An Hypothesis for a Pueblo Iv Date for the Barrier Canyon Style
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Steven J. Manning AN HYPOTHESIS FOR A PUEBLO 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 Colorado 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 Utah, 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 kiva 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.