2010. Rock art regionalism, identity, and heritage: case studies from the Texas Trans-Pecos and South Africa more

4 La Pintura September 2010 Rock Art Regionalism, Identity, and Heritage: Case Studies from the Texas Trans-Pecos and South Africa Jamie Hampson I Jamie Hampson is a Ph.D. student at the University of Cambridge and a Research Associate at the Center for Big Bend Studies (CBBS) at Sul Ross State University in Texas. He recently gave one of the public lectures at the ARARA conference in Del Rio. Prior to graduate school, he worked at the Rock Art Research Institute in South Africa and also on rock art projects in Australia and India. Ed. n 2008 and 2009, I spent seven months in the Trans-Pecos region of west Texas, based at CBBS in Alpine (Figure 1). Although time and logistical considerations prevented me from documenting every rock art site on my wish-list, I visited 46 in total. Two of these – Hueco Tanks near the western boundary of the Trans-Pecos, and Seminole Canyon near the eastern – are in famous State Parks and widely advertised to the public; they are surely well known to most La Pintura readers. Twenty-nine of the other sites are on private land and widely spread throughout the study area; the remaining 15 are in Big Bend Ranch State Park and adjacent national park. My Ph.D. work also includes case studies and historiography from South Africa; I am interested in how researchers approach rock art in different countries and in different academic milieus. My dissertation is structured around a 2x2 “matrix” featuring west Texas rock art; west Figure 1. Map from Kirkland and Newcomb (1967) showing Big Bend National Park and the Davis Mountains within the Texas Trans-Pecos, west of the Pecos River. La Pintura Texas rock art heritage (i.e., the way that sites are presented to the public today, especially in national and state parks); rock art in Kruger National Park, South Africa; and Kruger rock art heritage. Both here and in my dissertation, I concentrate on the west Texas rock art – pictographs, petroglyphs, and petroforms – while stressing that the theoretical and methodological approaches are applicable in other relatively understudied areas worldwide (e.g., Taçon et al. 2010; Biesele in press). I shall submit a fuller report to AIRA once I have completed my dissertation. Overall, my work addresses socio-economic and ideological aspects of rock art, specifically in relation to rock art regionalism (Hampson et al. 2002). This necessarily includes the relationships between rock art, style, other archaeological data, and landscape; also, the relationships between rock art, ethnography, shamanism, animism, and the neuropsychological model; and, ultimately, the origins, motivations, and methods for rock art production and consumption. Crucial to rock art heritage and agency – the second half of my 2x2 matrix – is the interpretation of those origins and motivations in the management and presentation of rock art sites today (Hampson 2004). Thankfully, rock art is no longer seen as an unscientific subdivision of archaeological enquiry, or simplistic (but visually appealing) scribbles resulting from an undefined (but allegedly innate) aesthetic “urge”; archaeologists, heritage managers, and members of the public are beginning to value rock art images as both powerful things in themselves and as powerful tourist attractions. September 2010 5 Rock Art and Regionalism in West Texas My study of Trans-Pecos rock art addresses two key issues in current archaeological research, the first theoretical, the second exemplary. Researchers often write of rock art regions without according the concept sufficient theoretical consideration. How should rock art regions be defined? Having explored the difficulties and contradictions hidden in the notion of rock art regionalism, I am testing the utility of my findings in west Texas. The rock art in some parts of the USA has been intensively studied for many years (e.g., Schaafsma 1980; Sundstrom 1990; Turpin 1994, 2001; Whitley 2000, 2001; Keyser and Klassen 2001; Boyd 2003; Loendorf et al. 2005). As a result, what is now known about these areas tends to inform overall concepts of rock art and rock art regions in the subcontinent; contrasts between the art of Utah, Arizona, or California, for example, are often noted. Less studied regions – such as the Texas Trans-Pecos, especially the eastern Trans-Pecos – remain comparative terrae incognitae; their potential impact on broader concepts of rock art regions and what those regions may signify has not yet been fully assessed. Recently, however, employees at CBBS have begun to re-assess the significance of the area’s pictographs and petroglyphs (Figures 2 and 3), and, importantly, how these relate to other archaeological data, including lithics, mortars, painted pebbles, and other art mobilier (Mallouf 1999, 2001, 2002, 2007; Cloud 2004; Tegarden 2005; Peel in press.). Toward the end of 2008, the discovery of several rock alignments or petroforms – an overlooked and under-studied category of rock art worldwide – was particularly exciting and illuminative (Figure 4). I continue to work closely with CBBS and other Texasbased researchers. One of my principal questions remains: How similar is Trans-Pecos rock art to that in better known regions in Texas and the Southwest, such as the Lower Pecos to the east and the El Paso region to the west? Andrew Figure 2. Deer pictograph (ca. 1.2 m from antlers to tail) in Culberson County. Note the open mouth and lowered head, indicators of death. Figure 3. Anthropomorphic projectile point petroglyphs in Hudspeth County (scale bar is 5 cm). A panel close by features deer, mountain sheep, and human figures. 6 La Pintura September 2010 Tegarden (2005), approaching seven petroglyph sites in the southern Trans-Pecos from an art historian’s perspective, recently suggested that certain panels should be categorized as examples of his newly-coined “Big Bend Abstract Style” (Figure 5), set apart from neighboring artistic traditions. But can the study of aesthetic styles in the Trans-Pecos tell us anything of the ideologies and socio-economics of the prehistoric inhabitants? How, indeed, is style defined? Elsewhere (Hampson 2008), while applauding Tegarden for considering the impact of prehistoric images on modern art critics and viewers today (how does rock art work?), I questioned the validity and necessity of his central proposal and argued that putative aesthetic differences are unreliable indicators of temporal change and ethnic boundaries in the cultural and physical Trans-Pecos landscape. Researchers are understandably keen to promote the Trans-Pecos region as important in its own right, more than simply a “cultural crossroads” between better known archaeological areas, especially to the north and east. Rock art provides a vehicle for achieving this goal. I suggest that it is more useful, however, to define styles primarily by content – that is, repeated and definable elements, some of which are intelligible from an ethnographic perspective – rather than by aesthetics. To this end, I am interrogating a priori notions of both rock art regionalism and categorization (Hampson in preparation).  Figure 4. Illustration of turtle effigy petroform seen from above (courtesy of CBBS). Nose to tail measures ca. 2 m. Figure 5. Tegarden’s (2005) detailed drawing of a petroglyph panel in Big Bend. Note the extended digit on the carved hand (top left), which is approximately life-size.  La Pintura Another under-studied relationship is that between different techniques of rock art production – pictographs, petroglyphs, and petroforms. Again, I suspect that these distinctions are largely arbitrary, a handy method of visual (and modern) categorization rather than a meaningful reflection of differing emic worldviews or ethnic origins. Drawing on ethnographic analogy and embodiment theory (e.g., Merleau-Ponty 1962, Meskell and Joyce 2003, Blundell 2004), it seems that the process of creating imagery was equally or perhaps even more important than the product. Similarly, the handprints in the Trans-Pecos were produced using three different techniques, one of which (soot-scraping) is rare worldwide (Figure 6). September 2010 7 Theoretical Approaches to Rock Art: Some Questions and Suggestions Can researchers comprehend the significance of rock art regions without asking why the art in a particular area was produced? I suspect not, even if the question is difficult to answer, as it is in the Trans-Pecos. Using indirect ethnography (judiciously, obviously!), neuropsychological models, and other archaeological data, I am addressing the possible origins and meanings of Trans-Pecos rock art. Are there elements in the rock art, ethnography, or deposits that suggest that the artists belonged to some form of shamanistic – or, broader, animistic – society? Yes – there are therianthropic and horned figures in the art, descriptions of shamanic practices in the ethnographic literature, and hallucinogenic material in the archaeological record. I believe that ethnographic analogies can be effectively applied (Lewis-Williams 1991; Taçon and Chippindale 1998), and I am cautiously investigating potentially relevant leads, especially regarding groups from northern Mexico. Drawing on previous research in several countries, I contend that we can most meaningfully define rock art regions by investigating not only formal differences, but also ideological belief-systems and why the art was produced. Figure 6. Positive, negative, and soot-scraped handprints. 8 References La Pintura September 2010 Keyser, James D. and Michael A. Klassen 2001 Plains Indian Rock Art. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Kirkland, Forrest and William W. Newcomb 1967 The Rock Art of Texas Indians. University of Texas Press, Austin. Lewis-Williams, J. David 1991 Wrestling with analogy: a methodological dilemma in Upper Palaeolithic art research. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57(1):149–162. Loendorf, Larry L., Chris Chippindale and David S. Whitley 2005 Discovering North American Rock Art. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Mallouf, Robert J. 1999 Comments on the prehistory of far northeastern Chihuahua, the La Junta district, and the Cielo complex. The Journal for Big Bend Studies 11:49–92. 2001 CBBS documents Tall Rockshelter. La Vista de la Frontera 14(1):4. 2002 Musings on Trans-Pecos rock art. La Vista de la Frontera 15(1):1–2. 2007 In the field: a sampling of CBBS projects. La Vista de la Frontera 18:4–7. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice 1962 Phenomenology of Perception. Routledge Press, London and New York. Meskell, Lynn M. and Rosemary A. Joyce 2003 Embodied Lives: Figuring Ancient Maya and Egyptian Experience. Routledge Press, London and New York. Peel, Reeda L. In press Rock art documentation at Cosmic and Cascade rockshelters. In Papers of the Trans-Pecos Archaeological Program, edited by R. J. Mallouf. Number 6. Center for Big Bend Studies, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, Texas. Schaafsma, Polly 1975 Rock art and ideology of the Mimbres and Jornada Mogollon. The Artifact 13(3):2–14. 1980 Indian Rock Art of the Southwest. University of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe. Biesele, Megan In press Rock art as “an imagery of ideas”: archaeology, ethnography and art history in southern Africa and Southwest Texas. In Ancient Texans: Rock Art and Lifeways along the Lower Pecos, edited by H. Shafer. 2nd edition. Texas Monthly Press, Austin. Blundell, Geoff 2004 Nqabayo’s Nomansland: San Rock Art and the Somatic Past. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Uppsala. Boyd, Carolyn E. 2003 Rock Art of the Lower Pecos. Texas A & M University Press, College Station. Cloud, William A. 2004 The Arroyo de la Presa Site: A Stratified Late Prehistoric Campsite along the Rio Grande, Presidio County, Trans-Pecos Texas. Reports in Contract Archeology 9, Center for Big Bend Studies, Sul Ross State University and Archeological Studies Program Report 56, Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs Division, Alpine and Austin, Texas. Hampson, Jamie G. 2004 The Presentation and Management of Public Rock Art Sites in Northern Australia and Southern Africa. Unpublished M.Phil. thesis, University of Cambridge. 2008 Rock art regionalism and agency in the Texas Trans-Pecos and Mpumalanga, South Africa. Paper given at the Center for Big Bend Studies Conference, Alpine, Texas. In prep. Rock Art Regionalism, National Parks, and Cultural Identity: Case Studies from West Texas and South Africa. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge. Hampson, Jamie G., William R. Challis, Geoff Blundell and Conraad de Rosner 2002 The rock art of Bongani Mountain Lodge and its environs, Mpumalanga Province: an introduction to problems of southern African rock-art regions. South African Archaeological Bulletin 57:17–32. La Pintura Sundstrom, Linea 1990 Rock Art of the Southern Black Hills. Garland Press, New York. Taçon. Paul S. C. and Chris Chippindale 1998 An archaeology of rock-art through informed methods and formal methods. In The Archaeology of Rock-Art, edited by C. Chippindale and P. S. C. Taçon, pp 1–10. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Taçon, Paul S. C., Nicole Boivin, Jamie Hampson, James Blinkhorn, Ravi Korisettar and Michael Petraglia 2010 Continuity, change and cultural connections to painted rock art of the Kurnool area, one of south India’s little known rock art provinces. Antiquity 84:335–350. Tegarden, Andrew 2005 Big Bend Abstract Petroglyphs in Perspective: Seven Sites in the Southern Big Bend Region of Texas. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Sul Ross State University. Turpin, Solveig A. (ed.) 1994 Shamanism and Rock Art in North America. Rock Art Foundation, Special Publication 1, San Antonio, Texas. 2001 Archaic North America. In Handbook of Rock Art Research, edited by D. S. Whitley, pp. 361–413. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California. Whitley, David S. 2000 The Art of the Shaman; Rock Art of California. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press. 2001 Handbook of Rock Art Research. (ed.) Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira. September 2010 9 IFRAO 2012 Bolivia... continued from page 3 The academic program will consist of the following 15 sessions including presentations of papers up to 20 minutes: 1. Dating and Chemical Analysis of Rock Art. Chairpersons: Marvin Rowe (Texas A&M University, USA, marvinrowe@gmail.com) and Alice Tratebas (BLM, Wyoming, USA, Alice_Tratebas@blm.gov) 2. Scientific Study of Rock Art. Chairpersons: Robert Bednarik (Australia, robertbednarik@hotmail.com) and Dánae Fiore (Argentina, danae_fiore@yahoo.es) 3. Aesthetics and Rock Art. Chairpersons: Thomas Heydt (University of Victoria, Canada, heydt@uvic.ca), John Clegg (University of Sydney, Australia, john.clegg@sydney. edu.au) and Chris Chippindale (Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology & Anthropology, Cambridge University, GB, cc43@cam.ac.uk) 4. Management and Conservation of Rock Art Sites. Chairpersons: Valerie Magar (INAH, Mexico, valerie. magar@gmail.com) and Freddy Taboada (SIARB, Bolivia, taboadatellez@yahoo.com) 5. Rock At and Indigenous Communities. Chairpersons: Pilar Lima (SIARB, Bolivia, plimatbo@yahoo. es) and Patricia Ayala (payala_rocabado@hotmail.com) 6. Archaeological Context of North American and Mesoamerican Rock Art Sites. Chairpersons: Evelyn Billo (Rupestrian CyberServices, USA, ebillo@aol.com) and William Breen Murray (Mexico, wmurray@udem.edu.mx) 7. Rock Art and Archaeological Cultures in Central America. Chairpersons: Martin Künne (Berlin, Germany, kuenne@zedat.fu-berlin.de) and Lucrecia de Batres 8. Rock Art, Archaeology, and the Caribbean. Chairpersons: Michele Hayward (USA, mhayward@ panamconsultants.com), Racso Fernández (Grupo Cubano de Investigaciones del Arte Rupestre, itibacahubaba@yahoo.com. ar) and Franz Scaramelli (Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, IVIC, Venezuela, fscarame@gmail.com) 9. Archaeology and Rock Art of the Amazon Basin (South American Lowlands). Chairpersons: Edithe Pereira (Museo Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Belém, Pará, Brazil, edithepereira@museu-goeldi.br) and Kay Scaramelli (Caracas, Venezuela, kfscarame@cantv.net) 10. Archaeology and Rock Art in the Central Andean Formative Period. Chairperson: Peter Kaulicke (PUCP, Lima, Peru, pkaulic@pucp.edu.pe) 11. Inca Rock Art: Evaluations and Possibilities. Chairpersons: José Berenguer (Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino, Santiago, jberenguer@museoprecolombino. cl), Andrés Troncoso (Universidad de Chile, Santiago, atroncos@terra.cl / atroncos@uchile.cl) and Rainer Hostnig (SIARB, Peru, rrhostnig@speedy.com.pe) ...continued on next page Acknowledgements Andy Cloud, Director of CBBS, has provided me with unstinting support. I extend heartfelt thanks also to Bob Mallouf, Reeda Peel, Melissa Keane, Roger Boren, David Keller, and everyone at CBBS. Without encouragement from Breen Murray, Solveig Turpin, Priscilla Murr, Sherry Eberwein, and ARARA, I would not have been able to attend the invigorating annual conference in Del Rio. I am also grateful to Tom Alex, Tim Roberts, the University of Cambridge, and the Rock Art Research Institute in South Africa.