Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 163-175 (1981). The Distribution of Rock Art Elements and Styles in Utah KENNETH B. CASTLETON DAVID B. MADSEN TAH is a veritable treasure house of datable timbers or other organic artifacts then Uprehistoric rock art, with Uterally thou­ one might make an unverifiable assumption sands of sites, panels, and element/style varia­ that the site and the panel are contemporary tions of petroglyphs and pictographs. The and thus ascribe a date to the rock art. Often purpose of this paper is primarily to plot the it is not that simple, however. The site may locations and distribution of the various contain several components indicating the elements and styles of the art and, secondarily presence of several cultures or time periods. to see if any patterns emerge which might be In such cases it may be impossible to know of value in determining relationships between with certainty which of these time periods is the prehistoric groups which produced it. related to the rock art. Moreover the rock art The determination of the age of rock art panel may show signs of more than one time and the identification of the culture that period by superimposition of figures over produced it are usually difficult, and often older ones, by differential patination, or by a impossible. This is primarily due to the lack mixture of different styles. of a direct method of determining age of Another even more indirect method of either petroglyphs or pictographs. Radio­ dating is the association of the rock art with metric dating techniques are of little value chronologically well controlled artifacts such and the newer methods of absolute dating are as pottery. In many cases, pottery may be difficult to apply on a large scale. Some idea dated with considerable accuracy by style, of age may be obtained by the presence of temper, decoration, and corrugation. In single hchens, the degree of patination, and the component sites it may be used not only in amount of weathering, but these are at best of determining the approximate time but also in limited utility and generally produce only determining the culture. Again this is not relative age estimates on panels with super­ exact since the rock art panel and the site imposed styles. cannot usually be directly correlated. As a result, most rock art must be dated Probably the best method of dating rock by other techniques. For example, if a panel art by association occurs when unique and is found associated with ruins that contain readily identifiable elements are found within or on dated artifacts. In the Great Basin, Kenneth B. Castleton and David B. Madsen, Antiquities Section, Utah State Historical Society, 300 Rio Grande, Salt engraved stones within dated contexts have Lake City, UT 84101. been used to date rock art not directly [163] 164 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY associated with archaeological sites (Thomas Canyon Project. Age determinations are based and Thomas 1972). In the Southwest, design on ceramic associations and rock art deterior­ elements on plastered dwelling walls may ation by weathering, patination, and lichen provide dates on similar elements on rock art growth on the figures. Turner identifies five panels. styles — Style 1 being the most recent, extending from A.D. 1850 to the present, and PREVIOUS RESEARCH Style 5 the oldest, covering the period from In 1929 Julian Steward charted the loca­ Archaic time to A.D. 1050. Style 5 consists tion of 28 rock art elements in California, almost exclusively of rectilinear outline Nevada, Arizona, and Utah. Although the forms: sheep with large rectangular bodies number of sites that he charted in Utah was and small heads and legs, and anthropo­ very small compared with the number that are morphs with elongated bodies, elaborate now known to exist in this state, the geomet­ headdresses, cross hatching, and "squiggle ric elements that he terms Curvilinear are in maze"—an interlocking network of lines. As many cases similar or identical to many would be expected, this style shows the described here. There are, however, many greatest amount of weathering and patination. differences between some of his figures and Style 4 (dated to A.D. 1050-1250) is the most those hsted here; primarily in the number and abundant and includes birds, flute players, styles of anthropomorphs in Utah. In Stew­ hunting scenes, anthropomorphs with ard's series the vast majority of elements are enlarged appendages and genitals, bird-bodied geometric although there are some anthropo­ sheep, concentric circles, spirals, solid triangu­ morphs and animals. lar anthropomorphs, large hands, bows and Heizer and Baumhoff (1962) charted the arrows, footprints, and complex pottery and distribution of rock art in Nevada. They blanket designs. Although the area involved in identified 58 design elements in 71 sites. The Turner's study is included in our study, it areas of greatest concentrations were in the constitutes a relatively small part of the entire west central and the southeast portions, state of Utah, albeit an area with an abun­ although others were scattered in virtually all dance of rock art. parts of the state. They proposed a classifica­ As might be expected there are major tion of five styles as follows: (1) Great Basin differences between the rock art described by painted; (2) Great Basin scratched; (3) Pit and Turner and that reported by Heizer and Grooved; (4) Puebloan painted; and (5) Great Baumhoff, and Steward. The Nevada and Basin pecked. They also divided them into CaHfornia studies consisted largely of geomet­ four groups: (1) Curvilinear; (2) Rectilinear; ric (abstract or curvilinear) figures with few (3) Representational; and (4) Great Basin human or animal figures. Turner reported Abstract. We prefer to use the terms Geomet­ large numbers of anthropomorphs and ani­ ric, Representational, and Bizarre; the latter mals and many of the anthropomorphs that term being used mainly to describe certain he reported were of a different style than anthropomorphs and animal figures of a weird those of the other investigators. A minor and bizarre type. difference between Turner's study and ours is Christy Turner's "Petroglyphs of the Glen simply one of areal extent. Turner's study was Canyon Region" (1963) is of especial interest restricted primarily to the southern portions to this study. It describes the rock art of Glen of the state and hence the number of ele­ Canyon and San Juan Canyon, and adjacent ments he identified is considerably less than territory, and was an outgrowth of the Glen this study. A major substantitive difference is ROCK ART IN UTAH 165 that Turner found relatively few pictographs The rock art of Nine Mile Canyon in in comparison to petroglyphs in the Glen eastern Utah was evaluated by Hurst and Canyon/San Juan area, while substantially Louthan (1979). They identified six styles higher proportions of pictographs were identi­ within the canyon and suggested ethnic affili­ fied for the same area in this study. Turner ations with four of the six, including the dated many panels by association with pot­ Desert Culture, Fremont, Ute, and Historic tery. This has not been done here, although American. The styles identified by Hurst and we essentially agree with many of his Louthan all contain elements of the three conclusions. styles described in this report and are not Schaafsma (1971) analyzed the frequency comparable. of elements and attributes of rock art in CULTURAL AFFILIATIONS several areas of the Uintah Basin in northeast- em Utah, the northern San Rafael area. The number of specific elements of rock Barrier Canyon, the Clear Creek Canyon of art is very large indeed. In our study we have south central Utah, and western Utah. She did included about 60 types, but this is essentially not include in her study the southeast quarter a sample and does not include all of the of the state or the southern strip from known types. We have charted their location St. George and the Virgin River in the west to as accurately as possible. Some elements are the lower Colorado River or the San Juan common to all parts of the state and appar­ River area on the east. In the Dry Fork area ently were produced by all cultures. she found that anthropomorphs constituted The principal prehistoric cultures that 45 percent of all figures, animals 19 percent, inhabited what is now Utah were the Desert other representational elements 3 percent, Archaic, the Fremont, and the Anasazi (Jen­ and abstract (geometric) figures 24 percent. nings 1978). All of these produced rock art, In the Dinosaur Monument area these figures as did some of the historic people such as the are 50 percent, 28 percent, 8 percent, and 14 Utes, Paiutes, and the Navajos. The Archaic percent respectively, and for the northern San people lived here as early as 9000 B.C., and Rafael area which consists of Nine Mile archaeological evidence of their presence has Canyon, the Price area. Desolation Canyon, been found in all or most parts of the state. etc., showed 20 percent anthropomorphs, 34 The Fremont left evidence of their presence percent quadrupeds, 7 percent other represen­ in many parts of the state, with especially tational figures, and 39 percent abstract ele­ heavy concentrations in the Uinta Basin, the ments. The corresponding figures for the Capitol Reef area, the Richfield area, around Barrier Canyon style show 79, 12, 9, and 1 the Great Salt Lake, the San Rafael area, the percent. For the Clear Creek Canyon area south-central area around Richfield, Parowan, these are 11, 28, 5, and 52 percent. For and near Escalante.