UC Merced Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology Title Ricks: A Survey and Analysis of Prehistoric Rock Art of the Warner Valley Region, Lake County, Oregon Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/45v5b7k1 Journal Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 19(2) ISSN 0191-3557 Author Lee, Georgia Publication Date 1997-07-01 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California REVIEWS 297 the two [areas] would strengthen the case for Milling Stone Cultures of Southem Cali­ culttiral linkage." CA-FRE-61 is at die right fomia. American Andquity20(2): 112-123. place with the right assemblage to strengthen Wedel, Waldo R. 1941 Archeological Investigations at Buena Vis­ that linkage. ta Lake, Kem County, Califomia. Bureau Mark Q. Sutton, editor of the Occasional Pa­ of American Ethnology Bulletin 130. pers in Anthropology for the Museum of An­ thropology at California State University, Ba­ kersfield, deserves commendation for his com­ mitment to making sure that at least a portion of anthropological efforts in California and the Great Basin becomes available dirough publica­ tion. Karen Nissen also deserves commendation for her efforts as sheepherder for the field pro­ ject at CA-FRE-61 and, as I understand it, as sheepdog with a major role in herding this re­ port into the publication corral. A Survey and Analysis of Prehistoric Rock Art A final note. CA-FRE-61 recendy was se­ of the Warner Valley Region, Lake County, lected as a major contribution for a public exhib­ Oregon. Mary Frances Ricks. University of it under Caltrans auspices at a roadside rest stop Nevada, Reno, Department of Anthropology on Highway 99 near Pixley, south of Fresno. Technical Report 96-1, 1996, 179 pp., 53 figs., 22 tables, 1 map, 4 appendices, bibli­ REFERENCES ography, index. No price given (paper). Basgall, Mark E., and D. L. Tme 1985 Archaeological Investigations in Crowder Reviewed by: Canyon, 1973-1984: Excavations at Sites GEORGIA LEE SBR-421B, SBR-421C, SBR-421D, and P.O. Box 6774, Los Osos, CA 93412. SBR-713, San Bemardino County, Cali­ fornia. Report on file at the San Bemar­ dino Archaeological Information Center, One purpose of rock art research is to docu­ San Bemardino County Museum, Red- ment sites so that—whatever happens in the fu­ lands. ture—a record is available of what was present McCarthy, Helen, R. A. Hicks, and Clinton M. at that site at a particular point in time. A study Blount of the rock art of Warner Valley that began in 1985 A Functional Analysis of Bedrock Mor­ 1987 is now published in this University of Ne­ tars: Western Mono Food Processing in the Southem Sierra Nevada. In: Cultural vada Technical Report. The material covers a Resources of the Crane Valley Hydroelec­ large body of rock art, places it into its archaeo­ tric Project Area, Vol. I: Ethnographic, logical context, and examines it in conjunction Historic, and Archaeological Overviews and Archaeological Surveys, by Theodora- with environmental factors. I am pleased to see tus Cultural Research, Inc., Appendix F. comprehensive studies such as these; few indi­ Report on file at Pacific Gas and Electric viduals devote so much time and energy in the Company, San Francisco, Califomia. documentation and study of petroglyphs and pic- Moratto, Michael J. tographs. 1972 A Study of Prehistory in the Southern Si­ erra Nevada Foothills, Califomia. Ph.D. Chapter 1 describes the purpose of the War­ dissertation. University of Oregon. ner Valley rock art study that contains 117 ar­ Wallace, Wdliam J. chaeological sites and includes 20,216 units of 1954 The Little Sycamore Site and the Eariy rock art. In placing the rock art into prehistoric 298 JOURNAL OF CALIFORNIA AND GREAT BASIN ANTHROPOLOGY subsistence and settlement patterns. Ricks has ther smoothed. The pits seem to be randomly placed on a rock surface . When grooves are found positive correlation with the loci of rock present they do not lend composition but merely art and native plant communities. Her findings connect some of the pits . refute the "hunting magic" and vision quest the­ ories as rationales for the rock art. Ricks' study What we are dealing with are cupule boulders uses information-theoretic techniques to examine but die term "cupule" appears only twice in die patterns of spatial distribution of rock art. book, and the difference between a cupule and a Chapter 2 describes prior research in Warner "dot" is not stated. There also is confusion Valley and offers an alternate model for subsis­ over "dots" versus "pits," and when a dot is a tence and settlement: Ricks proposes that up­ dot or (if deeper), when it becomes a pit. In land sites were used for substantial periods of various other studies, cupules are known as time in spring and early summer, when large "pitted boulders," "rain rocks," or "baby numbers of people gathered, harvested plants, rocks." Ricks states that "Pit and groove petro­ and processed and prepared them for storage. glyphs are distinguished by a seemingly random Her model suggests that the range of art should placement of pecked pits on the surface of rock be greater at these aggregation sites and more faces." However, without grooves, the use of limited at sites with a limited range of activities. the term "pit and groove" (p. 54) is inappropri­ It is in Chapter 2 that the research takes a left ate as a style designation. Instead of adopting turn. Ricks has taken the flawed rock art typol­ Heizer and Baumhoffs rock art styles, which ogy of Heizer and Baumhoff (1962) and added already are fraught with problems, and then ex­ to it. Hedges (1982) has already pointed out the panding upon them. Ricks would have been bet­ problems inherent in the style categories pre­ ter off to rethink the styles and earlier terminol­ sented by Heizer and Baumhoff. One of his sa­ ogy for Great Basin rock art. lient points was that, "Heizer and Baumhoff Chapter 3 covers the geology, climate, and subjectively used media (painted, scratched) as plant resources of Warner Valley. Chapter 4 defining characteristics of styles irrespective of lists four hypotheses to be tested: (1) that rock design element occurrences . medium should art sites are not randomly distributed in space; be considered but as a secondary factor" (2) that rock art sites are located near resources; (Hedges 1982:206). (3) that designs are not randomly distributed Another problem concerns the "pit and among rock art sites but tend to cluster; and (4) groove" type of petroglyphs in the Great Basin that rock art wUl be most "rich" and varied at as pointed out by Lee (1981:118). Heizer and aggregation sites. Baumhoff (1962:208-209) stated: Chapter 5 covers the field methods and site form for documentation, and the statistical anal­ This style [pit and groove] was named by us in an earlier report . largely on the basis of evidence yses program. Chapter 6 describes the rock art, from a single site. More thorough investigation site size, and associated cultural material, and . indicates that most occurrences of this style includes tables listing artifacts and associated consist only of pits . The pits vary in size. features found at the sites. Under "Rock Art Most of them are oidy an inch or two in diam­ eter, but some are as much as 12 inches across. Styles," Ricks describes the separation of picto- Grooves, when present, are from a half-inch to an graphs from petroglyphs, historical from prehis- inch in width. Pits are usually a half-inch to an torical motifs, and describes the styles used for inch in depth, whereas the grooves are much shal­ this study: (1) Great Basin Carved Abstract ap­ lower—seldom more than a quarter-inch in depth. Both pits and grooves were evidently pecked or pears to be separated out by depth of carving battered into boulder surfaces and were not fur­ and complexity of design. It is the oldest style, REVIEWS 299 with a minimum age of 6,850 years (based on a There are, in rock art studies as well as else­ layer of volcanic ash laid down by the eruption where, "splitters" and "joiners." Ricks sepa­ of Mount Mazama); (2) Pit and Groove (ad­ rates out the anthropomorphs by "ungendered," dressed above); (3) Great Basin Rectilinear Ab­ "horned," "male," "archer," "paper doll," stract, consisting of straight lines and rectangu­ "female," "shield," and "snowman." Like­ lar or polygonal figures, grids, and zigzags. wise, lizards can be "stick," "fat fiUed-body," However, to illustrate this style. Figure 8 shows "thin filled-body," "horned," "bisected," a bug-like figure; (4) Great Basin Curvilinear "thinoudined," "fat oudined," "unidentified," Abstract, consisting of circles, dots, and mean­ or with "circles inside body." I think the data ders; (5) Great Basin Representational, consist­ would be more useful if the categories (say, for ing of humans, animals, plants, and hand prints; humans and lizards) were organized by the ge­ (6) Abraded areas are listed as a style: "these neric and then broken down by specific features. areas might have been rock art which, over The way it is organized in Ricks' book, it is the time, has become undecipherable" (p. 58). (I specific and not the general attribute that divides doubt that abraded areas can be termed a the categories into myriad forms. A subset of "style"); (7) Great Basin Scratched, described attributes would have helped with overall organi­ as "scratching out" earlier designs; and (8) His­ zation. toric petroglyphs. Chapter 7, Testing the Hypotheses, gives the Rock paintings are put into separate catego­ results. Ricks has divided the study area into ries, despite the fact that diey are the same units and tabulated site distribution, with refer­ forms as seen in the petroglyphs: (1) Great Ba­ ence to elevation and landforms.