INTERIOR FIGURE ANTHROPOMORPHS:

"The Great Gallery," Barrier Canyon

Style Anthropomorphs, Horseshoe

Canyon, Wayne County, Utah.

Photo Peter Faris, May 1992.

In early rock art of Utah, western Colorado, and to some extent southwestern Wyoming, we find the magnificent and fascinating imagery of the Barrier Canyon Style Archaic (roughly dated to at least 1500 to possibly 4000 years ago - Wikipedia) and the later Fremont people (from AD 1 to 1301 (2,000 - 700 years ago - Wikipedia). A common trait in their rock art is the one considered herein, the Interior Figure Anthropomorph. These consist of a pecked or painted figure containing within its torso one or more smaller figures of anthropomorphic or zoomorphic form. These might just represent the decoration on garments. Alternatively they may represent internalized spirits of ancestors or totem animals residing within a person - the source of their personal power. Or my favorite possibility, combining the two possibilities: it might represent spirits of ancestors or totem animals residing within a person, the source of their personal power, but painted on their garments for all to see.

There appear to be three different classes of Interior Figure images.

1. Animals within animals.

2. Animals within humans.

3. Humans within humans.

In the case of 1. animals within animals, the obvious explanation would seem to be a pregnancy or birthing motif. There are also a few examples of 3. human within human images that seem to suggest pregnancy or birthing.

Interior figure desert bighorn

sheep, Alex Patterson, 1992,

Coso Range, CA. p. 162.

Interior figure anthropomorph,

Alex Patterson, 1992, p. 162

Gobernador Basin, New Mexico.

In his 1992 Field Guide to Rock Art Symbols, Alex Patterson gave examples of petroglyphs that represent pregnancy to him. One example, from the California Coso Range, shows a bighorn sheep within a bighorn sheep, and the second example, from New Mexico's Gobernador Basin, shows a pair of anthropomorphs, apparently holding hands, one of whom has a smaller anthropomorph upside down inside its torso. He interpreted the bighorn sheep as a pregnant female, and the anthropomorph with the interior figure as a pregnant human female. (Patterson 1992: 162) I can see little reason to argue with Patterson's interpretation, although in the case of the bighorn sheep the interior figure seems to have half grown horns and I would think that the prehistoric artist would have to have known that baby sheep are born hornless (perhaps the horns are shown as clues to the identity, not meant as realism).

Having given these examples I now wish to move on to the more classic Interior Figure Anthropomorph, the aforementioned These consist of a pecked or painted human figure containing within the torso one or more smaller figures of anthropomorphic or zoomorphic form. 

"The Great Gallery," Barrier Canyon

Style Interior Figure Anthropomorph,

Horseshoe Canyon, Wayne County,UT.

Photo Don I. Campbell, 16 May 1984.

                           

"The Great Gallery," Barrier Canyon

Style Interior Figure Anthropomorph,

Horseshoe Canyon, Wayne County,UT.

Photo Don I. Campbell, 16 May 1984.

Interior figure anthropomorph

indicated, combined Barrier

Canyon Style and Fremont panel,

Sego Canyon, UT.

Photo Peter Faris, October 8, 2016.

Close-up of interior figure

anthropomorph, combined Barrier

Canyon Style and Fremont panel,

Sego Canyon, UT.

Photo Peter Faris, October 8, 2016.

Although in some instances the occurrence of a figure within another figure may portray pregnancy, David Sucec of the Barrier Canyon Style Project is skeptical of that meaning for most occurrences with anthropomorphs. "I suspect that although animals within animals my suggest pregnancy, I don't think that is the case for figures. It is hard to say because gender is not often indicated, especially in Archaic imagery." (Sucec 2020)

Fremont Culture interior figure

anthropomorph lower center,

McConkey Ranch, Uintah County, UT.

Photo Peter Faris, September 1989.

Close-up of Fremont Culture

interior figure anthropomorph,

McConkey Ranch, Uintah County, UT.

Photo Peter Faris, September 1989.

As to the question of most of the Interior Figure anthropomorphs, I have to agree with David Sucec. I do not see any possibility that most of the images herein discussed are examples of pregnancy. The anthropomorphs with human and/or animal figures on them clearly represent something else. Sucec stated that "In any case, whatever the reading, I think that the interior figure is a significant (spirit, deity, etc.) form . . .in Archaic rock art, specific identities are mostly out of the question." (Sucec 2020)  The question I see here goes as follows; "is the interior figure actually an internalized spiritual presence (an ancestor or totemic animal of some sort) or is it decoration on an outer garment. In most examples I would argue that it is probably decoration on an outer garment. I have often written elsewhere that in a culture wherein everything is handmade, everything is unique and recognizable as belonging to a certain individual, and thus is a clue to personal identity. So, showing a unique garment in a portrayal is tantamount to producing a portrait of the individual.

Doll with painted shirt, Oglala.

Nat. Museum of the American

Indian, Internet photo.

In the Encyclopedia of American Indian Costume (1994) by Josephine Paterak we find that "Some Plateau and early Plains shirts had life forms painted on them, such as buffalo and otters." (Paterak 1994:210) And elsewhere Paterak tells us "When the Cheyenne adopted the war shirt, they wore it long (almost to the knees), painted with such symbols as thunderbirds, dragonflies, and celestial motifs." (Paterak 1994:100)

Painted war shirt with figures,

From Visions of the People,

Evan M. Maurer, Minneapolis
Institute of the Arts, 1992, p. 130.

"Shirts were often painted with important history lines or pictures. A vision or a noteworthy conquest might lead an eminent warrior to paint his shirt with  - - pictographs to provide a readable, billboard record of his war history - - . The Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Kiowas often painted celestial symbols on their war shirts." (Mails 1995:338)

Now these historic examples that I have cited certainly do not cast much direct light on Archaic practices, however I think that we can honestly look at two points of applicability. After all, even if there is not an observable material connection, the Barrier Canyon Style and Fremont Interior Figure Anthropomorphs we are considering are in the same general geographic area as the examples of painted shirts cited herein. The first point of applicability is that these historic practices may be holdovers influenced by long tradition handed down from Archaic practices. And second, that the examples cited indicate a possible philosophical openness to seeing value in this kind of garment decoration.

In addition to painted, or otherwise decorated shirts, we also know that Native Americans wore sometimes lavishly decorated robes of animal hide (buffalo, elk, deer, etc.) as garments and for warmth. Indeed, many Barrier Canyon Style anthropomorphs show complexly decorated torsos that could well represent such painted or porcupine quilled robes. In addition, a large proportion of the Fremont Culture anthropomorphs wear complex decorative accessories (pectorals, earrings, etc.) as well as having indications of specific items of clothing. 

I believe that we have to consider the possibility that Interior Figure Anthropomorphs might represent images of personages wearing their recognizable painted or porcupine quilled garments, decorated with totemic animals, illustrious ancestors, their visions, or their deeds. These will have been recognizable to other members of their band and/or clan, and thus, represent portraits of a sort. A recognizable image representing an important individual left painted or pecked into the cliff as a memorial record of a specific person.

NOTE: I wish to thank David Sucec of the BCS (Barrier Canyon Style) Project for his cooperation and sharing photographs and comments with me in the preparation of this column. His knowledge of Barrier Canyon Style rock art is unmatched. The BCS Project was formed by David Sucec (Director) and Craig Law (Photographer). Documentation has continued since 1991 and it has been a non-profit since 1992. The goal of the BCS Project is to photograph and record all Barrier Canyon Style rock art sites. For further information I recommend that you consult bcsproject.org.
Also: David Sucec does not agree with this possible interpretation of the Interior Figure Anthropomorphs. His statement to me on April 14, 2020 was "I have heard the interpretation that the formal motifs (patterns, designs) may represent clothing designs but, in Archaic, I question this interpretation (not to say that this is the case in latter imagery. I think they are symbolic (e.g., the parallel line motif as a water family symbol)." (Sucec April 14, personal communication)

Pilling figurines, nos. 1, 2 & 3

with paint traces, Wikipedia.

Internet photo, public domain.

I have not been able to locate any examples of Archaic clothing to compare with, except for sandals which do not seem to apply to this question. However, some of the famous Pilling figurines (Fremont culture) have painted decoration suggesting painted clothing, so  I submit that the question must at least remain open at this time.

REFERENCES:

Mails, Thomas E.

1995 Mystic Warriors of the Plains, Barnes and Noble Books, New York.

Paterak, Josephine

1994 Encyclopedia of American Indian Costume, W. W. Norton & Co., New York.

Patterson, Alex

1992 A Field Guide To Rock Art Symbols of the Greater Southwest, Johnson Books, Boulder.

Sucec, David

2018 I've Got You Under My Skin, The Figure in Figure Motif in Northern Colorado Plateau Rock Art, presentation to URARA, 2018, www.bcsproject.org

Sucec, David

2020 Personal Communication, April 9 and 14, 2020.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_Canyon_Style

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont_culture