( MONOGRAPH 36 I ew 1 RECENT ADVANCES IN HUNTER-GATHERER RocK ART RESEARCH David S. Whitley and Lawrence L. Loendorf, editors Institute of Archaeology Univetsity of California, Los Angeles 1994 UCLA INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY Richard M. Leventhal, Director Marilyn P. Beaudry-Corbett, Director of Publications UCLA INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY EDITORIAL BOARD Jeanne E. Arnold, Marilyn P. Beaudry-Corbett, Elizabeth Carter, Timothy K. Earle, Ernestine S. Elster, Richard Janko, Richard M. Leventhal, Sarah P. Morris, Glenn Russell, and James R. Sackett Edited by Beverly Godwin, Rita Demsetz, Marilyn Gatto, and Pat Campbell Healy Designed by Brenda Johnson-Grau Production by Wendy Lau, Patricia Lin, and Christopher Tucker Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data New light on old art: recent advances in hunter-gatherer rock art research/ David S. Whitley and Lawrence L. Loendorf, editors. p. cm. - (Monograph; 36) Includes bibliographical references (p. ). ISBN 0-917956-79-6 1. Rock paintings. 2. Petroglyphs. 3. Indians of North America -West (U.S.) -Antiquities. 4. Rock paintings -Europe. 5. West (U.S.) -Antiquities. 6. Europe -Antiquities. I. Whitley, David S. II. Loendorf, Lawrence L. III. Series: Monograph (University of California, Los Angeles. Institute of Archaeology); 36. GN799.P4N38 1994 93-30234 CIP PUBLISHED WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE UCLA ROCK ART ARCHIVE. Copyright © 1994· Regents of the University of California. Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. This volume is dedicated to Professor Clement W. Meighan and Mrs. Helen Michaelis, in recognition of their considerable contributions to American rock art studies. ~ontents Preface Timothy K Earle vii Introduction OFF THE CovER AND INTO THE BooK xi David S. Whitley and Lawrence L. Loendorf Part l: Rock Art Dating 1 WHO PAINTED WHAT IN UPPER PALEOLITHIC EUROPEAN CAVES l jean Clottes 2 RADIOCARBON DATING OF RocK PAINTINGS 9 Scott D. Chaffee, Marian Hyman, and Marvin W Rowe 3 DATING PETROGLYPHS WITH A THREE-TIER RocK VARNISH APPROACH 13 Ronald L Dorn 4 CATION-RATIO DATING AND CHRONOLOGICAL VARIATION WITHIN DINwooDY-TRADITION RocK ART IN NoRTHWESTERN WYOMING 37 Julie Francis Part u: Interpretation and Analysis 5 SCRATCHED RocK ART CoMPLEXES IN THE DESERT WEsT: SYMBOLS FOR SocIO-RELIGIOUS CoMMUNICATION 51 Eric W Ritter 6 A GENDERED SEARCH THROUGH SOME WEST TEXAS RocK ART Patricia M. Bass 7 THE WERE-COUGAR THEME IN PECOS RIVER-STYLE ART AND !Ts IMPLICATIONS FOR TRADITIONAL ARCHEOLOGY 75 Solveig A. Turpin 8 ETHNOGRAPHY AND RocK ART IN THE FAR WEsT: SOME ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS 81 David S. Whitley 9 TRADITIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHODS AND THEIR APPLICATIONS AT RocK ART SITES 95 Lawrence L. Loendorf Afterword PREHISTORIC RocK ART AND THE STUDY OF ARCHAEOLOGY 105 George C. Frison Bibliography . 109 Preface HE INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT UCLA publishes methods and because the association of rock art with other T New Light on Old Art: Recent Advances in Hunter­ datable material was more tenuous than for other aspects of Gatherer Rock Art Studies in recognition of the emerging the archaeological assemblage, interest in rock art declined. importance of rock art in anthropological archaeology. This Freed from purely culture-historical studies, archaeology volume is dedicated to Professor Emeritus Clement Meighan in the r96os and 1970s was rapidly chllJlging. The center of and Mrs. Helen Michaelis. research, then called New Archaeology, focused on cultural Clem Meighan came to UCLA in r952 as a young ecology and evolution, a popular interest within anthropol­ instructor of anthropology. He founded the UCLA Archaeo­ ogy at that time (for example, see Service r962). Research logical Survey, which was later transformed into the Institute emphasized the subsistence basis of human society, seeing of Archaeology, and developed an active research program in culture as an adaptation to the environment, and a strict California archaeology. Among his many interests was a love concern with quantification and scientific methodology came of rock art, in which he conducted considerable research to the fore {Binford r964). The humanist interests in {Meighan 1966, r979, 1981, 1982; Meighan and Pantoni r978; prehistoric aesthetics suffered, and rock art largely became Meighan and Sanger 1991; Meighan and Van Tilburg 1981). the purview of the amateur. In r977, with Billy Clewlow, Clem established the Rock Art Since the heyday of New Archaeology, conditions have Archive in the Institute of Archaeology and served as its significantly changed, and these changes have encouraged a director until his retirement in l99r. renewed interest in rock art, as illustrated in this volume. Helen Michaelis was recruited in 1983 by Clem Dramatic breakthroughs concern the experimental work of Meighan to be the Rock Art archivist, a position she held dating rock art by direct 14C dating (Chaffee, Hyman, and until r993. Despite troubled times growing up in the Soviet Rowe, chapter 2), by cation-ratio dating of varnishes {Dorn, Union and in Germany under the Nazis and eventually chapter 3 and Francis, chapter 4), and by associated archaeo­ migrating as a young mother to the United States, she never logical material recovered in careful excavation (Clottes, lost an early love of archaeology. After a professional life, chapter li Loendorf, chapter 9). It is now recognized that raising her son, and eventual retirement, Helen began her rock art may be dated and that it demands to be incorporated second life with the Institute. For ten years as the archivist, into broader archaeological research. she was inseparable from Institute studies of rock art. An exciting recent development in archaeology has been Corresponding in many languages, she helped establish the the post-processual critique {Whitley and Loendorf, Archive's international network of rock art scholars. Re­ Introduction). Although often overzealous, this radical cently, she has given generously to endow the Rock Art critique has raised important issues, reproving the narrowly Archive. adaptationalist approaches of New Archaeology and seeking David Whitley {r982b), one ofMeighan's best graduate to reintroduce humanist research interests into archaeology students, wrote his anthropology doctoral dissertation on {Earle and Preucel r987). Led especially by the seminal "The Study of North American Rock Art." At that time, writings oflan Hodder {1982a, r984), the post-processual serious academic research on rock art had become critique touched a sensitive nerve within the discipline, but marginalized within anthropological archaeology (Whitley post-processualists have been slow to move beyond the and Loendorf, Introduction). Methodologically, the radio­ critique into the more difficult ground of archaeological carbon reyolution in dating in the r95os transformed the field practice. The renewed direction suggested by the post­ of archaeology, and studies of rock art styles as a means to processualists needs to confront the highly personal and establish time-space culture histories were discontinued. meaningful area of prehistoric art. No field offers better Because rock art could not then be dated by radiocarbon opportunities for post-processual archaeology than the Preface viii systematic research on rock art. gatherer societies. In different contexts, other uses of rock art The goal of this volume is to put rock art research back may occur. For example, rock art may serve as mnemonic into the mainstream of archaeology, to move it "off the cover devices, encapsulating historical narratives and myths. I am and into the book." Two directions this volume promotes are reminded of the pictorial representations of an Aztec codex the use of a direct historical approach and the investigation that depicts mythic histories, retold as part of ceremonial of a common human mental process. In a distinguished events (Gillespie 1989). Similarly, the material goods held in lecture in archaeology to the American Anthropological the jawbone shrine of a dead African leader are used by the Association, George Cowgill (1992) recommended just these shrine's keeper to remember narrative about the ruler approaches for archaeology broadly. The direct historical (Posnansky 1970). Rock art may be seen as part of human approach uses historical records, early ethnographies, activities that are linked with a cultural landscape; individuals material culture, and archaeology to reconstruct traditional and groups are rooted in the encompassing environment by cultures. The approach allows issues of motivations and creating the cultural places bound to their social histories and cognition, considered in early ethnographies, to be linked to myths. These places and the memory of their stories and the ~aterial record including rock art (Lewis-Williams experience become central to social reality. 1981,1984). ln this way, Whitley (1992b) documents the Research has tried to determine the primary function of evidence from early ethnography for rock art among western rock art, whether linked to hunting magic, vision quests, or hunter-gatherers. He argues that rock art represents shaman­ shamanism. Single explanations of rock art are, however, istic visions, a theme discussed by several authors in this unlikely. Rather, rock art must be conceived in a broader volume. frame as a means of individual and group expression An auxiliary approach focuses on common human channeled through the universal human aesthetic experience. mental processes as experienced in drug-induced shamanistic Variation within the function