You are on page 1of 86

WHAT DO THESE SYMBOLS MEAN?

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE IMAGES FOUND ON THE


ROCKS OF THE CANADIAN SHIELD WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE PICTOGRAPHS OF THE
LAKE OF THE WOODS
Author(s): Alicia J.M. COLSON
Source: Revista de Arqueologa Americana, No. 25, MANIFESTACIONES SIMBLICAS EN MESO Y
NORTE AMRICA (2007), pp. 101-185
Published by: Pan American Institute of Geography and History
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27768517 .
Accessed: 21/09/2014 04:29
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Pan American Institute of Geography and History is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Revista de Arqueologa Americana.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WHAT DO THESE SYMBOLS MEAN?


A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE IMAGESFOUND ON
THE ROCKS OF THE CANADIAN SHIELD WITH
SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE PICTOGRAPHS OF
THE LAKEOF THE WOODS
Alicia J. M. COLSON*

Abstract
This article not only surveys but critically comments on the publications of
Italso refers
those researchers who have worked on the Lake of theWoods.
Shield. Previous studies have
in other regions on the Canadian
own
utilised different paradigms and had their
opinions as to the value of
and framework of different approaches
methods,
particular approaches,
to studies

adopted by previous work. For the frontiers of research can only be pushed
and re-examines
the
forward ifevery generation of researchers challenges
Such surveys of previous work should form part of
work of its predecessors.
a base which is founded on a solid understanding of the fundamental issues

and problems of the field at hand. Each


investigator must conduct a detailed
of
work. This to enable
them to
their
and
survey
predecessor's
analysis
has been the most popular, what have been the
establish which approach
previous findings, what were their premises, what have been the methods
and the frameworks that have been utilized. The studies reviewed have been

to the theoretical approach


taken by the principal
according
a
of
the
The
author
with
short discussion of her
concludes
investigator
study.
rationale in choosing and establishing
the sequence
of several
theoretical
use
for
in
research.
path breaking
approaches
categorized

4243

rue Gamier,

Apt. 21, Montreal,

Quebec,

Canada,

H2J 3R7.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

102

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

Resumen
Una revisi?n cr?tica de las im?genes
?Qu?
significan estos s?mbolos?
en las rocas del Escudo Canadiense
encontradas
con referencia espec?fica a
las pictograf?as de Lake of theWoods
Este art?culo no s?lo revisa sino que comenta cr?ticamente las publicaciones
de aquellos
Se
investigadores que han trabajado en Lake of the Woods.
refiere tambi?n a los estudios en otras regiones del Escudo Canadiense.
Los
estudios previos han utilizado diferentes paradigmas
y tuvieron sus propias
en
cuanto
al
valor
de
los
m?todos
opiniones
enfoques y
particulares, as?
como al marco de referencia de los diferentes enfoques
por
adoptados
ser
la investigaci?n s?lo pueden
Las fronteras de
trabajos anteriores.

la
si cada generaci?n
de investigadores desaf?a y re-examina
empujadas
labor de sus predecesores.
Estas revisiones de las investigaciones previas
deber?an
formar parte de una base que se fundamenta en una s?lida
fundamentales del ?mbito que
de las cuestiones
y problemas
comprensi?n
una revisi?n y un an?lisis
nos ocupa.
realizar
debe
Cada
investigador
Esto les permite establecer
detallado del trabajo de sus predecesores.
qu?
han
los
sido
cu?les
el
m?s
ha
sido
anteriores,
hallazgos
popular,
enfoque
cu?les fueron sus premisas, cu?les han sido los m?todos
y los marcos de
referencia que han sido utilizados. Los estudios revisados se han clasificado
de acuerdo con el enfoque te?rico adoptado por el investigador principal del
estudio. La autora concluye con una breve discusi?n sobre su justificaci?n
una secuencia
te?ricos a usar en
de varios enfoques
para elegir y establecer
una investigaci?n de vanguardia.

R?sum?
Une ?valuation
images
critiques des
symboles?
une
avec
attention particuli?re
rupestres trouv?es dans le bouclier Canadien
pour la r?gion du lac des Bois
Dans cet article nous effectuons un survol ainsi qu'une ?valuation critique
des publications de ceux et celles qui ont dans la r?gion du lac de Bois ainsi
Les ?tudes ant?rieures ont utilis? des
qu'ailleurs sur le bouclier Canadien.
eu
ont
leurs
et
diff?rents
propres opinions quant ? la valeur des
paradigmes
de r?f?rence des approches
et cadres
m?thodes
diff?rentes approches,
ant?rieures. Car les limites de la recherche ne peuvent ?tre ?tendues que si
les
remets en question et r?examine
de chercheurs
chaque
g?n?rations
De tel survols de recherches ant?rieures
travaux de ses pr?d?cesseurs.
et
solide des questions
former la base d'une compr?hension
devraient
doit
en
chercheur
domaine
du
fondamentaux
Chaque
question.
probl?mes
ses pr?d?cesseurs.
Ceci
entreprendre un survol et l'analyse des travaux de
la nature de
leur permet d'?tablir quelle approche a ?t? la plus r?pandue,
et les cadres de
les m?thodes
les pr?mices de base,
leurs d?couvertes,
Que

veulent

dires

ces

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

103

Ici nous avons cat?goris?


les ?tudes ant?rieures selon l'approche
avec
une
son
L'auteur
conclue
courte discussion
th?orique.
expliquant
raisonnement pour ?tablir une s?quence
th?oriques ? utiliser
d'approches
dans de la recherche de fine pointe.
r?f?rence.

Resumo
O que
estes
s?mbolos
Urna revis?o
cr?tica das
significam?
imagens
?as rochas do Canadian
encontradas
Shield com referencia especifica para
os pictograf?as do Lake of theWoods
Este artigo nao faz apenas
um levantamento, mas comenta criticamente as
dos
Ele
publica??es
que trabalharam no Lake of The Woods.
pesquisadores
se refere tamb?m aos estudos de outras
Shield. Os
regioes do Canadian
estudos
utilizaram diferentes paradigmas
e tem sua pr?pria
precedentes
e m?todos
opini?o sobre o valor de abordagens
particulares e o quadro das
diferentes pesquisas
adotadas.
Para que da pesquisa
avance ? necess?rio
cada
de pesquisadores
o
examine
que
seus
gera?ao
trabalho de
O
levantamento de trabalhos precedentes
predecessores.
deveria
fazer
do conhecimento
parte da base para a constru?ao
s?lido dos temas e
fundament?is do campo em quest?o.
problemas
Cada
deve
pesquisador
conduzir urna an?lise e um levantamento detalhado dos trabalhos dos seus
Isto permite o estabelecimento
de qual
predecessores.
tem sido a
abordagem mais popular, quais foram os achados
pr?vios, quais foram as
premissas, quais tem sido os m?todos e os quadro de referencia utilizados.
Os estudos
revistos foram classificados
de acordo
com as abordagens
te?ricas usadas
do
estudo.
O
autor conclu? com
pelo principal pesquisador
urna curta discussao
da sua
raz?o na escolha
e estabelecimento
da
de diferentes abordagens
te?ricas para usar na pesquisa.
seq??ncia

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

104

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

Introduction
in
The collection and interpretation of data are intergenerational processes
which each new generation of scholars amplifies, and modifies the work of its
is clearly a truism; the implications of this are rarely
This
predecessors.
understood and developed. On the one hand most investigators work within
their own paradigm. This does not render them immune from criticism, set in
aspic. This article surveys the publications of researchers working on the
area. Iestablish the
pictograph and petroglyph sites in the Lake of theWoods
most
the
been
have
which
findings on
popular, previous
approaches
of
were
A
examined.
standard
materials
the
and
way
pictograph sites,
can
new
be
data
which
a
to
become
against
yardstick
comparison emerges,
examined. Much of this article is specifically concerned with the analysis of
area, but references are made
the pictograph sites of the Lake of theWoods
on
Shield.
Canadian
the
to studies of sites elsewhere
the earliest
literature falls into seven sections. The first discusses
The
three
The
second
subsections)
(with
images.
investigations of these
the technical literaturewith special emphasis on (a) the subdivision
examines
of the sites into sections, (b) the vocabulary used to describe the images (c)
the development of the recording techniques. The third section is concerned
It is
of these sites.
that present the technical analysis
with the works
and
the
to
record
used
the
into
pictographs
subdivided
techniques
(a)

the different
petroglyphsand (b) the conservation of the pictographsand

methods used to analyse them. The final sections critique the archaeological
culture-historical, contextual, intuitive,
literature. They cover five approaches:
theoretical approaches
These
and
complementary
homological.
analogical
of the
a
order
in
be
should
(see Figure 1). Flaws in each
specific
employed
first two stages will limitthe effectiveness of all others. An archaeologist must
first implement the culture-historical approach, then the contextual approach,
or homological
approach. These
and finally either the intuitive, analogical,
from other
unlike scholars
are important because
theoretical approaches
to an
are
textual data
rarely available
contemporaneous
disciplines,
researchers must draw upon the remaining
In their absence
archaeologist.
inwhich different groups of people
to interpret the manner
material evidence
interacted. A systematic
interpretive approach may enable
thought, and
from archaeological
to infer human behaviour and meaning
archaeologists
of
data. Each approach will dictate the types
questions asked, and indicate
evidence
the levels of understanding obtained regarding the archaeological
same
data
the
using these
under examination.
Analysts must examine
the
increases
this
since
potential quantity
different approaches
sequentially,
the
of information to be gained from the images. Therefore it is important for
Section
in
to
be
examined
sequence.
literature belonging to each approach
to the culture-historical
the literature belonging
five, therefore, considers
the shape,
location, and
have examined
approach, where archaeologists

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

105

Mean?.

the value of the literature belonging


date of the images. Section six assesses
to the contextual approach. This involves the search for patterns which might
relate different images and combinations of images both between and within
to connect
sites. This approach must be employed
the culture-historical
information with the larger issues, the totality of the images and the natural
I use the word contextual
features of the site itself. In this case
in a broader
and
less technical sense
than Hodder
intended.
For
low-level
(1991)
can
be
made
that
relate
without
for
data,
generalisations
searching
larger
explanations of meaning.
inwhich archaeologists

The seventh and final section reviews the literature


to images on the basis of three
assign meanings
which
be
either
may
methodologies
employed
together or separately. This
section contains three parts, each dealing with a different approach:
(i) the
intuitive approach,
the
and
(ii)
analogical
approach,
finally (iii) the
homological
discussed.

approach.

Each

of

these

approaches

should

be

briefly

CULTURE-HISTORY
Les/el 1 :Establishes theshape, location,and date of the images.

CONTEXTUAL
Level 2: Relates various typesofempirical information
to thesitewhere theywere found,
and considers a broad set of associations and relationsamong the
images themselves,
and between the images and theirphysical settings.
A contextualapproach involvesa search for patterns relatingdifferent
images
and combinations of imageswithinsites.

INTUITIVE
and/or
ANALOGICALand/or
HOMOLOGICAL
Level 3:Assigns meanings to images on thebass of three
methodologies
which are employed togetheror separately.
Figure 1.

Sequence

inwhich archaeological approaches must be utilised.

The intuitive (narrative, constructivist, or so called


'humanist') approach
associated with post-processual
as a reaction against
archaeology developed
the positivism of the processual
archaeologists
during the 1970s and 1980s.
The
intuitive or narrative approach
is popular among
petroglyph and
it enables
them to address
the issue of the
pictograph scholars because

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

106

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

of an image, even when


there is a paucity of detailed
textual
is of questionable
This
utility. The strong relativists load their
theoretical discussions with tortuous vocabulary. They claim a great deal but
in
fail to advance
beyond the subjective. Though authoritative and assertive
in "navel gazing." The readers, finds
tone, their interpretations are exercises
intuition.The applications of this
themselves at the whim of each scholar's
cannot be duplicated, since researchers
rarely explain how they
approach
the meaning of
interested in establishing
reached their findings. A scholar
more
cannot
fashion
rock images in a
stay there,
rigorous and persuasive
and should adopt the analogical or homological approach
(see Figure 1).
with processual
The analogical approach, associated
archaeology, was a
the post war
which
dominated
reaction by positivists to the culture-history
era. Its proponents argued that behaviour could be inferred from material
the various
exist between
uniform connections
culture because
many
human
and
material
of socio-cultural
culture,
systems,
components
it
is
that
this
who
behaviour. Scholars
argue
only worth
approach
practice
define
human
behaviour.
in
universal
Biologists
regularities
employing
close
without
of
different
features
as similar
evolutionary
species
analogies
relations. The similarities have resulted from natural selection operating to
to a similar environment (Abercrombie, Hickman and
adapt different species
An
Johnson 1985:20).
analogy is a likeness or partial likeness
archaeological
under
of convergent development
a
as
to
exist
assumed
consequence
use
to
scholars
allows
conditions.
Interpretation using analogies
comparable
culture in
material
and
behaviour
between
cross-cultural
regularities
strong
remains
to material
correlates
systemic contexts to attribute behavioural
contexts.
recovered from archaeological
that correlations can be argued between past and present
This assumes
ifsimilar
and
behavioural
capabilities of human beings. So,
day cognitive
between specific aspects of
can be established
characteristics
behavioural
can
in the contemporary world, scholars
material culture and behaviour
extend them to cover the same or similar aspects of material culture in the

meaning
records.

Scholars
record
analogical
adopting
1981).
(Binford
archaeological
to
than
rather
use
universal
specific
concepts
generalisations,
approaches
if
For
individual or historically related cultures. This has one major drawback.
deal
to
relevant then it is difficult
they deem only universal correlations to be
with the idiosyncratic facets of a single image.
The homological approach might offer an alternative to this bleak picture.
cultures occurring
An archaeological
homology is a similarity in two or more
as the result of shared historical origin unobscured by adaptation to different
result from diffusion as
cultural environments. Archaeological
homologies
In biology,
from
In this they differ
well as common descent.
biological ones.
occur
that homologies
only among species
reproductive isolation ensures
from a common ancestor. Consequently,
homological similarities
descended

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

imply evolutionary

do These

relationships

and Johnson 1985:145).

Symbols

among

107

Mean?.

organisms

(Abercrombie,

Hickman,

Scholars
establish
homologies
by tracing cultural continuities
through
time within a single, or a series of historically related cultural traditions.
Interpretations employing homologies
frequently utilise the direct historical
This
identifies
between
approach.
approach
parallels
culturally specific
beliefs and their material expressions
during the early historical period,
and employs material culture to trace these beliefs back
into prehistoric
times. The bridging arguments
for establishing
between
the
homologies
are
and
the
to
Watson,
LeBlanc,
present
past
culturally specific. According
are advantageous
and Redman
in regions of strong
(1971:50),
homologies
cultural continuity and where
the same
and
techniques
implements have
been utilised for a long period of time. Written records, oral heritage, and
are probably the strongest
observations
ethnographic
types of evidence
used when
Scholars
devising
bridging arguments
(Trigger 1995:452).
exploit

these

materials

to establish

which

beliefs

existed

in specific

cultures.

The
direct historical
connects
with other
approach
archaeology
the practices and beliefs of
disciplines,
providing information concerning
specific, or groups of, historically related societies.
By relying on a wide
can attempt to establish
whether
variety of evidence,
archaeologists
and beliefs
in
continuity exists over the very long term in the practices

allows
question. The homological
approach
in-depth analysis of a specific
to consider what
group and itsmaterial culture. It permits archaeologists
human beings might have thought about in the past, and provides
insights
into the meaning of specific symbols and objects.
Itmay even be possible
to determine
that similar images used
in a variety of different mediums
have
held
similar meanings.
It is a very demanding
to
might
approach
execute
for scholars
intending to use homological
interpretations must
have a detailed understanding
of the skills required to use archaeological,
and
materials
from the region in question. These
historical,
ethnographic
materials demand multidisciplinary skills to be exploited
effectively. Those
must verify how cultures
establish
taking this approach
entrenched
these are to evaluation
beliefs, and how susceptible
in terms of that
culture. Any scholar
intending to use the homological
approach must be
aware
of different cultural perspectives.
that
They must acknowledge
is neither straightforward nor simple.
using the direct historical approach
not necessarily
Continuity of form does
imply continuity of meaning.
can also change, especially
since
icons tend to be polys?mie.
Meaning
Material
and become
symbols can obtain new meanings
of
examples
what Davis
an "iconographie
called
(1992:25)
disjunction."
Continuity
or discontinuity
in beliefs over time cannot be
simply correlated with
material culture.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

108

'Rock Art' and

Revista

Its Study

de Arqueolog?a

- Some

Americana

Preliminary

No. 25

Thoughts

I think that the images that exist on the surface of rocks should be termed
rock images, or petroglyphs and pictographs instead of rock art. I realise that
the term 'rock art' is applied world-wide to images that are placed on the
surfaces of rocks. Itoccurs inmany different places and settings: Australian
in the Jordanian desert, vertical rock
rock shelters, the surfaces of boulders
the sides of the stone
faces or rock outcrops on the Canadian
Shield,
in France
of
the
walls
and
in
of New Grange
Ireland,
deep caves
passages
'Rock art' also covers features created using rocks of different
and Spain.

to produce 'rock,' or 'boulder alignments'.


that these
it suggests
I think that the term 'art' is problematic because
no intrinsicvalue or meaning of
a
and
value
decorative
have
primarily
images
their own. Italso implies classification of these images according toWestern
terms have loaded
notions of high or low art, or, perhaps, a craft. These
Rock images
values.
conventional
the
since
analyst's
they impose
meanings,
since, evidently, the
should not be considered within such a perspective,
and
cultural context of the 'reader' or 'viewer' influences perception
classification. This prejudgement affects how images are understood (Blocker
sizes

1994; Conkey 1987; Price 1989).

interested in these
scholars
these continual dangers,
Notwithstanding
found on rock
to
those
similar
term
'art'.
use
the
to
Images
images continue
contexts
cultural
other
in
are
encountered
Shield
of
Canadian
the
surfaces

Ritzenthaler1970).
(Densmore 1974 [1928]; Phillips 1999; Ritzenthalerand

The designation of all these sorts of images as 'art', 'folkart' or 'handicrafts'


has created problems for their analysts. Delineated
guidelines do not exist to
such
of
in which the meaning
images should be
indicate the manner
as 'art', they are
were
intended
or
these
not
images
unpacked. Yet, whether
us
to understand
a form of communication,
and, therefore, they challenge
term 'rock art'
that
the
with
I
them. disagree
argument
Whitley's (2001:22-23)
intellectual tradition has used it for
should not be changed since a western
over one hundred years. The use of a term for a long period of time should
that
not justify its continued usage, particularly if the users acknowledge
leaves
or
'tradition'
a
such
merely
practice
problems exist with it.Continuing
over whether these
the arena open for continual disputes and discussions
images are art or not.
the same techniques as are
Rock
image sites cannot be studied using
used and
sites. The theoretical approaches
applied to other archaeological
are
sources
data
the
radically
asked may be the same but
the questions
images cannot be excavated
different and generally far more limited. These
and analysing data that
for recovering, cataloguing,
using the techniques
area
sites. The
to
'conventional'
archaeological
apply
archaeologists
the
of
but the physical context
surrounding such images may be excavated
the
of
images
site often provides littleor no information about the meaning(s)
themselves.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

109

The subjective beliefs and ideas held by the people who created these

or the
to shape
them than technological
processes
images did more
or political systems
inwhich these people
economic
the
lived. Therefore,
on a
must
range of non
rely to an unusual
archaeologist
degree
sources
in order to establish the meaning of the images. It is
archaeological
to
access
difficult
this
information for a group whose
very
past is available
the
record.
The
in
difficulties
the
only through
archaeological
accessing
a
of
of
the
inherent
and
attributes
group
symbolic knowledge
people through
location of such images may explain why these sites have often
physical
been
in contrast to similar images found on
ignored, or merely described,
birch bark scrolls. Fieldwork and archival work must be considered as equally
important in this study, since informationmust be drawn from a wide range of
disciplines,
including archaeology,
anthropology, history, art history, geology,
and geography.
The earliest

investigation

of these

images

Mackenzie (1793), Schoolcraft (1851), Bell (1879-80), Lawson (1885) and


some

of the early French explorers, such as Lafitau (1794) and Dablon


were among the first to record the presence
of images either
(1896-1901),
Shield. While examining the
painted or engraved on rocks in the Canadian

geology ofMolson's Lake to thewest of Hudson Bay in1879, Bell (1881:7c)

found a pictograph site on the north side of Pai-Musk-taban


Sipi near its
mouth. The painted figures existed on a gneiss cliff that "measured up to 100
feet" (ibid.) in the form of "small figures in red ochre, said to have been

painted by the fatherof the present chief of the colony of Indianswhich

removed a few a years ago from Little Playgreen Lake to Fisher River, on the
west side of Lake Winnipeg." The largest
images were "not more than one
foot high" (ibid.), and most of them were less than eight inches.
According to
Bell, among them were "representedfed] a boat, canoe,
tortoise, bird, deer,
otter, Indian, pipes, etc." He stated that the local Indians described
them "as
being much more wonderful than they really are."
Afore recent
More
places.

literature

recent examinations
of rock image sites are published
in a variety of
Some
of these publications
have summarised
the discoveries
of

pictograph and petroglyphsites in the Canadian Shield (Brenner 1994;

T. 1979; Dewdney
1963, 1965, 1977, 1979a; Molyneaux
Conway,
1977,
1980a; Nute 1948; Wellmann
issues such as
1979a). A few have considered
tourism (Arsenault 1996) and political and
ideological conflicts (Arsenault
1997; Nelson and Hinshelwood
have discussed
1998). Others
trips that
involved searching for, finding or visiting, sometimes
in the
sites
recording
Canadian
on the meanings
Shield, and also speculating
of images found
and Cameron
1973; Cameron
(Ashdown
1979; Dewdney
1958, Knowlton

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

110

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

1992; Macfie 1992; Mallory 1961;Olson 1961; Pettipas 1991a). Some briefly

discussed and referenced rock image sites as being widespread


throughout the
Canadian
Shield within a larger discussion of some other related topic. One of
this group, Dickason
(1972:13), used part of DhKm-3 from the Lake of the
as her example of the pictographs of the Canadian
Shield. Several
Woods
were determined to find the oldest pictographs or petroglyphs
archaeologists

in theCanadian Shield (Pohorecky& Jones 1968a; Steinbring1986, 1993,


1999).

with
concerned
and
the 1980s,
the 1970s
archaeologists
During
a place
of
the
were
in
two
issues:
related
selection
interested
sites
pictograph
from
in the landscape and the orientation of the site. Reid (1980) observed
the information on the pictograph sites in theWest Patricia region north of the
that pictograph sites tended to occur on straight
Lake of the Woods
or
that were not broken into parts by bays, islands or
coastlines
shorelines,
creators
of these sites preferred rock faces that faced ina
the
and
that
points
this idea further in
south-to-east direction. Rajnovich
developed
(1980a:34)
in Cuttle Lake, arguing that straight
of pictograph sites
her discussion
shorelines were predominately selected "to increase the spectacular effect" of
the images to be visible both
these shorelines enabled
the images because
from nearby and from afar. She reasoned
that, based on her examination of
south-to
the Lake of theWoods),
of
River
sites from the Rainy
region (south
east facing rock walls were selected as light conditions here were best for
creating and seeing paintings. The "rising and noontime sunshine reflected
from the water" beside the cliff face caused
"dancing light sparkles over the
that cliff faces
its dramatic value" (ibid.). She asserted
work heightening
or
sunset
weakest
the
"shadows
which faced west-to-north only experienced
a
on
face
cliff
occurred
sites
that
always
pictograph
light." She assumed
on
to
reflect
water
close
a
of
beside
any
light
enough
body
immediately
surface.
rock's
the
images painted upon
licence reports are useful for finding rock image sites and
Archaeological
of work conducted at different sites in the Lake of the
the
range
establishing
1978, 1979, and 1981).
Woods
1982, Molyneaux
(for example: Cameron
Ontario
to
the
wrote
his
in
Heritage Foundation that
report
(1978)
Molyneaux
of two petroglyph sites
a
record
was
create
to
his intention
photographic
when the water level was abnormally low. He noticed that Lawson (1885) had
the lake levels as varying over a range of 10 feet (ibid.A) but by
described
like Cameron
(1982),
1906 the lake's level was now regulated. Molyneaux,
Island, or DjKp-4,
did not use Borden numbers, only local names: Kennedy
study
and Sunset Channel, or DiKo-2. Molyneaux
(1979) for his subsequent
of the seven pictograph sites
of
six
record
a
detailed photographic
produced
inWhitefish Bay, in the south eastern portion of the Lake of the Woods:
DiKm-3, DiKm-4, DiKm-1, DhKm-3, DhKm-4, and DhKm-5. Molyneaux hoped
to record the images systematically, accurately, and
to use photography
and also to minimise
efficiently given the "difficult field conditions" (ibid.A)
human error and interpretation.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

Other

reports by Molyneaux

of theWoods

do These

Symbols

discuss

sites

111

Mean?.

in areas

neighbouring

the Lake

(Molyneaux 1981, 1982, 1985a; 1985b). Both his 1974 and

resulted from projects conducted


under the auspices
1975 publications
of
Trent University and
the Canadian
Institute. The Trent
Conservation
examined
twelve pictograph sites
University team headed
by Molyneaux
during the 1975 field season and twelve pictograph sites during the 1974 field
season. All of the sites except for the pictograph site in Trampling Lake in
Manitoba were
in Northwestern Ontario. Eight of these sites existed
in the
Lake of theWoods,
including DiKm-3, DhKm-5, DhKm-1, DhKm-4, DhKn-1,
DiKo-1, DjKn-1, and the now extinct licheno-glyph site called DhKn-2.
(Lichenoglyphs become extinct when the lichen grows over image or glyph,
created by someone
having scraped away the lichen growing on the rock's
the team considered
site,
surface.) However,
only one Lake of the Woods
DiKp-1 on Cliff Island, in the 1975 study.

Still other studies only brieflydescribed sites in the Lake of theWoods

(Fox 1974; Reid 1976 and 1977). Reid surveyed numerous archaeological
sites, among which were fifteen pictograph sites. These sites were examined
as part of an inventory that was conducted
at the request of the Regional
Lands Co-ordinator,
Northwestern Region, Ministry of Natural Resources
(1976:ii). The goal of this archaeological
project was to collect data for the
Lake of theWoods General Land Use Plan and its principal concern was the
"densest current and potential development within the northern half of the
sites were tested
Planning Area" (ibid.). A number of specific archaeological
at the request of the Senior
Lands
Planner. A total of seventy-one
sites were recorded inMay 1975. All the pictograph sites were
archaeological
allotted Borden numbers and assessed
as to their level of "interpretability" to
the public as well as their level of "representability" (/M/.: 13-15). What these
terms meant is unclear. Reid provided the precise geographical
location and
of each
site. He also postulated
their "cultural affiliation,"
accessibility
their age, and sought to determine whether the site had any
essentially
to the local indigenous population.
The
religious significance
physical
condition of each site was evaluated,
and Reid established
whether
the
ithad been discussed
in
general public knew of its existence and whether
and determined the
print. He did not describe the images but photographed
size of each site.
Fox (1974:3)
DhKm-1, a pictograph site called Devil's
only described
Hole, in the southern part ofWhitefish Bay, Lake of theWoods.
He observed
that bundles of clothing were stuffed into a cleft in the rock surface of this
site. An informant told him of rumours that these bundles had been
"placed
there by local native people attempting to affect a cure for a sick child." He
considered
that perhaps
the offerings of these bundles were
closely
connected
to the "offering tree" which Ritzenthaler and Ritzenthaler
(1970)
had described as existing among the southern Chippewa.
Fox found similar
items of clothing such as buttons, buckles, and suspender components at this
site which he presumed
to be evidence of earlier offerings. He also found

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

112

Revista de Arqueolog?aAmericanaNo. 25

lead sinkers, a corroded metal bowl, and numerous coins (1974:3.). The
leftwhere they had
presence of these objects was recorded and they were
been found. He speculated
that the clothing bundles had not been disturbed
since they were leftas offerings. Birch bark scrolls were not found at this site,
although fragments of birch bark with stitching punctures were found one to
that these
in the large cleft at this site. Fox posited
two metres back
fragments might have been part of a birch bark container used to hold food
Institute for
offerings and sent these fragments to the Canadian Conservation
all
the
Fox
this
finished recording
site,
adjacent clefts in
preservation. Before
the rock were checked and photographs were taken (ibid/A).
as Reid
in 1975 (1976) to
Lambert (n.d.) used the same procedures

record eight pictograph sites (DkKn-7, DkKn-6, DjKn-1, DhKm-5, DjKn-2,


This report was
in the Lake of theWoods.
DhKm-18, DhKm-4, and DhKm-1)
in
the
Lake of the
never published. All the pictograph sites he recorded
direct
'dot-for-dot'
were
recorded
Woods
tracing
using
photographed,
in
inconsiderable
depth. These sites were discussed
(ibid.:20) and described
in
the findings of the thirdNorthwestern Ontario Rock Art Project, conducted
1985-1986. This project considered some of the pictograph sites in the Lake
in
The other reports dealt with pictograph sites elsewhere
of the Woods.
Northwestern Ontario (Lambert 1983, 1985). Lambert (n.d.:201) asserted that
in the 1985-1986
classification of the images from the pictographs examined
the
of
sub-areas
between
to
him
Winnipeg River
distinguish
project permitted
basin
River
the
Bloodvein
and
basin
drainage
(ibid.??). The abstract
drainage
of his third survey indicates that he viewed these images not as 'art' but as a
method of communication.
that the largest number of images of animal
Lambert (n.d.:201) observed
in the Bloodvein River Region, north of the Winnipeg
creatures occurred
that the provision of hunting
River drainage basin. This led him conclude
in the Bloodvein
an
rock
of
the
was
function
images
important
magic
and
River
the
In
basin.
region, images of canoes
Winnipeg
drainage
that
there
observed
He
more
often.
occurred
199-200)
(ibid.:
anthropomorphs
were more hand prints, and pairs of handprints in theWinnipeg River region
than in the Bloodvein River drainage basin.

For two sites in the Bloodvein River region,Lambert (ibid:202) argued

that a connection existed between the orientation of the site and its function.
Almost all of the images at both sites were hand prints and both had similar
that both sites "signposted a possible avenue, by
orientations. He suggested
called
way of a portage" to another lake (ibid..202). The pictograph sites he
Woods
the
Lake
of
the Rushing River sites, DjKn-1 and DjKn-2, in the
region
acted ina similar manner, since they both used to exist on rapids or falls prior
to the raising of the Lake of theWoods water level (ibid.). Pictograph sites, he
they
had "a function to guide the traveller" especially when
proposed,
in narrow "situations" since those site areas were difficult to avoid.
occurred
for Lambert (ibid.) that these sites could be interpreted as
This meant
boards, maps or navigation aids." Unfortunately he was unclear
"message

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

113

was
to "guide or identify, or warn of fast water or
whether the message
malevolent spirits."
that the images he examined were related to
He (/?/'cf.:204) asserted
activities
such as hunting, fishing, and horticulture.
various
secular
he
unstated, were
argued
although
(/ /. :204-205),
Specific
images
and sturgeon, others
indicated a life
to hunting ungulates
connected
connected
to horticulture, and that some
threatening disaster
images
were connected
to the Midewiwin Society.
(The Midewiwin Society, or the
is a highly stratified organization
of shamans.
Grand Society of Medicine,
initiated into this society could "read" the
Individuals or Mid?, who were
of the birch bark scrolls which recorded the traditions
images, mnemonics,
It is evident, upon close examination of
and practices of the Midewiwin.)
that he has included and
of DhKm-1 and DhKm-4,
Lambert's discussion
treated the images which comprise the site DhKm-1 as part and parcel of
in 1960, called
This may have occurred
because
DhKm-4.
Dewdney,

DhKm-4 Site # 92 and DhKm-1 Site # 92A. It is clear fromhis field


II and III of Site # 92A are
in Figure 2, that the images on Faces
drawings,
as DhKm-1. Face
site
I of
the
classified
of
part
pictograph
subsequently

Site # 92A is now called DhKm-4.

Figure 2.

Dewdney's 15th July 1960 field record of Site # 92A, now called DhKm-1
and DhKm-4. ? Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto Canada.

Pictograph and petroglyph sites were frequently recorded as part of larger


sites in
surveys concerned with other types of archaeological
archaeological
in the Lake of theWoods
One notable example
the Lake of theWoods.
is
Pastershank's
(1989) report, inwhich she considered
pictograph sites as
units of analysis, therefore not to be analysed
in conjunction with
separate
sites examined at the same time. These studies, aimed to
archaeological
%the

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Revista de Arqueolog?aAmericanaNo. 25

114

that sites existed and to describe


establish
them, did not analyse
in
the Canadian
Shield
treatment
occurred
elsewhere
This
detail.

them in
(Conway

1975, 1984; Dawson 1973; Halverson 1988; Hill 1982, 1983; Lema?tre1995;

for the
Smith 1981). Occasionally
surveys were conducted
archaeological
and petroglyphs but not for
of surveying for pictographs
sole purpose
sites that could be excavated
"conventional" archaeological
(Lambert 1983,

1985, and n.d.; Rusak 1992a; Scott 1980; Pelshea 1980; Pelleck 1981;

in other
1980a,
1981b). The quantity of literature published
Rajnovich
were
with
these
concerned
that
archaeologists
government reports indicates

images (Conway n.d.b; Friend 1983; Jones 1966, 1981a; Petch 1991;

Pohorecky

and Jones

1968b; Rajnovich

1980b,

1980c,

1981c; Rusak

1991,

1992b; Steinbringand Iwacha 1982; Steinbring1998; Tass? 1977a). These

at some length in the reports


have been recorded and discussed
them
required by the relevant government bodies to inventory and analyse
for any given region.

sites would

Techniques

used

to record

the pictographs

rock images are derived


used to record and analyse
methods
Subsequent
to be the
is
work.
from Dewdney's
Indeed, Dewdney
rightly considered
to
was
first
he
the
since
rock
art
studies"
"father of Canadian
person
for
initial
method
The
of
these
a
undertake
images.
study
comprehensive
as Dewdney
to have emerged
the size of sites appears
determining

(Dewdney and Kidd 1962) developed his techniques for sketching and

measuring pictograph sites.


The technical literature is divided into three parts: (a) subdividing the sites
into sections; (b) describing the images; and (c) recording the images.
Subdividing

sites

into sections

use of the
involved in Dewdney's
the problems
It is crucial to understand
is large,
area
with
ochre
covered
If
the
terms 'face' and sometimes
'panel'.
to aid recording,
into smaller components
sites are invariably subdivided
the size of a
photography, and description. The initialmethod for determining
for sketching and
his techniques
as Dewdney
site emerged
developed

measuring pictograph sites.


sketches of the rock surfaces once he had identified a new
Dewdney's
him to specify and identify the physical
was
site
present probably enabled
location of various groups of images (ibid.). Yet he did not identifydifferent
to each other. It is
parts of a 'face' as 'panels' ifthey had different orientations
fieldworkers
a
other
as
result
of
this
that
practice developed
possible
that the
rock faces. Itwas observed
of
to
take
compass
bearings
beginning
or in
sun
or
the
the
surface of the rock used for paintings faces
setting
rising
that
sites
the
Hence
a southerly direction (ibid.:6).
Dewdney
pictograph

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

115

examined faced towards the east, the west, and the south. Indeed, Dewdney
(ibid.) stated that he had "seen only three sites on which the sun never
shines," where lichen grew, but he did not state inwhich direction the surface
of the rock was faced.
Difficulties exist with the meaning
of the terms 'face' and 'panel' since
Unlike Pastershank
researchers often do not clarify their meanings.
(1989),
who used these terms but did not define them, Rusak
defined a
(1992a:1)
'Face' as a single figure or group of figures on a common rock plane. She
to distinguish itfrom its
stated that the "F" must have its first letter capitalised
common meaning.
It appears
that she used
the concept
of panels
to
if two areas containing pictographs were
subdivide
large sites, especially
on the same
face. These
numbered
physically separated
panels were
if
the
had
different
orientations.
panels
sequentially
Itseems
likely that the concepts of faces and panels were used to divide
the rock face into surfaces that could be discussed
and analysed
In
easily.
his unpublished report (n.d.:21), Lambert developed
the idea of splitting sites
even
further into manageable
if cliff faces with paintings were
parts,
to
warrant
the standard Face and panel
"sufficiently large
supplementing
with
horizontal
data
that
serial,
designations
points." Lambert maintained
on the rock face.
serial horizontal points were useful ifseparations appeared
He (ibid.) applied
it at Bloodvein
1 Pictograph, EiKs-1,
in the Bloodvein
that this technique would have been useful in
drainage basin, but maintained
the 1982 and 1984 Northwestern Ontario Rock Art Project (Lambert 1983,
that he had not discovered many
1985) studies. However, he acknowledged
sites where
there were
"continuous paintings for long, relatively flat, cliff
lengths" (ibid.:23).
use this technique to subdivide pictograph sites for
While archaeologists
the purpose of making them easier to describe and quantify, itcan cause
for subsequent
since precise
rules do not exist
researchers,
problems
concerning how this technique should be employed. Eight pictograph sites
were divided
in the Lake of the Woods
into parts when
first
they were
recorded. This group includes DiKm-3, DhKm-3, DhKm-1, DhKm-4, DiKn-1,
and DhKm-5.
It is clear
that both Dewdney
and
DhKn-1,
DjKn-1,
Pastershank
sites
into parts if they were
the first
invariably subdivided
individuals to examine a site. It is therefore easy to subdivide this group into
two smaller
to whether
or Pastershank
groups
according
Dewdney
recorded the site. Dewdney examined DiKm-3, DhKm-3, DhKm-1, DhKm-4,
examined
DiKn-1, DhKn-1, and DjKn-1, while Pastershank
and
DgKI-19
first. However,
Pastershank
contradicted Dewdney's
divisions of
DgKI-17
them in 1989. DhKm-5, rather than
DgKI-1 and DgKI-2 when she examined
being subdivided, grew insize. Five of these sites, DhKm-1, DhKm-4, DjKn
inwhich
1, DgKI-1, and DgKI-2 are examined below to illustrate the manner
these
subdivisions
have
affected
their descriptions
and
subsequent
interpretation.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

116
DhKm-1

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

and DhKm-4

Dewdney's fielddrawingof Site #92A and Site # 92 indicatesthatthe two


one site (see Figure 2).
considered
and DhKm-4 were
DhKm-1
in
both
recorded
found
and
1960, classifying them as one site. He
Dewdney
he did not think that
recorded only half of the entire site, possibly because
smears of ochre were paintings (see Figure 3). However, why Dewdney only
recorded the images from part of DhKm-1, which he called Site # 92,
IIand IIIare part
I is DhKm-4, while Faces
Face
remains unclear. Dewdney's
as Dewdney's
DhKm-1
not
beside
of DhKm-1. DhKm-4 is clearly
immediately
sites

fielddrawings (see Figure4) of bothsites imply.


However,whyDewdney only

recorded the images from part of DhKm-1, which he called Site # 92, is
unclear. The sites are more than a few metres apart from each other as the
annotated photograph of the sites taken in2001 inFigure 4 indicates.
as indicated by the
Dewdney missed an image now classified as a smear

annotated photograph(inFigure3) and Dewdney's fielddrawingof thesite in


Figure 2. Lambert, inhis (1985) unpublishedstudyof some of thepictograph
sites, made

the mistake

of considering

some

of the paintings of DhKm-1

as

thatthe twositeswere
partofDhKm-4,despite Reid (1976) in1975 reporting

existed
separate entities with their own Borden numbers. Why this confusion
Reid
that
known
for Lambert is difficult to determine, since he would have
own
His
DhKm-4.
from
a
had already designated DhKm-1 as
separate entity
1973
records show that Lambert (n.d.) knew of Dewdney's
publication and
and DhKm-1.
of
DhKm-4
1960 field drawings
had probably seen Dewdney's
that he
are
DhKm-1
of
DhKm-4
II of
The images of Lambert's Face
images
Lambert
5.
in
the annotated photograph
Figure
recorded, ifone examines
recorded the images that he deemed were the site. He applied a technique of
classification developed
during his field survey of some pictograph sites in
the Upper Severn region of Northwestern Ontario in 1982 (1983).
DjKn-1
two
recorded this site as Site # 29 in 1958. From examining
Dewdney
at
the
Archives
World
New
in
the
notes
field
his
of
this
site,
photographs
and
Kidd's
and
and
Ontario
Museum,
publication (Dewdney
Dewdney
Royal

Kidd 1962:27 and 1967:29) itseems that itwas divided intotwo distinct

components.
in
in 1974, Reid
Unfortunately, it remains unclear whether Molyneaux
into
site
the
of
method
used
or
in
1978
Pelshea
dividing
Dewdney's
1975,
the site as two separate parts,
two parts. However, Lambert (n.d.) considered
in 1993
II. Rusak
Face
as
I
and
Face
site
of
this
two
parts
recording
III. This
a new section which she called Face
include
to
site
the
expanded
as
same
cliff
part of
was the location of a hand print that existed higher up the
the same site but not near the water's edge (see Figure 6).

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?...

117

Figure 3.

The Close Proximityof DhKm-4 to DhKm-1. ? Alicia Colson 2006.

Figure 4.

Annotated

photograph of DhKm-1 in 2001


divisions.
? Alicia Colson 2006.
Dewdney's

by Colson

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

according

to

118

Figure 6.

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

Photograph of the hand print thatbelonged according to Rusak


inFace III.? Alicia Colson 2006.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in 1993

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

119

recorded and examined the following two sites inAugust 1964.


Dewdney
his subdivisions
in 1989. Both sites are close to
Pastershank
challenged
each other, but differ in terms of size, and in what has occurred since
examined them.
Dewdney first, then Pastershank,
DgKI-1
The water below this site is shallow, and the site is partially protected from
the main channel by two of the three small, neighbouring islands. It lies on a
south facing spit of land on the main travel channel, between two red channel
at the northern end of Sabaskong
markers
called S56
and S60
Bay.

twogroupsof imageswhich he called Face Iand IIofSite


Dewdney identified
# 197 (Figure7). Pastershank in 1989 (1989:51) contradictedhismethod of
subdividing the images. She found images on a surface to the leftof his Face
Ias her Face
II and his Face
Iand, hence, renamed his Face
IIas her Face
III.The 'new' images to the leftof her Face
IIwere called Face I.The site was
clearly subdivided as indicated in the photograph inFigure 8, into three parts,
called Faces,

Figure 7.

based

upon the physical structure of the cliffface.

Dewdney's 1964 field drawing of Site # 197 (DgKI-1 ) and # 198 (DgKI-2).
? Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto Canada.

DgKI-2
with Dewdney's
Pastershank
subdivision of DgKI-2 when she
disagreed
recorded it.Her divisions, unlike Dewdney's
of 1964, did not depend on the

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Revista

120

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

called Face 1 in 1964, but since thenthenumberof paintingspresentat this

in number. The
increased
image in Figure 7 is the image that
at
recorded
DgKI-1 although itwas published 90 degrees counter
Dewdney
1962 publication with Kidd.
in
clockwise
Dewdney's
I discovered
in 2001
four additional and
research
doctoral
During my
The
new
9
and
at
presence of these
10).
images
DgKI-2 (Figures
obviously
of the site may
subdivisions
Pastershank's
that
issue
the
reflects
images
itwas
have affected her description of its contents. Therefore,
important to
subdivisions of DgKI-2. Unfortunately, almost all the
replicate Pastershank's
identified, except for two recognisable
handprints and
images Pastershank
some parallel lines, were very pale and next to impossible to distinguish. The
in 1989
or fading of the images recorded by Pastershank
disappearance
in
of the exfoliation of the images, possibly
could be a consequence
causes a
often
minerals.
Mineral
of
with
the
deposition
deposition
conjunction
white deposit to form on images painted using ochre.
in Figures 9 and 10, were
The new paintings found in 2001, shown
new paintings including a
ochre.
The
of
instead
produced using modern paint
a
crescent with its points
vertical
and
star
a
six
pointed
type of creature,
on
older
were
both
paintings and painted directly
superimposed
facing right,
had
Pastershank
beside
on
the rock surface
(1989:54-63)
paintings
recorded, and photographed. The fourth new image was created
described,
"Faces" but was placed beside the area called a
not on any of the designated
This image is radically different from any of the new
"site" by Pastershank.
rather than solid. Large quantities of offerings also
hollow
images since it is
in the 2001 field season
were discovered
(see Figure 10).
site had

Pastershank (1989) designated Face Ias being at rightangles to the rest

of the site on the right hand side painted area. The large overhang was
divided into Faces V, VI, and VII. The rock underneath the overhang was
in 1964,
divided into Faces
II, III, and IV. Face 1, first recorded by Dewdney
Pastershank's
and
clear
its
from
to relocate
is relatively easy
images
submitted to the Ontario
published field recordings in her research report
Recreation.
and
Tourism
of
Culture,
Ministry
However, the remaining Faces are not allocated to the surface of the rock
their
described
in a way that can be identified easily, since Pastershank
she
identified.
that
to
location on the rock surface in relation
specific morphs
no
these morphs were
longer recognisable.
Unfortunately, by 2001,
the
was
to
determine
difficult
it
precise location of each Face.
Consequently,
II as the area of rock underneath the
Face
Her published report designated
red ochre smear" (/6/d.:55).
"an
observed
she
where
overpowering
overhang
identified the clearest morph, at the bottom corner of the north side of
She
bird (Morph 4)"
as a "zoomorphic
in this Face
(ibid.:57).
the panel
a "thunderbird," was no
called
she
which
Unfortunately, by 2001 this morph,
itwas
it.Consequently,
had described
longer distinguishable as Pastershank
that
location. Pastershank
its precise
pronounced
difficult to establish
the base of this bird image, was "in some danger, as it is sitting on the top of

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?..

121

the middle

of the roof-laminating caverns" (ibid.). She asserted


that distinct
were
on
and
called
also
II.
Face
Three
10,
handprints,
Morphs 5, 6, 8,
"finger
strokes" were recorded as existing in the central area of the red ochre smear
called Morph 7 (ibid.:59). Pastershank
found fresh tobacco leftas an offering,
in a small crack fifty-threecentimetres below Morph 10. She stated that this
part of the site suffered from the largest quantity of rock spalling. There was
crumbling over the whole site and small colonies of lichen were growing
there. She observed thatmineral seepage was evident both above and at the

sides of the redsmear and throughout


thehead of thebirdmorph (Morph4).

Pastershank
that Face
III was
maintained
located
twenty-eight
centimetres leftof Morph 10, and forty-seven centimetres below it.The only
recognisable morph on this Face was a "possible hand print" called Morph 11
itwas
that
(ibid..59). However, by 2001
impossible to identify the morphs
had used
in 1989 to subdivide
Pastershank
the site. Pastershank
(ibid.)
IV farther south, i.e. below all of the Faces
located Face
that she had already
as
the
roof
of
the
shelter
from
designated
protected by
any "weathering
other morphs were
identified, including the outline of an
agents." Several
image she described as an "upside-down man with his elbow bent on the
that the
right as if to place one's hand on this hip" (ibid.). She maintained
indicative of "its importance and possibly predicts
depiction of this image was
the death of some-one
prestigious" but, unfortunately, did not provide any
evidence
to substantiate
her conclusion.
Pastershank
identified another
"the size of a handprint" to the left
morph, a smear that apparently measured
of the upside down stick figure. She
identified nine handprints as existing at

thissite and maintained (/M/.:63),as Lambert (1985:123-125) had done, that

the hand was


"an indicator of death of a warrior." She
identified a similar
sized but "indistinguishable" smear of red ochre to the leftof this smaller
smear beside the upside down stick figure. Pastershank
the
photographed
same part of the site where Morph 12 was found. However,
2001
this
by
morph was no longer distinguishable.
Faces V, VI, VII were stated to exist on the overhang created by the rock
shelter. These faces were contiguous and the morphs were adjacent
to each
other on the curved overhang. According
to Pastershank,
Faces V and VI
had one hand print each, called Morphs 14 and 15
respectively, while Face
VII had a horizontal undulating red linemeasuring
twenty-seven centimetres,
called Morph 16 (ibid.). Pastershank
observed
that all three faces suffered
from mineral deposition which she affirmed was
indicative of heavy water
the red
leaching that was caused by precipitation and lichen growing above
images.
Itwas difficult to utilise the arbitrary framework that Pastershank
used to
divide DgKI-2
into manageable
units. Pastershank's
subdivisions
do not
follow the physical structure of the rock but depend on the identification of
specific morphs. Furthermore, problems exist for subsequent
archaeologists
since
the images
fade and decay.
The deterioration
of the morphs
underneath
the rock shelter made
it impossible
to identify the precise

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Revista de Arqueolog?aAmericanaNo. 25

122

boundaries between the images of Faces


II, III,and IV located on the edge of
the cliffabove the overhang with the large smear and the new images.
Some
of the difficulties
in establishing
the precise
location of
Pastershank's
be
the
of
results
the
which
morphs may
techniques by
they
were
for the final archaeological
field
reproduced
report. The published
to which the field
recordings are the final product of the whole process
recordings were subjected, once they had been taken to the archaeological
traced onto acid
laboratory. The field copies of the sites were subsequently
free albene
in the laboratory. The
were
field copies
reduced
paper
a
in
size
called
transfer, so that
process
using
photo-mechanical
considerably
could
be
8.5
11
inch
it is
paper. Therefore,
they
readily published using
that tiny details, which enabled
to readily identify
Pastershank
possible
too difficult to determine. Pastershank
morphs, became
interpreted DgKI-2 as
follows:
The environmental setting and the extensive ochre red paintings have made
this site overpowering. Death may be the subject of Face IVas seen in the form
of an upside down man, positioned over the thirdcavern, perhaps the death of
an importantperson. A totalof nine handprintswere recorded at this pictograph
site. The interpretationof the hand being an indicatorof death may be valid
(Lambert 1985:123-125). To make this site even more spectacular is the
placement of the powerful spiritual figure, the Thunderbird, over the middle
cavern. Pastershank (1989:63).
the location of the images in this cavern
Pastershank
clearly considered
like setting as highly significant. Her naming this site "Three Caverns
to reflect this fact. Yet, only two caverns
Pictograph Site" (ibid.:54) seems
existed at this site since the second "entrance" is in reality a hole in the wall
of the larger of the two caverns. Pastershank
(ibid.JO) identified this site, and
the three other sites inSabaskong
Bay, as "tentatively called 'Boreal Forest'
that they were dated circa 1600, which she
Algonkian." She maintained
maintained was "characteristic" of the majority of the rock image sites in the
This is an interesting conclusion but she does not provide
Lake of theWoods.
to support it.
any evidence
Terminology
Pastershank's
(1989) identification of specific morphs at DgKI-2 inadvertently
to become
blurred with low-level interpretations.
her descriptions
caused
was
a
crucial
the
description of the
part of Pastershank's
images
Identifying
her description of each site to have a
enabled
sites and her subdivisions
for each Face were
The boundaries
structure and become manageable.
on her ability to recognise specific images that she labelled as
dependant
in 1989
morphs. Yet, by 2001 many of the images that she had described
were

impossible

to identify.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

123

Mean?.

The

used
to describe
the images of pictograph
is
sites
vocabulary
to
since
it
enables
the
the
to
and
important,
archaeologist
images,
classify
create an inventory of all the images at each site. The vocabulary
used to
describe each image influences how it is examined, both as a separate entity
an image can and do
and within a group. The words used to describe
influence how
the shape
and
the
is considered.
ultimately
style
are
interested
in
because
modes
different
of depiction
Archaeologists
style
are often equated
with different ethnic groups, while
similarities are
interpreted as evidence of those interactions.
Pastershank's
(1989) classification of all of the readily identifiable morphs
on each Face enabled her to group them by type, and by whether they were
hollow or not. In doing this, she followed the technique of analysing
these

ochre images advocated by Dewdney (Dewdney and Kidd 1962, 1967,


1975), Vastokas

and Vastokas

(1973),

Lambert

(1983,

1985 and n.d.) and

Rajnovich (1980a, 1980b, 1980c, 1981a, 1989, and 1994). Pastershank

in her archaeological
(1989:70), who was trained by Rajnovich, determined
survey of four pictograph sites inSabaskong
Bay that 76 identifiable morphs
were found on 15 Faces. DgKI-1 had 26 of all of the identifiable morphs found
at these four sites, while DgKI-2 had 17, DgKl-17 had 30, and DgKI-19 had 3
morphs. Unfortunately, she did not describe the shapes of these images. The
names she gave to differentmorphs were also problematic.
Pastershank's
verbal descriptions of each type of morph cause problems
because
to the reader according to their physical shape.
they implymeaning
As Dewdney
had noted earlier, this problem was widespread
(1979b)
and others interested in these images. He observed
amongst archaeologists
that numerous
difficulties ensued
when archaeologists
described
visual
own
and
admitted
that
his
work
from
suffered
these
flaws
images verbally
and problems (1979b:326).
In one case, he had noted that at over half the
sites he had recorded images that bore:

...no recognizable likeness to any known form and I designate them as


abstractions. Many of them are single strokes occurring ingroups or series that
suggest tallymarks. The remainder range from simple to relatively complex
forms.

The other half of the symbols subdivided roughly into five groups:
miscellaneous man-made objects, hand-prints, other human subject matter,
animals, and composite-presumably mythological-creatures. Dewdney and Kidd
(1967:18).

Dewdney
(1979b) realised that verbal descriptions of images were prone
to subjective
variation (/?/d.:326-328).
He (ibid.) subsequently
suggested
that a series of graphic and visual models
could provide the level of rigour
to classify
needed
words were
insufficient. Dewdney
images because
from the literature on
acknowledged,
drawing upon a number of examples
rock image sites from both the Canadian
Shield and elsewhere
in North

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

124

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

"in assigning
that he and his colleagues
had been careless
in the publications of their research
captions to our illustrations" (ibid.:330)
on rock image sites.
inwhich his colleagues
the manner
He (/6/d.:333-336) also questioned
rock image sites. He harshly criticised the practice of
had reproduced
examining these images one at a time, often extracting a single image and
insisted that
itwith similar images from another group. He
connecting
in conjunction with each
images which formed a group should be examined
other as well as in relation to their original location, and that a site must be
studied in relation to its local environment. Not doing so was the equivalent
of treating sites and
images at "the level of an artifact picked up in a

America,

ploughed field."
not realised quickly.
hopes were
(1979b)
Unfortunately, Dewdney's
in the Boreal Forest have
field surveys
Some
conducting
archaeologists
For
to define the images at rock image sites over-narrowly.
continued

example, Haywood (1983) wrote that thirtypictograph sites depicting


handprints and
caribou, deer, heron, human
"moose,
figures, canoes,
Park. He was
Provincial
in
existed
Quetico
abstract symbols"
(ibid. 17)
concerned with describing to someone who was not visiting each site what
labelled a range of images
the images resembled. J. Conway
(1979:19-32)
as
Ontario
at several sites she recorded in northern
including: "thunderbird,"
"abstract paintings," "beetle," "turtleman," "tallymarks," "human figure," and
have
"fish." Both the perception and value judgements of the archaeologist
of these
the description
affected
(1979b:336-337)
images. Dewdney
that those concerned with rock image sites should develop new
concluded
of
methods
from the conventional
standards
independent
recording
to images.
attributing meaning
The development
The

development

of the techniques
of how

the

used

images

to record
were

the images

recorded

commenced

with

Dewdney inthe 1950s (Dewdneyand Kidd 1962). Afterhe had sketched the
the distances between the physical places on
images, Dewdney measured
them as individual
the rock surface where the images existed and designated
numerals
(ibid.:8-9). He took colour photographs, and
parts using Roman
recorded the compass bearing of the site, the depth of the water nearby, and
the height of the cliff (ibid.:8-9). At first,a three-inch grid was
lightlychalked
on to the rock to ensure an accurate scale copy of the images at each site
to
the chalk off afterward. This grid enabled Dewdney
(ibid.). He washed
to key
determine the location of a key point on a rock face. The distances
from string co-ordinates across the rock
points in a painting were measured
rice paper employed for block printing, which
face. The use of thin Japanese
this technique, as
was
it
when
became
wet, soon superseded
transparent
beside the
structures
built
visible in Figure 11. Sometimes
physical
Dewdney
site to enable him to record them. The photograph inFigure 11 demonstrates

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

125

that Dewdney used a log probably attached by rope to a tree growing above
the cliff face at DhKo-1. Two rectangular shaped grey areas exist beside and

in the middle of the images. The one

in the middle of the paintings

individual is probably rice paper. The


immediately in front of the standing
nature of the second rectangular shape
is unknown and appears perhaps to
have been applied to cover something up.
used a sponge roller to wet the paper, which also caused
it to
Dewdney
adhere to the rock surface. The images below and visible through the paper
were subsequently
recorded on the rice paper using Cont? chalk allowing
him to record all but the faintest of images. Dewdney
notes
also made
directly on the paper regarding cracks and the height of the images above the
water level. This development permitted Dewdney
to reduce the time taken in
noticed, the rice paper both
recording these images. However, as Dewdney
obscured
the recorder's view of the fainter images and lighter details of the
were
coloured
if the stronger
motifs,
stronger
especially
images
on
fainter
site
superimposed
larger,
images. Dewdney's
numbering sequence
reflected the order inwhich he recorded the site rather than anything else. He
affirmed that, as he recorded, his accuracy
increased
"due to practice"
(ibid.:9).
the range of colours used so that red
Pelshea
expanded
(1979:24)
recorded ochre and green was used for lichen, frost spalls, and rock level
changes. He also started to replace or substitute the Cont? chalk with Dixon
Lumber crayons since they did not cause the wet rice paper to tear.
Jones (1968:110)
believed that the images should be outlined using felt
pens, rather than duplicated using a method called "the solid-line technique."
The latter resulted in the "character and the distinctiveness" of rock images in
different geographical
to Jones (ibid. 10),
regions being omitted. According
was
common
solid-line
the
most
and
recording
widespread
technique for
was
a
It
for
method
not,
however,
recording pictographs.
good
"conveying
actual appearance
of painted symbols, and, as importantly, the character [his
italics] and distinctiveness of the rock art of a particular area." Jones was
concerned
that key aspects of the images of different regions were being
and
that made
"the symbols more subject
to
ignored
simplified, since
classification"
and
He
advocated
that
gratuitous
"interpretation."
subsequently
the best alternative was to record every aspect of these "symbols and their
settings that set them off from other styles" (ibid.A11). Evidently, according to
Jones a recording technique had to render any distinctions in the style of the
images evident in the field recordings.
to Jones (ibid.), Dewdney
initiated the method of recording
According
were
the
of
outlined.
or
Jones either crosshatched
whereby
edges
images
shaded
the interiors of the images to indicate gaps in the pigments of faded
areas.
were
recorded on transparent plastic using different
Pictographs
coloured
to differentiate between
the pictographs
and
lichen
pens
encroachment
and damage
to the rock surface. Jones advocated
that notes
on the plastic where spalling, differential
should be made
fading of the

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

126

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

images, and unusual features existed. Later in the laboratory, a stencil copy
was made
of this field recording using a light celluloid paper and inking
so that
equipment. The resulting image was checked against photographs
the colours could be verified, ensuring a good reproduction of the original
image. The technique of Jones' recording as many precise details of these
of the dot-for-dot
images as possible
likely led to the development
technique.
Questions
regarding image reproduction had already been raised in the
minds of several archaeologists.
Since Dewdney was aware that rice paper
faint
from
prevented
paintings
being discerned, he quickly adopted Jones'
and
refinement of the technique, using Saran
(1968)
Pohorecky's
(1968)
left-over food)
Wrap
(thin clear clinging plastic usually used for wrapping
that was electrified with a brush, and grease or felt pens for tracing the
It is possible
that Pohorecky
advocated
Saran Wrap
images.
(1968)
because
of its tendencies
to stick or "cling" to surfaces. This new recording
the images, enabling recorders to salvage
faint
technique did not obscure
to
the
wet
water
the
invisible
under
rice
The
adhere
paper.
required
images
rice paper to the rock surface possibly also reduced future visibility of the
on the surface of the site.
since
it left mineral deposits
pictographs,
and Elias
However,
rapid
questioned
Dewdney's
Steinbring
(1968a)
itwas difficult to
that, sometimes,
adoption of this technique. They declared
record a site using Saran Wrap,
and
field
instances,
that, in these
The
metre
record
the
researchers
should
images
grids.
using
of the dot-for-dot recording
is
technique
representational
advantage
on pictograph
in
sites
that a number of researchers
evident, given
Northwestern Ontario
1983, 1985, n. d;
1988; Lambert
(see Halverson
it
for
Rusak
Pastershank
used
several decades.
1992a),
including
(1989)
on
was
of
ochre
visible
the
rock
surface
recorded by a
each
dot
Essentially
was
a
clear
that
held
red
felt
dot, using
plastic
by sticky tape
tip pen, upon
the
to the rock face. Lambert (n.d.:20) asserted
that this technique enabled
important non-cultural
"duplication of the cultural, as well as the equally
that recording both the ochre and the colour
information." He contended
for
"contextual associations
coded
"linear and areal symbolics" conveyed
enabled
both types of information." This type of record, he asserted,
to provide more detailed image descriptions and analyses of
archaeologists
that the plastic recording was a
specific paintings. Lambert (ibid.) reasoned
it used a 1:1 ratio, rendered "an almost exact,
idea and, since
good
that this record was
important for
reproduction." He maintained
complete
that he examined suffered
because
the pictographs
preservation purposes
from erosion.
in pigment could not be replicated easily using the
However, changes
recorded with dots
dot-for-dot technique.
Superimposed
images were
were
if
the ochre was faint,
if
to
other
close
each
or,
dark,
they
positioned
relatively far apart. The relative distancing and spacing of the dots appears to
that the 2
have been at the discretion of the recorder. Rusak advocated

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

127

millimetre thick plastic be cut to size, and fastened to the rock face with tape.
iton the
Whatever was visible below Rusak
reproduced
immediately above
as well as
felt-tip pens
plastic using waterproof
1992a). Rusak,
(Rusak
Lambert, did not use Saran Wrap but did not inform the reader why itwas not
used. Red denoted ochre and blue, mineral precipitation and patination. Any
was
encroachment,
organic matter, such as lichen, rock tripe and moss
recorded using a green felt tip pen, while a black felt tip pen recorded cracks
and fissures on the rock surface (ibid.). Pohorecky and Jones (1966:104)
coded their felt tip pens according to colours on the Munsell soil colour chart.
did not clarify which colours were used to denote which
Pastershank
features for recording the pictograph sites in Sabaskong
Bay, Lake of the
but itappears
from her 1989 report that she used the dot-for-dot
Woods,
It is probable that Pastershank
(1989) used the same
recording technique.
Rusak as a crew
Pastershank
trained
because
colours as Rusak
(1992a),
which
the
four
member for the archaeological
survey during
pictographs sites
were
inSabaskong
recorded.
Bay
However, this process of physically recording these images is problematic
despite Pohorecky and Jones's (1966) claim that it required "no artistic skill"
and allowed relatively few opportunities for the recorder to make mistakes.
in a
and the creation of a duplicate
Both the field recording process
or
a
occur
can
if
recorder
are
the
Mistakes
laborious.
copier is a
laboratory
of
the
the
reflect
could
the
since
novice,
impression
images
image produced
in theirminds rather than being an accurate reproduction of the images. The
difficult and
images is an especially
recording of faint and superimposed
occurs
when
of
images
images
Superimposition
activity.
possibly subjective
the colour
are painted one top of another at different times and consequently
in intensity. During the intervals between
of the image varies
repainting,
or become partially covered
in
have
these images could
faded, weathered,
or
rock
mineral
lichen,
deposits.
tripe,
themselves.
record of the images
provides a detailed
Photography

Dewdney (Dewdneyand Kidd 1962:8-9) tookcolour photographsof thesites


he described.Only Molyneaux (1979) considered theuse of thephotographic

record as the sole means of documenting the pictograph sites of the Lake of
theWoods. Others continued to use black and white and colour photographs
of recording the images (see Pastershank
and slides as additional means
in
1989 and Reid 1976). Still other researchers working on sites elsewhere
too problematic
that photography was
Shield maintained
the Canadian
of "many
because
photographs were often "distorted" as a consequence
factors." They did not list these factors, other than to state that one of them
for these unstated
from the site. Itwas
was
the distance of the camera
field
detailed
considered
Jones
reasons that Pohorecky and
recordings and
more
than
of
the
nevertheless,
which,
photographs,
important
images
tracing
were important for checking details of the images inquestion. Pohorecky and
stated that photography "allowed too much artistic licence"
Jones (1967:305)
and "too littleaccurate

draughtsmanship."

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

128

Revista

Technical

analysis

Technical

issues

involved

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

in recording

and

Some

have discussed
archaeologists
recording and
interpreting pictographs

No. 25

interpreting rock image sites

the technical
involved in
issues
and petroglyphs
1979;
(Brand

Chisholm 1982; Pelshea 1979; Pohoreckyand Jones 1966, 1967; Pohorecky


1981; Pufahl 1990; Steinbringand Elias 1968a). Pufahl (1990) considered
that computer enhancement
of the images from the Eagle Lake area was a
idea
he
because
had
been forbidden, by the Elders and the Chief of the
good
Eagle Lake Reserve
nearby to touch or trace the images at each local rock
image site. Yet Pufahl was aware that both the Elders and the Chief were
about the severe physical deterioration of these sites because
concerned
were
sacred
to the local indigenous community and "routinely receive[d]
they

the only
offerings of tobacco"
(ibid.A9). Consequently
photographs were
means allowed by which these sites could be recorded.
Pufahl's initialefforts at using photography were thwarted because
of slow
shutter speed,
insufficient natural
and
the
to
need
all the
take
light,
a
from
boat.
he
used
with
filters
both
photographs
Consequently
polarizing
his camera
lens and the flash unit in conjunction with graphically enhancing
the images on the computer. He proposed a 'radical new breakthrough'
in
these
where
he
those
where
the
lichen
had
recording
images
replaced
pixels
encroached
upon red images with matching red ochres from the same area
(ibid. .20). Therefore the image became completely visible instead of partially
obscured. He acknowledged
that he was aware that potential problems could
occur if this process substantially distorted these images. Yet he was not
these images but also manipulating
them. In "replacing"
merely enhancing
the grey or non-red bits of images, he perhaps unconsciously
changed their
his
claim
Therefore
that
his
a
was
radical
shapes.
technique
breakthrough is
slightly misleading.
Conservation

and analytical

techniques

The concern of some researchers


lay solely in the conservation of pictograph
sites (Tass? 1977c and 1979, Taylor, Bokman and Wainwright 1979). Others
desired
to conserve
in
petroglyph sites,
particularly the petroglyphs
Petroglyph

Provincial

Park

in southern

Ontario

(Bahn,

Bednarik

and

Steinbring1996;Wainwright,Sears and Michalski 1997). Molyneaux (1974)

and a team from the Department of Anthropology at Trent


University visited
twelve pictograph sites inNorthwestern Ontario during the 1974 field season
to document
them and determine the general condition of each site using
"previously defined weathering variables" (ibid.A). The reader of this report is
not provided with any means of determining what these variables were, but
they clearly were
important enough to warrant a detailed description of the

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

129

Mean?.

and protection purposes. Occasionally


sites for conservation
he described
the images that he found at each of the sites. Seven of the twelve pictograph
in the 1974 study were in the Lake of theWoods
sites covered
region. The
team examined
the following Lake of the Woods
sites: DiKm-4, DhKm-5,
DhKm-4, DhKm-1, DhKn-1, DhKn-2, DhKo-1, DjKn-1, and DiKn-1. All of the
numbers and their
sites discussed were referenced using Selwyn Dewdney's

Borden numbers.
A year later, Molyneaux
and his colleagues
(1975) from the Canadian
of Anthropology,
Conservation
Institute and
Trent
the Department
in detail fifteen pictograph sites on the
University, sought to document
in terms of physical conditions such as moisture access,
Shield
Canadian
and
formation, seepage
seepage
deposit
deposit
flaking, exfoliation,
each
site
to
its
assessed
establish
physical
biological
growth. They
condition with regard to these criteria. Topographical
maps
illustrating site
recorded for
locations and scale drawings of the pictographs were also
in the Lake of the
each site. One site, DiKp-1, called Sunset Channel,
included in this study.
Woods was
Other studies were concerned with the conservation of the paints used in
pictographs,

the conservation

of pictograph sites

in the Canadian

Shield,

and

thedifferent
ways of examining them (Goods 1990; Myers and Taylor 1974;
Taylor, Myers and Wainwright 1974, 1975; Pohorecky 1980; Wainwright
1990, 1997; Wainwrightand Taylor 1977). Steinbringand Elias (1968a)
on the surface of
establishing the pH level of the mineral washes
pictographs to ascertain whether the acidity of the soil above the site affected
that the acidity of the soil could affect the
the images below. They maintained
visibility of the images.
advocated

Goods (1990) analysed the paint of one morph from the Rice River

to determine the micrographical, elemental and


Pictograph Site in Manitoba
the
constituents, and the paint binder. He discovered
mineralogical composition,
the presence of hematite, quartz, potassium oxide, and aluminium oxide. He
that organic matter was not detectable either in the vehicle or the
concluded
binder.
to discover the composition of the
Two additional studies were conducted
paint, so as to aid the conservation of the rock image sites in the Canadian
since the
Shield. Establishing
the nature of the paint aided conservation
would know what to expect in the way of deterioration. The
archaeologists
discovery of the paint recipes and the organic binders could also have
for archaeologists
investigating pictographs world
important consequences
and the motives behind their
wide regarding their conservation, meaning,
that the results obtained
avouched
These
creation.
archaeologists
demonstrated
that the artists who had created these paints probably thought
about what they were doing (Buisson et al. 1989; Clottes et al. 1990a, 1990b;
Lorblanchet
Clottes 1993; Couraud
1982:84-85;
1983, 1988; Leroi-Gourhan
et al. 1991). An
et al. 1990; Menu and Walter
1991; Pepe
important

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

130

Revista

implication of these studies

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

is how the results affect the procedures

taken by

conservators.

Taylor, Meyer, and Wainwright (1974:32) wished to establish the causes


of the natural deterioration of pictograph sites in the Canadian
Shield, prior to
researchers
had attributed
conservation
treatments.
Previous
devising any
the deterioration of these paintings to physical and chemical weathering of
the rock surfaces. Seven samples were examined to determine the formation
and the composition of the paint from the Agawa
pictograph site, on Lake
in Ontario, and a site on Lac Wapizonke,
Quebec
Superior
(ibid.). Little
information is provided as to the sampling strategy used and the size of the
camera
removed. X-ray diffraction was used with a Debye-Scherrer
samples
a
with
attachment
for
Gandolfi
equipped
single particle analysis. Cross
were
a
sectioned
examined
samples
microscope
using
scanning-electron
with an x-ray energy analyser
of up to
under magnifications
equipped
revealed that the paint
X10,000
(ibid..33). The results of these experiments
was anhydrous
iron oxide or haematite. They observed
that the pigment was
"firmlyattached to and intimatelymixed with the [white] mineral deposit in a
sandwich structure" instead of adhering to the surface of the rock (ibid.AO).
The white deposit found on these cliffs coated
the images, provided a
from
the
action
of
rain
and erosion by wind"
the
"protective coating
leaching
and
the
from
prevented
pigment
(ibid.)
dissolving away. Taylor and his
established
that
the
accumulation
of this white mineral
colleagues
gradual
led to "the faded appearance"
of
deposit, calcium carbonate, on pictographs
many of the images.
the idea that the scatter patterns
indicated that the
They advanced
was
to
not
attached
the
surface
of
rock but was
the
pigment
directly
on
mixed
with
calcium
carbonate
rock's
the
surface,
intimately
deposit,
in a sandwich-like
structure (ibid. 40). The calcium carbonate
deposit
acted as a protective coating for the pigment against
the
consequently
that these
leaching actions of the rain and wind erosion. They asserted
on the
results explained why wet surface chemical
field tests conducted
paintings failed to identify the hematite. The results also found that the
calcium carbonate prevented the pigment from dissolving away (ibid.). Taylor,
that the rate at which these mineral deposits
Myers and Wainwright asserted
accumulated
had to be constant, but that itwas
impossible to establish this
fact with certainty. They established
frommicroscopic
analysis that although
not to suffer from white mineral
brighter red images often appear
accumulations
they still accumulated white mineral deposits on their surface
because
they were affected, although to a lesser extent, by groundwater
seepage.
Essentially paintings on surfaces that are dryer suffer less from the
accumulation
of white mineral deposits
than images that are continuously
affected by groundwater seepage
(ibid.AO).
The information gained from examining these samples aided conservators
in designing
the methods
The
by which pictographs might be conserved.
white mineral deposit on the surface of the images is a crucial component of

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

131

the sites. Any efforts to conserve


these sites must take these results into
consideration. The white deposit accumulated
through time until itcompletely
obscures
the painting. The results also demonstrated
that exfoliation was not
the principal cause of the deterioration at other sites.
This study subsequently
prompted another examination of paint samples

to determine the structureof the pigments used in the pictographsof the

Canadian

Shield. Wainwright and Taylor (1977:31)


used scanning-electron
to
determine
the
of
structure
the
microscopy
pigment of two samples. One
was from a painting on Lac Wapizagonke,
and the other from a
Quebec,
on
Mazinaw
Lake
in
Ontario.
Here
is not provided
information
painting
again,
the sampling strategy and the size of the samples
involved.
concerning
of the samples
revealed distinct, almost parallel
Analysis of cross-sections
layers of pigment (ibid.). Wainwright and Taylor posited that a chemical or a
the original pigment into distinct layers and
separated
physical process
concluded
that the pigment must have migrated within the deposit because
were
the samples
taken from images that appeared
not to have been
repainted.
Both experiments demonstrate
that conservators must undertake detailed
studies of the pigment prior to attempting to conserve
rock paintings,

especially in the Canadian Shield. Wainwrightand Taylor's (1977) study

that pigment analysis revealed that a site had been repainted


demonstrated
or that the pigment may have migrated. However,
these results must be
as
considered
two samples
were
since
tested.
preliminary,
only
that
demonstrated
of
several
Nevertheless,
they
layers
pigment may exist at
to have been painted only once.
pictograph sites which appeared
were
concerned
to establish detailed
information on the
Archaeologists
physical state of the rock surface upon which these images existed, and
technical
information concerning
their physical composition
and structure,
that might be useful for the conservation,
and possible
preservation,
interpretation of the pictograph sites.
Culture-Historical

Approach

the culture-historical
if they want
to
Archaeologists
employ
approach
location, and date of the images with which that they
investigate the shape,
are concerned.
Indeed, establishing the age of Shield rock images is central
to the culture-historical approach
and for some
rock image specialists
the
of
these
styles
establishing
images is a means
by which the age of an

image can be determined (Grant 1967; Dewdney 1970c, Pettipas 1982;


Pohorecky 1981; Rajnovich 1980a; Reid 1979; Rogers 1962; Steinbring
1977, 1979a, 1990, 1993; Steinbring and Simpson 1986; Steinbring,

and
Danziger
Callaghan
half of these
Approximately

and
1987;
Steinbring
Callaghan
authors, with the exception of Grant

1985).
(1967),

Rogers (1962), Rajnovich (1980a), and Dewdney (1970c) studied the


petroglyph sites

in the Lake of theWoods.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

132

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

Grant (1967:145) considered the style of these images within this

as
which
"Northern Woodland"
geographic
region of North America
as far as the
"continued westward"
into the prairies of western Canada
that some "simple abstract
Plateau
Columbia-Fraser
(ibid.). He maintained
were
to the naturalistic style
elements" existed but that they
subordinate

was:
(ibid.:20)and thatthisstyleof painting

...confined to the regions dominated by a nomadic hunting economy. The


paintings are mainly simple, rather crude representations of men and animals.
Insome areas the drawings are done in red alone, though black and white were
sometimes added. (Grant 1967:20).
elk and buffalo," Ojibwa
images included: "men in canoes, moose,
as
the "water panther," and the "thunderbird,"
creatures such
mythological
fish and buffalo, an abstract
animals such as deer and mountain sheep,
a
was
and
"human forms" of different
element which
semicircle with rays,
Other

(ibid.:20),while the
types (ibid.).The pictographswere "painted(naturalistic)"

petroglyphs existed on horizontal surfaces inOntario and northern Minnesota


thunderbirds, and humans"
(ibid. 49) and had "crudely pecked animals,
of
were
similar to those found at unnamed examples
which Grant asserted
in
his
chapter
petroglyph sites in southern Minnesota. Much of his discussion
on the Northern Woodland
rock image sites reflects his consultation with
Dewdney who was recording sites at the time that this work was written and
Indeed, he clearly stated in his acknowledgements
(ibid.:v'\\\)that
published.

work after consulting with


the Canadian
only have discussed
in
surveying and recording sites in
Dewdney, who had been actively involved
a wide range of images.
the Canadian
Shield. Grant clearly recognised
to
describe
these images may imply
Unfortunately the vocabulary he used
been
the case. He did not
more meaning
to the reader than might have
to
the
establish
indicate the precise technique he used
identityof an image.
traits
local stylistic
Furthermore, he did not consider
specific to different
he

could

Shield.
regions in the Canadian
to exist ifDewdney
A site was deemed
recognised a clearly defined image
at that place. Dewdney obviously had thought carefully about how to describe
into groups. He classified
these images so that they could be classified
in
chart
to
the
the
published in both editions
pie
categories
images according

of the book that he co-authoredwith Kidd (Dewdney and Kidd 1962:18,


1967:18).
of these
images
types of
description
Dewdney's
Unfortunately,
or
to
to
himself
others. Dewdney
their
either
meaning
inadvertently implied
apparently classified the images using art historical terms laden with Western
such as "naturalism" in his 1962 and 1967 book with Kidd.
cultural baggage
he had been trained as an artist and illustrator.
This was probably because
He stated (ibid.) that his own work suffered from these flaws and problems.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

133

later realized that verbal descriptions of images were


Dewdney
(1979b:326)
that others were
variation and he argued
prone to subjective
equally
that a series of graphic and visual
He subsequently
culpable.
suggested
to classify images because
models could provide the level of rigour needed
words were simply not sufficient.
When
he commenced
searching for pictographs, Dewdney
thought that
of red ochre on the rock surface was
the presence
insufficient in itself to
a physical location in the landscape as a site. Smears
of ochre
designate
were "not shapes,"
in
from Dewdney's
the
1962
publication with
viewpoint
Older
Kidd, since they were not recognisable
images that had
symbols.
to the point of becoming amorphous shapes were also excluded as
decayed
a shape
must have a defined edge
For Dewdney,
and be
shapes.
"recognisable."

Images such as blobs and smears, which could have been recognisable
of white mineral
images blurred by time, exfoliation, the accumulation
and
the
rock
and
of
he
lichens,
deposits,
tripe
by
growth
ignored or left
undescribed.
that
he
omitted the
Indeed, Dewdney
(1975:4) acknowledged
that
he
in
considered
leave
it out."
"when
doubt,
images
"ambiguous"
Smears differ from blobs since they are usually not only larger than blobs but
they could have been placed on the rock's surface intentionally. Images could
fade and become blobs, but ifDewdney's
approach was used, places with
were
smears
blobs
not recorded.
and
not
and
important
only
or
of
the
lack
smears, washes,
shapes without clearly defined
Perhaps
in
the
his
that
field
reflects
fact
did not consider
edges
drawings
Dewdney
these shapes as images. Faint pale images probably would not be present on
his field recordings using paint and rice paper since the rice paper would
them when placed on top of them. Perhaps
probably obscure
Dewdney's
an artist
stems
from his training as
perspective
regarding smears
to paintings and art objects
created
in the Judeo-Christian
accustomed
the index of his 1967 edition of his publication with
perspective. However,
Kidd indicates that "smearing of paint on rock" was considered
important
in the index or in the
included and ithad not appeared
since this term was
text of the previous publication
Indeed, Dewdney
(1967:190).
(/?/d.:107)
wrote in the text of this edition that "the vague hints of frequent over-painting
site." The second
edition of his
that this was a long over-used
suggest
his opinion as to the
publication with Kidd indicates that he had changed
later realized that
value of the smear as an image. Dewdney
(1979b:326)
verbal descriptions of images were awkward as prone to subjective variation
and he argued that others were equally culpable
areas
or
of ochre as washes
Rajnovich
(1981b:286)
acknowledged
smears.
that a style of image existed in the Canadian
Indeed, she observed
Shield region whereby the edge of the image was painted firstand the shape
was subsequently
filled inwith an ochre wash. Rusak
(1992a: 124) observed
that only two sites, DhJx-9 and DgJx-2, of the seventeen pictograph sites that
were examined during her 1991 field season
inWhite Otter Lake (twenty

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

134

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

seven sites are located in this lake) in 1991, did not possess
or smear." She stated that:

an "ochre wash

.. .the location of washes and smears along prominent natural ledges, insmall
cubby holes, along noticeable cracks and crevices on the rock surface,
indicates the ochre's intentionalplacement. It is therefore hypothesized that
these washes and smears designate the suitable location to leave offerings for
the powerfulManitous within [the rock] (Rusak 1992a: 124).
were obviously
Smears
and ochre washes
important images for Rusak
she maintained
that their presence
confirmed that these places were
like
peoples. Rusak,
important in the world view of the Algonquian-speaking
as
in
while
themselves
them
individual
viewed
Pastershank
images
(1989),
as a part of an image. Two years after
Rajnovich
(1981b) perceived washes
since

in 1978, photographed
and recorded the images of DiKm-4,
Pelshea
in
Lake
the
Woods.
DhKm-3
the
and
of
Unfortunately, it is impossible
DjKn-1,

Reid,

to determinewhat he and Reid (1976, 1977) thoughtof thestylisticqualities

of the images. Molyneaux


(1979) did not consider the stylistic aspects of the
that
he (ibid..2) contended
six pictograph sites that he studied because
"regional interpretations based upon the style typologies and style areas and
are
but
expedient
largely
ethnologies
supported
by ethnographic
several styles of images from
indefensible." Rajnovich
(1981b) discovered
either her involvement in or reading the results of a large number of field
surveys inNorthwestern Ontario. Indeed, Dewdney previously (Dewdney and
thatmore than one style of paintings existed
had speculated
Kidd 1967:176)
in the Shield region and that only detailed studies would reveal the regional
styles.
Rajnovich
Deer
Lake:

in
maintained
that four styles of images existed
(1981b:286)
or
or
outlined
outlined
morphs
morphs,"
"open
"open
filled inwith ochre wash,"
"finger lined, or stock morphs" and
subsequently
could
"closed morphs." The lines of the first style of image, she speculated,
a
and
used
Cree
feature
"internal
Ojibwa
frequently
by
organs"
stylistic
signify
artists during the twentieth century. The images at the Deer Lake pictograph
because
sites were
"distinctive" for Rajnovich
they occurred on a large
number of sites in a relatively small area with "the complete range of morph
styles known to Shield rock art." These
images existed at sites that were,
according to Rajnovich
(ibid. .282), some of most northerly sites to have been
inOntario.
discovered
Her system of classification of these images indicates that the images and
the centres of the images were not the same. Fortunately she provided a few
examples of each style of image so it is possible to compare the images she
recorded with other examples
elsewhere.
She
reviewed work by her

colleagues
research

(Smith 1981 and Pelshea

in the West

Patricia

1980) who also had conducted

district, and Dewdney,

and

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

concluded

that

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

135

in
patterns did not exist regarding the distribution of the morphs
geographical
were
northwestern Ontario. However,
found
"open style morphs"
usually
and
north and south of an imaginary line between the Lake of the Woods
common
Lake St. Joseph (1981b:286).
also
most
asserted
that
the
Rajnovich
style of image was the "open and closed style."
that the images at Deer
Lake were
Rajnovich
(ibid..287) maintained
"abstract" rather than "realistic" based on Dewdney's
(Dewdney and Kidd
1967:19) use of these terms. The term 'abstract' was more appropriate, she
the creators of these images were more concerned with
claimed, because
theirmeaning rather than their physical shape.
It is interesting to observe
that, although Pastershank
(1989), Rusak

(1992b), Smith (1981), and Pelleck (1981) each recorded at least one

the possible
pictograph site, none of them discussed
style of the images.
and
also
considered
the idea that images
(1980a
Rajnovich
1981b)
occurred
in groups. She observed
that occasionally
single images occurred
at sites such as those inDeer Lake (1981b:287),
at the Pukamo
Island, the
Cuttle Lake, and the Jackfish Lake sites (1980a:34).
inferred that the
She
of repeatedly occurring
indicated that the "pictograph
presence
images
artists did not perceive the images as single, isolated figures but drew the
of a single
morphs within the framework of a "story"" (ibid.). The presence
or
"an
if two
character"
whereas
shape
image implied
object,
thought
same
were
a
of
the
then
existed
between
type
present,
images
relationship
the two shapes.
considered
three morphs,
from various
Conway
(n.d.a and
1978)
in
Northeastern
sites
which
occurred
in
Ontario,
pictograph
conjunction with
each other: an open armed man, his canine companion, and an animal pelt.
Another morph, which Conway
identified as a beaver, existed above the man
He
and his animal companion.
identified these
images as specific star
constellations.
asserted
that Conway's
Rajnovich
(1980a:35)
(1978)

identification
ofOrion and Canis Major (see discussion page 64ff)at different

across
Shield was
Bear
the Canadian
problematic.
images, she
or
as
in
either
occurred
alone
she
had
in the
observed
asserted,
pairs
of
sites
of
both
Lake
and
Lake
the
Woods.
Pairs
of
pictograph
Rainy
images
sites

also existed at Cuttle Lake (Rajnovich 1980c). She did not discuss canine

had
identified a canine
image existing with a
images although Conway
human figure.
as a "canoe-with-passenger"
that images described
She also observed
motif existed throughout the Canadian
Shield but that two styles of this shape
Island and Jackfish Lake, two sites in the Rainy Lake
existed at Pukamo
Island
region. She (ibid.) contended that the image from the site on Pukamo
had "stick" passengers
while a similar image on the pictograph site at
did
Jackfish Lake, had "open armed passengers."
Unfortunately Rajnovich
She
not provide any photographs of either of the images under discussion.
in the
(ibid.) posited that the differences occurred since the passengers

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

136

Revista

canoe

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

were men

inone canoe and Maymaygwayshi


in the other.1 Rajnovich
maintained
that the different style of canoe
reflected either
(1980a:35)
different cultural affiliations of those drawing these images or time periods in
which the images were drawn.
Rajnovich was clearly concerned with the style of the images in the
Canadian
advice
Shield, but she did not pay any attention to Dewdney's
the
of
and
Kidd
about
problem
1967:176)
resolving
dating
(Dewdney
that a correlation existed between Blackduck
pictograph sites. She asserted
ceramics
and
images of hand prints in the Rainy River region. She
with one
ceramics were found in association
established
that Blackduck
in
with
information
from her
site.
This
information,
pictograph
conjunction
informant that some of the images were created by the Mid?, led Rajnovich to
posit that these images dated to the Blackduck period and provided a date for
like Rajnovich
the origins of Midewiwin Society.2 Pastershank
(1989:71),
that
could
be
since
observed
pairs of
important
paired images
(1980a:35),
in
were
examined
at
sites
she
each
of
the
present
pictograph
images
Bay.
Sabaskong
At two pictograph

sites where

the

images,

he believed,

conformed

to

Woodland style,Pohorecky (1981)


Grant's (1967) designationof theNorthern

to be
to different groups all the images deemed
and assigned
categorised
of
he considered
that the standard categories
human figures. However,
to
not
the
be
for examining
could
classification available
applied
images
"human figures" at both sites. Pohorecky did not indicate how he concluded
that any of the figures were human rather than supernatural. He (1981:12)
was principally interested in the "human" figures at the two sites on Smith
He
Narrows between Hickson and Maribell Lakes in northern Saskatchewan.
the northwestern tip of this style, the
believed
that these represented
1

alongside
they met
2

or
& Vastokas
(Redsky
1972:36)],
(1973:48),
may-may-gway-shi
are small hairy creatures,
spirits, who
living in rocks
(Hallowell
1992:64)
and occasionally
stole fish but when
lakes and are fond of fish, travel in canoes,
because
humans
they "had a soft part to their nose, only a
they hung their heads
[Vastokas

Maymaygwayshi
memenow?ciwak

hole" (Hallowell1973:48).

the Ojibwa:
the Mid?,
religious practitioners, exist amongst
Densmore
ascertained
that the images, or
(1910:16-17)
of the Midewiwin. Mid?, ritual
which were created and used by Mid?, members
mnemonics,
were key members
of Algonquian
and medicinal
specialists
Images were
speaking
society.
to communicate
information on a
created
and used by the Algonquian
peoples
speaking
Three

different types of shaman,

the Jiissakid,

variety
scrolls.
reveals

and

the Wabeno.

of portable objects, while the Mid? used a specific group of images on birch bark
of imagery created
Detailed
examinations
by the Algonquian
peoples
speaking
for specific
that the creators manipulated
different types of images and materials

The rapidity with which the floral ornamentation


and spread supports
developed
this idea. Densmore
that the Jiissakid were known as doctors or jugglers
(ibid.:2Q) argued
were believed
to be the most recent type
and were different from the Mid? while the Wabeno

audiences.

of

religious

practitioner

who

used

divination

and

were

sometimes

1982:115).

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

feared

(Johnston

What

Figure 9.

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

137

The new image at DgKI-2 not painted upon the older ochre images in
? Alicia Colson 2006.
July 2001.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

138

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

Figure 10.

Three of the four new images at DgKI-2 in July 2001. ? Alicia Colson
2006.

Figure 11.

Dewdney workingwith a colleague on an improvisedplatformat Site #108.


?
Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto Canada.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

139

in Northwestern Ontario. Grant (1967:147)


had
epicentre of which occurred
of pictographs had been described
in
stated that the large concentrations
area. The criteria Pohorecky
Ontario, specifically, in the Lake of theWoods
used were whether the figures had upraised arms, arms hanging down, or
one arm up and one arm down or whether the images were human faces with
no hands (1981:13). He stated that the figures in the third category had box
like shapes.
Lambert (n.d) examined DhKm-1, DhKm-4, DhKm-18, DhKm-5, DhKn-7,
of 1985. He applied a
DhKn-6, DjKn-1, and DjKn-2 during the field season
his
that
he
had
field
survey of some pictograph
technique
developed
during
in
sites in the Upper Severn
northwestern
Ontario during the field
region
season
of 1982 (1983) for dealing with images. He first subdivided
images
into twenty and, later, into thirty-fiveclasses
based
(n.d.) that he devised
upon his own recognition and identification of each image. Lambert asserted
that each image placed intoeach class ought to be examined
"for itsability to
in
alternative
differences
attributes
convey
meanings
through
morphological
in the context of narratives" (/b/'d.:111). Therefore
and associations
images
were
into different but larger groups.
This grouping
allowed
placed
level of meaning, according to whether an image was
assignation of some
identified as abstract, naturalistic, symbolic, or realistic. He believed
these
terms "were normally used to classify art and its elements"
(/b/d.:110) and
Third International Dictionary,
them as defined by the Webster
applied

guessed at themeaning given to the


published in 1976. Lambert (/b/d.:111)

and the intended


image both by the creators of the images themselves
audiences.
The question of the authorship of these images remained for Lambert
an unresolved
issue. He assumed,
that they were
however,
(1983:109)
created by human beings rather than following "the contemporary belief that
that
He (/b/d.:110) acknowledged
they were created by the Maymaygwayshi.
the interpretation of these images was "a difficult process for those who did
the observer,
the
not author them," due to the inherent problem whereby
researcher needed to be as objective as possible to classify and describe the
images for comparative purposes.
The following papers concern themselves with dating the images rather
intended to resolve the dating problem for
than with style. Dewdney
(1970a)
had four
in
the
Shield.
Canadian
approach
Dewdney's
(1970a)
paintings
as
information
the
The
first
discussed
his
did
paper.
part
concerning
parts
to
measurement
of physical features, lichen, rock tripe and mineral deposits
see whether paintings from two different periods could be distinguished at the
site in northern Saskatchewan.
Dewdney
(/b/d.:8) argued
in "traditional Chipewayan
territory,"had a "very impressive
setting" (/b/d.:10) and a deep crack large enough to "hide a small canoe." He
the orientation of the rock surface; the "protection of the site"
examined
and cracks that diverted
the overhangs
(/b/d.:13), inwhich he considered
of
the paintings above the
the
from
the water seeping and drips
above;
height

Hickson-Maribelli
that the site was

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

140

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

water, and whether rock benches existed at the base to prevent water splash
from below. He (ibid.) measured
the level of lichen, mineral deposits, and
the "nature of the rock surface," or type of rock, which he
determined
maintained
affected the vulnerability of the paintings to the weather. He
contended
that granite was more resistant to weathering than chlorite schist.
inwhich the
He examined
the colour and pigment impairment, the manner

decided
that the categories
paint was affected by time, but subsequently
were
variables
too subjective.
that he could not measure
He concluded

a variable thathad some significance


infinding
objectivelydue to thedifficulty

as a dating device.
the conclusions
that Dewdney
The second part of this paper presented
obtained from reviewing the world literature to establish the methods utilized
by other researchers worldwide to tackle the question of dating rock image
and USSR
that the specialists
from France,
sites. He
realised
Spain,
attempted to date images by excavating the area immediately adjacent to the
images themselves, a technique impossible in the Shield region since images
water. Dewdney
that
existed
(ibid. A) maintained
immediately beside
a
and
not
reflected
"cult"
could
issue"
provide any "stratigraphie
they
offerings
He contended
that the water level
that could be of a recent development.
mark could indicate something and that analysis of the white mineral deposit,
which was calcareous, might be useful (ibid.AS). Through reading the world
that examining
the paintings for superpository
literature, he determined
was
was
common
in Shield
since
this
evidence
region. He
interesting,
was
to
where
it
establish
which
asserted
that,
possible
image had been
a
could
be
established.
He
realised
that, even ifthis
sequence
superimposed,
as on Face X
was
such
too
few
of
this
existed,
examples
technique
possible,
of Site #181,
and too few paintings showed what he called "sufficient

withany otherpainting"(ibid.A7).
evidence of stylistic
affinity

Another method
that could aid the dating of these images would be
that itwas very
Yet Dewdney
explained
determining stylistic sequences.
difficult to define the style of a painting, as evident from the literature from
elsewhere
in the world. His review of this body of literature led Dewdney
to
conclude
that relatively few numbers of images were similar. He
(ibid. AS)
also (ibid.A9) asserted
too early to discuss
that itwas
in any depth the
"complexities of sorting out style features" for the rock image sites of the
Shield
concluded
that the "greatest common
region. Dewdney
style
denominator" of the images of the Shield region was "their individuality." He
that the use of "[Laboratory techniques" enabled
the examination
proposed
of pigment samples for their organic binder that caused
the paint to adhere to
the rock surface. He (/M/.:21) stated that considerable
had
developments
occurred
of
using chromatography
(e.g. Denniger
1971), spectroscopy
different types, and analysis using scanning-electron microscopy. However,

he identified
thebiggest problemas thedifficulty
inobtaininga largeenough

sample

to guarantee

that most

of the binding agent

had not disappeared.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

141

to scrape pigment samples


would cause
researchers
from
number of paintings.
in the Shield
Dewdney posited that patination, although it rarely occurred
some
offered
of
he
occurred
when
Patination,
hope
region,
dating.
alleged,
the colour and texture of the rock's surface changed when the surface broke
of exfoliation or weathering
away either as a consequence
(1970a:23-24).
He asserted
that oxidation of the pigment occurred whereby
the pigment
became
to the sun. This is an interesting
redder, oxidised as itwas exposed
to substantiate his claim. He
idea, but Dewdney did not provide any evidence
was
a
that
useful
posited
lichenometry
dating technique but he stated that
more information was required as to their growth rate and why lichen grew
where itgrew.
reviewed the ethno-historic
literature written by researchers
Dewdney
in the world. He advanced
elsewhere
the idea that if information from
data
informants, ethnohistoric data, ethnographic data, and archaeological
was combined
itmight be possible to establish a secure continuous cultural
itmight be possible to establish
Therefore, according to Dewdney,
sequence.
which
occurred
the depictions
and/or
when,
images
especially
given
seven
of
innovations
at
in
sites
the
Canadian
impressions
specific European
Shield, such as flags on poles, European
forts, and guns. He maintained
this,
this topic earlier inDewdney and Kidd (1967:50),
although he had discussed
as having a
where
he observed
that several
images were
represented
influence were very similar to those of buildings drawn by the M'id?
European
on birch bark scrolls.
The other key reference that Dewdney
used as a means
of dating was
rock image site
Schoolcraft's
information regarding the pictographs at Agawa
on the north shore of Lake Superior. Schoolcraft
(1851:405-411),
Dewdney
the site as having been painted by
(1970a:28)
"reliably" dated
argued,
a shaman practitioner from the south shore, at approximately
Mygeangun,
1800 given or taken twenty years. Dewdney asserted that prehistoric clues to
dating these images included the recognition of objects such as bows and
arrows, and medicine bags. Dewdney concluded from the world literature that
rock image sites were not reliably dated. He (/b/d.:30) argued that examining
each site, itssetting and itspainting "in as much detail and as much precision
as routinely employed
in an archaeological
afforded the only
excavation"
method by which to date sites.
The
third section of Dewdney's
paper deals with his new approach,
a
more
to
intensive examination of the variables
fieldwork
develop
involving
that either caused or increased the "physical impairment of the paint and rock
substrate" at sites inManitoba and Northwestern Ontario (ibid.:3). The three
at three different lakes (ibid.:30)
sites he chose
"promised
pictograph
maximum
return for such detailed examination":
the pictographs at Agawa,
on Lake Superior, since its paintings were recent and could be dated, as
discussed
above, a site on Frances Lake, and a site with an "early origin" on
Lake
(ibid.) should combine
Fishing
(/b/d.:31). Early sites, he maintained
This he believed
an undetermined

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

142

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

of considerable
paint impairment," "maximum of protection from
"a
of factors that were weather resistant," but did
and
combination
weather,"
not state or clarifywhat he meant by these statements.
Dewdney
(ibid.) believed that the pictograph sites at Fishing and Frances
Lakes were similar to each other since they shared similar painting styles and
context and they were also different to other sites in the Shield region, and
from weathering."
that both were
However,
protected
"impressively
in which both sites were
unfortunately, the reasons why and the manner
that both sites showed
protected remains unclear. He also (ibid.) asserted
"obvious impairment to suggest a substantial age." He did not state what
these
subsequent
impairments might have been. Dewdney's
(ibid.:36)
fieldwork had four objectives:
(a) to review and extend the understanding of
involved in the "vulnerability and impairment of all paintings,"
all the variables
(b) to record all the data that could be useful for dating purposes, (c) "to test a
and
instruments and the practicability of accurate
variety of equipment
and
"to
collect
samples of both painting and rock substrate for
recording,"
(d)
and
examination
analysis."
laboratory
At each
the quantity of moisture
site, Dewdney
(ibid.:39) measured
sources:
from
three
main
rainwater,
experienced
groundwater and lakeshore
water. He contended thatwind driven rain still affected sites with an overhang
or a bench at the base, because
neither physical feature protected the site.
His experiments
revealed
that sites with a northerly exposure,
especially
those that faced northeast, suffered most from wind driven rain. Those cliff
faces facing south, southeast, and east-southeast
received the least amount
the maximum effect of direct sunlight
of wind driven rain. He calculated
available
the temperature
by a site to establish
annually experienced
differences that occurred on a cliff face so as to determine the possible rate
of exfoliation.
the quantity of ground water seepage
Dewdney
(ibid.AO) estimated
because
he asserted
that those physical features that may have protected
the images from rain "ensured" groundwater seepage.
He observed
that
blank streaks on the surface of the rock face indicated groundwater seepage
was
while
not constant
if "tracks of mineral
seepage
groundwater
precipitates" were present on the rock surface. Unfortunately, the precise
meaning of the words "blank streak" remains unclear. He (ibid.AO) devised
the "time-of-wetness test" using an instrument called a "splash test device,"
which he himself invented (1972:1) so that he (1970a:40)
could measure
the
a
run
time
for
to
down
the
surface
and
elapsed
droplet
evaporate.
He concluded
that the greatest physical effect of water on a painted
surface and rock substrate was frost action. Dewdney posited that perhaps
could be set up near selected
sites allowing
information
thermographs
regarding the temperatures to be collected at each "Face" as he termed each
rock surface where paintings physically existed. Results could be compared
with maximum and minimum temperatures at the nearest weather stations.
This type of analysis would, he declared, make
it possible
to assess
the
"evidence

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

143

Mean?.

vulnerability of the rock to frost action. He also argued


possible problem for sites.

that ice erosion was

Dewdney (ibid..46) studied the lichenat the pictographsites of Agawa,

He and
Frances, and Fishing Lakes to establish the level of encroachment.
his assistant recorded the dimensions of the lichen thaluses. Dewdney
also
attempted to establish the level of patination by comparing the colour of the
"mother rock" in a deep fracture. He stated that he was no longer a sceptic
concerning the colours of the pictographs, and that the colour of the pigment
may have changed according to the degree of impuritypresent or the extent
of weathering. He maintained
that itwas possible that colour could increase
because
of the interaction between solar radiation, moisture, and minerals
knew about the relationship
Unfortunately, it is unclear how much Dewdney
between the solar radiation, moisture, and minerals.
in the
concluded
that the problem of dating the pictographs
Dewdney
Shield could be resolved only by using what he termed a "three
Canadian
conducted
forked approach."
Field-,
laboratory, and desk work were
he
considered
and
asserted,
equally
important. Fieldwork,
simultaneously
had to assist indetermining the importance of the pictograph sites to the local
indigenous peoples. Research
ought to be conducted on petroglyph sites,

he believed that examination of these images could offer insights into


that future studies of these
images must
pictograph sites. He concluded
always include examination of the paint and the rock itself, so samples must
be removed for scientific analysis. Whilst "desk" research had three goals: (i)
a stylistic analysis of the images supplemented
by an analysis of the images
found on hide and birch bark scrolls; (ii) an examination of the ethnohistoric
literature for recent archaeological
surveys and developments,
analytical
and, finally, (iii) to
purposes;
techniques for field samples and comparative
also
interested in the rock
continue to communicate with those colleagues
Shield.
image sites of the Canadian
Considerable
controversy has existed for some time regarding the dating
area. Steinbring, an
of rock image sites from the Lake of the Woods
the largest number
undertook
of
from
the
Winnipeg,
University
archaeologist
that the pecked
of studies of the petroglyph sites in this region. He asserted
the Mud Portage Site (DkKr-4) on
images of the petroglyph site called
to the Lake-of-the-Woods
Clearwater
Style (Steinbring 1977).
Bay belonged
the site as containing ninety-four petroglyphs, twenty of which
He described
were found through the excavation
of up to one metre of archaeological
or
The
them,
glyphs as Steinbring described
images,
deposits
(ibid.A39).
were found upon "a grey-ish green [the colour of the rock] basaltic formation
which is essentially horizontal" (ibid.). Steinbring and Callaghan
(1985:8-9)
in the water levels had caused erosion of these
had observed
that changes
the petroglyphs. They declared
soils and started to expose
that, despite the
and
rodent
disturbed
stratified
by
tunnelling
deposits being
archaeological
a long continuum of intermittent
and roots, that the site demonstrated
occupations
starting at 9,000 B.P. and ending around the posited time of
since

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

144

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

contact in this region possibly around 1732. Excavation at this site


European
revealed more petroglyphs but these archaeologists
that both
acknowledged
radiometrie and typological dating did not permit clear projections of any
artistic activity to before 7,000 B.P.
knew that the highly acidic soils of the Shield
Steinbring and Callaghan
that bone artefacts did not survive and hence one of the
region meant
for radiocarbon dating was non-existent. Wood
charcoal
principal sources
from levels 6 and 8 of the excavation provided dates in the range of 2000
2500 B.P., which Steinbring asserted
indicated the "substantial antiquity for

thedeeper positions"(1986:140). Levels 8 to 12 of theexcavation provideda

to be Archaic
large quantity of archaeological
objects which were deemed
and to belong to the "Oxbow-McKean"
complex, identified by B?chner 1979:
to Steinbring and his colleagues
82-97), and according
(Steinbring et al.
1987:8) prevalent in this part of the sub-Arctic and dated to about 5000 B.P.
These
noted, covered the petroglyphs
layers, Steinbring and his colleagues
area.
at several places
the
Levels
12 to 23, only contained
throughout
unifaces with "varying degrees
of formalisation." They
asserted
that
"unmodified flakes" in these layers pointed to a "a possible connection
to
in
large scale recoveries of non-bifacial flake tool sites at higher elevations
the vicinity" (ibid.). Their article referred to an earlier work by Steinbring and

Nielsen (1986:4). AlthoughSteinbringhad discussed thestyleof the images

later publications do not clarify how an image


other than himself as belonging to the "Lake
of-the-Woods-Style"
(1979a:13).
Steinbring asserted that images belonged to
the "Lake-of-the-Woods-Style"
if they demonstrated
something he termed a
"gross form" and ifthey were similar to an image depicted "in the nature of a
classical art style." Unfortunately, he is not clear as towhat constitutes either
art style" (ibid.). Steinbring,
likewise, did not
"gross form" or "a classical
elaborate on the difference between solidly pecked and lightlypecked forms.
He stated that "vague linear" forms, which remain undefined, belonged
to a
different stylistic group and were evident at the peripheries of the main panels
in his (1977) publication, his
can be classified by someone

of theMud Portage Site (DkKr-4)and theKennedy IslandSite (DjKp-4).This

style, as yet unnamed, was evident at two other nearby petroglyph sites in
the northwestern part of the Lake of theWoods,
called the Dowse site, DrKr
2, and Machin Point, DjKr-1 (ibid.AS).
that those images classified as "Lake-of-the-Woods
Steinbring concluded
Style" were similar to those from the Jeffers Petroglyph site in northern
dated as Archaic
in age, since some of the images depicted
Minnesota,
copper projectile points and atl-atls. It is likely that indoing so he drew upon
his Ph.D. research on early copper artefacts (Steinbring 1975). He concluded
that those images of "Lake-of-the-Woods-Style"
to the same time
belonged
the glyphs resembling
period as those at the Jeffers Petroglyph site, because
bird tracks were solidly pecked
in both central and peripheral locations and
were
not
to either the pre-ceramic or ceramic
consequently
"assignable"
horizons (ibid.). However, Steinbring did not state precisely how sites could

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

145

into "central" and "peripheral" parts. It is likely that he used his


be subdivided
own cultural perspective to determine the identityof the images visible on the
rock surface. Description of these images is clearly intermixed with low-level
to the classification of these images cannot
interpretation and his approach

be replicated.
Itwas his later work that established
precisely how he found that the
were
dateable, where specific styles were found, and how they were
images

Studies by Steinbringand Nielsen (1986) had established that


identified.

of the lithicmaterials came from a quarry nearby, which was part of an


with the high water
levels of glacial Lake
early lithic complex associated
of Mud Portage,
at least 1,000 years before the initial occupation
Agassiz,
some

DkKr-4. Steinbringposited that these early peoples had migrated to the

drained away and that their


present lakeshore when glacial Lake Agassiz
cultural materials were characterised
by unifaces and used platform flakes.
This combination, Steinbring noted, was classified as the earliest cultural
remains in North America and was either termed the "Pre-Projectile Point

Stage" or "EarlyLithic"(1986:141). Steinbringalleged that itwas impossible


to exclude the idea thatpeople who had lived inthis regionduringthisearly

time period had created the petroglyphs. His estimate, he maintained, of the
and was based on the presence
date 7,000 BP "was conservative"
of the
materials from the Oxbow-McKean
complex evident in Levels 8 to 12, which
were at least three levels above
the petroglyphs (ibid). This complex was
in Steinbring et al. (1987:8) and
referred as the "Oxbow-McKean"
complex

Steinbring (1986:140) but subsequent publications (1993:6) refers to this


complex
Once

as the "Oxbow" complex."


again Steinbring discerned

that the petroglyphs at this site, DkKr-4,


could be conveniently divided into two styles based on their location (1986:
141). The most prominent style for Steinbring was the "Lake-of-the-Woods
"took
Style" found on the crown of rock formations that he asserted
locus" (ibid.). He claimed,
advantage of the smoothest and most commanding
based on these observations,
that this was possibly the oldest style and that
this conclusion was confirmed by his excavation of the Mud Portage site. The
to this style were "naturalistic and representational."
images that belonged
called
Additional
that, according
images
"highly eroded unclassified masses"
to this stylistic group.
to Steinbring, formed "solid iconic masses"
belonged
Indeed, itwas these "masses"
images that, forSteinbring, linked the Lake-of
to the "Clearwater-Bay-Style."
the-Woods-Style"
The second style of petroglyphs, the Clearwater
Bay Style, in contrast,
was found in images created on the peripheral edges of the exposed
rock
from excavated
surfaces and "virtually absent
surfaces"
(ibid.). Only one
a
in
beneath
the
this
existed
excavated
of
morph
example
style
layers of the
linear and
site at Mud Portage, DkKr-4. Images belonging to this style were
reflected iconic incongruence, since, invariably they were created using the

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

146

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

striations that exist upon the surface of the rocks in this region.
that the striations were "exaggerated by pecking, and
Steinbring maintained
lines or curves were added." Linear bird-like forms and insectiforms, such as
a "dragonfly," were present in this style.
glacial

Steinbring(ibid.:142-143) concluded thatbothstylesof imagesexistat the

Mud Portage

Site, DkKr-4. He provided drawn examples, but did not provide


of
each style, so that others could observe precisely what he
photographs
meant by each style, even though he had argued
are
that photographs
a
more
useful
than
to
novice
in
this
of
always
drawings
aspect
archaeological
research.

Steinbring and Callaghan


(1985:3) contrasted the "Clearwater Bay Style,"
were
where
linear
and
outlined, with the "Lake-of-the-Woods
images
Style"
were
where
their centres were entirely
"solid," because
(ibid.:2),
images
pecked, and not outlined. Both authors were clearly satisfied as to the pre
ceramic context for the "Lake-of-the-Woods
Style" in Northwestern Ontario,
as well as with the idea that the images at DkKr-4 were created over a period

of at least 5,000 years (ibid.).


Two years, later Steinbring, Danziger, and Callaghan
(1987:3) dated the
of
the
at
of
theWoods
the
Clearwater
Lake
style
Bay site,
by the
petroglyphs
in
the
soil
mantle
above
the
deposits
overlying archaeological
immediately
reiterated a previous claim published
petroglyphs. The three archaeologists
that the "Lake-of-the-Woods-Style"
by Steinbring and Callaghan
(1985)
that was
dated to 9,000 B.P., using two
below a complex
images was
radiocarbon dates based on one charcoal sample taken levels 6 to 8 from the
late Archaic horizon below the earliest ceramic component possibly Laurel
(Steinbring et al. 1987:8). The dates obtained were 2560 ? 140 and 2160 ?
70. They speculated
that these images, belonging to the "Lake-of-the-Woods
at
indicated "possible movements
Mud
by mobile pre-Archaic
Portage,
Style"
into the Canadian
neither the
Shield"
However,
populations
(ibid.:9).

publisheddate of 9,000 BP (ibid.:3)nor theirearliestdate of 8450 BP which

was

from Level

12 (ibid.:159)

is the same

as

the result provided

by the

laboratorythatdated thissample (sheet labelledBGS 1101, BrockUniversity

Society, Radiocarbon
laboratory report
Geological
Laboratory, 1986). The
from Brock University [Radio Geological
Sciences
Radiocarbon
Laboratory]
dated the sample submitted by Steinbring and Callaghan
and analysed
by
Melville on April 26th 1986 to 1,320 ? 80 years.
that
claimed
Steinbring and his colleagues
(Steinbring et al. 1987:8)
the sample was taken from soil immediately above the petroglyphs but the
diagram drawn on the form submitted to Brock indicates itdid not originate at,
but above,
the base of the soil horizon. If the sample was taken from the
base of the horizon, there should not have been any organic materials.
However Melville, the laboratory assistant who ran the test, wrote on the
sheet that accompanied
the result of the test that were
there numerous
penetrating rootlets in the sample to be tested and that he had removed as

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

147

an observation
as possible.
Such
running the
many
by the scientist
have
the
that
may
sample
perhaps
originated from
experiment suggests
in the rootlet zone. Steinbring wrote in the section of the form
somewhere
factors that
that required information concerning the "state of preservation,
result in anomalous
environment,
age
may
(present or past geological
that the sample
speculated
sampling, storage, etc.") that both archaeologists
came from a feature such as a hearth, rather than modern root burn. When
or other significance
asked for the "regional stratigraphie setting, geological
or probable age," Steinbring wrote that the sample
in question was
taken
from a deposit slightly below a deposit that had yielded a date of 2,550 ?140
years.

thefactthathewas determined
Steinbring's(1993:22) publicationhighlights

to use this "new" date of 9,000 B.P., rather than the date obtained from the
radiocarbon
laboratory at Brock, of 1,320 ? 80 years, since itconfirmed his
published hypothesis about these images inearlier works. But his assertions as
to the date could be related to his earlier statement that "initial assertion of
Archaic provenience
for petroglyphs at Mud Portage was based
upon the
an
of
which
he
in
discussed
earlier
principle
spatial priority"
publication

(Steinbring1979a:16). His (1993:22) publicationasserted that the images at

that were deemed


to be of the "Lake-of-the-Woods-Style"
were
in age. He stated that the present estimate of the lowest
definitely Archaic
levels of the site was "set at about 9,000 B.P. He further stated that:

DrKr-4

...since the remains of this culture lie above the rock formation containing the
petroglyphs, itbecomes plausible that these peoples, possibly reflecting the
oldest cultural traditionof theAmericas, may have made some of the rock art at
DkKr-4.

"refined" after some consultation


dates were subsequently
and
to be date "provisionally" between
research
and 5,000
9,000
years ago (1993:22). His 1990 paper stated that the images had a 'guarded'
date of 5,000 B.C. His 1993 publication
indicated that the "widespread
the site in the 5,000-4,000
associations"
years ago.
placed
archaeological
for the petroglyphs at the Mud Portage Site, DkKr-4,
The date obtained
"a base
line for attempting a review of early
provided for Steinbring (1999:6)
to be the
rock art in the North American Mid-Continent" Clearly, he, wished
in North
who
had
discovered
the
oldest
rock
site
image
archaeologist
America.
Reid (1979), on the other hand, attempted to establish the age of several
These
additional

petroglyphsites in the Lake of theWoods by relatingthe images there to

those found on other pictograph sites, and on the birch bark Massacre
Scroll
that related the murder of Father Aulneau,
the son of La V?rendreye,
and
their companions. He disagreed with Steinbring's attempts to date the images
the newly discovered
of DkKr-4 and discussed
images from DjKp-3, called
in conjunction with images from the other petroglyph sites
Tranquil Channel,

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

148
in the Lake
petroglyph

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

of the Woods.
He examined
the relations among the different
and realised
that three images were
found at DiKo-2

sites,

(Sunset Channel), DkKr-4 (Mud Portage), DjKp-4 (Kennedy Island), and

DkKq-24
(Clearwater Bay): fertilitysymbols, stick figures, and turtles. Reid
that none of these sites had images which were deemed
(ibid. :246) observed
as "typically Archaic projectile points, or atl-atls," which Lothson (1976:31)
had used to date the Jeffers Petroglyphs
in Minnesota,
but a number of
similar animal and human forms were
reasoned
He
that the
present.
excavation of the Meek Site, DjKp-3, which had a habitation component as
well as petroglyphs, provided sufficient evidence
for testing two hypotheses:

(a) thatthemajorityof the rock imagesites on the Lake of theWoods were

in the Middle and Late Woodland


"temporally placed"
period and were
and (b) that the petroglyphs
peoples,
product" of Algonquian-speaking

"a
at

DjKp-3 (TranquilChannel) were created by theCree duringthe tenthto the

fifteen centuries A. D.
Reid maintained
that these petroglyphs indicated an Algonquian
cultural
on
two radiocarbon
sites.
Based
this
affiliation of these
samples,
was
A.D.
to
culture
dated
to
site
the
Selkirk
935
and
archaeological
belonging
A.D. 1420 (/6/d.:252). Reid (/?/d.:253) also reasoned thatmajority of the Lake
sites were
of the Woods
interrelated, based on their shared
imagery. He

argued thatthedate fromthehabitationsite supportedhis hypothesisthatthe


the
sites were relatively recent Algonquian ones, because
were
the
at
to
connected
nearby
purported fertilityimages
apparently
DjKp-3,
site. It is crucial to question the basis of Reid's assertion that
archaeological
the identified images he termed 'fertilityimages' were indeed connected with
Lake of theWoods

fertility.
Ifthe Jeffers Petroglyph site and DrKr-4 were connected, they belonged to
"an extremely long cultural" period and that the relationship between
the
petroglyph and pictograph sites in the Lake of theWoods must be considered
sites shared similar animal and
(Reid 1979:247). He noted that the Canadian
that several
human forms with the American site. Reid reasoned
images at
in
and
Lake of
the
sites
DkKq-24,
petroglyph
DjKp-3, DiKp-2, DrKr-4, DiKp-4
the Woods,
could be identified as fertilitysymbols, stick figures, and turtle
that, since the petroglyph sites in the Lake of
shaped
images. He concluded
to each
theWoods
shared the same
images, they were probably connected
asserted that the
other as well as to the pictograph sites. Reid (ibid.:247-250)
offerings leftat DiKm-1, DhKm-1, DiKp-1, DjKI-2, DkKn-7, DkKr-4, DhKm-3,
were
the
and DhKo-1
additional
evidence
of a connection
between
a
for
sites
and
These
site.
were,
DiKo-2,
petroglyph
pictograph
offerings
Reid, an indicator of religious importance and provided a sense of "the
sacred" for local indigenous communities.
One particular morph, the key factor for Reid (ibid.:250), demonstrated a

linkbetween these sites and the belief system of theMid? of themodern

identified by Redsky, a Mid? practitioner from Shoal


Ojibwa. This morph was
as a "paisq," which he roughly
Lake
of
of the Woods)
the
Lake
(part

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

149

as a "bird of omen." This image was


identified at two of the
on
sites:
DiKo-2
and
three
times
the
Massacre
birch bark
petroglyph
DjKp-3,
scroll held by the Lake of theWoods
Museum and on an Ojibwa birch bark
scroll called a "migration chart" held in the Canadian
Museum of Civilization
(catalogue number lll-G-424a).
Reid (1979) has taken a different approach
to dating the images of the
He
petroglyph sites since he did not rely on absolute
dating techniques.
maintained
that none of the petroglyph sites from the Lake of theWoods
had
that resembled
the images at the Jeffers Petroglyph
in
Site
shapes
to the Archaic
Minnesota
dated
and
his
period. Steinbring
colleagues
translated

(Steinbringand Callaghan 1985; Steinbring,Danziger and Callaghan 1987)

an Archaic date for the Algonquian


advanced
and
subsequently
occupation
creation of DkKr-4 (Mud Portage), one of the sites that Reid had considered.
to the Jeffers Petroglyph site since
They asserted that DrKr-4 was connected
Archaic projectile points and atl-atls were depicted at this site.
Two articles debated about how a method might be developed
so that
from
different
could
be
to
sites
each
related
other.
Whelan's
images
(1983)

study built upon thework of Maurer and Whelan (1977). They sought to

to other forms of "pictography within this region"


develop a method applicable
which
sites
and
(/?/c/.:196), by
paintings could be classified and catalogued
according to the subject matter of each image. Each image, termed data, was
intodifferent levels: class, subclass, and attribute (ibid.).
placed
Maurer and Whelan
observed
that problems existed in trying to conduct
this type of analysis since the descriptions of the images were
invariably
affected by the personal
that
interpretation of the observer. They discovered
difficulties existed in developing a format that was
a
to
relatively adaptable
an
how
could
and
determine
programme:
computer
archaeologist
identify
what constituted a class, a subclass, and their respective attributes, and how

could they identify


specific symbol types and names (Maurerand Whelan
1977:199).

Maurer and Whelan were determined to deal with the increasing quantity
of data and to clearly describe and classify these images without imposing
meaning upon them during the culture-historical approach. They understood
the issues of unintentionally imposing meaning
to an image in the course of
describing itsattributes.
Contextual

approach

This approach
should be used, only after the application
of the culture
historical approach, to relate various types of empirical information to the site
where the images were found. (Please see Figure 1 and the introduction of
this article for a reminder).
the immediate physical
Archaeologists
inevitably describe
landscape.
on
of a rock while pictographs exist
the
exist
horizontal
surface
Petroglyphs
on rock surfaces either on rock walls or on the walls or ceilings of caves.
It

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

150

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

was traditionally believed that pictographs exist at the base of vertical granitic
rock walls, either immediately beside the water, or near the water's surface.

Pohorecky (1968:103) stated that:

...the micro-environment of the rock paintings is easily categorised. The


paintings occur either singly, or, more commonly, in small groupings on flat,
vertical and sloping rock faces or cliffs just above the surface of some body of
water, and can be reached usually fromsittingor standing position ina canoe,
and sometimes by stepping onto ledges just back from thewater. All paintings
are visible from the vantage point of a canoe. This kind of setting, where
paintings lie near the edge of thewater insummer or ice inwinter, is itselfone
of themost distinctive features of rock paintings throughout the entire area.
Yet, pictograph sites are not always found immediately near water. This
first recorded by
statement
is supported
by the pictograph site DhKn-1,
as Site # 106 on 19thAugust
1960. It is on the southwest facing
Dewdney
Island and
Peninsula
shore of Aulneau
immediately opposite Wisakode
north of Rabbit Island. It lies beside one of the channels that can be used to
enter Obaibikon
Bay to the north. The paintings here can be reached by
on
a
the large
narrow,
long rock ledge immediately behind
standing
boulders and the birch trees visible in Figure 12. These boulders are a few
metres
from the water's
trees, and short
edge, where various grasses,
plants grow.
Two studies carried out in neighbouring regions exemplify the contextual
in which
the manner
the authors sought to ascertain
because
approach
rock image sites were related to other features in their vicinity (Noble 1968;
the pits, cairns, and
described
and analysed
Sweetman
1955). Noble
to
at Rock Lake, in the
in
each
other
found
close
sites
proximity
petroglyph
that the rock
Algonquin Park in southern Ontario. He (/M/.:63) contended
cairns behind the rock lined pits were not definitely connected with each
in some manner.
The
related
other, although
pits were
they were
were
as
while
the
cairns
"vision
interpreted,
pits" (ibid.:62),
interpreted
based upon comparison with cairns at Red Sucker Point, on Lake Superior,
as possibly being "tobacco-drops,"
dedication cairns erected to a guardian
a
after
successful
vision"
interpreted
spirit
(ibid.:63). The petroglyphs were
as being both archaeological
and artistic in nature and "of probable socio
not as complex,
that they were
import" (ibid.). He asserted
religious
or
as
in
the
Canadian
detailed
those
elsewhere
numerous,
Shield,

discussed by Sweetman (1955) and Dewdney and Kidd (1962). Noble also

to infer the cultural affiliations of the


that itwas
concluded
impossible
who
used
the
pits.
people
the manner
in which the images at the
Sweetman
(1955) described
and recorded. The
Peterborough
Petroglyph site were mapped
images,
called "glyphs" (/b/d.:101), were recorded using plaster moulds, drawn, and
Test pits were dug near the petroglyphs to establish whether
photographed.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

151

Mean?.

the glyphs had left their tools nearby, or


the people who had created
in its vicinity while they created the images (/M/.:101-104). Nothing
camped
but tree stumps or windfalls were found in the test pits and these could not
provide any information about the creation of these images. An Iroquoian
site, was found
archaeological
village site which he called the Quakenbush
was
that
it
Sweetman
(/M/.:104).
argued
unlikely that the
nearby
the petroglyphs, but he did not
inhabitants of this village had created
He (/M/.:108) concluded
that it
indicate why he arrived at this conclusion.
was
impossible to arrive at any clear conclusions
regarding the age and
meaning of the images.

Figure 12.

Part of DhKn-1 beside Obabikon


2006.

Channel

in 2001. ? Alicia Colson

and his colleagues


have examined
in considerable
detail eight
in
Quebec
(Arsenault 1997; Arsenault, Gagnon, Martijn
pictograph
and Gagnon
and Watchman
1995; Arsenault
1998). Arsenault
(1998)
Arsenault

sites

in considerable

detail the sacred space, and physical locality of


in
northern
Quebec.
eight pictograph
They are in different regions of
the province: one is in the James Bay area, two are inAbitibi area, one is in
two in the Outaouais
the T?miscamingue,
region, one inMauricie, and one
examined

sites

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

152

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

inHaute-C?te-Nord.

he drew heavily upon ethnographic data


Nevertheless,
Ontario. He argued, based on the substantial ethnographic
were sacred places
that rock image sites inQuebec
record of the Ojibwa,

from western
used

by shamans.
drew on ethnographic

data collected from throughout the Canadian


in Quebec.
rather than just specific regions
This
is surprising,
western
the
of
the
since
Canadian
Shield
groups
Algonquian
especially
from those inQuebec;
probably had different cultural experiences
although
these
peoples,
images were created by Algonquian-speaking
they were
It is therefore possible that there were specific
created by different groups.
He

Shield

in the religious practices and perhaps the use of images between


living fartherwest, and the local groups of Algonquian
speaking
living in these regions of Quebec.

differences
the Ojibwa,

peoples
Arsenault

that explain

that pictograph sites may have acoustic properties


considered
some
rock faces
rather than others were
utilised.
why

in the world, have


elsewhere
investigated whether site
Archaeologists,
a
of the special sound effects that could
selection occurred as
consequence
have been produced

Figure 13.

inspecific spaces

(Rainbird 2002, Waller

The serpents and the turtles described by Dewdney


Colson 2006.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1993).

in 1960. ? Alicia

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

153

what
Both Dewdney and Kidd (1967) were concerned to identify

a site. Yet, in the same breath as they (/b/'c/.:6-8)delineated


the
properties of a "typical site," they stated that itwas difficult to generalise
about the properties of a typical site. Evidently, the visual landscape was
not considered
these
important for understanding
images. Nor is much
in which the sites were
information recorded as to the precise manner
that Dewdney
relied upon information provided by in
located.
It appears
habitants of the areas where he sought to find rock image sites (/b/'c/.:7-8).
constituted

Literature

concerned

with meaning

are all concerned with establishing


The three remaining approaches
the
meaning of these images. For a detailed discussion of each approach please
see the introduction of this article.
Intuitive approach
who have
Archaeologists
image sites in the Canadian

adopted
Shield

the intuitive approach


to explain
rock
include Granzberg and Steinbring (1995),

Lanoue (1989), Pettipas (1982), Steinbring (1976, 1979b, 1982, 1992),


Steinbringand Elias (1967, 1968b), Steinbring,Granzberg and Lanteigne
(1995), Steinbringand Steinbring(1978) and Vickery (1991). Only a few of
them have

referred to sites

in the Lake of theWoods.

Steinbring and Steinbring (1978) postulated that the images found at

were
Machin Point, DjKr-1, in the northwest part of the Lake of theWoods,
on
a
as
a
of shamanism,
created
based
consequence
study of shamanism
in connection with a petroglyph site in British Columbia
in 1977,
by Walker
and ethnographic data from theWinnipeg River watershed
(Steinbring and
that a "template effect"
speculated
Steinbring 1978:13). Both archaeologists

existed in the distributionof the glyphs of DjKr-1, which "seemed to be

in the rock upon which the


related to" the natural lines evident
closely
existed
The
authors
concluded
that the natural
lines
(/?/'c/.:13).
images
a
manner
in
to Algonquian
creation
of
the
related
the
guided
images
scapulimancy.
to the
identified and discussed
Some
of the images were
according
rather than merely described. According
identification of both archaeologists
to the authors, careful scrutiny of the images indicated that "vandalism" had
occurred at this site. The green paint in some of the "authentic-appearing"
images, which had been created using a variety of pecking techniques, was
that they were
considered as evidence of vandalism. The authors maintained
that "fraudulent glyphs," made by short pecked
able to deduce
lines, also
in the descriptions of
existed at this site. Low-level interpretation is embedded
these images, such as the "dragonfly" petroglyph discussed
by Steinbring
and Steinbring

(ibid.).

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

154

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

Steinbring (1982) laterdrew upon a varietyof ethnographicsources to

substantiate

his arguments
that the images found in pictographs
and
of Ojibwa and
Shield existed as a consequence
petroglyphs in the Canadian
Algonquian shamanistic activities and dreams. The petroglyphs of the Lake of
theWoods
sites were only briefly mentioned. The goal of his paper was to
that the art of contemporary
native artists, with Algonquian
argue
had the same origins as the creators of the petroglyphs,
backgrounds,
created during the Archaic Period. He did not demonstrate
the precise
manner
inwhich this was possible, since he neither provided evidence
that
he had consulted or interviewed contemporary native artists, nor suggested

who

these peoples

might be.

Steinbring(1976) speculated about theoriginsof the copper technology

and lunar cultism in the ancient Great Lakes region. He (ibid.A64) stated that
crescent shaped
forms, which he called lunar motifs, were present at rock
on
birch bark scrolls created by the Ojibwa. He asserted that
image sites and
in the
lunar symbolism
substantial ethnographic details existed concerning
no
his
for
of
but
the Great Lakes Algonquians,
references
provided
ethnology
at
crescent
the
readers.
He
identified
motifs
shaped
subsequently

Peterborough
Petroglyph site and disagreed with the Vastokases'
(1973)
identification of these images as boats. He reasoned that some of them were
in them but could "actually represent copper
probably not boats with people
that
He subsequently
crescentic symbols" (Steinbring 1976:164).
asserted
are
a
in
found
at
number
of
the
Lake
of
the
Woods
similar images
sites
and
inNorthwestern Ontario and eastern Manitoba
elsewhere
(ibid.: 164-165). For
each example given of a crescent shape at a site, he disagreed with its
interpretation by previous archaeologists,
arguing that "many crescents have
or
as
the most obvious of these
boats
canoes,
probably been misinterpreted
ones
A
the
down"
"upside
being
(ibid. 56).

Granzberg and Steinbring (1995) classified glyphs by type using the

intuitive approach.
"core
Line, tree, and circle motifs were, they maintained,
a
on
with
trans-cultural
base
line
of
based
symbols
archetypal
usage"
from
sites
in
the
American
from
taken
and
northern
Southwest
examples
no ethnographic
and Northwestern Ontario
With
Manitoba
(1995:52).
a
that
their
data
that
certain
level of trans
references they argued
suggested,
to
the
authors
distinct
valid
meaning existed, allowing
types.
culturally
identify
that considerable
research was necessary
However, both authors maintained
before any categories

could be securely

identified (ibid.).

Lanoue's (1989) study considered the petroglyphsof the Lake of the

Woods.
He and Richard Doble, from the University of Winnipeg, examined
and recorded an unknown number of petroglyph sites
in 1981. Lanoue
asserted that these rock image sites were "stylistically Algonkian." He posited
that these images, which could not be placed "in the tradition of 'great art'"
and formally the
(ibid.J), were "the product of similar intellectual processes
same
all
at
drew
times"
Lanoue
upon
everywhere
(ibid.:9).
(ibid.A2)

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

155

Steinbring'swork (Steinbringet al. 1987) to postulate that the petroglyphs

were at least 5,000, and possibly even 9,000, years old. Lanoue maintained
that his own examination was flawed because
he did not have the fullbody of
to him since the full repertoire of images in the Lake of the
data available
Woods
had not yet been established
because
(a) not all the petroglyph sites
had been found and (b) some were covered up with water and therefore not
visible.
current
and
tribal
Using
knowledge
concerning
hunter-gatherer
if
the
used
to
create
the
societies, Lanoue proposed
that,
style
images was
related both to their meaning and content, useful information regarding the
"central paradox of territoriality"might be obtained. He maintained
that the
northwest of Toronto, should be used
Ojibwa material from Rama Reserve,
to illustrate his answer
rather than analyse
his data. He was particularly
interested in the animal images, referring to them as "symbolic mediators of
a paradox which characterises
territorial hunting and gathering societies"
were
as a
since
their meaning
occurred
(/M/.:64).
Images
stylised
of
its
association
with
different
and
consequence
"symbols
symbol sets"
instead of being a point of reference
Two
(ibid.:67).
sub-styles were
identified in the depiction of the animal
that were
not easily
images
He claimed
that those naturalistic petroglyphs
that were
recognisable.
the paradox of location and
"stylized through simplification" represented
mobility (/b/of.:68),while those animal images that were simple indesign but
from the first group because
traits had been added
that
distinguishable
were
not
natural"
the
intellectual
"clearly
(/b/d.:69), represented
paradox.
The
second
of the creation of
group had arisen as a consequence
boundaries which separated
human beings from animals, on the one hand,
on the world of animals
and the required dependency
to create a social
world. Therefore,
ifspecific design traits indicated that an image was not
that the authors of the images referred to
normal, or "natural," itmeant
ideas about the supernatural
rather than natural beings. Lanoue maintained

that the people who occupied the Lake of theWoods during the historic

of territoriality and desired


period were
"preoccupied" with questions
not just using "a social and spatial grid" but also
situate themselves
involving "abstract expression."
Analogical

to

by

Approach

This approach
is very popular worldwide since itenables
scholars to make
of
record
from either
world-wide
the
derived
interpretations
archaeological
or
from
materials.
This
is most
observations
approach
present
ethnographic
in inferring technological processes,
subsistence
successful
patterns, social
It is clear from the world wide
and economic behaviour (Trigger 1995:450).
is used to assign meanings when archaeologists
literature that this approach
were interested in: signs and symbols, gender, style and astrology. However,
in literature of the Canadian
this approach
has rarely been used
Shield

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

156

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

pertaining to pictograph sites. Ithas only been used for some pictograph sites
in northern Minnesota
(1998). He used the 'neuropsychological
by Callahan
or
was
as
model'
it
called
approach
by Lewis-Williams and Dowson
(1988)
attention worldwide
which attracted and captivated considerable
(Bradley
and
1996; Dowson
1989, 1994; Dowson
1989; Clottes and Lewis-Williams

Holliday 1989; Dronfield 1993, 1995; Hedges 1987; Sales


Williams 1990a, 1990b, 1994).

1992; Lewis

It is possible to argue that this 'model' is analogical since Lewis-Williams


rather than a cultural
to base
it on a physiological
chose
and Dowson
on
it
the
based
mechanism.
Lewis Williams
presence and functioning
(1991)
one and had done so
of the nervous system since every human possesses
to
to
he
that
itwas possible
Palaeolithic.
Therefore
presumed
prior
Upper
assume
that the effects of its functioning would now be the same as they had
during the Aurignacian
(ibid.). Lewis-Williams was specifically interested in
the functioning of the human nervous system since medical studies indicated
were
that the hallucinations achieved during altered states of consciousness

"cross-culturally uniform" (ibid). The 'model' dealt with the "imagery" of the
Coso art
European Upper Palaeolithic, Southern Africa and the Shoshonean
of the California Great Basin (Lewis-Williams & Dowson
1988:201, 204, 205).
Imagery was defined as those images painted or engraved on rock surfaces.
from research on
Both researchers
argued that the model had developed
to Lewis-Williams
and
San
rock art in southern Africa where, according
nature of the art has turned attention to altered
"the shamanistic
Dowson,
states
of consciousness"
but neither clarified precisely why
(ibid.:201)
academic
attention shifted. This 'model' could also belong to the 'intuitive'
neither Lewis-Williams nor Dowson
approach because
(1988) set out precise
as
to
its
and
utilisation.
the ease with
Indeed,
implementation
guidelines
which the 'model' can be applied to their data is reflected by itswidespread
use, since itrelies on the intuitionof those utilising it.

'model' is critically examined


it is
Unfortunately, if the neuropsychological
evident that it is riddled with problems including: the lack of support for the
claims that the modern human nervous system existed prior to the Upper
Palaeolithic; whether shamans created the images of the Upper Palaeolothic;
whether different definitions of shamanism exist; the quality, adequacy,
and
relevance of the anthropological studies they utilised to support their claims;
their use of the medical nomenclature; and themanner inwhich the information
from the medical studies was employed. Whilst this 'model' is clearly flawed
none of itsproblems will be discussed
ingreater depth in this paper.
Homologicai
This

is

Approach
the most
for archaeologists
popular
approach
the meaning of rock image sites since meaning

determining

in
interested
has been drawn

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

157

Mean?.

data with related historic and ethnographic


by comparing archaeological
and Conway
cultures (Conway n.d.a, 1978; Conway
1990b;
1989, 1990a,

Dewdney 1970b, 1970c; Jones 1979; L?vesque 1968; Lipsett 1970;


Molyneaux 1980b, 1980c, 1987; Tass? 1977b; Turner 1979; Vastokas and
Vastokas

1973).

Lipsett (1970) compared the images of specific pictographswith images


created and used by theOjibwa, as discussed inHoffman's (1891) report

on

the Midewiwin

Society

and

the different types of religious

practitioners

among theOjibwa. Molyneaux (1987) tooka similarapproach to the images


he found at several

pictograph

sites

in Northern Ontario,

historic

and

precontact

including DhKo-1

WhitefishBay, inthe Lake of theWoods. Dewdney (1970a)


and DhKm-5 in
the
idea thatby comparing the style of rock images and those
developed
on birch bark scrolls itmight be possible to
Midewiwin
made by the
distinguish

between

images.

He

and

Kidd

(1967:171) had posited that the images on the birch bark scrolls would

probably
Canadian

clues

provide
Shield.

to the meaning

of the images

on

the rocks

in the

Dewdney and Kidd's (1962, republished 1967) studywas arguably the

firstcomprehensive

investigation of rock image sites of the Canadian

Shield.

Dewdney examined twentypictographand petroglyphsites intheLake of the

He also posited a connection between the images on rocks and the


Midewiwin, based on the similarities inmorphs executed at rock image sites
Numerous sites were described
and on the birch bark scrolls (1967:106-110).
in varying degrees of detail (ibid.:22). Unfortunately, detailed
interpretations
of each site were not provided, although much of this information was
is now kept by the Royal
in Dewdney's
retained
private archive, which
inToronto.
Ontario Museum
and
from their style. Dewdney
The age of the images was estimated
were
artists
who
the
as to why the sites were painted and
Kidd speculated

Woods.

(/Ml: 16-20, 102-116). They hypothesised thatsome of these sites depicted

fort" and "the flag"


articles of European
origin such as "an early European
low-level
between
distinction
The
explicit "description" and
(ibid.AS).
of the
Kidd's
and
in
is
blurred
descriptions
Dewdney
"interpretation"
different images at each site. An example of this exists for site # 106 on the
in
on Sabaskong
shores of Obaibikon
Channel,
Bay, now called DhKn-1,
two
a
"veritable
the Lake of the Woods.
Ogopogo,"
Dewdney wrote that
existed at this site (see Figures 12
"serpentine figures" facing a large turtle
the red pigment above and below the
and 13). But he did not mention
images.
the
often classified
Given his training as artist and illustrator Dewdney
as "naturalism." His cultural
terms
such
art
historical
Western
images using
of the different sites.
background clearly influenced his verbal descriptions
in Lac La
Rock
Painted
called
a
site
For example he describes
pictograph
Croix:

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

158

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

For sheer naturalism there are no other paintings of moose that I have seen in
the Shield country to compare with the three on this site. All are surely by the
same hand, as is the littleantelope-or deer. Unique, too, are the pipe-smoking
figures: one beside an hour-glass figure and tracks, the other not far from the
initials"LR. 1781" (Dewdney and Kidd 1967:26-27).
of this study.
and Kidd each dealt with separate components
Dewdney
sites and
and described
the pictograph
located,
recorded,
Dewdney
some
while
Kidd
obtained
details
occasionally
(/M/.;11-14),
ethnographic
considered
and examined
the related anthropological
data (/M//.159-177).
and Kidd is
the work undertaken by Dewdney
this split between
However,
at
their book
it
reflect
academic
traditions
the
time
may
simply
misleading:
was written. Yet, throughout, Dewdney speculated
as to the authors of these
images, why the images existed, their meaning, and the paint ingredients,
the different sites and their respective paintings. Kidd
prior to discussing
the history of the interest in these images, the
(ibid.: 159-177) summarised
and
the
the Algonquian-speaking
early history, and considered
archaeology
as towhy the
in
the
Canadian
like
Shield.
He,
peoples
Dewdney, speculated
were
authors
the
of
these
created,
images
possible
images, the paint's
of applying these
constituents, and the techniques
images, as well as
different possibilities
for establishing
their meanings.
Neither Kidd nor
that the meanings of these images might be polys?mie,
Dewdney considered
Kidd's
discussion
of the Midewiwin Society
its members
and
despite
(/b/cf.:167-168).
The second
information, but
(1967) edition contains considerably more
suffers from the same problems. Dewdney and Kidd's study represents the
firstmajor step in the homological analysis of these images. While not an
archaeologist, Dewdney's work was immensely influential.

used ethnographic
evidence
shamanic
(1970b)
Dewdney
concerning
the Ojibwa
to postulate
the reasons
for the creation of
practises
among
pictograph sites. He illustrated his arguments using individual images from
four sites inWhitefish Bay, Lake of theWoods:
DiKm-3, DhKm-3, DhKm-5,
He drew upon
and DiKm-4.
information regarding the worldview
and
of the Algonquian-speaking
collected
religious
practices
peoples
by
and from his numerous
conversations
with indigenous
anthropologists,
the Ojibwa artist, to determine the
informants, including Norval Morrisseau,
manner
inwhich and why these paintings were created, as well as what
they meant (ibid.).
like the other images created by
argued that the pictographs,
Dewdney
the Algonquians
on wood, birch bark, and hide were all forms of expression
that he subdivided
into three categories:
secular,
(ibid.:22)
tutorial, and
visionary. The images on the birch bark were deemed secular and possibly
included those leftat portages for others, to give practical information such as
an individual's 'signature', a representation of his totem or his name"
(ibid.).
He maintained
this mark or image would have also existed on personal

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

159

that belonged
to individuals. Yet, since Algonquian
objects
society was
collective, an individual would only have lefta "mark" for territorial reasons.
Tutorial images were defined as those that were used between a shaman
and his clients or those used as mnemonics
on the birch bark scrolls (ibid.
23). Dewdney deemed some images as visionary, based upon his interviews
with older generations of Ojibwa.
asserted
that the description and classification
of
Dewdney
(1970b)
their
was
since
images grouped
together by
physical shape
problematic,
if they were originally part of a
images should not be examined separately
in an article that seems
to have
larger group from a site. This claim occurs
been part of a larger research project that he was undertaking prior to his
death.
It seems
evident from reading his research and field notes that
Dewdney may have been synthesising the information he had collected. He
had noted that twenty-six percent of the sites that he had recorded were dry
sites and seventy-four sites were wet sites. What he meant by the terms
"wet" and "dry" is unclear. It is clear that he sought to identifyall the different
variations of each type of image he had recorded. He provided the number
and gave the name of the pictograph site, if ithad one, where each
image
existed. What precisely Dewdney
intended to do with this analysis
remains
unknown.

He was
each
site

also interested inwhether the type of image he had identified at


existed only at certain orientations, or in certain parts of a
pictograph site and whether this changed according towhere in the Canadian
Shield the site was physically situated. This work is possibly related to some
ideas that Dewdney
that perhaps
the
(1975:1)
expressed
understanding
manner
in which stylistic variations were distributed throughout a region
provided chronological clues to dating the images of the Shield region. He
maintained
that using a computer provided the most objective means
of
and
sorting
correlating the images which he had collected over the course of
his research. He posited that he had approximately 3,000 figures which he
termed morphs (ibid..2). He realised that although he had used a computer
defined
that "an
values
and
inadequate
typology,
loosely
coding
that higher
inconsistencies
(plus too many errors)" led him to conclude
standards were required in the initial phase of a study (ibid.). He concluded
that itwas
his short piece by reminding his colleagues
important to be as
meticulous
and objective as possible and that he was guilty of being too
images (ibid..4).
subjective when recording and describing ambiguous
It is clear from his notes, held by the ROM, that he was conducting some
at the University of
systematic analysis using a computer with colleagues
Western Ontario. Another line of research that concerned him in his notes is
in an ROM Archaeological
Newsletter dated 1971. He discussed
mentioned
his observed correlations between specific pictograph sites and "vision pits"
for their
which were special places that he believed were chosen by shamans
was
one
DhKm-3
such
vision quests
He
that
posited
possibly
(ibid..3).
had chosen as a "shaman's
of a place that a shaman
retreat,"
example

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

160

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

the images were beside a bench


especially given its physical characteristics:
a
to
tent
and
far
above
the water" (ibid.A). However,
on,
"large enough
pitch
he concluded
that further research was required to substantiate his opinion
that pictographs
sites were probably connected with "vision pits" (ibid.).
lines of research were being explored and developed
for
Clearly several
some purpose that is now unclear and difficult to establish.
Vastokas
and Vastokas
(1973) attempted to understand the meaning of
the Peterborough
Site. These
from
Petroglyph
images were
pecked
one
of
the
softest rocks in the Canadian
Shield, and
crystalline limestone,
ground out using gneiss hammerstones
(/te/.: 14-18). The petroglyphs were
on
based
available
dated,
data, to the end of the Woodland
speculatively
A.
between
D.
900
1400
and
and
attributed to prehistoric Algonquians
period,
(ibid.:20-27). The Vastokases
postulated that a connection existed between
the engraved
images on the rock faces and the images on birch bark scrolls
created
the
members
of the Midewiwin Society
by
(ibid.AO-47).
They
from
ethnohistorical
and anthropological sources, that the images
surmised,
were
located where
individual shamans
believed
they could consult the
resident spirits (ibid. .47-54) and that unusually shaped
large rock outcrops,
and
hills
boulders
were
with
crevices
and
holes
the
rocky
"dwelling-places of
the manitous and mythical creatures such as the Maymaygwayshi"
(ibid.:48).
and Vastokas
Vastokas
at considerable
discussed
in
length the manner
which the Algonquian
universe was organised and the manner
inwhich the
physical locations of the rock images in the landscape were key loci, since
these places were where the different worlds co-existed and hence these
and super natural counsel"
places were "the seat[s] of visionary experience
discussed
the
nature
of Algonquian
(/te/.:54). They (ibid..29-40)
hunting and
and
the
different
gathering practices
upon which similar images
objects
and maintained
that the manner
inwhich shamanism, Algonquian
appeared,

interrelated
cosmology, manitous, vision quests, and guardian spirits were
the information required to understand
the petroglyphs. They
provided
use of pictographs to
postulated that a detailed understanding of Algonquian
information
would
aid
modern
academics
to
these
understand
convey

images.
Images were analysed once they had been classified by type and placed
in different broad groups according
to subject matter (/?/d.:55-129). The
Vastokases
noted that, although over nine hundred glyphs existed at the site,
only three hundred were readily visible. The others were deemed
"vague and
their identity is difficult to determine owing to the degree of
overlap and
wear
and
erosion
of
the
limestone
surface"
superimposition,
(ibid.:55). They
asserted
that the variety and extent of the images' meaning
subsequently
was only accessible
once detailed analysis of this site was completed (ibid.).
of each group could
Interpretation and discussion of the possible meanings
occur once the identifiable images had been classified
by shape and subject

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

Symbols

161

Mean?.

to ethnographic and ethnohistoric data. Three


had asserted
that the description
and
years earlier, Dewdney
(1970b)
classification of images thatwere grouped by type (their physical shape) was
to
problematic, since images should not be examined separately according

matter,

and with

do These

reference

theirphysical shape; especially iftheywere originallypartof largergroup of

images which were different.


It was
that the meanings
of the different images were
possible
on the changes
interrelated. Based
in the styles of the images,
the
Vastokases
that
the
site
concluded
had
been
used
(/?/d.:131-134)
probably
that these stylistic
repeatedly over a long period of time. They speculated
were
to
connected
cultural, or temporal
changes
possibly
technological,
factors. They

(ibid.AZI)

asserted

that the

images

of

the Peterborough

Petroglyphsite should only be compared with other petroglyphratherthan

this statement
is
pictograph sites to establish stylistic affinities. However,
it
is
that
the
creators
of
these
because
did
not
problematic,
possible
images
differentiate between
images ground into stone and those painted on stone.
The Vastokases
concluded
that the rock itself, the landscape, was crucial to
the meaning
for these images and to understanding why itwas
used for
these images. Although
this study is over thirty years old, many of its

remain important to the analysis of these images today.


Both of Conway's
(n.d.a and n.d.b) papers examined sites in northeastern
concerned
from
Ontario. He (n.d.a) was
specifically with three morphs,
in conjunction
which occurred
various pictograph sites in northern Canada,
with each other: an open armed man, his canine companion, and an animal
identified as a beaver, the pelt, existed
pelt. Another morph, which Conway
He identified these images as
the man and his animal companion.
above
man was
The
identified as Orion
star
armed
constellations.
open
specific
since the paintings had anatomical attributes thatwere similar to those of the
conclusions

identified in the pictograph


constellation. The position of canine companion,
sites as either a dog or wolf, concurred with that of Canis Major. The bilateral
to Orion
that of Gemini
location of the beaver matched
symmetry and
collected
drew
information
upon ethnographic
by
(ibid.A). Conway
(ibid.A-2)
individuals, and from his own
Schoolcraft, Speck and some other unnamed
as animals and supernatural
informants, to identify specific constellations
he was particularly
for
heroes. Schoolcraft was
important
Conway, because

information. Conway
and cosmographie
in native astronomy
on
native astronomy
that
unknown
based
sources,
maintained,
(ibid.:3)
to
since
had
"considerable
sites
at
according
antiquity"
depicted
pictograph
1650 by Ojibwa
to be created after A.D.
him such paintings had ceased
that few sites showed historic
and medicine people. He asserted
shamans
to substantiate
this
scenes
but provided littleevidence
involving Europeans,
claim. Both the stylistic changes and presence of constellation groups in the
information had existed
sites indicated forConway that native cosmographie
interested

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

162

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

since the prehistoric era. Fourteen constellations were identified, but Conway
was specifically interested in the Orion triowhich he identified as existing on
a birch bark scroll made for Schoolcraft by a Lake Superior shaman as well
as insome unnamed "examples of Ojibwa rock art sites" (ibid/A).
that the "Orion trio of paintings" was
asserted
Conway
(ibid.A-5)
he
information
from
explicable
using
popular native folklore. However,
to put forth another interpretation of these
ascertained
that itwas possible
by which
images, since the constellation paintings behaved as a mechanism
were
to
indicated
the
local
seasonal
changes
indigenous population. Orion
was
as
a
for
from late fall to winter
celestial
marker
"a
shift
interpreted
at
The
of
constellations
camps" (/b/d.:5).
depiction
pictograph sites indicated
that these sites were "sky maps" which enabled
information about seasonal
to be transferred from one generation to
migrations through the landscape
another. Conway concluded
that rock image sites should be considered as
"one

of

few permanent markers"


in the landscape
that provided
to
the
of
this
knowledge
transitoryOjibwa hunter-gathers
region.
Another paper by Conway
(n.d.b.) is perhaps a later draft of the paper
previously discussed
(n.d.a) as its content is similar. In this second paper, he
that
based
upon the constellations
specific
hypothesised
images were
These
recognised by prehistoric Algonquians.
images originated from sites in
an area occupied
the
historic
and other Algonquian
Cree
bands
by
Ojibwa,
maintained
was
that
this
combination
of
first
(/b/d.:5). Conway
morphs
identified at a site by himself in Matagamasi
in
northern
Ontario
Lake,
(/b/d.:7). He subsequently
Dewdney's
published works, the
briefly discussed
as
as
Vastokas
and Vastokas
well
various site reports
(1973) publication,
from throughout Ontario
in an attempt to establish whether this triad of
the

itwas easier to identifywhether these


images existed. Conway maintained
three images existed together if the painted figures were "not as clustered"
(/b/d.:8). This triad of images existed in only two clusters in the Temagami
in
stylistic and Shield Edge stylistic areas
(/b/'d.:9). Itwas absent elsewhere
area and north central Ontario.
the Upper Great
Lakes
Unfortunately,

Conway did not define what


styles. Two types of canines
human figure: a dog and a
identified at two sites in the
morphs were identified at one

or the Shield Edge


constituted the Temagami
were
identified to exist on their own or with a
wolf. Two examples
of the dog morph were
Lake of theWoods:
DiKo-2 and DhKm-3. Wolf
site in the Lake of theWoods.
undisclosed
But
the manner inwhich the wolf and dog morphs were

Conway did not establish


different from each other.
conclusion had four points. Firstly, two distinct canine morphs
Conway's
existed in the rock images sites inOntario, which Conway
identified as a wolf
and a dog. Nevertheless
both images could denote "the same Algonkian
both morphs
had
limited
concept"
(/b/d.:12). Secondly,
comparable
distributions, namely the northeastern edge of the Canadian
geographical

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

163

inOntario and north and west part of the Lake of theWoods


Shield
in north
western Ontario. Thirdly, dog canine morphs often occurred with human
figures while wolf canine morphs existed with human figures that had their
arms open. Conway's
fourth conclusion was that "an Algonkian triad" existed
at the majority of sites that had the wolf morphs, and consisted of "a human
figure or shaman figure with outstretched arms, a pelt or a cross" (ibid:A2).
is interesting since
it demonstrates
conclusion
that his own
Conway's
Eurocentric cultural perspective was
influential in his choice of images to
from the
examine, despite his utilising the pertinent ethnographic evidence
region where the sites existed.

Following Hodder (1987), Rajnovich (1994:160) posited that itwas

possible

to arrive at some

conclusions

that could

not "be absolutely

proven"

(RajnovichafterHodder 1987:6) butwere plausible. Rajnovich (1989, 1994)

as a source of examples
drew on the Lake of theWoods
for her
of rock image sites in the Canadian
Shield. She postulated
that
evidence
and anthropological
be
should
archaeological,
ethnographic,
combined with linguistic and oral history evidence
to establish
the link
between the different types of Ojibwa shamans, Mid? and Jiissakid, to obtain
an understanding of these images. She (1994:19-22)
these images
asserted
were
since Algonquian
probably mostly
metaphors,
signs,
polys?mie
are metaphorical.
discussed
the Algonquian
She
languages
(ibid..22-39)
world view, the practice and use of indigenous plant medicines,
and the
different types of religious practitioners. Rajnovich
that
(ibid.:29) maintained
only the Mid? and Jiissakid, two of three types of religious practitioners,
rather than theWabeno,
created rock images.
to base her arguments on two rock image sites, providing a
She appears
repeatedly
discussion

field drawing of Painted Rock


each site: Dewdney's
Island,
and a petroglyph site in Uskik Lake in
Lake of the Woods
the age of these
She
images and
(//>/(/.:41-55) debated
to use relative dating techniques and to
itwas only possible
from nearby
and
related archaeological
data
ethnographic,

field drawing of
in the
DhKo-1,
Saskatchewan.
that
concluded
draw

upon
peoples to posit the age of individual sites.
birch bark
related the images present on the Ojibwa
She
(ibid..57-63)
on
on
the
of
rocks
work of
the surface
song scrolls to those
by drawing

Mallory (1880, 1881,1893), Tanner (James 1956), Hoffman (1888, 1891,


1896), Kohl 1985 [1860], and Densmore (1910, 1913, 1926, 1979), as well
as

some

in the Smithsonian
studies
Institution). Rajnovich
unpublished
nature of the Algonquian
the
that
metaphorical
postulated
(1994:57-63)
to the interpretation of the paintings
and
clues
provide
languages
were
that
the
claimed
She
pictographs
(ibid..65-66)
engravings.
the images
that other people could recognise
in the sense
standardised
could be
and
but
that
them
different
and
legitimate meanings
interpret
attached to specific symbols.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Revista

164

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

in which these images were polys?mie,


the manner
demonstrate
the
first
discussed
importance of the cliff faces and then a range of
Rajnovich
sources
informants (ibid..66
and
to
reference
ethnographic
images with
was
and
of
Each
interpreted after it had been
analysed
image
type
143).
was
to an individual
ascribed
a
broad
into
type. Meaning
shape
grouped
and
ethnohistoric
to
references
materials, as
ethnographic
through
shape
well as from informants.
stricture that images should not be
She
(1970b)
ignored Dewdney's
other
from
the
images with which they exist. Her
interpreted individually
broad
into
of
first
groups also may cause problems.
dividing images
practice
inwhich rock image sites are
This activity is probably related to the manner
to
to collecting data according
accustomed
treated by archaeologists
her
discussion
that
It
is
and
conventions
surprising
guidelines.
archaeological
of these images did not draw on the conclusions about these images that she
To

had published

earlier

in government

reports (for example

Rajnovich

1980b,

1981b).

for the
that a common
explanation
(ibid.A 45) observed
Rajnovich
and
was
these
of
(ibid.: 145-157)
presence
"hunting-magic,"
images
mean
to
the
reference
with
this
could
what
at great
discussed
length
based
Shield.
She
Canadian
of
the
upon
subsequently
argued,
Algonquians
lived
ethnographic data, that rock images appeared on rocks where manitous
was
that
water
because
beside
occurred
that
these
sites
and
(/b/af.:
160),
where the sky, earth, water, underground, and underwater meet. Places such
as deep lakes, whirlpools, bases of lakeside cliffs, caves, and crevices were
into another (ibid..35). For
to cross from one world
the locations used
were
the
manitous
where
lived and where
Coleman
these
places
(1937:34)
the manitous and the medicine people could meet.
that paintings were done principally using red ochre
Rajnovich asserted
itselfand used insome cures"
thismineral was "a powerful medicine
because
were
because
painted
they referred to particular
(ibid.). Specific
images
of
the Mid?, since
the
the
of
medical
practitioners
Algonquians,
experiences
were painted
on
the
bark
The
the
birch
scrolls.
created
images
they
images

on rock surfaces, where these medical practitioner people wanted "to leave
lessons" (/te/.:161). Rajnovich
(ibid.'A63) postulated that the paintings in this
to Algonquian
beliefs,
"intimately" connected
region were
legends, and
that the best approach
for those wishing to establish
songs. She concluded
the meanings
of these images was
for information from the Algonquian
to be combined with ethnographic
data.
people's
history and philosophy
(1994) study has some flaws, it remains the most
Although Rajnovich's
recent and sustained contribution to research to date on the meaning of rock
Shield.
image sites of the Canadian
to analyse specific
Some archaeologists
have used Rajnovich's
approach
rock image sites from other parts of the Canadian
Shield, but not from the

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

165

Lake of theWoods (Hamilton2000; Pettipas 1991b). They have explored the

that different bodies


of ethnographic
information could
aid
in
It
is
these
archaeologists
answering specific questions
regarding
images.
also
that
the
of
the
important
acknowledges
archaeologist
using
problems
from present day informants to interpret images from
ethnographic evidence
the archaeological
record. Jones (1981b:46-47)
maintained
that ethnographic
information from Northern Saulteaux
and Cree groups aided the "empirical
concerns of archaeologists"
seeking to establish the binder used to create the
to
Wheeler
make
paint
pictographs.
(1977a and b, 1979, n.d.) stated that
attention should be paid to studies of the structure of the Cree and Ojibwa
concept

languages where the May May Quah Sao


(often called Maymaygwayshi),
who were spirit helpers, were associated
with stones
in the sacred stories
word
told by Algonquian-speaking
The
"stone" belonged,
peoples
(n.d.:1).
"in an animate
in Algonkian
Wheeler
asserted,
grammatical
category
was
as
with
that
that
interacts
which
languages"
"linguistically distinguished
a
man and that which does not" (ibid.). Wheeler
recorded
rock
(n.d.:5)
image
in northeastern Manitoba
River near Oxford House
site on the Semple

to this site by informants. Information existed,


including the legend connected
Wheeler
noted, regarding the relationship of these spirit helpers and rock
literature such as that
image sites in the ethnographic and anthropological

produced by Dewdney and Kidd (1962; 1967) and Landes (1968), while

these spirit
(Stevens
1971) had recorded stories that connected
sites.
to
rock
image
helpers
Two more
in-depth studies of two large rock image sites must be
mentioned since they are found in the Canadian
Shield, although neither site
others

to theLake of theWoods (Conway and Conway 1990b;


is inclose proximity

and Conway were archaeologists


and Vastokas
Vastokas
1973). Conway
in the Sault Ste. Marie region of Ontario and, so, this study reflects the
based
asserted
ethnographic and historical details of this area. Both archaeologists
rock images site on the north shore of Lake
that the paintings at the Agawa
Superior were created by "Ojibwa Indian shaman artists" (ibid.J) who in the
the human world and the
indigenous communities were the link between
was
"an exceptional
site" with
that
claimed
worlds.
Agawa
(ibid.)
They
spirit
several

components.
and Conway
(1990b) drew upon information from a variety of
Conway
sources
published date for the images, and from
including Schoolcraft's
identified as a
several Ojibwa elders, including (a) Fred Pine, who Conway
tribal elder" born in 1897 and Shingwauk's
"noted Ojibwa
great-grandson

(ibid.AQ),(b)Chief Norma Fox fromtheCockburn Islandband of Lake Huron

lived in the Dog Lake area of the


who
(/?>/d.:21), and (c) Bill Sheskekwin
that
Upper reaches of the Michipicoten River. Conway and Conway reasoned
had
individuals
several
that
them
to
establish
their informants enabled
including: a 17th century Amikwa band leader
painted the images at Agawa,

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

166

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

called Myeengun
(theWolf) and a 19 century shaman called Shingwauk, or
The White Pine', from Lake Superior.
the water level of Lake
that, because
Conway and Conway maintained
over three thousand
was
areas
than
the
of
the
cliff
Superior
painted
higher

years ago, the paintings had to be younger. They estimated that the most
visible paintings were created during the last five hundred years. Conway and
(/b/d.:7-8) posited that the images were created for religious reasons
Conway
and were the "end products of religious experiences
such as vision quests,
and
of
and did not
ceremonies,
assistance,"
group
acknowledgement
spiritual
from
chronicle
the
past.
directly
episodes
The images are examined
in seventeen
"panels" (/b/d.:15), and as one
hundred and seventeen
individual images (/b/"d.:8,15). Conway and Conway
asserted
(/jb/d.:15) that the panels were "numbered from north to south (left to

right)"ifan individuallookingat the sitewas ina canoe infrontof the cliff

face. They established


the meanings
of the pictographs of Agawa Bay with
reference to ethnographic and ethnohistoric data as well as information from
Fred Pine, Chief Norma Fox, and Bill Sheskekwin. The images on each panel
were described
and identified in considerable
depth and each panel was
rock
interpreted. It is, however, unclear whether the division of the Agawa
was
on
site
based
information
from
informants
their
image
gained
indigenous

or not.

The examination of pictograph and petroglyph sites has developed


and
over the last hundred years. Considerable
advanced
and
time, effort,
money
have been spent on the development of the techniques to physically record
and date them, and many have tried to interpret these images. People want
to establish the techniques to discover more of them, satisfactorily record the
images, and preserve them for posterity. Yet, the most important goal is to
establish what these images may mean.

Different people have clearly taken different approaches,


it is
although
clear
that the homological
more
is
those
approach
popular amongst
determined
to establish
the meaning
of these
current
images. The
is that they were
understanding of these sites in the Lake of the Woods
created by shamans,
ritual specialists,
in key places
in the landscapes where
the sky, the underground, the underwater, and the earth meet and where the
travelling soul of the shaman could cross from one world to another.

Conclusion
These
Shield and
images, have become one of the symbols, of the Canadian
remain popular topics for study, especially
those of Lake of the Woods.
I
have reviewed the work undertaken prior to when my own began. We have
established
the most
and
technical
popular
philosophical
approaches
Shield. This critical
assumptions
up to that time in the Canadian
adopted

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

167

Mean?.

review of a varied literature demonstrated


that a
from conservation of the paints used in pictographs

large body of data exists


and the different ways of

examining them (e.g. Myers and Taylor 1974;Wainwright 1990, 1997), the

manner

used

to establish

the age

and

style of specific

pictograph

and

petroglyphsites intheShield regionand withspecific referenceto theLake of


theWoods (e.g. Reid 1979 and Steinbring1977), thecontextof thephysical

surroundings of the images (e.g. Noble 1968), to whether particular images


(e.g.
only exist together and the techniques utilised to establish theirmeaning
Callahan
1998; Conway and Conway
1990b).
is
Some of the literature is descriptive
1885), and some
(e.g. Lawson
more concerned with technical issues, but much of itdraws on several of the
that exist in archaeology:
five approaches
contextual,
culture-historical,
have used only
intuitive, analogical, and homological. Several archaeologists
the culture-historical approach
1979; Steinbring,
1967; Reid
(e.g. Grant

Danziger and Callaghan 1987; Steinbring and Callaghan 1985). Others


utilisedthecontextualapproach (e.g.Arsenault 1997; Pohorecky 1968; Noble
1968). Many were
The
encountered.

determined

to establish

homological

approach

the meaning of the images they


proved to be the most popular

approach (e.g. Dewdney and Kidd 1962; Rajnovich 1994; Vastokas and

Vastokas

approach

is the second most popular


1973), while the intuitive approach
and
1989). Only one
Steinbring 1995; Lanoue
(e.g. Granzberg

archaeologist utilisedtheanalogical approach (Callahan 1998).


By 2001
accumulated
specifically

has been
an impressive corpus of fieldwork and research
Shield
on the subject of the pictographs sites in the Canadian
In classic fashion my doctoral
those of the Lake of the Woods.

fieldwork,which began in2001 ought to have builton this largerbody of

information. Indeed, prior to conducting my own fieldwork I summarised all of


the information available for each of the pictograph sites including: alternative
were
it was
how
whether
recorded;
taken;
names;
photographs
if taken; location of field recordings and published works
measurements
who examined
it,
making reference to the site; the name of each researcher
with the dates and his profession; rock type; location of the sites; whether
as to its
offerings had been left,and whether any statements had been made
was required so that Iknew
information
All
this
of
cultural
affiliations.
possible
the research history of each site in the Lake of theWoods.
several key pieces of information
Previous
researchers had established
on
occur
faces while petroglyphs occur
cliff
the
sites.
Pictographs
regarding
both in close
Canadian
the
on horizontal surfaces
Shield,
throughout
rare and
are
caves
in
with bodies of water.
association
relatively
Images
them. Previous
about
therefore little information has been accumulated
researchers agree that the paint used was made from hematite mixed with an
that usually have
unidentified organic binder. These
images occur in places
all of the following five physical features: rock benches
(sometimes called

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

168

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

shelves), overhangs,
large cracks, large crevices, and holes. Since absolute
cannot
be utilised, relative dating techniques are generally
dating techniques
used to ascertain the age of these images. Some researchers have recorded
the quantities of lichen and rock tripe growth and encroachment,
exfoliation,
and the accumulation
of white mineral deposits present at each site. This
information is often compared with the orientations of these sites. Pictograph
sites on cliff faces tend to face south, east, and occasionally west. Very few
sites face north. Previous researchers have described the images they found,
and attempted
to organise
in
to aid
systems of stylistic classification

local and regional patterns


in the Canadian
Shield. But no
establishing
consensus
exists regarding which classification scheme
is the best one for
providing a physical description of these images. The description of these
images is highly subjective, and each researcher's methods are idiosyncratic.
The manner
inwhich a site is described has also influenced the subdivision
of sites
for observation
While
these
facilitate
purposes.
techniques
can
cause
for
description
they
problems
subsequent
archaeologists.
Researchers
same site.

have observed

that pairs of the same

image often occur at the

Researchers
that it is unclear which ethnic group created these
agree
images, but they also agree that the images were created by the Algonquian
exists regarding the value of the sites to the
speaking peoples. Consensus
current local indigenous peoples, who consider these places as
integral to
their own world view. Offerings leftat sites have
been
recorded
always
by
researchers.
It is generally agreed that these images are
polys?mie in nature,
and the images used to convey information to other people.
It is agreed that
the images of the pictograph sites are similar to those on birch bark scrolls
made by the Mid? ritual specialists. As a result there was
general agreement
that a detailed
investigation of the images on birch bark scrolls, the
ethnographic record, and the pictographs might provide some clues as to the
meanings of the images on the rock faces.

Bibliography
Abercrombie,

1985

M., CJ.

Hickman

Ltd. Harmondsworth,
Arsenault, D.

1996

1997

and M.L

Johnson

The Penguin Dictionaryof Biology,Seventh Edition,Penguin Books


England.

"A Unique Pictograph site in the Context of Political and Ideolo

in: Papers
of the Twenty-Seventh
gical conflicts,"
Algonquian
Conference
edited by D. Pentland, pp. 1-10, University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg.
du Tourisme
sur
les Sites
en Am?rique
Sacr?
"L'Impact
T?oros ?t?:21-25.
Pr?colombienne,"

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

1998

do These

Symbols

Mean?...

169

"Esquisse du paysage sacr? algonquien: Une ?tude contextuelle


sites rupestres du Bouclier canadien," Recherches
Am?rindiennes

Qu?bec XXVIII (2);19-39.

des
au

Arsenault, D., L. Gagnon, C.A. Martijn and A. Watchman


1995
"Le projet Nisula:
recherche pluridisciplinaire autour d'un site a
23:17
pictogrammes
(DeEh-1) en Haute C?te Nord," Pal?o-Qu?bec
57.
Arsenault, D. and L. Gagnon
en arch?ologie
et contextuelle
1998
"Pour une approche
s?miologique
in Essais
et
Canadien,"
rupestre du Bouclier
arch?ologiques
en hommage
? Charles A. Martijn, edited by R.
ethnohistoires
au
am?rindiennes
Tremblay L'?clairer et l'Ambassadeur, Recherches
27:213-241.
Pal?o-Qu?bec
Qu?bec,
Ashdown, J.H.

1973 A ContemporaryExplorers Chart to the Lake of theWoods, Royal


Yacht Club of the Lake of theWoods,

BGS 1101

Kenora.

Radiocarbon
Brock
Laboratory,
University Geological
Society,
St. Catharines, Ontario.
Department of Earth Sciences,
Bahn, P.G., R.G. Bednarik and J. Steinbring
on
International Newsletter
"Conservation: A Canadian
1996
Tragedy,"
Rock Art 13:14-17.
Bell, R.
1986

1881

"Reporton Hudson's Bay and some of theLakes and Rivers Lying to

1994

The Aesthectics of PrimitiveArt, UniversityPress of America,

and
for 1879-80, Geological
the West of it," in:Report of Progress
Natural History Survey of Canada, Montreal, Dawson Brothers.
Binford, L.R.
in Archaeology,
"Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths", Studies
1981
New
York.
Academic Press
Inc.,
Blocker, H.G.
Lanham, London and New York.
Bradley, R.
A Contextual
"Death and Entrances:
1989
Current Anthropology 30:68-75.
Brand, R.

1979

Analysis

of Megalithic

Art,"

Casting. A Method of Collecting and Recording Rock


"Petroglyph

Art," Canadian Rock Art Research Association Newsletter (5):24.


Brenner, B.
1994
Journal, 4(1
"Interpretations of Rock Art," Manitoba Archaeological
and 2):43-76.
Buchner,

1979

A.P.

The 1978 Caribou Lake Project, including a Summary of the Prehistory


in Manitoba
Final Report # 8, Papers
of East Central Manitoba,
Resources
Historic
Manitoba
Branch,
Winnipeg, Canada.
Archaeology,

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

170

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

Buisson, D., M. Menu, G. Pin?on and Ph. Walter


1989
"Les objets color?s du Pal?olithique
superior cas de la grotte de La
Vache
Bulletin
de
la
Soci?t?
Pr?-Historique
Fran?aises,
(Ari?ge),"

86(6):184-191.

Callahan, K.L.
1998
Shamanism,

Dream

Symbolism,

Art Rock

and Altered

States

[www

in Minnesota

document]

Viewed
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2596/mnra1.html
17th Nov. 17, 1998.
Cameron, J.
1982
and
"Petroglyphs of the Lake of the Woods:
Recording Techniques
to the Ontario Heritage
Results,"
paper submitted
Unpublished
inFulfilment of the requirements for Licence 82-50.
Foundation
A.
and
J.
Cameron
Cameron,
1979
"Recent Adventures
inRock Art," Newsletter of the Canadian
Rock
Art Research Associates.
Manitoba Chapter 2(1):4-8.
Chisholm, F.
1982
of the Main Petroglyph Panel, Mud Portage,
"Polyfilm Mapping
Channel
of the Canadian
Rock Art
Site, Ontario," Newsletter
Research Associates,
Manitoba Chapter, 5 (1 and 2):37-46.
Clottes, J.
1993
inRock Art Studies: The Post-Stylistic Era or Where
Post-stylistic?,
do we go from here?, edited by M. Lorblanchet and P. G. Bahn, pp.

19-25, Papers presented in Symposium A of the 2nd AURA

Congress, Cairns 1992, Oxbow Monograph 35, Oxford.


Clottes, J., M. Menu and Ph. Walter
1990a
"La pr?paration
des
caverns
des
peintures
magdal?niennes
la Soci?t?
Bulletin de
ar?igeoisis,"
Pr?-Historique
Fran?aises.
71:170-192.
1990b
"New Light on the Niaux Paintings", Rock Art Research
7(1):21-26.
Clottes, J. and J.D. Lewis-Williams
1996
Cave Art: French and African Collaboration",
"Upper Palaeolithic
Journal 6 (1 ):137-139.
Cambridge Archaeological
Coleman, Sister Bernard, OSB
1937
"The Religion of the Ojibway of Northern Minnesota", Primitive Man
5: 1-25.
Conkey, M.
1987
"New Approaches
in the Search
for Meaning?
A review of the
research" inPalaeolithic
Journal
of
Field Archaeology
14:413-430.
'art',
Conway, J.
1979
"Rock Art Exploration
in Northern Ontario," Canadian
Rock Art
Research Associates
Newsletter 12:19-33.
Conway, T.
n.d.a
Constellations
in Ancient Ojibwa Rock Art. Unpublished
Depicted
Paper.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?...

171

An Ancient Rock Art Site at Diamond


Lake, Temagami
District,
Ontario, Unpublished paper.
1975
"An Archaeological
Survey of the North-eastern Shore of the Lake
Superior," inCollected Papers-Canadian
Archaeological Papers, pp.17
28, Historical Sites Branch, Division of Parks, Research Report # 6.
to Rock Art in
1978
"Star charts, Art and Artifacts: A New Approach
of the
Northern Ontario," Paper presented at the 1978 Symposium
Toronto.
Ontario Archaeological
Society,
in Northeastern Ontario,"
"Canadian
"Rock Art and Conservation
1979
from the Fourth
Association
Rock Art Research
1977," Papers
Rock Art Research Associates,
Biennial Conference of the Canadian
Heritage Record 8:127-145.
First
of Obabika
An Archaeological
Assessment
1984
Lake, Manuscript,
and
of
for
Ontario
Draft, Unpublished
paper
Citizenship
Ministry
Culture, Sault Ste. Marie.
Conway, T. and J. Conway
"An Ethno-Archaeological
1989
Study of Algonkin Rock Art inNortheastern
Ontario, Canada", Ontario Archaeology 49:43-59.
"An Ethno-Archaeological
1990a
Study of Algonkin Rock Art inNortheastern
Ontario
Ontario, Canada",
Archaeology 49:43-59.
1990b Spirits on Stone: The Agawa Pictographs, Heritage Discoveries
Inc.,
n.d.b

Echo Bay.
Couraud, C.
"Pour une ?tude m?thodoloque
1983

des colorants

pr?historiques",

de la Soci?t? Pr?historiqueFran?aise 80 (4): 104-110.

Bulletin

Mode
Pr?paration,
"Pigments Utilis?s en pr?histoire Provenance,
92
D'utilisation", L'Anthropologie
(1):17-28.
Davis, W.
in Late Prehistoric
of Representation
the Blow: the Scenes
1992
Masking
of
California
Press,
Ad,
Berkeley.
University
Egyptian
1988

Dawson,

K.C.A.

River
1973," Unpublished,
Report Kaministikwia
"Archaeological
Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Denninger, E.
of
the age
to determine
1971
"The use of paper
chromatography
to rock paintings", South
its application
binders and
albuminous
African Journal of Science Special Publication 2:80-83.
Dablon, C.
and Allied
Jesuit Relations
in The
"Relation of 1672-73,"
1896-1901
inNew
Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries
edited by R. G. Thwaites, Volume
1610-1791
58, Burrows
France,
1973

Brothers Cleveland.
F.
Densmore,
Government
Music
1910
I, Washington
Printing Office,
Chippewa
Smithsonian
Institution,Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 45.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

172

1913

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

Chippewa Music II,Bulletin53 of theBureau ofAmericanEthnology,

Government

D.C.

Printer,Washington

1941 The Native Art of the Chippewa, American Anthropologist,New


Series

43(4)1:478-681.

1974 [1928] How IndiansUse Wild Plants forFood, Medicine and Crafts.
New York, Dover Publications.

Originally published

as

"Uses of Plants

Annual
by the Chippewa Indians (pp.275-397)" in the Forty-fourth

Report of the Bureau of American


Smithsonian
Institution, 1926-1927

Ethnology to the Secretary of the


by the United States Government

Printing Office, Washington.

1979 [1929] Chippewa Customs, With an introduction


by Nina Marchetti

Archabal. Originally published by the Smithsonian


Institution Bureau
of American
as Bulletin No. 86
in 1929, Minnesota
Ethnology
Historical Society Press, St. Paul.
Dewdney, S.
1958
"The Quetico Pictographs", The Beaver Summer: 15-22.
1963
Indian Rock Art, Popular Series No. 4, Saskatchewan
Museum
of
Natural History, Regina.
1965
Stone Age Paintings, A Heritage Area Publication,
Province
of
of
Mines
and
Natural
Resources
Parks
Manitoba,
Department
Branch.

1970a

Dating Rock Art in the Canadian


Shield, Royal Ontario Museum, Art
and Archaeology Occasional
Paper 24, University of Toronto Press,
Toronto.

1970b

Pursuits
of Kitchigami's
"Pictographic
Shore",
Archaeological
Newsletter, Royal Ontario Museum, New Series, No. 59.
on
Notes
the Objiway
"Ecological
shaman-artist",
Artscanada,
17-28.
August:
"Insights on Vision Sites: A Matter of Relevance",
Archaeological
Newsletter, Royal Ontario Museum, New Series, No. 69.
"The Year of the Pictographic
Puns, Archaeological
Newsletter",
Royal Ontario Museum, New Series, No. 82.
"Walls and Waves:
A Dating Dilemma", Archaeological
Newsletter,
Ontario
New Series, No. 121.
Museum,
Royal
"Search
for Images of Forgotten Dreams",
in Relev?s
et travaux
r?cents sur l'art rupestre am?rindien, ?dit? par G. Tass? et S.
Dewdney,
Laboratoire d'arch?ologie de l'Universit? du Qu?bec
? Montr?al, Pal?o
Qu?bec 8:5-29.
"Rock Art Research
in Canada-The
First Hundred Years", Papers
from the Fourth Biennial Conference
of the Canadian
Rock Art
Research Associates,
Heritage Record 8:1-4.
Verbal Versus Visual Approaches
to Rock Art Research,
Papers from
the Fourth Biennial Conference
of the Canadian
Rock Art Research
Associates,
Heritage Record 8:325-339.

1970c
1971
1972
1975
1977

1979a

1979b

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?...

173

.Kidd
Dewdney S. and
1962
Indian Paintings of the Great Lakes, University of Toronto Press,
Toronto.
Indian Paintings of the Great Lakes, 2nd Edition, University of Toronto
1967
Press, Toronto.
1975
Indian Paintings of the Great Lakes, 3ndEdition, University of Toronto
Press Toronto.
Dickason, O.P.
1972
Indian Ads in Canada.
Department of Indian Affairs and Development,
Ottawa.
Dowson,

T.A.

1989

"Dots and Dashes:


Paintings", South
6:84-94.

1994

"Reading Art,Writing History: Rock Art and Social Change

the Entoptic Code


in Bushman
Rock
Cracking
African Archaeological
Godwin
Series
Society

in

Southern Africa", World Archaeology


25(3):332-344.
Dowson, T.A. and A.L. Holliday
1989
and
An
Eland:
Interpretation of an
"Zigzags
Idiosyncratic
Bulletin 44:46-48.
Combination", South African Archaeological
Dronfield, J.
1993
Irish Passage
Tomb Art", Style and the Universality
"Ways of Seeing:
inM. Lorblanchet & P. G. Bahn (Eds.) Rock Art Studies:
of Vision,
The Post-Stylistic Era or Where
do we go from here? Papers
in
A
of
the
2nd
AURA Congress, Cairns 1992.
presented
Symposium
Oxford: Oxbow Monographs
35:179-193.

1995

"SubjectiveVision and theSource of IrishMegalithic",Antiquity69:

539-549.
Fox,

W.A.

Fall Archaeological
Survey North Central and Northwestern Regions,
Historical Planning and Research
Branch, North Central Region,
Manuscript on file.Ministry of Culture, Thunder Bay.
Friend, D.
1974

1983

The Elder Site: A PreliminaryReport Canadian Rock ArtResearch

Associates
Goods,

Newsletter

5 (1 & 2): 1-36.

B.M.

The
of the Rice River Pictographs",
Manitoba,
"Pigment Analysis
Rock Art Quarterly 1 (3-4):113-115.
Grant, C.
Rock Art of the American
1967
Indian, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New
York.
Granzberg, G. and J. Steinbring
in Rock Art and Pictography:
Some
"The Line, Tree, and Circle
1995
inRock Art in the Americas,
from the Southwest",
Selected Examples
edited by J. Steinbring, pp. 43-54. Papers presented to Symposium
1990

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

174

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

of the First AURA Congress,


Darwin 1988, Oxbow Monograph
45,
Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Hallowell, A.I.
1992
The Ojibwa of Berens River, Manitoba,
into History,
Ethnography
in
Preface and Afterward by Jennifer S. H. Brown. Case
Studies

Cultural Anthropology, Harcourt Brace Janovich College Publications,


Orlando.
Halverson, C.
1988
An Archaeological
Survey of Stephen, Cameron, Flint and Kakagi
in Northwestern Ontario, Ontario Conservation
Lakes
Archaeology
Report #12, North-western Region, Ontario Ministry of Culture and
Kenora.
Communications,
Hamilton, S.
A Rock Art Panel
Lake Site (EjJc-1), Albany
2000
from the Petawanga
for the
River: Northwestern Ontario, Preliminary Report prepared
First
Nation.
Eabametoong
H aywood, N.A.
The
Provincial
Park
1983
Quetico
1979,
Survey
Archaeological
Conservation
Report
Report, North Central Region
Archaeology
No. 11, Thunder Bay, Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

Hedges, K.
in
1987
"Patterned Body Anthropomorphs and the Context of Phosphenes"
Rock Art, San Diego Museum Papers No. 23, Rock Art Papers 5:17
24.

Hodder, I.
1987
"The Contextual Analysis
of Contextual Meanings,
1991

of Symbolic Meanings",
inThe Archaeology
edited by I. Hodder, pp. 1-10, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, New York, Sydney and Melbourne.
and Its Role, American Antiquity 56 (1):
Interpretative Archaeology
7-18.

Hill, CG.
1982
in
Survey of South Geraldton District", in Studies
"Archaeological
West Patricia Archaeology No. 3, edited byW. A. Ross, pp. 69-132.
Research
No.
19, Ontario
Archaeological
Report
Ministry of
and
Toronto.
Culture,
Citizenship
1983
Archaeology East of Nipigon. Conservation Archaeology Report. With
contributions byW. David Hems. North Central Region Report No. 13,
Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, Thunder Bay.
Hoffman,

1888
1889
1891

W.J.

1:
"Pictographs and the Ojibwa Religion", American Anthropologist
209-231.
"Notes on Ojibwa Folk-Lore", American Anthropologist 2 (3): 215-224.
"The Midewiwin or the "Grand Medicine Society," inSeventh Annual
Report

of

the Bureau

of Ethnology

to

the Secretary

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of

the

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?...

175

Institution 1885-1886,
edited by J.W. Powell, pp. 149
Smithsonian
299, Government Printing Press, Washington.
James, E.
A Narrative of The Captivity and Adventures
1956
of John Tanner (U.S.
Interpreter at the Saut De Ste. Marie) During Thidy Years Residence
for the
Among the Indians in the Interior of North America, Prepared
Press by Edwin James M. D. Editor of an Account of Major Long's
Expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains, Ross & Haines
Inc., Minneapolis.
Jones, L.
1979
"Rock Art and Ethnography",
from the Fourth Biennial
Papers
Rock Art Research Associates,
Conference of the Canadian
Heritage
Record 8:82-97.
Jones,

T.E.H.

"Pictographs on Kipahigan Lake, Manitoba," Manitoba Archaeological


III (1):3-4.
Newsletter,
1968
"Problems inRecording Rock Paintings in the Precambrian Shield", in
of the 28th International Congress of Americanists
Proceedings
(1968),
Stuttgart-Munich, pp. 109-116.
1981a The Aboriginal Rock Paintings of the Churchill River, Anthropological
Museum
of Natural
4.
No.
Saskatchewan
Series,
History,
Saskatchewan
Department of Culture and Youth, Regina.
1981b Fish Guts and Rock Paintings: Ethnography
InformingArchaeology,
Newsletter 15:44-49.
Canadian Rock Art Research Associates
Johnston, B.
and Stewart, Toronto.
1982
Ojibway Ceremonies, McClelland
N.
Knowlton,
on ORACA's
1992
Volunteers
"Images on Stone"
Passport-to-the-Past
Ontario
Rock
Art
Conservation
Association
Newsletter,
Project,
Summer/Autumn, pp. 9-10.
Kohl, J. G.
1966

1985 [1860] Kitchi-GamiLife among the Lake Superior Ojibway, Originally

and Hall, Reprinted, Minnesota


in 1860 London, Chapman
published
Historical Press, St. Paul.
Lafitau, J.F.
aux moeurs des
1794
Moeurs des sauvages
am?ricains, compar?es
premiers temps, F. Maspero, Paris.
Lambert, P.J.
The
1985 Results,
n.d.
The Northwestern Ontario Rock Art Project:
Northwestern
Conservation
for
report
Region
Unpublished
of
Ontario
No
number,
Citizenship and
Ministry
Archaeology Report,
Culture, Toronto.
1982 Results,
The
The Northwestern Ontario Rock Art Project:
1983
Northwestern Region Report # 2, Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and
Culture, Toronto.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

176

1985

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

The NorthwesternOntario Rock Art Project: The 1984 Results,

Conservation
Northwestern
Report No. 8,
Archaeology
Region
Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, Toronto.
Landes, R.
1968
Press, Madison.
Religion and theMidewiwin, University ofWisconsin
Lanoue,

G.

1989

Images on Stone: A Theory on InterpretingRock Art, Art Center, Rome.

Lawson,

A.C.

American
Ancient Rock
Inscriptions on the Lake of the Woods,
Naturalist XIX (7):654-657.
Lema?tre, S.
International Newsletter on Rock
Les peintures rupestres au Qu?bec,
1995
Art 11:23-29.
Leroi-Gourhan, A.
1982
The Dawn of Paleolithic Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lewis-Williams, J.D.
1990a
Reply. Current Anthropology 31 (1): 80-84.
1990b On Palaeolithic
Art and the Neuropsychological
Model, Current
1885

1991

Anthropology31 (1):407-308.

with Analogy:
Wrestling
Palaeolithic Art Research,

Dilemma
Methodological
of the Prehistoric

Proceedings

in Upper
57

Society

(1):149-162.
Vision and

in the Neolithic: Evidence


Power
from the Decorated
Monuments, Current Anthropology 34:55-65.
Lewis-Williams, J.D. and T.A. Dowson
"The Signs of All Times Entoptic Phenomena,"
1988
Current Anthropology
1994

29 (3):201-245.

L?vesque, R.
1968
Vie en Arts, Vol. 52:18-23.
Des P?troglyphes au Qu?bec,
Lipsett, B.M.
1970
the Origin of some Canadian
"Comparative
Study to Determine
in Ten Thousand
Shield Rock Paintings,"
Years: Archaeology
in
edited
W.
M.
Manitoba
Manitoba,
181-321,
pp.
by
Hlady,
Archaeological
Society, Winnipeg.
H. Cachierand
Lorblanchet, M., M. Labeau, J.L. Vernet, P. Fitte, H. Valladas,
M. Arnold
1990
in the Quercy," France, Rock Art Research
"Palaeolithic Pigments
7
(1):4-20.
Lothson, G.A.
The Jeffers Petroglyphs Site. A Survey and Analysis of the Carvings,
1976
Minnesota
Prehistoric Archaeology
Series
No.
12, Minnesota
Historical Society, St. Paul.
Macfie, J.A.
1992
The Stories on the Cliffs. Ontario Rock Art Conservation Association
Newsletter,
Spring, pp. 7-9, Originally published
by SYLVA-Your

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?...

Lands and Forest Review, Ontario Department


November-December
1959.
Mackenzie, A.

177

of Lands

and Forests

1902 [1793] Voyages from


Montreal throughthecontinentofNorthAmerica

in 1789 and 1793 with an Account


to the Frozen and Pacific oceans
of the Rise of the State of the Fur Trade, George N. Morang and Co.
Ltd., London.
Mallory, E.S.
1961
"The Agawa Pictographs," Canadian Geographical Journal 69:126-129.
G.
Mallory,
1880
Gesture
of the North American
and Signals
Indians,
Signs
Smithsonian
Box
Institution, National
Archives,
Anthropological
8:2372, Folder 1.
A Collection of Gesture-Signs
1881
and Signals of the North American
Indians with Some Comparisons,
Smithsonian
Institution, Bureau of
American Ethnology, First Annual Report for 1879-180.
1893
Picture Writing of the American
Indians. Smithsonian
Institution,
Bureau of Ethnology, 10th Annual Report for 1893.
Maurer, J.D. and J.P. Whelan
"ACanadian Shield Pictographic Design," American Antiquity 42:196-202.
1977
Menu, M. and P. Walter
1991
"Les Premiers Artistes Peintres: L'Analyse
des
Physico-Chimique
Peintures
de
Mieux
des
L'art
pernet
Comprendre
Pr?historique
22 (235): 1086-1089.
premiers artistes," La Recherche
Molyneaux, B.L.

1974

TrentUniversityRock ArtResearch Project SummaryReport, 1974

1975

CCI/TRAP Pictograph Condition Inspection Survey, Canadian

1977

1978

1979
1980a
1980b
1980c

Field Season,

Department

of Anthropology, Trent University.

Conservation
Institute,Ottawa.
Formalism and contextualism: An historiography of rock art research
in the New World, Master's
thesis, Trent University, Peterborough,
Ontario.
The Lake of the Woods
Petroglyph Project, Report to the Ontario
Heritage Foundation.

TheWhitefishBay PictographProject,Report to theOntario Heritage


No

licence.
13 (3):6-11.
Pictures, Rotunda
Landscape
In the Wake
of the Manitou Royal Ontario Museum
Newsletter
185:New Series.
The Study of Prehistoric
Places
Evidence
from Lower
Sacred
Manitou
2, Royal Ontario
Lake, Archaeology
Museum,
Paper
Foundation,

Toronto.

1981

Fieldwork
Licence
Number
80-F-0383.
Report:
Archaeological
of
New
World
Ontario
Museum,
Department
Archaeology,
Royal
Toronto.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

178

1982
1985a

1985b

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

PreliminaryReportLicence 82-60, Department of New World

Archaeology, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.


Fieldwork
Licence
Archaeological
Report:
of New World Archaeology,
Department
Royal
Toronto.
Fieldwork
Licence
Archaeological
Report:
New
World Archaeology,
of
Department
Royal

Number
84-36.
Ontario Museum,
85-32.
Number
Ontario Museum,

Toronto.

1987

The Lake of thePainted-Cave,Archaeology40 (4): 18-25.

Myers, R.M. and J.M. Taylor


An
1974
of Aboriginal Rock
Investigation of the Natural Deterioration
Electron
and
X-Ray
Paintings
by
Microscopy
Scanning
Tutorial
and
Microbeam
Analysis
Society,
Microanalysis,
of the Ninth Annual Conference.
Carlton University:
Proceedings
Ottawa: 16 A-16C.
Nelson, J. and A. Hinshelwood
in Quetico,"
1998
The Boundary
"Archaeology and Native Spirit Beliefs
Waters Journal Summer: 12-16.
Noble, W.C.
at Rock Lake, Algonquin
1968
"Vision Pits," Cairns
and Petroglyphs
Provincial Park, Ontario, Ontario Archaeology
11:47-64.
G.
Nute,
1948
"The Painted Rock of Crooked Lake," Minnesota History 29:130-136.
S.F.
Olson,
135 (163):4-7.
1961
"Painted Rocks," National Parks Magazine
Pastershank, G.
1989
An Archaeological
Survey of Sabaskong
Bay, Lake of the Woods.
Ontario Conservation
Report No. 13, North-western
Archaeology
Kenora.
Region. Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications,
J.A.
Pelleck,

1981 An Archaeological Survey of theUpper English River, inStudies in

Patricia No. 2:1979-80,


edited by C. S. Paddy Reid and W. A.
Ross, pp. 115-130, Report No. 16, Ontario Ministry of Culture and
Communication, Toronto.
Pelshea, V.
1979
A Medium for Recording Pictographs Alternative or Complementary
to Cont?,
Canadian
Rock Art Research
Associates
Newsletter
2:24-25.
The West Patricia Project: First Year,
in Studies
in West Patricia
1980
No. 1:1978-79, edited by C. S. Paddy Reid and W. A. Ross, pp. 49
69, Report No. 15, Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communication,
Toronto.
Pepe, C, J. Clottes, M. Menu and Ph. Walter
"Le liant des peintures pr?historique ari?geosis,"
1991
Compte Rendu
des Sciences,
Paris 312 (ll):929-934.
Acad?mie
West

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?...

179

Petch, V.

"An Archaeological Survey of the Sasaginnigak River System

1991

Lake Area," Manitoba


Including the Kautunigan
Journal 1 (2):23-44.
Pettipas, L.
in Canadian
Shield
and Stylization
1982
Naturalism
Associates
Canadian
Rock Ad Research
Discussion,
(May): 13-27.
1991a
"Discovery Rock Art," Insights 1 (2):4.
and Oral Literature," Manitoba
"Rock Pictography
1991b
1
Journal
(2):45-49.
Society

Archaeological

Art:
Rock
Newsletter

A
17

Archaeological

Phillips, R.B.
in Native North American Art from
1999
Trading Identities: The Souvenir
the Northeast,
Press, Seattle
1700-1900,
University of Washington
Montreal
and
and
McGill-Queen's
Press,
London,
University
Kingston.
Pohorecky, Z.
of
inProceedings
1968
Rupestral Art in the Precambrian Shield of Canada,
the 28>h International Congress of Americanists (1968), edited Sol Tax,
1980

1981

pp. 103-108, Stuttgart-Munich.


at the Pictograph
A Study of Pigmentation for Planning Conservation
Canadian Rock
Sites on Hickson and Maribelli Lakes, Saskatchewan,
Art Research Associates Newsletter (12 May):26-39.
in Northwestern Shield Rock Paintings," Canadian
"Human Figures
Rock Art Research Associates Newsletter (16 November): 12-18.

Pohorecky, Z.S.

1966
1967

and T.E.H.

Jones

Man 1:104.
RecordingPictographs
Recording

Pictographs Man

2:305-306.

1968a Canada's Oldest KnownPictograph?Saskatchewan HistoryXXI (1 ):30


36.

1968b AboriginalPictographson Kipachigan Lake inthePrecambrianShield


of Saskatchewan

Price, S.

1989

and Manitoba,

The Musk-Ox

(2):3-36.

PrimitiveArt inCivilized Places, The Universityof Chicago Press,

Chicago and London.


Pufahl, J.K.
of Native
1990
Aspects
"Conserving
in Northwestern
Documentation

Culture

through Pictograph
Annual
in First
Ontario,"
1
Volume
(New Series).
Report, Ontario, pp.: 15-16
Archaeological
The Ontario Heritage Foundation, Toronto.
Rainbird, P.
2002
Making and
"Making Sense of Petroglyphs," in Inscribed Landscapes:
B.
and
M.
Wilson
edited
David,
pp. 93-103,
by
Marking Place,
Honolulu.
of
Hawai'i
Press,
University

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

180

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

Rajnovich, G.
1980a
"The Rainy
Lake Archaeological
Ontario
1978-1979,"
Survey:
Reports on File.
Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Archaeological
1980b
"Two Pictographs
Near
Ignace, Northwestern Ontario," Canadian
Rock Ad Research Associates
Newsletter 14:34-38
1980c
"Paired Morphs at Cuttle Lake in Northwestern Ontario," Canadian
Rock Art Research Associates
Newsletter 13:46-50
1981a
in the Rainy Lake Area of Northwestern
"Four Pictograph Sites
Newsletter 15:12
Ontario," Canadian Rock Art Research Associates
32.
1981b
"The Deer
Lake Pictographs,"
in Studies
in West Patricia, No.
edited by C. S. "Paddy" Reid and W. A. Ross, pp.280
2:1979-80,
307, Report No. 16, Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communication,
Toronto.
1981c
"Four Pictograph Sites in the Rainy Lake Area of Northwestern Ontario,"
Canadian Rock Art Research Associates Newsletter 15:13-32.
1989
"Visions in the Quest
for Medicine: An Interpretation of the Indian
of the Canadian
Journal of
Shield," Midcontinental
Paintings
1994

Archaeology 14 (2): 179-225.

Reading Rock Art: Interpreting the Indian Paintings of the Canadian


Shield, Natural Heritage/Natural History Inc., Toronto.
Redsky, J.
1972
Great Leader of the Ojibway: Mis-quona-queb,
edited by James R
Stevens McClelland and Stewart, Toronto.
Reid, CS.
"Paddy"
1976
The Dimensions
of Past
Environment, man and maymayqwayshi:
Human Cultural
in
the
of
Lake
the
Woods
Area;
Impact
Regional
Historical
and
Research
Branch,
Archaeologist,
Planning
Northwestern Region, Lake of theWoods
Planning Area.
1977
The Dimensions
of Past
Environment, Man and Maymayqwayshi:
Human Cultural Impact in the Lake of theWoods Area; Part II 1977,
Data Box 312, Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation, Toronto.
1979
The Tranquil Channel
in Lake of
Petroglyphs: Cultural Continuities
theWoods
Rock Art, Papers from the Fourth Biennial Conference of
the Canadian
Rock Art Research
Association,
Victoria, British
Columbia, Heritage Record 8:245-53.
1980
to the Archaeology
of West
Patricia: A Preliminary
"Approaches
in Studies
in West Patricia Archaeology
No. 1: 1978
Statement,"
1979, edited by C. S. Paddy Reid, Research
Report # 15, Ontario
Ministry of Culture and Recreation.
Ritzenthaler, R. and P. Ritzenthaler
1970
The Woodland
Indians of the Western Great Lakes, The Natural
History Press, Garden City, New York.
Rogers,

1962

D.P.

"Indian Rock Paintings," Ontario Archaeology

Series

B. 2:47-48.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

Rusak,
1991

do These

Symbols

Mean?...

181

J.
from White
"Two pictographs
Otter Lake," Ontario
Conservation Association Newsletter, December:4-5.

Rock

Art

1992a The White Otter Lake Pictograph Project 1991 Results. Papers in

Ontario Rock Art No. 1, Kenora: Ontario Rock Art Conservation


Association.
1992b
Second
Year Field Activities for ORACA
"Images on Stone"-The
Rock
Art
Ontario
Conservation
Association
Crew,
Newsletter,
Summer/Autumn:2-7.
Sales, K.
1992
Ascent to the Sky. A Shamanic
InitiatoryEngraving from the Burrap
in Oceania
27:
northwest Western Australia, Archaeology
Peninsula,
22-35.
Schoolcraft, H.R.
of Thirty Years with the Indian
1851
Personal Memoirs of a Residence
of Passing
Tribes on the American Frontiers: With Brief Notices
Events, Facts and Opinions, A.D. 1812 to A.D. 1842, Lippincott and
Grambo, Philadelphia.
Scott, E.
1980
Archaeological
"Pictographs on the Clearwater River," Saskatchewan
I (3):6-7.
Society Newsletter (New Series),
Smith, S.A.
inWest Patricia, No. 2:
of Red Lake," in Studies
"The Archaeology
1981
1979-80, Report # 16, edited by C. S. "Paddy" Reid and W. A. Ross,
Toronto.
pp. 25-114, Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communication,
J.H.
Steinbring,
of Copper Technology
Considerations
Taxonomic and Associational
1975
PhD thesis,
of
Archaic
the
Minnesota,
Traditions, University
during
1976

Anthropology.
in the Ancient Great Lakes,"
"Lunar Cultism
Camuno di Studi Prehistori 13 -14:153-166.

Bolletino

del Centro

1979a 1979 UniversityofWinnipeg Rock Art Studies, Canadian Rock Art


1979b

1982

1986

Newsletter 12:13-18.
Research Associates
in the
formCorrespondences
The Caribou Lake Gorget: Cross-Media
Rock
Prehistoric Rock Art of the Interiorof North America, Canadian
from the Fourth Biennial
Association
Art Research
1977, Papers
Rock Art Research Associates,
Conference of the Canadian
Heritage
Record 8:99-125.
in the
Idiom
and
the Algonkian
"Shamanistic
Manipulations
Rock
VII
and
Indian
American
the
Rock
of
Art,"
Archaeoethnology
VIII:212-220.
"The Mud

in Northwestern
Portage
Petroglyph Site
Summary," Rock Art Papers, San Diego Museum Papers
143.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Ontario: A
21 (4): 139

182

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

"Post-Archaic Rock Art in theWestern Great Lakes," in The Woodland


to Eldon
Tradition in the Western Great Lakes: Papers Presented
in
Johnson, edited by G. E. Gibbon,
pp. 167-194, Publications
, Minnneapolis,
No. 4, University of Minnesota
Anthropology
Minnesota.
1992
Phenomenal Attributes: Site Selection Factors inRock Art, American
Indian Roc/cA/ti7:102-113.
1993
Indian Rock
Dating Rock Art in the Northern Midcontinent, American
Art. XIM5-31.
1995
Rock Art Studies in the Americas, Papers presented to Symposium b
of the First AURA Congress,
Darwin 1988, Oxbow Monograph
45,
Oxbow Books, Oxford.
1998
in Manitoba, Manitoba Archaeolo
Aboriginal Rock Paintings Sites
gical Journal 8 (1 and 2).
1999
in
"Dating and the Earliest Known Rock Art,", inPapers presented
1-3
the
of
SIARB
edited
Bolivia,
Symposia
Congress, Cochabamba,
by M. Strecker and P. Bahn, pp. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Steinbring, J. and R. Callaghan
1985
Comments on the Preparation and Weathering
of Petroglyphs at the
Mud Portage
Site
in
Northwestern
Ontario, Manitoba
(DkKr-4)
Archaeological
Quarterly 10:4-34.
Steinbring, J.E. Danziger and R. Callaghan
1987
North Archaic Petroglyphs
in Northern North America, Rock Art
4 (1):3 -16, 150-161.
Research
Steinbring, J. and D. Elias
1967
"Animal Designs
inRock Paintings," Zoolog 8 (4): 10-12.
1968a
in the Study of Canadian
"Technical Refinements
Shield Rock
Manitoba
Newsletter
IV
Paintings,"
Archaeological
(3):3-8.
"A Key Pictograph
1968b
from the Bloodvein River, Manitoba," American
Antiquity 33:499-501.
Steinbring, J., G. Granzberg and M. Lanteigne
1995
"Elemental Analysis
inPursuit of Function inRock Art," inRock Art in
the Americas, Rock Art Studies
in the Americas, Papers presented to
b
of
the
AURA
Darwin 1988, edited by J.
Symposium
Congress,
Oxbow
Steinbring, pp. 55-65,
Monograph 45, Oxbow Books, Oxford.
J.
and
H.
Iwacha
Steinbring,
1982
Newsletter
of the
"Long Lake Rock
Painting Site, Manitoba,"
Canadian Rock Art Research Associates
18:7-23.
Steinbring, J. and D. Simpson
1986
"The Mud Portage Site (DrKr-4). A preceramic Context for Petroglyphs
inNorthwest Ontario," The American Indian Rock Art 10:145-156.
Steinbring, J. and S. Steinbring
1990

1978

Machin Point PetroglyphSite, Shoal Lake, Ontario Rubbings and


photographs, July 13-15, 1978, Newsletter
Research Associates
10:11-15.

of the Canadian

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Rock Art

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?...

183

Steinbring, J. and E. Nielsen


1986
Reinterpretations of the Rush Bay road Site inNorthwestern Ontario,
Manitoba Archaeological
Quarterly, 10 (1):4-35.
Stevens, J.R.
1971
of the Sandy Lake Cree, McClelland
and Stewart,
Sacred
Legends
Toronto.
P.W.

Sweetman,

1955

Preliminary

Report

on

History,XIVIl (3): 101-121.

the Peterborough

Petroglyphs,

Ontario

Tass?, G.
inRelev?s
et travaux r?cents sur l'art
"Premi?res Reconnaissances,"
1977a
et S. Dewdney, Laboratoire
rupestre am?rindien, ?dit? par G. Tass?
? Montr?al, Pal?o-Qu?bec
de l'Universit? du Qu?bec
d'arch?ologie
8:37-69.
inRelev?s
et travaux
"Les Peintures Rupestres du Lac Wapizagonke,"
1977b
r?cents sur l'art rupestre am?rindien, ?dit? par edited by G. Tass? et S.
de
Laboratoire d'arch?ologie
l'Universit? du Qu?bec
?
Dewdney
8:71-112.
Montr?al, Pal?o-Qu?bec
et travaux
1977c
"?tudes sur la conservation et la datation," in Relev?s
r?cents sur l'art rupestre am?rindien, ?dit? par G. Tass? et S. Dewdney.
? Montr?al, Pa/?o
Laboratoire d'arch?ologie de l'Universit? du Qu?bec

Qi/?bec8:113-119.
Rock Paintings and their Conservation
Quebec
"Newly Recorded
Art
1977. Papers
Rock
Research
Association
Canadian
Problems,"
of the Canadian
Rock Art
from the Fourth Biennial Conference
Research Associates,
Heritage Record 8:147-152.
Taylor, J.M., W. Bokman and I.N.M.Wainwright
Some
realities and practical considerations,"
1979
"Rock Art Conservation:
from the
Rock Art Research
Association
Canadian
1977, Papers
Rock Art Research
of the Canadian
Fourth Biennial Conference
Associates,
Heritage Record 8:293-324.
R.
M.
J.
M.,
Taylor,
Myers and I.N.Wainwright
in Canada,"
Bulletin of
1974
"Scientific Studies of Indian Rock Paintings
14 (2):28-43.
the American Institute forConservation
in
"An investigation of the natural deterioration of rock paintings
1975
and
the
Arts.
in
in
Conservation
Canada,"
Applied
Archaeology
June 2-6
Preprints of the Contributions to the Stockholm Congress,
of
for
Conservation
Institute
The
International
87-91.;
1975, pp.
Historic and ArtisticWorks, London.
Trigger, B.G.
1995
"Expanding Middle Range Theory," Antiquity 69:449-458.
1979

Turner,

1979

B.N.

inQuetico
Provincial Park, Ontario," Newsletter
"Rock Paintings
Manitoba
Rock Art Research
the Canadian
Associate,
Chapter
(1):3-4.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of
2

184

Vastokas,

1973

Revista

de Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

J and R. Vastokas

Sacred Art of the Algonkians: A Study of the Peterborough

Petroglyphs, Mansard Press, Peterborough.


Vickery, J.D.
in Red Ochre," Ontario Rock Ad Research
1991
"Studies
December:22-27.
Newsletter,
published
Originally
February/March 1982.
Magazine
Wainwright, I.N.M.

1990

Association
in Canoe

"RockPaintingand PetroglyphRecording Projects inCanada," APT

Bulletin XXII (1-2):55-81.


and the Analytical Research
1997
Art, Archaeology
Laboratory of the
la science au service de
Canadian
Conservation
Institute, Techne:
l'histoire de Tart et des civilisations 5:80-88.
I.N.M., H. Sears and S. Michalski
Wainwright,
1997
"Design of a Rock Art Protective Structure at Petroglyphs Provincial
for
Association
Journal of the Canadian
Park, Ontario, Canada,"
Conservation

22:53-76.

I.N.M. and J.M. Taylor


Wainwright,
in the
1977
"On the Occurrence
of Parallel Pigment Layer Phenomenon
Two
Structure
of
from
Rock
Cross-sectional
Samples
Painting Sites,"
of the
in Conservation
in Canada,
of Rock Art: Proceedings
on the Conservation
of Rock Art, Perth
International Workshop
Institute for the
1977, edited by C. Pearson,
pp. 29-31,
September,
Conservation
of Cultural Material, Sydney.
Waller, S.
1993
Sound Reflection as an Explanation
for the Content and Context of
Rock Art, Rock Art Research
10 (2):91-101.
Watson, P.J., S.A. LeBlanc and C.L. Redman
in Archaeology:
An Explicitly Scientific Approach,
1971
Explanation
Columbia University Press, New York and London.
Wellmann, K.F.
1979a
North American Rock Art: Medical Connotations,
New York State
Journal ofMedicine 79:1094-1105.
Wheeler, C.
n.d.
"The Oxford House Pictograph or The May May Quah Sao are Alive
and Well at Oxford House," Unpublished paper.
1977a
"The Historic Assiniboine:
A territorial dispute
in the ethnohistoric
in
du
Actes
Huiti?me
des
edited
literature,"
Algonquinistes,
Congr?s
W.
Carleton
Ottawa.
Cowan,
pp. 115-123,
by
University,
1977b
"The Oxford House Pictograph or The May May Quah Sao are Alive
and Well at Oxford House,"
inProceedings
of the Second Congress,
edited by: J. Freedman
and J.H. Barkow, pp. 701-713. Canadian
National Museum
of Man, Mercury Series,
Ethnology Service,
National Museums
of Canada, Ottawa.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?...

185

1979

"The Oxford House


Rock Ad Research
Canadian
Pictograph,"
Association Newsletter 1(4):2-9.
J.P.
Whelan,
inCanadian
1983
Shield Rock Art Systematics,"
"Context and Association
Canadian
Journal of Archaeology
7(1 ):77-84.
Whitley, D.S.
of Rock Ad Research,
Altamira Press, Walnut
2001
Handbook
Creek,
Lanham, New York and Oxford.

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like