Museums and the Conservation and Interpretation of Rock Art

Home , Baker Cave, Bon Echo Provincial Park, Petroform, Vellum

Stephanie M. Mueller, B.A.

A Thesis

MUSEUM SCIENCE

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Approved

Nicola Ladkin Chairperson of the Committee

David Dean

Brett Houk

Peggy Gordon Miller Interim Dean of the Graduate School

December, 2010

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks go to my committee Chairperson and supervisor Nicky Ladkin who has been available as a support academically, intellectually, and professionally. Nicky served as an indispensable mentor and professor. I thank the members of my committee, David

Dean and Dr. Brett A. Houk for their suggestions and guidance. Thanks also go to Dr.

Grant Hall for his advice and encouragement.

I extend thanks and gratitude to Elton and Kerza Prewitt for providing me with guidance and support emotionally, academically, and socially and for providing invaluable information without which this thesis would not have been possible. They have continued to encourage and foster my future career in rock art research with patient support.

My gratitude goes to Dr. Carolyn E. Boyd and the entire SHUMLA staff for their support, encouragement, enthusiasm, and information without which I would not have considered writing a rock art themed museum science thesis. Thank you to Dr. Michaele

Haynes, Curator of the Witte Museum, Tim Roberts of Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department, and Randy Rosales of Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site for providing me with information on the Witte Museum and its collections and Seminole

Canyon‘s rock art and archeology, respectively.

Finally, I thank my parents Dr. Thomas and Donna Mueller for supporting me financially and emotionally. Without their love and encouragement I would not have obtained this degree.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iii ABSTRACT ...... v LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii I INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Definition of Rock Art ...... 3 Issues Affecting the Conservation of Rock Art ...... 4 The Role of Museums in the Conservation of Rock Art ...... 9 Lower Pecos Museum of Rock Art ...... 14 Summary ...... 15

II METHODOLOGY ...... 16 Primary Sources ...... 16 Secondary Sources ...... 19 Limitations of Methodology ...... 20 Data Organization and Analysis ...... 22

III PREVIOUS RESEARCH ...... 24 History of Rock Art Research in the Lower Pecos ...... 24 Access and Landownership ...... 31 In Situ Conservation ...... 36 Natural Agents of Deterioration ...... 42 Human Agents of Deterioration ...... 47 Recording Techniques ...... 54 Museum Preservation and the History of Collecting ...... 60 Exhibits, Interpretation, and the Nature of Scholarly Investigation ...... 64 Summary ...... 82

IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...... 84 Access and Landownership ...... 84 In Situ Conservation ...... 95 Natural Agents of Deterioration ...... 101 Human Agents of Deterioration ...... 111 Recording Techniques ...... 121 Museum Preservation and the History of Collecting ...... 136 Exhibits, Interpretation, and the Nature of Scholarly Investigation ...... 144

V CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ...... 172 iii

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Summary of Findings ...... 172 Addressing the Thesis Question ...... 174 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 178 Suggestions for Future Research ...... 179

REFERENCE LIST ...... 181 APPENDIX ...... 191

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

ABSTRACT

Rock art is a valuable resource whose long term preservation is threatened by conservation and interpretation challenges. This thesis investigates these issues facing conservation and interpretation of rock art in the Lower Pecos River region of Texas and examines whether establishing a regional museum could assist in addressing them.

Seven issues that affect conservation of rock art are identified: access and landownership; in situ conservation; natural agents of deterioration; human agents of deterioration; recording techniques; museum preservation and the history of collecting; and exhibits, interpretation, and the nature of scholarly investigation. Interpretation methods that can affect public perceptions of the value of rock art are also identified. Research suggests a museum could serve as an archive of information on rock art, be a center for training researchers, managers, rangers, and guides, and thus assist in conservation and interpretation of rock art.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Lower Pecos Sites Visited ...... 21

2 Narrow stairs leading up to White Shaman Shelter (41VV124)...... 85

3 Panther Cave (41VV83) rates a "1" on SHUMLA‘s difficulty rating system...... 86

4 Leaping Panther Shelter (41VV237) rates a "4"...... 87

5 National Park Service‘s webpage ―How to See Rock Art‖ ...... 94

6 Example of a managed rock art site, Fate Bell Shelter (41VV74)...... 97

7 Parida Cave (41VV187) managed by National Parks Service...... 99

8 Several species of wasps at Panther Cave...... 102

9 Example of spalling at Leaping Panther Shelter...... 103

10 Seeps on the rock art panel at Mystic Shelter (41VV612)...... 104

11 Rattlesnake Shelter (41VV180) after September 2008 flood ...... 105

12 Rock art panel in Leaping Panther Shelter coated with dust...... 106

13 Faded rock art in Fate Bell Shelter...... 107

14 Vegetation on the rock art panel at Painted Shelter (41VV78)...... 107

15 Faded rock art in 41VV40 and spalled rock art in 41VV39...... 109

16 Modern graffiti in Painted Shelter...... 111

17 A young, fresh pothole in Leaping Panther Shelter...... 113

18 Screen left by looters in Leaping Panther Shelter ...... 115

19 Defaced rock art images at Mystic Shelter (41VV612)...... 116

20 Sign at Fate Bell Shelter stating punishments for site vandalism...... 119

21 Green trinomial identifier at Painted Shelter ...... 122

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

23 Rock art anthropomorphs field recording form ...... 126

24 The photo line at Halo Shelter (41VV1230) ...... 127

25 Example of detailed field sketch ...... 128

26 Full panel rendering of Red Beene Shelter (41VV951)...... 129

27 A data point at White Shaman Shelter...... 130

28 Phased-based 3-D laser scanner recording White Shaman Shelter ...... 131

29 Removal of rubber matting in White Shaman Shelter for scanning...... 132

30 Removed portion of panel at Leaping Panther Shelter ...... 137

31 Rock art on exhibit at the Museum of Texas Tech University ...... 139

32 Partial rendering of Panther Cave in Seminole Canyon‘s exhibition ...... 142

33 ―A Rare Glimpse‖ interpretive panel...... 147

34 ―A Rock Shelter Home‖ diorama ...... 149

35 The Witte Museum‘s Ancient Texans exhibition title panel ...... 150

36 White Shaman rendering with interpretative text panels ...... 151

37 Second gallery in the Ancient Texans exhibition ...... 152

38 Ceremonies and shamanism discussed in interpretive panel ...... 153

39 Interactive display showing Witte Museum excavations in the 1930s ...... 154

40 Wall of rock art photos and Spirits of the Canyon video ...... 155

41 ―Magnificent Rock Paintings‖ interpretive panel ...... 156

42 Panther Cave partial rendering used as prop in ―Encounter at Panther Cave‖ ...... 157

43 ―Panther Pictograph‖ interpretive sign at Panther Cave ...... 159

44 ―Rock Art of the Lower Pecos Region‖ text panel in Parida Cave ...... 160

vii

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

For thousands of years, rock art has been a valuable cultural resource to its makers, users, researchers, and casual admirers. To those who use it or are interested in it, this imagery ―represents a visual reminder of past activities and a connection to past and present spiritual beliefs‖ (Dean 1997, 10). Rock art ―found throughout the world could be said to constitute the greatest art museum on the planet, a vast natural gallery representing the more than forty thousand years during which humanity has attempted to express an inner vision of life‖ (Clottes 2002, 123). However, the conservation of rock art is threatened by human and natural agents of deterioration.

Dr. Jean Clottes (2006, 9) suggested that a world rock art museum should be established in order to conserve rock art. Such a museum would serve as an archive of information on rock art, provide information on how to collect and store data, be a center for training managers, rangers, researchers, and guides, and make rock art from around the world available for public viewing using current replication techniques. It would impact conservation in several ways. By providing a central place to obtain data and safely store it a museum could serve as an archive of images of rock art should a catastrophic event destroy the original. Training researchers and managers how to collect and store data creates standards for field recording techniques and archival facilities.

This makes data easily accessible, usable, and available for future researchers and other interested parties. Providing classes and workshops to educate those who work with rock art on a regular basis affords a better first line of defense against human and natural

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 agents of deterioration. Training for managers, researchers, guides, and rangers decreases the likelihood of them causing damage to a site when an emergency occurs.

Increasing accessibility of rock art sites to the public through replication techniques decreases the amount of degradation on original sites.

Lower Pecos and rock art sites in other locations around the world face the same basic conservation issues. They usually are located in arid to semi-arid and temperate climates. The same agents of deterioration plague them worldwide. They include pests, dust, direct physical forces, extreme temperature fluctuations, wind, water, and other natural agents. Vandalism, graffiti, and looting contribute to degradation.

Previous rock art research in the Lower Pecos region was generated primarily from an anthropological perspective, focusing on the information obtained from subsurface deposits in rock art shelters. Field work conducted on rock art sought to preserve the appearance of sites by producing exact copies and site maps. Information generated from field recording has rarely been used to develop management plans in order to physically conserve the sites.

This thesis research addresses rock art from a museological perspective, compiles sources on conservation and interpretation that makes them easily accessible, and investigates whether a museum in the Lower Pecos region might assist in the conservation and interpretation of rock art as Dr. Clottes has suggested. If a Lower Pecos

Museum of Rock Art (LPMRA) is found to be beneficial in conserving the region‘s rock art, this research then examines whether a global counterpart could be developed using the LPMRA as a model.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Definition of Rock Art Boyd (2006, 1) describes rock art as ―…imagery placed on natural surfaces such as cliff and boulder faces, cave or rock shelter walls and ceilings, and the surface of the ground. These images are produced by painting, drawing, engraving, and pecking natural rock surfaces or by piling stones to make patterns on the ground surface. Rock art includes pictographs (paintings or drawings), petroglyphs (engravings or incisions), and geoglyphs (intaglios and petroforms)‖. Geoglyphs are large designs produced on the surface of the ground by arranging or removing patinated or unpatinated stones, stone fragments, gravel, or earth that are characterized by their method of manufacture.

Intaglios are negative images created in desert pavement by scraping away the patinated, dark surface layer covering the ground to reveal a lighter soil or stone underneath.

Examples include the Nazca lines of Peru and the White Horse of Uffington, England.

Petroforms are positive earthform images created by arranging rocks and earth into patterns on the ground. An example of a petroform is the Great Serpent Mound in Ohio

(Boyd 2006, 1-5).

Boyd (2006) describes two basic classifications of rock art: secular and religious.

Secular art is that produced to pass the time or portray scenes of everyday life. This type is rare in archeology as few ethnographic accounts suggest rock art production outside of a religious context. It is difficult to acquire the resources needed to produce rock art and the time involved in creating it suggests that it took priority over subsistence activities

(hunting, fishing, gathering food).

Religious rock art can be divided into these categories: totemic, shamanistic, commemorative, or a combination of the three. In totemic art, only members of a

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 particular clan have the right to produce their symbols. Symbols represent ancestral spirits, are painted or repainted by members of the clan during rituals to ensure an adequate supply of plant and animal resources, and often mark ownership and rights to resources. Shamanistic art portrays an individual‘s visionary experiences as they seek to obtain supernatural power. Commemorative art is frequently narrative and used to portray an event. The event can be mythical such as a pilgrimage or a historical event.

Examples include White Shaman panel in the Lower Pecos region and Plains Biographic style rock art (Boyd 2006, 32-34).

Rock art is important to its native custodians (original and future generations of its makers and users) because it is a sacred tool that such societies use to instruct, commemorate, and communicate knowledge to future generations. To native custodians, rock art is an integral process to life and is not created for aesthetic or decorative purposes (Loubser 2001, 89; Boyd 2003). According to Loubser (2001), other interested parties such as researchers (anthropologists, archeologists, art historians, chemists, physicists, geologists), government agents, revivalist groups, and tourists feel rock art is important because of its spiritual or religious nature, the information it can provide on domestic and subsistence patterns of its original makers and users, research potential, aesthetic values, recreational and business opportunities, and educational value (Loubser

2001, 89). According to Loubser (2001), if rock art is not explained, it is not likely to be conserved.

Issues Affecting the Conservation of Rock Art Regardless of values placed upon rock art, there are issues facing its conservation and interpretation. These include: access and landownership; in situ conservation; natural

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 agents of deterioration; human agents of deterioration; recording techniques; museum preservation and the history of collecting; and exhibits, interpretations, and the nature of scholarly investigation. These issues have been identified in the Lower Pecos region by the author through observations and communications with professional archeologists and anthropologists studying the region.

Access and Landownership Lower Pecos rock art sites are located along limestone canyon walls in natural shelters and alcoves that are difficult to access physically. Creation of a dam and reservoir that inundates parts of three regional rivers makes sites more accessible by boat and more vulnerable to looting and graffiti. Most non-inundated sites are on private land making federal or state legislation designed to give protection inapplicable. Public and privately owned sites in the Lower Pecos region are listed on the National Register of

Historic Places. This designation protects sites from any federal action but does not regulate activity on those privately owned. All federally-owned rock art sites in the

Lower Pecos region are inundated. State legislation includes the Texas Antiquities Code which protects sites on state owned property, and privately owned sites that have been voluntarily designated as state archeological landmarks by landowners. Access to privately owned sites is at the landowner‘s discretion.

In Situ Conservation In situ preventative conservation involves striking a balance between care and use through interventive and/or non-intervention measures. Hands-on intervention includes such activities as diverting water away from rock art panels by means of artificial barriers, lichen removal, the application of polyvinyl acetate (used as a soil stabilizer) to

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 reduce dust deposition, and graffiti removal. In each of these examples, the chemical and/or physical aspects of the rock art site are deliberately altered in order to achieve stabilization and prolong its existence. Preventative conservation is the use of indirect actions to deter natural and human agents of deterioration from developing. Preventative conservation includes such activities as placing rubber mats on a shelter floor to minimize dust generation, and regulating the numbers of people allowed into a site.

Natural Agents of Deterioration Natural agents of deterioration affect rock art in different ways depending upon the locality of the site and the combination of agents causing the deterioration. These include: pests (insects, small and large mammals, and birds), exfoliation (spalling of bedrock), water (seeps, deposition of water-dissolved minerals and catastrophic floods), dust (fire ash and other air particulates), wind (wind abrasion), sunlight, extreme temperature variations (high heat during the summer months and freezing during the winter months), extreme humidity fluctuations, vegetation growth in cracks along shelter walls, and bacteria (lichen growth) on the limestone bedrock.

Human Agents of Deterioration The greatest threat to conservation of rock art is human in origin (Clottes 2006,

6). As rock art sites continue to become popular tourist destinations, they are subjected to excessive amounts of intentional and unintentional deterioration. Intentional deterioration includes vandalism. In the Lower Pecos region vandalism observed includes modern and historic graffiti, looting, and littering. Unintentional deterioration includes erosion of paths to sites and accidental abrasive contact between visitors and panels.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Recording Techniques Rock art is recorded to preserve the information the site contains. This information can be obtained using abrasive and nonabrasive recording techniques.

Abrasive techniques include those that, when initially applied to the rock art, appear to have no detrimental effect until deterioration is visible months or years later. Examples of this technique reported in the literature include water-treating pictographs, chalking petroglyphs, applying kerosene to pictographs, tracing, and ―cleaning‖ rock art prior to recording. Nonabrasive techniques are those that do not involve applying substances on the rock art in order to achieve an accurate recording. Examples of these techniques reported in the literature are sketching, photographing, detailed written descriptions, and

3-D laser scanning.

Museum Preservation and the History of Collecting Historically, museums preserved rock art by chipping or blasting images from rock art panels and moving them inside a museum building. The removal process is physically destructive to the rock art in several ways. While quarrying, sacrifices often are made of some motifs and elements to recover a few select ones. Transporting the removed portion after blasting or chipping normally involves chains and ropes which cause further damage to the sides of the removed panel. Such practices are not only physically destructive to the rock art but also to the continuity of information within the panels removed from site context.

Exhibits, Interpretation, and the Nature of Scholarly Investigation How rock art is interpreted affects, and is vital to understanding, the information selected for presentation in museum exhibitions. Two main approaches, traditional and ethnographic, to interpreting Lower Pecos rock art are identified in the literature. The 7

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 traditional approach favors speculation and that any interpretation of rock art is as good as any other. This approach interprets elements separately as random collections of images. Traditional approaches noted in Lower Pecos literature include the application of western artistic perspectives to nonwestern rock art, the creation of intellectual dead ends, and the application of shamanistic hunting magic hypotheses.

Early rock art researchers believed that western artistic perspectives hold that art is decorative and something undertaken when all necessary subsistence activities have been completed. Applying this concept to nonwestern art results in its interpretation as random collections of images constructed during the artist‘s free time for amusement and/or to decorate a shelter home.

Rock art research began from the perspective that ―the goal of research was to understand cultures for their own sake in their own terms, and that this could only be achieved by detailed historical reconstruction‖ (Whitley 2001, 13). Problems arose when no ethnographies that referred to prehistoric rock art could be found so many researchers concluded that it was not possible to interpret it. This created an intellectual dead-end determining rock art to be unknowable and limiting its focus to a data-gathering and data- classifying endeavor.

The shamanistic hunting magic hypothesis was first proposed as an interpretation for Lower Pecos rock art by Newcomb in 1967 and later expanded upon in various publications by Solveig Turpin. This hypothesis interprets every image on a rock art panel as being related to shamanism, a religion practiced by many hunter-gatherer societies. As such, every anthropomorph on a rock art panel is identified as a ―shaman,‖

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 every crenelated line as a ―gateway serpent,‖ and every zoomorph (animal-like figure) as a guardian spirit or animal familiar.

Another interpretive approach is the ethnographic approach. This approach suggests that rock art panels represent coherent compositions and considers that nonwestern art has functionality. After field data (qualitative and quantitative) is collected, analysis of a rock art panel is conducted and any patterns are identified. Hypotheses are formed to explain the patterns identified. Then a review of ethnographic and ethnohistoric literature is conducted to search for similar patterns. The data collected from this review are used to formulate hypotheses regarding the meaning and function of the rock art. These hypotheses are then tested against multiple types of evidence to produce supporting arguments. Evidence can come from various disciplines depending upon the context of the elements depicted in the rock art.

Existing museum exhibitions on Lower Pecos rock art express one or both of these main approaches. Exhibitions that express traditional approaches include Seminole

Canyon‘s Man in the Lower Pecos, the Witte Memorial Museum‘s (Witte Museum)

Ancient Texans exhibition, and the on-site exhibitions at Panther and Parida Caves.

Currently, the only exhibit utilizing the ethnographic approach to interpret Lower Pecos rock art is a virtual exhibit. Texas Beyond History‘s Lower Pecos online exhibition presents both approaches in the section entitled ―Rock Art‖.

The Role of Museums in the Conservation of Rock Art Museums Museums are institutions in the service of society and its development (ICOM

2007). Their role includes conserving and interpreting the material evidence of people

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 and their environment. Museums can conserve and interpret such evidence through exhibition, educational programs, research, site acquisition and management, and provision of data-housing facilities that can be accessed in lieu of physical site visits.

Museum Conservation To conserve material evidence of people and their environment, museums must first acquire the material in question and make it part of a collection. Acquisition is ―the act of gaining physical possession of an object, specimen, or sample‖ (Dean and Edson

1994, 289). Objects are acquired through ―donation, fieldwork or research, purchase, or transfer from another institution‖ (Dean and Edson 1994, 30). Once acquired, the museum has a legal and ethical responsibility to care for that material.

Conservation is defined in the National Park Service‘s (NPS) Museum Handbook as ―the deliberate alteration of the chemical and/or physical aspects of objects, aimed primarily at prolonging their existence. Treatment may consist of stabilization and/or restoration‖ (Johnson and Wolf 2001, 8.16). Stabilizing an object is a treatment taken to increase its durability or stability and decrease its rate of deterioration to ―an acceptable level or when it has deteriorated so far that its existence is jeopardized‖ (Johnson 1999,

3.20). Restoration treatments are taken ―to bring an object as close as possible to its original or former appearance by removing accretions and later additions and/or by replacing missing elements‖ (Johnson 1999, 3.20). Restoration is often conducted to meet an interpretive focus and is fully documented but may or may not be reversible. To stabilize in situ rock art sites, conservation treatments that deliberately alter the site‘s chemical and/or physical aspects must be carried out by a professional conservator.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Examples of hand-on treatments are mentioned in the description for ―in situ conservation.‖

Preservation is defined in the National Park Service‘s Museum Handbook as ―the act or process of applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity, and material of an object by activities that minimize chemical and physical deterioration and damage and prevent the loss of information; primary goal of preservation is to prolong the existence of cultural property‖ (Johnson 1999, 3.20). The word ―sustain‖ in this definition implies that the object in question is already stable; it is in its original form and retains its original integrity and material. To preserve an object is to remove or minimize the agents that cause chemical and physical deterioration and damage to the object and prevent loss of information. Preservation is concerned with altering environmental conditions to maintain object stability.

Museums preserve by avoiding, blocking, detecting, responding to and recovering from nine agents of deterioration (CCI Framework for Preservation of Museum

Collections, 1994). These agents are: direct physical forces; thieves, vandals, and displacers; pests; water; fire; contaminants; radiation (light); incorrect temperature; and incorrect relative humidity. Each of these agents has the potential to harm objects in a collection. The actions or processes recommended assume that the objects are in a climate controlled building. For in situ sites, natural processes take place that rarely can be controlled. While it might possible to place a roof over a site and control the surface climate, it is impossible to control the climate in cultural deposits or on a cliff face hosting rock art.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Preventative conservation is the use of non-invasive methods to prevent the agents of deterioration from destroying objects in a collection. Actions are taken to minimize deterioration to an object and preserve it in perpetuity. They include

―monitoring, recording, and controlling environmental agents; inspecting and recording the condition of objects; establishing an integrated pest management program; practicing proper handling and storage techniques; and incorporating needed information and procedures about objects in emergency operation plans‖ (Johnson 1999, 3.20). An example of preventative conservation for rock art sites is the development of a management plan for conservation.

Museum Interpretation ―Interpretation is the act or process of explaining or clarifying, translating, or presenting a personal understanding about a subject or object‖ and has three principle functions (Dean 1994, 6). These are: to translate, explain or describe, and express.

Translation converts information from an unintelligible form to an understandable one in order to make it available for the intended user. Explanation or description occurs when the translation needs further clarification. This is achieved by providing more detail or explanation to make the translation more understandable.

Interpretation involves research, communication, and exhibition. Museums conduct scholarly research to provide their audiences with reliable, accurate information that is used in interpretation of material evidence. Interpretation can help a user solve a practical problem, provide a better understanding of an object or a subject, entertain by pondering new information, and answer questions a user may have.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

One way in which museums provide interpretation is through exhibition (Dean

MUSM 5331 class notes, Fall 2005, 1). Interpretation begins with communication.

Communication is ―‘the transfer of information and ideas with the deliberate intention to achieve certain changes, deemed desirable by the sender …‘‖ (Dean 1994, 160). Candice

Matelic provides a model that shows how information is communicated in an exhibition from the sender (museum) to the receiver(s) (museum visitors). Matelic‘s Interpretation

Loop begins with the sender, the person or institution (museum) supplying the message.

The information or message is sent through the channel, the method in which the message is displayed. The receiver(s) (museum visitors) receives the message and then responds or reacts to the message (Dean 1994, 104-105).

Exhibition is ―a comprehensive grouping of all elements (including exhibits and displays) that form a complete public presentation of collections and information for the public use‖ (Dean 1994, 3). To develop an exhibition, museums use a process that includes four phases. The first phase is the conceptual phase, where ideas are gathered for an exhibition, assessed as to which ideas fit the framework of the museum‘s mission and community needs and selected for exhibition. When an idea is selected, the development phase begins. In this phase, the standards for building the final exhibition are planned and produced (constructed and installed). The functional phase begins when the exhibition is in operation and continues until the exhibition is terminated

(dismantled). Once the exhibition is dismantled, the assessment phase begins with an evaluation of whether or not goals were met with the exhibition and its development process. From this evaluation, new ideas are generated for later exhibitions (Dean 1994,

8-18). 13

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Objects and subjects must be interpreted so they have meaning and relate to the user. If proper interpretation is not provided, the user learns nothing. Interpretation is believed to be critical for conservation due to its educational potential. It is argued that when a user learns something, an appreciation for an object or subject is developed and thus produces a change in behavior towards conserving it.

Lower Pecos Museum of Rock Art Accepting Clottes (2006) assertion that a world rock art museum would help to conserve and interpret rock art, it is argued here that a Lower Pecos Museum of Rock Art could do the same. It would serve as a preservation archive of information, educate the public through exhibitions, train rangers and guides in site management, and provide information regarding collection and proper storage of field data.

By definition, museums acquire, collect, and conserve material culture. A

LPMRA would serve as a facility to properly archive all data collected at regional rock art sites. Such an archive would make information about these sites more accessible to researchers. Housing information within the region in which sites are located retains context and supports accessibility, preservation of sites through proper storage of all of recording forms, renderings, site maps, and other field data. A LPMRA would be capable of creating a fully searchable digital database that enhances preservation of the information and makes it readily accessible to researchers and other interested parties worldwide.

Museums conduct research, provide interpretation and educate the public regarding the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment. A

LPMRA could increase accessibility of regional rock art sites by developing and

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 exhibiting accurate replicas of them to function as research and educational tools. This would provide an informal, hands-on, interactive environment designed to help visitors learn about the region‘s rock art, its importance to cultural heritage, and why it should be preserved. The new knowledge a visitor gains will foster in them an appreciation for the region‘s rock art and thus change their behavior towards it.

Summary Museums exist in the service of society and its development by conserving and interpreting material evidence. Rock art is material evidence of people and faces conservation issues. These issues are: access and landownership; in situ conservation; natural agents of deterioration; human agents of deterioration; recording techniques; museum preservation and the history of collecting; and exhibits, interpretation, and the nature of scholarly investigation. Museums support conservation and interpretation of rock art through acquisition of collections and data, education, scholarly research, and exhibition. This thesis questions if the establishment of a rock art museum would benefit conservation and interpretation of Lower Pecos rock art.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

To conduct this thesis research, information and data were gathered from both primary and secondary sources. The primary sources were: observation visits to sites, personal communications, and unpublished field notes. Secondary sources were: publications that include books, journals, articles, reports and websites.

Primary Sources Multiple observation visits to sites and personal communications with anthropologists and archeologists conducting research in the region illustrated that seven major issues affect the conservation and interpretation of rock art (see Chapter 1).

These sites are: Fate Bell and Fate Bell Annex, White Shaman Shelter, Panther Cave,

Parida Cave, Bonfire Shelter, Eagle Cave, Skiles Shelter, Leaping Panther Shelter,

41VV61, Halo Shelter, Rattlesnake Shelter, Painted Shelter, Caballo (Running Horse)

Shelter (41VV226), 41VV39, 41VV40, Meyers Springs, Mystic Shelter, and Red Beene

Shelter. Table 1 provides a summary of each site visit and activities conducted, organized in chronological order.

Visits to Fate Bell and Fate Bell Annex were conducted in March and May 2006 and March 2008. During the 2006 visits, human agents of deterioration were observed.

The March 2008 visit to these shelters observed how the rock art is interpreted during a ranger guided tour and how site access is managed.

In May 2006, Skiles Shelter was visited and its fading rock art observed and recorded. Nine site visits made between November 2005 to December 2008 to

41VV61 and Leaping Panther Shelter to conduct condition reports, produce field 16

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Table 1 Site Visit Information

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 sketches and photograph the rock art there. As part of the condition report process, natural and human agents of deterioration were recorded and photographed at every visit.

An active pothole was monitored at Leaping Panther Shelter as well as increasing graffiti on the rock art panels in 41VV61. Physical and legal access issues to both shelters were documented.

Halo Shelter was visited in October 2007 to observe and record the effects of spalling on rock art sites. Rattlesnake Shelter and Painted Shelter were visited to record the effects of a catastrophic flood episode on rock art sites. Visits to Rattlesnake Shelter were made in April 2007 (before the flood) and in November 2008 (after the flood) and visits to Painted Shelter were made in March 2005 (before the flood) and in October 2008

(after the episode). In May 2006, historic graffiti resembling the prehistoric rock art in

Caballo (Running Horse) Shelter was observed and recorded. Additional examples of natural agents of deterioration were observed and noted in 41VV39 and 41VV40 on

August 27, 2008. Effects of previous recording techniques and natural agents of deterioration were observed and noted in Mystic Shelter and Red Beene Shelter in May

2006. Human agents of deterioration were also recorded during SHUMLA‘s Field

Methods in Rock Art Class in May 2009 at Mystic Shelter.

Multiple trips were taken to SHUMLA from May 2006 to 2009 to gather data during programs such as Pecos Experience and Fields Methods in Rock Art class and/or to use the library and interview archeologists and anthropologists researching the region‘s rock art. On March 14, 2008, a visit to Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site was taken to photograph and take notes on the exhibition Man in the Lower Pecos in the

Interpretive Center and to observe a ranger-guided tour into Fate Bell and Fate Bell 18

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Annex. The Witte Museum was visited from March 17-19, 2008 to take notes, photograph, talk with curator Dr. Michael Haynes, and record visitor interaction in the

Ancient Texans exhibition. The final research visit was made on June 12, 2008 to record the rock art on exhibit in the Ethnohistory Gallery at the Museum of Texas Tech

University.

Personal communications were conducted through interviews with various personnel from SHUMLA, Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site, the Witte

Museum, Wyoming State Museum and other individuals having a connection to particular issues. Interviews were conducted face-to-face, by phone, and by email.

Secondary Sources The literature review was conducted using secondary sources. These were located in libraries and through searches in online databases and public search engines. Due to the multidisciplinary nature of this thesis, several libraries were used. Texas Tech

University Library and Texas Archeological Research Laboratory (TARL) provided literature on rock art research, reports from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

(TPWD), The University of Texas, private archeological consulting companies that work in the Lower Pecos region, and rock art in Texas. The SHUMLA library was used to obtain literature specific to rock art conservation and interpretation. The Museum

Research Library at the Museum of Texas Tech University (MRL) was used to obtain literature concerning how museums conserve and interpret the material evidence of people and their past. The internet was used to conduct searches of various online databases, Texas Tech University‘s online library catalogs, and Google specifically was used to obtain both National Park Service reports pertaining to Amistad National

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Recreation Area and the conservation and interpretation of rock art. Online databases used in searches include Wilson Web, the Rock Art Bibliographic Database, Texas

Beyond History (TBH), JSTOR, and the bibliographic database of the International

Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM).

Personal observations of the seven issues were made during visits to 25 Lower

Pecos sites. Of the 25 sites visited from March 2005 to October 2008, 17 sites are used in this thesis (Figure 1). These sites were selected because they displayed excellent examples of one or more of the seven issues.

Limitations of Methodology Several limitations with this methodology were encountered. The primary problem encountered while searching for literature and previous research was the lack of publications and accessibility to existing publications. Information concerning in situ conservation of rock art sites is scarce, perhaps because it is a relatively new field.

References were located in the Rock Art Bibliographic Database, but the majority of the references could not be located with the limited resources of this study. Limited information exists on conservation and management of Lower Pecos rock art sites.

Existing publications consist of baseline inventories for sites within Amistad Reservoir and Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site, and two baseline condition assessments for specific rock art sites within Seminole Canyon. The condition assessment referred to by Roberts in his 2004 report was obtained by contacting Roberts directly. Other reports generated from the salvage work in the 1950s and 1960s at

Amistad Reservoir are not widely available and was accessed at TARL‘s library. Other publications were obtained through enrollment classes at SHUMLA and Sul Ross State

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Figure 1 Lower Pecos Sites Visited 21

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

University. A copy of TPWD‘s rock art recording manual was obtained through the

Rock Art class at Sul Ross State University and SHUMLA‘s recording methods were learned during the Field Methods class.

Personal observation data gathering is vulnerable to human error. On preliminary visits to Seminole Canyon and the Witte Museum, necessary recording equipment such as a camera and digital recorder were not available. Hand written notes taken on site and journal entries written after the visit were not sufficient in quantity or accuracy so a second visit to both sites with the proper recording equipment were made. The digital recorder was used to make narrative observations. Hand written notes, photographs, and sketches were produced to document onsite observations. Personal bias also can influence observations made and conclusions drawn.

Difficulties with personal communication experienced were keeping accurate records of information, keeping interviewees responses relevant to the subject, selection of questions asked, and objectivity of response. These were noted during the communications and addressed as far as possible in the analysis.

Data Organization and Analysis This thesis this organized into five chapters. Chapter I introduces the research and identifies seven issues affecting rock art preservation and conservation. Chapter II describes the methods used to collect background information and field observations, defines limitations of the methodology, and explains how the data are analyzed and organized. Chapter III summarizes research organized by the seven identified issues.

Chapter IV presents the findings relating to each issue and discusses the findings for each issue. The information and data collected are analyzed through qualitative means.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Chapter V draws conclusions from the findings and discussion and makes recommendations on future research from a regional and global perspective.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

CHAPTER III

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Previous research on the conservation and interpretation of rock art varies considerably in nature and accessibility. Some sources are in the form of scholarly monographs, some are published in journals and reports, and a majority is in the form of unpublished field notes. Following a brief history of regional research, the information gathered is organized and discussed in relation to each of the seven issues that affect conservation and interpretation of rock art.

History of Rock Art Research in the Lower Pecos Rock art research in the Lower Pecos began with early explorers simply mentioning that such sites exist. The earliest notation of a pictograph site was made by

Captain S.G. French in 1849. In writing of the area he mentioned some ―rude [crude]

Indian paintings on the rocks‖ at a place that was called Painted Caves (Taylor 1949, 69).

In 1853, Lieutenant Michler of the Boundary Survey Commission noted pictographs about the mouth of the Pecos River and attributed them to the Apache, a Native American group he found in the vicinity (Taylor 1949, 69-70).

Serious efforts to record and study the rock art in the Lower Pecos region began in the 1930s. In 1931, the Witte Museum sent Emma Gutzeit and Miss Virginia Carson to reproduce the rock art found in the region. Gutzeit and Carson led two expeditions, one in June and the other in August, was guided by ―Uncle‖ Tom Miller (Quillin and

Woolford 1966, 200). When the expeditions were completed, Gutzeit and Carson covered 2,086 miles, visited 34 sites throughout western Texas, and produced 110

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 watercolor plates of 29 rock art sites, 18 of which were in the Lower Pecos region

(Quillin and Woolford 1966, 214).

Two years later, commercial draftsman Forrest Kirkland and his wife Lula began producing water color renderings of major sites in the Lower Pecos. Before Forrest‘s untimely death in 1942, he and his wife copied 91 pictograph and petroglyph sites all across Texas, 43 of which are in the Lower Pecos region. The more the Kirkland‘s studied the rock art, the more they realized that it had a serious purpose. As such,

Kirkland became the first person to report stylistic and geographic variations in the regional art accounting this difference to two cultural groups he called Val Verde Dry

Shelter and Val Verde Flooded Shelter (Kirkland 1938, 20).

In 1938, A.T. Jackson of the University of Texas traveled over Texas to document all known rock art sites in the state. The result was a book entitled Picture-Writing of

Texas Indians. As reported in this monograph, Jackson photographed, described, and sketched 195 rock art sites in Texas, 35 of which are in the Lower Pecos region. Jackson also compared some of the rock art to pottery designs found in the southwestern United

States (Jackson 1938, 465).

In 1949, Herbert C. Taylor, Jr. completed his master‘s thesis on Lower Pecos archeology with a focus on the rock art. Taylor identified three styles of pictographs:

The Pecos Focus, monochromatic realistic paintings (Red Figure), and historic. He attributed the latter to the Apache and Comanche tribes. J. Charles Kelley (1950) refined

Taylor‘s first two styles. After closely examining the rock art and the existing data in the archeological record, Kelley opined that Pecos River Focus is older and the Red Figure

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 style is later because the bow and arrow is depicted only in the latter style and the atlatl only in the former (Kelley 1950).

In 1958, T.N. Campbell suggested that elements present in Lower Pecos rock art are related to a mescal bean medicine society because evidence of this hunting cult were found in archeological deposits at twelve rock art shelters in Texas, eight of which are located in the Lower Pecos region. This ethnographically known historic cult is often linked with hunting and deer. In various ceremonies, the men are in costume and hold weapons (bow and arrow) in their hands and the tribal leaders often hold a staff. In the rock art, the ―men‖ depicted throughout the region often are shown holding staff-like objects with enlarged distal ends. These ―men‖ are also associated with animals (in particular deer and mountain lion). Their bodies frequently are pierced with darts or spears, and they hold weapons (dart, spear, or atlatl). Campbell (1958) hypothesized these pictographs resembled various historic hunting and mescal bean cult ceremonies.

The planned impoundment of Amistad Reservoir from 1958-1969 brought an increase in rock art research. The archeological salvage work that took place during this time in the Lower Pecos research history was never conceived of as an integrated, multi- year research project. Instead, it was organized as a series of ad hoc field exercises under the direction of many different archeologists with varying levels of experience (Black

2004).

In late winter and early spring of 1958, John A. Graham and William A. (Bill)

Davis carried out the first archeological survey of the planned reservoir area. In about ten weeks, the two archeologists located and recorded 188 sites, 49 of which had rock art; 31

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 of these were considered archeological sites, and 18 were considered pictograph sites only (Black 2004).

In the fall of 1958, David S. Gebhard, an art and architecture historian who was then the director of the Roswell Museum of Art Center in New Mexico, led a small research team to begin following up Graham and Davis‘s recommendation for systematic recording of the region‘s rock art. In 1960, Gebhard published a preliminary report from this field season outlining his methodology for systematically recording the rock art sites, and proposed rock art styles which he later refined and discussed in detail in his 1965 report.

Independent of Gebhard‘s work, Terence Grieder, a professor of Art History at the University of Texas, recorded and studied pictographs at 14 sites in the Lower Pecos region. In a 1966 article, Grieder attempted to show evidence for a relative chronology within the Pecos Style and the chronological relationship of Gebhard‘s Pecos, Painted

Pebble, and Red Linear Styles. He concluded that the Pecos style could be divided into three periods: Fisherman, Deerhunter, and Miniature (Grieder 1966, 719).

New versions of rock art styles and chronology were introduced in Kirkland and

Newcomb‘s book The Rock Art of Texas Indians in 1967. Newcomb recognized four rock art styles in the region: Pecos River, Red Linear, Red Monochrome, and Historic.

Newcomb was first to propose the shamanistic society hypothesis to interpret Lower

Pecos rock art by referring to reoccurring polychrome and monochrome anthropomorphs as shamans.

Other interpretations of the region‘s rock art continued with J. Charles Kelley‘s

1974 book chapter ‖Pictorial and Ceramic Art in The Mexican Cultural Littoral of the 27

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Chichimec Sea‖. Kelley argued that the Pecos River style pictographs represent depictions of a ceremonial hunting cult that developed in response to cultural emanations originating in Mesoamerica (Kelley 1974, 51-52).

Shafer (1980) however, presented a counter argument. Using Lower Pecos rock art to explore the function of art in hunter-gatherer cultures, Shafer argued that ―if the similarities between the Lower Pecos shaman figures and iconographic motifs of

Mesoamerica do exist, they may be the coincidental result of different adaptive responses resulting from a common desert cultural base‖ (Shafer 1980, 111).

The next major era of rock art research occurred in the 1980s with the opening of the Ancient Texans exhibition at the Witte Museum and the publication of its accompanying text Ancient Texans: Rock Art and Lifeways along the Lower Pecos.

Using the skills of various paleobotanists, archeologists, anthropologists, social anthropologists, and art historians, the Witte Museum set out to interpret the material culture and investigate the lifeways of prehistoric peoples of the Lower Pecos. The exhibit and the book led to public awareness of the cultural resources in the region and a better understanding of the hunter-gatherer lifeways of the Lower Pecos peoples.

The 1980s are also when Solveig Turpin began an extensive series of publications on Lower Pecos rock art. Turpin built on the works of Campbell (1958) and Kirkland and Newcomb (1967) by identifying additional elements associated with shamanic religious systems in Pecos River Style art. She also introduced a fifth rock art style, Bold

Line Geometric, and recorded and documented Pecos River Style rock art sites in the

Burros Mountains in Mexico, extending the southern boundaries of the Lower Pecos

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 cultural area. Her interpretations of the regional rock art represent the traditional approach.

At the end of the 1980s, Patricia Bass from Rice University formed the Pecos

Project to support her dissertation research. Data were gathered from twenty-two shelters in the Lower Pecos region containing Pecos River Style rock art in an effort to decode the symbolic system through the application of semiotic models. In a later publication, she interpreted the data to suggest the possibility of male associated and female associated rock art (Bass 1989, 1994).

Also in the 1980s, methods to obtain radiocarbon assays from pictographs emerged. Marvin Rowe and students at Texas A&M University developed techniques for obtaining radiocarbon assays to date pictographs using accelerator mass spectrometry

(AMS). This method requires only a small sample of a painting. Since the development of this technique, over 100 radiocarbon dates on rock paintings worldwide have been published. In the Lower Pecos region, nineteen samples of red and black inorganic pigmented Pecos River style paintings have been dated by AMS radiocarbon analysis.

The ages range between 2,750 and 4,200 BP and are in general agreement with the archeological inference of 3,000-4,000 BP. Red Linear and Red Monochrome pictographs were also assayed. Red Linear was dated to 1,280±45 BP and Red

Monochrome to 1,125±85 BP (Rowe 2001, 149).

Physical and chemical analysis of rock art began in the 1980s with much of the work being done in the 1990s. An x-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis was conducted to identify the minerals present in rock art pigment. Red pigments mainly consist of hematite and maghemite with goethite, magnetite, lepidocrocite, and ferrihydrate also 29

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 present. Mixtures of these minerals also produce the orange and yellow pigments. The black pigment was derived from maganite and pyrolucite, not charcoal as was previously thought (Rowe 2001, 200-201). DNA phylogentic analysis has also been conducted to determine the binder used in the paint. The material was identified as animal fat from an ungulate (even-toed hoofed mammals such as bison, deer, or antelope) (Rowe 2001, 213).

Further archeological experimentation by Boyd (2003) found that mineral pigment combined with animal fat (in this case bone marrow from deer), and mixed with emulsifiers from yucca root makes an excellent paint (Boyd 2003, 23).

Another major contribution to rock art research in the Lower Pecos came when

Dr. Carolyn Boyd published her book Rock Art of the Lower Pecos in which she used ethnographies to interpret the regional rock art. Boyd, an artist and anthropologist, co- founded SHUMLA, a non-profit educational and research center in the Lower Pecos that focuses on studying the region‘s rock art as well as educating people about this precious non-renewable resource (Boyd 2003).

Digital recording of Lower Pecos rock art sites has taken place within the last eleven years. In 1999, Robert Mark and Evelyn Billo recorded Hueco Tanks, a rock art site near El Paso, Texas, using photographic and digital imaging technologies for recording and displaying rock art figures and panels, GPS (global positioning system) to record their locations and GIS (geographic information systems) to manage the data

(Texas Beyond History, Hidden Art, 2008). They also used QuickTime VR, a digital software viewer to display images panoramically, and incorporated various digital photographic enhancement software such as D-Stretch (Decorrelation Stretch) to further

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 enhance rock art images (Loendorf 2001, 73). Mark and Billo used this technology recently to record White Shaman Shelter.

Other advancements in digital recording and documentation of rock art sites include 3D laser scanning technology. This technology digitally scans the surface of a panel and collects 3D data in a systematic, automated manner at a relatively high rate in near real time (CyArk, Technology: Laser Scanning, 2009). These data can be used to create a three-dimensional model of an entire rock art site. This technology allows creation of a site map that is accurate to the millimeter. Two Lower Pecos sites, Halo

Shelter and White Shaman Shelter, were mapped in October 2009 using 3D Laser technology as part of SHUMLA‘s Lower Pecos Rock Art Recording and Preservation

Project, an ambitious project aimed at documenting 36 rock art sites, creating a digital library to archive rock art data, establishing a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary research program, forming a stewards program, and continuing their hands-on education programs that connects people of all ages to rock art (SHUMLA, Research Projects, 2009). This documentation process incorporates 3D laser scanning technology; infrared, ultraviolet infrared and visible spectrum digital photography; digital photographic enhancement software such as Adobe PhotoShop; and data collection that includes over 90 variables for each rock art element.

Access and Landownership Literature that addresses access and landownership is found in such sources as books, articles, and an online exhibition. They describe the dry, rugged landscape of the

Lower Pecos and provide accounts of the physical difficulties involved with traveling and accessing rock art in the region. Examples of how landownership affects preservation of

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 rock art are found among state and federal laws and programs that protect privately and publicly owned cultural resources.

The Lower Pecos region is a dry, rocky, rugged terrain. The landscape is dominated by deep and narrow canyons that slice through masses of grayish white limestone bedrock along the southwestern edge of the Edwards Plateau. The terrain is so rugged that early European travelers found the region almost impassible; their accounts relate the extreme difficulties encountered when traversing the area. In A Colony on the

Move: Gaspar Castaño de Sosa’s Journal: 1590-1591, Matson and Schroeder (1965) describe the difficulties that Spanish explorer Gaspar Castaño de Sosa and his company encountered while trying to cross the region. In a journal entry, De Sosa described his scouting party finding the Pecos River but not being able to ―enter into it on account of many sharp rocks (peña tajada) and ravines‖ (Matson and Schroeder 1965, 41). The company began to despair ―on account of the great amount of rock encountered …in search of the Rio Salado‖ (Matson and Schroeder 1965, 49). In these ―mountains‖, they used up ―25 dozen [300] horse shoes‖ in ―two or three days‖, lamed many of their horses, and used precious food supplies ―because it was not possible to travel by any other route‖

(Matson and Schroeder 1965, 49). This source is significant because it provides a very early account of how difficult it is to physically access the Lower Pecos region.

Quillin and Woolford (1966) provide the first reference regarding the difficulty of accessing archeological sites in the region. This is also the earliest known reference from a museum that documents the often impassible terrain. Ellen Schultz Quillin, the director of the Witte Museum during its 1930‘s excavations in the Lower Pecos, mentions in the

1966 publication how difficult it is to access many of the sites in the region. She states 32

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 that those who came to the Lower Pecos ―were all intrigued by the region and the possibilities of an ancient civilization in the Texas-Mexican region where the Rio Grande makes a big bend—thus giving to an isolated area of desert, mountains and rugged canyons a name that, for many years, was a synonym for danger. Keep out, the jagged rocks said; keep out, the rushing river said in its dark passages; keep out, whispered the desert winds as they crossed blazing-hot sands and the creosote bushes and the black brush‖ (Quillin and Wolford 1966, 199-200).

Texas Beyond History (TBH) is a virtual museum hosted by the Texas

Archeological Research Laboratory (TARL) at The University of Texas at Austin. The virtual museum began with 16 other partnering organizations in 2001 with the stated purpose to ―interpret and share the results of archeological and historical research on the cultural heritage of Texas with the citizens of Texas and the world‖ (Texas Beyond

History, About TBH, 2008). It includes more than 50 exhibits on specific archeological and historical sites throughout Texas that are important to its prehistoric and historic cultural legacy. In the ―Before Amsitad‖ gallery of the Lower Pecos exhibition, Dr.

Steve Black, editor of TBH, discusses Graham and Davis‘s archeological survey in the

Lower Pecos region. Their biggest challenge was ―navigating across the rough terrain and ranchland to gain access to the remote canyons where more of the sites were located‖

(Black 2004). Even today much of the Lower Pecos area remains remote ranchland. In

1958, when Graham and Davis conducted their study, most of the paved roads and developments there today did not exist then, making access ―a major obstacle‖ (Black

2004). Part of the reason the two archeologists recorded nearly 200 sites was because

―Graham had grown up in Del Rio and was able to make good use of his knowledge of 33

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 the area and his family connections. Permission had to be obtained from each rancher or landowner, some of whom were none too pleased with the prospect of being forced to give up part of their ranches for the lake. Nonetheless, most of them allowed the ‗local boy‘ to enter their ranches and many took Graham and Davis to the ‗Indian caves‘ they knew about‖ (Black 2004). This source is significant because it illustrates the difficulty of physically accessing sites and the reluctance local landowners have about researchers coming onto their land to study rock art.

Literature pertaining to ownership of sites advises landowners on how they can protect sites on their property. Protection can be provided under the National Historic

Preservation Act, the Antiquities Code of Texas, and donation of a site to a state or federal entity. Passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 included formation of the National Register of Historic Places, which is the nation‘s official listing of cultural resources worthy of preservation. This national program is designed to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, register, and protect significant historic and prehistoric sites throughout the country. It protects privately owned registered sites against federal action that would cause damage (National

Register of Historic Places, About Us). Federal agencies planning a project in a region where a listed historic or prehistoric place is located must consult with the state and federal agency that advise the president and the congress on matters pertaining to preservation of historic or prehistoric significance. In most cases, agreement on how a project will be carried out with the least harm to a property is written into a memorandum of agreement which is signed by the agency, the State Historic Preservation Office, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. This designation does not restrict private 34

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 property owner‘s rights regarding what they can do to their property as long as that action does not involve a federal license, permit, or funding. Owners have no obligation to open their properties to the public, to restore them, or even maintain them, if they choose not do so (Harper and Savage 1993).

The Antiquities Code of Texas is a state law that protects private and publicly owned sites designated as State Archeological Landmarks (SALs) from being altered, damaged, destroyed, salvaged, excavated, or taken without permission from the Texas

Historical Commission, the legal custodian of the state law since 1995 (Texas Historical

Commission 1997). There must be written consent from the landowner to designate any privately owned site an SAL and, to physically access one, permission must be obtained from the landowner. Unauthorized persons may not damage or remove anything from a landmark or they face a $50-$1,000 fine and/or 30 days in jail for each day of continued violation. As with a national register designation, the owners of an SAL are not restricted in terms of what they can do to a site as long as it does not involve a state or federal permit, license, or funding, and there is no obligation to open the landmark to the public

(Texas Historical Commission 1997, Sec. 191.171).

A landowner may donate or sell a site to a state or federal agency in order to provide increased protection for it. The landowner must agree to sell to the designated agency and a legal transaction must take place. Lockwood and Roberts (2005) provide an example of private land being acquired by a state agency in their draft version of the resource management plan for Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site. In their acquisition history, Lockwood and Roberts (2005) describe how Seminole Canyon was acquired by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) from various private 35

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 landowners. The initial 1,413 acres was acquired in 1973 by TPWD from Eleanor Bell.

Two additional tracts were acquired in 1977 from Katherine Kesler and Gertrude Riedel, daughters of Emil Zuberbueler (Lockwood and Roberts 2005, 1.3). These laws and activities are significant because they help to legally protect these designated sites from state and federal action.

In Situ Conservation Sources on conserving rock art sites in situ vary considerably in focus. Loubser and van Aardt‘s (1979) conservation study in Beersheba Shelter and Ouzman‘s (2006) report on the in situ conservation treatments of the fire damaged Tandjesberg rock art national monument provide examples from around the world of how in situ conservation issues are dealt with on a site-by-site basis. Turpin (1982), Silver (1985), Dean (2001), and Roberts (2004) discuss efforts to conserve Lower Pecos rock art sites in situ. These sources include use of conservation assessments, conditions reports, and recommendations to conserve the region‘s rock art sites in situ, but none of them have been developed or evaluated specifically for rock art sites in the Lower Pecos region.

Loubser‘s (2001) contribution to Handbook of Rock Art Research provides a basic outline for a management plan for conservation that is widely used today as a primary template how to conserve sites in situ.

In 1979 Loubser and van Aardt conducted an in situ conservation study in

Beersheba Shelter to determine the causes of deterioration to the rock art, develop techniques for conserving it and evaluate the techniques used, and apply those techniques in the field (Loubser and van Aardt 1979, 54). After conducting the study, the authors report that water was the primary agent of deterioration. When poured on the

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 overhanging rock, water flowed over the overhang toward the northern end of the shelter and reached the rock face hosting the rock art. The water dripped from an upper overhang in a section of the shelter where the face is slightly offset behind and above the overhang of the main shelter. From there it ran onto a section of the main shelter and found its way to the paintings. As a result, the authors developed and installed a drip system consisting of a groove and stainless steel strips. They cut about a 3mm wide and

10-15 mm deep groove ―into the sandstone with an electric cutter fitted with a carborundum blade. … These strips were trimmed to follow the contour of the rock and used as templates. Stainless steel strips (type 316) were cut from the templates. At about

50 mm intervals, holes about 3 mm in diameter were drilled along one edge of the steel strips to obtain better anchorage. The strips were wedged into position with stainless steel wedges and finally cemented into position with an epoxy resin, type 372. Masking tape was used on the sides of the groove to prevent the epoxy resin from smudging the surrounding rock and caulking gun, with disposable cartridges, was used to fill the groove with the resin‖ (Loubser and van Aardt 1979, 55). Loubser and van Aardt (1979) point out that they do not have the data to determine whether or not this conservation treatment works effectively and what long term effects it will have on the shelter, its natural resources, and the rock art. Thus, the authors report that they will evaluate their technique over the course of several years to collect the necessary data. This source is a model for a long term in situ conservation study and is an example that could be utilized in the Lower Pecos region.

Ouzman (2006) reports on the treatment of the fire damaged Tandjesberg rock art national monument using an in situ conservation treatment. In this case, instead of 37

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 removing the spalled portions of the rock art panel to a museum, fragments are exhibited on site in metal cradles with interpretive signs that outline the site‘s history, fire damage, and rehabilitation (Ouzman 2006, 348). This source is important because Ouzman (2006) documents a method of in situ conservation where the historical environment and the context of the site are not compromised and demonstrates that rock art does not have to be removed from a site to be preserved.

Turpin (1982) describes how she conducted a condition assessment for all rock art sites identified within Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site. The purpose was to provide an inventory and assessment of all archeological and historical resources in the park and to establish a baseline study on which a program of rock art conservation could be founded (Turpin 1982, 2). During the survey, 38 newly recorded sites and 32 previously known sites were reevaluated regarding visual agents of deterioration. The primary objective of this study was to inventory the current state of the pictographs at

Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site. The second objective was to determine the probable causes and rates of rock art deterioration. The third objective was to determine the feasibility of attempting to conserve Seminole Canyon‘s rock art sites in situ.

To meet these objectives, seven significant rock art sites within Seminole Canyon were documented using stereophotogrammetric and conventional photography.

Stereophotogrammetric photography is ―a series of overlapping photographs taken of a rock art panel perpendicular to a common baseline to construct a three-dimensional optical model with accurate measurements‖ (Turpin 1982, 41). This documentation

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 method allowed Turpin to assess probable causes and rates of deterioration by comparing photographs with historic ones of the same panels.

An independent consultant was retained by TPWD to evaluate and recommend methods of retarding agents of deterioration. From April 19 to 26, 1980, Silver (1985) examined nine rock art sites within the park. The current condition of each site was recorded and agents of deterioration were studied. Small samples of paint from pictographs were collected so the micro-stratigraphy of cross sections could be analyzed.

Large fallen spalls retaining pictographs were also collected from shelter floors for analysis to isolate component materials of the pigments and to identify the agents of deterioration affecting them (Silver 1985, 10). The analyses show the stratigraphy of the samples to be comprised of support material, preparation substance, and pigments. The support material is limestone bedrock that forms the shelter walls to which the rock art is applied; the preparation is a substance such as gypsum applied to the support material; and pigments consist of minerals, binders, and emulsifiers used to produce the polychrome pictographs. The red and yellow pigments were identified as ochers; the black pigment was carbon and/or manganese based; and the white pigment could have originated from one or a combination of thirteen known naturally occurring white pigments (Silver 1985, 11-12). This publication is significant because Silver conducted the first detailed condition assessment of the rock art in Seminole Canyon. It went beyond identifying the visual agents of deterioration by analyzing the pigment to find what the paint is made of thus allowing suggestions for future conservation treatments to be made.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

The success of in situ preservation is greatly affected by natural agents of deterioration. Even when thoroughly studied and understood, acts of nature are unpredictable. They can cause catastrophic damage in seconds, no matter how successful previous in situ preservation practices have been. When one natural agent of deterioration is removed from a site or altered to prevent further damage to a rock art site, another natural agent may take its place and cause even greater damage than the previous agent. For example, if spiders are creating webs on a rock art panel and they are removed, the insect population they have been controlling may increase at the site, creating the potential for a different natural agent of deterioration.

Dean (2001) reports a condition needs assessment she conducted at Fate Bell

Shelter, Fate Bell Annex, and Panther Cave. Based upon two days of field observations,

Dean (2001) published her findings and recommended further studies to improve in situ conservation. Since her recommendations are specific to the agents of deterioration affecting each site, the significance of her work is discussed in further detail in the natural and human agents of deterioration sections of this thesis.

Twenty-five years after the Turpin and Silver studies, Roberts conducted another intensive survey. Roberts (2004) made condition assessments and photographed every known rock art site within Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site. His work included mapping rock art sites using post-processed GPS data and Arc View GIS

Software superimposed onto topographic or orthographic bases; completing TPWD rock imagery recording forms with baseline condition reports, photographing all rock art panels and digitally enhancing images of faded rock art using Abode Photoshop; preparing panoramic photographs of sites by overlapping panel photographs and 40

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

―stitching‖ them together in PhotoShop; making a comparison of the current condition of each site with historic photographs and water color renderings in order to assess the rate of deterioration; and compiling a site form database into an Excel spreadsheet. He then recommended further conservation of each site building up on the work of Silver (1985),

Turpin (1982), and Dean (2001). This source is significant because it updates the condition information known for each rock art site in Seminole Canyon State Park and

Historic Site using photo editing software and current technology, and converts information into an electronic format.

A current approach to in situ conservation of rock art sites is outlined by Loubser

(2001). In his contribution to Whitley‘s Handbook for Rock Art Research, he emphasized the importance of management plans to in situ conservation of rock art. He believes that by documenting the cultural and scientific importance of rock art and suggesting how to provide protection from natural and human agents of deterioration, these plans can ―spell out the most appropriate ways of managerial care and presentation,‖ and serve as ―a written charter that binds all those interested people who helped in the formulation of its recommendations‖ (Loubser 2001, 87-88). He recommends that a management plan include assessments of the environment, history, research, natural condition, interested groups, negotiations, administrations, management strategies, and interpretations connected with the rock art (Loubser 2001, 87).

Background descriptions of the natural and cultural settings of the site are also necessary.

The history, prehistory, geology, climate, environment, soils, wildlife, vegetation, and culture ―deemed relevant in the formation, alteration, and continued existence of the places with rock imagery‖ should also be researched (Loubser 2001, 88). Further, he 41

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 suggests spiritual, domestic, subsistence, research, aesthetic, tourist, and educational values must be assessed within a management plan. This source is significant because it recommends the contents of a management plan and how such a plan is translated into action conducive to conservation.

Current literature suggests the importance of management plans in the effort to effectively practice in situ conservation of rock art. They are important because they help to spell out the most appropriate ways of managing and caring for rock art sites.

Management plans are essential to the in situ conservation of rock art sites. Properly managed sites will survive for future generations to study and enjoy.

Natural Agents of Deterioration Sources discussing natural agents of deterioration consist of early reports from

Kirkland and Newcomb (1967) and Jackson (1938) describing rock art sites in Texas and the Lower Pecos region, and condition assessments by Turpin (1982), Silver (1985),

Dean (2001) and Roberts (2004). In her condition assessment, Turpin (1982) attempted to obtain data for possible rates of deterioration for rock art sites in Seminole Canyon and identified natural agents through observation. Silver (1985) observed natural agents of deterioration in the field and conducted the first chemical and physical (constituent elements) analysis of the pigment and limestone support. In her analysis, Silver (1985) identified additional natural agents of deterioration. Dean (2001) provided an updated condition needs assessment for Fate Bell, Fate Bell Annex and Panther Cave, and recommended further areas of study to reduce the effects of natural agents of deterioration at each site. Roberts (2004) updated and digitized the photo inventory for each rock art site in Seminole Canyon.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Kirkland recorded Lower Pecos rock art beginning in the 1930s but his watercolor renderings and associated notes were not widely published until 1967 (reprinted in 1999), long after his death, when W.W. Newcomb edited and supplemented his work. Of the 91 rock art sites Kirkland recorded in Texas, 43 are in the Lower Pecos region. At each site,

Kirkland produced either a watercolor rendering or a drawing and associated notes. In these notes, he wrote one or two sentences describing the type of natural weathering taking place and how it has affected the rock art. For example, at Paint Rock, the first rock art site he recorded, he stated, ―a casual inspection showed they [the paintings] were badly weathered‖ (Kirkland and Newcomb 1967, 3). At Rattlesnake Canyon, Kirkland stated the ―limestone is weathering off in thick flakes from the overhanging edge and has destroyed some of the designs about two-thirds of the way down‖ (Kirkland and

Newcomb 1967, 10).

Jackson (1938) identified the agents of deterioration he encountered during research in the Lower Pecos. He recorded 195 rock art sites in 44 counties in Texas (35 of which are located in the Lower Pecos), produced brief condition reports for each site, and was the first to identity the most common natural and human agents of deterioration found. He reported that spalling, rain and snow, wind and sand, calcium deposits, and lichen growth commonly plague Lower Pecos rock art sites (Jackson 1938, 469-70).

Turpin (1982) discusses in detail the natural agents of deterioration that affect the rock art sites at Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site (90-201). To identify these agents and a possible rate of deterioration, she compared photographs taken in 1932 with the conditions of sites at the time of her fieldwork. These include: vegetation, insects, lichen, algae, bacteria, wind, rain, sun, dust, temperature extremes, and 43

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 exfoliation of stone. Turpin recommended that a long-term conservation study be made to better understand these natural agents of deterioration and how to prevent them. She stated that, in order to establish an accurate rate of deterioration, data must be obtained for conditions of sites prior to the 1954 flood and the filling of Amsitad Reservoir in

1969. Unfortunately, these data have not been compiled and the rate of deterioration is not well understood for rock art sites prior to Amistad. To study these agents of deterioration in more detail, Turpin enlisted the help of a private consultant, Silver

(1985). This source is significant because it is the first to discuss the natural agents of deterioration in detail and identified which agents require further study in order to establish a rate of deterioration for Lower Pecos rock art sites.

Silver (1985) examined nine significant rock art sites within Seminole Canyon

State Park and Historic Site and identified several agents of deterioration through observations in the field and physical and chemical analyses of samples of the limestone support and spalls with adhering paint. These are: exfoliation of stone (spalling), large natural cracks and joints in limestone shelters, flooding and run-off of water, lichen

(algae and other microflora) growth on shelter walls and ceilings, vegetation (plant growth in natural cracks), insects (mud daubers and rock wasps), humans (graffiti and other acts of vandalism), wind abrasion, and the growth of bacteria on shelter walls and ceilings. Silver suggested that conservation treatments used on European frescos might be successful for pictographs (also on a limestone base), but recommended that before such treatments are used on rock art, a mini-symposium consisting of conservation specialists and other interested parties should be held at Seminole Canyon to discuss any implementation of testing pilot conservation treatments. Treatments she proposed 44

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 include: lichen eradication, filling cracks and joints to stabilize them, redirecting water run-off, removing deleterious vegetation growth, removing graffiti, and possibly repainting some of the pictographs (although she recommends against this because it is not fully reversible). This source is significant because Silver built up on Turpin‘s research by proposing a long-term conservation study for Seminole Canyon‘s rock art.

On a field visit from February 27th -28th, 2001, Dean (2001) identified agents of deterioration specific to Panther Cave, Fate Bell Shelter, and Fate Bell Annex in

Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site. She recorded vegetation, animals, evidence of birds (mostly droppings but no major roosts), insects, water, salts and mineral deposition, exfoliation, wind, dust, and biological activity. She also noted other agents of deterioration common at rock art sites but not observed at the time of the field visit.

These include bats, extensive bird nesting areas or roosts, lichen, freeze/thaw damage, wash zones, and significant plant growth within Fate Bell and Fate Bell Annex. Dean‘s recommendations are site-specific and focused on particular agents of deterioration. For example, she recommended that wasp nests in Panther Cave must be photo documented and that the extent of the insect population be monitored. Wasps have significantly impacted the pictographs by occupying natural holes in the limestone support and building nests inside the rock. When they emerge from their nests, they walk around the edge of the natural hole repeatedly, eventually obliterating the paintings around it. Other species of wasps build mud nests onto the panel. When the nest eventually falls off, a spall retaining paint is detached with it. The species of the wasps must to be identified and their known habitats studied to better understand their impact. For each site, Dean recommended that a site archive be established ―to reconstruct the most recent history,‖ 45

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 each site‘s changing condition, and that inspection supported by photographs be carried out twice a year to ―help establish rates of change‖ on panels (13). Like Silver, she also addressed the need for further research on various agents of deterioration. Additionally, she recommended contacting Native American tribes that might be associated with the region. Rock art sites are religious in nature and are sacred tools for many prehistoric and historic Native American groups. Many of these groups believe the natural forces affecting rock art sites are part of the natural life cycle and should not be altered. As a result, any hands-on conservation treatment that takes place at a rock art site should be done with the consent of whichever Native American group (or groups) is associated with it. This source is significant because it provided an updated condition assessment from

Silver‘s 1985 study of three of important rock art sites in Seminole Canyon and recommends contacting any Native American tribes that might be associated with it.

Roberts (2004) identified the natural agents of deterioration specific to each rock art site within Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site during his fieldwork. His report provided an updated, site- specific condition report referencing what Turpin (1982) and Silver (1985) reported twenty five years earlier, and recommended further preventative conservation practices beyond what Turpin (1982) recommended. Natural agents of deterioration identified include: water (flooding), plants (lichen), exfoliation

(spalling), mineralization, insects, dust, and light (fading). Roberts also addressed the condition of the sites at the time the fieldwork was conducted. Descriptions for conditions include: very good, good, very poor, extremely poor, relatively poor, and entirely weathered away. Many of the site specific findings and recommendations

Roberts provided are similar to those made by Turpin, Silver, and Dean, but updates 46

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 those recommendations based on what he observed and documented at each site.

Robert‘s documentation techniques involved the use of tools such as Adobe PhotoShop,

Excel, and GIS software to obtain more accurate data in the field. This source is significant because it updated the data on the conditions of each site in Seminole Canyon and created digital versions of data on each site for the first time.

Human Agents of Deterioration Sources that identify human agents of deterioration vary considerably. The earliest accounts of vandalism at Lower Pecos rock art sites are found in comments

Kirkland (1967) wrote of the sites he recorded, and Jackson‘s (1938) descriptions of human agents of deterioration. Ralph and Sutherland (1979) described the earliest attempt at graffiti removal at a Texas rock art site, and Turpin (1982) undertook the first attempt at removing graffiti from a Lower Pecos shelter. Other sources emphasized the importance of public education as the strategy most likely to minimize the occurrences of human agents of deterioration at rock art sites.

In the 1930s Kirkland described human agents of deterioration at Paint Rock stating ―some [of the paintings] had been injured by sightseers and many of them had been totally destroyed by ruthless vandals‖ (Kirkland and Newcomb 1967, 3). He also commented on destruction of the archeological deposit at Parida Cave: ―Relic hunters have vandalized the cave‘s extensive cultural deposits to such an extent that they can no longer yield reliable information about its ancient occupants‖ (Newcomb and Kirkland

1967, 54). Kirkland is the first to state that vandalism is the biggest threat of deterioration for rock art sites and advocated their preservation for future generations.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Had it not been for his recording efforts, the historical record of the human agents of deterioration that affect rock art sites in the Lower Pecos region would be incomplete.

Of the destructive forces that plague Lower Pecos rock art sites, Jackson (1938) identified vandalism as ―the most destructive agency of the many now at work‖ and reported that it goes beyond the writing of names on rock art panels (Jackson 1938, 468).

Other destructive forces Jackson described include people of all ages carrying cans of barn paint for miles in order to paint over rock art, hunters using pictographs for target practice, school children performing experiments with oil, water colors, and cheap enamels; and construction projects, prospecting for minerals, and ashy dust from previous campfires (Jackson 1938, 468-69). He also discussed experimental preservation techniques of which he was aware. Such treatments included the application of carbon tetracholoride to rock art to act as a preservative, use of an aqueous solution of ammonia, gentle brushing to remove lichens, and a combination of water and a small amount of ammonia on a damp sponge to remove bat droppings from red and yellow pictographs

(Jackson 1938, 471-72). This source is significant because it identified who vandalized rock art sites and offered recommendations to preserve and protect these sites. Jackson‘s recommendations include educating the public on their significance and involving the local community in monitoring them for further human and natural agents of deterioration.

Acker (1996) discussed how increasing population, mining, reservoir construction, and real estate development have made rock art sites in the Lower Pecos region more accessible and thus more vulnerable to vandalism. She stated that ―Vandals, wielding aerosol paint cans, can destroy a 4,000 year old painting in five minutes. 48

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Looters, digging indiscriminately in caves, plow through 7,000 year old artifacts, removing valuable pieces of puzzles that will never be complete‖ (80). This source is significant because it is specific to the Lower Pecos it provided another example of documented damage, and highlighted how quickly human-induced damage can occur.

Ralph and Sutherland (1979) reported how an increase in vandalism to the rock art at Hueco Tanks State Historical Park raised alarm among rock art researchers and park personnel. They described an experiment conducted from December 2 to 3, 1978 intended to remove recent spray paint, charcoal drawings, and campfire soot covering rock art within the park. Three different paint strippers and four household cleaners

(liquid Comet, Easy-Off Oven Cleaner, 409, and Mr. Clean) were used to partially remove graffiti covering specific rock art panels at Hueco Tanks. They recorded how graffiti reacted to each treatment immediately after application to determine which worked best on which type of graffiti. A second trip to the park was made on January 18,

1979, when the authors evaluated the results of their experiments. They reported a slight film remained after a black and white geometric image was cleaned of historic soot with

Mr. Clean, and that a grey wash developed on its periphery (Ralph and Sutherland 1979,

17). They offered recommendations for future work on graffiti removal at Hueco Tanks, including: researching the older graffiti to determine whether or not it is historic; evaluating the age of the graffiti as a causal factor in the removal process; investigating why there are different results when attempting to remove spray paints that appear to be the same age; researching different methods of removing older spray paint; and researching the availability and cost effectiveness of newer and more sophisticated methods of removal. The authors stated the goal of this project eventually is to have all 49

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 modern graffiti removed from rock art panels at Hueco Tanks. This is the earliest publication found that described methods of removing graffiti from rock art sites in Texas and presented an example of human induced-damage resulting from attempts to correct previous human-induced damage.

In her 1982 report on Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site, Turpin declared that vandalism is the primary agent of deterioration affecting rock art sites in the

Lower Pecos region. She noted that since Seminole Canyon was acquired by the state, the amount of graffiti at sites was significantly reduced and warns that rock art sites outside the confines of the park face further defacement, especially those that are accessible from Amistad Reservoir. In November 1981, Turpin reports that TPWD staff and the Texas Memorial Museum conservators carried out the first experiments in the

Lower Pecos to remove graffiti in Fate Bell Shelter. When it was realized that some of the graffiti could not be removed easily, Turpin reported a decision was made to mask the graffiti by blending ―four Liquitex water based acrylic tube paints and four dry pigments mixed with acrylic medium‖ to match the color of the limestone support (Turpin 1982,

193). She stated the paints were chosen because they were stable and could be easily removed with alcohol or acetone (Turpin 1982, 193). Following this treatment, a heavy fog entered the canyon and ―the graffiti became visible through the acrylic over coating‖

(Turpin 1982, 193). She reported another example of removing red crayon graffiti where the crayon was found to be water soluble ―so it was scored with a wet glass fiber brush and blotted to thin and remove the color‖ (Turpin 1982, 193). After this treatment, a spreading thin pink film was observed (Turpin 1982, 193). Attempts to remove green oil based paint with acetone and water and abrasive glass fiber and steel brushes were 50

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 unsuccessful (Turpin 1982, 193). Turpin‘s report is the first to document attempts to remove graffiti at Lower Pecos sites.

Stone and Wainwright (1992) described conservation treatments to remove graffiti at a petroglyph site within Pacific Rim National Park near Vancouver Island, and at a pictograph site at Mazinaw Lake, Bon Echo Provincial Park, near Cloyne, Ontario.

They reported how, at a petroglyph site, they used a combination of stippling with a graphite pencil and applying locally available algae containing mud to hide the graffiti.

At the pictograph site, spray painted graffiti was removed using SuperPoly Strippa paint stripper. The paint stripper then was rinsed with water and soil was rubbed onto the treated areas to hide remaining graffiti. The authors believe that graffiti should be removed or hidden because visitors who see graffiti done by others are more likely to add graffiti themselves. Stone and Wainwright (1992) stressed educating the public on the significance of rock art and why it should be protected. This publication is important because it addressed a philosophical perspective underlying the need for conservation treatments to remove human-induced damage.

Dean (1997) characterized human agents of deterioration affecting rock art as two types, either deliberate or unintentional. Deliberate deterioration includes graffiti and gunshot damage. Unintentional deterioration is the general wear and tear on a site caused by visitors, including creation of informal footpaths and touching the rock art (Dean

1997, 3). Dean also discussed the use of rock art sites by ―New Age‖ religious groups and how their activities have deeply offended Native American groups. Many such groups have conducted rituals that involve materials and practices which bear little resemblance to the known Native American cultures that produced the rock art. For 51

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 example, miniature European-style dolmens and Plains Indian-style medicine wheels have been found constructed within Southwestern rock art sites. In some cases, fires were set within sites and candle wax was dripped over images. The author concluded by stating that ―these activities, intentional or otherwise, show a total lack of understanding and respect for the cultures that created the images, and the significance of sites and religious places‖ (Dean 1997, 5). This source is significant because it emphasized that the key to reduce vandalism at rock art sites is to educate visitors about them so they will understand their significance. Dean believes this understanding will cause visitors to respect the sites as remarkable and fragile cultural heritage, and feels that visitors need to be taught how to recognize damage to a rock art site and how to report it to the managing agency or landowner.

Loubser‘s (2001) discussion on graffiti removal stressed that successfully preserving rock art relies upon educating the public, using management plans as a method to combat human agents of deterioration, and using conservation treatments based upon the unique needs of each site. Loubser believes that taking preventative measures such as developing a management plan for conservation and educating the public on the detrimental effects of vandalism to a site can significantly reduce the need for hands-on treatments. This source is significant because it emphasized development of management plans for conservation and educating the public in order to reduce the amount of hands-on treatments that might be required. The more people understand their significance and what vandalism does to them, the more they will appreciate and protect the sites.

Jean Clottes (2002) discussed human agents of deterioration that contribute to the loss of rock art and offered suggestions for combating them. He stated that ―humans are 52

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 responsible for most of the damage to rock art,‖ be it accidental or intentional (Clottes

2002, 124). He defined accidental damage as fires to clear land, acid rain, and development (industrial, housing, businesses), and intentional damage such as deliberately set fires (arson), acts of vandalism such as graffiti and destruction by gunfire, use of water treatment to enhance rock art images for photographic purposes, or removal of panels for use or sale. Clottes then discussed the challenges of preserving rock art while accommodating public education and tourism. He feels that involvement of the local population in rock art preservation is very important and that identifying the local population‘s affiliations and cultural connections to the rock art allows for a more successful preservation and interpretation because all interested parties have a voice in the planning process. Clottes (2002) believes that the best method to protect rock art from human agents of deterioration is to create parks around rock art sites because parks provide security, have organized paths, provide guided tours, and provide abundant information on the rock art. Clottes recommended the development of a center to house documentation on the world‘s rock art. This source is significant because Clottes focused on the need for public education about rock art, the importance of local community involvement in rock art conservation, and the need to make resources more accessible for conservation and interpretation. Clottes also highlighted preventative measures

(educating the public, involving the local community, and creating parks around sites) rather than after-the-fact hands-on treatments for combating human agents of deterioration.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Recording Techniques Sources addressing historic and contemporary recording techniques vary considerably. Some provide observations of damage caused by abrasive recording techniques while others describe a particular technique or document how previous techniques now are known to be harmful. The earliest reports from Jackson and Kirkland and Newcomb state their observations of the use of abrasive recording techniques in

Texas and the Lower Pecos. Kirkland even used one of the described techniques to record rock art panels. Sources that describe recording techniques currently practiced in rock art research include Montgomery (1989), Loendorf (2001), and Boyd (2003). The remaining sources discuss why previous recording techniques have been found to be harmful to the point that they now could be considered vandalism.

Jackson (1938) cited a preliminary survey of the El Paso Pueblo District conducted for the El Paso Archeological Society by Cosgrove. While surveying Hueco

Tanks, Cosgrove observed evidence that chalk was used by photographers in order to enhance pictographs to produce better photographs. Two months after Cosgrove‘s visit to Hueco Tanks, Jackson observed ―great damage done in the chalking of the fine pictographs at this place by misguided photographers and amateur archaeologists …the outlining of the picture is often distorted so it no longer resembles the original drawing

…‘‖ (469). Jackson discouraged use of this recording technique and warned that chalk lines can cause inaccuracies in subsequent line tracings and image recording. His opinion was that ―It is better to have no photograph than to get one that misrepresents the facts‖

(469). This source is significant because it is the earliest report that mentions the use of an abrasive recording technique at a rock art site in Texas.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

In the notes that Kirkland wrote for each rock art rendering he made during his field work in the 1930s, he explains how he used water to treat pictographs so he could see the images to better record them. Kirkland provided numerous comments in his notes on sites where he water-treated the images. For example, ―‘gray dust covered the entire group [of pictographs] so that individual designs could not be seen clearly until treated with water. When dampened, however, they [the pictographs] appear cleaned and sharp and are so copied‘‖ (Kirkland and Newcomb 1967, 42). Kirkland also cited evidence of kerosene used at a site and speculated that ―‘The heavy collection of dust was caused by an oil which had been painted over the best designs, evidently by someone who wanted to intensify their color for photography‘‖ (Kirkland and Newcomb 1967, 20). This source is significant because it is the earliest account of the detrimental effects of abrasive recording techniques in the Lower Pecos region.

A systematic recording technique for documenting rock art in Texas was compiled by Montgomery (1989) from methods developed and employed by members of the Texas Archeological Society while working on sites owned by Texas Parks and

Wildlife Department (TPWD). Published as a manual for TPWD, this recording technique places grids onto a rock art panels in order to construct the most accurate scaled copy possible. The grid system consists of nylon string that is attached to a rock art panel with sticky tack, putty made for placing posters on walls (Montgomery 1989, 9).

The grid separates panels into meter-by-meter frames that make recording easier and achieve as accurate a copy as is possible. Montgomery (1989) warned that applying sticky tack to the wall should only be done when necessary because it can harm the rock

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 surface, and should never be applied near the rock art. This manual serves as the first documentation of a systematic recording technique used to record rock art in Texas.

Loendorf (2001) discussed how recording techniques have damaged rock art and stressed that there are no extant standards. He provided an overview of recording techniques that have been accepted by archeologists currently studying rock art. These include sketching and drawing, tracing petroglyphs, photography, and use of electronic devices and computer software such as QuickTime VR, Adobe PhotoShop, and GPS devices and GIS software. Loendorf cautioned that while the accepted techniques are widely used, they are not foolproof and they need improvement because each has its positives and negatives. For example, he explained that tracing a rock art panel uses tools that come into direct contact with the images. In this technique, plastic film is placed over the rock art panel and attached with an adhesive tape over the tops of the images. The images are then traced with a Sharpie felt tip marker onto the plastic.

Loendorf also stressed that some techniques are more suitable for one type of rock art than another. For example, he cautioned that the direct tracing technique is not recommended for sites that are heavily spalled. Instead, Loubser recommended indirect tracing as an alternative. This technique involves taking overlapping photographs of the rock art panel. Once the photos are processed, plastic film is placed over them and the rock art images are traced onto the plastic. This produces a scaled copy of the rock art panel. Loendorf emphasized that the method will not damage the rock art because there is no physical contact and pressure, unlike that which occurs from the tools utilized in the direct tracing method. This source is significant because the author emphasized that there are alternatives to abrasive recording techniques such as the indirect tracing technique. 56

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Boyd (2003) described a recording method used while conducting an interpretive study of five rock art shelters containing Pecos River style rock art. In this process Boyd used modified versions of the official archeological site form for Texas and TPWD‘s rock art recording form to organize relevant information. In addition to the forms, detailed descriptions of figures were written, large format photographs taken, colors assigned to Munsell color code, and sketches drawn. In the laboratory, Boyd gathered all of the data from the field and analyzed it using multiple lines of evidence. An accurate, full panel rendering (a scaled representation of a rock art panel that involves drawing, photographing and painting) of the rock art was constructed. Using professional quality pastels and Prisma colors on 100% acid free or rag velum paper, Boyd then took panel unit photographs collected from the field and projected them onto the paper. The rock art images were lightly traced with a soft pencil. Pastels in the form of sticks or crayons were used to tone the paper, replicating the look of the shelter wall. Boyd then added detailed images using the Prisma color pencils, with the color selection determined by

Munsell color codes recorded in the field. Sketches and photographs of individual elements of art were used to add further detail from complex or faint areas of the original panel. This source is significant because it described the first nonabrasive recording technique used to record rock art in Texas. In addition, this technique is not just a means of producing an accurate scaled rendering of a rock art panel; it combines a research design with nonabrasive recording techniques to answer research questions.

Chaffe, Hyman, and Rowe (1994) discussed methods used for photographic enhancement which have since caused serious deterioration to rock art panels. In their opinion, such techniques are equivalent to a form of vandalism. Techniques they refered 57

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 to include chalking images for photographic enhancement, wetting images using water or kerosene to improve the contrast between the art and the rock substrate, and drawing chalk marks at the base of panels to indicate scale. They explained how applications of chalk to figures and panels are hard to remove without damaging the rock art because indentations from the application remain long after the chalk is gone. For example, chalk was used to indicate scale on a panel at Great Gallery Pictograph site in Utah during a

1940s recording. Application marks were still visible when the authors conducted their study 30 years later. Applying water to pictographs causes accretion layers to become briefly transparent, ―allowing the pictographs to show through and appear brighter‖

(Chaffe et al 1994, 161). Like Kirkland, the authors noted that kerosene produces the same effect. When both of these substances are applied to rock art, the authors state that they appear to do no harm at the time of application, but ―over time dust adheres to the wetted surface and fading results‖ as well as cause the formation of mineral accretions

(Chaffe et al 1994, 162). These wetting substances also cause irreversible damage to further scientific study of the rock art by rendering accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dating useless. When dating two spalls bearing pigment from the Great Gallery

Pictograph site in Utah, the authors proved how abrasive recording techniques are detrimental to rock art. A sample sent to an AMS dating facility at the University of

Arizona produced a radio carbon date of 32,900 +- 900 B.P., a very early date for a pictograph in Utah, especially when there is no current evidence that humans occupied the area before about 11,000 years ago. The authors also were perplexed that it took two weeks to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide from the surface of the sample and the walls of the plasma system instead of the usual three to four days because the sample 58

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 constantly off-gassed. These two factors, among others, led the authors to conclude that the sample was contaminated. The extremely low level of carbon measured from the sample indicated that a petroleum-based fossil fuel was previously applied to it. Since the use of kerosene had been reported at several rock art sites in the area, the authors tested their hypothesis by performing additional analyses to verify the use of a petroleum- based fossil fuel. Although the results did not match perfectly, they concluded that kerosene was the contaminant. This study led the authors to conclude that ―the application of any organic carbon-containing material, not just fossil fuel derivatives, will render a pictograph useless for future chemical studies‖ (Chaffe et al 1994, 166).

In a newsletter article, Dean (1997) cited examples of recording techniques that have caused damage to rock art. She explained how these techniques caused harm to rock art although recorders intended to assist in its preservation by making paper recordings. Rubbings, plaster casts, latex peels, and water treatment of pictographs cause surface erosion, staining, and loss of image. Outlining images with crayon, chalk, marine varnish, paint, and charcoal for color and shape enhancement also leads to loss of image.

Dean documented the detrimental effects of these recording methods at rock art sites across the United States. For example, at a petroglyph site in Minnesota, marine varnish was applied to the petroglyphs so that visitors could see the images better. Dean reported on how the treated petroglyphs are now permanently stained by the aging varnish. All the methods Dean mentioned are now considered to be inappropriate by rock art researchers because of the damage they cause. Dean further pointed out that when such recording techniques and materials are used without permission of the agency that manages a rock art site, perpetrators, if caught, can be charged with committing acts of 59

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 vandalism and be prosecuted. This source is significant because it states that abrasive recording techniques are now considered vandalism and punishable by federal law as vandalism to public property.

Museum Preservation and the History of Collecting According to the literature, there are three groups that remove rock art from its original location. These are museums, anthropologists and archeologists, and the public.

Of the sources located that discuss museums removing rock art, all of the examples given involve South African rock art. The second group, anthropologists and archeologists, is represented in an article written for the newsletter of the Australian Rock Art Research

Association (AURA) that describes consultant archeologists removing rock art from a petroglyph site to make way for encroaching industrial plants. The final group of collectors is the public which is described in the example of two petroglyph-bearing boulders being removed from federal property by two men.

In an article published by the South African Rock Art Research Association,

Loubser (1990) provided the National Museum in Bloemfontein, South Africa with a history of collecting rock art, briefly discussed the practical and ethical issues with removing rock art from its in situ location, and provided alternatives for rock art removal such as in situ conservation. According to Loubser (1990), the National Museum received its first collection of rock art from a private collector who donated their collection of pictographs (paintings on natural surfaces) to the museum in 1894 with no provenience information. In another instance, the director of the museum from 1951-

1969 (in consort with his predecessor) removed several pictographs and petroglyphs to the museum beginning in 1934. The first removal included soapstone boulders decorated

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 with petroglyphs removed from near Lyndenburg, South Africa. These boulders were moved around from place to place and never displayed. The only necessary rock art removal throughout the museums collecting history occurred in 1988 when pictographs were removed from a shelter located directly under a proposed dam. Those pictographs were removed to save them from being submersed in 40 meters of water. Loubser (1990) also discussed practical and ethical issues with removing rock art, including problematic physical removal, display of rock art creating the impression of a commodity, and loss of context. Through this article, Loubser (1990) showed that removal is not the sole way to preserve and conserve rock art sites by providing recommendations for in situ conservation. These include conducting a study to establish agents of deterioration, consulting with the owners of the property to discuss treatment of a site and any other activities that are to take place there, recording a site prior to treatment, and using only treatments that have been tested before they are applied to an original rock art panel.

Treatments are required to be reversible and repeatable. This source is significant because it emphasized the reason that museums removed rock art was because they believed it was the only way to preserve them, provided several examples of museums removing rock art, and addressed the associated practical and ethical issues.

Rock Art Research Institute (RARI), part of the University of Witwatersrand in

Johannesburg, South Africa described their rock art collections on their website. The

RARI has large collections of rock art panels either donated from private collectors or collected by previous museums associated with the university and which eventually were transferred to the research institute. For example, the Johannesburg Zoo Collection is comprised of petroglyphs collected from sixteen different sites in South Africa‘s 61

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 northwest province. These were arranged in a special enclosure in the Johannesburg

Zoological Gardens in Hermann Eckstein Park by the Museum of South African Rock

Art. Subsequent to opening the exhibition in September 1970, they became too difficult to maintain and the museum staff in charge grew increasingly uncomfortable about the social implications of displaying indigenous art in the context of a zoological garden. In the 1990s, the exhibit was closed and the smaller pieces were removed to another museum in Johannesburg where there was space to store them. Thirty six large boulders remained at the zoo because the museum‘s floors could not support their weight. They remained at the zoo where they became covered with lichen and moss, and suffered damage from air pollution in central Johannesburg. The large boulders finally were removed in May 2000 to a dedicated storage facility on the west campus of

Witwatersrand University. Conservators restored the petroglyphs by removing as much of the moss and lichen as possible without causing further damage to the rock art. The collection is again on display, now at the Origins Centre Rock Art Museum (Rock Art

Research Institute, The RARI Rock Collections). This source is significant because it provides a second example of museums collecting rock art.

Ouzman (2006) briefly recounted how Louis Peringuey, director of the South

African Museum in 1916, arranged to have two 1.85 by 0.850 meter sections of Linton rock shelter chiseled out and transported to the museums archives, and he described correspondence illustrating the need to take the site‘s context into consideration when treating a site. The original meaning of these particular panels has been lost, and that meaning replaced with a symbol of national identity. The rock art lost the context of its origin and what it ―cost‖ in terms of money, effort and destruction of the site to preserve 62

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 this select portion of a panel by placing it in a museum context. One of the painted human figures depicted on this rock art panel was included in South Africa‘s new coat of arms and impressed into national identity. As a result, the rock art lost its original identity, the voices of Linton‘s authors (Ouzman 2006, 349-50).

Bednarik (2007) provided a discussion on the removal of rock art by archeologists in a newsletter article for the Australian Rock Art Research Association (AURA). For decades, pieces have been removed from Dampier, one of the world‘s largest rock art complexes located in Australia. Prior to 1980, an estimated 38,000 petroglyphs there were destroyed by industrial plant construction while smaller boulders were removed by pilfering. Since 1980, consultant archeologists have been hired to survey the area in advance of encroaching industrial plant expansion. The consultants have relocated petroglyph boulders small enough to be transported by any available means rather than suggest the industrial company should build their plant elsewhere. From 1980 to 2003,

Bednarik (2007) averred that consultant archeologists removed or destroyed 6,728 boulders containing petroglyphs from Dampier. In discussing the ethical issues involved with removing rock art panels from their original locations, he stated ―All rock art sites in the world consist of two principle components: the site and its cultural content. The two cannot be separated without totally destroying both the significance and the integrity of the cultural site because they are entirely interdependent. If these components are destroyed or separated, the rock art is devoid of cultural meaning and becomes a ‗dead artifact‘‖ (Bednarik 2007, 2). This source is significant because it provided an example of anthropologists and archeologists removing rock art from a site.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

In a newsletter article for the Australian Rock Art Research Association (AURA),

Bednarik (2006) discussed the theft of three petroglyph-bearing boulders from Peavine

Mountain near Reno, Nevada on USDA Forest Service land. In response to the theft, the

Reno Sparks Indian Colony, the Forest Service, and the Nevada Rock Art Foundation pooled their resources and offered a reward for information leading to the arrest of the thieves. Two men were later apprehended and charged with theft of government property. The organizations further charged the two men of a violation of the

Archeological Resources Protection Act. To obtain a conviction, a jury had to be convinced the petroglyphs were over 100 years old and their value exceeded $500. The organizations engaged Ron Dorn and David Whitley to prove these assertions. However,

Dorn and Whitley were unable to demonstrate the petroglyphs were over 100 years old and were of significant commercial value because rock art does not have a monetary value. Rather, it retains scientific, cultural, and religious values and there was no conclusive evidence to suggest the petroglyphs were over 100 years old even though

Dorn has spent years presenting and vigorously defending claims of dating rock art up to

40,000 years old. As a result, the thieves were acquitted on the charge of removing archeological resources and only found guilty of theft of government property. This source is significant because it provides example of rock art being stolen by the public.

Exhibits, Interpretation, and the Nature of Scholarly Investigation Literature for this section is organized into two topics: exhibits, and interpretation and nature of scholarly investigation. This is done because interpretations of Lower Pecos rock art found in previous and current exhibits reflect the nature of scholarly investigation. A history of exhibits on the region‘s rock art is given first, followed by a

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 history of how scholars have interpreted the region‘s rock art. The latter is organized into two sub-topics, the traditional approach and the ethnographic approach.

Exhibits Sources that discuss previous and current exhibitions on Lower Pecos rock art are found in online exhibits, books, exhibition pamphlets and brochures, information packets, news paper articles, reports, and various institutional websites. These sources are useful in illustrating the history of exhibitions on Lower Pecos rock art.

Quillin and Woolford (1966) provided a description of the Basketmaker Hall, the first exhibition on Lower Pecos prehistory that featured artifacts recovered from the Witte

Museum‘s excavations in the nine Shumla Caves and Eagle Cave in the 1930s. This exhibit was installed from 1932 until 1962. Objects on exhibit included a plaster cast of a petroglyph near Terlingua, Texas, and sixteen wall display cases housing over 15,000 artifacts.

After Forrest Kirkland‘s untimely death on April 2, 1942, the Dallas Museum of

Fine Arts housed a memorial exhibition intended to highlight Kirkland‘s important service to science and art. The exhibit Indian Pictographs in Texas: Paintings and

Research by Forrest Kirkland (1892-1942) was on display from February 28th to March

28th, 1943 and consisted of more than 180 paintings of pictographs and associated notes

Kirkland and his wife produced from 1934 to 1942. Bywaters and Marriot (1943) describe this exhibition in the January 1943 issue of Southwest Review. The article was reprinted in February 1943 as supplemental information to accompany the exhibition. Of the literature found on Lower Pecos exhibitions, this source describes the first exhibit that focuses on Lower Pecos rock art.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

In 1968, the Institute of Texan Culture created an exhibition for the World‘s Fair in San Antonio, Texas that focused on Lower Pecos rock art (Elton Prewitt, personal communication 2010). While official details of the exhibition and brochures were not available for study, the creator of the exhibit states it featured large color prints of Jim

Zintgraff photographs (Marsha Jackson, personal communication 2010).

The Ancient Texans book by Shafer and Zintgraff (1986) is a continuation of the project started by Ellen Quillin in the 1930s to interpret the material cultural of the Lower

Pecos peoples. In conjunction with the book, a major exhibition on the Lower Pecos peoples opened at the Witte Museum in 1987. Ancient Texans exhibition remains on exhibit at the Witte Museum today. It contains a large diorama that depicts Lower Pecos people lounging around a fire conversing in an open camp setting, photographs of the area taken by Jim Zintgraff, a large artifact assemblage, a video introducing visitors to the

Lower Pecos area and its rock art, reconstructed skulls of three Lower Pecos individuals found during 1930s excavations as later mentioned by Acker (1996), a partial rendering of Panther Cave, videos throughout the gallery of the 1930s excavations, and a text panel at the end of the exhibition providing the Rock Art Foundation‘s telephone number for more information on Lower Pecos rock art. This exhibition is the first dynamic exhibit on Lower Pecos rock art that does more than exhibit objects and their associated provenience information; it engages the visitor through different types of media including videos, hands-on activities, workshops, and other associated educational programs. The book provides additional information in support of the exhibit and takes a multidisciplinary approach to Lower Pecos archeology. The project included studies by geologists, anthropologists, paleobotanists, art historians, and social anthropologists to 66

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 interpret the material culture and investigate the hunter-gatherer lifestyle of the Lower

Pecos people. Analyses of the material culture (including fiber, residue on artifacts, coprolites, and pollen) that the Lower Pecos region‘s dry climate is famous for preserving were undertaken. This resulted in a detailed interpretation of the Lower Pecos hunter- gatherer lifestyle and material culture as presented in the exhibit and the book.

In a brochure and a newspaper article obtained from files during the author‘s visit to the Witte Museum, the museum hosted an art exhibition, New Visions from

Rattlesnake Canyon from May 27 to July 30, 1989. This exhibition showcased art from eleven different artists whose works represented their ―creative responses‖ subsequent to viewing the rock art in Rattlesnake Shelter (a site owned by Texas Tech University) and its surrounding environment (Witte Museum 1989). These artists interpreted the rock art depicted in Rattlesnake Shelter through their contemporary creations. For example,

Steve Teeter‘s three welded metal structures ―Adoration,‖ ―Supplication,‖ and

―Tutelarian‖ suggests that the pictograph figures with raised arms are costumed decoration or auras (Witte Museum 1989). The exhibition was curated by Shelly

Stribling, a master of arts candidate in Museum Science at Texas Tech University (The

North San Antonio Times 1989, 3).

A press release filed at the Witte Museum, shows the museum launched Lower

Pecos Legacy, a traveling exhibition that ran from March 1988 to December 1990. The exhibition was organized by the museum to accompany the Ancient Texans exhibition and included color photographs of Lower Pecos pictographs and petroglyphs and the surrounding landscape taken by Jim Zintgraff, and artifacts from the museum‘s Lower

Pecos collections. The traveling exhibit visited eight cities in Texas. Included were 67

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Alpine, Kingsville, Austin, Houston, College Station, McAllen, Midland, and Wichita

Falls. The exhibition interpreted the rock art similarly to other supplemental materials, stating that most of the artists were shamans and since the artists are now gone we will never know its meaning.

Acker‘s (1996) book is the only currently available guide to the Lower Pecos, although it is fourteen years old as of 2010. She mentions museums that house collections from the Lower Pecos region, including the Witte, Seminole Canyon State

Park and Historic Site Interpretive Center, Texas Memorial Museum, and the Crockett

County Museum. Acker (1996) provided contact information for TARL, TPWD, the

Texas Archeological Society (TAS), and the Witte Museum. The author gives brief descriptions of exhibitions at Seminole Canyon and the Witte Museum. This source is significant because it represents popular literature written about the Lower Pecos region.

Acker, then a writer for Texas Parks and Wildlife Magazine, developed an interest in the region, researched it and eventually wrote the popular book. At publication, it was the best guide book available. However, much of the information is now out of date. For example, the Texas Memorial Museum is no longer an archeological museum as Acker

(1996) describes. Its archeological material was transferred to TARL and now focuses on natural science. In addition, Acker (1996) does not mention such organizations as the

Rock Art Foundation or SHUMLA, a private non-profit organization formed in 1998 that provides educational programs for all ages to connect the public to the prehistory and history of the Lower Pecos region and conducts research in the region to further the knowledge of prehistory and history.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

In 2004, the Witte Museum published an information packet for a student workshop entitled ―Ancient Texan Technology‖ (Witte Museum 2004). This two and a half hour, hands-on program investigated the lives of the hunter-gatherer people of the

Lower Pecos region (Witte Museum 2004, 1). After an overview, students were divided

―into three activity stations: pigment grinding, cordage, and stone tools and technology‖

(Witte Museum 2004, 1). The packet included name tags, background information on the archeology and rock art, and a vocabulary list of ―Lower Pecos‖ terms (Witte Museum

2004, 11). Pre- and post- visit activities included creating a rock art mural and experimenting with different natural paint brushes that the Lower Pecos people might have used. This source is not a traditional publication but provides support materials showing how the Witte Museum interprets Lower Pecos peoples and their rock art. The workshop focused on the material culture of the Lower Pecos peoples more than the rock art. In the rock art portion, the interpretation the museum presented is that the artists were all shamans and, since the artists now are gone, interpretation of the rock art is open to speculation.

Listed on the Daily Programs page of the Witte Museum‘s website is ―Encounter at Panther Cave,‖ a Gallery Theater presentation offered specifically for the Ancient

Texans exhibition (The Witte Museum, Public Programs 2007). The webpage describes how this experience takes place in the gallery where visitors get to ―spend the night in a rock shelter with a modern archaeologist who encounters the spirit of a Panther Shaman‖

(The Witte Museum, Public Programs 2007). An image that accompanies the description shows a man dressed as a modern archeologist character and a Panther Shaman character discussing a panel of rock art. This source is not a traditional publication but provides 69

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 support materials showing how the Witte Museum interprets Lower Pecos rock art. The picture of this program displayed on this webpage suggests that the Witte Museum is using the shamanistic hypothesis to interpret Lower Pecos rock art but does not indicate

―we‘ll never know what it means‖ as does the workshop information packet.

In a draft version of Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Sites resource management plan, Lockwood and Roberts (2005) provide a description of Seminole

Canyon‘s interpretive exhibition Man in the Lower Pecos. They state how this exhibition, produced between 1980 and 1984, includes a life-sized diorama of daily life in a rock shelter, a partial reproduction of Panther Cave, artifacts and artifact replicas, photographic copies of Kirkland‘s watercolor renderings of the rock art of Seminole

Canyon, an artistic rendition of a bison jump at Bonfire Shelter, and galleries on the historic Lower Pecos region, from first European contact to the early railroad towns and ranches. Roberts and Lockwood go on to say that ―this exemplary interpretive display remains pertinent and is well received by others‖ (Lockwood and Roberts 2005, 3.3).

Although this exhibition is 24 to 28 years old as of 2008, the authors feel the interpretive displays of this exhibition are ―exemplary‖ and the information provided remains

―pertinent‖ to the prehistory and history of the region.

These comments, however, are contradictory to TPWD‘s 2006 interpretive master plan. In this document, TPWD Staff list interpretive goals and objectives for Seminole

Canyon provide, a timeline for their completion, and document the need for changes to the interpretive program at the park. Suggested changes include: tour guide training, updating brochures and handouts, improving access to portions of the park, increasing educational opportunities for local schools, updating the exhibition in the visitor center, 70

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 providing new wayside exhibitions at various places of interest throughout the park, and making information consistent throughout all literature (Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department 2006). This source is significant because TWPD staff realizes interpretive changes need to be made at Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site.

Black and Dering‘s (2001) online exhibition on Texas Beyond History focuses on the natural and cultural significances of the Lower Pecos region. This virtual museum exhibition first appeared online in October 2001 and includes later additions. It was created by the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory (TARL), a unit of the

Anthropology Department, College of Liberal Arts, the University of Texas at Austin, with support from Amistad National Recreation Area, National Park Service (ANRA-

NPS). The exhibition was created to educate people about the scientific importance of prehistoric and historic archeological sites in the region and the destructive effects vandalism has upon them. The Lower Pecos online exhibit is comprised of ten

―galleries.‖ Lower Pecos Main provides an introduction to the region and its archeology and an overview of the subsequent galleries. Natural World tells of the plants, animals, ecological zones, and rugged landscape. Rockshelters gives information about how prehistoric inhabitants there lived. Rock Art provides an overview of the rock art from prehistoric to first contact with Europeans. Economy explains the prehistoric diets of the

Lower Pecos peoples and their subsistence base. Everyday, Extraordinary Things describes the material culture archeologists have excavated and how well preserved perishable items are. Archeology provides a history of archeological excavations and explains why the Lower Pecos archeological record is less understood than other areas of

Texas. Before Amistad gives detailed descriptions of the archeological and 71

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 paleoenvironmental research undertaken prior to completion of Amsitad Reservoir.

Ethnobotany explains how people used plants typical of the Lower Pecos canyonlands and detailed information for each commonly used plant. This gallery also provides a link to the Nature’s Harvest Plant Gallery where there are photographs and further description of plants commonly used by Lower Pecos peoples. Credits and Sources lists references to major studies on the Lower Pecos and links to other online resources. This source is significant because it is the first credible online virtual exhibition on the Lower

Pecos region. Texas Beyond History is currently the only museum at the University of

Texas that exhibits the archeological collections housed at TARL.

Interpretation and the Nature of scholarly investigation Literature presented in this section provides a history of the traditional and ethnographic interpretive approaches used on Lower Pecos rock art and examples of each approach. A history of traditional approaches is presented first followed by the ethnographic.

Traditional Approaches Published traditional interpretations of the region‘s rock art begin with Kirkland‘s

1937 and 1938 articles where he describes the observations he and his wife made during their initial recording trips. These efforts were followed by Jackson‘s 1938 comments in

Picture-Writing of Texas Indians, Herbert C. Taylor Jr.‘s 1949 masters thesis, J. Charles

Kelley‘s 1950 reemphasis of the rock art styles identified by Taylor, Campbell‘s 1958 article comparing images to a mescal bean medicine society, Gebhard‘s (1960, 1965) rock art styles, Grieder (1966), Kirkland and Newcomb‘s Rock Art of Texas Indians first published in 1967 (reissued in 1999), Kelley‘s 1974 interpretations, Shafer‘s (1980)

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 exploration of the function of rock art in hunting-gathering cultures and later his contributions to the Ancient Texas exhibition at the Witte Museum, and numerous publications by Solveig Turpin during the 1980s and 1990s.

In the 1938 article for the Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society,

Kirkland observed that rock art in Val Verde County is radically different from images found at sites in the Big Bend region, recognized stylistic and geographic variations in the rock art, and assigned this variability to ethnic groups he named Val Verde Dry

Shelter and Val Verde Flooded Shelter cultures. Kirkland further noted that Lower Pecos pictographs had a serious purpose. Examining the rock art from an artist‘s perspective,

Kirkland recognized the tremendous effort needed to construct these paintings. He remarked that the prehistoric peoples must have used scaffolding and wondered how they were able to make straight lines on uneven surfaces far above the reach of a person standing on a shelter floor. Kirkland also emphasized the necessity of obtaining the

Indian‘s point of view to prevent placing a western perspective on non-western art.

Soon after Kirkland began publishing, A.T. Jackson (1938) recorded his observations in Picture-Writing of Texas Indians. In a traditional approach to interpretation, Jackson concluded that rock art is unknowable and essentially an intellectual dead-end because the historic tribes in Texas were driven from the state long before ethnographic studies were conducted, thus rendering comparative studies impossible. Jackson extrapolated that the rock art cannot be expected to enrich history in the same way as documents because many of the images were meaningless to everyone but their makers at the time they were created. Nonetheless, Jackson stated the rock art is

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 still worth preserving because the images represent ―the earliest crude forms of writing‖ and ―the first forms of painting and sculpture‖ (Jackson 1938, 464).

In his 1949 masters thesis, Herbert C. Taylor, Jr. identified three styles of pictographs in the Lower Pecos. These are The Pecos Focus, monochromatic realistic paintings (red figures), and historic paintings which he attributes to the Apache and

Comanche tribes. Taylor also hypothesized that Pecos River focus pictographs represent a form of sympathetic magic, in particular a hunting cult. This idea was drawn from, at the time, as yet unpublished research that J. Charles Kelley was conducting. Attempting to explain the abundance of feline images in Pecos Focus rock art, Taylor made a connection with the mythology of the Aztecs, but offered it as a suggestion requiring future research (Taylor 1949, 104).

J. Charles Kelley (1950) expanded upon Taylor‘s Pecos Focus and monochromatic realistic paintings (red figures) styles. After closely examining the rock art and the data within the archeological record, Kelley affirmed these two pictograph styles and said the Pecos Focus is older and the red figure style is later. This evidence is based on the bow and arrow being depicted only in the red figure style and the atlatl being depicted only in the Pecos Focus. This conformed to the record found in archeological deposits throughout western Texas – the bow and arrow is present in later deposits and the atlatl in older deposits.

In 1958, T.N. Campbell published an article suggesting that elements present in

Lower Pecos rock art are related to a mescal bean medicine society. Campbell found evidence of this hunting cult in the archeological deposits of twelve rock shelters in

Texas, eight of which are located in Val Verde County (Campbell 1958, 157). Mescal 74

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 beans were found in midden debris in these shelters and in association with objects suggesting ritual use. The find that most suggests ritual use is one hundred mescal beans found in a twined basket that also contained three pieces of red pigment and eleven other items in a shelter near Comstock, Texas (Campbell 1958, 157). Campbell (1958) states that the pictographs found in the region also suggest evidence of a mescal bean hunting cult. Lower Pecos style pictographs depict men in ceremonial costume in association with various animals, in particular deer and mountain lions, are frequently pierced with darts or spears, and they often hold weapons (dart or spear and atlatl). The known historic cults are often linked with hunting and deer. In various ceremonies, the men wear costumes and hold weapons (bow and arrow) in their hands, and the tribal leaders often hold a staff. In the pictographs, the ―men‖ are often shown holding staff-like objects with enlarged distal ends. Campbell (1958) hypothesized that this distal end might represent a gourd rattle commonly used in historic mescal bean cults. This source is significant because it is one of the primary references that later traditional interpretations expand upon to interpret Lower Pecos rock art.

The next contribution to the traditional approach of Lower Pecos rock art interpretation came from David S. Gebhard, an art and architecture historian who was then the director of the Roswell Museum of Art Center in New Mexico. In the fall of

1958, Gebhard led a small team into the Lower Pecos region and visited 22 sites. Of those 22 sites, the team studied and recorded 13 on the Texas side of the border and one in Mexico. In his 1960 report, Gebhard described his methodology for systematically recording the region‘s rock art sites and proposed styles which he later discussed in detail in his 1965 report. For the 1965 report, Gebhard returned to the Lower Pecos region and 75

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 recorded and studied thirteen more sites in the Seminole and Presa Canyon areas (most of which is now Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site). From the data he collected,

Gebhard concluded that there are six rock art styles present in the Lower Pecos region.

The types and phases of each are listed below.

Type 1: Pecos Style Type 2: Painted Pebble Style Type 3: Red Figure Style Type 4: Early Red Figure Styles Phase 1: Elongated Linear Style Phase 2: Small Animal Style Phase 3: Red Linear Style Type 5: Late Red Figure Styles Phase 1: Solid Red Figure Style Phase 2: Red Linear Style Phase 3: Miscellaneous (hand prints, shield figures, etc.) Type 6: Proto-historic and Historic Styles Phase 1: Proto-historic Phase 2: Historic (Gebhard 1965, 4 and 6)

In 1966, Terence Grieder, a professor of Art History at the University of Texas, recorded and studied pictographs at 14 sites in the Lower Pecos region. As part of his research, Grieder compiled a relative chronology of the rock art in an attempt to show evidence of a relative chronology within the Pecos Style and the chronological relationship of Gebhard‘s Pecos, Painted Pebble, and Red Linear Styles. Seven criteria were used to compile this relative chronology. They are the overlapping of one painting by another, relative fading, location in the shelter (assuming that the center or the deepest part of the shelter would ordinarily be the first part to be painted), relative size of the paintings, number of colors used, the size or type of the shelter in which the paintings were done, and the elements of art used (line, angle, shape, and so forth) (Grieder 1966,

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

711). Grieder concluded the Pecos style could be divided into three periods: Fisherman,

Deerhunter, and Miniature (Grieder 1966, 719).

Using Forrest Kirkland‘s watercolor renderings of Lower Pecos rock art as examples, Newcomb (1967) first proposed the shamanistic-society hypothesis to interpret

Lower Pecos rock art, citing Kirkland‘s views on the region‘s rock art. Through his recording of 43 rock art sites in the Lower Pecos region, Kirkland understood the considerable amount of labor, time, and effort the Lower Pecos peoples put into creating it. Kirkland observed that numerous anthropomorphs were depicted in various sizes and numbers on many panels, and thought that at least some or them ―‘pictured gods-of-the- chase surrounded by animals pierced with arrows‘‖ (Kirkland and Newcomb 1967, 65).

From this understanding, Kirkland concluded that the region‘s rock art was not produced

―for art‘s sake‖ (Kirkland and Newcomb 1967, 65). After discussing Kirkland‘s conclusion, Newcomb described why he thinks Lower Pecos rock art fits within the shamanistic-society hypothesis. He considered the shamanistic society hypothesis a possible interpretation for Lower Pecos rock art because of the high concentration of anthropomorphs; their variety in color, size, and shape; their association with animals or animal deities; their association with historic mescal bean cults as Campbell (1958) suggested; and the extensive overpainting on many panels. Overpainting indicated to

Newcomb that Lower Pecos peoples used these images repeatedly so they would last for several generations. Newcomb hypothesized that the custom of painting these pictographs may have originated when a shaman emerged from a trance, possibly induced by mescal beans, and painted his hallucinations or dreams on a shelter wall

(Kirkland and Newcomb 1967, 79). In his conclusions for this section, Newcomb stated 77

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 that whether or not the shamanistic society hypothesis correctly interprets Lower Pecos rock art, in a more general sense ―there is little doubt that the rock art of the region is religious in nature and was part of an archaic cultures attempt to influence and gain assistance from supernatural powers‖ (Kirkland and Newcomb 1967, 79-80).

J. Charles Kelley presented his ideas about the Pecos River Style rock art representing a cult. In a 1974 book chapter, Kelley ―virtually proves‖ that Mesoamerican cultural influences moved northward to change the way of life of former Chichimecs living in what is now the southeastern and southwestern United States (Kelley 1974, 52).

He concluded that Pecos River pictographs represent ―depictions of a ceremonial hunting cult, in which the great feline was deified and its power invoked by the masked shamans to assure success in the hunt and in war‖ (Kelley 1974, 51-52). Kelley further believed that this ceremonial and artistic cult developed with or without the use of drugs ―in response to cultural emanations originating in Mesoamerica‖ (Kelley 1974, 51-52).

While exploring the function of art in hunter-gatherer cultures, Shafer (1980) contended ―the Pecos River Style art was the visual representations of ideological concepts present in the Lower Pecos Archaic cultural system‖ and believed that its function was to influence and gain assistance of supernatural powers (Shafer 1980, 111).

More specifically Shafer hypothesized that the pictographs represent attempts to secure power for the benefit of a group, perhaps lineage bands, and not for a person or a particular family. In response to Kelley‘s ideas in 1974, Shafer argued that if there are similarities between Lower Pecos shaman figures and iconographic motifs in

Mesoamerica, ―they may be the fortuitous result of different adaptive responses resulting from a common desert cultural base‖ (Shafer 1980, 111). 78

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Using Zintgraff‘s photographs of Lower Pecos style rock art as examples, in their

1986 book Shafer concluded that rock art is an intellectual dead end. When attempting to use the shamanistic society hypothesis as described by Newcomb (1967) to interpret the region‘s rock art, Shafer recognized the great variability and variety of anthropomorphic figures and other associated elements, and decided that it doesn‘t fit the hypothesis

Newcomb (1967) suggested because there is too much variability. Shafer then tried to engage the ethnography of the Lower Pecos region, but found that it doesn‘t exist and that there are no living descendants of the prehistoric hunter-gatherer groups who once occupied the region. As a result, Shafer declared that the rock art of the Lower Pecos region could not be interpreted, thus any interpretation formulated is speculation, and that one interpretation is as good as another. This perspective on rock art reopened interpretation to speculation, the idea that rock art has multiple meanings, and reflects a significant departure from the shamanistic society hypothesis Newcomb proposed in

1967. Since there are multiple meanings and no ethnography or living descendants,

Shafer concluded that it cannot be interpreted.

During the 1980s and 1990s, Solveig Turpin wrote extensively on Lower Pecos rock art, including several inquiries on interpretation. In a 1990 article, Turpin identified the rock art style Bold Line Geometrics. Later, in a 1991 coffee table book on Lower

Pecos rock art, Turpin used the shamanistic society hypothesis to interpret it in conjunction with Jim Zintgraff‘s photos. Turpin‘s justification for using the shamanistic society hypothesis rested on an observation she made that the anthropomorphs (human- like figures) depicted in Lower Pecos rock art are shamans because they often are associated with animals, are large in size and vast in number (Turpin and Zintgraff 1991). 79

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

This assumption, Turpin argued, is found in the work of Campbell (1958) and Newcomb

(1967) who also made the same basic observations when they analyzed the rock art and equated it with historic mescal bean cults where the central figures were shamans. This source is significant because the interpretations used to explain the region‘s rock art are still presented in exhibitions on Lower Pecos rock art.

Ethnographic Approach Of the numerous ethnographic approaches that exist for rock art in other parts of the world, Boyd‘s (2003) book Rock Art of the Lower Pecos is the only publication to date that applies the ethnographic approach to Lower Pecos rock art. As Whitley (2001) explained in his summary of the history of rock art research in the United States, the progression of rock art research towards a research focus is still in transition. As a result, sources that represent the ethnographic approach are not as prevalent as the traditional approach.

Boyd (2003) discussed the prevailing attitudes towards the interpretation of rock art and demonstrated through her analysis of five sites in the region that ―prehistoric rock art can be explained through scientific methods‖ using a problem-oriented research approach (Boyd 2003, 4). She accomplished this by developing a research design

(discussed in detail in chapter four) and cable-like arguments from distinct, separate strands of evidence to derive an interpretation. Where these arguments originate is dictated by the chosen interpretive approach (formal or informal) and the research question or problem formulated. For her arguments, Boyd (2003) used evidence from ethnography, Lower Pecos subsistence patterns, the regional archeological record, botany, cognitive neuroscience, ecology and animal behavior. The author also explained

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 how previous researchers, mainly professional archeologists, contended that rock art

―cannot be accorded scientific status and thus should not be the subject of archeological study‖ (Boyd 2003, 3). Instead archeological research has ―focused more on the material aspects of life, avoiding the areas of human cognition or symbolic structures‖ (Boyd

2003, 3). Boyd suggested that the reluctance to develop scientific methods to study rock art comes from the western idea that art is for aesthetic, decorative, and recreational purposes, ignoring the utility of art (Boyd 2003, 3). Despite the rich body of research conducted in the Lower Pecos region, Boyd contended that ―Researchers have either failed to recognize the contribution of rock art to the reconstruction of this prehistoric cultural system and recognized its value but lacked the empirical methods necessary to access the information provided in the art‖ (Boyd 2003, 4). This source is significant because it demonstrated that prehistoric rock art, devoid of an existing ethnographic record and living descendents, can be interpreted and studied and represents another significant departure in perspective on the interpretation of the region‘s rock art.

Through his compilation of the history of rock art research, Whitley (2001) discussed how scholars have ignored it for over a century. He began this history with early attempts to understand rock art as if it could be translated like an ancient language and concluded with the issues rock art researchers face today. Whitley (2001) explained that when early attempts failed to ―translate‖ rock art, researchers concluded that rock art could not contribute to understanding the past. In the absence of an ethnographic record on prehistoric cultures, researchers also concluded that rock art is an intellectual dead- end. Whitley (2001) demonstrated how this perspective caused archeologists to form hypotheses based on speculation, such as the shamanistic hunting magic hypothesis still 81

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 present in some current rock art literature. Whitley (2001) noted how the field is still dealing with the effects of this previous research perspective. This chapter is significant because it collects the early history of rock art research in the United States and documents its progression towards a research focus. Parallels can be identified between the progression of rock art research in the U.S. and the Lower Pecos as seen in all of the sources that offer interpretations on the region‘s rock art.

Summary Previous research on issues that affect the conservation and interpretation of rock art varies significantly in focus, scope, and accessibility. Given this variability, there are several questions that the literature review has not addressed. By identifying the questions that have not been addressed in the literature, this provides a starting point for further investigations into each of the issues in order to obtain an answer for the thesis question. In terms of access and landownership, no literature exists that describes the ease of access to sites since the completion of Amistad Reservoir and how that has affected conservation and interpretation of Lower Pecos rock art. None of the sources identify what has been done to educate people on which sites are public and which sites are privately owned. For in situ conservation, many of the authors recommend that a long term conservation study needs to take place to learn how to conserve Lower Pecos rock art sites in situ. Loubser (2001) provides a basic outline for a management plan for conservation but nothing of that magnitude and detail exists in the literature for any

Lower Pecos rock art site. Authors describing natural agents of deterioration affecting

Lower Pecos rock art sites contend that data for knowing what the rate of deterioration for rock art sites in the region prior to the filling of Amistad does not exist and therefore

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 it will not be fully known how much the reservoir has accelerated the natural decay of the region‘s rock art sites. The literature describing human agents of deterioration does not describe what educational programs are taking place in the Lower Pecos to raise awareness on this issue and how effective they are in minimizing or eliminating the issue.

Authors addressing issues with recording techniques have not identified standards or quality control guidelines for recording techniques used in the field. No evaluations exist for how effective the recording techniques are that are currently being used in the Lower

Pecos and how they are physically affecting the rock art. None of the literature on the

Lower Pecos has addressed whether rock art has been removed from the region. Further investigation is required to determine whether any rock art has in fact been removed.

Literature describing exhibits and interpretations only provide limited information as to how Lower Pecos institutions are interpreting the rock art. There are several suggestions that most of the interpretations contain the traditional approach towards rock art as defined in the introduction, but further investigations are needed to identify specific examples of traditional and ethnographic approaches in exhibitions, interpretive panels, and other interpretive media pertaining to Lower Pecos region rock art.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, findings are organized and discussed according to issue. They are presented in the same order as they were introduced in Chapter I.

Access and Landownership Findings Published accounts document how archeological sites located in the rugged terrain of the Lower Pecos region are traditionally difficult to access. Most rock art sites are only accessible by hiking, although those located along steep canyon walls on the

Pecos, Devils, and Rio Grande rivers may be reached by boat and require a strenuous hike. Boat accessibility was enhanced upon the completion of Amistad Dam and

Reservoir when higher water levels made many shelters relatively easy to reach.

However, permission must be obtained from the appropriate land owner before attempting to access a site on private land.

Still, the uneven terrain, thorny vegetation, and vertical canyon walls makes it challenging to physically access sites. To alert program participants how physically demanding hikes to various rock art sites are, SHUMLA developed a difficulty rating on a scale from 1 to 4: 1- easy; 2- moderate; 3-strenuous; and 4-very difficult. The hike to

White Shaman shelter for example rates a 3 on this scale. This small, ―southwest-facing shelter is located high on a bluff‖ (Boyd 2003, 34) of a side canyon ―overlooking the

Pecos River near its confluence with the Rio Grande‖ (Boyd 2003, 34). The strenuous

1.5 mile roundtrip hike follows a narrow trail that descends 250 feet into a narrow brushy

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 side canyon and then ascends a steep set of concrete stairs into the shelter (Figure 2) (The

Rock Art Foundation, Tours/Calendar, 2008).

Figure 2 Narrow stairs leading up to White Shaman Shelter (41VV124)

Hikes to Bonfire Shelter, Eagle Cave, and Skiles Shelter also have a difficulty rating of 3, and require scrambling over boulders and walking along narrow unimproved trails in

Eagle Nest Canyon. Others such as Fate Bell Shelter, Fate Bell Annex, and Panther, and

Parida Caves are more easily accessible. Fate Bell Shelter and Fate Bell Annex are considered a moderate hike (2.5 in scale). A concrete path leads from Seminole Canyon

State Park and Historic Site Interpretive Center to the lip of the canyon where a steep set of concrete stairs with hand railings descends onto the canyon floor. Visitors then 85

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 traverse a relatively flat limestone canyon floor and ascend wooden stairs to view Fate

Bell Annex. After viewing the annex and returning to the canyon floor, another set of concrete steps ascend into Fate Bell Shelter. Inside the shelter, visitors follow a path lined with heavy rubber matting extending the length of the shelter. Panther and Parida

Caves, rated a difficulty level of 1 (easy), are located a few meters above Lake Amistad on the Rio Grande River as shown in Figure 3. Both shelters are accessible by boat only and require minimal hiking up short flights of stairs or along gradually ascending paths lined with heavy rubber matting.

Figure 3 Panther Cave (41VV83) rates a 1 on SHUMLA‘s difficulty rating system.

Following the completion of Amistad Dam in 1969 and the filling of Lake

Amistad, previously inaccessible shelters could be reached by boat. For example,

Leaping Panther Shelter, a privately owned shelter along the Pecos River, formerly had a single access route that required a strenuous hike down a canyon wall, then along a 86

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 narrow ledge above the river (Figure 4). Upon reaching the shelter‘s debris talus, an upslope switch-back across the loose talus led into the shelter. With current water levels, this shelter can now be reached by boat with only a short strenuous hike up the talus.

Although located on private property, people visit this shelter frequently and without permission from the landowner.

Figure 4 Profile photo of Leaping Panther Shelter (41VV237), a privately owned shelter along the Pecos River. This shelter rates a 4 on SHUMLA‘s difficulty rating system.

For example, during a recording and monitoring visit to this site, a boat was observed mooring on the shoreline below the shelter. The driver and passengers secured the boat, turned off the engine, and hiked up the talus towards the shelter. Conversation with the individuals revealed they were not aware they were trespassing on private land.

Once informed of the situation, they did not enter the shelter (Leaping Panther Shelter

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Notes 2007). Such illegal intentional visits to sites apparently occur regularly in the

Lower Pecos region as evidenced by potholes, graffiti, and litter. During the same visit to

Leaping Panther Shelter, four individuals were observed carrying excavation equipment.

They were unwilling to discuss their intent but apparently had been visiting the site for years. Conversation revealed they knew they were trespassing on private land but still continued to access the shelter, probably with the intent of looting it (Leaping Panther

Shelter Notes 2007).

In ―The Kokopelli Dilemma: The Use, Abuse, and Care of Rock Art,‖ J. Claire

Dean recalls her personal experience with a ―new age‖ religious group illegally accessing and performing rituals at a site she was working in Coconio National Forrest (Dean 1997,

4). At another site, she recalls the unauthorized construction of a miniature Stonehenge using stones and other materials gathered from the site (Dean, personal communication

2008). She felt such an incident is not likely to occur at that location again because the managing agency improved its permit system and other access controls to protect sites under its care (Dean, personal communication 2008).

Panther and Parida caves located on the Rio Grande River are open to the public by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the National Park Service. At Panther

Cave, visitors may moor at a boat dock then walk up steep stairs with handrails to a boardwalk where the first interpretive sign is placed. To their right, the boardwalk continues the length of the shelter on the outside of a large metal fence that prevents them from touching the pictographs. Two other interpretive signs are located inside the metal fence, and viewing holes through the fence allow visitors to photograph the rock art.

Parida Cave also has a boat dock. Heavy rubber matting marks designated paths and 88

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 reduces dust, and several interpretive signs throughout the shelter provide visitors with information about the archeology, natural resources, and the rock art on the shelter wall.

Most sites in the Lower Pecos region are located on privately owned land and are not protected under state or federal legislation. Access to privately owned site requires landowner permission. For decades, a prevailing attitude among some landowners in the

Lower Pecos region stems from a fear that archeologists and others will remove important items of value, and a fear the state will confiscate artifacts and land. Some landowners refused access to everyone, including professional archeologists, while others warmly welcome researchers from all fields of study. The negative attitude was mentioned during the initial archeological survey of the Amistad Reservoir project in

1958 when John A. Grahm and William A. (Bill) Davis recorded 188 sites in 10 weeks.

Part of the reason the two archeologists accomplished so much in a short time was because Graham had grown up in Del Rio, TX, and was able to use his family connections and knowledge of the area. Some landowners, however, were reluctant to cede their land to the Amistad Reservoir project and refused to allow any ―cave diggers‖ to enter their property in search of ―Indian caves‖ (Black, 2004).

Other evidence of this attitude appears in the purchase records of portions of

Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site. As with any story, there are two sides and two different recollections on how the land was purchased. All official reports that were obtained, and TPWD staff members contacted for information on the land acquisition, quote Roberts and Lockwood‘s (2005) ―Land Use History‖ and ―Acquisition‖ sections of their draft resource management plan for the park. ―The initial 1,413 acres of the park was purchased from Eleanor Bell on 24 October 1973. On 2 August 1977, two additional 89

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 tracts were acquired, the [Gertrude] Reidel Tract consisting of 289.06 and the [Katherine]

Kesler Tract, which consisted of 370.46 acres. The final 100 acres was transferred to

TPWD from the General Land Office‖ (Lockwood and Roberts 2005, 1.3). The ―Land

Use History‖ section briefly mentions that the Reidel and Kesler tracts were part of the

Zuberbueler family ranch since 1903.

A recollection from a member of the Zuberbueler family, however, includes another perspective. Katherine (Missy) King Harrington recalls TPWD‘s (the state‘s) acquisition of the land:

As I recall, when the state approached my grandmother (Louisa Z) about buying the property they offered her a very small amount for the land and she wasn‘t interested in selling for that price. The next offer from the state came in terms of ‗we're going to condemn the land and just take it away from you‘---needless to say that made my grandmother very upset. I remember her saying that they (the state) told her that she couldn't protect it properly (never mind it had been in the family for almost 100 years) and they could do a better job. She said that she'd rather go there and blow those painting off the bluff than have the state take them the way they wanted to do---had she been younger that is exactly what she might have done!! Anyway, the state finally came back with a price and the deal was done. By this time, my grandmother had died and the ranch had been split into parcels for each of her six children. The portions that the state ended up purchasing then belonged to Katherine (we call her Kakie--still lives in Del Rio) [Katherine is now deceased] and Gertrude (Gertie--died several years ago) my aunts (Missy Harrington, August 6, 2007, email message to author).

Ironically, Missy and her husband Jack donated land that is now the SHUMLA campus and are actively involved with the organization‘s educational programs as instructors and curriculum developers, maintaining the facilities, and helping SHUMLA gain access to other privately owned shelters with the landowner‘s full consent. In regards to this problem, Missy believes that ―the most important thing about working with folks now is if they know and trust the researchers that are wanting [needing] access, or having

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 someone the rancher knows vouch for them‖ (Missy Harrington, January 21, 2008, email message to author).

Private institutions that own land in the Lower Pecos region allow limited supervised access archeological sites. These include the Rock Art Foundation and

SHUMLA. The Rock Art Foundation (RAF) is a private nonprofit organization that offers tours to several rock art sites; the RAF owns the sites, maintains conservation easements on them, or makes arrangements with landowners. The RAF owns White

Shaman Shelter and provides public tours to the shelter every Saturday at 12:30 p.m. from September through May. With permission from landowners, RAF supervises tours to privately owned sites including Cedar Springs, Mystic Shelter, Bonfire Shelter, Eagle

Cave, and Halo Shelter at specific times of the year. RAF also provides volunteer tour guides for Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site.

Publicly owned sites in the region include only those located within the boundaries of Amistad National Recreation Area-National Park Service (below the

1144.3 foot elevation line), Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site, and

Rattlesnake Shelter Preserve. These sites are protected by state and/or federal legislation.

Panther Cave is jointly managed by the National Park Service (NPS; Amistad National

Recreation Area) and Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site (Dean 2001, 4). The

National Park Service (NPS) has jurisdiction over the lower half of the sloping shelter floor, including the boardwalk, and the cliff below the site. The rear half of the shelter floor and the rock art on the wall are owned by Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic

Site and thus are the responsibility of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD).

Parida Cave is jointly owned by the National Park Service and a private landowner. The 91

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

NPS has jurisdiction over the area from the water line to the 1144.3 foot elevation line, which includes the cultural deposits in the shelter, and the private landowner owns the rock art and the cliff above. Parida Cave is managed and maintained by NPS and is open to the public.

Other sites at Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site land are accessible to the public through guided tour only. Tours are led by either a park ranger or a volunteer guide from the Rock Art Foundation. These sites include Fate Bell Shelter and Fate Bell

Annex, Caballo Shelter, and other sites in Presa and Seminole Canyons.

Rattlesnake Shelter is owned by Texas Tech University, a public institution, but is landlocked by privately owned land. Access to the site is restricted because of the need to cross privately owned land. To access this site for research, a written research proposal must be submitted to Texas Tech University. Visitor access occurs during two four-day periods each year when an authorized representative of Texas Tech University escorts groups to the shelter.

Discussion Restricted access and the difficulty of obtaining permission to visit Lower Pecos rock art sites have made them attractive to visit either legally or illegally. Those with legal access to sites on private land include the landowners and their family members, ranchers, and hunters who lease private property, and any third party to whom a landowner grants access. Access to leased land varies according to the guidelines of the individual landowner. Third parties seeking access to sites on privately owned land must contact the landowner for permission.

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Subsequent to the filling of Amistad Reservoir, illegal site visits have increased dramatically as is demonstrated by vandalism. Bell and Prewitt (1970) noted in the

National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for the Lower Pecos Canyon

District that, ―The rising waters of the recently created Amistad Reservoir …provide easy access to a majority of the remaining sixty-three sites [recorded during the Amistad

Salvage Project]‖ (Bell and Prewitt 1970, part 7). Confusion over which sites are publicly owned and which are privately owned probably accounts for many unintentional illegal visits.

Educating the public on legal access to Lower Pecos rock art is fundamental to reducing illegal site visits. Brochures, pamphlets, notices in public places, educational programs, TV commercials, websites, and other media can be used to inform which sites are publically accessible and which are not. A good example of this is the National Park

Service‘s webpage entitled ―How to See Rock Art‖ as shown in Figure 5. This webpage provides the public with information on which sites are accessible by listing brief descriptions of Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site, Panther Cave, Parida

Cave, The Rock Art Foundation, and SHUMLA. For those wanting more information, the webpage includes a brief description of the Texas Beyond History website and a link to it. Links to each of the sites and institutions listed above allow online visitors to find more information easily (National Park Service, How to See Rock Art, 2007). Paper versions of such information could be distributed by placing them in public venues such as at boat docks, hotels and motels, in museum exhibits such as the Witte Museum‘s

Ancient Texans, in brochure racks at Seminole Canyon and National Park Service

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Visitors center in Amistad National Recreation Area, and other visitor information centers in the region.

Figure 5 National Park Service‘s webpage ―How to See Rock Art‖

Making rock art more publicly accessible is a challenge for site management and preservation. While increasing the frequency of tours at existing sites open to the public is an immediate solution for increasing accessibility, the impacts anticipated would not be a sustainable long-term solution for site preservation. Recent approaches to making rock art more publicly accessible without risking its preservation include the construction of life size replicas of sites at Lascaux Cave in France and Altamira Cave in Spain. A life- size replica of a Lower Pecos site could be used to interactively educate the public about the region‘s rock art without risking the preservation of the original. Such replicas could also allow visitors to see rock art from sites that are difficult to access legally and 94

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 physically. Visitors could be given information regarding other organizations that provide access into in situ sites and further educational resources. Existing exhibitions such as Seminole Canyon‘s Man in the Lower Pecos and the Witte Museum‘s Ancient

Texans can include a section in their exhibition that addresses access and landownership adjacent to their partial replicas of Lower Pecos rock art sites.

In Situ Conservation Findings In situ site conservation requires finding a balance between care and use so that future generations may continue to use and learn from the site. Management plans provide philosophical principles by which a balance is found. Plans provide a

―convenient place to spell out the most appropriate ways of managerial care and presentation‖ and document all activities (hands-on conservation treatments, routine maintenance, rock art recordings, guided tours) that take place at a site (Loubser 2001,

87). They are the key to in situ site conservation. Using Loubser‘s recommendations for management plan contents, strategies used by various agencies for sites in the Lower

Pecos are assessed.

The inventory and assessment for Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site prepared by Roberts (2004) closely follows a management plan for in situ conservation of rock art as described by Loubser (2001). This document contains an inventory and site- specific recommendations for further actions referenced in condition assessments by

Dean (2001) and Silver (1985). Although a management plan specifically for conservation has not been located for Amistad National Recreation Area, a survey and cultural resource inventory (Dering 2002), a cultural resource study (Labadie 1994), and

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 a proposed master plan (National Park Service 1969) contain brief conditions reports for specific sites and/or the reservoir in general.

While a regional written management plan is lacking, several rock art sites are actively maintained and monitored. These include Fate Bell and Fate Bell Annex in

Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site, Panther Cave, Parida Cave, White

Shaman Shelter, and Rattlesnake Shelter.

Fate Bell shelter is comprised of two parts: a large shelter with extensive rock art and occupational debris (Fate Bell Shelter), and a smaller adjacent shelter containing rock art but no cultural debris (Fate Bell Annex). Although the literature treats these as two separate sites, for the purposes of this thesis, the shelters are referred to as one site with two parts. Managed by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, guided tours to both shelters are conducted twice a day during cooler months and once a day during warmer months. During tours, guides are responsible for making observations of site conditions and reporting problems to the park manager. When necessary, photographs are sent to a regional cultural resource manager who then decides how to deal with a problem.

Current management plans exist for each shelter in the form of an updated site inventory and condition assessment with recommendations from two previous condition assessments (Silver and Dean) and observations made by Roberts.

The site is maintained to fulfill conservation needs, yet accommodate the large number of visitors annually. In Fate Bell Annex, a boardwalk allows visitors to view the rock art without damaging the deposits. Interpretive panels on the boardwalk feature

Kirkland‘s renderings of the rock art, allowing visitors to better understand what they are viewing. Stone steps with one hand rail in Fate Bell Shelter lead to a trail lined with 96

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 heavy rubber matting. To the left of the first reach of rubber matting near the drip line, is a heavily polished large roof spall adorned with incised grooves varying in depth; adjacent is a smaller spall with petroglyphs. Rubber matting around its base and a chain barrier in front prevent visitors from encroaching upon the rock art. Two interpretive signs with reproductions of Kirkland‘s renderings mark the next reach of rubber matting where a platform with chain barriers prevents visitors from touching the rock art panels and from falling into one of the many potholes left by past looters. Chain barriers at the downstream end of the shelter prevent visitors from touching the rock art and mark the final reach of rubber matting. Natural barriers of roof spall and an ancient mesquite tree prevent visitors from exiting this end of the shelter. Figure 6 shows the downstream end of the shelter.

Figure 6 Fate Bell Shelter (41VV74) is an example of a managed rock art site owned and managed by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD).

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

To improve management practices, TPWD is in the process of creating a form to standardize routine visual monitoring of sites. The form requires answers for a standard list of questions and photographs to be taken from given points, either looking in certain directions or at certain features (Tim Roberts, April 28, 2008, personal communication).

Panther Cave, located at the mouth of Seminole Canyon and facing the Rio

Grande River is jointly managed by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the

National Park Service for reasons mentioned in the previous section. The shelter is a

―sacrificial site‖ that was caged by the Texas Historical Commission in 1973 to prevent further vandalism. A boardwalk, interpretive signs, and a boat dock were added to accommodate the quantity of visitors the shelter receives annually. One interpretive sign refers to a surveillance system within the shelter but the system is not obvious. Two condition assessments have been conducted by Dean (2001) and Roberts (2004); they suggest photographic monitoring every 2-5 years depending upon the intensity of the monitoring and the resources available. Visual monitoring and maintenance of the site is conducted by staff members from both agencies on a regular basis. Recent maintenance activity included replacement of the door to the cage.

Parida Cave, a ―sacrificial site‖ located on a canyon wall above the Rio Grande

River not far from the mouth of the Pecos River, is managed by the National Park

Service. To accommodate the number of people that visit the site annually, the NPS installed a boat dock, interpretive signs, and heavy rubber matting to demark a pathway.

An interpretive sign refers to a surveillance system within the shelter but the system is not obvious. NPS staff members physically monitor and maintain the site on a regular basis. No management plan or condition assessment was located for this site. A 98

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 proposed Master Plan for Amistad National Recreation Area drafted in 1969 contains details of how the NPS would manage sites within the reservoir boundaries (National

Park Service 1969). The site‘s presentation (how well it appears to be maintained) and interpretive signs provide the primary deterrent to human agents of deterioration. A lack of trash, well-maintained walkways, and a boat dock give visitors the impression that

Parida Cave is monitored regularly (Figure 7).

Figure 7 Parida Cave (41VV187) is a site managed by National Parks Service.

White Shaman Shelter is owned and managed by the Rock Art Foundation (RAF).

No written management plan could be obtained. However, a simple land use plan developed after the purchase of the preserve states that no alteration to the shelter may be done without the specific approval of the RAF Board of Directors (Greg Williams,

September 6, 2008, personal communication). Physical barriers were installed to increase the level of security at the shelter. Below the shelter is a chain-link fence with a 99

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 locked gate, and concrete steps lead from the gate to the drip line. A rope barrier extends from the steps to one end of the shelter to prevent visitors from accessing a slick rock at the drip line. Rubber matting placed in front of the rock art panel controls dust as visitors view the panel. Activities at the preserve are tracked in a financial database against an annual maintenance budget. Events and visitor activities are recorded in a central calendar. RAF tour guides with open access to the site must provide notification prior to their site visits and a written description of their activities after each visit (Greg Williams,

September 6, 2008, personal communication).

Rattlesnake Shelter, located within Rattlesnake Canyon, is a preserve owned and managed by Texas Tech University. Although a written management plan could not be obtained for this site, authorized employees of Texas Tech University maintain it.

Maintenance activities include rubber matting extending the length of the shelter, a hiking trail leading to the shelter, trash collection on all visits, and a gravel road leading to the trailhead. A strictly enforced access policy limits public visits to two periods each year. An authorized representative of Texas Tech University accompanies all groups and individuals accessing the shelter.

Discussion Management plans balance the care and use of a site and create standards of conservation and presentation. Lack of a detailed management plan precludes visitors and researchers from knowing how best to care for a site. Without planning, the increased demand for access to sites will result in abuse and degradation of the cultural resources. If all activities are not documented at a site, then further damage may ensue.

For example, hands-on conservation treatment conducted in an attempt to remove graffiti

100

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 placed over a pictograph may not be documented. Years later, a conservator conducting a condition assessment may not be able to discern whether scratches on the pictograph were made by a steel wool brush used to remove the graffiti or if they are prehistoric in origin.

This philosophy prevails for how well a site is presented to visitors. The presence of litter, potholes, graffiti, and a lack of designated walkways and interpretive signs gives visitors an impression the site is neglected. Consequently, they may be more likely to add their own litter, potholes, and graffiti. When a site appears managed (no litter, designated walkways, interpretive signs), then visitors will believe it is regularly monitored and maintained, and will be less likely to abuse it. This suggests it is very important for management plans to include specific activities to be undertaken at any rock art site. Minimally these should include regular trash pickup, establishing designated walkways, placing interpretive signs, providing a guest book, and regular monitoring and maintenance visits.

Natural Agents of Deterioration Findings Several natural agents of deterioration noted at sites in the Lower Pecos region are reported in the literature. Using Silver and Dean‘s descriptions of natural agents of deterioration they observed and personal observations in the field, six natural agents of deterioration are identified. They are: pests, exfoliation, water, dust, light, and vegetation.

Pests commonly live in rock art sites. Those frequently observed include wasps

(including mud daubers), bees, ants, spiders and lizards. The insects have been observed

101

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 either crawling over the rock art and/or making nests on or near paintings. Several species of wasps live in Panther Cave, either nesting in preexisting natural holes in the limestone support or attaching mud nests to rock art panels. Those residing in natural holes in Panther Cave‘s rock art panels create surface abrasion around the holes as they enter and exit. They also crawl across the rock art panels near their nests (Figure 8). Bee hives have been observed in natural cracks in the limestone support at Painted Shelter and

Crab Shelter. Ants, spiders, and lizards have been observed crawling on rock art panels at numerous sites.

Figure 8 Several species of wasps nest in preexisting natural holes in at Panther Cave.

At all rock art sites visited, exfoliation (spalling, the peeling away of outer rock layers in a process of physical weathering) of the shelter walls was observed to be a

102

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 major agent of deterioration. The degree of spalling varies at each shelter as well as among discrete areas within shelters. At Leaping Panther Shelter, for example, large spalls of the rock art panel have detached from the downstream end of the panel (Figure

9). On the upstream end, spalls primarily consist of what Silver describes as small surface flakes (Silver 1985, 16). In site 41VV39, elevated humidity levels in the dark and slightly damp shelter have contributed to the detachment of large pieces of the rock art panel. However, in adjacent site 41VV40, the shelter walls receive direct sunlight on the rock art panel; this keeps the walls drier and allows for fewer spalling episodes.

Figure 9 Example of spalling at Leaping Panther Shelter.

Water from runoff, seeps, and other sources within the limestone support precipitates minerals in shelters throughout the region. Various salts, minerals, and particulate matter within the limestone are dissolved in water, which then flows down the shelter walls, where it evaporates and deposits the minerals on the surface, often covering

103

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 rock art. A mineral deposit commonly noted on rock art panels is calcium carbonate, a primary component of the limestone support and which appears as a white stain covering rock art panels. Another prominent mineral deposit is magnesium oxide, a mineral found in limestone that creates a light grey stain. Exceptional examples of calcium carbonate and magnesium oxide stains covering rock art include the panels at Mystic Shelter and

Cedar Springs. Seeps within the limestone support, and run-off from above, have created large mineral stains that cover substantial portions of pictographs at both sites. Figure 10 shows seeps on the rock art panel at Mystic Shelter.

Figure 10 Seeps on the rock art panel at Mystic Shelter (41VV612).

Water is responsible for other kinds of damage as well. On November 13, 2008, the effects of a catastrophic flood that occurred on September 23, 2008, were observed at

Rattlesnake Shelter (Figure 11). In the photographs Dr. Grant Hall informally published on the Internet through the Rock Art List Serve, the water level was about two meters

104

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 high inside the shelter. The canyon filled with up to two meters of fresh silt and the lower portions of the rock art panel were observed covered with a fresh coat of silt. The water level from this flood episode was approximately 5-10 cm higher than the previous one in spring 1991.

Figure 11 Rattlesnake Shelter (41VV180) and canyon in November 2008 after a flood episode in September 2008

Dust is another common natural agent of deterioration found at sites throughout the Lower Pecos region. Leaping Panther Shelter and 41VV61 are two examples of excessive dust accumulation on rock art panels. Foot traffic by humans, javelinas, and other agents loosens fine dust particles that are picked up by strong winds and deposited on the textured limestone support obscuring the pictographs as shown in Figure 12. In large shelters, these strong winds eddy and create abrasion on the paintings.

105

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Figure 12 Portion of rock art panel in Leaping Panther Shelter coated with dust.

Direct sunlight on pictographs contributes to deterioration of the pigment and causes fading and discoloration. An example is found in Fate Bell Shelter. Towards the downstream end of the shelter, two rock art panels receive direct morning sunlight.

These pictographs appear discolored and faint as opposed to those further inside the shelter, which are very vibrant. Figure 13 shows one rock art panel in Fate Bell Shelter that receives direct sunlight and another further inside the shelter that receives little to no sunlight.

Vegetation ranging from ferns, small trees and bushes, and algae and other microorganisms is abundant at rock art sites. A species of fern adheres to the shelter wall at Cedar Springs, slowly encroaching upon the rock art. At the Devil‘s River Hand Print site, vegetation at the drip line grows toward the shelter wall where it scrapes against the rock art panel. Other plants emerge from natural cracks in the limestone support at 106

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Figure 13 The photo on the left shows rock art in Fate Bell Shelter towards the downstream end that receives direct sunlight. The photo on the right is rock art inside the shelter that is protected from the sun.

Panther Cave, Painted Shelter, and many other sites throughout the region. Figure 14 shows vegetation growth at Painted Shelter. Algae and unidentified micro-organisms are present in moist areas of shelters, usually where there are active seeps. At Cedar Springs, what appear to be green algae grow over several large mineral stains. One micro- organism found at shelters occurs in the moist areas and creates dark black stains on the walls. This dark black stain is believed to be a micro-organism, possibly calcium oxalate

(whewellite). However, further research is required for positive identification.

Figure 14 Vegetation on the rock art panel at Painted Shelter (41VV78). 107

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Discussion Natural agents of deterioration present a variety of conservation challenges. It is important first to identify and record them, then educate researchers on proper documentation procedures and techniques of dealing with agents, and develop an understanding of hands-on conservation treatments. Importantly, one must understand that each site faces unique combinations of natural agents of deterioration.

Documenting changing conditions of sites allows establishment of baseline rates of change resulting from natural agents of deterioration. This important step generates information that reveals how each natural agent affects rock art and leads to developing methods for dealing with them.

For example, sites 41VV39 and 41VV40 are adjacent pictograph sites. While the paint used to produce the pictographs may be the same in each shelter, the same conservation method cannot necessarily be applied due to their different microenvironments. Site 41VV39 contains a massive roof spall that protects most of the pictographs from the sun. The lack of sunlight paired with damp deposits in the shelter causes increased humidity resulting in softer limestone and spalling of pictographs. Site

41VV40 is a large open shelter that receives full sunlight. With less humidity the limestone is harder, resulting in less spalling of the pictographs but increased fading.

Figure 15 shows the two adjacent shelters and photographs of the rock art in each shelter.

Note how the rock art in 41VV40 (left) is faded and the rock art in 41VV39 (right) is heavily spalled.

108

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Figure 15 Faded rock art in 41VV40 (left) and spalled rock art in 41VV39 (right).

Natural agents of deterioration are difficult to control because they indeed are natural processes. One example is the rock wasps in Panther Cave. Prior to construction of Amistad Reservoir, the wasps were not noted there. In her condition assessment of the shelter, Dean (2001) speculates that as the water levels rose in the canyon, the wasps were driven higher up the canyon walls and into the shelter (Dean 2001, 5). Although humans caused the rise in water levels, the wasps are natural agents of deterioration.

Educating researchers to properly document observations of natural agents of deterioration improves the quality of information gathered and helps researchers understand when to intervene and when not to do so. Without proper education, researchers could apply hands-on conservation treatments that would do more harm than good. For example, Turpin (1982) and Roberts (2004) mention that Dr. Lynton S. Land from the Geology Department at the University of Texas at Austin conducted an

109

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 assessment of rock art deterioration in Fate Bell Shelter in 1977. Land concluded that the rock art‘s rate of deterioration is accelerated by chemical reaction of pigments with ashy dust from the cultural deposits. The study led in 1981 to TPWD staff spraying cultural deposits in Fate Bell Shelter with polyvinyl acetate (a soil stabilizer) to reduce the quantity of dust generated by the wind and exacerbated by visitors. The practice was discontinued in the late 1980s because no testing was conducted to evaluate the effects the stabilizer might have on the archeological deposits, the cultural material, and future radiocarbon dates. Subsequently, heavy rubber mats were installed in the shelter to control dust.

Hands-on conservation treatments require a multi-set process before a treatment is applied to a site. As Loubser (2001) suggested, treatments are best completed when they conform to these steps: ―consultation with all interested parties, recording, assessment, review of alternative treatment options, testing of preferred options, and actual intervention‖ (Loubser 2001, 105). When treating a site for agents of deterioration all interested parties should be consulted on the proposed treatment. Many Native American groups consider natural decay to be part of a site‘s life cycle (Dean 1997). This life cycle is not to be tampered with or accelerated by any destructive activity. In the Lower Pecos region, it is not known whether the original creators intended for the rock art to decay through natural processes. Nonetheless, it is important to the interested public, scientists, and certain Native American groups that these sites should be protected and conserved from natural agents of deterioration, and that care should be taken when evaluating any hands-on conservation treatments.

110

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Human Agents of Deterioration Findings The significance Lower Pecos rock art has for the interested public, scientists, and certain Native American groups is not shared by some individuals. Personal observations and literature reviews reveal sites continue to be vandalized. This includes modern and historic graffiti, looting, littering, and defacing the rock art. Documented graffiti includes scratches, charcoal, spray paints, chalk, and crayons. The age of the graffiti ranges from less than a decade to the late 1800s during the construction of the southern transcontinental railroad. Some graffiti is placed adjacent to prehistoric images while other names and initials are scratched over images. At Caballo Shelter in Seminole

Canyon, a visitor painted ―J. Ogden‖ and a large black running horse in imitation of the prehistoric rock art. At Painted Shelter, a visitor scratched their name onto the head of a red monochrome anthropomorph (Figure 16). At Parida Cave, someone chalked a name to the bottom right of a red spray-painted name. In Skiles Shelter, located in Eagle Nest

Canyon, the name ―John‖ is written in red crayon.

Figure 16 Modern graffiti in Painted Shelter. 111

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Every known shelter in the Lower Pecos region has been looted. Evidence of looting consists of undulating surfaces on shelter floors where multiple holes have been dug into archeological deposits to find and remove artifacts. These once even surfaces are now pock-marked as a result of decades of looting. Older potholes appear more rounded along the edges and are relatively shallow as the sides collapse and refill the holes. The entire undulating surface at Fate Bell Shelter consists of older potholes dating from the 1930s to the 1970s prior to the shelter becoming part of Seminole Canyon State

Park and Historic Site. According to Elton Prewitt, only about 20 percent of the archaic burned rock midden deposit in Fate Bell Shelter is estimated to be intact.

Leaping Panther Shelter is one example of hundreds of privately owned shelters that have potholes ranging from decades old to very recent. An increase in looting activity coincides with the construction of Amistad Dam and filling of the reservoir. Once hard to reach, Leaping Panther was excessively looted between 1964 and 1986.

Remnants of decades old potholes are still identifiable

Younger, fresher potholes have straight edges, distinctively exposed deposits, and usually are fairly large and deep. The growth of a fresh pothole was recorded and monitored at Leaping Panther Shelter (Figure 17). During eight recording and monitoring visits from November 2005 to October 2007, several instances of active looting were noted. On the initial visit in November 2005, a fresh pothole approximately

8 feet in diameter with 2.5-3 feet deep subsurface tunnels was observed and recorded.

Approximately 14 months later, the pothole was 9 feet in diameter, 6 feet wide, and 5 feet

6 inches deep with a 4 feet deep subsurface tunnel. From late May to mid October 2007,

112

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 the pothole was enlarged to 14 feet in diameter with subsurface tunnels expanding on all three sides.

Figure 17 A young, fresh pothole in the pock-marked surface of Leaping Panther Shelter.

Another example of fresh potholes was observed in Hanging Shelter. Like Parida

Cave, it is partially owned by the National Park Service (the floor and deposits) and a private landowner (the wall and rock art). In May 2007, retired archeologist Elton

Prewitt observed 5 or 6 potholes in the center to upstream portion of the shelter in addition to the initial one dug in 1953. Looters apparently used two steel cables and a rope to access the shelter. Near the downstream end and away from the rock art is an area where recently built fires blackened and spalled the adjacent shelter wall (Prewitt

2007). NPS authorities were alerted and they surveyed the damage, removed the steel cables and rope, and restored the ―BOATS KEEP OUT‖ buoy downstream of the shelter

(Joe Labadie, October 17, 2007, email message to Elton Prewitt).

Looters frequenting the Lower Pecos region can be classified into three groups: professional looters, casual looters, and casual collectors. Professional looters usually are 113

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 not local residents. These people mine artifacts that are offered for sale on online public auction websites such as Ebay and at gun shows.

Casual looters primarily consist of hunters, fishermen, tourists, and local families.

This group is aware of the location of many sites, particularly those on private land. The individuals encountered at Leaping Panther Shelter consisted of a father, two sons, and a friend. Conversation with the father revealed he and his friend have hiked to the shelter for several years seeking artifacts.

Another example of a casual looter is found at the Pecos Rio Grande Museum of

Early Man website. Curated by David C. Reichelt, this website features a collection of artifacts looted from the ―Zuberbueler site,‖ also known as Leaping Panther Shelter. The collection includes basketry, matting, stone stools, painted pebbles, shell beads, bone tools, and human remains (Reichelt 2008). The pseudo-intellectual presentation of the website, evidence of uncontrolled excavations in Leaping Panther Shelter, hints of such activity on the website, and a lack of field notes suggests the artifacts in the assemblage were looted.

Casual collectors are defined as individuals who do not remove items for economic gain, but are seeking souvenirs or curiosities. One group of trespassers encountered at Leaping Panther Shelter were curious tourists with a boat who stopped to explore the large shelter in the canyon wall. After being informed the shelter is located on private land, they maintained their distance.

Visitors to shelters often leave trash and digging equipment. During a recording and monitoring visit to Leaping Panther Shelter in October 2007, 16 different trash items were removed including clothing, aluminum cans, plastic bottles, respirator masks, a 114

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 shovel, and one half-inch mesh screen. Since the initial visit to the site in 2005, five shovels have been removed. Caches of artifacts intentionally placed on tops of boulders along the shelter‘s drip line are frequently observed. Figure 18 shows the one half-inch mesh screen recorded in October 2007.

Figure 18 Screen left by looters in Leaping Panther Shelter

Defaced rock art is visible at Mystic Shelter and Meyers Springs among other sites. At Mystic Shelter, two areas on the lower left side of the main panel were recorded by the author during a research visit on May 16, 2009. Measuring approximately 2-3.5 inches long by 1-1.5 inches high, these areas appear to have been recently damaged. The scrapes are thin and run either in a cross-hatched pattern or from left to right suggesting a pocket knife was used (Figure 19). Several historic rock art images at Meyers Springs exhibit bullet damage that occurred before 1929 (Peel 2009, 21-23).

115

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Figure 19 Defaced rock art images at Mystic Shelter (41VV612).

Discussion Effective methods of controlling human agents of deterioration require an understanding of why people engage in vandalism. Two underlying themes identified are an innate human urge to explore and to ―leave one‘s mark‖ where others have done so, and a lack of awareness regarding the value and care for cultural resources. Both of these can, for the most part, be countered through education. Teaching the public, in particular private landowners, why archeological context is important, how information is lost through indiscriminant digging, and why the rock art is significant provides a powerful tool countering vandalism.

Current exhibitions, guided tours, and educational programs offered by Lower

Pecos institutions are helping to change previous attitudes towards rock art, but additional emphasis is needed on the detrimental effects of vandalism. SHUMLA, Seminole

Canyon State Park and Historic Site, RAF, and Amistad National Recreation Area all 116

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 directly mention the problems with vandalism at rock art sites in exhibitions, guided tours, and other educational programs. Institutions not located in the Lower Pecos region, but with a strong interest in the region, that directly mention vandalism of rock art sites in exhibitions are the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory‘s (TARL) Texas

Beyond History website and the Museum of Texas Tech University.

Educational programs at SHUMLA, in particular Pecos River Kids, reference problems with vandalism of rock art. These ―hands-on, learning by doing educational programs‖ study human use of materials, land, and art, and connect people of all ages with their environment and cultural heritage (SHUMLA, Youth Programs, 2008). Pecos

River Kids is an educational program with a transformation paradigm approach that engages ―students‘ minds and hands through real-world investigations that are inquiry- based, interdisciplinary, and supportive of standards-based curriculum‖ (SHUMLA,

Pecos River Kids Education Curriculum, 2008). This paradigm promotes a message; in this case, the message encourages children to realize the detrimental effects of vandalism on rock art through engaging in a paint making activity.

Activities begin with an instructor describing the three main ingredients required to make paint: pigment (minerals), binder (fat), and emulsifier (yucca root). The instructor mentions that one of the binders used was bone marrow, an excellent source of fat and a great binder for paint. They also mention that fat was very important to the

Lower Pecos people because they did not get very much of it in their diet. After describing the amount of time and resources needed to produce the paint, the children are asked what they would be willing to sacrifice food off of their plates to obtain. They are then asked to close their eyes and imagine finding the minerals for the pigment, foraging 117

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 for a yucca root and soaking the chopped roots in water to make soap, and killing a deer to harvest the marrow within its bones. The instructor then takes a marker and scribbles all over a laminated rendering of a rock art panel. They are then asked, ―As an Indian who had gone to all that work to make a painting, how would you feel if someone did this to your painting?" (SHUMLA, Paint-Making Experiment Instructor Script, 2008). After allowing them to respond, the instructor asks them why they feel that way and how they would feel if someone destroyed something very important to them. The students are then asked to make their own rock art using the paint they just made. The instructor encourages students ―to paint something symbolic, without using words, like the Indians did…something iconic that stands for something,‖ tells a story, etc., that is meaningful to them (SHUMLA, Paint-Making Experiment Instructor Script, 2008). As students finish their paintings and place them to dry, the instructor discusses how knowledge is the most important survival tool for the Lower Pecos peoples back then and for people today

(SHUMLA, Paint-Making Experiment Instructor Script, 2008).

Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site offers daily tours to Fate Bell

Shelter where the tour guides directly mention previous vandalism in the shelter. In addition, signs at the interpretive center entrance, Fate Bell Shelter, Panther Cave, and

Parida Cave directly mention the issue and warn of the consequences. The interpretive sign in Fate Bell Shelter and at the interpretive center entrance warns visitors not to collect artifacts or vandalize the rock art. Should they engage in such activity, they face a

"fine of $50 to $1000 and or confinement in jail‖ (Figure 20).

118

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Figure 20 Sign at Fate Bell Shelter warning visitors of the punishment they will receive if they vandalize the site.

The sign located at the entrance to Panther Cave warns visitors that their activities are monitored by a hidden video camera, reminds them that the site is protected by state and federal laws, and urges them to stay on walkways, carry out their trash, and not disturb natural and cultural features. Each interpretive sign in the shelter also has a text box entitled ―Prehistoric Legacy at Risk‖ that has a bulleted list of natural and human agents of deterioration including dust, erosion, insects, humidity, and vandals next to a crossed out picture of a person attempting to climb a fence.

Parida Cave, managed by the National Park Service, has interpretive signs that warn of the consequences of vandalism on state or federal property, and informs visitors of the importance of archeological context. The first interpretive sign, ―Parida: caves and walls that tell a story,‖ reminds visitors to please protect the site, and be aware that it is protected by federal law and Texas statute and is monitored by a video camera. Other interpretive signs at Parida Cave remind visitors of the consequences of looting and vandalism. ―Midden‖ asks visitors to ―Please protect this archaeological site by staying 119

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 on the trail and by not digging in or removing anything from the midden.‖ The

―Potholes: the story is destroyed‖ interpretive sign is located in front of a pothole and tells visitors about the loss of information from the archeological record as a result of looting.

Other institutions with strong interests in the Lower Pecos region that directly mention vandalism of rock art sites in exhibits include TARL‘s Texas Beyond History website and Texas Tech University. In the interactive children‘s exhibit, Secrets of the

Desert: The People of Hueco Tanks, Archeologist Dr. Dirt Armadillo takes online visitors on a journey to Huecos Tanks to learn about the whys and hows of living in the desert, the unique geography of the Trans Pecos region, the site‘s cultural history, and the effects of vandalism. In the ―Discover the Secrets‖ section of this exhibit, Dr. Dirt takes children on a hiking tour of his favorite pictographs at Hueco Tanks. When he shines his flashlight on rock art painted on a boulder near a hidden water hole, they see that it is covered with graffiti. After explaining that some of the prehistoric rock art could have served as a marker for the water, Dr. Dirt comments on the graffiti. Pointing to graffiti that misspells the word ―water,‖ Dr. Dirt says, ―Hmmph! Not only did they paint over an ancient symbol but they could not even spell correctly!‖ (Texas Beyond History, Hueco

Tanks, 2008). To reinforce the point, the final slide of this tour is a picture of heavily vandalized rock art in the background and Dr. Dirt to the far right side with a speech bubble saying, ―Just remember, partners, ‗Don‘t mess with Texas!‘ Or shall we say,

‗Don‘t mess with ancient Texas!‘‖ (Texas Beyond History, Hueco Tanks, 2008).

Underneath the photo, there is a black caption with the dialog, ―Would you believe that some visitors have painted over the pictographs and written their names on the walls? 120

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

That‘s no way to treat these special treasures!‖ (Texas Beyond History, Hueco Tanks,

2008).

In the Ethno-History Gallery at the Museum of Texas Tech University, a small exhibit of a large petroglyph boulder includes a text sign that briefly tells of some of the agents of deterioration that petroglyphs are vulnerable to such as airborne pollutants

(smoke, exhaust fumes, etc.) that coat and eat away at the rock surface, and the threat of vandalism. In the background of this text sign there is a picture of a rock art site with large black graffiti.

Recording Techniques As noted in the introduction, there are abrasive and nonabrasive recording techniques, and both techniques were observed in the sites visited. The two abrasive techniques observed by the author in Texas include trinomials painted on shelter walls in green and white, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department recording technique.

Nonabrasive techniques observed include SHUMLA‘s rock art recording methods and the emerging field of 3D laser mapping.

Findings Trinomial identifiers, (an alphanumeric system containing a number indicating the state, letters indicating the county, and the site number) are painted on several shelter walls in rock art sites throughout the Lower Pecos region. During the Amistad Salvage

Project beginning in the spring of 1958, only 15-minute topographic maps were available to archeologists. This scale of map was not sufficient for accurate navigation in the

Lower Pecos canyons. To prevent sites from being recorded twice, trinomials were painted on shelter walls. The green numbers were applied during the 1958 survey, the

121

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 white numbers in 1962. Figure 21 shows the green trinomial identifier in Painted Shelter

(41VV78).

Figure 21 Green trinomial identifier at Painted Shelter (41VV78)

In January 1989, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department published a rock art recording manual intended to help preserve the memory of rock art sites throughout the state of Texas. The methods described in this manual were observed by the author in spring 2004 during a rock art class offered by Sul Ross State University‘s Fine Arts

Department. TPWD‘s recording technique is designed to construct an exact scaled copy of a rock art panel, including every spall mark, natural crack, and flake of paint. It requires copying rock art from a three-dimensional surface onto a flat piece of paper. To accomplish this task, a grid is superimposed over a rock art panel using nylon string attached to the wall with sticky tack, a type of putty made for attaching posters to walls.

122

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

The grid provides a control system that allows reasonably accurate copies to be made of a rock art panel.

After superimposing a grid, each cell is described, a map constructed, photographs taken, and watercolor and pastel reproductions are executed. The same process is applied to each panel and the entire site. This yields a multi-scale record of the rock art and the site.

For petroglyphs, the depth and width of the engraved lines of figures are noted in a written description of the panel. The techniques for mapping, photographing, and drawing pictographs are also used for petroglyphs. If enhancement of a petroglyph is necessary, TPWD recommends lightly dusting the image with flour. Once the recording is complete, gently blow the flour off of the rock surface (Montgomery 1989, 19).

While thorough in its data collection, TPWD‘s recording technique is abrasive. In several Lower Pecos rock art shelters, remnants of blue sticky tack have been found adhering to panels. Three of these sites are Hibiscus (Spool) Shelter (41VV1340),

Mystic Shelter (41VV612), and Meyers Springs (41TE9). When SHUMLA‘s Field

Methods in Rock Art class visited the first two shelters in May 2008, several remnants of blue sticky tack were observed on both shelter walls. The last known recording event at

Hibiscus Shelter was 2005; it was undertaken by the Rock Art Recording Task Force

(RARTF), an organization that exclusively uses TPWD‘s recording technique. Figure 22 illustrates remnants of blue sticky tack observed at Mystic Shelter.

123

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Figure 12 Blue sticky tack remnants in Mystic Shelter.

The first nonabrasive technique observed by this author in Texas is that developed

by SHUMLA. In May 2006, the author attended a Field Methods in Rock Art class offered by SHUMLA. In addition to generating an accurate record of a rock art site, this technique is predicated upon creation of a research design that guides the entire process.

The research design ―clearly delineates the stages of the research, the desired research goals, and how you intend, step-by-step, to achieve those goals‖ (Boyd 2006, 57). This

process includes seven steps: formulation, implementation, data acquisition, data

processing, data analysis, interpretation of data, and dissemination of results. The

formulation step identifies a research problem or question, then hypotheses are

formulated, the sites to be studied are selected, and project feasibility is reviewed. The

second step, implementation, reviews project logistics, including site access, permits,

identifying and obtaining supplies and equipment, and budgeting and funding. The

124

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 researcher then evaluates the data required to address the research problem and develops

systematic data collection procedures that will be used. In this step, field protocol is established and recording/data collecting forms are produced. Data processing is the step that determines how the data collected will be processed and maintained for analysis and future research. The researcher must plan how the data will be analyzed once field work

is complete, or how the information will be gleaned from their field research. The

researcher then addresses how the data will be summarized and interpreted. Cable-like

arguments must be developed from interpreting distinct, separate strands of evidence.

The research problem/question and the chosen interpretive approach (formal or informal)

will dictate from where these strands of evidence should be drawn. Finally, the

researcher selects how he/she plans to disseminate the results of the study: professional lectures, journal article, technical report or monograph, book or other preferred method.

Once all planning task are complete, field recording may commence. This technique requires that three primary tasks be accomplished while recording a rock art site: narrative recording, graphic recording, and site mapping. Narrative recording is written documentation that includes detailed descriptions of the panel(s), the site condition, other observations maintained in a field journal, site forms, rock art recording forms, and photo reference forms. Figure 23 shows the front and back of a rock art field recording form for anthropomorphs (human-like figures).

125

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Figure 23 Rock art anthropomorphs field recording form

Graphic recording includes photography and field sketches. Photographs include close-up views of individual elements and motifs, meter-by-meter grid units of the entire panel, general site overviews, local vegetation and landscape, and the recording crew.

All photos are recorded on reference forms and those taken of rock art panels should include a menu board with the site trinomial, panel unit number, and scale (Boyd 2006,

65). When photographing meter-by-meter grid units, a photo line is established just above the ground in front of the panel. The photo line is marked in meter increments and tied to a reference point on one end and a natural, non cultural object on the other (Figure

24). The photo line should not be allowed to rub against any rock art or adhere to a shelter. Using a camera with a grid system built into the lens, meter-by-meter photos referencing the photo line are taken. The key is to overlap the photographs so they can be

126

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 stitched together later using photo editing software. The level of photographic accuracy employed depends upon the research problem or question to be addressed.

Figure 24 The photo line at Halo Shelter (41VV1230)

Field sketches are created for complex areas of a panel and of faint images that are difficult to photograph. The sketches are produced on acid-free paper and include measurements, Munsell color codes, detailed written description, and the recorder‘s name. Each field sketch is cross-referenced with the photographs (Boyd 2006, 65).

Figure 25 shows an example of a detailed field sketch of rock art images at Mystic

Shelter.

127

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Figure 25 Example of detailed field sketch

Once field work is complete, laboratory analysis may start. Summarize the data that has been collected by producing a detailed visual representation and description of the rock art panel or panels studied and, generate a summary of the element (figure) counts documented on the recording forms (Boyd 2006, 66). For SHUMLA, the data summary includes reconstruction of a rock art panel by creating a rendering using the sketches, photographs, detailed notes, measurements, and other data from the field work.

The renderings utilize pastels and Prismacolor professional-quality soft colored pencils on one-hundred percent rag vellum or acid-free paper. Photographs of panel units are projected onto the paper and lightly copied using a soft pencil. The paper surface is then toned with colors that resemble the shelter wall; this requires grinding pastel pigments into a fine powder and then lightly rubbing the powder into the surface of the paper using a soft cloth, tissue, or cotton ball. Detailed images are added using colored pencils, with the color selection corresponding with Munsell colors recorded in the field. Sketches and 128

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 photographs are used to add detail to complex or faded areas. If original photographs and sketches are not sufficient to illuminate an element, copies of original photographs may be manipulated to make the image clearer using photo enhancing software. Errors are easily corrected because the pastels and colored pencils can be erased. No rendering is ever considered complete as different lighting and weather conditions, improved photographic images, and more time spent at a site can result in discovery of previously unseen images (Figure 26).

Figure 26 Full panel rendering of Red Beene Shelter (41VV951).

Data summary continues with identification of patterns and motifs, or recurring themes in the rock art that contain two or more elements; distribution of motifs across the landscape; and presence or absence of elements among the sites studied. Once the data summary is complete, the hypothesis is tested against the field information. If it passes this first test, the next step is to test it against the multiple lines of evidence in cable-like arguments identified in the research design. If each strand of evidence points to the same 129

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 conclusion, they are mutually reinforcing; if certain strands result in the exclusion of a specific conclusion or several conclusions, then they are mutually constraining. If the hypothesis does not pass, move forward and develop a new hypothesis to explain the phenomenon (Boyd 2006, 69-70).

The final nonabrasive rock art recording technique observed is 3D laser scanning.

From October 27-28, 2009, the author observed while a 3D mapping crew from Western

Mapping recorded White Shaman Shelter, the first rock art site in the Lower Pecos region to be recorded using this technique. The author also conducted an interview with Jim

Holmlund, owner of Western Mapping, during the White Shaman Shelter recording sessions to learn more about data processing in the lab. On October 27, the 3D mapping crew determined the logistics of scanning the site. Data points and targets

(reference/registration points) were placed in various parts of the shelter. These consisted of ping pong balls attached to the rock shelter wall with sticky tack and placed away from any rock art (Figure 27).

Figure 27 A data point adhered with sticky tack to a large roof spall at the drip line of White Shaman Shelter. 130

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Shelter preparation included removing rubber matting and sweeping exposed sediments with a tree branch. A large tripod was set up and the 3D laser scanning device (a phase- based scanner) was securely fastened to it (Figure 28).

Figure 28 Phased-based 3-D laser scanner recording White Shaman Shelter, Oct. 2009

A laptop computer was connected to the scanner so data could be downloaded and stored to a hard drive. All unnecessary equipment was then removed to avoid interference with data collection (as shown in Figure 29). The entire rock shelter (areas with and without visible rock art) was scanned in 270 degree vertical sweeps. Then the scanner was moved and/or rotated as needed to scan all surfaces. The areas of non-visible rock art in

White Shaman Shelter were recorded at a resolution of about 2mm, while the areas that contain rock art were at an accuracy of less than 1mm. Precise spatial location of the 3D model was achieved with a high-resolution GPS and a total station system that referenced permanent aluminum datums located around the site. 131

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Figure 29 Rubber mat protecting the remaining deposits in White Shaman Shelter is removed for 3-D laser scanning.

On October 28, 2009, the author conducted an interview with Jim Holmlund in

White Shaman Shelter to gain insight on data processing in the lab. Holmlund explained that once the data is collected, it is processed the same day so that all data can be stored in a second secure location and free hard drive space from the laptop to be ready for the next day‘s data collection. In the lab, the data are converted from one proprietary software package to another. Once converted, the preliminary model is cleaned of undesirable elements (lizards, insects, people, equipment, and so forth) inadvertently scanned, and any poorly connected triangles in the control network are connected or removed. This produces a point cloud, a series of registered points that comprise the 3D model. Once the model is created, a technician can conduct any number of actions within the model to glean specific data requested by the researcher. These may include color, texture, and other attributes on a number of different levels. Models can also be animated

132

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 to create 3D fly-throughs of the site as well as various other educational products for exhibitions, demonstrations, presentations, and so forth (Holmlund 2009).

Discussion The abrasive techniques described in the findings are detrimental to the sites where they have been used. Green and white trinomials attract subsequent vandalism, and remnants of blue sticky tack adhering to shelter walls attract dust. Although many of the painted trinomials are placed away from visible rock art, they frequently are located in obvious places where they encourage visitors to add their names to the list of those who have ―discovered‖ a site. These numbers also help visitors confirm that a place must be important, especially if rock art is faded or not readily visible. If the rock art is not a giveaway to visitors that a site is important, a site with a trinomial painted on it is. This system is no longer used, but the existing examples continue to unwillingly promote vandalism.

Rock Art Task Force participants consist of teachers, medical doctors, engineers, college professors, artists, senior citizens, ―and a lot of [talented] people that are interested in the prehistoric rock art‖ (Teddy Lou Stickney, August 15, 2008, email message to author). They are given the TWPD rock art recording manual and receive on the job training with supervision either from an experienced archeological steward or another experienced TAS member/participant and are required to read an ethics statement about damaging or harming rock art sites. The Task Force conducted the last known recording of Mystic Shelter in 2003. Whether or not they left the sticky tack on the shelter walls at Hibiscus and Mystic shelters has not been confirmed; other organizations could have gained access between SHUMLA‘s visit and the Task Force recordings. It is

133

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 known through photographic evidence, however, that when the Task Force recorded

Meyers Springs in July 2002, several nylon strings were attached with blue sticky tack to the panel either within millimeters of figures or on top of them.

The first nonabrasive technique observed, SHUMLA‘s rock art recording technique, incorporates a research design and recording technique that customizes a research problem. Not only is an accurate scaled copy of a rock art panel produced, but information collected is scientifically interpreted through informal or formal methods.

This technique proves that rock art can be scientifically interpreted and recorded without applying or attaching anything to a panel to achieve an accurate full panel rendering.

With advancements in digital mapping, 3D laser mapping provides an accurate but expensive alternative to abrasive recording techniques. This recording technique is accurate, portable, and takes 80% less time recording a site than using traditional methods. The accuracy of 3D laser scanners depends upon the type of equipment. Time of flight scanners are usually for long range, low resolution recording with an accuracy of approximately 3mm at 100 meters, while phase based and triangulation laser scanners handle close up, fine scale, high resolution recording that averages less than a millimeter to two millimeters accuracy (Holmlund 2009). The portability of 3D laser scanning devices and support equipment allows sites to be scanned anywhere in the world. For example, a Leica ScanStation 2, a time of flight 3D laser scanner, weighs around 40.7 lbs

(18.5 kg), is 10.5 inches in length, 14.5 inches wide, and 20 inches high (Leica

Geosystems AG under ―Leica ScanStation 2 Data Sheet‖).

The amount of time this recording technique saves allows researchers to spend less time in the field collecting data and more time conducting research and analyzing 134

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 data. It took two days for the 3D laser crew of three persons to record White Shaman

Shelter (six person-days). For SHUMLA to record White Shaman Shelter with a field school of 10-12 students, two instructors, and two interns using their nonabrasive recording technique, it would take approximately 3-4 days depending upon the resolution of data needing to be collected (45 to 60 person-days).

The 3D laser method is, however, expensive and cannot be accomplished without years of training and experience. Scanning units range from $95,000 to $135,000 depending upon the accuracy and resolution of the device. Support equipment required for the scanner, such as a tripod, portable generator, laptop, suites of software to process data and so forth are another $200,000-$300,000. The technology exists, though researchers should plan their projects in stages according to how their funding is allocated.

Other technological advances in digital photography and photo-editing software also provide alternatives to using abrasive recording techniques. Many digital cameras on the market have a quality and resolution comparable or superior to 35 millimeter film.

Camera lenses can feature built in grid systems to make meter-by-meter photography of a panel easier. Overlapped photos can be stitched together to create panoramas or mosaics of entire panels, motifs, or sites. Photo-editing and enhancement software such as Adobe

Photoshop can be used to detect elements invisible in the field. For example, Photoshop allows gray-scale, color image, and false color image enhancements that either brings out colors in faded elements or erase/decrease colors of the shelter wall to highlight the elements. Examples of the photo-enhancing technique can be seen on Texas Beyond

135

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

History‘s online exhibition for Hueco Tanks in the ―‘Hidden‘ Art‖ section of the ―Rock

Art‖ Gallery (Texas Beyond History, Hidden Art, 2008).

This array of available recording techniques suggests standards for recording should be written and overseen by a suitable organization. The standards should include housing field data. The oversight organization should be knowledgeable of rock art sites from around the world and should be an advocate for their preservation and interpretation. Recording standards should begin by focusing on the use of nonabrasive recording techniques in an effort to prevent harm to rock art sites. To achieve such a goal, a symposium could be organized where the world‘s leading rock art researchers and conservators are invited to share ideas and formulate recording standards.

Technological advances in digital photography and photo-editing software allow once faded rock art to be seen again, indicating there is no reason to continue using abrasive recording techniques. Three-dimensional scans of entire rock art panels and sites produce extremely accurate maps and renderings more efficiently and less intrusively than abrasive techniques.

Museum Preservation and the History of Collecting Historically, some museums have preserved rock art by removing it from its original location and placing it within their facilities. Examples of this preservation strategy are reviewed in this section. Ethical and practical problems with removal are discussed and recommendations are made regarding replication of rock art panels.

Findings While there is no record of a museum successfully removing rock art from a site in the Lower Pecos region, there is evidence of the public collecting rock art from the

136

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 region, other parts of Texas, and other parts of the country. Examples include the privately owned Leaping Panther Shelter and Wyoming State Museum. The Museum of

Texas Tech University also has rock art on display in its Ethnohistory Gallery that is thought to have been acquired by the museum in the 1950s, but this is not confirmed.

At Leaping Panther Shelter, a privately owned site that has endured decades of looting and vandalism, a one-foot diameter circular portion of one panel was removed by looters as shown in Figure 30. When Forrest Kirkland recorded the shelter on July 17,

1938, the now removed portion was intact and depicted the hind feet of a feline figure.

TARL files contain a black and white photograph of the same figure taken during David

Gebhard‘s study in 1964-65 that shows the feline‘s hind feet intact. A 1986 survey by the Texas Historical Commission records the feline‘s hind feet as missing.

Figure 20 Removed portion of panel at Leaping Panther Shelter

137

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

According to Chippendale et al (2005), the Wyoming State Museum acquired the

Great Turtle Shell pictograph from the Castle Gardens Site in an interesting manner.

This rock art was removed between 1932 and 1940. When news spread throughout the state of Wyoming, public outrage ensued and the reaction was: ―if the Great Turtle shield was not donated to the state museum within the month, the culprit who took it would be found and get both his legs broken‖ (Chippendale et al 2005, ix). The pictograph was donated to the Wyoming State Museum in Cheyenne on September 20, 1941, more than one month after the public‘s outrage. The Great Turtle Shell currently is housed in a glass case and is illuminated with very low light levels. Interpretive panels explain possible tribal affiliation, how it was made combining the techniques of painting and engraving, its approximate age, and the detrimental effects of vandalism on rock art, but does not attempt an interpretation of the images. It is located in a small exhibit that deals with spirituality in Wyoming, and is surrounded by a reproduction of the cliff face from which it was removed. A wooden railing with a slanted face acts as a barrier and a place where visitors can read the interpretive panels associated with the exhibit (Jim Allison,

January-April, 2008, personal communication with author).

The Museum of Texas Tech University has a large petroglyph boulder displayed in its Ethnohistory Gallery (Figure 31). This boulder is housed in a recessed area of a small gallery with a wooden framed Plexiglass barrier that has raised interpretive signs on the top. On the walls around the boulder are several framed interpretive signs with a rock-textured background and white lettering next to photographs of either petroglyphs from the boulder or similar figures of the same style. These interpretive signs identify motifs on this boulder and the types of elements seen on it. The identified motifs are 138

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 shield figure, V-neck human, spear or lance figure, horse figure, mounted horse figure, and nonrepresentational images. The types of elements identified are anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, material culture, and non-representational. Dark red landscaping rocks line the floor of the exhibit. According to a security guard, children frequently lean against the barrier, pick up a rock and throw it at the boulder. Red spots are created at impact points with the harder limestone boulder. It is thought that the large boulder originated from a canyon wall in Brewster County, Texas, but the exact provenance is not known.

The petroglyph might have been removed by Curry Holden and taken to the museum in the 1950s. It was in storage for years and placed on exhibit between 2003 and 2004

(David Dean, June 12, 2008, email message to author).

Figure 31 Rock art on exhibit at the Museum of Texas Tech University

139

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Discussion These three examples of rock art that was removed from sites retains no clear documentation of when or why it was removed. Perhaps it was in the belief the art would be better preserved in a context other than in situ exposure to natural elements. While two of the three examples are now in museums, questions regarding the propriety of removal remain. Loubser (1990) discusses practical and ethical problems associated with removing rock art. Not all can be removed easily because of its size and weight. During the removal process, quarrying of a panel usually involves sacrificing some elements and motifs in order to save a few select ones. ―In situ rocks are under considerable pressure; once removed the pressure is released and this results in small cracks appearing along weak points in the rock‖ (Loubser 1990, 479). Transporting removed rock art also allows abrasion of the outer surface by the chains and ropes used to secure the artifact. Curation is another problem because storage and display facilities must be large enough to accommodate it.

The ethical problems pertain to removal from a place of special significance and placement out of context (Loubser 1990, 478-79). Many cultures that produce rock art often do so at locations that have great significance to them such as natural caves or mountain tops. For example, in Aztec myth and folklore, the entrance to Mictlan, the land of the dead, was obtained through a cave. In some instances, they were the place of the dead and ―magical places that provided access into the world of the supernatural‖

(Boyd 2003, 50). Other natural portals to the land of the dead include rockshelters, sinkholes, and any other holes in the earth‘s surface (Boyd 2003, 55). A good illustration to demonstrate the loss of information was made by Bednarik when he used the example

140

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 of ―uprooting a traffic sign from a roadside and placing it in a forest. While it remains a sign, it has lost all of its intended significance and potency‖ (Bednarik 2007, 2).

As noted in a previous section, there are many ways to reproduce rock art panels.

These may be two-dimensional depictions in various media or three-dimensional replicas.

They also can be reproduced digitally and made available on the internet. Examples include Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site‘s partial replica of Panther Cave,

Fate Bell, and Lewis Canyon in its museum exhibition, a full sized replica of two galleries at Lascaux Cave called Lascaux II, the Museum of Altamira‘s full-sized replica of Altamira Cave, and virtual replicas of Lascaux and Chauvet Caves.

The partial rendering of Panther Cave consists of an approximately ten foot wall painted and textured to look like the original, and over which a partial image from the site is painted. In front of the wall is a sculpted paper māchē medallion with a large red feline image from Panther Cave on one face and images of petroglyphs from Lewis Canyon on the other face as shown in Figure 32. ―A Rockshelter Home‖ is a hallway with a walk- through diorama of how an occupied shelter would have looked 4,000 years ago, and on the walls is an image of the winged anthropomorph from Fate Bell Shelter. The other paper māchē replicas of rock art within the exhibition are the red Spaniard and church images at Vaquero Shelter.

141

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Figure 32 Partial rendering of Panther Cave in Seminole Canyon‘s exhibition

Full-sized replicas of two sections in Lascaux Cave are depicted at Lascaux II: the

Great Hall of Bulls and the Painted Gallery. This half-buried structure is enclosed in a cement shell that corresponds exactly in shape to the interior of the original. Several layers of fine wire mesh were laid over a metal framework and cement projected onto it to create the skin of the replica. Several series of stereoscopic photographs were taken to reproduce the texture of the rock as accurately as possible. The color of the rock was applied to the recreated walls and ceilings of the cave, and this was overlain by the paintings. At first, this was done using hand measurements but later was perfected by projecting images of the original site onto the wall of the reproduction. Other reproductions were constructed and placed on display at the Centre of Prehistoric Art at

Thot (Thonac-Dordogne) including the Scene of the Dead Man, the Black Cow Panel, the

Back to Back Bison, and the Stag Frieze panels. Lascaux II opened to the public in 1983

(Ministry of Culture and Communication, The Cave of Lascaux).

142

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

A replica of Altamira Cave in Spain took the form of a museum. This museum features the replica as the main exhibition. It consists of the permanent exhibition The

Times of Altamira (the replica), The New Cave, cultural activities, prehistoric technology workshops, and the surrounding woods and fields (Museum of Altamira, Museum, 2008).

The replica was completed in the fall of 2001. It is cement and glass structure built on a terrace cut into the hillside a few hundred yards from the original cave entrance (Bahn

2001, 72). This replica was constructed using laser readings taken at five millimeter increments. The data were analyzed with computer software ―and used to carve high density polystyrene blocks matching the contours of the cave‘s walls and ceiling. Each of the blocks was covered with a ‗skin‘ about one-half inch thick, consisting of 80 percent resin, producing a color and texture much like the original limestone cave walls.

It was onto this skin that every crack, engraving, and painting was reproduced‖ (Bahn

2001, 73). The replica took one year to complete and the entrance mimics the original natural cave entrance prior to its prehistoric collapse (Bahn 2001).

Virtual replicas have also been produced of Chauvet and Lascaux Caves.

Chauvet Cave is a European Paleolithic rock art site located in France that is not open to the public. To ―open‖ this site to visitors, the French government created an online virtual tour of the cave that is available to anyone. The main sections of the website include how the cave was initially discovered, current and previous research, geographical and archeological context, dating the rock art, the significance of the caves, current preservation measures, and the virtual tour. This latter feature allows visitors to explore its natural and archeological elements virtually. Visitors are presented with a high quality virtual map of the site with artistic ensembles represented by red dots, 143

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 natural and archeological elements represented by green dots, and the viewing angle in which they are looking in relation to where they would be standing if physically present in the cave. When visitors click on any one of the points of interest, a second window opens with a picture and interpretive description next to it. A smaller map of the cave in the lower right hand corner of this window shows their current location in the cave.

Some pictures in these windows have a yellow-cornered box or boxes that allow visitors to see greater details. A click on this icon opens a separate window with close-up images of the object of interest and an interpretive description. A physical replica of this cave has been not been completed, making this virtual tour the only way to readily access

Chauvet (Ministry of Culture and Communication, The Cave of Chauvet-Pont-D‘Arc,

1998).

Lascaux also has a website with an online virtual tour of the famous cave that is set up in similar fashion as Chauvet, but it is not as technologically advanced. Visitors can learn about the cave in terms of archeological and geological context, the age of the rock art, how it was discovered, why it was closed to the public, play games that test their knowledge of the cave, and take a virtual visit. The latter begins with a map where one can choose the gallery they wish to explore simply by clicking on it. Once a desired gallery is selected, visitors are taken to a separate page where they can scroll through photographs augmented with interpretive texts under them (Ministry of Culture and

Communication, The Cave of Lascaux).

Exhibits, Interpretation, and the Nature of Scholarly Investigation This section provides examples of museum exhibitions that present traditional and ethnographic approaches to interpreting rock art in the Lower Pecos region. In the

144

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 findings, the exhibitions are separated according to which approach they represent and the institution in which they are housed. For each exhibition, the interpretive media containing the approach or approaches are presented and its context described. These findings are followed by a discussion that examines information considered to be out of date and presents reasons why it should be updated.

Findings Existing museum exhibitions of Lower Pecos rock art express either traditional and/or ethnographic approaches to interpretation. Exhibits presenting traditional approaches are Seminole Canyon‘s Man in the Lower Pecos, the Witte Museum‘s

Ancient Texans: Rock Art and Lifeways along the Lower Pecos, and the on-site exhibitions at Panther and Parida Caves. Currently, there are no Lower Pecos rock art- related exhibitions that represent the ethnographic approach. However, there previously were such exhibitions that SHUMLA hosted within the past ten years, and there is a section entitled ―Rock Art‖ in Texas Beyond History‘s online virtual museum exhibit

Lower Pecos that provides a brief overview of both approaches.

Traditional Approaches in Exhibitions Traditional approaches have been identified in text panels, audio and video presentations, and/or interpretive signs within Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic

Sites‘ Man in the Lower Pecos exhibition, the Witte Museum‘s Ancient Texans: Rock Art and Lifeways along the Lower Pecos exhibition, and the on-site exhibitions at Panther and Parida Caves.

145

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Man in the Lower Pecos – Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site‘s interpretive exhibition Man in the

Lower Pecos was produced between 1980 and 1984, and provides a history of the presence of man in the Lower Pecos from 12,000 years to present. Information presented in the exhibition on rock art begins after the ―Foragers‖ Gallery and a tools display case.

The exhibit wraps around a cul-de-sac and continues into another gallery with a large diorama of a rock shelter home, and ends with an interpretive panel entitled ―The Lower

Pecos in Transition.‖ In the cul-de-sac, there are four interpretive panels, an audio presentation, a partial replica of the rock art in Panther Cave, and a free-standing circular paper māchē medallion of select figures from Panther Cave and Lewis Canyon. The first interpretive panel, ―A Rare Glimpse,‖ introduces the scenes recreated in the partial replica of Panther Cave and shows a photograph of the shelter from the opposite side of the canyon (Figure 33).

Below the photograph is a button visitors can push to start an audio program.

Portions of this audio presentation contain a traditional approach to rock art interpretation. After attempting to identify specific figures in the Panther Cave replica, the audio presentation concludes with, ―Much cannot be explained, for like any art done by people from a different culture, the paintings had meanings that are lost to us and symbols we do not understand. The art may have also fulfilled many different purposes for its makers. Perhaps they were accounts of myths, or decorated the rock shelter home, or was done simply for amusement.‖ (For a full transcription of this audio presentation, see the appendix.)

146

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Figure 33 ―A Rare Glimpse‖ interpretive panel in Seminole Canyon‘s exhibition.

The partial replica of Panther Cave and the medallions were created from paper māchē by Del Rio artist Linda Rust. The large partial replica and the feline depicted on one side of the medallion are images from Panther Cave. The petroglyphs depicted on the other side of the medallion are select images from Lewis Canyon. ―The Ancient

Texas Art,‖ a free-standing text sign, provides all of this information and reminds visitors not to touch the replicas as they are fragile.

The remaining three interpretive panels in this cul-de-sac are identified beginning with the one closest to the right side of the large Panther Cave partial rendering as the visitor faces the rendering. The ―Pecos River Style‖ panel describes the earliest style of

147

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 rock art found in the Lower Pecos region with a brief description and an artist‘s rendition of an example of the style that is ¼ and ½ the actual size of the figures. The second panel, ―Red Monochrome Style: People of the Bow,‖ describes a later style of rock art found in the Lower Pecos region. Common characteristics of the style are described and an artist‘s rendering below the text depicts some of the figures in Painted Shelter at a scale ¼ of the actual size. ―Preserving the Record‖ describes how Forrest and Lula

Kirkland recorded the rock art of Texas in the 1930s. The panel displays photographs

(two of Forrest and his car with all of his equipment, and the other of him standing in

Black Cave) and copies of watercolor paintings (one of petroglyphs and another of painted pebbles).

Exiting the cul-de-sac, the next gallery depicts a life size diorama of ―A Rock

Shelter Home.‖ It shows a family group ―engaged in subsistence activities‖ with a woman in the first scene grinding mesquite beans using a grinding slab and hand stone while her baby sleeps on a mat beside her. The second scene depicts a man teaching his son how to fasten a projectile point to a reed dart shaft on the other side of the shelter.

Both adult figures are sitting on woven mats. These scenes are divided by a shelter wall with a replica of anthropomorphs found in Fate Bell Shelter. The Lower Pecos peoples are depicted with head bands and long hair except for the baby. The man and the woman are wearing loin cloths made from hide. On the left wall, there is a mural depicting the view from Fate Bell Shelter as it might have looked over 4,000 years ago. Figure 34 shows the life size diorama in the exhibition.

148

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Figure 34 ―A Rock Shelter Home‖ diorama in Seminole Canyon‘s exhibition

As visitors exit the diorama, they encounter a gallery and interpretive panel ―The

Lower Pecos in Transition‖ on the left wall. This panel begins discussion of inhabitants during the historic period. It describes historic Native American groups known to be associated with the Lower Pecos region. Above the panel‘s title is a paper māchē replica from Vaquero Shelter in Presa Canyon depicting a Spaniard and a church. The interpretive panel theorizes Lower Pecos people were Coahuiltechans, then mentions that the Apaches, and later the Comanches, invaded the region.

Ancient Texans Exhibition at the Witte Museum The Witte Museum‘s Ancient Texans exhibition opened in January 1987. It includes artifacts from their Lower Pecos collections that were excavated in the 1930s, sculptures of facial reconstructions from three Lower Pecos individuals, several 149

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 interpretive videos, three interactive displays, photographs of water treated Lower Pecos

Style rock art taken by Jim Zintgraff, and a gallery theatre presentation. Figure 35 shows the exhibition title sign at its entrance.

Figure 35 The Witte Museum‘s Ancient Texans exhibition title panel

As visitors walk upstairs to the second floor exhibition area they see a title sign and a full rendering of the White Shaman panel with interpretive text panels adjacent to it entitled ―Shamanism‖ and ―Interpretation‖ (Figure 36). The ―Shamanism‖ text briefly describes this hunter-gatherer belief system and states it was the religion of the Lower

Pecos people. To support this statement, the shamanic religion is used to interpret White

Shaman Shelter rock art in a text panel entitled ―Interpretation.‖ This text identifies nearly every anthropomorph depicted as a shaman and identifies their sex as male. The interpretation states what each shaman is doing and identifies the images associated with them. Each image is interpreted separately. There are no labels on the rendering or the

150

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 text panels that help clarify to which image the text panel refers and no explanation defines terms such as ―unbound hair,‖ ―power animal,‖ and ―guardian spirit.‖ (For a full transcription of both text panels, see the appendix.)

Figure 36 White Shaman rendering with interpretative text panels in the Ancient Texan‘s exhibition

Upon entering this second floor exhibition, visitors encounter a small theatre with a large screen where they can watch video that introduces the Lower Pecos region and the museum‘s collection. After the video, visitors walk through a hallway to the left, passing a partial mural painting of Panther Cave to view prehistoric tool kits and a small ecology display that showcases the kinds of plants and animals commonly consumed by the

Lower Pecos people. In the next gallery, Lower Pecos artifacts are compared with similar artifacts associated with Australian Aborigines and San Bushman of Africa.

Interpretive panels with varying combinations of text, artifacts with labels in Plexiglas

151

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 cases, and photos explain the cultural comparison. A short video, Mental Technology, explains how hunter-gatherers had to know their environment in order to survive in semi- arid to arid desert regions. The floor in this and the final gallery are designed to resemble the flat limestone surface of the petroglyph site at Lewis Canyon to give the visitor the sensation of walking into a Lower Pecos rock shelter. Figure 37 shows an overall view of the second gallery.

Figure 37 Second gallery in the Ancient Texans exhibition where Lower Pecos artifacts are compared with similar artifacts associated with Australian Aborigines and San Bushman of Africa.

The final gallery contains a large case in the middle of the room that is divided into several segments with interpretive text, artifacts in Plexiglas cases, and artifact labels on both sides. On one side, body and face decorations, rattles, mind altering drugs, and

152

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 other items used in ceremonies are displayed and interpreted. On the other side, ceremonies and shamanism are discussed with artifacts to illustrate the text references

(Figure 38).

Figure 38 Ceremonies and shamanism are discussed in this interpretive panel

In the bottom right corner of the gallery is a small display showing excavations conducted during the 1930s. This interactive display case has a large sliding magnifying glass that allows visitors to look closer at some of the recovered artifacts. Figure 39 shows this small display nested in a corner of the gallery.

153

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Figure 39 Interactive display showing excavations conducted during the 1930s

The top right corner has bronze busts of three Lower Pecos individuals recovered in the

1930s, and a recessed TV monitor with buttons below it that plays three different videos providing further information on Lower Pecos archeology, the facial reconstructions, and the original black and white film of Witte Museum excavations in Eagle Cave in 1935.

To the left of the educational videos is another interactive display case that invites visitors to examine wear patterns and residue on artifacts, and to view fine-screened matter under a microscope. Farther along this wall is a small reconstructed stratigraphic profile of Baker Cave and another interactive display case that allows visitors to analyze fiber materials commonly recovered from Lower Pecos rock shelters.

The far left wall of this gallery consists of photographs taken by Jim Zintgraff, and a video, Spirits of the Canyon: Ancient Art along the Pecos River. A portion of this video features Amado Peña, Jr., a painter/artist who relates his perspective of Lower

Pecos rock art. After Peña finishes his comments, the video turns to the narrator saying,

―It is impossible to know what these paintings mean to the people who painted them. Yet 154

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 scholars suggest they commemorate some basic values and rituals that helped to codify the society, perhaps to ensure the success of the hunt or continuation of the community.‖

Underneath this video is a text panel describing the characteristics of Lower Pecos Style rock art (Figure 40).

Figure 40 Wall of rock art photos and Spirits of the Canyon video

To the left of this wall is an interpretive panel entitled ―Magnificent Rock

Paintings.‖ The first states that the artists who created these paintings were probably shamans and the anthropomorphs (human-like figures) may represent shamans or supernatural beings. It emphasizes that the images were not painted ―for art‘s sake‖ but rather as essential components of different rituals, possibly to pacify supernatural spirits, ensure success in hunting, fertility, or to play an essential role in a young man‘s initiation into manhood. The interpretation continues, stating that overpainting observed in many

Lower Pecos rock art panels indicates that the paintings themselves were not sacred, but 155

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 rather the ceremonies that accompanied them were more important. (For a full transcription of this text panel, see the appendix.) Beneath this text is a black and white picture of a man painting on a rock art panel. The interpretive panel does not identify the man or the location of the shelter in which he is painting. Figure 41 is an overall photograph of the interpretive panel.

Figure 41 ―Magnificent Rock Paintings‖ interpretive panel in Ancient Texans exhibition

As part of the Ancient Texans exhibition, Panther Cave is interpreted through the gallery skit ―Encounter at Panther Cave,‖ with the partial mural painting of the shelter‘s rock art as a background. In this skit, an actor is dressed as an archeologist and another is dressed as a shaman named Yellow Panther. The play begins with the archeologist spending the night in Panther Cave awaiting the arrival of his or her students the next

156

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 morning. During the archeologist‘s overnight stay, one of the ―shamans‖ from the partial rendering of the shelter emerges from behind the mural startling the archeologist. When the archeologist realizes that this is not a practical joke, he or she begins to ask the

―shaman‖ questions regarding ―practical‖ information such as how Yellow Panther‘s people lived 4,000 years ago (Figure 42).

Figure 42 Partial rendering of Panther Cave used as a prop in ―Encounter at Panther Cave‖ gallery skit as part of the Ancient Texans exhibition

Panther Cave On-Site Exhibition There are three interpretive signs at Panther Cave. They share a basic design template that consists of a black background banner on the top stating the panel‘s title and the name of the park, followed by National Park Service, U.S. Department of the

Interior. The body contains information about the site, and the ―Prehistoric Legacy at

Risk‖ text box is in the bottom right corner. Below the body of the sign is another black

157

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 background banner that displays the insignia of both managing agencies, TPWD and the

NPS.

―Welcome to Panther Cave‖ marks the official entrance of the site where stairs from a boat dock meet the landing. This sign provides the rules and regulations governing visits to the site, reminds visitors that Panther Cave is protected by state and federal laws and that it is on the National Register of Historic Places, and mentions both managing agencies. It also provides a definition of rock art and bears an image of a large feline associated with a red and black anthropomorph depicted at the far right side of the shelter that takes up three-fourths of the sign‘s body. Attached to the sign‘s black pole is a smaller sign that warns visitors their activities are monitored by a hidden video camera.

―Panther Cave Pictograph‖ consists of a photocopied Kirkland watercolor rendering containing major figures on the panel, the main text, a map of the Lower Pecos region, photographs of lechuguilla and sotol with respective labels, and an extra text box entitled ―Can you find the site number?‖ the main text addresses who left the paintings, how they made the paint, and how old the paintings are.

―Panther Pictograph,‖ contains a Kirkland watercolor rendering of the far right side of Panther Cave‘s main panel showing only the most prominent figures. Underneath this rendering is the main text, a ―Lower Pecos Rock Art Timeline,‖ and the ―Prehistoric

Legacy at Risk‖ text box. The main text of the panel addresses what the paintings mean and whether or not we will ever know what these ancient artists were saying. To answer these questions, the interpretation begins by speculating that ―perhaps a local shaman painted Panther Cave as part of hunting magic, religious depictions, or life ceremonies.‖

It concludes with a statement that we will probably not know what these artists were 158

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 saying since the Lower Pecos culture is extinct, and it emphasizes the fact that ―since we don‘t know who the Pecos people‘s modern descendants are, the paintings original meanings were lost when the society died.‖ (For a full transcription, see the appendix.)

Below this main text is a timeline entitled, ―Lower Pecos Rock Art Timeline.‖

This timeline extends the majority of the lower portion of the main text panel and attempts to place Lower Pecos rock art in context with a world art history timeline. The comparison gives visitors an idea of how old this rock art is by saying the Pecos River style pictographs were painted around the same time the pyramids were constructed in

Egypt. Figure 43 shows an overall photograph of the interpretive panel.

Figure 33 ―Panther Pictograph‖ interpretive sign at Panther Cave

Parida Cave On-Site Exhibition Parida Cave has five interpretive panels located at strategic points. These panels are: ―Parida: caves and walls that tell a story,‖ ―Rock Art of the Lower Pecos Region,‖

159

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

―Potholes: the story is destroyed,‖ ―Rainwater becomes cave water,‖ and ―Midden.‖ One text panel, ―Rock Art of the Lower Pecos Region,‖ directly refers to rock art located immediately above it. This text addresses the approximate age of the paintings, the pigments used to make the paint, and possible meaning of the images. In addressing the meaning of the paintings, it states that since the artists and their world are now gone, we don‘t know what they intended the paintings to mean and, therefore, one can only speculate (Figure 44). (For a full transcription of this text panel, see the appendix).

Figure 44 ―Rock Art of the Lower Pecos Region‖ text panel in Parida Cave

The Ethnographic Approach in Exhibitions There are no current exhibitions that present an ethnographic approach to interpreting Lower Pecos rock art. However, three such exhibitions were hosted by

SHUMLA within the past ten years. In addition, Texas Beyond History‘s ―Rock Art‖

160

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 section in the Lower Pecos exhibition briefly describes both ethnographic and traditional approaches to rock art interpretation.

SHUMLA Exhibitions SHUMLA, formerly the School of Expressive Culture, is a nonprofit organization that actively participates in national and international research projects related to the rock art of the Lower Pecos region. It hosts community outreach and educational programs across the state and internationally to educate the public on the region‘s rock art

(SHUMLA, About, 2008). Since it debuted in 1998, SHUMLA has produced three museum exhibitions on, or relate to, Lower Pecos rock art. These include: Art and

Artifacts from Millennia Past, Drawing from the Past: Rock Art of the Texas Hinterlands, and Here’s Looking at You.

Art and Artifacts from Millennia Past was a traveling exhibition that illustrated ―a cross-cultural comparison of hunter-gatherer material culture and rock paintings of South

Texas, southern Africa, and northern Mexico‖ (SHUMLA, Museum Exhibits, 2008). The exhibition, designed by Carolyn Boyd and her students at Texas A&M University, ran from February 19 through May 31, 2000, in the Brazos Valley Museum of Natural

History in Bryan, Texas. From there, the exhibition traveled to a small museum in West

Virginia where it opened on August 4, 2000.

Drawing from the Past: Rock Art of the Texas Hinterlands was an exhibition that was displayed at Texas A&M University from October 11 through December 16, 2001. It focused on the 4,000 year-old rock art of the Lower Pecos region and the methods Dr.

Boyd uses to interpret these images.

161

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Here’s Looking at You was an exhibition developed by the SHUMLA, Texas

A&M University Department of Anthropology, and the Brazos Valley Museum that showcased traditional dance and ritual masks from Mexico, China, the Northwest Coast of North America, West Africa, and New Guinea. On display at the Brazos Museum of

Natural History from April 9 through August 31, 2002, the exhibition highlighted ―the beauty of these masks, their ethnographic significance,‖ and touched on important themes such as ―the diversity of cultural and religious expression and the representation of the human personality through art‖ (SHUMLA, Museum Exhibits, 2008).

Unfortunately these three exhibitions are no longer displayed. The author was however, able to view and photograph the interpretive signs, text labels, photographs, and drawings that went along with the three. Despite the effort, not enough information was available to reconstruct the exhibitions for critical review.

Texas Beyond History Exhibitions Texas Beyond History, the Texas Archeological Resource Laboratory (TARL) online virtual museum, has dedicated staff who continually update exhibits and add new ones to provide the public with the most current information on Texas history and prehistory. In 2008, the staff added the Trans-Pecos Mountains and Basins exhibit set that includes a thorough interactive overview of the region and special exhibitions on six major prehistoric and historic sites found there. One features a large nine-section exhibit on the famous Trans-Pecos rock art site Hueco Tanks. Other recent updates include augmented text for the ―Rock Art‖ section of the Lower Pecos exhibition and a link to a separate section with further information about Kirkland‘s renderings entitled On the

Trail to Lower Pecos Rock Art.

162

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Exhibitions relating to the Lower Pecos region include the overview exhibition

Lower Pecos; special exhibits on Hinds Cave, Bonfire Shelter, and Arenosa Shelter; and

Artistic Expression exhibition of Plateaus and Canyonlands that features links to the

―Rock Art‖ gallery of the Lower Pecos exhibition, On the Trail of Lower Pecos Rock Art,

Pictographs on Parade as discussed in the ―Natural Agents of Deterioration‖ section of this chapter, and a link to the Mysterious Stones and Pigments section of Kincaid Shelter exhibition. As mentioned in the literature review, the Lower Pecos exhibition contains a thorough overview of the region‘s prehistory, natural climate, and rock art. The ―Rock

Art‖ section provides an overview of the research that has been conducted and identifies involved institutions and researchers. The types of rock art seen in the region, the identified styles of rock art as defined by Newcomb, a theory that expressions of shamanistic ritual are displayed in the rock art, the controversy over prehistoric use of hallucinogenic plants, Forrest Kirkland‘s contributions, and a brief comparison of Turpin and Boyd‘s interpretive approaches towards the region‘s rock art all are briefly addressed

(Texas Beyond History, Rock Art, 2008).

Part of the Artistic Expression exhibition of Plateaus and Canyonlands, On the

Trail to Lower Pecos Rock Art, provides more information on the Kirkland‘s travels throughout the Lower Pecos region between 1937 and 1943. The exhibit is divided into five main sections. These are: ―Lower Pecos Rock Art,‖ ―Rock Art Styles,‖ ―Forrest

Kirkland,‖ seven interactive photo galleries that house digital scans of seventy of

Kirkland‘s illustrations of the region‘s rock art with his notes, and a credits page. ―Lower

Pecos Rock Art‖ provides an overview prepared by Kemp and Tyson (2005). They state that Lower Pecos people practiced shamanism as evidenced by the region‘s rock art. 163

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

―Shamans and shamanistic scenes dominate the pictographs and murals painted on the protected rock walls of the Lower Pecos. Intricate, colorful paintings depict the shaman‘s trip and the physical and supernatural worlds‖ (Kemp and Tyson 2005). After briefly mentioning the two leading interpreters of the region‘s rock art, Kemp and Tyson (2005) present some basic ―facts‖ that include identifying the artists as all shamans, and describes some of the equipment possibly used during construction of the larger compositions. ―The artists, probably shamans, created some incredibly large pictographs that could only have been done by using special equipment …‖ such as wooden ladders and scaffolds (Kemp and Tyson 2005). The ―Rock Art Styles‖ section briefly describes the four different styles found in the Lower Pecos region as defined by Dr. W.W.

Newcomb and how they are used for organization and comparison purposes. The

―Forrest Kirkland‖ section consists of a biography of his life and work and describes why his renderings of Texas rock art are so important even to researchers today.

Discussion The discussion that follows addresses information in the exhibitions that is out of date and argues why it needs to be updated. There are new, more accurate methods of dating rock art through accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). New breakthroughs have been made in chemical and physical analysis of rock art. Methods such as x-ray diffraction (XRD) are used to identify minerals in the pigments, and DNA phylogenic analysis can identify the binder(s) used to make paint.

Researchers have changed their perspective on how to interpret rock art by moving from traditional speculation-based approaches to research design-oriented ethnographic approaches. The traditional approaches represent the perspectives

164

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 presented in many of the described text panels, audio and video presentations, and interpretive signs housed in their respective exhibition. Applying such western perspectives to interpret non-western hunter-gatherer rock art creates problems. For example, consider the process required to make paint for creating pictographs. The three main ingredients are pigment, binder, and emulsifier.

Rowe (2001) reports on the minerals identified in paint samples from Panther

Cave. ―Red pigments are dominated by hematite and maghemite with goethite, magnetite, lepidocrocite, and ferrihydrate also present. Mixtures of these iron-containing minerals are also responsible for orange and yellow. Maganite and phyrolucite provide black color…‖ (Rowe 2001, 200-01).

Commonly used binders include animal fat, egg whites, sap from plants, blood, and urine (Boyd 2006, 2). Rowe (2001) summarizes ancient DNA extraction from two

Pecos River style pictographs. ―Results indicated the presence of material from an ungulate (even-toed hoofed mammals), probably bison or deer, a reasonable conclusion for the area‖ (Rowe 2001, 212-13). Emulsifiers thin or extend paint. Boyd (2006) found, through experimental archeology, that yucca root, when soaked in water, dissolves saponins and produces a soapy froth that serves as paint thinner (Boyd 2006, 2).

To make paint then, the Lower Pecos people would have had to locate the correct minerals for pigment, kill and process a bison or deer for bone marrow to produce a binder, and gather and process saponin-containing plants for an emulsifier. In a paleonutrition study conducted by Sobolik (1991) using prehistoric coprolites found in

Hinds, Baker, and Conejo Shelters, the diet of hunter-gatherers of the Lower Pecos was found to be high in complex carbohydrates and low in fat and protein. The lack of fat in 165

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 their diet suggests these people should have consumed the marrow (high fat content) from the long bones of deer or bison whenever possible. That this essential resource was instead used to make paint is an indication of the importance of the rock art to their society. It is difficult to imagine that these prehistoric hunter-gatherers expanded so much effort and sacrifice just to decorate a shelter.

The idea that rock art is an intellectual dead end began with the belief that ―the goal of research was to understand cultures for their own sake in their own terms, and that this could only be achieved by detailed historical reconstruction‖ (Whitley 2001, 13).

The problem with applying this to rock art is that there are no ethnographies to refer to for this prehistoric art. Since these detailed histories did not exist, many researchers concluded that there was no reasonable way to interpret rock art. This created an intellectual dead-end stating that rock art was unknowable and was essentially a data- gathering and data-classifying endeavor (Whitley 2001, 13). Most American archeologists, including Lower Pecos archeologists, adopted this perception for several reasons. It is difficult to obtain accurate radiocarbon dates for rock art, there is a widely held perception that since rock art is an expression of religion it is the most difficult kind of archeological phenomenon to interpret, and it is difficult to relate the rock art to other aspects of the archeological record (Whitley 2001, 14). Since no new knowledge could be obtained, most researchers ignored it and concentrated on the archeological deposits

(Whitley 2001, 15).

In reference to Pecos River Style rock art, various researchers have used the shamanistic hunting magic hypothesis as a blanket explanation for several reasons.

These are that shamanism is a known religion for many hunter-gatherer groups, the rock 166

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 art is prehistoric in age, and modern Native American ethnographies cannot be useful in interpreting prehistoric art because they are too recent. While evidence of shamanism is present in Lower Pecos rock art, it is not logical to assume that all compositions in the region represent this ideology. It is also not prudent to limit ethnographies consulted to interpret rock art to the geographic confines in which it is located.

During her discussion of the otherworld journey motif, Boyd (2003) cautions that:

It would be easy to fall into the trap of explaining all crenellated lines as gateway serpents, all anthropomorphs as shamans. These elements, however, are explained as such only in the painted context of other elements in the otherworld journey motif. … The potential semiotic approaches for such visionary images are countless. They are polysemic – that is, they have a diversity of meanings. …The wide variety of contexts within which anthropomorphic forms and crenellated lines appear—both in relation to other pictographic elements in a panel and the location of a rock art panel on the landscape—suggests an equally wide variety of possible explanations. … To refer to all anthropomorphic figures as ‗shamans‘ or all crenellated lines as ‗gateway serpents‘ is to deny the richness, diversity, and complexity of hunter-gatherer belief systems, thereby feeding the stereotype of ‗simple primitive.‘ We should not only honor the polysemic nature of each element present in the journey motif but also recognize that there may be a multiplicity of meanings associated with the motif itself. Visionary imagery is variable and not dogmatically defined; therefore the image and its symbolic content are always open to new interpretation (Boyd 2003, 63-64).

This is not to say that any interpretation is as good as any other, but rather a cautionary note to not settle on just one interpretation. With this in mind, any interpretation, whether it is for a rock art panel or an archeological deposit, must be tested; otherwise, that interpretation is only speculation.

It is also important to research the cultural practices within a larger geographic area. In doing so, Boyd (2003) found that the cultural practices of the Lower Pecos people exist within the ritual, social, and ideological practices of Uto-Aztecan groups of

Mesoamerica and the Southwest including the Aztecs, Hopi, Huichol, and Yaqui (Boyd 167

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

2003, 50). These cultural connections are not coincidental as Boyd (2003) demonstrates when she tests her hypotheses against multiple lines of evidence found in cognitive neuroscience, the Lower Pecos archeological record, botany, ecology and animal behavior, and subsistence patterns.

How rock art is interpreted affects the way it is preserved. According to Loubser

(2001), if rock art is not explained it will be deemed insignificant and thus be treated as such. Visitors that leave a site without explicit interpretation on the importance of the site to its native custodians will think that it is a map to buried treasure and be more likely to indulge in destructive activities such as looting and graffiti. Managing agencies that assume rock art is a version of graffiti will be reluctant to spend additional money on a site‘s upkeep and presentation.

When all the reviewed exhibitions were initially installed and displayed, they presented the most current information on Lower Pecos rock art at the time. Now that perspectives have changed towards the rock art, not all of the presented information is objective and accurate. Many of the current exhibitions only present the traditional approach to rock art interpretation.

An evaluation of these exhibitions should be conducted to determine what changes need to be made and how to meet visitor needs. This evaluation should question the effectiveness of the exhibition. For permanent exhibitions, a summative evaluation can identify problems and help improve the effectiveness of the exhibition. No matter how old the permanent exhibition is, adjustments and changes are still possible.

―Regardless of whether the current exhibition can practically be altered, the information gained through summative testing will be invaluable for future planning‖ (Dean 1994, 168

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

97). This testing is usually based on pre- and post-visit interviews to determine the level of information being retained through the exhibition, ―mapping and timing of visitor activity in the gallery, or the use of questionnaires to assess satisfaction with the exhibition‖ (Dean 1994, 97). Depending upon the information presented, an exhibition should be evaluated regularly. For the examples listed in the findings, these exhibitions should be evaluated at least once every three to five years to determine the quality of information presented and the effectiveness of the exhibition.

The Witte Museum‘s Ancient Texans exhibition still provides an excellent cross- cultural comparison between the Lower Pecos hunter-gatherers, the San Bushmen, and the Australian Aborigines. It provides information on the now standard practices of edge wear and residue analysis, and tells the public about the emerging field of forensic anthropology with the facial reconstructions of the three Lower Pecos individuals.

Despite its age, Ancient Texans has significantly increased public awareness of Lower

Pecos rock art and the hunting-gathering lifeways of the people who produced it (Boyd

2003, 23).

However, several interpretive panels in the Ancient Texans exhibition need to be updated. One way to update the information is to change the gallery theatre presentation

―Encounter at Panther Cave.‖ Countless child-friendly, entertaining, and informative ideas can be presented that tell visitors of the latest developments in rock art research, rock art etiquette, what sites are publicly available, resources to consult for more information, and present interpretations of Lower Pecos rock art.

Other updates include replacing the interpretation panels that present only the traditional approach and incorporate the ethnographic approach; remove all but one or 169

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 two of the pictures of water treated rock art and add interpretation panels that explain both interpretive viewpoints (this can be illustrated using the mural painting of White

Shaman Shelter and its associated text panels); and update the ―If you would like to learn more‖ text panel to include the other Lower Pecos institutions (Seminole Canyon State

Park and Historic Site, Amistad National Recreation Area, Rock Art Foundation, and

SHUMLA).

Seminole Canyon‘s Man in the Lower Pecos exhibition still provides excellent information on the prehistoric cultural deposits found in the region and is a wealth of information on the historical background. The large mural of Bonfire Shelter in the

―Foragers‖ Gallery vividly illustrates how the site was utilized as a kill and processing site. The partial reconstruction of Panther Cave in the cul-de-sac gives visitors an idea of the scale and complexity of rock art. However, only the traditional approach is represented in the exhibits, in particular in the audio presentation on the rock art. For this presentation, another recording should be made that is more inclusive. Long term changes include physically modifying interpretation panels in the cul-de-sac to make room for discussion of all the rock art styles identified in the Lower Pecos region and provide illustrations of them.

Panther and Parida Caves onsite exhibitions provide a great way for visitors to view real rock art sites with a commentary. As indicated in the findings section, this information is outdated. Immediate changes include providing information about these two shelters at the public boat dock, Seminole Canyon‘s interpretive center, and Amistad

National Recreation Area‘s visitor center that includes the latest in research findings, rock art etiquette, and a list of shelters the public can visit. Long term changes include 170

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 replacing the interpretive signs at both shelters, adding a visitor log box to each site to reduce the tendency to write on shelter walls and place a laminated leaflet attached to the box that provides the latest information on research, each managing agency‘s contact information and how to obtain more information or to report a problem, and identifies other shelters that can legally be visited.

171

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND

FUTURE RESEARCH

Summary of Findings Issues impacting conservation and interpretation of rock art were investigated in the findings section of this thesis research. To summarize, it was found that the rugged terrain of the Lower Pecos region makes physical access to rock art sites a challenge.

Landownership prevents easy access to many rock art sites. There is a lack of management plans that should be used as the primary tools for conserving sites in situ.

Natural and human agents of deterioration were identified and evidence of previous abrasive and nonabrasive recording techniques was observed. Data gathered on the history of rock art collecting shows that there is no record of museums collecting rock art from a site in the Lower Pecos region. However there is record of public collection of rock art. Current museum exhibitions on Lower Pecos rock art express traditional and ethnographic interpretive approaches.

With sharp rocks, multiple species of forbidding vegetation, and steep canyon faces, the Lower Pecos region makes it challenging to physically access sites. Since the completion of Amistad Reservoir in 1969 and periods of heavy increased rainfall, water levels have increased significantly along the Pecos, Rio Grande, and Devils Rivers. Sites that previously were high above the water are now accessible by boat. Most sites in the

Lower Pecos region are owned by individuals or private organizations, and are not

172

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 protected under state or federal legislation. Access to these sites requires obtaining permission from the owner, whether they are an individual or private organization.

A primary tool for conserving a rock art site in situ is a management plan. A management plan as described by Loubser (2001) does not exist for any Lower Pecos rock art site. Roberts (2004) inventory and assessment for Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site is the only document found that approximates a management plan as described by Loubser (2001). Yet, in spite of a lack of written management plans, many rock art sites in the Lower Pecos region are actively maintained and monitored.

Using personal observations in the field, and Silver and Dean‘s descriptions of natural agents of deterioration observed in the Lower Pecos region, six natural agents of deterioration were identified. These are pests, exfoliation (spalling), water

(mineralization and catastrophic flooding), dust, light (fading), and vegetation growth.

Controlling these agents is very difficult because they are natural processes that are part of the site and its surrounding environment.

Literature sources and personal observations reveal that sites in the Lower Pecos region are being vandalized at an alarming rate. Vandalism includes modern and historic graffiti, looting, littering, and defacement of rock art. The author has yet to see a site in the Lower Pecos region that has not been vandalized. Three types of looters are known to frequent the Lower Pecos region: professional looters, casual looters, and casual collectors.

Evidence of previous abrasive and non-abrasive rock art recording techniques was observed at sites visited for this thesis research. Evidence of abrasive techniques observed are painted trinomials on shelter walls in green and white, and evidence of the 173

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

TPWD recording system. Evidence of non-abrasive techniques observed are SHUMLA‘s rock art recording methods and 3D laser mapping.

While there are no records of museums removing rock art from a site in the

Lower Pecos region, evidence indicates public collection of rock art from the region, other parts of Texas, and other parts of the country. Examples of rock art being collected are found in the privately owned Leaping Panther Shelter and Wyoming State Museum.

The Museum of Texas Tech University has rock art on exhibit in its Ethnohistory Gallery that was acquired by the museum in the 1950s.

Museum exhibitions pertaining to Lower Pecos rock art utilize both traditional and/or ethnographic approaches to interpreting rock art. Exhibits using the traditional approach are Seminole Canyon‘s Man in the Lower Pecos exhibition, the Witte

Museum‘s Ancient Texans: Rock Art and Lifeways along the Lower Pecos exhibition and the on-site exhibitions at Panther and Parida Caves. Currently there are no exhibitions that use the ethnographic approach. However, SHUMLA has hosted exhibitions using this approach within the last ten years and Texas Beyond History‘s (TBH) online exhibit

Lower Pecos provides a brief overview of both approaches.

Addressing the Thesis Question Extensive investigations of issues facing conservation and interpretation of rock art were undertaken and many examples of the issues were observed and documented during this thesis research with a goal of determining whether the establishment of a regional rock art museum that could assist in conservation and interpretation of Lower

Pecos rock art. Findings in this research support the proposal that a Lower Pecos

Museum of Rock Art could assist in conserving and interpreting the region‘s rock art. As

174

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 an institution in the service of society, such a museum would be obligated to carry out these activities in support of its mission. The LPMRA could assist with the conservation and interpretation of Lower Pecos rock art in the following ways.

Access and Landownership In an effort to reduce illegal visitation to Lower Pecos rock art sites, a LPMRA could educate the public regarding sites that can accessed legally. This can be achieved through exhibition, educational programs such as workshops, and dissemination of literature containing appropriate information in the form of pamphlets, brochures, notices in public places and TV commercials.

To make privately owned sites more accessible to the public, a LPMRA can create one or more replicas of these sites and display them in its exhibition area. A

LPMRA could, for example, form a partnership with Texas Tech University and create a scientifically accurate full sized replica of Rattlesnake Shelter. Alongside the replica, there can be a section of the exhibition space that discusses the access and landownership issue and provides visitors with information on which sites are publically accessible and which are not.

In Situ Conservation A museum cannot manage sites that it does not own. It can, however, educate visitors and researchers on the importance of in situ conservation of rock art sites. Once visitors and researchers become aware of the significance of rock art sites and the delicate balance between care and use, they are likely to gain a respect for these cultural resources. Once that respect is gained, they are more likely to treat a site with care. To accomplish this attitude chance, the museum can conduct workshops and educational

175

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 programs that emphasize rock art etiquette (how to visit a rock art site without causing damage). The museum can coordinate workshops for researchers and teach how to conduct condition assessments. Trained conservators can conduct the workshops and teach researchers how to identify natural and human agents of deterioration and how to address situations dealing with these agents.

Natural Agents of Deterioration A museum in the Lower Pecos region can carry out research to better understand natural agents of deterioration studies and be a source of information for this work. The museum can work with managing agencies to share knowledge of the effects that natural agents of deterioration can have on objects in a climate controlled setting, and assist with the application of methods used to determine conservation treatments appropriate for rock art sites. In addition, a museum can educate researchers on proper documentation techniques for natural agents of deterioration when, and when not to intervene.

Human Agents of Deterioration A museum can teach the public about the detrimental effects of vandalizing rock art sites by highlighting human agents of deterioration in exhibitions, educational programs, and printed material. An exhibition using the transformation paradigm can illustrate vandalism and how this human agent of deterioration affects Lower Pecos rock art sites and future research; and explain why it is important to prevent vandalism. A museum can explain why it is important for artifacts to be preserved in context so that attitudes and behaviors regarding rock art sites will change. A museum can also raise awareness of conservation issues by providing more hands-on educational programs similar to those provided by SHUMLA. The more that people are aware of the significance of rock art

176

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 and the detrimental effects that human agents have on it, the greater the chances are that sites will be conserved for future generations of researchers and visitors. Pamphlets, brochures, books, and other printed material addressing this issue can be produced and disseminated by the museum. Websites and other online media can also be used to disseminate information about this issue.

Recording Techniques The museum can create institutional standards for recording techniques and oversee these standards. It can also house the physical records generated from rock art studies using the standards for facilities and risk management recommended by the

American Association of Museums (AAM), and archival storage standards for records and other paper objects as recommended in the Museum Collections section of the

National Park Service‘s Museum Handbook. The museum can also create a database that houses information on all rock art sites in the Lower Pecos region and beyond as necessary. Differing levels of access to information in the database can be made available to researchers and the general public. For example, researchers can be given access to see location information of a site but the general public cannot.

Museum Preservation and the History of Collecting The LPMRA can create physical and/or virtual replicas of rock art sites as an alternative to collecting original panels. The museum can display these life-sized and/or partial replicas of rock art sites in exhibitions and discuss the history of collecting and rock art preservation in a section adjacent the replicas. If physical space in the museum is limited, a virtual replica can be constructed similar in nature to models created from 3D laser mapping, or the online versions of Lascaux and Chauvet Caves in France.

177

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Exhibits, Interpretation, and the Nature of Scholarly Investigation A LPMRA can exhibit and interpret information on Lower Pecos rock art. In an exhibition, the museum can present both traditional and ethnographic approaches to rock art research in an objective manner. The museum also can maintain and update information in its exhibitions as necessary based on evaluations of the exhibitions.

Once an exhibition is installed and open to the public, it must continue to meet the community‘s needs for information. If that information is outdated or insufficient the exhibit becomes static and visitors will learn nothing after their initial visit. As George

Brown Goode stated in Museums of the Future, ―A finished museum is a dead museum, and a dead museum is a useless museum‖ (Goode 2007, 445). To be useful, a museum must be a living, active institution of visual instruction that meets the ever-changing needs of society (Peniston 1999, 30 and 126).

Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the data collected and the findings analyzed, it is concluded that a

Lower Pecos Museum of Rock Art (LPMRA) can indeed assist conservation and interpretation of these irreplaceable and important regional resources. It is recommended that foundation of such an institution be explored by stakeholders such as local residents,

Native Americans, researchers, civic organizations, government agencies, and public and private non-profit organizations. Because Lower Pecos rock art resides on both sides of the border, cooperation between Mexico and the United States, and the states of Coahuila and Texas, should play a large role in how an LPMRA is envisioned.

Rock art sites worldwide face the same issues as those in the Lower Pecos region.

If an LPMRA is successful in its mission and goals, it is concluded that a world rock art museum, such as Clottes proposed, could assist in the conservation and interpretation of 178

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010 world rock art. This globally focused museum would serve as an archive of information on rock art, and be a center for training researchers, managers, rangers, and guides

(Clottes 2006, 9). This can be achieved through exhibition, interactive educational programs such as workshops, research conducted on the world‘s rock art, the issues facing its conservation and interpretation, and creating a database and collections facility that will conserve and interpret world rock art.

Suggestions for Future Research To improve the preservation and interpretation of rock art, further research should be conducted on several topics. For example, climate studies should be undertaken to measure the current rate of deterioration of rock art on a site-by-site basis and on a regional level. These should be coordinated with studies to further understand natural agents of deterioration that plague sites, including determining the effects of bacterial or algal growth on rock art, and analyses of rain water to determine whether pollution might be a factor (Silver 1985, 9). The methodological approaches used in determining conservation techniques for European murals could be applied to Lower Pecos rock art as

Silver (1985) suggested in her report. Detailed long term studies on how human agents of deterioration affect rock art should be undertaken in conjunction with conservation treatments designed to remove graffiti. The possibility of establishing standards for recording techniques, data collection, and archiving data and records should be explored.

Effective ways of maintaining the historical environments of rock art sites (methods of in situ conservation) should be pursued, along with sophisticated and efficient methods of physically protecting them (such as video cameras and motion detectors). The feasibility of producing virtual and life-sized replicas of rock art sites, such as those at Lascaux,

179

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Chauvet, and Altamira Caves, should be researched thoroughly. Finally, research into the feasibility of the establishment of a Lower Pecos Museum of Rock Art and a museum dedicated to the conservation and preservation of rock art around the world is highly recommended.

180

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

REFERENCE LIST

Acker, G. Elaine. 1996. Life in a rock shelter: Prehistoric Indians of the Lower Pecos. Dallas, TX: Hendrick-Long Publishing Company.

Allison, Jim. 2008. Personal communication with author. January-April.

Bahn, Paul G. 2001. Cloning Altamira: A replica of the famous cave to make its public debut. Archeology 54, no. 2 [March/April]:72-75.

Bass, Patricia M. 1989. The Pecos Project: Semiotic models for the study of rock art. PhD diss, Rice University.

Bell, Wayne and Elton R. Prewitt. 1970. National Register of Historic Places nomination form for the Lower Pecos Canyon District. National Parks Service form 10.300, National Park Service. July 1969.

Benarik, Robert, G. 2007. The removal of rock art. AURA Newsletter 24, no. 1 [October]: 1-8.

---. 2006. Theft of petroglyphs in Nevada. AURA Newsletter 23, no. 1 [May]: 4.

Black, Steve. 2004. Before Amistad. University of Texas at Austin, College of Liberal Arts. Online exhibition. http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/pecos/before.html [accessed January 23, 2008].

Black, Steve and Dr. J. Philip (Phil) Dering. 2001. Lower Pecos. University of Texas at Austin, College of Liberal Arts. Online exhibition. http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/pecos/index.html [accessed January 23, 2008 - present.].

Boyd, Carolyn E. 2006. Field methods in rock art manual. Part I: The anthropology and archeology of rock art. Lecture handout, SHUMLA, Comstock, TX. May 15.

---. 2003. Rock art of the lower Pecos. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.

Bywaters, Jerry and Alice Marriott. 1943. Indian pictographs in Texas: Paintings by Forrest Kirkland. Dallas, TX: Dallas Museum of Fine Arts.

181

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Campbell, T.N. 1958. Origin of the mescal bean cult. American Anthropologist 60, no. 1, part 1 [February]: 156-60. http://www.jstor.org/stable/665616.

Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI). 1994. Framework for preservation of museum collections. Poster. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Conservation Institute.

Chaffee, S.D. M. Hyman, and M.V. Rowe. 1994. Vandalism of rock art for enhanced photography. Studies in Conservation, 39, no. 3 (August). http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0039- 3630%28199408%2939%3A3%3C161%3AVORAFE%3E2.0.CO%3B2- E [accessed May 21, 2007.]

Chippendale, Christopher, Lawrence L. Loendorf, and David S. Whitley. 2005. Preface: The turtle painting from the Castle Gardens Site, Wyoming. In Discovering North American rock art, ed. Christopher Chippendale, Lawrence L. Loendorf, and David S. Whitley, ix. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

Clottes, Jean. 2002. World rock art. Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Conservation Institute.

---. 2006. Rock art today. Conservation: The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter 21, no. 3 [Fall]: 4-9. http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/newsletters/21_3/ [accessed January 2007].

CyArk. 2009. Technology: Laser scanning. CyArk. http://archive.cyark.org/laser-scanning-technology [accessed June 25, 2010].

Dean, David and Gary Edson. 1994. The handbook for museums. London: Routledge.

Dean, David. 2008. Email message to author. June 12.

Dean, David. 2005. MUSM 5331 class notes. Lubbock, Texas. Fall Semester.

---. 1994. Museum Exhibition: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.

Dean, J. Claire. 2008. Phone interview by author. March 27.

182

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

---. 2001. Condition needs assessment of three rock image sites, Seminole Canyon State Historical Park, Texas: 41VV83 “Panther Cave”, 41VV74 “Fate Bell”, and 41VV73 “Fate Bell Annex”. A report prepared for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site by Dean and Associates Conservation Services, Portland, Oregon.

---. 1997. The kokopelli dilemma: The use, abuse, and care of rock art. WAAC Newsletter, 19, no. 3 (September), http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/waac/wn/wn19/wn19-3/wn19-309.html [accessed November 8, 2007].

Dering, Phil. 2002. Amistad National Recreation Area: Archeological survey and cultural resource inventory. A report submitted to National Park Service Intermountain Cultural Resource Center, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Ebay. 2008. Texas arrowheads search. Ebay. http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=m38.l1313&_nkw=Texas+arr owheads&_sacat=See-All-Categories [accessed September 12, 2008].

Goode, George Brown. 2007. The Museums of the Future. Washington: Government Printing Office. [Orig. pub. 1891]. In The Report of the National Museum, 1888-89. Digitized version. http://books.google.com/books?id=xYIw944ZBhkC&dq=museums+of+th e+future&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0 [accessed June 1, 2007- October 13, 2008].

Gebhard, David. 1960. Prehistoric paintings of the Diablo Region: A preliminary report. Roswell: Roswell Museum and Art Center Publications in Art and Science, no. 3.

---. 1965. Prehistoric rock paintings of the Seminole Canyon area, Val Verde County, Texas. A report submitted to the National Park Service, Southwest Region. University of California, Santa Barbara.

Grieder, Terence. 1966. Periods in Pecos Style pictographs. American Antiquity 31, no. 5, part 1 [July]: 710-20. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2694495.

Hall, Dr. Grant. 2008. Email message to author. April 24.

Harper, Marilyn and Beth L Savage. 1993. My Property is important to America‘s heritage. What does that mean? Answers to questions for owners of historic properties. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Registrar of Historic Places. http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/myproperty/MyPrope rty.pdf [accessed September 29 - October 1, 2008]. 183

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Harrington, Missy. 2007. Email message to author. August 6.

---. 2008. Email message to author. January 21.

Hensley, Nyta. 2006. An examination of the effects of non-formal environmental education on program participants at the SHUMLA in Comstock, Texas. Directed research project report. San Marcos, Texas. May. http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/ [accessed May 22- 23, 2008].

Holmbund, Jim. 2009. Interview by author. Comstock, TX. October 28.

International Council of Museums (ICOM). 2001. ICOM statutes: Article 2: definitions. International Council of Museums. http://icom.museum/statutes.html#2 [accessed July 8, 2007-January 24, 2007].

Jackson, A.T. 1938. Picture writing of Texas Indians. Austin, TX: University of Texas.

Jackson, Marsha. 2010. Personal communication with author. September 15.

Johnson, Jessica S. 1999. Preservation: Getting started. In Museum handbook, Part I: Museum collections, National Park Service Museum Management Program, 3.1-3.26. Washington, DC: National Park Service Museum Management Program.

Johnson, Jessica S. and Sarah J. Wolf. 2001. Conservation Treatment. In Museum handbook, Part I: Museum collections, National Park Service Museum Management Program, 8.1-8.23. Washington, DC: National Park Service Museum Management Program.

Kelley, J. Charles. 1950. Atlatls, bows and arrows, pictographs, and the Pecos River Focus. American Antiquity 16, no. 1 [July]: 71-74. http://www.jstor.org/stable/276346.

---. 1974. Pictorial and ceramic art in the Mexican cultural littoral of the Chichimec Sea. In Art and Environment in Native America, edited by Mary Elizabeth King and Idris R. Taylor, Jr., 23-54. Special Publication of the Museum. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press.

184

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Kemp, Meg and Erin Tyson. 2005. Introducing lower pecos rock art. Texas Beyond History, University of Texas at Austin, College of Liberal Arts. Online exhibition. http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/plateaus/artistic/images/lpra.html [accessed September 15, 2008].

Kirkland, Forrest. 1938. A Description of Texas pictographs. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society 10, [September]: 11-38.

Kirkland, Forrest, and W.W. Newcomb, Jr. 1999. The rock art of Texas Indians. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. [Orig. pub. 1967.]

Labadie, Joe. 1994. Amistad National Recreation Area: Cultural resources study. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/amis/crs/index.htm [accessed January 23, 2008].

---. 2007. Email to Elton Prewitt. October 17.

Leaping Panther Shelter Notes. 2007. Field notes by author. Comstock, Texas. March 11.

Leica Geosystems AG. 2007. Leica ScanStation 2: Product specifications. Data sheet. http://www.leica- geosystems.com/downloads123/hds/hds/ScanStation/brochures- datasheet/Leica_ScanStation%202_datasheet_en.pdf [accessed June 25, 2010].

Lockwood, Mark and Timothy E. Roberts. 2005. Seminole Canyon StatePark and Historic Site resource management plan. Draft, version 2.1.

Loendorf, Larry. 2001. Rock Art Recording. In Handbook of rock art research, edited by David S. Whitley, 55-79. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Loubser, Jannie. 1990. Removals and in situ conservation: strategies and problems in rock art conservation at the National Museum, Bloemfontein. Pictogram 3, no. 1 [December]: 477-80.

Loubser, Johannes L. 2001. Management planning for conservation. In Handbook of rock art research, edited by David S. Whitley, 80-115. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

185

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Loubser, P.J. and J.H.P. van Aardt. 1979. Preservation of rock art: Installation of a drip system at the Beersheba Shelter, Griqualand East District. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 34, no. 129 [June]: 54-56. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038- 1969%28197906%2934%3A129%3C54%3APORAIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2- Z [accessed January 9, 2008.]

Matson, D.S. and A.H. Schroeder. 1965. A colony on the move: Gaspar Castaño de Sosa’s Journal, 1590-1591. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research.

Ministry of Culture and Communication. 1998. The Cave of Chauvet-Pont- D‘Arc. http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/en/index.html [accessed March 6, 2004 - May 23-25, 2008].

---. The Cave of Lascaux. Ministry of Culture and Communication.

Montgomery, Nola. 1989. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: Rock Art recording manual. Ed. George Zappler. Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Interpretation and Exhibits Branch.

Museum of Altamira. 2008. Museum. Museum of Altamira. http://museodealtamira.mcu.es/ingles/museo.html [accessed May 22-27, 2008].

Mystic Shelter Data Collection and Recording Day 3. 2009. Field notes by author. Comstock, Texas. May 16.

National Park Service. 1969. Master Plan: Proposed. Amistad National Recreation Area, Texas. N.p: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

National Park Service. 2007. How to see rock art. National Park Service, Amistad National Recreation Area. http://www.nps.gov/amis/historyculture/howtorockart.htm [accessed May 2008].

National Registrar for Historic Places. About us. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. http://www.nps.gov/nr/about.htm [accessed September 29-October 1, 2008].

Ouzman, Sven. 2006. Why ‗conserve‘? Situating southern African rock art in the here and now. In Of the past, for the future: Integrating archaeology and conservation, ed. Neville Agnew and Janet Bridgland, 346-52. Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Conservation Institute. 186

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Peniston, William A, ed. 1999. The new museum: Selected writings by John Cotton Dana. Wachington D.C.: American Association of Museums.

Prewitt, Elton R. 2007. Personal field journal entry. May 26.

---. 2008. Personal communication with author. September 10.

---. 2010. Personal communication with author. September 8.

Quillin, Ellen Schulz, and Bess Carroll Woolford. 1966. Archeology, an Old, Old Story. In The story of the Witte Memorial Museum 1920-1960. San Antonio, TX: San Antonio Museum Association.

Ralph, Ronald W. and Kay Sutherland. 1979. Pictographic conservation at Hueco Tanks State Historical Park: An initial experiment. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, El Paso, Texas.

Peel, Reeda. 2009. Assessment and the condition of the rock art at Meyers Spring. In Inventory and assessment of the prehistoric cultural resources at Meyers Spring, Terrell County, Texas, edited by Brett A. Houk, 17-34. Occasional papers in Archaeology, No. 1, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University.

Reichelt, David C. 2008. Pecos Rio Grande Museum of Early Man. http://www.pecosrio.com/home.HTM [accessed September 9, 2008].

Roberts, Timothy E. 2008. Email message to author. April 28.

---. 2004. Assessment and management plan for the rock imagery sites of Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site, Val Verde County, Texas. Austin, TX: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Cultural Resources Program.

Rock Art Research Institute. The RARI rock collections. Rock Art Research Institute. http://rockart.wits.ac.za/origins/index.php?section=120 [accessed November 9, 2007].

Rowe, Marvin W. 2001a. Dating by AMS Radiocarbon analysis. In Handbook of rock art research, edited by David S. Whitley, 139-66. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

---. 2001b. Physical and chemical analysis. In Handbook of rock art research, edited by David S. Whitley, 190-220. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

187

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Shafer, Harry J. 1980. Functional interpretations of the Lower Pecos archaic art. In Papers on the prehistory of northeastern Mexico and adjacent Texas, edited by Jeremiah F. Epstain, Carol Graves, and Thomas R. Hester, 107- 17. Special report for the Center for Archeological Research. San Antonio, TX: University of Texas.

Shafer, Harry S. and Jim Zintgraff. 1986. Ancient Texans: Rock art and lifeways along the lower Pecos. Austin, TX: Texas Monthly Press.

SHUMLA. 2009. Research projects: Lower Pecos rock art recording and preservation project. SHUMLA. http://www.shumla.org/programs/misc/RockArtRecording/index.htm [accessed May 25, 2010].

---. 2008. About SHUMLA. SHUMLA. http://www.shumla.org/about_shumla.htm [accessed April 1, 2008].

---. 2008. Museum exhibits. SHUMLA. http://shumla.org/museum_exhibits.htm [accessed April 1, 2008].

---. 2008. Paint-making experiment instructor‘s script for Pecos Experience.

---. 2008. Pecos river kids education curriculum. SHUMLA. http://www.shumla.org/participate/river_kids_curriculum.htm [accessed September 12, 2008].

---. 2008. Youth programs. SHUMLA. http://www.shumla.org/youth_programs.htm [accessed September 12, 2008].

Silver, Constance S. 1985. The rock art of Seminole Canyon State Historical Park: Deterioration and prospects for conservation. A report submitted to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Comstock, Texas.

Sobolik, Kristen Dee. 1991. Paleonutrition of the Lower Pecos region of the Chihuahuan Desert. Phd diss. Texas A&M University.

Stickney, Teddy Lou. 2008. Email message to author. August 15.

Stone, Thomas and Ian N.M. Wainwright. 1992. Graffiti plagues rock art sites. Canadian Conservation Institute, Conservation Information Database, http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/publications/cidb/view- document_e.aspx?Document_ID=112 [accessed May 3, 2007].

188

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Taylor, Herbert C. 1949. The archeology of the area about the mouth of the Pecos. Master‘s thesis, University of Texas.

Texas Archeological Steward Network. 2000. Texas Stewards Handbook. Austin: TASN, Archeology Division, Texas Historical Commission.

Texas Beyond History. 2008. About TBH. University of Texas at Austin, College of Liberal Arts. Online exhibition. http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/abouttbh/index.html [accessed October 6, 2008].

---. 2008. Hidden art. University of Texas at Austin, College of Liberal Arts. Online exhibition. http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/hueco/images/hidden.html [accessed August 24, 2008].

---. 2008. Hueco tanks. University of Texas at Austin, College of Liberal Arts. Online exhibition. http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/hueco/index.html [accessed August 24, 2008].

---. 2008. Rock art. University of Texas at Austin, College of Liberal Arts. Online exhibition. http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/pecos/art.html [accessed August 24, 2008].

Texas Historical Commission. 1997. Antiquities Code of Texas: Amended Sept. 1, 1997. 74th Legis., Title 9, Chapter 191 of Resource Code. Austin. http://www.thc.state.tx.us/rulesregs/RulesRegsPDF/AntiqCode.pdf [accessed September 29-October 1, 2008].

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2006. Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site, Comstock, Texas: Interpretive master plan.

---. 2008. Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/spdest/findadest/parks/seminole_canyon/ [accessed March - August 13, 2008].

The North San Antonio Times. 1989. Ancient cave paintings inspire art exhibit. The North San Antonio Times. May 25, 1989. 3.

The Rock Art Foundation. 2005. Our mission. The Rock Art Foundation. http://rockart.org/mission.html [accessed March 31, 2008].

189

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

---. 2008. Tours/Calendar. The Rock Art Foundation. http://www.fellowpages.org/rockart/tours.cfm [accessed March 31 - August 13, 2008].

The Witte Museum. 1989. New Visions from Rattlesnake Canyon. Exhibition brochure. Witte Museum.

---. 2004. Ancient Texan Technology Student Workshop Information. Witte Museum, (updated winter).

---. Last updated 2007. Public Programs: Daily Programs. The Witte Museum. http://www.wittemuseum.org/public_programs/dailyprograms.html [accessed February 27, 2007.]

Turpin, Solveig A. 1982. Seminole Canyon: The art and archeology. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin and Texas Archeological Society.

---. 1990. Rock art and hunter-gatherer archeology: A case study from sw Texas and northern Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 17, no. 3 [Autumn]: 263-81. http://www.jstor.org/stable/530022.

Turpin, Solveig A., and Jim Zintgraff. 1991. Pecos River rock art: A photographic essay. San Antonio, TX: S. McPherson Publishing Co.

Whitley, David S. 2001. Rock art and rock art research in a worldwide perspective: An introduction. In Handbook of rock art research, edited by David S. Whitley, 7-51. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Williams, Greg. 2008. Email message to author. September 6.

190

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

APPENDIX

The audio transcription in Seminole Canyon State Park and Historic Site, two interpretive text panels from the Witte Museum, and two interpretive signs from Panther and Parida Caves have been transcribed in this appendix.

Seminole Canyon State Park And Historic Site’s Audio Presentation Transcription The audio presentation found in the rock art gallery of Seminole Canyon‘s Man in the Lower Pecos exhibition is transcribed below.

Perhaps under the influence of powerful hallucinogens like the peyote cactus or the mescal bean, the desert dwellers decorated special places with paintings in black, red, and yellow. Their paints came from desert materials which they ground into powder and molded into crayons. By looking at the ancient art, we see a people concerned with the world of the desert and their relationships with it. Yet for a moment we can remove ourselves from our air conditioning and cool drinking fountains and see the country through the eyes of the artists, we enter a different world where every animal, plant, rock, and canyon are familiar landmarks. People who lived here knew the desert far better than any of us. It was a world that provided for those that understood it, but harshly punished those who challenged its laws. Primitive art can tell us much about its makers: the time they lived and their beliefs about the world around them. We see man-like figures, which may represent costumed magicians, dancers, or perhaps gods themselves. Magic may have been called on to appease the unseen forces thought to be causing hardships like a severe drought of a shortage of game. There are deer, sometimes pierced with arrows, powerful hunters armed with their weapons and an array of colors and costume. Much cannot be explained for like any art done by people from a different culture, the paintings had meaning that are lost to us and symbols we do not understand. The art may have also fulfilled many different purposes for its makers. Perhaps they are accounted myths, or decorated the rock shelter home, or was done simply for amusement. But whatever purposes or reasons the art was done, it offers an opportunity to look at the world through the eyes of the artists who died perhaps before the pyramids of Egypt were built.

The Witte Museum’s Ancient Texans Text Panels Transcriptions for the ―Shamanism‖, ―Interpretation‖, and ―Magnificent Rock

Paintings‖ text panels are provided below.

191

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

“Shamanism” Text Panel The rock art of the Lower Pecos dates to at least 4,000 years ago and depicts the rich and complex spiritual life of the people who lived there. Their religion is known as shamanism, the belief system of hunting and gathering people around the world. Shamanistic cultures tell of a time long ago when all things, living and inanimate, human and animal, shared a cosmic soul and moved easily between the world of the flesh and of the spirit. When this ability was lost, only a chosen few, the shamans, could make the perilous journey to the other world—a world filled with spirits and powers. In the spirit world, the shamans, as religious leaders, intercede with the supernatural forces for the well-being of the members of their communities. A shaman is able to enter the spirit world through altered states of consciousness attained by dancing, drumming, whirling, fasting, or by drug ingestion. Physical manifestations of altered states of consciousness include sensations of soaring, flying and falling. The shaman experiences visions and, while on his spirit journey, may encounter supernatural figures in human or animal form as well as creatures not found in nature.

“Interpretation” Text Panel In addition to a number of spirit helpers, each shaman has at least one guardian animal spirit which is the fundamental source of the shaman‘s power. The power animal gives to the shaman the mastery of transformation, especially the ability to change from a human to his power animal. A transformation in progress can be seen in the small shaman figure in the left bottom corner of the painting who wears the antlers of his guardian spirit, the deer. The clawed hands and feet of the white shaman in the center of the painting announces his affiliation with his power animal, the feline. The white shaman spreads his arms like wings; feathers emerge from his arms; he rises. Above him looms the millipedic monster, obstructing his entry into the other world. Spearthrowers float close by, ready to aid the shaman in the challenges that lie ahead. Further up, beyond the monster, fly shamans with unbound hair. Their loosened hair provides immunity against sinister forces. One of the shamans has an exposed spine, symbolizing spiritual death and rebirth from the bones. Two shamans with their hair streaming down flank the white shaman. Their journey is almost over and they fall back to earth from the spirit world.

Magnificent Rock Paintings” Text Panel MAGNIFICANT ROCK PAINTINGS (pictographs) embellish the walls of the shelters and overhangs clustered along the lower canyons near the mouth of the Pecos River. The identities of the artists are not known. Probably, though, most of them were shamans, the recognized authorities of the human soul. The large anthropomorphs (human-like figures) dominating many of the panels may represent shamans or supernatural beings. This art reflects the view prehistoric man had of himself and the world around him. The images were painted not ―for 192

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

art‘s sake,‖ but rather as essential components of different rituals. Perhaps they were painted to pacify supernatural spirits, or to ensure success in hunting, or the continued fertility of both humans and animals. Undoubtedly they played an important role in a young man‘s initiation into manhood. The shelter walls, when first seen, appear to be a jumble of paintings, because one image has been painted over another. This overpainting suggests that the paintings themselves were not sacred, rather it was the ceremony that accompanied the painting that was important. These ceremonial gatherings helped to promote group solidarity, and the rock art recorded and reinforced the traditions of the people.

Panther Cave On-site Exhibition The transcript of the interpretive sign ―Panther Pictograph‖ at Panther Cave is provided below.

“Panther Pictograph” Interpretive Sign

What do these paintings mean? Most hunting and gathering societies were led by a shaman – a social, political, or spiritual leader. The shaman was responsible for conducting spiritual activities. Perhaps a local shaman painted Panther Cave as part of hunting magic, religious depictions, or life event ceremonies. Will we ever know what these ancient artists were saying? Probably not, since the Lower Pecos Culture is extinct. There are many theories to explain rock art. Most compare the prehistoric designs with symbolisms used by other cultures. For example, Lower Pecos pictographs include patterns and colors seen in Huichol Indian art from central Mexico. There are also similarities to designs found in Southwestern rock art and pictographs in southern Baja California. Can the similarities be explained by cultural connections or merely coincidence? Where the Lower Pecos people related to other groups, or do unrelated cultures share similar icons and symbols? Today, these paintings are admired because they‘ve lasted thousands of years. In some cultures, art is spiritually important only at the moment of its creation. It is possible, however, that these pictographs were the Lower Pecos people‘s record of events or ideas. Since we don‘t know who the Pecos people‘s modern descendents are, the paintings‘ original meanings were lost when their society died.

193

Texas Tech University, Stephanie M. Mueller, December 2010

Parida Cave On-Site Exhibition The transcript for the interpretive sign ―Rock Art of the Lower Pecos Region‖ located at Parida Cave is provided below.

“Rock Art of The Lower Pecos Region” Interpretive Sign The most distinctive thing the ancient Texans left us is the rock art on many of these cave and canyon walls. These remarkable assemblages of costumed figures, animals, geometric designs, and other difficult-to-identify objects that are found in the rock shelters along the Pecos, Rio Grande, and Devils rivers are truly unique. Although we cannot accurately date these paintings, it is thought that they extend far back in the 10,000 years of human settlement in the region. Inscriptions extend into the historic period, including messages left here in Parida Cave by the railroad construction crews in 1888. The pigments used in these paints were derived by crushing minerals into powder: ochre, an iron oxide, provided red, orange, and yellow; manganese oxide yielded black; and clay yielded white. The powdered pigments were mixed with a liquid binder, probably animal fat, and applied to the wall with brushes made from plants or with fingers. A curious characteristic is that in many places earlier images were overpainted with later ones. What do they mean? We can identify some objects such as humans and animals, but others are not easily recognizable. Even if we recognize an object— say, a deer—we can only guess at the artist‘s purpose in painting it. Does the art have religious significance? Was it created as part of a ceremony of life cycle event? Was it to record a significant incident? Or was it just art for the sake of art? The artists and their world are gone, so we cannot be certain what they intended. What is clear, even if we can‘t read the meaning of these paintings, is that art and artistic expression were important to the people who lived here, and that they left us as a wonderful collection of their works.

194