INCORPORATION IN ROCK ART:

Black Rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) petroglyph on rhinoceros

rubbed rock face. Fig. 17.8, Heyd and Clegg, 2005, p. 267,

Free State, South Africa.

The term “incorporation” in rock art generally refers to the inclusion of natural features of the rock surface in the design of the image on a rock art panel. On December 8, 2010, I published a posting on a rock face that had been polished by its use as a rubbing post by mammoths. A fascinating example of South African incorporation of animal rubbing on a rock art panel was reported by Sven Ouzman in his paper Seeing is Deceiving: Rock Art and the Non-Visual, pages 253-269, in Aesthetics and Rock Art, edited by Thomas Heyd and John Clegg, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Aldershot, England, and Burlington, VT., 2005. In this paper Ouzman examines "episodes of use" of the image.

According to Ouzman the first use of this portion of the rock face was as a rubbing post by rhinoceroses and then it was later engraved with the image of a black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis). Adding the image in this location confirms the recognition by the artist that this particular portion of rock face has been made special by the attention paid to and the usage of it by rhinoceroses, and that then the addition of the image of a black rhinoceros suggests that the petroglyph was believed to actually incorporate some of the spiritual essence of that animal.

Unfortunately, the article does not state how the original use as a scratching or rubbing post by the rhinoceros was established or confirmed. Until I find out otherwise I will have to assume that this was done with protein residue analysis or some related technique. Whatever the case, however, I find this remarkable instance of incorporation to be absolutely fascinating, and it may represent a phenomenon that we should look for in other locations.

TOOL USE IN ROCK ART - PROTRACTORS:

One can often deduce a considerable amount from the actual details and form of rock art. In the case of petroglyphs it comes as a surprise to no-one that examining the grooves can suggest whether they were created by incising or pecking. The physical appearance and condition often allows that sort of analysis. Another example of this that I have looked for, and think that I may have found in a few instances, is the use of a simple protractor for drawing circles. Some circles just seem too perfect to have been done freehand, even by an experienced artist.

Such a tool would have been made simply by tying a couple of sticks together at one end for a pivot and then parting the other end. It could have been held at the chosen angle by tying another stick across them creating a triangle with the two long sides extended out. Simply charring one of the ends then would allow one to use this tool to draw almost perfect circles in charcoal on the cliff face.

3-Kings Panel, McConkie Ranch, Vernal, UT.

Photo Peter Faris.

In the most compelling examples the resulting circle has been used to portray a shield. The first example that suggested this to me is the shield of the main figure in the so-called “Three Kings” panel at McConkie Ranch outside of Vernal, UT.  This appears to be so precise that I wondered whether it could have possibly been drawn freehand.

Castle Gardens, Fremont County, Wyoming.

Photo Peter Faris, September 1992.

 Subsequently I also found myself questioning a couple of the shields seen in this panel from Castle Gardens, Wyoming.

If ancient cultures such as the Egyptians could use wooden dividers in their construction of buildings and monuments, they why would I not also assume that Native Americans had this in their toolbox too, and that they would have used it in drawing circles? 

A BIGHORN SHEEP TRAP PETROGLYPH NEAR MOAB:

Sheep trap petroglyph near Moab, UT. Photo Dell Crandall.

This first illustration is a petroglyph that was provided by Dell Crandall in Moab, UT., it apparently shows a bighorn sheep trap. This might be a natural trap like Dead Horse Point near Moab where a high pinnacle is connected to the rest of the mountain by a narrow neck and once the animals were driven out onto it they could be confined easily with no way down.

The petroglyph consists of a circular shape with a funnel-shaped entrance, and what appears to be footprints or animal tracks entering it and then circling around. This seems to represent exactly what we would expect to see happen in real life in such a scenario. Outside the wings of the trap are a group of quadrupeds (apparently bighorn sheep) which may illustrate the herd grazing on the slope below the trap.

Bighorn sheep trap wings with corral section at center, near 

DuBois, WY. Photo Peter Faris, September 1998.

The other photographs are of an actual constructed bighorn sheep trap in the Shoshone National Forest of the Wind River mountains above DuBois, Wyoming. This trap was constructed by the Shoshone group called “Sheep Eaters” and may, in fact, be early historic in date. Assembled of wood (stumps, trunks, and branches) it consists of a central corral and a long pair of fences in a “v-shape” leading to the opening of the corral. This trap is located on a high mountain saddle in heavily forested area.

Bighorn sheep trap central corral section, near 

DuBois, WY. Photo Peter Faris, Sept. 1998.

We assume that the way that these traps worked was for a group of people to start somewhere down near the bottom of the slope at a time that bighorn sheep were known to be grazing there. As a long line the people would then start up the slope making noise. Any animals above them on the hillside would presumably want to be farther away so they would also begin to drift upward toward the saddle that would allow them to cross to the other side and down into the next valley. As they approached that saddle they would run into the wings of the trap deflecting them toward the center. In the center there was a low wall that they would want to jump over at some point to continue to escape the approaching people, but this led them into the corral.

In either case a limited amount of exertion by a group of people would presumably reward them with a large amount of game. If we are to assume that some rock art actually does represent hunting (which I think very few would deny) then this petroglyph is quite likely to represent exactly what it looks like, a bighorn sheep trap. 

VISUAL PUNS IN ROCK ART:

Fremont figure, Old Airport site, Moab, Utah.

Photo Peter Faris, September 2000.

On a couple of previous occasions I have published postings of images that I called Optical Illusions. These generally consist of images that can be seen as more than one thing (note: also see Visual Puns). This week’s offering is an excellent example of that phenomenon.

This image is from the old airport site near Moab, Utah, and consists of images produced by the Fremont Culture. The panel contains a mix of Fremont figures (anthropomorphs) and four-legged animals or quadrupeds (zoomorphs generally identified as desert bighorn sheep). The figure that I focus on here, however, contains elements of both. The large anthropomorph to the right of center is a traditional Fremont Classic figure with a plumed headdress; except the plumes of the headdress are also the horns of two of the quadrupeds standing nose to nose where the figure’s head belongs. Thus the head and the headdress can be seen either as just that, a head with headdress, or as two animals facing each other, or as both.

Since this image combines elements of both human and animal features I suppose it should also be classified as therianthropic. In any case the artist who produced this image was obviously thinking about the identifying qualities of his figures, and combined elements of them to overlay the double meaning or identities in the same figure. Personally, I see this as an example of real creativity, the combining of images to make another image that has never existed before, as well as a possibly intended joke or visual pun.

ANIMAL EFFIGY MOUNDS DISCOVERED NEAR NAZCA, PERU:

Duck-shaped mound, Peru.

Orca Mound with village, Peru.

We are all familiar with the marvelous geoglyphs, the Nazca Lines, in the western desert of Peru. However, a new discovery nearby proves that the Nazca Lines are not the only geoglyphs in that location.

A press release issued on March 29, 2012, by Timothy Wall, of the University of Missouri – Columbia, announced the discovery of animal-shaped effigy mounds near Nazca, in Peru. Writing of the discoveries by University of Missouri Anthropology Professor Emeritus Robert Benfer, Wall stated: “COLUMBIA, Mo. - For more than a century and a half, scientists and tourists have visited massive animal-shaped mounds, such as Serpent Mound in Ohio, created by the indigenous people of North America. But few animal effigy mounds had been found in South America until University of Missouri anthropology professor emeritus Robert Benfer identified numerous earthen animals rising above the coastal plains of Peru, a region already renowned for the Nazca lines, the ruined city of Chan Chan, and other cultural treasures.”

“Benfer identified the mounds, which range from five meters (16.5 feet) to 400 meters (1,312 feet) long in each of the six valleys he surveyed in coastal Peru. The mounds pre-date ceramics and were probably built using woven baskets to carry and pile up rock and soil. “

“Like the Nazca lines, which include a series of giant animal outlines drawn on the ground to the south, the animal mounds were best observed from a higher vantage point. Google Earth images of the mounds revealed the shapes of birds, including a giant condor, a 5,000 year-old orca, a duck, and a caiman/puma monster seen in bone and rock carvings from the area.”

Buzzard-shaped mound, Peru.

Caiman/Puma mound, Peru.

What I find particularly exciting about these animal-shaped effigy mounds is that although Benfer dates them to pre-ceramic periods, their subjects and shapes resemble later portrayals of those creatures on effigy pots, decorated ceramic pots, and even some of the famous Nazca geoglyphs. The imagery persisted over a very long period of time.

“Previously, the only other effigy mounds known from South America were a few sites in the Andes, but Benfer's discoveries may be just the beginning. "In each field season, I have found more giant mounds and more fields of smaller ones. I will go back in June and July confident of identifying more on the ground," Benfer said. Although they appear to be plentiful, researchers overlooked the animal effigies since the first days of scientific archeology in Peru.”

These images still resonate with us today. There is something about the scale of the art at Nazca, the giant geoglyphs on the rocky surface of the desert and now animal-shaped effigy mounds really capture our imaginations. It seems like every time that we relax and assume that all the big discoveries have been made, something else pops up to surprise us.

REFERENCE:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/uom-ram032912.php

Contact: Timothy Wall, walltj@mizzou.edu, 573-882-3346, University of Missouri-Columbia

WHERE DID THEY PRACTICE? - OR BODIES OF WORK:

In looking at rock art we tend to approach the images as single, unitary works. Even in the case of exceptional images that must be classified as high quality visual portrayal we do not usually ask the obvious question; “where are his practice images?” No artist just springs up full blown onto the scene producing works of high quality. Such end results demand many years of practice to achieve.

3-Princesses, near Cub Creek, Dinosaur National

Monument, UT. Photo: Peter Faris.

In some instances we can identify multiple images created by the same hand, adding up to a body of work, something expected of a professional artist. One good example is the panel known as the 3-Princesses near Cub Creek in Dinosaur National Monument, Utah. These three Fremont anthropomorphs exhibit every indication in style and technique of having been produced by the same hand.

Three abstracted Fremont figures, Cub Creek, 

Dinosaur Nat. Mon., UT. Photo: Peter Faris.

Nearby the 3-Princesses, on the cliff face at the Cub Creek site, are a few other instances of multiple images that give every indication of having been produced by the same artist.

Fremont, McConkie Ranch,

UT. Photo: Peter Faris.

What this implies is that the artist that produced the high-quality panel that we admire must have produced many lower quality images while working up to that level of ability. So instead of a large number of creators producing the large number of images at Cub Creek, there may have actually been relatively few artists, each producing a range of images from poor to high quality while practicing their art. This question does have serious implications in the study of rock art as it goes directly to the question of who created it. Was it a large number of people, each making one, or at most a few images, or was it a small number of people, each creating a larger number of images while perfecting their art?  

SECRETS OF THE WHITE SHAMAN:

An article (p.51-57) by Will Hunt in the May, 2012, issue of Discover Magazine, entitled “Secrets of the White Shaman” attempts to explain the meaning behind one of the truly iconic panels of Pecos Style rock art in Texas. Hunt is writing about the theories of Carolyn Boyd who purports (at least according to Hunt) to be able to read the hidden messages in the panels of rock art. According to Hunt; “working like a detective, she discovered a symbolic code that reveals narratives in the paintings, which she believes can be read, almost like an ancient language (p.51).” By the end of the article we have learned that Pecos rock art can all be explained by the S-Word (Shamanism).

White Shaman, Val Verde County, TX.
Photograph Peter Faris, March 2004.

“Archaeologists, she (Boyd) read, believed the paintings were related to shamanism, the common religious practice among tribes in the region. The shaman was a tribe’s liaison with the spirit world (p. 52).”  In  truth there is a broad range of opinions among archaeologists about the relationship between rock art and Shamanism. While some amateur aficionados of rock art ascribe all rock art to Shamanism, many students of rock art prefer to be much more careful with the term, and purists point out that the term Shamanism technically should only be used to describe the spiritual beliefs of Siberian tribes (where the word originated).  According to Wikipedia: The term "shaman" is a loan from the Turkic word šamán, the term for such a practitioner, which also gained currency in the wider Turko-Mongol and Tungusic cultures in ancient Siberia.  Shamans were known as "priests" in the region of where Uralic languages, Turkic, or Mongolic languages are spoken.”  To designate the beliefs of a people of a different time and culture, to say nothing of thousands of miles away from Siberia, shamanic, just seems to be too much of a stretch for me. I am much more comfortable admitting that the belief systems of the old Pecos inhabitants may have had things in common with shamanism, or may have had shamanic-like elements, especially as so little of their culture is known. I just cannot say they are the same any more than, on the basis of present cultural evidence, I could say that Baptists and Unitarians believe alike, even though they are both Protestant Christian religions. 

Red deer, White Shaman panel, Val Verde County, TX.

Photo Peter Faris, 2004.

Other examples of leaping to unwarranted conclusions can be found. On page 54 we learn that “This was a pattern: Nearly every tribe in the region envisioned a serpent as the divider between the earthly and the spiritual realms, explaining the wavy lines on the Lower Pecos rocks.”  Really? Which tribes, and what are the boundaries of the region? And on page 56; “Next to the underworld was an isolated red deer: this had to be the sacred deer that led the humans on the journey east. (Note: The red deer on the opposite page may be facing west, but the ancient rock artists always depicted west on the right side of a pictogram).” (the underline is mine). What can I say, I have studied rock art for  35 years and I missed that west is "always" on the right side of a pictograph  – how embarrassing!

Also on page 56 is one of the best quotes of the whole article.  “Retired University of Texas archaeologist Solveig Turpin, who began researching in the Lower Pecos in the 1970s believes connecting 4,000-year-old paintings to a contemporary tribe (the Huichol) is unwarranted. ‘You’re reaching across thousands of years and hundreds of miles,’ she says. ‘It just doesn’t hold up.”  Right on Solveig.

Now I actually don’t want to be too harsh on Boyd. First, I have to admit that much of her supporting data is real, some of the images are like images in Huichol art and belief, but there is little proof other than the images themselves that there is any connection. Second, I believe it’s possible that Hunt may have exaggerated Boyd’s case because of enthusiasm. This is heady stuff, translating messages from a people lost for 4,000 years, no wonder he is enthusiastic!  I would personally love to make a discovery of this magnitude, and find so much proof that I am right. Finally, the exaggerations may have come from the editors at Discover Magazine.

So I fear that I will have to remain a skeptic for the present. But by all means look up the article, if only for the pictures. There are some great photographs of some of the truly outstanding rock art in North America, if not the world. And if future study lends credence to Boyd’s theories I will happily eat my words and congratulate her. 


Also, I recommend Boyd's book Rock Art of the Lower Pecos, Carolyn E. Boyd, Texas A & M University Press, College Station, 2003. While I do not agree with some of her conclusions, I did find it full of information (and some good pictures) about the amazing rock art of the Lower Pecos, and even some of her supporting evidence is interesting and worth knowing.


NOTE:  These things come up regularly. I would like to refer readers to previous RockArtBlog postings on Ogam in North America (April 20, 2009), and A Misplaced Reliance on Statistical Analysis (January 25, 2011) which addressed a report that statistical analysis proves that symbols painted on cave walls in Europe constitute a written language.