A BOOK REVIEW – “NO BEAR: VISIONS THROUGH TIME.”

Keyser, James D., Carl M. Davis, David A. Kaiser, Mark D. Willis, Stephen J. Lycett, 2021, No Bear: Visions Through Time, Oregon Archaeological Society (OAS) Press, Publication Number 27, Portland, OR.

The 27^th volume published by the Oregon Archaeological Society is about a Montana rock art site named the No Bear site. Titled No Bear: Visions Through Time, this volume relates another example of cutting edge recording techniques and analysis of rock art. This site was found on the Blackfeet Reservation in northern Montana, in a nowadays inaccessible location high on a cliff.

View of No Bear petroglyph site, Montana.

No Bear is a small, but complicated site, multi-component in that a number of styles and techniques are represented. “No Bear is located on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in north-central Montana just east of the Rocky Mountains. The site consists of an extensive and unusual array of red pictographs painted across three adjacent faces on the lower portion of a massive sandstone cliff situated at the confluence of a deep coulee draining into a major stream valley. Petroglyphs are also scratched and abraded across two of the rock faces where they are both superimposed on and superimposed by various pictographs.” (Keyser et al. 2021:2)

           

    Drawing of panels 1 and 2, No Bear                  petroglyph site, Montana.

Due to the inaccessible location of the rock art the team had to utilize innovative techniques to photograph it in depth. “We initially debated using either a drone or pole-assisted aerial photography (PAP), and after consultation with Mark Willis we brought both types of equipment to the site. Although we used both methods, after examining the site Willis and Keyser decided to rely primarily on PAP photography because of its time-efficiency and accuracy given the site access and weather conditions.” (Keyser et al. 2021:3)

     Detailed drawing of Panel 3, No Bear                petroglyph site, Montana.

The images on these panels were quite difficult to see because of fading and erosion. “In addition to the collapse of a large part of panel 2, significant erosion is evident on the right half of Panel 3, in this area, the painted images are significantly fainter than most others painted on the panel’s left half, making them less visible in ambient light photographs. Some of this is clearly due to age, since several of the fainter images, which are older and thus exposed to more weathering, are scattered among fresher ones. But we also note that photographs show distinctive patterns of abrasion across the right half of the panel and on the extreme lower margin of the panel’s left side.” (Keyser et al. 2021:2-3)

Composite of panels 1, 2, and 3 as photographed, and then DStretched to bring out the pictographs. No Bear petroglyph site, Montana.

“Given the soft slope and weather conditions, we photographed the panels from a range of about 30 cm to 3 meters (1 to 10 feet) and at an elevation of approximately 4 to 6 meters (13 to 19 feet) above stable ground. Willis controlled placement of the camera to take more than 750 photographs while Keyser triggered the shutter at Willis’s direction. – The more than 750 photographs taken by PAP from multiple vantage points in front of the panels allowed Willis to process the photographic data in a commercial Structure from Motion (SfM) photogrammetry package called MetaShape (Version 1.5.3). This software takes a set of overlapping photographs, analyzes the location of visually similar objects in them., and then creates a three-dimensional point cloud (Figures 7, 8) based on the relationship between the objects. The point cloud is a highly accurate 3D representation of the rock art panel surface.” (Keyser et al. 2021:5)

To make the images visible the team processed the resulting 3D model with D-stretch. “During and ofter preparing the composite photograph, DStretch enhancements of many individual photographs were used to emphasize the painted imagery for purposes of photo-tracing. This also helped highlight the scratched petroglyphs.” (Keyser et al. 2021:7)

 All in all approximately eight pages are used to explain their recording methods in detail, highly educational for others seeking a recording model.  The subsequent sixty pages are devoted to the in-depth analysis we would expect from this team. Every detail of every panel is studied, identified, and compared with other examples from the region to try to find its significance.

From the shape of feathers on a headdress to the weapon, or dance wand, displayed in a figure’s hand, this analysis happens, comprehensive and in-depth, and it has allowed the team to make a number of important conclusions. "All three panels have pictographs, and differences in weathering combined with superimpositions indicate that artists painted images in at least four different episodes on Panel 3. Other artists using Panel 3 also scratched and/or abraded a series of petroglyphs in at least three different episodes occurring between the two major painting episodes. One artist also drew a small scratched oval scrawl on the large anthropomorph in Panel 1. In all, we have identified at least seven different episodes of rock art production at the site." (Keyser et al. 2021:11)

The final product is not only an in-depth analysis of a fascinating and unique rock art site, but also is an example of detailed thoroughness and excellence for future rock art researchers and recorders.

For more information about this, and their other publications go to www.oregonarcheological.org/publications or inquire at Oregon Archaeological Society, PO Box 13293, Portland, Oregon, 97213.