penasco Blanco, San Juan
county, NM. Photograph: Peter Faris, May 1994.
Twenty seven years ago, on August 16 and 17, 1987, I was camped in Chaco Canyon with
a group of friends from the Colorado Archaeological Society on one of our field trips to
view the amazing ruins and the rock art of Chaco Canyon’s fluorescent culture.
Una Vida petroglyph panel, Chaco Canyon, San Juan
county, NM. Photograph: Peter Faris, Aug. 1984.
Penasco Blanco, Chaco Canyon, San Juan
county, NM. Photograph: Peter Faris, May 1994.
In the weeks leading up to this trip we had seen stories in the news about the
so-called “Harmonic Convergence” which marked the end of one of the cycles in
the Mayan calendar. Supposed at the same time there was to be a syzygy in the
heavens, an alignment of the sun, earth, moon, and planets (I forget which) that
would activate the earth’s lines of force and do something or other spiritual (I
have also forgotten what). When this occurred locations that were where the earth’s
lines of force met would be especially blessed, and it turned out that Chaco
Canyon was one of those locations according to some fringie prophet. I have
borrowed a great explanation of the event from Kenneth Feder’s 2010 book, Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology: From
Atlantis to the Walam Olum.
“On
August 16 and 17, 1987, all over the world, people congregated in various
special locations to mark the beginning of a new age. The moment was one
apparently resonant with earthshaking possibilities, for it heralded the
beginning of a change in the trajectory in human evolution and history.
This
was not because August 16, 1987, was the tenth anniversary of the death of
Elvis Presley, though that irony (or perhaps it was a joke after all) seems to
have been lost on true believers. No, those days had been singled out in a very
popular book, The Mayan Factor: The Path beyond Technology, by Jose Argualles.
He called that two-day period (conveniently on a weekend so the celebrants
wouldn’t have to take a day off from work) the Harmonic Convergence." (1987, 170)
Rin gong at Kiyomizu dera, Kyoto, Wikipedia.
It turned out that we were not the only campers there that
weekend. The place was absolutely crawling with fringies undergoing mystical
and spiritual experiences, and driving the park rangers nuts by climbing on
things that were not supposed to be climbed (like the ruins), making noise,
doing drugs, and burying offerings at Chacoan ruins (digging being forbidden at
such sites – it is called vandalism). The only serious crimp that this put in
our visit, however, was the loss of most of the night’s sleep. That was due to
what I recall as a very large Rin Gong, the “Tibetan singing bowl”, in the back
of a pickup truck. According to its size and shape I believe it was half of a home propane tank. When a rosined stick was rubbed around the rim this began to
vibrate and soon a surprisingly loud hum was soon moaning and echoing back off
of canyon walls. Sitting in a pickup truck bed only made it resonate louder,
certainly too loud for anyone else to sleep. Apparently the fringies would only
acquire the miraculous spiritual benefits if they kept it going without a break
all night. Additionally, they danced around to the music of the gong, whooping and yelling and believing
themselves to be genuinely tribal. Eventually a group of park rangers came and
broke it up, having finally received a critical mass of complaints from other campers.
Feder continues “In that book, Arguelles argues that the Maya
weren’t just regular folks but were, instead, intergalactic beings who visited
the Earth. They were not the crude, high-tech types of Erich von Daniken’s
fantasy, cruising the universe in spaceships. Instead the Maya were beings who
could “transmit themselves as DNA code information from one star system to
another” (59). Their purpose on Earth, again according to Arguelles, is rather
obscure (to me, at least):
“The
totality of the interaction between the Earth’s larger life and the individual
group responses to this greater life define “planet art.” In this large
process, I dimly perceive the Maya as being the Navigators or charters of the
waters of galactic synchronization. (37)”
If that doesn’t quite
clear it up for you, Arguelles adds that the Maya are here on Earth “to make
sure that the galactic harmonic pattern, not perceivable as yet to our
evolutionary position in the galaxy, had been presented and recorded” (73).
Well, there you go.
Apparently, the Maya,
who are actually from the star Arcturus in the Pleiades cluster, materialized
in Mesoamerica a number of times as “galactic agents.” They introduced writing
and other aspects of civilization to the Olmec as part of some quite vague plan
to incorporate humanity into some sort of cosmic club.
Arguelles should be
given credit (or rather, the blame) for being one of the first authors to claim
that the end of the Maya cycle of time that began in 3113 BCE – the current
baktun – will end on December 21, 2012 CE. Argualles is not one of the
doomsayers who claim that the world will come go a catastrophic end on that
date, though. Instead, he states that the Maya are on their way back to Earth
via “galactic synchronization beams,” traveling by way of “chromomolecular
transport” (169). The Maya will arrive on December 21, 2012, not to witness the
destruction of Earth but to usher in a new age related to, in Arguelles’s
incomprehensible and utterly meaningless phrasing, the “re-impregnation of the
planetary field with the archetypal harmonic experiences of the planetary
whole” (170). Of course.
Surprisingly (not),
there is no reference to archaeological evidence or any sort of scientific
testing for the speculations of Arguelles, There are no insights concerning the
Maya and their civilization. The Harmonic Convergence ultimately was little
more than a rather silly exercise based not on a scientific understanding of
the ancient Maya but on some vague hope that the world will improve if we just
wish it would.” (Feder 2010:134-5)
Mayan Calendar by Matthew Bisanz.
simple.wikipedia.org,wiki,File,Maya_
Calendar_by_Matthew_Bisanz
However, none of that nonsense could really spoil what is so
special about Chaco Canyon. As long as we stayed away from the large parties of
fringies we were able to experience the amazing ruins and the rock art in
peace. If there was a moral to this story I guess it would be something like
when you plan a special trip don’t just check your calendar, you'd better check the Mayan
calendar as well.
REFERENCES:
Feder, Kenneth L.
2010 Encyclopedia
of Dubious Archaeology: From Atlantis to the Walam Olum, Greenwood, Santa
Barbara, Denver, and Oxford.
Wikipedia
Saturday, August 9, 2014
PAINTED PEBBLES, VAL VERDE COUNTY, TX.
Painted pebbles (reproductions) on display,
White Shaman, Val Verde County, TX.
Photograph: Peter Faris, March 2004.
Forms of rock art that are often considered portable include
rock slabs, stones or pebbles, or even stone tools that are carved, scratched,
or painted. In the Pecos region of Texas painted pebbles are quite commonly
found, often with burials in rock shelters. A large number of them were
recovered during the 1933 excavation of Fate Bell Shelter by J. E. Pearce.
Painted pebbles, Val Verde County, TX, From Newcomb,
1967, The Rock Art of Texas Indians, paintings
by Forrest Kirkland, Plate 68, p. 107.
“Forty-eight painted
pebbles were found in the shelter. Eight were broken.
Of the pebbles
excavated 67 per cent came from the upper 25 inches, 21 per cent from depths of
25 to 40 inches, and 12 per cent from below 40 inches.
The painted designs on
a few of the pebbles remain clear and bright, but on a majority they are
somewhat dim. Frequently they are so nearly obliterated that but little remains
of the original designs. On twenty of the pebbles the paint is barely
discernible.” (Pearce 1933:79)
“Black was the
predominant color of the paint used. One design has a trace of red bordering
the black; another bears a very dim design in red paint.
In length the pebbles
vary from 1½ to 4½ inches, in width from ½ to 2¼ inches, and in thickness from
1/8 to ½ inch.
It seems worth noting
that a number of the painted pebbles from Site No. 1, Seminole Canyon, and from
other nearby rock shelters bear evidence of having been scratched and pecked in
spots.” (Pearce 1933:83)
Painted pebbles, Val Verde County, TX, From Newcomb,
1967, The Rock Art of Texas Indians, paintings
by Forrest Kirkland, Plate 67, p. 106.
“The design elements
present and the number of times each was employed in the decoration of these
pebbles are as follows:
Horizontal
lines……………………….….24
Geometric
figures………………….…..15
Ladder
symbols………………………..…12
Scrolls……………………………………..….10
Vertical
lines………………………….…..10
Sun Symbols …………………………..…..8
Projectile
shafts …………………….…..7
Serpents …………………………….….…..5
Cross…………………………………….………5
Dashes, or enumeration
dots.……..5
Human faces………………………….………5
Moon
symbol s………………………………4
Trees or
plants ……………………………4
Lightning
symbols ……………….…..…4
“Death
counts” ………………………..…3
Human
figures ………………………..….2
Crosshatch………………………………....2
Bird …………………………………………….1
Animal or insect………………………….1
Blanket-like
figure ……………..…….1
Tepee-like
figure ……………………….1”
(Pearce 1933:84)
Now many of these categories strike me as problematical and
arbitrary, especially since they were not accompanied with any sort of index to
the meanings of these designations. It
is worth noting that Pearce footnoted this table with the disclaimer - “This tabulated study of designs is the work
of Mr. A. T. Jackson. His co-author is dubious about some of his
identifications of elements but accepts most of them. J. E. P.” (Pearce
1933:84)
“This study of the
designs on painted pebbles is not intended to be exhaustive. Many more
specimens must be secured, studied, and compared before any definite
conclusions can be arrived at as to their significance. Their number,
character, and distribution indicate that they were an important element in the
life of the early men who lived in this shelter. They are suggestive of the
churingas of Australia and were almost surely sacred objects.”
(Pearce 1933:87)
Of course they were not “almost certainly sacred objects”
as Pearce stated (the underline is mine). They are just as likely to have been
gaming pieces, toys, or practice for the important job of painting on the
shelter walls. They might even have been intended for juggling, in some sort of
prehistoric Pecos vaudeville act, or for all we know a Pecos magician might have pulled them from some child's ear in an example of prehistoric prestidigitation. They were, however, obviously important for
some reason because there are so many of them, and so many of those are quite
neatly made with carefully delineated lines and patterns, not just splashed or
smeared. Painted pebbles have been found in many other locations from
throughout human history, including Paleolithic sites in Europe. Whatever else
they were, they were certainly a widespread human cultural phenomenon, and they
are worth looking at for that reason alone.
REFERENCES:
Newcomb, W. W., Jr.
1967 The
Rock Art of Texas Indians, paintings by Forrest Kirkland, University of
Texas Press, Austin and London.
Pearce, J. E.,
and A. T. Jackson,
1933 A Prehistoric Rock Shelter In Val Verde
County, Texas, Anthropological Papers of
the University of Texas, Vol. 1, No. 3, Bureau of Research in the Social
Sciences, Study No. 6, University of Texas, Austin.
Labels:
Fate Bell Shelter,
painted pebbles,
Pecos,
rock art,
Texas
Saturday, August 2, 2014
DINOSAURS IN ROCK ART: NOT EVEN CLOSE! – A TRICERATOPS PETROGLYPH NEAR MONTROSE, COLORADO?
Dr. Don Patton pointing to the claimed petroglyph
of a triceratops near Montrose, CO, in this
photograph from www.bible.ca
Absolutely amazing, isn’t it? This is another example of the
extremities that the Evolution-deniers and Young-Earthers will go to in order
to prove that humans and dinosaurs lived together a few thousand years ago.
Remember, that the goal is to prove the position that the bible says the earth
is only 6,000 years old based upon 17th century Bishop Usher’s
calculation that “the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23,
4004 BC” (Wikipedia). In order for that to be true humans and
dinosaurs have to have coexisted for some period. Therefore, they study the
rock art record for pictures that they can brand as dinosaurs. This picture (from www.bible.ca) shows a supposed triceratops petroglyph near Montrose, Colorado. In this picture the hand of Dr. Don Patton points to the image in question.
The anthropomorphs in this panel are Fremont in style which
would date the panel to between over 2,000 years to approximately 1,250 years
BPE. There is, of course, absolutely no way to prove that all the images were
done back then, or that some were not added more recently. In fact, of the
horns on this supposed triceratops one is obviously newer than the others; it
is more heavily abraded, and brighter (less patinated) suggesting that it is
considerably newer, and the longest one looks modified as well. So I have to
assume that this so-called triceratops image has been modified, and it really
wasn’t all that close to the original model anyway. It would seem that if people had indeed been living among dinosaurs when this image was created it should look a lot more like the real thing. In fact, to me, it looks
much more like a Fremont portrayal of a dog which someone modified by adding
another “horn” to two existing ears. In fact dog portrayals are relatively
common in Fremont culture rock art.
By the way, this Dr. Don Patton has a background in geology,
and his PhD is in Education. (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ask-creationist.htm)
Perhaps someone ought to have educated him about never touching the rock art.
It messes up any attempts at scientific dating. But then, if the dating
cannot be reliably established, it cannot be proven that this is not at all
genuine. Perhaps there is a motive for his handling the surface of the rock
like this after all.
Now, according to conventional science the triceratops lived
in the late Cretaceous period, 65 to 70 million years ago. Its range was Wyoming, Colorado, Montana,
South Dakota, North Dakota, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, so this could have been
within the area that they frequented, but they frequented it 65,000,000 years
ago, not 6,000. (http://www.uwyo.edu/geomuseum/exhibits/triceratops.html)
This has obviously devolved into another situation where we
have diametrically opposite belief systems and I doubt if the twain shall meet.
Young earth believers will probably continue to see dinosaurs in rock art, and
I, just as adamantly, will not see dinosaurs in rock art. How about you?
REFERENCES:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ask-creationist.htm
Wikipedia.
Labels:
Colorado,
creationism,
dinosaur,
Montrose triceratops,
petroglyph,
rock art
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)