James L. SWAUGER,

THE 1975 POWDERMILL AND PICTOGRAPH CONFERENCE

Carnegie Museum of Natural History convened a 1975 Powdermill Petroglyph and Pictograph Conference to consider the state of knowledge and directions of future research concerning such phenomena in the United States east of the Mississippi River at its Powdermill Nature Reserve fifty miles southeast of Pittsburgh near Ligonier, , during the period 19 through 24 May 1975. This project was supported by a grant from the National Endowment forthe Arts in Washington, D.C., a Federal agency.

The following participated: 1. Dr. Emmanuel Anati, Director, Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici, 2504 Capo di Ponte, Valcamonica (Brescia), Italy. 2. Dr. Adelaide Bullen, Florida State Museum, Museum Road, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32601, USA. 3. Dr. Ripley Bullen, address as above. 4. John K. Clegg, Department of Anthropology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 5. Dr. Fred E. Coy, Jr., Costigan, Riley and Coy, Medical Arts Building, 1169 Eastern Parkway, Louisville, Kentucky 40217, USA. 6. Selwyn Dewdney, 27 Erie Avenue, London, Ontario, Canada N6J 1H9. 7. Tom Fuller, 1247 South Floyd Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40203, USA. 8. Campbell Grant, 1880 Cravens Lane, Carpinteria, Calif. 93013, USA 9. Vera Jane Hoffman, 334 South Edgewood Ave., Somerset, Pa. 15501, USA. 10. Dr. Barry Kent, State Anthropologist, William Penn Memorial Museum, 3rd & North Streets, Harrisburg, Pa. 17120, USA. 11. Duane King, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA. 12. Sigfus Olafson, 507 Kanawha Avenue, Madison, West Virginia 25130, USA. 13. John Reese, 212 West Main Street, Ligonier, Pa. 15658, USA. 14. Patricia Vinnicombe Carter, c/o Vinnicombe, "West Isley," Unterberg, Natal, South Africa, and 11 Brookside Toft, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 15. Birgitta L. Wallace, formerly of Carnegie Museum, now at the Research Division, National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, 1600 Liverpool Court, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada KlA OH4.

16. Alan R. Woolworth, Chief Archeologist, Minnesota Historical Society, Building No. 27, Fort © Del documento, los autores. Digitalización realizada por ULPGC. Biblioteca, 2017 Snelling, St. Paul, Minnesota 55111, USA. 17. Dr. Don W. Dragoo, Curator, Section of Man, Carnegie Museum, Anthropology Center, P.O. Box 28, Meridian Station, Butler, Pa. 16001, USA. 18. Richard L. George, Research Assistant, Section of Man, address as immediately above. 19. Dr. James L. Swauger, Associate Director, Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15213, USA.

Sessions were attended by interested observers: Dr. and Mrs. M. Graham Netting (Dr. Netting being the recently retired Director of Carnegie Museum); Lawrence C. Woods, Jr., at the time of the Conference Acting Director, Carnegie Museum, as well as being the recently retired Chairman of the Committee on the Museum of the Board of Trustees of Carnegie Institute; Mrs. Ingrid Rhea, a member of the Committee on the Museum of the Board of Trustees and Chairman of the Powdermill Committee of Carnegie Museum, along with her daughter, Vicki; Adolf and Mrs. Schmidt; James Randolph of Waynesburg College; Dan Roslund and Robert Leberman of the Powdermill Staff; and A. C. Lloyd, recently retired Carnegie Museum staff member.

300 We were disappointed that a number of persons invited for 1975 could not attend. The State Archeologists of West Virginia, Dr. Bettye Broyles; and Ohio, Dr. Raymond Baby; were prevented by last minute field schedule changes that not only prohibited their joining us at Powdermill but were so late I could not readily arrange for substitutes. Ors. Romas and Joan Vastokas of Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, were summoned to California at the last minute by their publisher for a series of business conferences. Herbert C. Kraft, Archeological Research Center, Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey, was scheduled for surgery on the Wednesday of the Conference week. We missed these people but assume that all Conferences scheduled initially for one year then postponed until the next must contend with such unavoidable absences. The schedule of presentations follows. The meeting was deliberately flexible and time allotments varied accordingly to accommodate questions and discussions, but most people said they had adequate time for their presentations. Comments and discussions were ordinarily illustrated by slides, but maps, drawings, photographs in color and in black-and-white, and a blackboard were usefully employed as well.

All participants arrived. 20 May 1975 0900-0930. Swauger. Welcome, introduction, opening remarks. 0930-1000. Swauger (as substitute for Baby). Petroglyph studies in Ohio. 1000-1030. Olafson. Petroglyph studies and West Virginia. 1030-1200. Kent. Petroglyph studies and eastern Pennsylvania with particular reference to "portable petroglyph:s" and their relationships to and possible use in dating massive carved rocks in eastern Pennsylvania. 1200-1400. Lunch at Raven's Roost, one of the Powdermill cottages. 1400-1530. Coy and Fuller. Petroglyph studies and Kentucky. 1530-1630. Woolworth. Recent petroglyph studies in Minnesota. 1730-1830. Cocktails at Calverley Lodge, another of the Powdermill cottages, hosted by Dr. and Mrs. Netting. 1900-2030. Dinner at the General Forbes House, Laughlintown, Pa. 2100ff. Sessions at will in cabins, each having been furnished with a screen and projector.

21 May 1975 0900-1000. King. Petroglyph studies in Tennessee, Georgia, and North Carolina, with special discussion of the Griffin Rock Shelter in Tennessee in which King believes there are cultural levels that can be equated with a petroglyph and from which have come two

implements that may have been used to carve the petroglyph designs. © Del documento, los autores. Digitalización realizada por ULPGC. Biblioteca, 2017 1000-1030. Swauger. Petroglyph studies in states east of the Mississippi not covered in previous discussions. 1030-1100. Dewdney. Petroglyph studies and Canada. 1100-1200. Dewdney. Some subjective elements in current rock art style studies. 1200-1400. Lunch at Raven's Roost. 1315-1400. Coy. By special request, a demonstration of his photographic techniques. 1400-1500. The Bullens. Recent petroglyph studies in the Antilles. 1500-1530. Wallace. Norse "rune" stones in North America and their confusion with American Indian . 1530-1630. Anati. Discussion of the work of the Centro Camuno and demonstration of kinds of figures found and establishment of cultural and chronological associations. 1730-1830. Cocktails at West Wind Farm, home of Mr. and Mrs. Woods, who were our hosts. 1900-2030. Dinner at Holiday House, Ligonier, Pa. 2100-2200. Anati. By special request, a detailed description of Centro Camuno treatment of

301 petroglyph rocks for recording, the recording, and the manner in which data are preserved. 2200ff. Sessions at will at one of which designs from Upper Ohio Valley sites were displayed and discussed.

22 May 1975 0900-1000. En route to Francis Farm Petroglyphs Site, Perryopolis, Pa. 1000-1100. At Francis Farm. 1100-1200. En route to Waynesburg, Pa. to meet James Randolph of Waynesburg College. 1200-1230. En route to Sugar Grove Petroglyphs Site, Carmichaels, Pa. 1230-1500. Observation of the Sugar Grove site, lunch, and discussions. 1500-1730. En route to Carnegie Museum's Meridian Anthropology Center to view collections, particularly petroglyph molds and casts. 1730-1845. At Anthropology Center. 1900-2015. Dinner at the Horn of Plenty, Valencia, Pa. 2015-2130. En route to Powdermill. 2130-2300. Clegg. By special request, petroglyph and pictograph studies in Australia.

23 May 1975 0830-0930. Vinnicombe-Carter. By special request, petroglyph and pictograph studies in South Africa. 0930-1030. Grant. Recent petroglyph and pictograph studies in Canyon de Chelly with comment on cultural and chronological placement of the phenomena. 1030-1100. Vinnicombe-Carter. Comment on petroglyph studies in the eastern United States from the point of view of one whose experience with such phenomena has been in a different part of the world and suggestions of direction of future work. 1100-1130. Clegg. As immediately above. 1130-1200. Anati. As immediately above. 1200-1300. Lunch at Raven's Roost. 1300-1330. Swauger. Summary of discussions to date. 1330ff. Some departures. 1430-1730. Visit to Fort Ligonier Memorial Museum, Ligonier, Pa. 1730-1900. Dinner at the General Forbes House, Laughlintown, Pa. 1930-2130. Gathering at Calverly Lodge hosted by Dr. and Mrs. Netting.

24 May 1975 Final departures. © Del documento, los autores. Digitalización realizada por ULPGC. Biblioteca, 2017 We gained from the Conference an understanding of the content and status of petroglyph and pictograph studies in states east of the Mississippi. We now know there are workers active in Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsyl­ vania, New Jersey, Maryland, New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. We suspect there are people working in Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Michigan, and Illinois because of recent information coming from those states, but none of us at the Conference are in personal contact with such workers. We know recent work in some states held for a long time to have no petroglyphs, Alabama, for instance, proves the presence of rock art there, so we will not give up on Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Mississippi, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Indiana, all of which are said to be devoid of the phenomena. We were pleased in particular to learn of the possible association between a Late Woodland cultural level at the Griffin Rock Shelter and a petroglyph and to see the great number of atlatl designs on the Jeffers Petroglyphs Site in Minnesota, although the suggested date for their carving, about 3000 B.C. to perhaps A.D. 800, is a shock to some of us.

302 Those of us from states east of the Mississippi were able to view our work to date in the light of experience and opinions of those working in other areas, Italy, Australia, and South Africa, of course, but in addition those working in Canada and in the Antilles, in Minnesota (we're not sure whether this is east or west), the Four Corners area of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado, and in California. We were introduced to procedures developed elsewhere that we may well follow. Errors made by others as they developed their methodologies were pointed out to us in order that we may avoid them as we proceed. Our minds were opened by these visitors from other countries and other areas of our own. Our visitors from overseas were recognized as having gone further than any of us in North America in organizing rock art knowledge, and we were particularly grateful for their comments on our efforts and their suggestions for direction of future work. Vinnicombe-Carter spoke at length on the importance of devising techniques for recording that were not only useful but acceptable to a number of people such as ourselves working at considerable remove from each other and with different basic attitudes toward recording. She advocated beginning recording with the end of view of developing numerical data permitting computerization of the material for swift and accurate retrieval and for ease in making comparative studies. She held that this could best be accomplished by establishing a center with one person responsible for action to work with other students to assemble, organize, store, and make available all information available on rock art in the United States east of the Mississippi. Clegg seconded Vinnicombe-Carter's remarks and moved on to say that one end result of petroglyph and pictograph studies of particular importance to him was delineation of the function or functions the rock art played within the cultures of those who produced the figures. His personal motivation is to derive sound anthropological data from rock art in order to erect a surer knowledge of Australian prehistory, and he believes this possible. Above all, he contended, we need to learn what was important to the people who produce the art with which we work, and he cautioned against our natural tendency to assume that what is important to us in the art was important to those who produced it. Anati agreed with Vinnicombe-Carter and Clegg that we in the eastern United States need to have common recording techniques and a center for assembling information on rock art. He stressed the need for the center to be in an institution on the order of his own, a museum, for instance, rather than a university with its more transient staff. He said that he does not believe anything, but full recording of what is on a site can be accepted. By his demonstration of the techniques used by his Centro Camuno group even before they begin recording, he established himself as that one of us who has gone furthest in thinking of absolute recording reliability. Sites, he felt, must be seen as parts of larger assemblages, must be viewed anthropologically and historically as well as esthetically, in order to establish successions permitting associations with horizons and even larger categories of chronological and cultural planes. He cautioned us to beware of "knowing" what we had seen, never to be satisfied, to return again and again to our sites and © Del documento, los autores. Digitalización realizada por ULPGC. Biblioteca, 2017 the data we record from them. We were all so overwhelmed, not to say awed, by the magnificence of his techniques that we were convinced he is right and his example should be followed. Anati stressed the point that from each Conference should come establishment of a future goal to further the general purpose for which a Conference is held, in this instance, understanding the state of the art of petroglyph and pictograph studies in states east of the Mississippi and determining courses for future studies. Consensus of those present was that a proper goal now is that a center shall be established to coordinate rock art knowledge and studies of sites east of the Mississippi in terms of assembling, organizing, and making available rock art records from all sources, and. to establish and maintain contact with groups and individuals working with rock art elsewhere. Consensus also seemed to be that the center should be at Carnegie Museum, where much of this material is already gathered, and that I should operate it. These are matters to be discussed by the Director of Carnegie Museum and me. The prospect tempts me personally and would I'm sure, be immensely rewarding, but many factors must be considered before an effort to establish a center at Carnegie Museum can be approved.

303 The Conference was a success. We are largely aware of the state of the art in rock art studies in states east of the Mississippi. We now know that we must deal with a probable minimum of 350 sites but no one can hazard a guess as to how many figures. We are largely aware of our needs in terms of standardization and coordination of effortsas we continue research. We are aware of our need for central information repository. We know people were stimulated by the Conference, Kent, for instance, saying he had never before paid any attention to petroglyphs but intends to do an intensive study of the Susquehanna River sites in relation to carved artifactsfrom other sorts of eastern Pennsylvania sites, and Woolworth who writes that as his reaction to the Conference, he and his wife are already preparing a program to study rock art sites in his own and contiguous areas. Other evidence of profit to attendees is that after the Conference, Vinnicombe-Carter went to Kentucky with Coy and Fuller to view newly discovered sites before returning to England, Anati went to Canada with Dewdney to lecture on rock art in Italy and to visit Canadian rock art sites, and Clegg went to Canada as well. As organizer of this second gathering to consider rock art studies in the United States east of the Mississippi*, I was pleased. The Conference was stimulating. We were presented with a large number of facts, but more important, each of us left with numbers of new ideas swarming in his mind.

* I chaired the first such gathering of which I know at the 1970 annual meeting of the Eastern States Archeological Federation at Natural Bridges, Virginia, reported in ESAF Bulletin 30, July 1971.

Klaus F. WELLMANN, Brooklyn, New York

ZWEITES AMERIKANISCHES FELSKUNSTSYMPOSIUM IN EL PASO, TEXAS

Die zweite nationale Felskunsttagung der USA fand vom 30. August bis zum 1. September 1975 im Community College der texanischen Grenzstadt El Paso statt. Das diesem Symposium entgegengebrachte groBe Interesse dokumentierte sich unter anderem dadurch, daB Uber © Del documento, los autores. Digitalización realizada por ULPGC. Biblioteca, 2017 160 Teilnehmer aus vielen Bundesstaaten der USA sowie aus Mexiko und Kanada erschienen waren. Nach der Eroffnung der Tagung durch Dr. Kay Sutherland, El Paso, die als Zweite Vorsitzende fUr die mustergiiltige Organisation des Treffens verantwortlich zeichnete, wurde zunachst Uber andere, im vergangenen Jahr stattgefundene wichtige Symposien referiert (41. Internationaler AmerikanistenkongreB in Mexico City, September 1974: John V. Davis, El Paso; Powdermill Petroglyph Conference, Mai 1975: I. C.-M. James L. Swauger, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; I. C.-Tagung Hallein, Mai 1975: Klaus F. Wellmann, Brooklyn, New York). AnschlieBend fand eine Diskussion Uber Vandalismus von Felskunststatten statt, die Frank G. Bock, Whittier, Kalifornien, leitete. Die neunzehn Vortrage des unter dem Vorsitz von K. F. Wellmann stehenden Symposiums vermittelten ein gutes Bild von der stilistischen und thematischen Reichhaltigkeit des nordameri­ kanischen Felsbildgutes. Ober die Felskunst bestimmter Gebiete referierten Mimi Buck und Mitarbeiter (Nordwest-Colorado); Delcie Vuncannon, Yucca Valley, California (Grand Gulch in

304