Professional Documents
Culture Documents
.
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
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
4243
rue Gamier,
Quebec,
Canada,
H2J 3R7.
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
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?.
103
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
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
What
do These
Symbols
105
Mean?.
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
106
Revista
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
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
What
imply evolutionary
do These
relationships
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.
108
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.
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
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
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
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
110
Revista
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
1992; Macfie 1992; Mallory 1961;Olson 1961; Pettipas 1991a). Some briefly
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.
What
Other
reports by Molyneaux
of theWoods
do These
Symbols
discuss
sites
111
Mean?.
in areas
neighbouring
the Lake
(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
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
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
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,
Figure 2.
Dewdney's 15th July 1960 field record of Site # 92A, now called DhKm-1
and DhKm-4. ? Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto Canada.
Revista de Arqueolog?aAmericanaNo. 25
114
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,
sites would
Techniques
used
to record
the pictographs
(Dewdney and Kidd 1962) developed his techniques for sketching and
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
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.
116
DhKm-1
Revista
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
and DhKm-4
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
the mistake
of considering
some
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).
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?...
117
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Annotated
by Colson
according
to
118
Figure 6.
Revista
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
in 1993
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?.
119
Figure 7.
based
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
Revista
120
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
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
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
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?..
121
the middle
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
Revista de Arqueolog?aAmericanaNo. 25
122
impossible
to identify.
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
and Vastokas
(1973),
Lambert
(1983,
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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."
128
Revista
Technical
analysis
Technical
issues
involved
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
in recording
and
Some
have discussed
archaeologists
recording and
interpreting pictographs
No. 25
the technical
involved in
issues
and petroglyphs
1979;
(Brand
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
Provincial
Park
in southern
Ontario
(Bahn,
Bednarik
and
What
do These
Symbols
129
Mean?.
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
130
Revista
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
taken by
conservators.
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?.
131
Canadian
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
and
Danziger
Callaghan
half of these
Approximately
and
1987;
Steinbring
Callaghan
authors, with the exception of Grant
1985).
(1967),
132
Revista
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
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
(ibid.:20),while the
types (ibid.).The pictographswere "painted(naturalistic)"
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
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?.
133
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
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,
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
in the West
Patricia
and
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
136
Revista
canoe
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
were men
sites where
the
images,
he believed,
conformed
to
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
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
audiences.
of
religious
practitioner
who
used
divination
and
were
sometimes
1982:115).
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.
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.
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?.
139
Hickson-Maribelli
that the site was
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
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
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?.
141
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
What
do These
Symbols
143
Mean?.
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,
144
Revista
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
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
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
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?.
145
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
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
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
Mud Portage
was
from Level
12 (ibid.:159)
is the same
as
by the
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
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
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.
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,
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,
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
at
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
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
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?.
149
study built upon thework of Maurer and Whelan (1977). They sought to
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
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.
discussed by Sweetman (1955) and Dewdney and Kidd (1962). Noble also
What
do These
Symbols
151
Mean?.
Figure 12.
Channel
sites
in considerable
sites
152
Revista
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
inHaute-C?te-Nord.
from western
used
by shamans.
drew on ethnographic
Shield
differences
the Ojibwa,
peoples
Arsenault
that explain
Figure 13.
inspecific spaces
1993).
in 1960. ? Alicia
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?.
153
what
Both Dewdney and Kidd (1967) were concerned to identify
Literature
concerned
with meaning
adopted
Shield
referred to sites
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
(ibid.).
154
Revista
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
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.
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).
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.).
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)
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?.
155
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
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
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
1992; Lewis
"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.
is
Approach
the most
for archaeologists
popular
approach
the meaning of rock image sites since meaning
determining
in
interested
has been drawn
What
do These
Symbols
157
Mean?.
1973).
on
the Midewiwin
Society
and
practitioners
pictograph
sites
in Northern Ontario,
historic
and
precontact
including DhKo-1
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
firstcomprehensive
Shield.
Woods.
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
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
160
Revista
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
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
What
Symbols
161
Mean?.
matter,
and with
do These
reference
(ibid.AZI)
asserted
that the
images
of
the Peterborough
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
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
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
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?.
163
possible
to arrive at some
conclusions
that could
proven"
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
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
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.
Revista
164
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
had published
earlier
in government
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
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?.
165
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
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
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
or not.
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
What
do These
Symbols
167
Mean?.
examining them (e.g. Myers and Taylor 1974;Wainwright 1990, 1997), the
manner
used
to establish
the age
and
style of specific
pictograph
and
determined
to establish
homological
approach
approach (e.g. Dewdney and Kidd 1962; Rajnovich 1994; Vastokas and
Vastokas
approach
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.
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
have observed
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
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,"
What
1998
do These
Symbols
Mean?...
169
des
au
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
1994
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,"
1979
A.P.
170
Revista
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
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.
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?...
171
Echo Bay.
Couraud, C.
"Pour une ?tude m?thodoloque
1983
des colorants
pr?historiques",
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.
172
1913
Revista
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
Government
D.C.
Printer,Washington
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
1970a
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
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
1994
in
1995
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
Associates
Goods,
Newsletter
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
174
Revista
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
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
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.
176
1985
Revista
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
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
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
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
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?...
177
of Lands
and Forests
1974
1975
1977
1978
1979
1980a
1980b
1980c
Field Season,
Department
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.
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.
178
1982
1985a
1985b
Revista
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
Number
84-36.
Ontario Museum,
85-32.
Number
Ontario Museum,
Toronto.
1987
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?...
179
Petch, V.
1991
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
Pohorecky, Z.S.
1966
1967
and T.E.H.
Jones
Man 1:104.
RecordingPictographs
Recording
Pictographs Man
2:305-306.
Price, S.
1989
and Manitoba,
The Musk-Ox
(2):3-36.
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
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
1962
D.P.
Series
B. 2:47-48.
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
Anthropology.
in the Ancient Great Lakes,"
"Lunar Cultism
Camuno di Studi Prehistori 13 -14:153-166.
Bolletino
del Centro
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.
Ontario: A
21 (4): 139
182
Revista
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
1978
of the Canadian
Rock Art
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?...
183
Sweetman,
1955
Preliminary
Report
on
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.
of
2
184
Vastokas,
1973
Revista
de Arqueolog?a
Americana
No. 25
J and R. Vastokas
1990
Association
in Canoe
22:53-76.
What
do These
Symbols
Mean?...
185
1979