Steven J. Manning AN HYPOTHESIS FOR A IV DATE FOR THE BARRIER CANYON STYLE

The existence of a rock art style distinct from Barrier Canyon Style to the earliest known that of the Fremont or Anasazi, as found in occupation, i.e., Archaic. In a later publica- the northern half of the Plateau, was tion she refined this date, "...the Barrier first hypothesized by Schaafsma (1971). Canyon Style falls late in the Archaic se- Schaafsma proposed that this style be named quence. It may have been, in part at least, The Barrier Canyon Style after the name of contemporaneous with the Anasazi Basket- the canyon where the most numerous, and makers to the South, and a rough tentative perhaps the best examples, are located. dating between 500 B.C. and A.D. 500 is suggested" (Schaafsma 1980:70). The Barrier Canyon Style has neither been positively dated nor unequivocally ascribed The purpose of this paper is to present to any culture. There are two reasons for this evidence that formulates and substantiates a (in addition to there being an absence of hypothesis that the majority of the presently direct dating methods). First, there is a lack of known Barrier Canyon Style pictographs clearly defined association with distinctly were painted, not in Archaic times, but in datable artifact material. It appears that all approximately the Pueblo IV period — A.D. Barrier Canyon Style rock art sites with 1300 to 1600. associated artifact materials, thus far investi- gated, show mixed occupations, i.e., combi- The first possibility for determining the age nations of Fremont, Basketmaker and Pueblo of the Barrier Canyon Style from elements (Gunnerson 1957, 1969; Lucius 1976; appearing in the paintings is suggested by one Steward 1941). anthropomorphic figure in a panel located in a side canyon of Barrier Canyon. It was Second, there is an apparent lack of any recorded in 1973 and has site number datable or identifiable elements appearing in 42WN369. (The location given in the the paintings. Schaafsma (1971:129) ob- original site report is in error. The site is served that, "Because of the heavy emphasis located about two miles south of the de- on anthropomorphic representation, very few scribed location.) An anthropomorph in the objects are portrayed in the paintings. It is of panel (see Figure 1A) has been popularly considerable interest that the bow and arrow, named the Blue-eyed Princess. An adjacent which is commonly represented in Fremont anthropomorph (see Figure 1B) appears to art, is absent in all recorded examples of the have suspended from its waist a fox pelt Barrier Canyon Style". Schaafsma therefore pendant. concluded that the Barrier Canyon Style pictographs predated the introduction of the The fox pelt pendant appears widely in bow and arrow into , which she states modern Pueblo rites, and its use is well took place approximately at A.D. 650 to 700. documented by early investigators throughout the Southwest; for example, it is a common Citing these and other evidences, and also feature at Zuni, Shipaulovi, Acoma, Walpi, noting similarities to the Archaic Pecos River Taos and Jemez. (Stephen 1936; Parsons paintings of Texas, Schaafsma attributed the 1939; Bourke 1884 and many others). If the

Utah Rock Art, Volume 1, Page 29 date of the introduction of the fox pelt pendants attached, which appear to be a fox pendant into the Colorado Plateau and into pelt. If this interpretation is correct, it would the Pueblo ceremonies could be ascertained, indicate that a large number, perhaps the it would form the basis for dating these majority, of presently known Barrier Canyon pictographs. Unfortunately, this has not been Style pictographs are associated with the fox studied nor determined. pelt pendant and are therefore of Pueblo IV origin. Its introduction, however, appears to have been recent, because these pendants have not These hypothetical dates are, of course, been described as appearing on walls at based upon the correctness of Awatovi, where occupation is dated at A.D. the interpretation of the pendant illustrated in 1375 to 1500, and Pottery Mound, where the pictographs. It has been suggested that occupation is dated at A.D. 1300 to 1450 the pendant in the pictographs could represent (Hibben 1975; Smith 1952:xii). Furthermore, the white sash commonly found in Pueblo no examples of fox pelt pendants appear to kiva murals, but this is probably not correct, have been reported on earlier elaborately because the artists possessed white paint and decorated, Sikyatki pottery (Fewkes 1919), used it at 42WN369. If the pendant was nor on Mimbres Pottery, dated at A.D. 1100 intended to be a white sash, they most likely to 1200 (Brody 1977). From this informa- would have portrayed it with white paint. tion, it would appear that the fox pelt pendant Additionally, this difference in interpretation entered into the Pueblo religious ceremonies does not radically affect this indicated late at these sites sometime after A.D. 1500. date, because the white sash is as much a part Somewhat substantiating this late date is the of the Katchina costume as is the fox pelt observation by Parsons that the fox pelt pendant. Unlike the fox pelt pendant, how- pendant is characteristically associated with ever, the white sash is commonly found in the Katchina ceremonial costume (Parsons kiva wall paintings dated in the Pueblo IV 1939). It is therefore assumed that the period. pendant was either incorporated into the Anasazi religion at the same time as the These pictographic examples alone did not Katchina tradition or at a later date. Schaaf- provide sufficient documentation to formulate sma and Schaafsma (1974) suggest that the hypothesis that many of the Barrier Anasazi incorporation of the Katchina cult Canyon Style paintings dated as late as the took place between A.D. 1325 and 1350 Pueblo IV period. Additional information (This date has not yet been substantiated by indicated that this hypothesis had merit and archaeological findings). appeared to substantiate it. This paper will briefly cover five substantiative points. The Although all the above information does not examples presented here are not comprehen- provide an exact date, it does indicate a time sive. Others are known, but limitation of frame in the Pueblo IV period for the intro- space prevents their inclusion. duction of the fox pelt pendant into the Katchina Cult and, therefore, a correspond- The first point: The very position and nature ing, or even later time, for the painting of the of Barrier Canyon Style Pictographs argue Barrier Canyon Style pictographs found at the against their great antiquity. Almost all the 42WN369 site. Barrier Canyon Style panels are found in exposed positions on cliff faces and not deep Other Barrier Canyon Style pictographs also caves; and since almost all examples of this have been found in Barrier Canyon, the San style are paintings, the erosive properties of Rafael Reef and Buckhorn Wash that have sand, wind and rain would be expected to

Steven Manning, Dating Barrier Canyon Style, Page 30

quite rapidly erase this fragile paint. They rock face are so faint that they are now would weather many times more rapidly than almost indiscernible. There is no evidence petroglyphs. That these pictographs appear that Mr. Fausett "enhanced" the figures on his as distinct as they do in their exposed loca- canvas and did not accurately portray them. tions suggests that they are of relatively It is interesting that Pearl Baker, who grew up recent origin. Noticeable weathering of near Horseshoe Canyon and visited the site several of these pictographs has been ob- many times, said concerning this panel, "It served since their discovery and documenta- seems to me that the figures are not as bright tion, which further suggests that some are not as they were forty or fifty years ago..." (Baker very old. Unfortunately, not many Barrier 1976:152). Canyon Style sites were known 20 or 30 years ago, and accurate photographs of sites (4) A comparison of photographs taken by that could be used for study, that have not the author in 1968 at Thompson Wash with been vandalized, are almost non-existent. those taken again in 1981, and a re- Four specific examples of what I call historic examination of the panel, indicates a general weathering are given here. fading of the pictographs, apparently due to weathering. (1) At a Barrier Canyon Site in North Wash called the "Moki Queen" is a zoomorph. It These examples of historical weathering was first reported and photographed in 1932 indicate that these pictographs are eroding by Julian H. Steward (1941:Plate 128A). away at a visible rate. Their distinct appear- Although faded, you could still see four legs, ance of several of the panels suggests that ears and a muzzle in his photograph. In 1979 they were painted in the very recent past and no evidence remained of these features. Dr. not 2000 or more years ago. Castleton, describing the site said, "The other figure, also painted in red, has an oval body The second point: Another indication of a with a head and tail. It has been referred to as late date for the Barrier Canyon Style is a dog, bird or six legged duck, despite the found in the fact that they are almost exclu- fact that no legs are visible!" (Castleton sively pictographs; very few are petroglyphs. 1979:136, figure 4.1, also personal observa- A change in Pueblo graphic arts that appears tion). to have taken place in the Pueblo II through IV periods may account for this difference. (2) At a site in Horse Canyon called the "Bird This change was due to the development of a Site" or "Harvest Scene" there appears a new religious entity — the kiva wall paint- small but very detailed painting (Schaafsma ings. The first paintings occurred at ap- 1971:Figure 77). The small figures have proximately A.D. 1000 in the Pueblo II weathered so badly since E. J. Bird first period (A.D. 800 to 1100). Four well-known copied them, approximately 20 years ago, early sites with Kiva wall painting are: (1) that they are now almost gone (Personal Alkali Ridge, Utah (Brew 1946); (2) near observation). Cortez, Colorado (Prudden 1914); (3) in Mancos Canyon, Colorado (Jackson 1875) (3) In the Museum of Natural History at the and (4) in Chaco Canyon, New University of Utah, there is a copy of the (Ingersoll 1877). Kiva wall paintings grew large panel called the "Great Gallery" that is gradually in complexity as they spread in Barrier Canyon. It was painted by Lynn throughout the Pueblo region, where they Fausett as a public works project in 1940. appear to have culminated at the artistic, There are two figures near the center of the intricate, and beautiful paintings at Pottery panel that appear in the painting, but on the Mound, Awatovi, etc.

Utah Rock Art, Volume 1, Page 31 appear to be related. Some specific compara- The Introduction of kiva wall paintings led to tive examples are: the development of greatly improved painting techniques, such as: fine detailed lines, great (A) The rain cloud symbol appears in Barrier complexity, pigments of many different Canyon Style panels in Barrier Canyon (from colors, etc. Barrier Canyon Style Pictographs author's photographs in 1972; Smith 1980), exhibit these same characteristics. Even the and in the Maze district of Canyonlands same colors were used, e.g., reds, oranges, National Park (Lucius 1976). The rain cloud greens, purples, and whites. When kiva wall symbol is found in common use throughout painting became an accepted practice in the the modern Southern Colorado Plateau Pueblo areas, this influence may have spread (Mallery 1893). The rain cloud to the Barrier Canyon Style artists, and they symbol has not been reported as appearing in could have turned from the mediums of Fremont rock art, nor in Anasazi rock art in pecking, incising, and chiseling to painting. Anasazi occupation areas of Utah, yet it Kiva wall painting was in full swing in the appears several times in the Barrier Canyon 1400's and 1500's, at the time when it is Style in Utah. Thus it would appear that the hypothesized in this paper that the majority of rain cloud symbol came into common use in the Barrier Canyon Style pictographs would the Colorado Plateau, and among the have been painted. and pueblos, after Anasazi "abandonment", or lessening of the popula- The third point: Schaafsma observed that tion in Utah, which took place about A.D. the design and technique of the Barrier 1200 to 1300. Canyon Style appeared to exhibit a sophisti- cation not found in other rock art in the (B) An anthropomorph adjacent to the "Blue- Colorado Plateau (Schaafsma 1971). This eyed Princess" has a chevron torso decora- has an important implication. This observa- tion. Multiple chevron torso decorations tion suggests that these pictographs would have not been reported as occurring in Utah have been painted late in time, during what is Fremont or Anasazi rock art (Castleton 1978, considered to be the cultural apex of the 1979), but have been found as a decorative inhabitants of the Colorado Plateau, and not element in New Mexico and Arizona pueblos in Archaic times. The cultural height of these (Fewkes 1919). inhabitants was reached in the Pueblo IV period. (C) The unusual and distinctive eye treatment of a figure called "The Great Ghost" (indeco- Also an important consideration is that if the rously called by some "The Holy Ghost") in Barrier Canyon Style was superior to others the Barrier Canyon, finds a close parallel in in the area, did some outside culture have a Canyon de Chelly in Arizona (Grant 1978). direct influence on the artists, or did the The Arizona figure is in proximity with artists come from somewhere else or did they Pueblo IV material. develop this "sophistication" by themselves? Possible answers to these questions will be (D) On another anthropomorph near the discussed below. "Blue-eyed Princess" there appears to be a representation of a "squash blossom" hair The fourth point: There are many similari- style (Figure 1C). Schaafsma also suggested ties between the Barrier Canyon Style and the appearance of an example of this hair rock art associated with Anasazi Pueblo IV style on a Barrier Canyon Style pictograph in material reported as occurring only in Ari- Black Dragon Canyon. This is an Anasazi zona and New Mexico; and, therefore, they Pueblo characteristic, and indicates a strong

Steven Manning, Dating Barrier Canyon Style, Page 32

association of the Barrier Canyon Style artists Cult of the Pueblo Indians, as reported from with the late Pueblo culture. ethnographic data recorded in the historic Pueblo V period of A.D. 1540 (when the first (E) There are a large number of birds that Europeans came into contact with the Indi- appear in the Barrier Canyon Style paintings. ans) to the present time. Two examples are This stands in contrast to the relatively small given here. number of birds on other rock art panels in the Northern Colorado Plateau. The follow- (1) Figures holding snakes: Anthropomor- ing may account for this difference. phic figures holding snakes appear at major Barrier Canyon Style rock art sites. Figures In the Developmental Pueblo period, there appearing with snakes are found on numerous began to be an increased interest in birds in rock art panels in the Colorado Plateau, but Pueblo ritual and ceremony. Hamilton A. only in the Barrier Canyon Style are they Tyler in Pueblo Birds and Myths said, commonly found holding snakes in their hands. The Pueblos have been watching their birds for centuries and during that time These pictographs exhibit a striking resem- have incorporated these creatures into blance to snake dance ceremonies every aspect of community life. where snakes are held in the hands of per- Even…mundane tasks…require the formers (Hough 1902). A relationship presentation of feathers from particular between the Barrier Canyon Style Picto- birds, while in the rituals that support graphs and the Hopi Snake Dance has also religious cremonialism, birds and their been suggested by Martineau (1973). feathers become counters that keep a complex symbol system in order. As (2) In 1899 Fewkes collected a series of signs, birds relate to goods, act as mes- drawings made by native Hopi artists of sengers between men and gods, or Katchina figures. There are some striking stand as signals between man and man. similarities between these drawings and the As a part of the surrounding world, Barrier Canyon Style pictographs. This birds relate to all manner of natural comparison becomes very impressive when phenomena and to weather control [Ty- the meaning of the Katchina figures is ler 1979]. understood. Fewkes said, "The Hopi Indians represent their gods in several ways, one of The existence of many birds in the pictograph which is by personation — by wearing masks panels, and the importance given to them by or garments bearing symbols that are re- the Barrier Canyon Style artists, suggest that garded as characteristic of those beings" these artists were participants with the (Fewkes 1903). Some figures of the Barrier Pueblos in the incorporation of birds into Canyon Style, especially those of The Great their social and religious orders. Since this Gallery, appear to represent the symbols incorporation took place sometime after A.D. depicted on these masks and clothing and 1300 the implication is, that the Barrier may well represent early Katchina figures. Canyon Style pictographs would have been Additionally, the Barrier Canyon figures painted during or following the Pueblo IV appear to be in parade formation, with period. individual figures standing alone, much the same as a Katchina ceremony. The fifth point: There are numerous similari- ties between figures in the Barrier Canyon All the above evidence points toward a Style pictographs and figures in the Katchina conclusion that some, perhaps many, of the

Utah Rock Art, Volume 1, Page 33 Barrier Canyon Style pictographs date more had no kiva walls to paint, so instead placed recently than archaic times, and that there their paintings upon cliff walls. was a definite and close association between the late Arizona and New Mexico Pueblo We are here faced with numerous specula- Anasazi culture and the Barrier Canyon Style tions about who these artists were and where artists. What exactly this association was and they came from. These speculations will how it functioned are not completely clear at remain just speculations until more archaeo- this time. Neither is the question of who logical data is gathered. were the Barrier Canyon Style artists. Perhaps they were Fremont people who Another explanation that the data presented abandoned Central Utah in the general here does not refute, is that some of the exodus around A.D. 1300, to live with the characteristics of the Katchina Cult — the fox Pueblo people in the Northern Arizona—New pelt pendant, the rain cloud symbol, etc. — Mexico area for a time, and then returned could have been developed by the Barrier periodically to paint on the cliffs symbols of a Canyon artists and taken by them, in the newly acquired religious belief. Or perhaps Pueblo IV period, to the Southern Pueblos. they were painted by Anasazi Pueblo people who left Northern Arizona in Pueblo IV The late date hypothesized in this paper for times, to travel throughout the Northern the Barrier Canyon Style may be very diffi- Colorado Plateau. Or perhaps a more plausi- cult to substantiate for two reasons: ble explanation is that they were painted by people who never left. Archaeologists have (1) If conditions in the Colorado Plateau, at told us that this region of the Northern the time the pictographs were painted, were Colorado Plateau underwent complete as Jennings (1978) postulates, that is, a abandonment by the Fremont and Anasazi change of the climate, which forced a corre- people during the years A.D. 1200 to 1300 sponding change in the cultural subsistence (Jennings 1978:235, Wormington 1947:80, patterns, back to a nomadic hunting-gathering and others); and that no one else was in the way of life, away from farming, permanent area until the Shoshoni language speakers dwelling construction and difficult-to-move came in the 1600's, i.e., the Ute, the Piute and implements; then evidence of this culture the Gosiute (Goss 1965). would be difficult to find, identify, and date.

That idea has been questioned by several (2) Vandalism poses a very real threat to the investigators (Rudy 1953:169; Taylor gathering of information. Publicity, the 1957:163-6; Cordell and Plog 1979:418). public's interest in antiquities, ease of access, This area may not have been completely more off-road vehicles, all have increased abandoned. It is much more likely that there vandalism and artifact collecting to devastat- was instead a very large reduction in the ing proportions in the Northern Colorado population. A few hardy people likely Plateau. Many of the Barrier Canyon Style remained, people who could have been the painting sites are now heavily visited. Sites Barrier Canyon Style artists. These people in Buckhorn Wash and Thompson Wash are could easily have been in contact with the badly vandalized. An attempt to totally Pueblo culture to the south, and they could destroy some Barrier Canyon Style picto- have been influenced by the thriving graphs in Courthouse Wash was recently Katchina Cult. These people did not, perhaps made. Black Dragon Canyon pictographs could not, because of economic conditions have been repeatedly defaced with heavy (drought, sparse food supply, etc.), build chalking. Sites in Horseshoe Canyon, the permanent dwelling places, and, therefore, Maze District, and the San Rafael Reef are

Steven Manning, Dating Barrier Canyon Style, Page 34

now showing signs of vandalism. If Barrier 1979 Escaping the Confines of Norma- Canyon Style rock art is of recent origin, then tive Thought: A Reevaluation of cultural material needed to date these picto- Puebloan Prehistory. American An- graphs would most likely be found on or near tiquity 44(3):405-429. the surface. It is these easily visible artifacts that people collect that are vanishing rapidly. Fewkes, J. Walter At the present rate of destruction, in a few 1903 Hopi Katchinas Drawn by Native years, no untouched Barrier Canyon Style Artists. Bureau of American Eth- sites with datable artifacts will remain. nology, 21st Annual Report, pp. 3- 126, Washington, D.C. It is our responsibility to make a complete 1919 Designs of Prehistoric Hopi Pot- and accurate record of these sites if we find tery. Bureau of American Ethnol- them—without disturbing any artifacts—and ogy, 33rd Annual Report, pp. 207- report them to the appropriate land manage- 284. Washington, D.C. ment agency—and also to the State Antiqui- ties Office—before they are totally destroyed Grant, Campbell and the recordable information lost forever. 1978 Canyon de Chelly, It's People and Rock Art. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

REFERENCES CITED Goss, James A. 1965 Ute Linguistics and Anasazi Aban- Baker, Pearl donment of the Area. 1976 Robbers Roost Recollections. Utah American Antiquity 31(2):73-81. State University Press, Logan. Gunnerson, James H. Bourke, John G. 1957 An Archaeological Survey of the 1884 The Snake Dance of the Moquis of Fremont Area. University of Utah Arizona. Reprinted 1962, Rio Anthropological Papers, No. 28. Grande Press, Chicago. Salt Lake City. Brew, J. O. 1969 The : A Study in 1946 Archaeology of Alkali Ridge, Culture Dynamics on the Northern Southeastern Utah. Peabody Mu- Anasazi Frontier. Papers of the seum, Harvard University, Vol. 21. Peabody Museum of Archaeology Cambridge. and Ethnology, Harvard Univer- sity, Vol. 59, No. 2, Cambridge. Brody, J. J. 1977 Mimbres Painted Pottery. Univer- Hibben, Frank C. sity of New Mexico Press, Albu- 1975 Kiva Art of the Anasazi at Pottery querque. mound, New Mexico. K. C. Publi- cations, Las Vegas, Nevada. Castleton, Kenneth B. Hough, Walter 1978-79 Petroglyphs and Pictographs of 1902 The Moki Snake Dance. The Pas- Utah. Utah Museum of Natural senger Department, The Santa Fe History, 2 vols, Salt Lake City. Route, Chicago.

Cordell, Linda S., and Fred Plog Ingersoll, Ernest

Utah Rock Art, Volume 1, Page 35 1877 Village Indians of New Mexico. 1953 Archaeological Survey of Western American Geographical Society Utah. University of Utah. Anthro- Journal 7:114-126. pological Papers, No. 12. Salt Lake City. Jackson, William H. 1875 Ancient Ruins in Southwestern Schaafsma, Polly Colorado. Bulletin of United States 1971 The Rock Art of Utah. Papers of the Geographical and Geological Sur- Peabody Museum of Archaeology vey of the Territories. 2nd Series, and Ethnology, Harvard Univer- No. 1, pp. 17-30. Washington, sity, Vol. 65. Cambridge. D.C. 1980 Indian Rock Art of the Southwest. School of American Research, Jennings, Jesse D. Santa Fe, University of New Mex- 1978 Prehistory of Utah, and the Eastern ico Press, Albuquerque. Great Basin. University of Utah Anthropological Papers, No. 98. Schaafsma, Polly and Curtis F. Schaafsma Salt Lake City. 1974 Evidence for the Origin of the Pueblo Katchina Cult as Suggested Lucius, William A. by Southwestern Rock Art. Ameri- 1976 Archaeological Investigations in can Antiquity 39:535-545. the Maze District Canyonlands Na- Smith, Gary and M. E. Long tional Park, Utah. Antiquities Sec- 1980 Utah's Rock Art: Wilderness Lou- tion Selected Papers, Vol, 3, No. vre. National Geographic 157:94- 11. Utah State Historical Society, 117. Salt Lake City. Smith, Watson Mallery, Garrick 1952 Kiva Mural Decorations at Awatovi 1893 Picture Writing of the American and Kawaika-a with a Survey of Indians. Bureau of American Eth- Other Wall Paintings in the Pueblo nology, 10th Annual Report, Southwest. Papers of the Peabody Washington, D.C. Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard Univer- Martineau, LaVan sity, Vol. 37, Cambridge. 1973 The Rocks Begin To Speak. K.C. Publications, Las Vegas, Nevada. Stephen, Alexander M. 1936 Hopi Journal of Alexander M. Parsons, Elsie C. Stephen. 2 vols. Edited by Elsie 1939 Pueblo Indian Religion. 2 vols, Clews Parsons. Columbia Contri- University of Chicago Press, Chi- butions to Anthropology, Vol. 23, cago. Columbia University Press, New York. Prudden, T. M. 1914 The Circular of Small Ruins Steward, Julian H. in the San Juan Watershed. Ameri- 1941 Archaeological Reconnaissance of can Anthropologist, N.S., 16(1):33- Southern Utah, Bureau of Ameri- 58. can Ethnology, Bulletin 128:275- 368. Rudy, Jack R.

Steven Manning, Dating Barrier Canyon Style, Page 36

Taylor, Dee C. 1957 Two Fremont Sites and Their Posi- Wormington, H. Marie tion In Southwestern Prehistory. 1947 Prehistoric Indians of the South- University of Utah Anthropologi- west. The Denver Museum of cal Paper No. 29. Salt Lake City. Natural History, Popular Series No. 7. Denver. Tyler, Hamilton A. 1979 Pueblo Birds and Myths. Univer- sity of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Utah Rock Art, Volume 1, Page 37

Figure 1 42Wn369, "The Blue-eyed Princess" Panel.

Steven Manning, Dating Barrier Canyon Style, Page 38