sign in sign up
<<
Home , Colorado Plateau, Desolation Canyon, Great Salt Lake

Journal of and Anthropology Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 163-175 (1981).

The Distribution of Rock Art Elements and Styles in

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 , 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 , engraved stones within dated contexts have 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 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 , , 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 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 in the west to as accurately as possible. Some elements are the lower 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. , 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 , the ments. The corresponding figures for the Capitol area, the Richfield area, around Barrier Canyon style show 79, 12, 9, and 1 the Great , 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. The Anasazi were concen­ curvilinear style sites in western Utah the trated in the southern part of the state percentages are 5, 11, 1, and 83. These figures especially along the San Juan, the Virgin and are interesting since they show great variation the Colorado rivers, and south of the Henry in the incidence of the various elements even and La Sal . It seems reasonable to in those areas that are culturally relatively assume that the rock art found in these areas homogeneous. The difference in the figures is most likely to be a product of these for the western part of the state is consistent cultures, although there is much evidence of with our findings, those of Steward (1929), overlapping of the cultures, especially that of and Heizer and Baumhoff (1962). the Archaic with the other two. 166 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Desert Archaic occupation sites are found art with those artifacts. The same can be said throughout the state, but most of the rock art to a lesser degree about Fremont archaeology sites that we believe are Archaic sites occur on and Fremont rock art, although here the volcanic boulders in the western part of the comparative lack of ceramics as compared state. The Fremont are known to have lived in with the Anasazi pottery makes conclusions Utah from about A.D. 400 to 1300 (Marwitt regarding Fremont rock art less certain. None­ 1970). Five Fremont subareas are now recog­ theless, the large anthropomorph with head­ nized: (1) Uinta Fremont; (2) San Rafael Fre­ dress, ear bobs, necklaces, flat, bucket, or mont; (3) Fremont; (4) Sevier inverted bucket-shaped head and facial fea­ Fremont; and (5) Parowan Fremont. These tures is widely recognized as the product of five subareas can be combined into two major the Fremont people. In the case of the variants that conform basically to the Great Archaic, however, the problem is very un­ Basin and the Colorado (Madsen clear. Although many Archaic sites have been 1979, 1980). None of the major rock art sites reported in Utah, few were occupied during that have been associated with the Fremont the Archaic period exclusively, many having (e.g., Schaafsma 1971) has been subjected to been occupied at later dates by other groups. extensive archaeological study. These include Moreover, few, if any, were closely associated such sites as Dry Fork northwest of Vernal, with rock art of any type. We consider the the very large number of rock art sites in Nine geometric figures so plentiful in western Utah Mile Canyon (although a few have been and Nevada, and sometimes associated with a explored scientifically, e.g., Hurst and Lou­ few simple sheep and anthropomorphs, as than 1979), and the many sites near Moab. probably Archaic in origin, but definitive The best Fremont rock art sites are Dry proof is hmited for this position (but see Fork-Ashley Canyon, McKee Springs and Cub Heizer and Baumhoff 1962; Thomas and Creek, Hill and Willow Creek, and the Pleas­ Thomas 1972). Some consider the Barrier ant Valley Escarpment near My ton in the Canyon Style figures as Archaic in origin Uinta Basin; Nine Mile Canyon; Emery (Schaafsma 1971), but we know of no strong County south of Price; the Moab area; Sevier evidence to support this view. County, especially Clear Creek Canyon; Capi­ ROCK ART STYLES tol Reef National Park; and some sites near Escalante-Boulder in Garfield County. There We have divided the 60 elements into are no major Fremont rock art sites in San three basic styles. Geometric Styles (Table Juan, Kane, or Washington counties in south- 1-A) include non-representational forms such em Utah on record at this time. Rock art sites as circles, wavy lines, and triangles. Represen­ identified with the Anasazi are abundant tational Styles (Table 1-B) include elements along the San Juan and lower Colorado rivers, which appear to represent actual objects such in the Virgin River drainage in Washington as anthropomorphs, animals, hand prints, and County in the southwest, along Johnson bows and arrows. The third group of styles Canyon and the in Kane County, consists of those designated as Bizarre (Table and abundantly in the Montezuma Creek area 1-C). We have used the term to apply mostly in the southeast corner of the state. to representational figures of a bizarre type, The large amount of research in the but ones almost surely intended to represent southern areas of the state has produced a human forms. We have also used it in the relatively large quantity of information on same manner to apply to animal forms that Anasazi artifacts and the association of rock are weird and surely do not accurately repre- ROCK ART IN UTAH 167

Table 1 the two major physiographic regions of the ROCK ART STYLES AND ELEMENTS state, the and the Great Basin, principally because of the distinct A-Geometric Styles Circles-all kinds: Dots distributional patterns which emerge. The simple Rectilinear maze four groups are: (1) those that seem to have a dots in center Wavy Unes fairly general distribution (Table 2-A); concentric Parallel vertical lines (2) those that have a somewhat restricted tailed Sun discs joined Wheels distribution (Table 2-B); (3) those that are grouped "Dumbbells" tightly restricted (Table 2-C); and (4) those etc. Blanket figures with a Colorado Plateau distribution (Table Rake figures "Candelabra" figures Triangles Rectangles 2-D). Zig-zag Unes Miscellaneous figures In studying the charted maps some inter­ B-Representational Styles esting patterns emerge. In general there are Animals Hand prints more rock art sites on the Colorado Plateau Atlatls Bow-and-arrows portion of the state than in the Great Basin Ear bobs Bear tracks Bird tracks Human footprints portion. While this may be due to any number Sandals/moccasins Necklaces of factors, such as cultural differences or Plants Insects differences in population densities, the pres­ Human figures: horns/feathers stick figures ence of a greater number of rock art sites on square/rectangular heads triangular trunks the Colorado Plateau may simply be due to large hands/feet Barrier Canyon style the greater number of smooth cliff and rock shooting bow-and-arrow combat faces that were favorite sites for the art. These with earbobs holding "heads" or "masks" with shields with necklaces blank rock art "canvases" are especially prev­ humpbacked flute players alent in the Uintah Basin, the Moab area, the solidly pecked "duck headed" Capitol Reef region, and the / birth scenes outline pecked copulation San Juan Canyon area. Another factor may be that many of the rock art sites in the Basin C-Bizarre Styles Bizarre human forms Weird animals are located on small isolated boulders and are not readily identified. However, a specific sent any animal that existed then or now. effort was made to photograph and record all Besides charting a great many specific ele­ sites regardless of "spectacularity." ments, we have charted some more than once. ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS For example, we have listed hand prints that are petroglyphs, those that are red picto­ As noted above, associating a particular graphs, and those that are white pictographs. rock art style, element, or technique with a particular prehistoric group is fraught with DISTRIBUTION OF GENERAL STYLES difficulties. Dating problems, multi- AND SPECIFIC ELEMENTS component sites, sites with no material cul­ ture remains, etc., make any conclusions The charted elements have been divided drawn from rock art distributional studies into four groups and examples have been tentative at best. However, the patterns which plotted on small-scale maps of the state (Figs. emerge from the study of the elements 1-4). (Plots of the remaining elements and described here are highly suggestive and have styles are on file at the Utah State Historical significant implications for existing archaeo­ Society.) These state maps are divided into logical interpretations. 168 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Fig. Examples of rock art elements with generahzed distribution in Utah. ROCK ART IN UTAH 169

Fig. 2. Examples of rock art elements which are essentially restricted to Fremont and Anasazi areas of the Colorado Plateau. 170 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

1 ^ I" -m 1 ^vh /

Abducted Arms and Thighs 1 / y . /*• _j_i_iy >•••' X nC^^r^x^^

^y^^i^ Fig. 3. Examples of rock art elements which are relatively restricted to the Colorado Plateau. ROCK ART IN UTAH

Fig. 4. Examples of tightly restricted rock art elements within the Fremont and Anasazi areas of Utah. 172 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

Table 2 "magico-religjous rituals performed at habit­ DISTRIBUTION OF ROCK ART STYLES ual hunting locations" (Bettinger and Baum­ hoff 1982; but see also Heizer and Baumhoff A-Elements/Styles with General Distribution 1962; Grant, Baird, and Pringle 1968). The Circles of all kinds Spirals of all kinds ubiquity of these styles imphes a rather Sheep Horns uniform social and ideological system among "Wheels" Zig-zag lines Rectilinear Maze Solid anthropomorphs Archaic hunting and gathering groups, and Miscellaneous geometric figures Insects imphes further a basic similarity in adaptive Line figures Triangular anthropomorphs strategies and a rather high degree of group B- Elements/Styles with somewhat interaction. One should be exceedingly care­ Restricted Distribution ful in making these interpretations since some Wavy Unes Humpbacked figures Blanket or pottery figures Rakes of the apparent distributions may be a pro­ Stick figures (without Deer duct of Hmited sampling. The apparent res­ abducted arms and thighs) Copulation triction of atlatl motifs to the Colorado Deer tracks Human footprints Outline anthropomorphs Earbobs Plateau is a case in point, since they are found Atlatls Phallic figures outside Utah in other areas of the Basin Snakes Sun discs (Heizer and Baumhoff 1962). There is also a Bird tracks Parallel vertical lines Leaf figures Red handprints high probabihty that some elements such as Dots solid-bodied sheep zoomorphs may be the C- Elements/Styles with Tightly product of a number of successive prehistoric Restricted Distribution groups. Necklaces Flute players The elements and styles which have a "Head hunters" White handprints Combat "Baseball" figures more limited distribution may have significant "Duck-headed" figures "Candelabra" impHcations for interpretations of Fremont Rainbows "Collar" figures and Anasazi relationships. The of this Stick figures (with abducted arms and thighs) relationship has been the subject of consider­ able debate for the last 40 years and, as yet, D-Elements/Styles with a Colorado Plateau Distribution there has been no clear resolution. Madsen Necklaces Flute players (1979), in reviewing various hypotheses con- White handprints "Baseball" figures ceming Fremont origins, identified three Deer Atlatls Red handprints PhalUc figures major theses. The two of concem here are Shooting figures Barrier Canyon style (l)the Fremont represent an extension of Hand prints (petroglyphs Shield figures Anasazi groups northward (e.g., Gunnerson Sandals Bow-and-arrows Sheep with lines through trunk Birds 1969); or (2) they represent the in situ Animals with spears in body Buffalo development of local Archaic groups with an overlay of southwestern traits (e.g., Jennings et al. 1956). Madsen concluded that both The elements and styles which exhibit a hypotheses may have some validity and sug­ generalized distribution pattern (Fig. 1) are gested the Fremont should be categorized as primarily the Geometric styles that are usu­ Colorado Plateau "Fremont" and Great Basin ally identified with Archaic groups (Steward "Sevier." This suggestion engendered rather 1929; Heizer and Baumhoff 1962; Heizer and spirited discussion which resulted in a sympo­ Clewlow 1973; Thomas and Thomas 1972; sium involving a number of Fremont special­ Castleton 1978, 1979). Rock art of this type ists whose basic consensus was that there was is usually assumed to be the result of indeed an overall "Fremont" entity which ROCK ART IN UTAH 173

could be identified (although they were be made for a higher degree of interrelated- unsure what it was), but that there were two ness between Anasazi and Fremont on the major subdivisions (on the Plateau and in the Colorado Plateau than could be made for Basin) which could be further broken down interaction between the "Fremont" of the into smaller variants (such as those defined by Great Basin and those of the Colorado Marwitt 1970). The majority of traits consid­ Plateau. ered, such as pottery, projectile points, and There are a number of elements and styles architectural styles, were of a technological that have a somewhat restricted distribution nature; and traits which might exhibit a which conforms to the generally recognized somewhat closer relationship to socio- occupation areas of the Fremont and Anasazi religious aspects of society, such as rock art, (Fig. 3). Shield figure motifs and square- have never been included in any classification headed anthropomorphs are examples of ele­ scheme. We feel that while such taxonomic ments which are found throughout the Colo­ classification schemes may have only limited rado Plateau Fremont area and extend utility, it is worth discussing several of these beyond the range of individual Fremont classification problems in terms of the distri­ "variants" that have been defined (e.g., Mar­ bution of rock art elements and styles. Several witt 1970). Stick figure anthropomorphs and major questions can be addressed: (1) Is there rectilinear mazes are examples of elements a degree of similarity between Fremont and that are restricted principally to Anasazi Anasazi rock art which would suggest a large areas, but which cross-cut such lower taxono­ degree of interaction and/or similar origins? mic groups as the Verde, Kayenta, and (2) What is the relationship between Fremont Virgin branches. rock art on the Colorado Plateau and that in There are a number of motifs and ele­ the Great Basin and what is the difference, if ments which have an even more hmited any, between both groups and their Anasazi distribution (Fig. 4). Within the Fremont neighbors to the south? and (3) Are there area, rainbow motifs are found only in that rock art elements or styles that might identify portion of the Colorado Plateau identified more integrated and localized Fremont with the San Rafael Fremont (Marwitt 1970), variants? and "head-hunters" are found only within the By far the most interesting distributional Uinta Basin area occupied by the Uinta pattern is that of elements and motifs that are Fremont. Tightly restricted elements associ­ found throughout the Colorado Plateau, in ated with the Anasazi include "duck-headed" both Anasazi and Fremont areas, but which men and head/ear disks found only along the are not found in the Great Basin part of the lower San Juan River, combat motifs found state (Fig. 2). There are a number of these between the Green and San Juan rivers, and elements including footprints, bow-and- flute players and white handprints found in arrow, sheep with lines through them, birds, other restricted areas. "Candelabra" are res­ earbobs, etc. The large number of these tricted to the Great Basin portion of the state elements and the number of sites in which and may be associated either with Archaic or they are found suggest that there was a later Sevier/Fremont groups. relatively high degree of interaction north and The distribution of rock art styles and south along the drainages of the Colorado motifs seems to support the consensus River, and somewhat more limited interaction reached by the 1980 symposium. That is, between the Great Basin and Southwest gen­ within the general Fremont area there seems erally. In terms of rock art alone, a case could to be a basic difference between elements and 174 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY

styles on the Colorado Plateau and in the Lake: Maturango Museum Publication No. 4. Great Basin, while within these two areas Gunnerson, James H. there seems to be regional subdivisions con­ 1969 The : A Study in Culture taining unique rock art motifs. The distribu­ Dynamics on the Northern Anasazi Frontier. tional pattems also seem to suggest that the Cambridge: Papers of the Peabody Museum division between the Anasazi and Fremont on of Archaeology and Ethnology No. 59(2). the Colorado Plateau is somewhat fuzzier Heizer, Robert F., and Martin A. Baumhoff than their taxonomic placement might sug­ 1962 Prehistoric Rock Art of Nevada and Eastern gest. While some elements are clearly California. Berkeley: University of California Press. restricted to one area or another, a number are found all across the Colorado Plateau. Heizer, Robert F., and C. W. Clewlow, Jr. Whether or not this distributional pattern is 1973 Prehistoric Rock Art of California (2 vols.). Ramona: Ballena Press. the result of extensive interaction between two separate groups or is the result of com­ Hurst, Winston, and Bruce D. Louthan mon origins cannot be determined from the 1979 Survey of Rock Art in the Central Portion of Nine Mile Canyon Eastern Utah. Provo: information at hand. University, Department of Anthropology and Archaeology Publications SUMMARY in Archaeology, New Series, No. 4. Sixty rock art elements and styles found Jennings, Jesse D. in Utah can be grouped into Geometric. 1978 Prehistory of Utah and the Eastern Great Representational, and Bizarre categories. The Basin. Anthropological distributional patterns exhibited by these Papers No. 98. motifs range from generalized to tightly res­ Jennings, Jesse D., et al. tricted. Many are tentatively associated with 1956 The American Southwest: A Problem in Cultural Isolation. Society for American particular prehistoric groups. During the Archaeology Memoirs No. 2. Fremont/Anasazi occupation period there Madsen, David B. appears to have been a higher degree of 1979 The Fremont and the Sevier: Defining Pre­ interaction between areas north and south historic Agriculturalists North of the Anas­ along the than between the azi. American Antiquity 44(4):711-722. Great Basin and the Colorado Plateau. 1980 Fremont Perspectives, (ed.). : REFERENCES Utah State Historical Society, Antiquities Section Selected Papers 7(16). Bettinger, Robert L., and Martin A. Baumhoff Marwitt, John P. 1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in 1970 Median Village and Fremont Culture Region­ Competition. American Antiquity (in press). al Variation. University of Utah Anthropo­ Castleton, Kenneth B. logical Papers No. 95. 1978 Petroglyphs and Pictographs of Utah. Vol­ ume One: The East and Northeast. Salt Lake Schaafsma, Polly City: Utah Museum of Natural History. 1971 The Rock Art of Utah. Cambridge: Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and 1979 Petroglyphs and Pictographs of Utah. Vol­ Ethnology No. 65. ume Two: The South Central, West and Northwest. Salt Lake City: Utah Museum of Natural History. Steward, Julian H. 1929 Petroglyphs of California and Adjoining Grant, Campbell, James W. Baird, and J. Kenneth States. University of California Publications Pringle in American Archaeology and Ethnology 1968 Rock Drawings of the Coso Range. China 2(2):47-238. ROCK ART IN UTAH 175

Thomas, David Hurst, and Trudy C. Thomas Turner, Christy G., II 1972 New Data on Rock Art Chronology in the 1963 Petrographs of the Glen Canyon Region. Central Great Basin. Tebiwa 15(1):64-71. Flagstaff: Museum of Bulletin 38. (Glen Canyon Series No. 4).