Minding The Gap: An Exploration Into The Social Landscapes Of Rock Art At Stuart Lake/ Nak’al Bun, British Columbia Suzanne Mitchell B.A., University of Northern British Columbia, 2003 Thesis Submitted In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For The Degree Of Master O f Arts in Interdiseiplinary Studies The University Of Northern British Columbia May 2006 © Suzanne Mitchell, 2006 1^1 Library and Archives Canada Bibliothèque et Archives Canada Published Heritage Branch Direction du Patrimoine de l'édition 395 W ellington Street Ottawa ON K 1A 0N 4 Canada 395, rue W ellington Ottawa ON K 1A 0N 4 Canada Your file Votre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-28364-6 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-28364-6 NOTICE: The author has granted a non­ exclusive license allowing Library and Archives Canada to reproduce, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, communicate to the public by telecommunication or on the Internet, loan, distribute and sell theses worldwide, for commercial or non­ commercial purposes, in microform, paper, electronic and/or any other formats. AVIS: L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou autres formats. The author retains copyright ownership and moral rights in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission. L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation. In compliance with the Canadian Privacy Act some supporting forms may have been removed from this thesis. Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la protection de la vie privée, quelques formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de cette thèse. While these forms may be included in the document page count, their removal does not represent any loss of content from the thesis. Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. Canada ABSTRACT Minding the Gap: An Exploration into the Social Landscapes of Rock Art at Stuart Lake/ Nak’al Bun, British Columbia by Suzanne Mitchell This thesis explores the multiplicity of meanings embedded in the rock art landscape at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun, British Columbia. It is interdisciplinary in nature and effectively combines Archaeology, Anthropology and First Nations Studies. Information from the existing ethnographic record along with data obtained through interviews with First Nations people from the Yekooche, Tache and Nak’azdli communities are highlighted in this thesis. Together these sources are developed into a de-colonized ethnography that explores the social aspects of the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art landscape, both in the past and the present. Contemporary Aboriginal perspectives form the basis for understanding the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art assemblage in terms of a cultural landscape. An archaeological survey of the rock art at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun, conducted for this research, provides information regarding the motifs and the physical landscape of the rock art. Photography forms the basis of the rock art recording methods employed in this research and specific methods for achieving optimum photographic results are presented. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Table of Contents 11 List of Tables List of Figures VI Acknowledgement ix Chapter One Introduction The Project My Rock Art Beginnings Geographic Setting Cultural Setting Doing Research Indigenous People and Archaeology Public Archaeology Minding the Gap Summary 1 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 15 Chapter Two Literature Review Summary 17 40 Chapter Three Theoretical Underpinnings Introduction Rock Art Research in British Columbia and Archaeological Reconstructions Processual and Post-Processual Archaeology Interpretive Archaeology Discussion: Processual and Post-Processual Archaeology and Rock Art Studies Early Feminist Thinking in Archaeology Contemporary Feminist Archaeology Theory Discussion: Feminist Archaeology and Rock Art Studies Landscape Approaches Discussion: Landscapes, Social Space and Rock Art Studies Why are Discussions of Meaning Worthwhile? Summary 42 42 Chapter Four Research Methods Ethnographic and Archaeological Texts 43 46 49 51 52 54 58 60 65 67 69 72 73 Ill Approval and Permission Fieldwork Archaeological Fieldwork Pre-Fieldwork Planning and Testing Photographic Testing Gamut GretagMacbeth ColorChecker Color Rendition Chart IFRAO Standard Color Scale MiKs Image Calibration Chart Lighting Conditions Locating and Recording the Paintings Ethnographic Fieldwork Interviews with First Nations People Arranging Interviews Conducting Interviews Analysis Chapter Five Chapter Six 75 79 79 80 81 81 82 83 84 87 88 91 91 91 93 96 Rock Art Tours and Meanings The Physical Landscape of the Rock Art Location Accessibility and Orientation Carrier Communication Symbols The Humanized Landscape of Action, Agency and Rock Art Continuous Meanings Summary 100 101 102 106 115 Conclusions The Photographic Process Research Theories and Approaches Rock Art “Tours” and “Maps” Communication Through the Rock Art Contributions Social Landscapes of Rock Art 144 144 145 148 149 151 154 Bibliography 124 136 140 156 Appendix A Band Council Resolution 170 Appendix B University of Northern British Columbia Ethics Approval 171 Appendix C Early Canadiana Online Permission to Publish Illustrations 172 Appendix D Mrs. Dora Comer Permission to Publish Illustrations 173 Appendix E British Columbia Archives Permission to Publish Photographs 174 IV Appendix F Rock Art Recording Card 175 Appendix G GretagMacbeth ColorChecker Color Rendition Chart 176 Appendix H IFRAO Standard Color Scale 177 Appendix I MiKs Image Calibration Chart 178 Appendix J Interview Questions 179 Appendix K Selection and Comparisons of Rock Art Data 180 Appendix L Catalogue of Rock Art Photographs 182 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Themes in the meanings and purposes of the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art. 96 Table 2. Rock art motif categories and sub-categories 98 Table 3. Rock art site locations on Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. 103 VI LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of British Columbia indicating the approximate location of Fort St. James. 5 Figure 2. Map of British Columbia indicatingapproximate locations of traditional First Nations territories. 6 Figure 3. Map of Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun with First Nations communities. 8 Figure 4. Map of Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun with First Nations communities. 76 Figure 5. Map of Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. 89 Figure 6. Working-organization of the rock art photographs. 97 Figure 7. Map of Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun with rock art sites. 102 Figure 8. Map of Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun with inland rock art sites. 103 Figure 9. Rock art site near Yekooche Bay. 104 Figure 10. Rock art site at Rainbow Rock. 104 Figure 11. Rock shelter site. 105 Figure 12. Detail of pietograph at rock shelter. 105 Figure 13. Inland site at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. 106 Figure 14. Access conditions associated with theStuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art. 106 Figure 15. Seasonal fluctuations in water level at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. 107 Figure 16. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art. 108 Figure 17. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art. 108 Figure 18. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art. 108 Figure 19. Annual peak mean daily water level for Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. 109 Figure 20. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art. Ill Figure 21. Shoreline rock art site. 112 v il Figure 22. Pietograph at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. 112 Figure 23. Shoreline rock art site. 113 Figure 24. Pietograph at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. 113 Figure 25. Deteriorated pietograph. 113 Figure 26. Deteriorated pietograph. 113 Figure 27. Deteriorated pietograph. 113 Figure 28. Deteriorated roek art panel. 114 Figure 29. Illustration of pietograph panel. 114 Figure 30. Pietograph encased in ealeium carbonate. 114 Figure 31. Illustration of pietograph. 114 Figure 32. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun roek art. 116 Figure 33. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun roek art. 116 Figure 34. Carrier facial tattoos. 117 Figure 35. Carrier bodily tattoos. 118 Figure 36. Carrier hunting communication symbols. 119 Figure 37. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun roek art images. 120 Figure 38. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun roek art images. 121 Figure 39. Carrier communication signs. 122 Figure 40. Looking out at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun from Taehe. 124 Figure 41. Roek art motif associated with trapping/hunting. 125 Figure 42. Caribou motif. 126 Figure 43. Two bear paw prints. 126 Figure 44. Beaver motif. 126 vin Figure 45. Human motif. 126 Figure 46. Frog motif. 126 Figure 47. Trapping related motif. 128 Figure 48. Animal motif. 128 Figure 49. Human motif. 128 Figure 50. Human motif. 128 Figure 51. Human motif. 128 Figure 52. Looking out toward Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun from Yekooche. 129 Figure 53. Human motif. 130 Figure 54. Rock art motif associated with hunting/trapping. 130 Figure 55. Pictographs associated with a trail. 131 Figure 56. Detail of pietograph located near a trail. 131 Figure 57. Fish symbol and shoreline motif. 132 Figure 58. Illustration of rock art panel. 134 Figure 59. Rock art panel at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. 134 Figure 60. Bird motif. 135 Figure 61. Looking toward North Arm on Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. 137 Figure 62. Pietograph panel near Pinchi Bay. 138 Figure 63. Bear paw-prints. 139 Figure 64. Beaver motif with fish symbols. 139 Figure 65. Detail from rock art panel. 140 IX ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to the First Nations people at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun for their time and interest and especially for the trust they have placed in me with respect to this project. Without their permission and participation this research would not have been possible. Special thanks to the people who invited me into their homes and allowed me to interview them, Philip and Josie Felix, Mildred Martin, Johnny, Bessie and Agnes Joseph, Yvonne Pierreroy, Celestine Thomas and Nellie Prince. 1 would also like to thank the Chief and Council at each of the Yekooche, Nak’azdli, and Tache communities for approving this research project. I especially want to thank Dean Joseph, Sharon Bird, Beverly Bird and Mona Anatole for their help and interest in this research. I am grateful to Dr. Angèle Smith for her time, interest and encouragement over the passed few years. Dr. Smith has played a significant role in my career as a student at the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) where her instruction in the classroom and her input and guidance in this project as thesis supervisor have been invaluable. On countless occasions Dr. Smith made herself available to me to discuss in-depth concepts, review and revise thesis chapters and generally offer support amidst her own very busy schedule. I am also appreciative of the many research assistant positions that Dr. Smith has made available to me - through these opportunities I have gained valuable experiences. I am thankful for Mr. Farid Rahemtulla’s participation as committee member. His input and constructive comments throughout this project and especially during the writing stage of this thesis have been more than a benefit to me. I sincerely appreciate the time Mr. Rahemtulla has spent reviewing the chapters of this thesis prior to its completion and the perceptive comments he has offered, all the while managing his own teaching and research responsibilities. I am appreciative of Dr. Jo-Anne Fiske’s participation in this project and in particular for agreeing to continue as a committee member despite the distance between UNBC and her new position at the University of Lethbridge. I am thankful for Dr. Fiske’s many insightful suggestions throughout this project and the way in which she too has juggled a busy schedule and continuously found time for my questions and concerns. I have benefited in so many ways from my supervisory committee and 1 feel fortunate to have had an opportunity to work with each of these people on this project and in the classroom, during both my undergraduate and graduate coursework. I am very grateful to the University of Northern British Columbia for the support and encouragement 1 have received over the passed few years. In particular, I am appreciative of the UNBC Graduate Entrance Scholarship 2003 and 2004, along with the UNBC Graduate Scholarship 2004. Other people to whom I am indebted for their support and contribution to my studies include Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell (Lesley Carlson’s parents) for the Ame and Lesley Carlson X Undergraduate Seholarship 2002 and Dr. and Mrs. Roy Carlson (Ame Carlson’s parents) for the Ame and Lesley Carlson Graduate Scholarship 2003 and 2004. The fact that I was currently enrolled in classes with Ame Carlson at the time he and his wife passed away makes these awards particularly meaningful for me. I would like to acknowledge M. De Certeau for the concepts of “tours” and “maps” that have intrigued me and played a significant role in this thesis. I would like to thank Brenda Guernsey for our many in-depth conversations about De Certeau’s writing and our relentless endeavors to really grasp the concepts of landscape and space. And finally, I would like to thank my family - my parents, Margaret and Ray Mitchell for so many things - my dogs, Kooper-Thetis and Keeso-Namu for the joy they bring to my life and for just being who they are - and most of all my husband, Rob Ksyniuk for his hard work and wonderful company during my fieldwork, his input and help creating the MiKs Chart and for always believing in me. Chapter One INTRODUCTION The Project In this thesis I highlight the presence and importance of Aboriginal rock paintings in British Columbia. Through a case study of the pictographs at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun, located in Central British Columbia, 1 present information gained through interviews with First Nations people from the Nak’azdli, Tl’azt’en and Yekooche Nations which provides the foundation of knowledge 1 present regarding the rock paintings. 1 supplement the information gathered in these interviews with information from the ethnographic record. As a body of interdisciplinary work, this research combines methods, theories and issues from Archaeology, Anthropology and First Nations Studies, through which 1 explore the social processes involved in the creation and use of the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock paintings. As well, 1 present a method of recording pictographs that creates consistent and reliable photographic reproductions. The goals of this thesis are threefold: 1) to systematically locate and record the pictographs at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun; 2) to develop an understanding of these rock paintings in terms of human agency and finally; 3) to bring recognition and respect to the meaning that is embedded in the rock art landscape at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. In addition to meeting these research goals and satisfying the requirements for an Interdisciplinary Masters Degree at the University of Northern British Columbia, 1 am committed to developing a body of knowledge that is of importance and relevance to the First Nations communities involved in this research process. Therefore, 1 will present this thesis along with a modified version to each these First Nations communities and the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun school. Consultation and collaboration with curriculum advisors at the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun sehool will play a key role in the development of this alternate body of work, whieh will be finalized after the completion of my degree program. My Rock Art Beginnings My interest in Aboriginal rock paintings began several years ago as the result of an undergraduate research assignment which introduced me to the topic of rock art. Preparation for the assignment entailed perusing books filled with wonderful photographs of rock markings from around the world. I was amazed at how images of all sizes, shapes and colours had been painted and pecked onto rock surfaces across the planet. I remember the initial feelings of awe settling in as I studied and read about the images. But, as with so many of the other aspects of the archaeological record that I was beginning to learn about, alongside my interest and curiosity about the past, I felt a growing sense of disappointment. The source of this disappointment was the recognition that I only knew of these cultural remains through the words and occasionally the pictures contained within articles, books and lectures. I believe this project actually started the day I realized that I could visit a rock art site in British Columbia. In the summer of 1999, armed with this realization, some lingering questions and a copy of John Comer’s Pictographs: Indian Rock Paintings in the Interior o f British Columbia (1968), 1 set out for Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun and the journey to see Native rock paintings throughout the province. 1 had imagined, prior to visiting rock art sites, what it would be like to see the images for myself. 1 naively assumed that my questions would be 3 more easily answered cnee I found and saw the markings. But this was not the case. As time would tell, I would eventually come to realize that finding more rock art did not necessarily mean I would find more answers. Instead, each site I visited posed new questions and left me wondering about the reasons behind the creation of the markings. In British Columbia there are two main types of rock art, petroglyphs and pictographs. Petroglyphs are images that have been etched, peeked or cut into a rock surface, where the shape of a petroglyph is visible by the removal or reduction of the rock surface. Pictographs are motifs that have been applied onto the rock surface with organic and mineral based pigments (Darvill 2002:362). All of the rock art images at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun are pictographs. These pictographs were the first rock art images I visited. Because of this fact these paintings and the area of Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun have special meaning for me. This is in part why I chose to focus on this particular rock art assemblage for my graduate studies. Roughly 50 miles in length and 6 miles wide, Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun is flanked on the north side by the southern edge of the Omineca Mountains and forested lowlands on the other. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun is a major tributary of the Nechako-Fraser river system. Enormous cliff faces rise up out of the lake and provide the canvas for what seems like an endless array of paintings. Immortalized onto the stone surface, painted images of frogs, humans, birds, and fish (to name only a few) hang suspended as if frozen in time. None of the reading I had done could have prepared me for what it was like to see the paintings with my own eyes. Seeing the paintings for the first time was nothing less than surreal for me, and I quickly realized it was so much better than looking at pictures in a book! Barbara Little (2002:14) writes, “there is nothing quite so compelling as personal experience of a place to begin to understand its significance.” I appreciate now that this is so, because to visit a rock art site means to journey, both physically and mentally. Rock art sites are so often located in remote and difficult-to-reach places. In British Columbia, rock art is located in all types of terrain and negotiating a variety of Nature’s characteristics is usually a visitation requirement. Successfully finding rock art is something that never fails to leave me with a sense of accomplishment. Visiting rock art sites has led me to some of the most beautiful and soulsoothing places in British Columbia. Just as visiting a rock art site entails a bodily journey that offers an opportunity to experience a specific physical landscape, the opportunity for a cognitive journey is equally present. I say this because rock art is in situ - it is located exactly where it was created and intended to be seen. To visit a rock art site means the opportunity to see and ponder the thoughts and histories of people from the past, made visible to us today in the form of paintings and to stand in the exact spot as the painters did so very long ago. This cognitive journey enables the painters of the past to momentarily become part of our contemporary landscape. This is one of the many reasons that rock art sites are so important and it is what gives them the power to repeatedly overwhelm me. Geographic Setting Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun is located approximately 150 kilometers northwest of Prince George with the town site of Fort St. James on its eastern shore (Figure 1). Fort St. James is perhaps best known for its connection to Simon Fraser and his efforts, on behalf of the North West Company, to institute the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun Post in 1806 (cf. Lamb 1960). Economic prosperity associated with the Fur Trade ensued shortly after the Fort’s establishment and the burgeoning settlement eventually became New Caledonia’s economic capital. ' Christened Fort St. James in 1822, one year after the North West Company merged with the Hudson’s Bay Company, the town site continued to play a leading role in the fur trade until the 1860s (Moriee 1905). The discovery of gold in the nearby Omineca Valley eventually brought about the demise of the Fort’s economic importance. Today the Fort is a National Historic Site and a thriving tourist attraction. Visitors are invited to experience the past through the efforts of costumed staff who re-enact life at the fort, as it was thought to have occurred over 100 years ago. mm Queen Ishdsds Figure 1. Map o f British Columbia indicating the approximate location o f Fort St. James. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun is located in Carrier traditional territory. The name Carrier refers to a group of First Nations people sharing common linguistic and cultural origins. Carrier ' New Caledonia was the name Simon Fraser initially bestowed upon the area around Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. Shortly afterward, this name came to identify the central interior o f what is now British Columbia. territory is located in the central interior of British Columbia (Figure 2). Carrier lands are bounded on the west by Gitxsan, Wet’suwet’en, Tsimshian and Haisla peoples. To the north east, their territory borders Sekani and Dunne-za lands. Their neighbors to the south include the Tsilhqot’in and Secwepemc. The Carrier language is part of the larger Athapaskan language family that is spoken by various Aboriginal groups throughout British Columbia, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Alberta and the United States, including Alaska. Carrier First Nations people continue to share social practices and political organization, but they also exhibit several unique dialects and varying traditions. ----------------------------------------------Kaska am % W ct'm m t'cn Ikimaman HMa . NouuiOr Onvekeno Kwa Niiii->vi,in-niuui Figure 2. Map o f British Columbia indicating approximate locations o f traditional First Nations territories (Government o f British Columbia 2001) Cultural Setting The name Carrier has two interesting stories associated with its inception. According to the European traders who arrived in the early 1800s, the name Carrier referred to a particular cultural practice concerning the treatment of the dead, where tradition dictated that a wife carry the bones/ashes of her deceased husband for a period of one year (Moriee 1905:6). Traders and missionaries, both endowed with a strong sense of ethnocentrism, considered this practice demeaning to women, while being offensive to the dead. In reality, this practice served an important mortuary ritual for the Carrier people - the reunification of the deceased with her or his relatives and place of birth (Marucci 2000:2). Lizette Hall (1992:34), a member of the Carrier Nation, offers an alternative origin for the foundation of the Carrier name. She acknowledges the existence of this mortuary-related belief, but she is adamant in pointing out, that as a cultural practice, this ritual is not included in her discussion of the Carrier eulture. Her exclusion of this tradition is based on testimony by her father Chief Louis Billy Prince, grandson of Chief Kwah, whom she consulted regarding widows’ customs. Hall (1992:34) reports that neither her father nor his elders were aware of such a practice. In place of this mortuary ritual, she offers a less spiritual origin for the name by explaining that Aghelh Ne (Carrier) means “one who packs” (Hall 1992:4). This refers to the way the people of this area used to pack their goods on their backs or in canoes. Hall (1992:4) also suggests a non-European origin for the name and credits the Sekani Nation for first eoining the term, before the arrival of Europeans. Despite its eontroversial origins, many of the First Nations people of the area have replaced the name Carrier with Dakelh, which means “we travel by water.” Dakelh refers to the people and their language. The Dakelh people of the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun area reside in three main communities Yekooche, Taehe and Nak’azdli (Figure 3). Yekooche is located at North Arm on the west side of Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun and comprises four reserves with approximately 180 hectares of land. Until recently, the Yekoochet’en (“people of Yekooche”) were a part of the Stuart- Tembleur Lakes Band. The Stuart-Tembleur Lakes Band was the result of a 1959 Federal Government decision to amalgamate Taehe, Pinche, Portage (Yekooche), Grand Rapids, and Middle River First Nations people into one all encompassing band. In 1994 the Portage Band separated and became known as Yekooche. The four remaining original bands today are still affiliated with one another, but are now called the Tl’azf en Nation. Tachc ' ,% "riwg, ... ' Yekooche Stuart Lake Nak*alBm Nak 'az. Figure 3. Map o f Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun indieating approximate locations o f the First Nations communities discussed. All of these eommimities are proactive in preserving their cultural heritage, attentive in developing diverse economic strategies and engaged in negotiating modern day treaties with the British Columbia and Canadian governments. The TFazt’en Nation works closely with the Nak’azdli First Nation on many levels. Nak’azdli, formerly known as Necoslie, is located at Fort St. James. Tl’azf en and Nak’azdli are further connected by a shared membership with the larger Carrier Sekani Tribal Council. Doing Research At the onset of this project I entered into a research accord with each of the Yekooche, Tl’azt’en, and Nak’azdli First Nations. This was primarily coordinated through each community’s Band Council Office. As part of our mutual agreement, I was given permission to conduet my research on the lake, interview community members and utilize sources in the Tache and Nak’azdli libraries. Reciprocally, I am responsible for supplying copies of the interviews conducted during the fieldwork, providing the full results of the research and generating an additional version of this study that will be suitable for the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun First Nations elementary school curriculum. Negotiating my own position within this research process entailed recognizing the reality of conducting research, as a non-Aboriginal person, in a First Nations community. I am all too aware of the fact that academics are often considered to be in a position to have their voices heard through journals and various other forms of media, while those collaborating in research projects are often left silent. Consequently, I realize that my very position as a researcher, albeit still as a student, affiliated with a university means that I am in a position already furnished with a certain amount of privilege. This is something I wanted to make certain did not get in the way of my learning and working in the community and interacting with people. Working on this project provided me with unique and rewarding experiences. Not only was I given the opportunity to experience diverse, varied and optimistic work environments and conduct first hand rock art research, I had multiple opportunities to meet, speak with and listen to many remarkable Elders and others. The people I interviewed for this project welcomed me into their homes, took time to meet with me and they spoke from their hearts to me about rock art and the past. I arrived to most, if not all, of the interviews feeling extremely nervous and self conscious, but I left each and every one of them filled with a sense of appreeiation and accomplishment. I was aware at every interview of the great 10 respect for the past each individual possessed. Without the knowledge, involvement and kindness of these people this project would not have been possible. Throughout the research process, 1 exerted a conscious effort to ensure that people from each of the Yekooche, Tl’azt’en, and Nak’azdli communities were involved in the interview process. Having more time to speak with even more people would have been ideal and likely beneficial to the project and for the recording of cultural knowledge. However, the people who were interviewed undisputedly spoke of the rock art in terms of the same meaning. The consensus regarding the creation and use of the paintings was overwhelming. This project examines one small part of Dakelh culture and it does so at a very specific location. 1 do not intend this work to be representative of all pietograph creation and use throughout Dakelh territory, nor is it likely to be definitive of all pictographs at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun, for all time. Rather, it describes two important aspects of rock art creation and use. Perhaps future research will reveal further levels of continuity in rock art production across time and space in Northern British Columbia, which forms part of the worldwide production of rock art. Indigenous People and Archaeology Archaeology in British Columbia is of direct relevance to the interests and heritage of First Nations peoples of the province today. ^ Contemporary First Nations people have a connection to the people whose lives, actions and cultural practices are represented by the archaeological record. Despite this direct connection. First Nations people have, until very recently, been excluded from much of the archaeological process. Indigenous peoples around the world share in this history of exclusion (cf. Tuhiwai Smith 1999). This condition has ^ I use the term First Nations to indicate the Aboriginal people o f Canada while the term Indigenous has a broader context and refers to Aboriginal peoples from around the world, including the First Nations people. 11 frequently resulted in the generation of archaeological representations of the past that are of little relevance to contemporary Aboriginal people. Given the connection and lineage that British Columbia First Nations people have to the societies being studied archaeologically, an interpretation of the past that is foreign to them is likely to be of questionable authenticity. Inclusion of First Nations’ voices and interpretations in archaeology creates understandings and constructions of the past that are likely to be more realistic and representative of past life-ways. Cooperation between archaeologists and First Nations people is, of course, not assumed to be without complications. Archaeologists and First Nations people are likely to have different interests in the events of the past and different ideas about how to understand those events (cf. Nicholas and Andrews 1997). Contrasting world-views and opposing ideas about the treatment of human remains are potentially key sources of conflict between Western archaeologists and Indigenous peoples (Little 2002:6; see also Hoffmann 2000). It is important to recognize that while cooperation is desirable, it is more than a matter of dealing with differences of opinion. Archaeologists and Indigenous people come to this table of negotiation with completely different sets of experiences, histories and priorities regarding the purposes and effects of archaeology (cf. Smith and Wobst 2005). In the past, the archaeologist, who was usually a man from the West, has had the balance of power tipped in his favour. Indigenous peoples throughout the world have experienced the archaeological pursuit of knowledge as one of the many layers of imperial and colonial power (Tuhiwai Smith 1999:2; see also Nicholas and Andrews 1997). Tuhiwai Smith (1999:2) notes that research itself (archaeology included) has been “a significant site of struggle between the interests and ways of knowing of the West and the interests and ways of 12 resisting the Other.” A balanced relationship, rather than one side having complete control, is needed in order for archaeology to be respectful, ethical and useful to all people (cf. Smith and Wobst 2005). The fact that both parties share a sincere interest in and concern for the past gives this relationship the potential to succeed. Public Archaeology Through archaeology we visit different times and different cultures, with some aspects similar to our own lives and others very different. In this exploration of sameness/difference we may come to see just how arbitrary and historically rooted are our own “universal truths” M.P. Pearson (1993:227). Archaeology is profoundly political, (Little 2002:6) rather than neutral, and therefore, it is laden with power. “Archaeology can empower local groups by supporting local identities and cultural heritage, but, it can also fuel ethnic nationalism and distort the past to serve dangerous political goals” (Little 2002:8). It is important to recognize this political nature because archaeology finds its way into mainstream society in a variety of influential ways. Archaeology takes form in magazines and books, the Internet, television programs, museums and school curricula. This intersection between archaeology and the public has a profound effect on how people view the past. Not only does archaeology provide the “discovery” of the past it serves to authenticate what we know about the past (Lipe 2002:20). A great deal of credibility is attached to archaeology. This integrity is due in part to its scientific underpinnings and the objectivity that is believed to be inherent in scientific investigations. Archaeological sites, artifacts and interpretations have significant educational value (Little 2002:4). As a result, the authenticity that archaeology fosters leads to the establishment of public opinions regarding what is valuable and important about the past. 13 This sense of worth is more often than not bestowed unevenly onto the past. This imbalance is connected to the nature of the archaeological record and how research is disseminated. All of humankind’s past is not patiently waiting to be discovered intact in the archaeological record. A multitude of conditions and characteristics, along with a certain amount of chance, are involved in the preservation and location of cultural remains. As a result, only portions of the past are actually retrieved or even retrievable. Even a smaller amount of what gets recovered through the processes of archaeology makes for good television or magazine articles. Consequently, the general public is typically exposed to aspects of the human past that can be presented as mysterious and flamboyant (cf. National Geographic, the Knowledge Network). Academic journals in contrast, abound with details of site excavations containing less flashy and mystifying finds, such as, bone and stone fragments, broken pottery, and charred floral remains. The general public is less likely to be exposed to this type of archaeological data, instead, spectacular finds like mummified remains of ancient Egyptian kings fill television screens and the pages of magazines. The public, preoccupied with a sense of wonder and appreciation for the aesthetically pleasing and exotic images presented to them, develops a sense of what is interesting and typical about the past and its people, as well as, what is insignificant and unimportant, thus potentially fulfilling ethnocentric or even racist views of the “Other” in the past and the present. To conduct archaeology is to give voice to the past (Kennedy 2002: xiii), therefore, it is a privilege that comes with responsibilities and obligations. In light of the recognition of the power embedded in archaeological research, practitioners are required to be mindful and respectful of their social and political roles (Little 2002:7). Archaeology is “serious business” 14 (Kennedy 2002: xiii) and what we leam about the past is as important as how we learn it. It is quiekly becoming essential to the discipline that archaeologists embrace de-colonized methodologies and establish partnerships with Indigenous people, as well as, recognize the impact archaeological reconstructions of the past have on the public at large. Minding the Gap A gap exists in the way British Columbia rock art research has been done and what such endeavors aim to produce in the way of knowledge about the past. At Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun specifically, several records of the paintings have been compiled (cf. Comer 1968; Nankivell and Wyse 2003; Richards 1978).^ Despite this effort, we have yet to fulfill our obligations as archaeologists to move from curative to narrative roles and develop interpretations of meaning (ef. Little 2002). In British Columbia, archaeologists have an opportunity to advance their research in ways that are not always available to researchers in other parts of the world. Developing partnerships and cooperative strategies with British Columbia First Nations people creates opportunities to work with the descendants of the people whose culture is embedded in the archaeological record. A working relationship such as this has the potential to invigorate the results of research. This fact, along with the blessing of a rich body of ethnographic literature from which to draw, is what gives archaeology and, particularly rock art research in British Columbia, an advantage not always present in other parts of the world. This project endeavors just this - to develop a working relationship with the First Nations people of the area in order to generate a narrative of meaning and a sense of human agency regarding the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun pictographs. See Chapter 2 for a full discussion o f previous works. 15 Today, the rock art at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun, and elsewhere around the world, is endangered by natural erosion and vandalism. I feel a sense of urgency in contributing to the study of rock art because of this imperilment and to raise my voice in protest against the deliberate destruction of such a significant and fascinating part of the past. By recognizing the importance and interest of rock art as part of this land’s cultural history and imparting the results of this project onto a larger audience, it is my wish that this research also contribute to the recognition of the destructiveness of vandalism to rock art and contribute to the diminishment of such senseless actions. Summary In this introduction I have provided an overview of this research project and highlighted some fundamental acknowledgements and concerns. I have presented the importance of incorporating First Nations interpretations and viewpoints into the practice of archaeology, both for ethical and research-benefiting reasons. I have highlighted a need for the development of narratives of meaning and the recognition of human action as ways of approaching rock art research, along with my concern for vandalism to rock art. I present a literature review of sources concerning rock art in North America in Chapter 2. Here I place a focus on British Columbia based rock art studies. I follow, in Chapter 3 with a discussion of the theoretical underpiimings of this project. Set within a post-processual framework, 1 explore interpretive archaeology, landscape approaches and feminist perspectives. I discuss my research methods in Chapter 4 where I provide a “road-map” of the approaches I took to conduct this project. Chapter 5 is my journey of learning about the rock art. Here I present a series of narratives that discuss the meanings embedded in the rock 16 art landscape at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. Chapter 6 contains my final discussion and conclusions regarding the rock art and this thesis. 17 Chapter Two LITERATURE REVIEW A survey of the reek art literature for North America readily displays as much variation in the approaches taken to this subject as there is in the rock art itself. This is not a condition limited to the continent of North America, but rather, it is a world-wide actuality. John Beaton’s (1994) “Seven Ways of Seeing Rock A rt” provides a glimpse into a variety of approaches to rock art research that spans North America, the South Pacific and Australia. This body of work, combined with a perusal of the plethora of literature concerning the rock art of Europe, Africa and South America, reveals the rich diversity of interests and motives associated with world-wide rock art research (cf. Chippindale and Taeon 1998; Clottes 2002; Glottes and Courtin 1992). In North America, researchers have concerned themselves with understanding rock art sites in terms of inter and intra site associations, stylistic frequencies, regional variations, the age of images, authenticity of markings, the role gender plays in the production of motifs and the meaning embedded in rock art landscapes (cf. Chippindale and Taeon 1998). These heterogeneous research priorities demonstrate the innovative nature of the researchers, as well as the complexity of rock art as a subject of study. As with other disciplines, rock art research has evolved in theory and method. Contemporary researchers benefit from the efforts of predecessors, and with each new generation alternative ideologies and techniques are employed. Anthropological and archaeological theoretical changes have greatly influenced the path rock art researchers have 18 followed. In particular, the transition from proeessual to post-processual theory and method marks a substantial change in the study of rock art. Processual-based rock art studies are typically focused on understanding the technologies associated with marking, establishing relative and direct dating chronologies, recognizing motif repetition between and among sites, and developing rigorous scientific recording methods (cf. Bednarik 2001; Rowe 2001 ). ^ In a proeessual framework of inquiry, social aspects of rock art, such as, human action and agency, are not contemplated. Bednarik (2001:2) goes so far as to say that a focus on the humanistic or non-scientific components of rock art is merely an example of “the time honored practice of inventing mythologies about rock art” and he calls for the termination of such practices in order to “glimpse some of the real potential of our discipline” (2001:2). It is unlikely that post-processualists would agree this is the best way to improve the discipline. Post-processual oriented rock art studies operate within a humanistic paradigm where emphasis is placed on developing an understanding of rock art in terms of human activity and meaning (cf. Bradley 1997; Chippindale and Nash 2004). Efforts are spent discussing rock art within particular cultural contexts and offering motif interpretations (cf. Schaasfma 1980; Vastokas and Vastokas 1973). Phenomenology is common to this paradigm, and researchers embed themselves in the text along with the people of the past. Landscape approaches work favorably toward developing humanistic portrayals of the past, where physical places emerge as teeming with cognitive and emotive meanings (cf. Tilley 1994). Despite the obvious differences rooted in these two approaches, several issues remain shared and inherent in both paradigms - recognition and concern for the effects of natural The culture histories associated with Traditional archaeology share a similar focus on the more descriptive aspects o f rock art research. 19 erosion and vandalism to rock art (of. Bednarik 2001; Chippindale and Taeon 1998) and the concern to practice extensive and reliable recording methods that ensure the possibility of future study (cf. Chippindale and Taeon 1998). Notwithstanding the theoretical direction rock art research has taken, investigators have presented valiant efforts to describe, record and understand a part of the archaeological record that continues to enchant and bemuse academics and the public alike. To fully appreciate the current condition of rock art studies in any given area, the path that researchers have carved over the years must be considered. The following literature review is offered as an effort to provide a reflection on the history and development of rock art research primarily in British Columbia. Literary works pertaining to Canada and North America will also be considered. Because of the focus of this study particular emphasis and effort will be spent discussing British Columbia rock art texts. This section is intended to be descriptive in nature while providing an introduction to rock art research. British Columbia rock art studies first appear, almost buried, inside detailed accounts of Native life (cf. Morice 1893; Teit 1900, 1927/28). During the latter part of the 19* century much effort was spent gathering and recording information about First Nations culture and society. We find the first recognition and inquiry into rock art embedded in these early works. It is not until quite some time later that rock art emerges as a study in its own right. Father Morice who, according to Wilson Duff (1964:1), “dominated the [study of the] northern interior of British Columbia” between 1885 and 1903 was the first to comment on Carrier pictographs. Morice's (1892-93) publication, “Notes on the Western Dene” contains descriptions and hand drawn illustrations of some of the pictographs at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. Information regarding the rock paintings appears as one section among many that are 20 devoted to the presentation of facts and information concerning the culture of the Western Dene people. Morice (1892-93:206) comments that rock markings were often the result of dreams and therefore, laden with a protective power for the dreamer/painter. His focus lies almost exclusively on imagery rather than detailed aspects concerning the authors or the processes associated with painting. Morice (1893) dedicates a similar level of attention to rock art in “Notes Archaeological, Industrial and Sociological on the Western Dene.” But, here he presents the rock art in conjunction with other systems of communication and decoration, such as, bent sticks associated with hunting (cf. Figure 39, p. 121) and with facial and bodily tattoos (1893:209211 ; cf. Figure 34, p. 116 and Figure 35, p. 117). This body of work tends to favour the more utilitarian aspects of rock painting rather than the spiritual focus of his previous work. Morice’s literary concerns and career pursuits were oriented around the acquisition of his own superiority and the benefits that accompany such a position. Mulhall (1986) writes extensively of Morice’s desire for attention, influence and dominance in Will to Power: The Missionary Career o f Father Morice. Mulhall portrays Morice as paternalistic in his attitude toward the Aboriginal populations and as insubordinate toward his superiors. Through this account of Morice’s career we understand him to have sought a missionary posting as a way of gaining independence and power that would have not been possible had he remained in Europe. For Morice, the rock art formed only one portion of Native life, and therefore, only one small part of his own expansive knowledge. As such, it did not warrant individual attention. The minimal consideration he pays to rock art in these two texts is in keeping with his larger 21 interests and career aspirations. Nevertheless, Morice’s work, here and elsewhere, abounds with cultural details that provide an insight into the past that is of incalculable value. Harlan I. Smith, the leading archaeologist for the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, has written a multitude of anthropological and archaeological texts (cf. 1897, 1900, 1910). His work, beginning in the late 1800s and progressing well into the 20* century, provides rich cultural details concerning North American Native societies. Smith made a comprehensive effort to account for all facets of Native life. In a similar fashion to Morice, Smith presents cultural overviews that contain staggering amounts of valuable information. At times. Smith breaks with the custom of documenting Native culture in its completeness in favour of one specialized aspect of society. In “A List of Petroglyphs in British Columbia” (1927a) Smith takes the time to recognize the presence of rock art in the province. This text contains the location of over 50 petroglyph sites along the coast and in the interior of British Columbia. Information beyond that of site location for these petroglyphs is absent in Smith’s work - clearly his aim was focused on presenting an inventory of known and speculated locations for petroglyphs in the province. Smith (1927b) takes a closer look at a particular rock art site in “A Pictograph on the Lower Skeena River, British Columbia.” In this article. Smith describes in detail the location and content of a single pictograph panel. Unfamiliar at the time, this site is the now wellknown portrait of Chief Legaik painted in the 1880s by Lequate, a Tsimpshian artist (Lundy 1983:93). Operating from a self-appointed position of authority. Smith (1927b:612) takes it on himself to cut down the alder and spruce trees growing in front of the painting so as to allow “photographing all of it and to make it entirely visible from passing trains.” 22 Based on the depiction of coppers within the painting, Smith postulates a wealth-based meaning for the pictograph. Despite his efforts to consult local Natives and non-Aboriginals regarding the painting, he presents very little information beyond descriptive details about the rock art panel. Smith suggests the site be designated either a provincial or national monument as a way of ensuring its preservation. James Teit, also a member of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition and a contemporary of Smith, has authored many works that provide in-depth facts of Native life for groups occupying the southern portions of the province. In a similar fashion to Morice, Teit (1900) provides details regarding the many aspects of Thompson culture in The Thompson Indians o f British Columbia. His painstaking attention to detail is based largely on personal experience and insight gained through his affiliation with the Thompson Nation, along with sound ethnographic research. From Teif s efforts we leam about rock art in a ritualistic manner, whereby adolescents painted rock surfaces as part of purification and vision ceremonies (Teit 1900: 311-321, 354356, 388-392). Teit makes it clear that one cannot comprehend the pictographs of the Thompson Nation without a consideration of the aspects of culture to which the images are connected. This body of work does much to promote, highlight and inform us of the intricacies of Native life at the turn of the 20* century. Interestingly, it is prior to this work, rather than after, that Teit (1896) opted for a close look at rock art in “A Rock Painting of the Thompson River Indians, British Columbia.” Here he delves into the condition of a painted boulder at Spence’s Bridge. Teit (1896:227) utilizes the knowledge of Waxtko, a female elder, who attests to the practice of painting in conjunction with girls’ purification ceremonies. But, despite his access to Waxtko and her 23 first hand experience at painting, Teit disregards the process of painting and focuses exclusively on describing and identifying the images painted onto the boulder. This is a brief, but informative paper which abounds with first-hand Native interpretations of the painted markings. Continuing with cultural studies, Teit (1927/28) provides another in-depth look at Native life in “Salishan Tribes of the Western Plateau.” This ethnography considers the Coeur D’Alene, Okanagan and Flathead Indians - no mention of rock art practices are noted for the Flathead. This text is as thorough, informative and as well illustrated as has become expected of Teit. Here Teit discusses the practices of rock painting for both the Coeur D’Alene and Okanagan people in terms of rites of passage. He reports that male initiates painted for the purposes of acquiring guardian spirits through vision quests (1927/28:194) and that female initiates painted to ensure strength and skills for life’s duties (1927/1928:282-283). In addition to the ritual related nature of rock painting, images seen in dreams and aspects of recent battles were also depicted onto rock surfaces (1927/28:194). In both cases, ritual and otherwise, the rock art images, once created, function to transmit power to the creator both during and after the painting process (1927/28:194; 282-283). Franz Boas’ (1955) work, Primitive Art, takes an in-depth look at the fundamental traits of world-wide Aboriginal art. Boas provides an analytical description of a wide variety of art works. He pays particular attention to the art of the North Pacific Coast of North America. Surprisingly, Boas’ attention to rock art is meager at best. Paleolithic pictographs are briefly mentioned in a discussion of symmetry (1955:32) and more recent rock paintings are scantily included in a section regarding style (1955:166-167). The minor attention paid to rock art 24 does little to bring awareness to this aspect of the archaeological record. Readers are, however, made acutely aware that when speaking of Plains Indian rock art, Boas is of the opinion that “their pictography never rises to the dignity of an art” (Dewdney and Kidd 1967: 19). Elsewhere in Canada, efforts to record and understand pictographs and petroglyphs were proceeding in a similar fashion to the work being done in British Columbia. Late 19* century efforts were spent describing and identifying locations of rock art sites newly discoveredhy European enthusiasts. “Pictograph fever,” as Selwyn Dewdney (1977:1) put it, was well on its way to becoming an epidemic. An early concern for recording sites en-mass appears in “Picture Writing of the American Indians” (Mallery 1893). The author, Garrick Mallery, presents a “voluminous survey of picture-writing in North America” (Dewdney 1977:1). Published and presented to the United States Bureau of Ethnology, this text contained only a few Canadian sources, and as such, it “gave no hint of how rich a resource of [AJboriginal rock art lay waiting discovery in Canada” (Dewdney 1977:1). Texts concerning the rock art of Aboriginal Canada compounded as time progressed. Interpretations - religious and secular alike - were put forth in the coming decades (cf. Dewdney 1963, 1964; Dewdney and Kidd 1967; Habgood 1967). Rock art, as an avenue of inquiry independent of larger more-encompassing cultural studies was well on its way to becoming a disciplinary study by the 1960s. For the most part, researchers upheld the traditions put forth by Morice, Smith and Teit in that effort was spent reproducing and identifying the locations of stone markings. 25 Reports and articles from this era provide details regarding the location of rock art sites, hand drawn illustrations, possible interpretations and speculations regarding age. Stylistic frequencies were developed for various seetors of the eountry (cf. Grant 1967) and rock art was studied and organized according to geographic location and Native affiliation (cf. Maurer and Whelan 1977; Meade 1971). Gjessing (1967) considers petroglyphs and pictographs on the coastline and in the interior of British Columbia in terms of common motifs and stylistic patterns in, “Petroglyphs and Pictographs in British Columbia.” Gjessing discusses cultural similarities between interior groups like the Chilcotin, Salish and Carrier peoples and hints that rock art traditions are also likely to be shared. His conclusions favour carvings in stone as generally being older than paintings. His findings are based on his observations that petroglyphs along the coast lack the European influences found in interior pictographs. For Gjessing’s research area his conclusion is rational. However, his survey did not encompass the rock art assemblage of the coastline in its entirety. The European sailing vessels depicted in stone at Clo-oose, an outer-coastal village site on Vancouver Island, provids an opportunity to counter Gjessing’s conclusions. Perhaps for the areas considered in his assessment a general trend exists that supports the notion petroglyphs are likely to be older than pictographs. Even so, Gjessing’s work keeps the rock art conversation going by thoughtfully considering style, technology and chronology. Gjessing’s efforts to categorize the rock art in terms of chronology and to develop an appreciation for the development of techniques over time are understandable. This effort is a prime example of the overwhelming human need to organize and understand enigmatic phenomena in ways that 26 help us comprehend the unfamiliar. His concerns here seem to be based on the security associated with scientific classificatory schemes. Selwyn Dewdney and Kenneth E. Kidd (1967) take us on a journey through Northern Ontario in, Indian Rock Paintings o f the Great Lakes. Boasting a new “systematic field recording programme” (1967:1), Dewdney and Kidd carefully record 103 rock art sites. Black and white photographs accompany true-to-life sketches of the images - complete with lichen growth, chipping and fading. Issues such as paint preparation, application techniques, form, style and content are discussed at length. Set within the context of Boas’ distinction between form and content, the authors favour the opinion that “the [AJboriginal artist was groping toward the expression of the magical aspect of his life, rather than taking pleasure in the world of form around him” (1967:20). It is evident that Dewdney and Kidd are of the mind that the painters’ interest in content overrides the interest in form. They attribute the observed trend to “distort” images from a natural state to that of “fantasy” as being connected to the importance many Aboriginal peoples place on dream images (1967:20). Dewdney and Kidd (1967) offer an anthropological examination of the rock art sites they consider. They pay respect to the Aboriginal painters and their traditions, as well as local contemporary Natives’ knowledge of the land and the rock art. They acknowledge that the paintings can only be understood in the “broadest of terms” and that motives for painting differ greatly between the many Aboriginal groups world-wide (1967:18). Of the many rock art studies that followed, John Comer’s (1968) Pictographs: Indian Rock Paintings in the Interior o f British Columbia is of particular interest. This publication sets precedence for future work in the province for years to come. Its methodology and 27 content transcends time (cf. Jones 1981). Comer (1968) focuses his attention on providing hand drawn illustrations, detailed descriptions and minor interpretations for more than 100 pictograph sites - complete with explicit directions regarding location. On occasion, Comer (1968) draws from early ethnographies and incorporates information from Teit’s and Morice's work along with his own knowledge of the province. What he does not do is highlight the importance of incorporating the views of local First Nations people into his interpretations. Corner’s work is both valuable and informative and many researchers have relied heavily on it (cf. Keyser 1992; York et al. 1993). Similar efforts to record and describe paintings were conducted by others, but it is more likely than not that Comer’s work is referenced in most rock art studies conducted after 1968. In the decade that followed, many archaeological permits were issued by the provincial government of British Columbia pertaining to sites containing rock art (McMurdo 1989). A majority of the permits issued were initiated out of concerns for salvage operations due to constmction (McMurdo 1971), economic expansion (McMurdo 1989: 183-234) and preservation (cf. Brand 1975; Brand and Lundy 1974). However, information pertaining to rock paintings continued to be limited to descriptive accounts (cf. Hobler 1978; McMurdo 1971; Meade 1971). The tendency, as laid out by Comer, to catalogue rock art sites and focus on form, size, colour and location is one that does not sway for many years (cf. Baravalle 1977, 1978, 1981; Hill and Hill 1973). In keeping with this sentiment and the desire to establish inventories of rock art, the British Columbia Provincial Museum, beginning in 1974, set out to systematically record all petroglyphs in the province. Many petroglyphs were selected for casting and the replicas were to be housed in the Museum’s new Archaeology and Ethnology galleries. At the 28 project’s completion, the following year, 30 petroglyph casts had been selected for display (Brand and Lundy 1974:1). To its credit, the museum solicited the approval of all First Nations on whose traditional territory the petroglyphs resided (Brand and Lundy 1974:1). The importance of forming inventories of rock art remains a priority that continues on into the coming years. Expanding on the practice of developing roek art inventories, Beth Hill (1978) eontemplates several petroglyph sites along the West Coast of North Ameriea in. Guide to Indian Rock Carvings o f the Pacific Northwest Coast, in terms of potential age and reasons for creation. Based on a consideration of motif style and content. Hill (1978:17-22) postulates a variety of possible ages for the markings. Myths associated with the creation of petroglyphs are offered as a way of understanding the images and the reasons for their conception. Powers invested in the petroglyphs by shamans are discussed by her as playing an important role in ensuring adequate rainfall and the seasonal return of salmon. Hill’s efforts are also spent providing descriptions of the images and site locations, as well as highlighting the need for protection and conservation. In an effort to go beyond the purely descriptive accounts of rock art, which made up the majority of the existing body of knowledge at this time, Doris Lundy (1974) offers. The Rock Art o f the Northwest Coast. Her efforts take the form of a stylistic frequency base from which to understand and categorize petroglyphs and pictographs within British Columbia. The petroglyphs of the coastline are highlighted and presented in terms of marking territory in a similar fashion as crests and carvings. Lundy’s endeavor marks the beginnings of a transition in British Columbia rock art research and her style scheme is still relevant today. 29 Nick Gessler’s (1979) excavation of a burial cave eontaining the then only known pictographs on the Queen Charlotte Islands also stands in contrast to the established norms of rock art research at that time. His work and that of Lundy (1975) conducted on Protection Island, both exhibit efforts to link roek art with data recovered through traditional archeological field techniques and exeavations. Lundy (1975:1) says of her excavation, “the project was somewhat unusual in British Columbia archaeology, as it marked the first time a controlled excavation was conducted in midden deposits partially overlying a petroglyph.” A similar divergenee from the more empiricist approach typically associated with rock art study is illustrated in Sacred Art o f the Algonkians: A Study o f the Peterborough Petroglyphs (1973). Vastokas and Vastokas (1973) highlight the shamanistic aspects of Canadian Shield rock art as they discuss Algonkian territory and material culture in conjunction with a petroglyph site. Already protected by a chain link fence, the Peterborough rock art site is interpreted as a meeting point between upper and lower worlds. The motifs themselves are determined to be the representations of “hidden meanings in nature whose significance it has been the shaman’s task to conjure up and capture on stone” (1973:142). LaVan Martineau (1973) opts for a completely different approach to the study of rock art imagery in The Rocks Begin to Speak. Martineau, raised in the Paiute tribe of Utah, utilizes his knowledge of Native sign and spoken languages and his training in cryptography to read rock art iconography in Washington County, Utah. Martineau denounces pictographs and petroglyphs as forms of art and presents the practice of stone marking as a form of written communication. He provides a detailed analogy for each of the symbols he deciphers in a clear and rational manner, allowing the reader to follow his logic. From this text we leam about real-life events for several Native tribes, and as such we cannot help but contemplate 30 the individuals of the past, as well as the system of communication made evident by Martineau’s decryption. Martineau (1973) deciphers stone markings under a three stage premise. First, the science of cryptanalysis is the only science with which Indian markings can be deciphered. Second, if a system of communication is consistent it can be deciphered, regardless of complexity or simplicity. Third, a communication system possesses a self-proving or translation-testing element that can support or disprove an interpretation. Martineau’s work contributes a unique perspective to our considerations of rock art by offering a linguistic understanding of petroglyphs and pictographs. Returning to the more traditional approach to the study of rock art, Thomas Richards (1978) offers “A Pictograph Survey of Southeast Stuart Lake, British Columbia.” Richards (1978), then an undergraduate student at the Cariboo College in Kamloops, conducted a pictograph survey of the southeast end of Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. Richards’ approach emphasizes description, illustration and interpretation of 21 pictograph panels. He compares images between sites and notes stylistic similarities for the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun and Takla Lake rock art assemblages. He classifies the paintings according to zoomorphic, anthropomorphic, and geometric designs. Interpretations lie almost exclusively with the author and he says the paintings “marginally conform to the Interior Rock Art Style” (Richards 1978:1) set out by Lundy (1974) and he makes an inferred connection to coastal styles. Lundy’s system for determining and understanding rock art style, first laid out in 1974, appears again as part of a prehistoric art symposium held at Simon Fraser University in 1976. Published several years later as Indian Art Traditions o f the Northwest Coast (1983) it 31 contains a condensed version of Lundy’s original work on style. Interestingly, this publication clearly categorizes pictographs and petroglyphs as art forms rather than the language/communication system put forth by Martineau (1973) a few years earlier. By 1977, the Canadian Rock Art Research Associates, a group of professional and non­ professional rock art enthusiasts, had met officially for the fourth time. CARA 7 7 (Lundy 1979), the outcome of this conference, presents the then current condition and concerns of rock art research in Canada. Work up until this time was largely driven by method and void of theory. Analogy, at this time, was not acknowledged and very little, if any, time was spent contemplating process or agency. Researchers were preoccupied with recording and preserving images so much so that descriptions became not a means to an end, but rather, the end itself (cf. Bentley and Bentley 1981). It is as though researchers were preparing for new approaches and innovative conceptual frameworks yet to come by collecting as much raw data as possible (cf. Leen 1984). Perhaps they realized that in general rock art research efforts stopped short of offering sound understandings of the markings and the past life-ways to which they were connected. Nevertheless, it is the work of these individuals that enables the continuation of rock art studies into the next decades and onto today’s investigations. Shortly after the original inception of the Canadian Rock Art Research Associates (CRARA) in 1969, an American counterpart was established. The American Rock Art Research Association (ARARA) founded its 1974 constitution in a similar manner to that of CRARA (Wellmann 1979:375). Organized out of a coneem for inter-regional researeh cooperation, the ARARA vowed to promote the advancement of rock art research in the 32 United States in a manner that would enhance the protection and preservation of sites, while providing an opportunity for public education (Wellmann 1979:376). As with any formal organization, ARARA suffered from growing pains and the differences of opinion often found in group settings. Its diverse membership - professionals and amateurs alike - however, were able to organize several symposia and publish a variety of volumes by the time ARARA was into its third year. Despite the differences of opinion between members, that at times “irritated the spinal nerves of those of the other,” (Wellmann 1979:378) ARARA was committed to strengthening the tie between rock art and archaeology. As a result of its growing professionalism, ARARA branched out quickly into new territories and its inception saw the eventual extinguishment of smaller regional-based organizations (Wellmann 1979:378). Formulated as a professional national organization, ARARA undoubtedly influenced upand-coming American researchers. Texts that followed the establishment of ARARA shared a similar commitment to bridging the gap between archaeology and rock art. Schaafsma (1980) discusses rock art in an anthropological manner in Indian Rock Art o f the Southwest. In her examination of the prehistorie rock art of southwestern United States, Schaafsma (1980) highlights the typieally negleeted position roek art maintains in arehaeologieal inquires. She positions the rock art directly into the arehaeologieal record by emphasizing its in-situ nature and the uniqueness and value of information that is associated with primary context. Archaeology’s concern for expanding our understandings of past life-ways is made evident by Jane Young’s Signs from the Ancestors: Zuni Cultural Symbolism and Perceptions o f Rock Art (1988). Young presents the roek art of the American southwest in 33 the context of traditional Zuni cosmology, and in doing so she enlightens us ahout the past. Her efforts provide a glimpse into the underlying structure of traditional Zuni worldview. In conjunction with a focus on past life-ways, Young incorporates contemporary concerns and wishes of Zuni Elders as they discuss the cultural changes witnessed in younger generations. Many of the rock art studies in Canada and the United States at this time organized and segregated rock art sites according to current day geographical boundaries - usually based on provincial, county or state borders (cf. Crosby 1997). As time progressed, researchers were want to draw conclusions that transcended these boundaries and cross-border similarities in style and content were sought. Eventually, these geographic borders gave way to considerations of traditional Native territories and researchers organized and presented rock art studies on larger scales. With a sound background of knowledge regarding the abundance of rock art in British Columbia, researchers forged ahead with continuing enthusiasm. During the next few decades, articles and books attested to the continued persistence of rock art researchers. Keyser (1992), a professional archaeologist, contemplates the rock art of British Columbia in a context that expanded its provincial boundaries in Indian Rock Art o f the Columbia Plateau. Keyser (1992) considers a variety of themes for the rock art of the Columbia Plateau area and he notes a remarkable homogeneity across the region in terms of form, function and style. He draws parallels between the Columbia Plateau rock art assemblage and that of the Canadian Shield. The geographic areas of the plateau also serve as the boundaries for the regional variants he presents. 34 Keyser (1992) aeknowledges that the public are more often than not excluded from roek art publications and as such they are left to their own devices for understanding pictographs and petroglyphs, a strategy that often results in erroneous and skewed understandings. Keyser offers this text as a remedy for this situation. His work responds effectively to the call of his predecessors and their shouts for the inclusion of traditional knowledge, ethnography and the inclusion of Native voices in rock art studies (cf. Haggerty and Inglis 1984; Hill and Hill 1973 ). A few years later Keyser teamed up with Michael Klassen, also an archaeologist, to consider the rock art of Colorado, Alberta and the western Dakotas in Plains Indian Rock Art (2001). Here Keyser and Klassen discuss a multitude of rock art sites in terms of vision quests, battles, ceremonies and day-to-day activities. In addition to discussing technique, style, dating and offering interpretations, they provided an overview of the rich natural and archaeological history of the northwestern area. Even though the benefits of cross-border examinations were beginning to be recognized, not all research efforts at this time favored broader geographic and cultural considerations. Researchers did, however, continue building on the work of their predecessors and new angles from which to approach the study of rock art were put forth. Francis and Loendorf demonstrated the building-block nature of rock art research in Ancient Visions: Petroglyphs and Pictograph from the Wind River and Bighorn Country, Wyoming and Montana (1998). Francis and Loendorf examine grand themes, such as the shamanistic hypotheses (cf. Inglis 1998; Rajnovich 1994) and neuropsychological models, presented by Lewis-Williams (1986) for upper Paleolithic art in Europe, as a way of situating their work. Here Francis and Loendorf acknowledged the problems associated with rock art 35 dating and they highlighted issues related to the development of stylistic schemata. In this work, they exert considerable effort to expand and improve these aspects of rock art researeh. A unique approach to the study of rock art, is presented in They Write Their Dreams on the Rock Forever: Rock Writings in the Stein River Valley, British Columbia (1993). Annie York’s (York et al. 1993) contribution to the interpretations offered for the pictographs along the Stein River has a special significance not typically found in previous research efforts. York, a Native elder, offers interpretations based on her experience and intimate knowledge with ‘Nlaka’pamux (Thompson) symbolism and rock painting practices. The audience gains an understanding into ‘reading’ the images within the ‘Nlaka’pamux world-view. This is not to say that ‘Nlaka’pamux fluency is obtainable for the reader, but an understanding of the complexity of the images is gained. Information regarding the purpose behind the paintings is attributed to shamanism, puberty ceremonies and dreams. This body of rock art research is particularly indispensable especially since the Stein River contains one of the largest rock art sites in Canada (York et al. 1993). Local Native input had largely been missing from rock art analysis since the days of Morice and Teit; this text illustrates the level to which rock art can be better understood when contemporary First Nations’ input is utilized. Shamanism and dream-related origins of rock art appear again in studies of the Canadian Shield area. This time, shamanism, associated with rock art thought to contain healing powers, is presented in Interpreting the Indian Rock Paintings o f the Canadian Shield (Rajnovich 1994). Here, we learn about the efforts of shamans to summon spiritual help and appeal for aid in times of crisis. The rock art images Rajnovich examines are believed to be the shamans’ “memories of the manitous who reached out to help so long ago” (1994:16). 36 Rajnovich discusses the pietographs of the shield area in terms of picture writing, rather than as a form of art per se. This approach is drawn from the similarities she notes between picture writing and sign language. To her credit, Rajnovich examines, in detail, picture writing as it appears in other aspects of Algonkian culture - such as on bark scrolls and songs, body decoration and basket designs - as a way of interpreting and understanding the rock art iconography. This approach provides a logical and acceptable rationale for the interpretations she offers. Joy Inglis (1998) presents the petroglyphs of Quadra Island in Spirit in Stone. In addition to the inclusion of site location and motif imagery, Inglis discusses the petroglyphs in terms of their connection to salmon spawning areas, puberty rites and shamanistic activities. She advocates for an understanding of Aboriginal culture as the way to fully appreciate rock art and that rock art studies are not complete without the direct participation and permission of local First Nations people. She offers her appreciation of coastal petroglyphs by emphasizing the magic, spirituality and beauty of the images. Judith Williams (2001) documents a newly created pictograph on the Kingcome River, British Columbia in Two Wolves at the Dawn o f Time: Kingcome Inlet Pictographs, 18931998. Williams accompanies Marianne Nicolson, a Dzawada’enuxw artist, as she paints a giant-sized copper at a traditional rock art site. The new painting, located near to an historic pictograph panel, is the first painting in the inlet to be made in over 60 years. The historically significant pictographs that Williams examines depicts a 1927 potlatch conducted during the time that the Department of Indian Affairs had declared a ban on all Native ceremonies. Williams provides historieal details surrounding the creation of the 1927 panel in sueh a manner that readers leam of the early tensions between Aboriginals and 37 settlers - and of Native resilience. Williams blends her experience of the contemporary painting project with that of Nicolson's and the many band members who participated and observed the painting process. Human agency, past and present, is made evident throughout this book as we leam about the lives of real people. Peter Johnson (1999) demonstrates a similar interest in history as he takes an interesting and informative approach to presenting the petroglyphs of Clo-oose in Glyphs and Gallows: The Rock Art o f Clo-oose and the Wreck on the John Bright. The petroglyphs along the outer rim of Vancouver Island are presented as part of coastal history and a long tradition of petroglyph art. The author weaves his personal experiences of finding and appreciating the site with the history of contact between Aboriginal people and Europeans. We leam much about the early histories of interaction between these two peoples in terms of economic and trading activities. The tragedy of the John Bright, a British sailing vessel, is told through a presentation of early 18* and 19* century Russian, Spanish and British economic interests in this part of the world. A profound sense of wrong-doing on the part of Europeans, and the corresponding atrocities experienced by Native populations are what Johnson uses to set the stage for a better understanding of the intentions behind the petroglyphs at Clo-oose. Johnson’s historical account of the shipwreck details the events that led up to the tragedy, as well as the actions that occurred as a result of it. The John Bright sank at sea as a result of notoriously bad weather, yet the Europeans, present at the time, chose to blame the local Natives. As a direct result of European prejudice, two Native men were hung for their alleged participation in the sinking of the John Bright and for atrocities believed to cause the death of the crew and passengers. 38 Johnson discusses the carved images of European sailing vessels as functioning to remind us - Native and non-Aboriginal alike - of this wrong doing. He interprets the rock art site not as a location of residency, resource-use or vision-quest, but as a place where Native people came to record their histories. His interest in the site includes its physical shape - which he considers largely to be associated with femaleness. Johnson notes both female and male figures at this site and he identifies a “sexual tension” (1999:185) between these figures. Johnson indicates that the female figures depicted at this site are connected to rites performed by female shamans and he presents the area as a sanctuary of sorts, laden with sexual power, along with the real life events associated with the John Bright. One of the more recent publications concerning rock art in British Columbia, Exploring B. C ’s Pictographs: A Guide to Native Rock Art in the British Columbia Interior (Nankivell and Wyse 2003) provides details as to the location of over 250 pictographs sites in British Columbia’s interior. Readers are encouraged to follow the directions and the GPS waypoints provided to discover the “fascinating display.. .of hidden archaeological treasures” (Nankivell and Wyse 2003:4). Written very much in the style of John Corner (1968), attention is placed solely on site location and motif form. This catalogue of sites is successful at recording a portion of the known rock art in the province. In doing so, this text pays attention to aspects of British Columbia’s pre-history and history that are usually missing from considerations of the past. But more importantly, this book has caused alarm throughout many First Nations communities in the province. Its release has been met with less than favorable attention by many of the province’s Aboriginal communities. Permission to publish this text was never sought nor granted by any 39 of the Bands who are eonneeted to the roek art sites (Bellet, Vaneouver Sun {VS}, 5 September 2003). Understandably so, many Band couneils and Native eommunities beeame inereasingly eoneemed about the potential for vandalism and intrusion into their traditional territories after the release of this publication. The Upper Smilkameen Band, for example, organized an official boycott of bookstores carrying this title (VS, 5 September 2003) and other eommunities beeame concerned with information sharing and closed their libraries to non-Band members. Action in the form of publishing without consent does nothing to strengthen the relationship between First Nations people and the non-Aboriginal sector. On the contrary, this type of conduct perpetuates the marginal position that First Nations people and voices have typically occupied in roek art literature, as well as in so many other aspects of post contact society. Conversely, Erica Ball provides an example of research that respects and acknowledges First Nations’ claim to the land and traditions in Anlagasimdeex: The History o f a Gitxsan Settlement (2004). A blending of ethnography, archaeology and history come together in her work to generate an understanding of a Gitxsan petroglyph site in terms of real people’s lives, past and present. Through Ball’s efforts, the audience learns about Gitxsan sense of identity through traditional houses, stories and territories. Through an exploration into the traditional practice of Gitxsan re-location a history of the roek art site is developed. According to Ball (2004), village residency is superceded in importance by the relationship Gitxsan people have to a territory. This has direct relevance to the roek art site in terms of its continued meaning despite its abandonment. The inclusion of narratives allows individuals to be visible. Ball portrays the story of a people and their land 40 through a consideration of the rock art that acknowledges human action and agency and respects traditional Native ways of life. Summary The continent of North America contains a vast amount of rock art and an equally voluminous amount of publications are available for perusal. Considering the sheer magnitude of books and articles available, a consideration here of all of the literature pertaining to rock art in North America is not feasible. The texts chosen for this review were selected as a way of illustrating the development and changes over time to the study of rock art across a large geographic and cultural area. This approach has endeavored to highlight British Columbia rock art research and to place it in a broader context, with the intention of fostering a sense of familiarity with North American rock art research. From this synoptic literature survey it is evident that, like the rest of North America, British Columbia possesses a diverse and varied rock art research background. Through the efforts and perseverance of researchers over the years, it is now possible to understand the rock art of the province in a variety of ways - as being directly connected to spirituality and the acquisition of power (cf. Morice 1892-93), as visual representations of dreams and the activities associated with rites of passage (cf. Teh 1896, 1900; York et al. 1993), as unique and often ambiguous motif designs (Richards 1978), in groupings based on stylistic frequencies (cf. Lundy 1974), as forms of communication (cf. Morice 1893), as testaments to Native traditions and identity (cf. Ball 2004) and as places worthy of our time and attention (cf. Comer 1968; Smith 1927a). 41 Yet, despite all of this effort what we really understand about British Columbia rock art remains somewhat superficial. Our present understanding of the meanings embedded in rock art sites is limited. We know very little about the social processes involved in the formation of the paintings and the use of rock art after it was created. We know even less about the painters and their audiences. I see the work of the researchers discussed here, and others not mentioned, not as falling short of offering information of value but rather as providing a spring board or an advantageous position from which to continue studying rock art. It is from this summary of rock art publications that I move into the next chapter where I will present the theoretical standpoints I believe have a contribution to make to the study of rock art. I will argue that landscape-based approaches offer a suitable body of theory and method that has the potential to enhance rock art research in British Columbia. In addition to a consideration of the merits offered by landscape theory, I will discuss feminist approaches and interpretive archaeology in the same light. 42 Chapter Three THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS Introduction In this section I introduce some of the problems associated with rock art research in British Columbia and 1 acknowledge quandaries often related to “representation” in archaeological reconstructions of the past. 1 identify the marginalization of the study of roek art within the discipline of archaeology and a preoccupation with motifs as areas in need of attention. With respect to archaeological reconstructions, 1 highlight the influence that ethnic and gender biases often exert in representations of the past. In response to these conditions, 1 present rock art as an avenue of archaeological inquiry that is capable of contributing to our understanding of past life-ways, and as such, it warrants a more distinguished position within archaeology. When discussing the viability of rock art research 1 consider the current fixation on roek art motifs as one of importance, but highlight the need to incorporate a broader point of view, one that encompasses the surrounding terrain, the images and the image-makers. 1 maintain the position that feminist scholarship in archaeology is well suited to dealing with biases evident in representations of past societies, as well as in generating dialogues of meaning. 1 explore the ability of rock art research to inform us about the past through a post-processual theoretical context where interpretive archaeology, feminist archaeology and landscape studies provide the perspectives and practices necessary to generating meaningful discussions of rock art. 43 Rock Art Research in British Columbia and Archaeological Reconstructions Hundreds of prehistoric and historic paintings created by British Columbia’s Native peoples are scattered throughout the province. Ancient images painted in varying shades of red ochre have been adorned onto lakeshore cliffs, riverside boulders and caves. Much effort has been spent recording and describing these images, but because of its time consuming and subjective nature, along with dating and interpretive difficulties, rock art research in the province does not always receive the same professional academic attention paid to other aspects of the archaeological record. In short, roek art research is marginalized within the larger discipline of archaeology (cf. Hays-Gilpin 2004). Much of the information that has been gathered regarding rock art in British Columbia is due to the efforts of amateur enthusiasts with a variety of motivations, interests and ethics (cf. Comer 1968; Nankivell and Wyse 2003). Many of the archaeological inquiries into areas that contain rock art are the result of impact assessments and salvage operations with nonpictograph related priorities (cf. McMurdo 1989). Professional acknowledgement of rock paintings in British Columbia typically does not exceed description or minor attempts at lowlevel interpretation. Such research endeavors exhibit priorities that are often given to developing stylistic and chronological sequencing where focus falls exclusively on the images. In this manner, rock art research is reflective of archaeology’s culture history approach. This narrow field of view leaves the potential sources of information at the rock art site and the surrounding area untapped - this conduct serves to isolate rock art from the site itself, from the rest of the archaeological record, and from the surrounding natural topography. This habit typically works to displace images and deconstruct panels, thereby, rendering rock 44 art not as the feature it is, but as the (displaced) portable artifact it is not (Bradley et al. 1994:374). Without knowledge of association and spatial location, artifacts lose vital details necessary to creating a valid sense of the past (cf. Hester et al. 1997). Provenience and spatial context are of primary concern in archaeological endeavors, but oddly enough these fundamental concerns are not usually associated with roek art research in British Columbia. This condition results in a loss of context and therefore, a loss of information, which in turn acts to compromise the rigor of rock art research. Through the exclusive emphasis on images alone, rock art becomes an objectively observable system of the past. Objective in that rock art is defined by (and limited to) observable attributes, such as, size, description, condition of decay or preservation, simplicity or complexity and how well motifs fit into or defy pre-established classifications. This exclusive focus on the materiality of rock art is in some ways not so different from contemporary mainstream archaeology in British Columbia, where the bulk of research efforts are concerned with artifact attributes rather than meaningful discussions of agency. Through this approach, rock art becomes a system of painted or carved images that appear throughout the province. We learn that some sites share motif attributes, while others vary significantly in terms of style and content. This exclusive focus on images does not allow for any contemplation of the rock art in terms of people. We are left to ponder for ourselves about the painters and other important aspects of rock art, such as, production and use. As an objectively observable system of painting and carving, rock art sites are reduced to landscapes void of people and void of meaning. From this standpoint, the people responsible for the creation of the images are afforded little or no agency. In this manner, cultures of the 45 past and human behavior have been left unconsidered and un-constructed. On this note, it is questionable whether rock art research in British Columbia contributes directly to the aims of archaeology - namely, its endeavor to understand the human past. When archaeological reconstructions and considerations of the past have attempted to focus on human actions and behavior, imbalances in the representation of past cultures are often exhibited and one particular group in a society is favored over all others. For example, in British Columbia, and elsewhere, reconstructions of the past typically place an emphasis on men’s activities and work. Men are positioned centre-stage and associated with action and culture, while women are pushed to the wings and linked with passivity and nature (cf. Hays-Gilpin 2004; Milledge-Nelson and Rosen-Ayalon 2002). These men and women are more often than not constructed from an ethnocentric framework that reflects the history and values associated with the archaeologist’s own gender and culture. ^ The history of gender bias along with ethnocentrism in archaeology has resulted in a denial of the presence, power and importance of women, and other marginalized groups, such as British Columbia’s First Nations populations in reconstructions of the past. Considering only one portion of the human population renders archaeological interpretations as fragmented and imbalanced reconstructions of the past. Ultimately, this fact is more a reflection and reinforcement of social inequalities in our present society than it is an accurate representation of the past (cf. Zimmerman 2003). Through a consideration of post-processual archaeology I will discuss how it is possible to go beyond the typically descriptive accounts of rock art described here and how issues of bias in representations can be dealt with. I will demonstrate how we can understand rock art ^ This potential for a fundamental bias in interpretations and reconstructions o f the past is further enhanced by the reliance archaeological interpretations have historically placed on ethnographic studies, which in turn were primarily conducted by men. 46 and rock art sites in terms of meaning and in terms that are meaningful. I will argue in favour of adopting a landscape-based approach with a feminist perspective as a way of developing meaningful discussions of rock art that endeavor to include all members of a society. This argument is based on the core belief that is through the practice of humanistic based inquires that a sense of the meanings contained within landscapes can be recognized. In this chapter, I will begin with a description of processual archaeology as a way of introducing post-processual archaeology. As avenues of post-processualism, I will introduce interpretive and feminist archaeology. From there, I will discuss the concept of landscapes. Finally, I will assess the suitability of these theoretical frameworks to enhance the study of rock art. Processual and Post-processual Archaeology Processual archaeology, also known as the New Archaeology of the 1960s and 1970s, offered researchers alternative approaches to the descriptive priorities associated with the writing of “culture histories” inherent to Traditional archaeology (Trigger 1989). Grounded in a positivist view of the past, processual archaeology was concerned with turning Traditional archaeology into a science-based anthropology (Whitley 1998:3). Positivism was adopted as a way of explaining social phenomena in terms of general relationships (Shanks and Hodder 1998:69) - much like the laws associated with the natural sciences. Data, collected from the ground, was believed to be independent from the theories used for explanation, and therefore, able to provide objective knowledge about the past (Whitley 1998 :3 ). 47 Processualists saw human behavior and culture change primarily as an adaptation to the environment (Ucko 1995:14). Aspects of culture such as technology, subsistence strategies, and social organization were thought to be most affected by the environment and, therefore, the most important to study (Whitley 1998:3). Positivism sought to move beyond simply describing the archaeological record, as previous Traditionalists had done, by providing explanations for the patterns observed within it (Darvill 2002:341; Shanks and Hodder 1998:69). With a commitment to rigorous methodology and the pursuit of objective knowledge, positivists felt that “the ideas of the people of the past were unobtainable in the archaeological record and, therefore, they could not be studied scientifically” (Flannery and Marcus 1998:35). Consequently, aspects of culture such as, religion and art were treated as “analytically irrelevant” (Whitley 1998:3). Post-processual archaeology objected to the positivist viewpoint that individuals in the past were “passive reflectors of the forces and factors in their surrounding environments, not individuals acting out their own ideas and intentions” (Whitley 1998:4). Post-processual archaeologies challenged the notion of behaviorism by putting, at the forefront, “the human mind and cognition [rather than the environment] as key factors in the creation of the archaeological record” (Whitley 1998:5). The post-processual critique of processual archaeology was less about method and more about theory, where “the main emphasis was on opening archaeology to a broader range of theoretical positions, particularly those in the historical and social sciences” (Hodder 2001:1). In place of behaviorism, post-processual archaeology introduced relativism, where knowledge is understood to be created within a cultural system (Darvill 2002:355). From this standpoint, “everything is subjective, including the past, and since there can be no objective 48 past there can be no objective reconstruction of it” (Whitley 1998:10). As such, knowledge and reconstructions of the past are spatially and temporally located. Knowledge necessarily then contains a certain amount of contemporary social structures of dominance and subordination, found in the archaeologist’s own time period and society (M. Johnson 1999:167), where it is often “the present which is preserved, not the past” (Shanks and Tilley 1992 :68 ). Post-processual archaeology denounced the positivist belief that one unifying science was appropriate for all disciplines (M. Johnson 1999:167). In place of universality, postprocessualism espoused a multiplicity of approaches that resulted in a variety of archaeologies (Flarmery and Marcus 1998:35-37) - each equally true and valid. In place of scientific explanations regarding the systems of the past, post-processual archaeology adopted a humanistic perspective committed to maintaining an “interest in the human mind and especially the importance of intentional human actions in creating the past” (Whitley 1998:6). Post-processual studies favoured interpretation and meaning, rather than the generalized explanations associated with processual approaches (Shanks and Hodder 1998: 69^ Some have seen Post-processual archaeology as anti-science where subjectivity and particularism replace generalization and explanation (Shanks and Hodder 1998:69) - what often results is a science versus relativism dispute. Post-processual archaeology makes no apologies for the aspects of science it rejects, however, it is not imperative that science be rejected completely (Whitley 1998:11; see also Hodder and Shanks 1995). A moderate position whereby a blending of the benefits associated with processual and post-processual approaches is both possible and necessary. Interpretive archaeology allows such a blending. 49 Interpretive Arehaeology Interpretive arehaeology aeeepts some seienee, but does not rely on it entirely as processual studies do (Whitely 1998:24). An interpretive world-view assumes more complexity and less absolute knowledge than a positivist paradigm. Culture theory, which highlights the intentional actions of humans, replaces behaviorist theory and seeks to examine changes from within a society. Conversely, interpretive archaeologists utilize alternative models of science that allow their scientific and humanistic goals to be achieved “without committing the offenses of positivist approaches” (Whitley 1998:24). Built out of post-proeessual thinking, interpretive arehaeology places the presence and work of the interpreter at the forefront (Darvill 2002:197; Shanks and Hodder 1998: 70). Interpreters attempt to convey meaning and bridge gaps of understanding by providing a dialogue which functions to make things easier to understand (Shanks and Hodder 1998: 71). The interpreter does not operate according to certain predetermined actions intended to lessen their influence and subjectivity, as with processual studies, but rather, the interpreter recognizes and takes responsibility for their presence and interpretations (Shanks and Hodder 1998:70). Thus, archaeologists’ representations of the past are constructions built in the present. As such, they are as much (if not more) about the author as they are about the past societies being examined (Shanks and Tilley 1992:68; M. Johnson 1999:167). Contrary to scientific reasoning, these constructions are viewed by interpretive archaeologists as no less truthful or authentic for having being constructed (Shanks and Hodder 1998: 70; M. Johnson 1999:166-167). Consequently, interpretation is multivocal where “different interpretations of the same field are quite possible” and expected (Shanks and Hodder 1998:70). Interpretive 50 archaeologists view all archaeologies in this manner - processual included. Scientific representations of the past are viewed by interpretive archaeologists as being equally subjective as interpretive depictions, with one particular difference - the realization and admission of subjectivity by the researcher. Recognizing the subjective element in any given archaeology and focusing on the feelings and aetions of individuals in the past, does not imply that just any meaning can be erafted from the arehaeological record. Interpretive archaeology is only possible when “the body of supporting data is suffieiently rieh” (Flannery and Mareus 1998:37). Shanks and Hodder (1998:78) point out that just as an artist cannot craft anything from a block of clay, archaeologists, too, are governed by certain limitations and properties of the archaeological record. Where scientific reasoning is opposed to developing empathy for individuals in the past, interpretive archaeology embraces such sentiment and seeks out human actions and meanings embedded in the archaeological record (Whitley 1998:13). To interpret is to determine meaning and this implies an “extension or building from what there is here to something beyond” (Shanks and Hodder 1998:72). As with scientific based studies, interpretive archaeology shares a need for context and provenience in order to determine meaning and to offer credible understandings of the past. Rigorous data collection, not the fanciful imaginings often attributed to cognitive archaeologies, is as much a part of interpretive archeology as it is a part of processual archaeology. “When done well, cognitive archaeology makes archaeology broader and more well-rounded; poorly done, it results in some of the worst archaeology on record” (Flannery and Marcus 1998:37). 51 Discussion: Processual and Post-Processual Archaeology and Rock Art Studies Processual perspectives in archaeology were oriented toward developing discussions of material remains located in the archaeological record, but were resistant to discussions of the meanings embedded in those remains. The post-processual recognition of people as active and knowledgeable agents, responsible for creating meaningful pasts meant that opportunities to study the meaning and significance of human action became possible. Where traditional and positivist approaches held onto priorities far removed from developing an understanding of “those aspects of ancient culture that are the product of the human mind” (Flarmery and Marcus 1998:36), post-processual and in particular, interpretive approaches sought out such phenomena. Prior to the advancement of post-processual archaeology, rock art studies were theoretically limited to providing descriptive accounts of rock markings and providing explanations of rock art in terms of generalities - where both culture history and processual approaches were employed. As such, rock art sites were defined by motifs alone and were void of any sense of human presence. The adoption of a humanistic post-processual perspective enabled rock art researchers, for the first time, to venture beyond descriptions of markings and generate discussions of meaning - such opportunities were not available with previous positivist paradigms (cf. Chippindale and Tacon 1998). It is through interpretive archaeology that rock art researchers are able to continue generating important empirical data concerning rock markings and pursue social aspects of rock art, such as, societal influences for production and conditions for use (Chippindale and Nash 2004). Interpretive approaches enable researchers the opportunity to contemplate rock 52 art sites as populated soeial landscapes. From this theoretical approach, it becomes possible to understand rock art sites as the social landscapes they once were/are. The inclusion of people and a consideration of the social conditions relevant to the production and use of rock art enable discussions of meaning to be generated. It is the presence of people that makes reconstructions of the past meaningful. This is because human presence, behavior and action give the past its most engaging characteristics (cf. Lowenthal 1985). Interpretive archaeology is the theoretical context in which we can begin to understand rock markings in terms that were essential to their creation - human action and agency. Not only does interpretive archaeology allow for this exploration of meaning and human agency in rock markings and rock art sites, it acknowledges the constructed nature of all archaeological representations. One of the hallmarks of post-processual theory in archaeology is the revelation that the past is constructed in the present (cf. Hodder 1999, 2001; Shanks and Tilley 1992; Trigger 1989). A relationship exists between the past we construct and the contemporary social conditions in which we carry out the act of producing knowledge. A consideration of feminist scholarship provides insight into the influence historical conditions and biases associated with today’s social order play in the outcome of archaeological constructions. Early Feminist Thinking in Archaeology Feminist thinking in archaeology was initially sparked by a concern for the status inequalities of women within the profession (Preucel and Hodder 1996: 416). Objection to the inequalities between male and female researchers in the form of career prospects, public 53 image and funding opportunities was officially launched in the early 1980s (cf. Conkey and Spector 1984; Gero 1983, 1985). Early feminist works introduced gender as a topic of “legitimate archaeological research” (Preucel and Hodder 1996:416) and concern along with the feminist identification of male bias inherent in the discipline. This recognition of women’s marginalization within the profession itself revealed that gender biases were also present in other areas of the discipline. In addition to influencing and curtailing opportunities for female archaeologists, gender bias was successfully at work, and had been for many years, excluding and misrepresenting women in interpretations of the past (Preucel and Hodder 1996:419). Distorted images and an all-too-often absence of women in reconstructions of the past were ultimately linked to contemporary gender ideologies that were self-legitimating - past gender roles, based on contemporary gender ideologies were used to “legitimate those same gender roles in the present” (Preucel and Hodder 1996:419). Gender bias, grounded in the present and reflected onto the past, served to generate portrayals of past societies that were teeming with Western androcentric values. Notions of a universal male power and control in past societies emerged that largely reflected contemporary Western biases rather than the values associated with the past societies being studied. This condition served to deny the presence and importance of women, and other members of society, over both time and space (cf. Kehoe 1999). Feminists opposed the power and privilege that was being afforded to these Western androcentric constructions of the past. The structure of the discipline itself contained the basic assumption that culture was both created by and intended for men. Western androcentric bias was so deeply ingrained in the “rhetoric of archaeology, that it [was] in danger of passing by unnoticed” (Milledge-Nelson 1997:25). In response to the recognition 54 that the discipline of archaeology was profoundly embedded with gender bias, feminist scholars began to consider gender itself as an analytical category and began to examine how that might affect and enhance interpretations of prehistory (Preucel and Hodder 1996:416; see also Spector and Whelan 1990). Contemporary Feminist Archaeology Theory Feminist archaeology accepts that the practice of archaeology itself is a socially constructed and contextually conditioned activity (Gero 1996:258). As such, an objective understanding of the past cannot be achieved. Feminist archaeology embraces this concept while simultaneously explores the power hierarchy evident in constructions of the past. Feminists recognize that archaeologieal fieldwork itself is a social practice and it is historically specific. This recognition is similar to how interpretive archaeologists acknowledge relativism and an understanding that knowledge is spatially and temporally oriented. Both feminist and interpretive arehaeology see the act of archaeological fieldwork as eonditioning the data that is collected (cf. Gero and Conkey 1991). Through the practices of excavation and observation, arehaeologists generate data that are essentially unverifiable (Ehrenberg 1989:13:15; Gero 1996:251-253). As soon as artifaets are removed from the ground, provenience and association exist only as recorded data in the archaeologist’s notebook. The ramification of this is that inferences are constructed from one single uncheckable authority (Gero 1996:253) Thus, it becomes obvious just how much power is bestowed upon the archaeologist (cf. Hays-Gilpin and Whitley 1998; Spector 1993). From this position of privilege, archaeologists exert powerful influences over fieldwork practices and interpretations, which ultimately effects the findings offered as knowledge. It is 55 not just issues pertaining to gender that are inherent in archaeological fieldwork practices and interpretations. Ideals associated with Eurocentric Western culture are often at the forefront, overriding and essentializing archaeological data, knowledge, and the constructions of the past. This is in part due to the extensive presence of male Western archaeologists and the history of the discipline itself (cf. Handsman 1993; Milledge-Nelson and Rosen-Ayalon 2002; Tuhiwai Smith 1999). Although, today there are more Indigenous people active in archaeology than at any other time in history, the majority of practicing archaeologists are non-Aboriginal (cf. Nicholas and Andrews 1997). These factors contribute to the production of prejudiced renditions of the past teeming with male gender biases and ethnocentric assumptions, which become publicly documented facts. Feminist approaches enable archaeologists to establish new and innovative methods and theories geared toward challenging Western assumptions and the power imbalances embedded within the discipline. Just as interpretive archaeology is believed to make mainstream archaeology more inclusive, feminist theory has the potential to make interpretive arehaeology more holistic. This is true because it has the capability of being the “means by which the ‘givens’ in archaeology can be taken apart while simultaneously generating alternatives and replacement concepts” (Conkey 1993:27). Feminist perspectives allow archaeologists to be more sensitive to the inequalities exhibited in “traditions” of writing archaeology, and as a result, feminist archaeologies are less gender and ethnicity exclusive (cf. Handsman 1993; Spector 1993). Feminist scholarship rejects the universals and essentialist arguments put forth by positivism in much the same maimer as post-processual archaeology. In contrast, renditions of the past oriented toward “relational identities” and “versions of hermeneutics” (Preucel 56 and Hodder 1996:417) are developed. Favoring human agency over environmental determinism, feminist archaeology advocates for a past shaped and constrained by the efforts of humans. Connected to the recognition of human agency is the realization that peoples’ experiences throughout prehistory, history, and the present are diverse and varied. Feminists advocate for the reconstruction of varied lived experiences as a way of creating more informed views of past lives. It is the nuances of difference and variation in individual experiences and meaning that are of interest and value. On this note, feminist thinking is likened to phenomenological inquiries within interpretive arehaeology where researchers attempt to “understand the way in which people experience the worlds they create and inhabit” (Darvill 2002:320; see also Tilley 1994). In conjunction with a focus on “experience,” feminist methods are adamantly reflexive. As interpretive archaeologists recognize their presence in the research process, feminist investigators consciously recognize and claim their own position, influence, and power in their research. Reflexivity acknowledges that rationality and objectivity are both myths, regardless of how unbiased or objective studies are portrayed to be (Conkey 1993). Through the process of research and the production of knowledge, feminists unapologetically expect to “affect the shape of what is known and what is knowable” (Conkey and Gero 1991:25). The opportunity for bias in reconstructions of the past is plentiful because facts or data are not recorded in the archaeological record but must be “observed and crafted out [of what is often] an array of confusing and conflicting observations that are modified and reformulated out of knowledge of what other researchers are working on...” (Gero 1996:252). In short, artifacts do not speak for themselves, they must be interpreted. Harding (1986: 134) 57 eloquently points out that “it is necessary to be a feminist to do good science, because to do otherwise is to introduce [an unrecognized and unclaimed] bias.” Feminist archaeology does away with the positivist focus on the “ultimates,” such as the “oldest” or the “biggest” archaeological find because such presentations are “grounded in progressive evolutionism which contributes to the validation of the status quo [s]” of today (Preucel and Hodder 1996:421). Further, these representations are more often than not defined in androcentric and Eurocentric ways. In place of “origin” studies, feminist scholarship centers on those aspects of the archaeological record typically deemed less important by mainstream archaeology, and traditionally thought, by positivists, to be inaccessible. Such studies include focusing on gender roles, the sexual division of labour or bringing new approaches to household archaeology (cf. Small 1991). Feminist archaeology rejects the language associated with positivist discourse because of its ability and inclination to perpetuate the same power hierarchy that feminist scholarship seeks to critique and eliminate. Through mainstream archaeological discourse, contemporary constructions of gender and ethnicity differences are transformed into scientific information (Handsman 1993:337; Milledge-Nelson 1997:24) and presented to the public. The power of interpretation manifests itself into the generation of what is perceived to be fact, and this works to publicly “legitimize modern ideologies of gender [and ethnicity] difference” (Handsman 1993:333). Because of the power of language, vocabulary used in feminist archaeologies endeavors to “reflect the agency and intent of the humans in the past” (Conkey and Gero 1991:20), as a way of eliminating the way in which women’s (and other marginalized groups within society) activities have typically been devalued. 58 Scientific language works to reduce complex human experienees in the past to de­ humanized systems void of meaning (Preucel and Hodder 1996:422). What typically results is the writing of “boring, tedious, eonfusing to read descriptions of artifacts [which produce] similar feelings [of distance, objeetivity, and lack of interest] that are transferred to the people of the past” (Speetor 1993:33). In response, feminists strive for alternative ways of writing archaeology (ef. Edmonds 1999; Spector 1993) that allow for and highlight “empathy and recreation of lived [human] experienees” (Preucel and Hodder 1996:422) rather than focusing on material remains and systems of the past. The creation of narratives and dialogues of meaning(s) are often offered in conjunetion with (cf. Spector 1993) or in place of descriptive scientific accounts of material remains. Discussion: Feminist Archaeology and Rock Art Studies Feminist thinking in archaeology initially identified gender imbalanees, where it was realized that the paucity of women’s standing within the discipline and in interpretations of the past were more a faetor of current soeial eonditions rather than the “facts” of the arehaeologieal reeord. Feminist outlooks brought reeognition to the soeial and contextual condition of archaeology itself in much the same way as interpretive archaeology aeknowledged the “eonstrueted” nature of arehaeologieal understandings of the past and the ever-present interpreter. Feminist theory, however, focused more attention on the power afforded to the interpreter and the imbalances in understandings of the past that resulted. Reflexivity was introdueed as a means of aeknowledging and embracing the biases inherent in arehaeologieal reconstructions of the past. Where positivists sought to develop understandings of a generalized past, feminists sought to understand the variety of lived 59 experiences of individuals. Consequently, aspects of the archaeological record previously considered unimportant were revitalized with a new found interest - what was studied in archaeology became equally important as how studies were performed. Feminist scholarship and post-processual theories associated with interpretive archaeology meant that researchers now had a paradigm from which to understand past human conditions in terms far more complex and holistic than previous theories would allow. Post-processual archaeology has been credited with providing researchers with suitable bodies of theory from which to draw out and discuss “meaning” from the archaeological record, as witnessed by feminist and interpretive models. It was this underlying theoretical change that brought about opportunities to realize new and innovative ways of understanding and interpreting the past that went beyond the achievements of processual archaeology (cf. Moore 1991). Feminist advances in the discipline of archaeology have the potential to impact rock art research in several ways - here I highlight its ability to provide useful and interesting ways of focusing on people and innovative ways of generating texts of meaning. Feminist archaeology endeavors to incorporate women and other marginalized groups into discussions of the past, what it does not attempt to do is create a “glorious new past” for these groups. The feminist approach to archaeology and its application to the study of rock art entail a shift in focus away from “traditional” approaches that are exclusive, towards methods that are inclusive and that aim to incorporate those groups typically silent and invisible in archaeological writings. For rock art studies, feminist perspectives permit alternative ways of writing archaeological accounts of rock art sites that highlight “empathy and [the] recreation of lived 60 experiences” (Preucel and Hodder 1996:422). The experiences of painting the rock and the experiences with the painted rock are what delineate the meanings of rock art sites. Feminist approaches necessarily acknowledge the presence of the researcher in the research process. A shift of focus in this direction takes away from the typical emphasis on the materiality of the rock art images as a system of the past. The creation of dialogues of experience regarding the social production and use of rock art, necessarily gives way to an exploration of people and meaning (cf. Wylie 1994). Acknowledging reflexivity adds a new dimension to the data that is missing in typical approaches to the study of rock art. Just as feminist inquiries strive to create a meaningful understanding of the past by recognizing human presence and agency, landscape approaches possess similar and complementary interests. The concept of landscape is discussed and presented next. Landscape Approaches Landscape archaeology is a notoriously varied and complex endeavor. No one distinct theoretical framework or methodological approach offers a single inroad to this type of inquiry. This is due in part, to the multifaceted and subjective nature of the concept of landscape itself, and the fact that landscape studies are distinctly set within a post-processual framework - they must be, by this association, polyvalent. As a result, archaeologists incorporate a variety of approaches and theories to reach their particular research goals. It is this diversification and complexity which has the potential to result in innovative and eclectic interpretations of the past, which is the strength of landscape archaeology. Understanding landscape as a body of theory begins with the consideration of landscape as a concept. As a concept, landscape is multifaceted and it varies spatially, culturally, and 61 temporally (cf. Bender 2002; Thomas 2001). This means that people perceive the concept of landscape in varying ways depending on their geographic location, ethnic affiliation and historical time period. For most people, according to Keller, (1994:81) landscape is the world in which we all live. It is from a sense of this tangible physicality that I begin. Landscape as a topographical surrounding comprised of natural features is, at its most fundamental level, a requirement for human presence. We cannot be in the world without this physical component of landscape, to which we are dependent for survival. The “ubiquitous materiality of landscape is simply everywhere and people are in it on a daily basis” (van Dommelen 1999:277). The relationship that exists between the physical earth and human existence is universal, but the way in which this cormection is perceived is vastly diverse (Thomas 2001:81). For example. Western viewpoints typically recognize a dichotomous relationship, where humans and nature are separated. Conversely, Eastern and First Nations perspectives, for example, see no partition between humans and the natural world; instead of separation they see interconnection. It is this interpretation of our relationship with the Earth that brings us to the next dimension of landscapes, which is much less tangible than the physical reality of topographic surroundings. As a physical entity, landscapes provide the arena for interaction to occur between people and with nature. Landscapes are “the entire surface over which people move and within which they congregate” (Ashmore and Knapp 1999:277). It is through this interaction with nature and the congregation between peoples that landscapes become so much more than a physical environment for human survival - they become a way of seeing the world and interpreting one’s surroundings. Ways of seeing and interpreting are subjective acts that differ between interpreters. Interpretational differences exist because “different people. 62 differently plaeed, engage with the world [and each other] in different ways” (Bender 2002:106). This differential experience results in a multitude of ways of seeing and being in the world. The practice of interacting and interpreting the world is an ongoing and repetitive process. Repeated encounters with one another on the land create an additional layer to our understanding of landscape. This understanding continues to be linked to the physical realm, but is no longer limited to it (Thomas 2001:171). What I mean by this is, that physical places on the land play a role in how we interact and experience the world. It is these places that provide the medium necessary for social space, or interaction, to occur. Social space works to create meanings that become associated with a particular place. This sense of meaning, created through experiences of interaction, transcends the physical landscape transforming it into a cognitive landscape of meaning. Cognitive landscapes are constructed and maintained by the social spaces of interaction and repeated occupancy that occur in places throughout the physical landscape (cf. Crumley 1999). A relationship exists between the outer reality of the physical landscape and the iimer perception, which is the cognitive landscape. This relationship is reciprocal - each landscape, is both influential to and influenced by the other (Thomas 2001:171). The division between the outer and inner landscapes is not clearly defined or definable. Because of the reciprocal relationship between these two landscapes, we cannot completely separate one from the other (Keller 1994:95; Thomas 2001:21). Cognitive landscapes remain connected to, but not wholly dependant on physical landscapes. A variety of groups of people may share a particular physical landscape, but the cognitive landscapes of each group may vary drastically. Aspects of society, such as, class. 63 gender, and ethnicity etc. all result in different soeial spaces. These encounters and experiences in turn create fundamentally different cognitive landscapes. For example. First Nations and non-Aboriginal peoples share the same physical landscape of British Columbia, but through the processes of social interaction over time each group has a very different set of personal, collective, and ancestral histories that act to influence and create differential cognitive landscapes. Each landscape, whether it be physical or cognitive, exerts a particular level of power that affects the other. By this 1 mean that because we have experiences of a place, that place holds a certain meaning for us. That meaning and our experiences are what we use to negotiate that place and other places in the future. Undoubtedly, our repeated experiences of places are never identical, therefore, the meanings we attribute to places are always changing and different. The way in which we understand and generate cognitive landscapes is relative to experience and memory. This relevance is “derived from specific historical and cultural contexts” (Ashmore and Knapp 1999:6). Memories accrue through repeated visits or experiences with places. Through this process of accretion, meanings become layered overtime (Ashmore and Knapp 1999:25; see also Darvill 1999). With each new spatial encounter places take on different meanings, which in turn, give rise to ever-changing cognitive landscapes (Bender 2002:103). The landscapes we create today have actually been “fashioned out of past landscapes, which are in turn fashioned out of landscapes before that” (McGlade 1999:469). Cognitive landscapes, therefore, exhibit an unstable element, which is demonstrated by this repeated cycle of re­ creation. 64 Spaces, on one hand, contribute to this unstable quality of cognitive landscapes by constantly generating new meanings. Yet, simultaneously, spaces ensure an element of continuity by consistently producing sites of meaning or places (De Certeau 1984; Tilley 1994). The presence of places within a landscape forms a stable component in as much that places are always present (though ever-changing). Places also contribute to this sense of stability because they act to anchor space in the landscape. The relationship between space (the act or experience of interaction) and place (the site of interaction) is cyclically reliant and influential to one another - one is responsible for and responsive to the other (Layton and Ucko 1999:8). Landscapes are created by people (Bender 2002:103) and turned into places through the processes of space. Once a sense of place is established humans can no longer abstract themselves from that place (Lovell 1998:6). It is the meanings, embedded in places that are both “by and for human socialability and identity” (Lovell 19988:4). Because places are invested with meaning, they act to create the people who are from that place (Tilley 1994:26). Therefore, place is “fundamental to the establishment of personal and group identity” (Tilley 1994:18). Association with a particular place evokes not only a sense of personal and collective identity, but also feelings of belonging and loyalty to a community (Lovell 1998:4). This collective identity, forged from the set of mental notions (or cognitive landscapes) a group of people has in common, creates a cultural landscape of meaning (Keller 1994:89). Cultural landscapes contain both the natural features of a land and “a series of stories [and experiences] constructed through time and space” (Nash and Children 1995:1). Due to the fluid and dynamic nature of space, the meanings embedded in cultural landscapes are more 65 likely to change than they are to remain constant (Ashmore and Knapp 1999:6; Layton and Ucko 1999:15). Discussion: Landscapes, Social Space and Rock Art Studies Landscapes are multidimensional, on one hand they are the tangible topographic features of a land, and on the other, they are the metaphysical constructs of a group of people. This physicality and intangibility exist simultaneously. Landscapes are constructed through the social processes of human interaction. Experience and the memory of experience are what transform locales in the physical environment into places of meaning. How we have experienced a place in the past affects how we will experience that place (and others) in the future. Meaning is what transcends the physical realm and influences the construction of cognitive landscape. Places of meaning essentially reside in both the physical and cognitive landscapes. Attempting to separate this outer physical landscape from the inner cognitive landscape is futile - one cannot exist without the other. Space and the social interactions that occur between peoples are an essential component to the creation of landscapes. De Certeau (1984) discusses aspects of space and social relations in “Spatial Stories” in a way that is relevant to the study of rock art. De Certeau juxtaposes the concepts of “maps” and “tours” in such a manner that it deals directly with the issues associated with rock art research in British Columbia that have been identified in this thesis. This section will present concepts from “Spatial Stories ” and landscape theory that relate directly to the study of rock art. De Certeau (1984) introduces the notion of “map” as a tableau of knowledge, and “tour” as a series of movements. He presents these concepts as two poles of experience (1984:119) 66 existing at opposite ends of a paradigm continuum. The concept of “map” resides at the scientific end, while “tour” occupies the humanistic realm of this continuum. The “map” as a tableau acts to fragment knowledge, much in the same way scientific discourse acts to objectify and at times essentialize knowledge (1984:119). The “tour” is representative of the social practices that constitute place, but it too, provides only a partial truth. Where the “map” emphasizes form and generates categories and classifications of data, the “tour” highlights processes of production and grapples with understandings of meaning. De Certeau (1984:120) describes and discusses the history of cartographic maps as a way of illustrating the relationship and tension between the concept of “map” and “tour.” Medieval maps initially bared the markings of pilgrimage journeys. Stops of interest and venues for prayer were graphically intertwined with illustrations of places to stay and cities to pass through (1984:120). But, over time maps became disassociated from the journeys they represented and illustrations of the practices of travel and social interaction associated with the pilgrimage ceased to be included on the map. With respect to rock art research the concept of “map” can be viewed as the exclusive focus researchers in British Columbia have placed on the rock markings. Rock art research in the province with its focus on form, size, and location is essentially the “map” that disregards the social actions of the painters or “tour” necessary for the creation of the images. The “map” provides a way of recording important information such as content and style, but it serves to suppress the cognitive and cultural landscapes to which the paintings are connected. The “tour” offers insight into the process of production and use. A combination of both the “map” and the “tour” approach transforms the typical focus on form to a broader more holistic one that includes process. 67 Through the application of a landscape-based approach and a consideration of Dc Certeau’s “map” and “tour” concepts, rock art research becomes more than a descriptive task and rock art itself becomes more than an observable system of the past. The inclusion of the “tour” provides access to the people of the past in a manner that the “map” cannot. This is achieved by the “tour’s” potential to transform the rock art into the oral history of a land and its use by people in the past. Recognizing rock art sites as places of meaning within physical and cognitive landscapes illuminates the processes of painting as social spaces orchestrated within a particular cultural and temporal context. By endeavoring to understand the social conditions that shaped and constrained the processes of rock painting we acknowledge human agency. Once we have peopled past landscapes then and only then are discussions of meaning possible. Why are Discussions of Meaning Worthwhile? When rock art landscapes are understood in terms of human presence and agency they become meaning-full. But, why is it important to develop a meaningful construction of the past? Why is it not enough to simply describe cultural remains? Why are the people of the past important? The importance of establishing meaning is the primary function of archaeology itself. Here it is important to realize the way in which archaeology is written severely affects the influence it exerts over the public and that directly affects how people come to know the past. Supposedly, “objective” scientific data, such as numeric details about a rock painting, do not reveal the presence of people. The objects or cultural remains that archaeologists study are the direct result of past human action and cognition. It only makes sense then, to create 68 renditions of the past that reflect this human action and agency (cf. Hodder 2001). Archaeological texts play a key role in shaping how people today understand the human past. What we come to know as the human path of progress and evolution is often contextualized along lines of gender and ethnicity. This fact often results in the perpetuation and false justification for contemporary power imbalances and behavior. The political implications of archaeology cannot be ignored and the fact that archaeological data has significant public value (Spector 1993:33) emphasizes the importance of peopling the past. Perceiving a past void of people is simultaneously one that is also void of meaning. Developing a sense of interest and respect for the past, and its people, is much more likely when the intentions and actions of people are included in accounts of the past. The need to populate the landscapes of the past has a direct relevance to rock art studies in British Columbia. This is because many of the province’s rock art sites have been defaced or completely destroyed, presumably, by people who have no knowledge, empathy, or consideration for the value of such aspects of the past. How we do rock art research and the way we communicate, or more appropriately, the way we do not communicate the importance and meanings of rock art indirectly plays a role in the perpetuation of vandalism. If we continue to discuss and present rock art in terms of systems of the past rather than the creations and experiences of real people, or as chronological sequences rather than stories laden with meaning and activity, or as stylistic frequencies rather than cultural statements of identity, then we will have missed the opportunity to contribute to the conservation of rock art in the most effective manner: the prevention of damage. I believe that through the practice of writing and talking about the social spaces of rock art, the importance of rock markings can be imparted to a larger audience. If more members of the public are made aware of the 69 meaning invested in rock art landscapes perhaps the diminishment of vandalism will be possible. Summary Landscape approaches offer a suitable body of theory and method that has the potential to enhance rock art research in British Columbia. First, a landscape approach provides the opportunity to develop meaningful interpretations. This possibility contrasts sharply with the typical lack of interpretation where researchers have limited themselves to descriptive or antiquarian accounts of rock art. Second, these approaches allow for the consideration of the larger surrounding terrain, natural and cultural, which provides information regarding provenience, association, and context to be integrated into interpretations. Through a landscape approach the meanings of rock art sites can be studied and interpreted in terms of inter-relationships between the human world and the physical environment (Hodder 1987 : 123). Landscape approaches are oriented toward recognizing the presence of places as sites of meaning, in both spatial and temporal contexts. In this way, landscape approaches are very suitable to rock art studies because “rock art is such an obvious way of assigning special significance to a place” (Bradley et al. 1994:213). Landscape studies offer a humanistic understanding of the environment to be realized that is of direct relevance to rock art because rock art sites are part of the physical environment and they are the product of human creation. A landscape approach enables archaeologists to look beyond the individual site (Thomas 2001:165) to consider the larger surrounding natural and cultural terrain. The inherent 70 physical connection between rock art and the natural topography is seldom taken advantage of by archaeologists (Bradley et al. 1994:374). This is evident in British Columbia rock art studies where images are typically displaced rather than contextualized. Landscape studies however, provide an opportunity to take advantage of the enormous benefits offered by the in-situ nature of rock art. Adopting the broader field of view associated with a landscape approach allows for an inclusion of the natural terrain or the physical context of the rock art. This inclusion works to transform the rock art, rightly from “artifact” to “feature” (Bradley et al. 1994:374) and posits the markings in context rather than in displacement. Hodder (1987:123) reminds us that, “to be interested in artifacts [and features] without any contextual information is antiquarianism” rather than archaeology, because it is context that archaeologists use to weave material culture together “so as to be meaningful”. This broader frame of reference offers the opportunity to study spatial arrangements between rock art sites and other locales of human activity in the context of the natural features of the land (Hays-Gilpin 2004:3). Linking the location of rock art sites with different uses of different terrains in the surrounding area permits a realization of a “general pattern of movement through the landscape” (Bradley et al. 1994:377). What results from this broad frame of reference is not just attention to pockets of activity punctuated throughout a physical landscape, but larger more comprehensive patterns of land use set within particular temporal and spatial contexts. This approach allows for a consideration of activity and occupancy that is “more closely matched with the physical scale at which human societies operate” (Darvill 2002 :221 ). 71 Feminist perspectives are complementary to a landscape-based study of rock art. First, this perspective gives voice to those who are typically silent in archaeological writings. For studies of British Columbia rock art, this would include the painters and their audience, as well as, contemporary people to whom the rock art landscapes continue to be meaningful. It thus becomes possible to gain a sense of the multiplicities of meaning that are embedded in landscapes and how that meaning changes with time. Second, feminist scholarship allows room for alternative ways of writing archaeology. Bodies of text that present rock art landscapes in innovative and eclectic ways are more likely to reach a broader audience than the scientific accounts of rock art that have typically been generated in British Columbia. Undoubtedly, the production of an “alternative” account of the rock art at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun will be important when adapting this research for the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun elementary school curriculum. In the next chapter I employ these theoretical frameworks as I outline the methods I used to design and implement an interpretive/feminist/landscape-based study and analysis of the rock paintings at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. 72 Chapter Four RESEARCH METHODS My thesis aims to explore the social processes associated with the production and use of the rock paintings at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. In order to develop this understanding 1 consulted a variety of texts regarding the Carrier culture and where possible, sources regarding the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art. My research also included conducting fieldwork in which I located, recorded and photographed the rock paintings. I also interviewed First Nations people from the communities at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun regarding the rock paintings. It is these three components and the intricacies associated with each stage of my research that 1 present in this chapter. First in this chapter, I begin with a discussion of the ethnographic and archaeological texts I consulted for this project. Even though this stage of the research was continuous throughout the project I present this step first because these sources influenced my research right from the beginning. Second, I move on to discuss acquiring approval and permission from the University of Northern British Columbia Ethics Review Board, the First Nations communities at Stuart Eake/Nak’al Bun, and other individuals and institutions I contacted during this research. Third, I describe the stages of conducting fieldwork which I divide into two components; archaeological, where I examine my pre-fieldwork planning and testing activities, along with the locating and recording method I engaged in to document the rock art; and ethnographic, where I examine the process I employed to interview the First Nation people of the area. Finally, I provide details regarding the analysis I performed with respect 73 to the information generated during the interview process and the roek art motif data I gathered. My research methods were significantly influenced by the work of Linda Tuhiwai Smith, author of the renowned Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (1999). In this work, Tuhiwai Smith discusses at length the history and intricacies of research and how it has, and continues to impact Aboriginal communities around the world. I developed my research framework based on several key points Tuhaiwai Smith advocates regarding de-eolonized research. In particular; I acquired permission and sought input directly from the communities associated with the rock art I intended to study; I engaged in a study that was of interest and importance to the First Nations communities I was working in; I conducted a project that recognized the people participating in the research; and I engaged in a study that revealed aspects of culture that respects people. Ethnographic and Archaeological Texts Ethnographic and archaeological texts provided me with background knowledge regarding Carrier culture history in the area of Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun and rock art research through out British Columbia and North America. These texts and other secondary sources comprise the literature review in Chapter 2. Some of these ethnographic sources and archaeological reports provided me with a basic knowledge of the symbols used by the Carrier people to communicate with one another. Consulting these sources prior to generating first-hand information enabled me to embark on the fieldwork portions of my research with an informed mind. 74 In particular, I rely on the work of Morice (1893), Comer (1968) and McMurdo (1971). 1 chose these specific sources because of the First Nations interpretations of signs, symbols and rock markings recorded by each of these authors. MoriceN work is particularly relevant to this study beeause over 100 years ago he recorded information regarding the rock art at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun based on the knowledge provided by the Native peoples of the area. Although the effects of contact and efforts to assimilate the Carrier people were already well established by the time Morice was writing in 1893, he was privy to traditional knowledge generated at a time and in a cultural context that was eloser and perhaps more similar to the traditions of the painters and their contemporaries. From Morice 1 draw information regarding Carrier symbols, which include hunting signs, tattoo images and rock art motifs (cf. Figure 34, p. 116; Figure 35, p. 117; Figure 36, p. 118). The similarity in terms of form and subject matter between these symbols provide me with a base of known-images to work from in order to “see” and interpret other rock markings. The direct connection between the information Morice provides and the rock art 1 study in this project justifies the emphasis 1 place on his work to provide interpretations of the paintings. 1 include reproductions of Morice’s illustrations to provide details concerning the signs, symbols and markings he identifies. 1 discuss the process of acquiring permission to include Morice’s illustrations and the work of others further on in this chapter. Corner (1968:117) does not record an abundance of Native perspectives regarding the rock art but he does record several interpretations for some of the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun markings, based on First Nations perspectives in 1929. In a similar manner as 1 draw from Morice, 1 consult Comer’s work to identify and interpret the rock markings. 1 include reproductions of Comer’s illustrations of the roek art motifs beeause his drawings bring 75 clarity to some of the images that have deteriorated since the time of his writing thirty-eight years ago (cf. Figure 37, p. 119; Figure 38, p. 120). McMurdo’s (1971) work was produced as a result of salvage efforts sparked by the construction of a new railway link between Fort St. James and Dease Lake. The repercussions of the new rail-line included the purposeful destruction of six rock art sites on Takla Lake. Prior to the destruction of the pictographs, McMurdo visited the Takla Lake rock art with a local First Nations Elder, Mrs. French, who provided him with interpretations and explanations of the paintings. The cultural affiliation between the people of Takla Lake and Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun, along with a striking similarity in rock art motif design, makes the inclusion of McMurdo’s report relevant and important in this study. I draw from Mrs. French’s interpretations to aid in the identification of the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art motifs that I provide in Appendix L. These secondary sources continued to play an important role throughout my research, especially during the analysis component. In particular, the information Morice generated regarding the rock art of Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun and his close affiliation with the people of the area were too significant to this study to disregard. I discuss how these texts informed my analysis later in this chapter. Approval and Permission The rock art at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun is of relevance to all of the First Nations people who live in this area (Figure 4). Before I could start my research I needed to acquire permission from the First Nations people in the area to locate and record the paintings and to interview community members about the markings (cf. Tuhiwai Smith 1999; Association of 76 Canadian Universities for Northern Studies 1998). I started by eontacting the community of Tache and making an appointment with the elected Chief. I chose to seek the approval of the First Nations people before I applied to the Ethics Review Board at the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) because it was important for me to know, before I began, if this project was of interest and importance to the people at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun (cf. Bishop 2002; Kirby and McKerma 1989). Tache ^ Yokoochc ■ Sftiàüïifcè * Figure 4. Map o f Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun with First Nations communities. In July of 2003 I met with Chief Thomas Alexis at Tache to discuss my research ideas and asked permission to study the rock paintings and interview community members. This meeting was my initial contact with the people at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun and it concluded with Chief Alexis granting his personal permission for my intended study. After our meeting he introduced me to the research department staff at Tache and informed them of my project. I contacted the community of Yekooche in the fall of 2003.1 met with Dean Joseph, Treaty Coordinator for the Yekooche Nation, at his Prince George office and explained my research project. Dean made arrangements for a meeting with Chief Joseph Allan and Council members Curtis Joseph and Linda Allan. We met a few days later and I presented my research interests about the rock art and my desire to include people from Yekooche in 77 the interviews. Chief Allan and the Connell expressed a keen interest in the projeet and they too approved my request to interview Yekooche community members. I was advised by the research staff at Tache to get in touch with Sharon Bird at the Treaty Office in Fort St. James regarding working with members of the Nak’azdli community. I did this several months after I received the initial permission from Chief Alexis. Sharon requested a copy of my research proposal which she forwarded to the Band Council. Shortly after their next meeting in June of 2004,1 received written permission in the form of a Band Council Resolution that allowed me to interview Nak’azdli community members (Appendix A). During my permission-seeking meeting with Chief Thomas Alexis, he suggested I develop a version of the research that would be suitable for the TTazt’en and Nak’azdli elementary school curriculum - a module that could contribute to the ongoing efforts aimed at connecting the children to the land. This suggestion was exactly what I was looking for in the way of “giving back” something of importance and interest to the communities. When I spoke with Chief Joseph Allan and the Band Council at Yekooche, we agreed that they too would receive this tailored version of the research for their school curriculum. Although this work for the school curriculum is not part of this thesis, I will draw directly from my research to fulfill this commitment. This will involve tailoring a version of my thesis to meet the needs of the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun school curriculum and it is one of the contributions I make with this research. I will embark on this project after I have fully completed this thesis. Once I knew the communities of Tache, Yekooche and Nak’azdli were interested in my project and approved my research ideas, I applied for research ethics approval from the 78 Research Ethics Board at UNBC. All research projects conducted by students and faculty at UNBC must first meet the requirements set out by the Ethics Board. In August of 2004,1 received the Ethics Board approval for my research project (Appendix B). This approval enabled me to conduct research involving people in an interview environment. Part of the success of my ethics application included the interest and approval I had received from the First Nations communities. In terms of other types of “permission” that I was required to apply for I contacted Early Canadiana Online (ECO) by email to request permission to include some of Father Morice’s illustrations of the rock paintings at Stuart Eake/Nak’al Bun. In my request, I provided general information regarding my research project and which illustrations I planned to used. On November 24, 2005 the ECO office replied and approved my request (Appendix C). In order to request permission to include other relevant illustrations of the rock art, I telephoned the residence of Mr. John Corner in Vernon, British Columbia and spoke with Mrs. Comer about my research and my interest in her husband’s illustrations. We decided I would draft a letter outlining my research and a consent form she could sign once she and her children reviewed my written request. Mrs. Corner signed and returned the consent form to me early in December 2005 (Appendix D). I also requested permission from the British Columbia Archives in Victoria, British Columbia, to include photographs of the rock art taken in 1948.1 mailed my request and details regarding which images I wanted to use to the Archives office on November 8, 2005. I received written permission later in November 2005 to include the photographs of the rock art (Appendix E). 79 On December 20, 2005 I met with Terry Chamulak who is the Senior Hydrologist with the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority, regarding the history of water levels at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. Terry provided me with several graphs regarding the water levels at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun that he had generated from the data provided on the Water Survey of Canada internet site twww.wsc.ec.ge.caL At that time Terry gave me verbal permission to include these graphs in this thesis. Fieldwork I chose to begin the fieldwork portion of my research not with the interviews but with locating and recording the rock paintings. It was important to me to be familiar with the types and locations of the markings before I interviewed people. Recording the rock paintings before the interviews enabled me to bring photographs of the paintings for people to see and talk about at the interviews. In this section 1 describe the processes involved in locating and recording the rock paintings and the planning and testing that occurred before hand. Archaeological Fieldwork I essentially began the pictograph locating and recording stage of this research a few years ago when I first visited Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. By the time I was to conduct the official survey for this project, I had already visited the paintings quite a few times and was familiar with the location of several of the northeastern rock art sites. For this project, however, I would need to survey the entire shoreline of the lake in a systematic and efficient manner. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun is a substantial body of water and it has 270 kilometers of shoreline, and several islands - all of which I had to consider in my search for the paintings. 80 Pre-Fieldwork Planning and Testing In order to achieve an efficient and thorough survey of a lake this size I organized it into manageable sections on a nautical map. Working from the nautical map in conjunction with topographic information I was able to determine which areas of the lake would be less likely to contain paintings and which areas held a higher probability of having markings. The areas less likely to have paintings were along the southern shore, where the terrain is predominately cliff-free forested land. Conversely, the topography of the northern shoreline was more likely to have paintings because of the abundance of exposed rock surface at the water’s edge and at inland areas near the shoreline. This was an important part of the planning stage because areas with less rock surface to examine would require less time for viewing and recording. I considered all areas of the lake important to examine, including the areas with a low probability for markings because they could very likely contain shoreline boulders or rock outcroppings too small to be indicated on my maps. I determined that in order to conduct a thorough survey I would need to examine the entirety of the lake, including the southern shoreline and all of the islands. I explain the proeess I used to conduct this survey later in this chapter. Rock art sites contain a vast amount of information that needs to be recorded properly. Prior to conducting fieldwork I consulted several sources regarding rock art recording practices (cf. Whitley 2001; Bednarik 2001). In particular, I needed to determine what type of data I would need to gather at each of the sites. I amalgamated information from these sources and composed a rock art recording card that would be both functional to use in the field, as well as to ensure the recording of vital data (Appendix F). 81 Photographie Testing. Photography plays a very important part of rock art recording because, unfortunately the photographs we generate today may be all that is left of the rock art for us to study and appreciate in the future (cf. Bednarik 1994, 2001). Rock art researchers, therefore, have an obligation to produce the best quality photographs and recordings possible. With this realization in mind, I set out to determine the suitability of the photographic practice I intended to use by conducting several tests. This part of the preparation proeess led me to consider particular aspects of photography - gamut, colour charts, and lighting. This next section discusses these issues and presents the testing processes 1 engaged in prior to photographing the paintings, and the recording proeess I used to photograph the roek paintings. Gamut. Gamut is the range of colours a piece of equipment or a photographic process has the ability to reproduce. Cameras, lenses, film, paper, and processing equipment all have a certain gamut range and each does not have the ability to reproduce colours that reside outside of that range. In order to establish whether or not the photographic equipment I intended to use was capable of reproducing the colours of the paintings with clarity I conducted several gamut-revealing tests. 1 began my gamut tests by selecting pages from the Munsell Soil Color Chart that best corresponded to the colours of the pigment in the paintings at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. I had previously been to the lake and compared the pigment of the paintings to the Munsell Soil Color Chart and established a sense of the ranges of colour that were present in the paintings. 1 photographed these pages with the camera and lens combinations I intended to use during the fieldwork. Similarly, the film was processed and printed by the photo lab I planned to use. I compared the photographs to the original pages of the Munsell Soil Color Chart in 82 order to determine if any of the roek painting pigments resided outside of the gamut range of my photographic equipment and the photo lab’s processing equipment. All of the test photographs successfully reproduced the colours of the Munsell Soil Color Chart with definition and clarity. Had a lack of colour separation between hues been evident in the photograph of the Munsell Soil Color Chart my photographic equipment and process would have been unsuitable for recording the paintings. I recognize that my method for determining gamut suitability was based on a purely subjective test - one that was reliant on my visual perception alone - however, it is important to note that this type of test has the ability to instantly reveal when a gamut range is unsuitable. From this test I was able to determine that the equipment and process I intended to use during the fieldwork did, in fact, have the ability to reproduce and distinguish the colours of the paintings. GretagMacbeth ColorChecker Color Rendition Chart. For many years professional photographers have used the GretagMacbeth ColorChecker Color Rendition Chart (Macbeth Color Chart) to establish consistency in colour reproductions (Appendix G). Photographers place the Macbeth Color Chart in the photographs they take and then make visual comparisons between the reproduction and the original. The goal of this exercise is to reproduce the colours of the Macbeth Color Chart accurately, thereby, generating photographs that authentically reflect the colours of the subject. There is a significant need to establish control over colour reproduction because many elements are present in a photographic process that can act to prevent the achievement of reliable and consistent colour. Elements such as the camera, lenses, lighting conditions, processing procedures, and time of day all play a potentially detrimental role in the reproduction of accurate colour. 83 When photographers use the Maebeth Color Chart, a sense of control and consistency is gained, however, its use is entirely subjective. The process of using the Macbeth Color Chart is based on the skill, experience, and perspective of the individual making the comparisons. Colour accuracy and perception can differ greatly between individuals and this is further enhanced or compromised by environmental lighting conditions. Establishing colour consistency is a more complex procedure than determining gamut suitability. Because of this fact, I felt unable to rely on the Macbeth Color Chart during the photographic stage of the research. I decided to see if there was a less-subjective method that would be more conducive to achieving the high quality and consistent results I envisioned. IFRAO Standard Color Scale. My concerns led to me to consider colour scales designed primarily for rock art recording purposes. Several years ago the International Federation of Roek Art Organizations (IFRAO) developed a colour scale specifically for roek art photography (Bednarik 2001:163). As with the Macbeth Color Chart, the IFRAO Standard Color Scale (The Scale) is intended as a means of establishing colour consistency in photography (Appendix H). As the intended foundation of a universal rock art recording method. The Scale comes with very specific instructions. Successful use of The Seale is dependant on its specific angle and placement inside the photograph, and its distance from the camera (Bednarik 2001:67-73). The key to the functionality of The Seale, beyond a subjective perspective is its use with a specific software program - exclusive to the Museum of Man in India (Bednarik 2001:67). Having some familiarity with the features of the natural landscape and the location of the paintings at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun I doubted the likelihood of being able to successfully use The Scale in its specific manner. I knew I would not be able to photograph many of the 84 paintings from the distances and angles required when using The Seale. This fact, along with the inaccessibility of the software program, offered me little in the way of achieving my photographic goals. I found myself no further ahead in the way of achieving a better method for colour consistency than was offered by the Macbeth Color Chart. In addition to these concerns, the IFRAO Standard Color Scale exhibited other characteristics that were non-conducive to my aims of gaining a better hold over quality and consistency. The Seale is essentially very small, and the opportunity to use its colour swatches in a meaningful marmer is, therefore, compromised. In reality, many of the rock art panels at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun are unsuitable in size and location for a photograph containing The Scale to be useful in the goal of establishing control over colour casts. Size was not the only concern I had regarding The Scale. Only saturated colours comprise the IFRAO Standard Color Scale. Bright rich colours can endure significant fluctuations in light before displaying a change in colour. Relying on purely saturated hues to indicate colour casts augments the likelihood of inconsistency, thereby, compromising quality. Mark and Newman (1997) note a similar dissatisfaction in the choice of colours on The Scale, and they favour the use of the Macbeth Color Chart for photographing rock art. Their choice is based on the presence of saturated and subdued colours with the Macbeth Color Chart. Subdued colours are more sensitive to changes in light and, therefore, more likely to be effective in displaying colour shifts. The inclusion of subdued colours makes for a more reliable check for colour casts and improves the potential for high quality photographs. MiKs Image Calibration Chart. Despite the findings of Mark’s and Newman’s (1997) test and the durability of the Macbeth Color Chart over time, I have chosen to develop a 85 colour chart specifically for the photographic process involved in this project (Appendix I). The MiKs Image Calibration Chart (The Chart) offered several benefits that were unavailable to me with the IFRAO Standard Color Scale and the Macbeth Color Chart. First, predetermined mathematical values embedded in the MiKs Chart permitted me to break from a purely subjective colour correction method. Unlike the Macbeth Color Chart this new method was not completely reliant on individual perception of colour. Numeric values, determined and manipulated by a computer software program (Adobe Photoshop CS) would enable me to achieve more consistency in terms of density and colour. Second, the MiKs Chart was developed within the same system that was used to produce the photographs of the paintings. By this I mean the same camera, lenses, film, chemistry, and paper were used to develop The Chart as was used to capture and reproduce the images of the rock art. Utilizing the same equipment and printing process for The Chart and for the rock art photographs added a level of reliability and consistency that was otherwise unavailable to me. Third, the colours chosen for The Chart include subdued, in addition to saturated colours. Because of a higher sensitivity to light, subdued colours offered an added advantage for detecting colour casts. Shades of the primary colours (red, green, and blue) were included on The Chart because a diversity of colours is needed to detect the many possible colour fluctuations that can occur. Several of the colours were selected from the Munsell Soil Color Chart that are reflective of the pigment found in the rock art at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. This fact added a degree of relevance with respect to pigmentation and potential changes in colour that could not have been achieved with the IFRAO Standard Color Scale or the Macbeth Color Chart. 86 In addition to the colour swatches on the Miks Chart, black, gray, and white patches have been included. These patches, like all colours, contain values of red, green, and blue (RGB). With respect to the MiKs Chart, the RGB values of the black, gray, and white patches were set by a computer software program (Adobe Photoshop CS). The selected RGB values are based on tests conducted by Haynes and Grumpier (1997). This program recognizes RGB values along a continuum, 0 being the darkest and 255 being the brightest. At each end of this continuum no detail is discernable in a photograph, because it is either too dark or too bright for detail to be recorded. The purpose of photographing a subject is to record detail and appearance, so operating within a certain range of this continuum is necessary to produce photographs that contain detail in both the brightest and darkest areas. The RGB values in the black, gray, and white patches reflect my concern for operating within the detail-laden areas of the highlighted and shadowed portions of the photographs. The function of the black, gray, and white patches is to enable a mathematical, rather than a purely subjective process to be used in the production of photographs. 1 recognize that 1 cannot do away with subjectivity completely. There will always be an element of individual perception in the photographs of the paintings, but the inclusion of the MiKs Chart contributes toward achieving more consistent and reliable colour. The purpose of the MiKs Image Calibration Chart is to provide the opportunity to edit, where possible, every photograph through the same process and to balance the RGB values in the photographs to the same numeric value. Without the use of The Chart, significant differences in colour would be inevitable in all of the rock art photographs. Where possible 1 photographed each pictograph panel twice, once with the MiKs Image Calibration Chart present and again with The Chart absent. The second photograph was 87 taken immediately after the first, with no camera setting or lighting changes. My intention here was to produce one data-photograph and one presentation-photograph that were identical to one another in terms of colour and quality. The MiKs Chart, present in the dataphotographs, was used to determine colour corrections, which in turn were applied to the presentation-photographs. At times some of the panels were located so high on the cliff faces that it was impossible to include The Chart. In these cases I made visual comparisons with formally edited photographs and balanced the colour accordingly. Lighting Conditions. Throughout the day, natural sunlight changes in colour as it passes through the Earth’s atmosphere at different angles. Photographs taken in the morning differ in colour considerably to those taken in the evening, as it does with photographs taken at different times of the year. The MiKs Chart enables a negotiation of this type of change, however, it does not provide a means to deal with all the changes to natural light that happen in the course of a day. In addition to changes in colour, natural light fluctuates further according to cloud cover and the movement of the sun. As a result of weather conditions, photographs often contain a combination of well-lit areas and shaded spots. This discontinuity in lighting plays a lessthan-advantageous role in rock art photography (as well as in field archaeology). Paintings partially covered by shadow and partially inundated with sunlight cause problems for light metering, camera settings, and ensuring the recording of detail in both the highlighted and shadowed areas. This condition proved to be a daily challenge during the photography portion of my fieldwork. The sun shone brightly everyday for the three weeks I worked on the lake recording the paintings. The lovely sunny weather caused strong shadows to be cast across 88 the rock art panels. Consequently, 1 found myself backtracking to panels later in the afternoon or ensuring 1 arrived early in the morning to particular sites in order to photograph them in even-lighting conditions. It was not until after I had completed the photographic portion of my fieldwork that I had an opportunity to consider a method for blocking and reflecting light that would have been beneficial to the recording process. The blocking and reflecting tests I conducted showed that reflected light created a flattened sense to photographs, as a result the pictographs were somewhat more visible than with unaided natural light, but the natural eondition of the rock surface was lessened. Blocked light restored the contours of the rock face giving the pictograph a more authentic appearance, but the pigment was slightly less visible. From these tests, I determined that reflected light was better suited for photographing faded or calcite covered pictographs because it may enhance the pigment and bring out more details. Conversely, blocked light was better suited to well preserved, more vibrant pictographs where retaining the natural features of the rock surface could be achieved without sacrificing visibility of the paint. Locating and Recording the Paintings Once I had determined the approach I would take to locate and record the paintings I departed for Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun and several weeks of intensive work. The testing and planning 1 had done prior to locating and recording the paintings enabled me to work efficiently and record a vast amount of information. Almost all of the paintings at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun are visible from the water and those that are not are most easily accessed from the water. It was therefore, logical to locate the paintings by boat. 89 Yükooi'hc .Stuart Lake Nak*^;Bm-. \ Nak’azdli Figure 5. Map o f Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. I began the shoreline survey at North Arm and worked down the lake in sections toward Nak’azdli (Figure 5). I spent three weeks scrutinizing the entire shoreline of the lake, slowly traveling the perimeter in a 14 foot Mercury inflatable boat searching rock outcroppings and cliff faces for pictographs. My husband, Robert Ksyniuk accompanied and aided me during this portion of my fieldwork, as he did during the interview process. I examined the southern and northern shores with equal attention, despite the low probability associated with the southern shore. Even though the leg of my survey along the southern shore took less time than the examination of the northern shore, 1 thoroughly explored this entire shoreline. 1 exerted the same effort with respect to the islands in the lake, where 1 examined the perimeter of each land mass. 1 photographed all traces of pigment that 1 found, regardless of how small or how deteriorated sections of pigment appeared. As a result, some of the photographs of the paintings contain patches of red pigment that no longer have any discernable shape (Appendix L). 1 incorporated the MiKs Chart in the photographs 1 took of the paintings. In cases where the paintings were located at inaccessible heights 1 did not utilize the Chart. During the archaeological survey 1 organized the paintings that 1 located into sites. A site is defined as a place where past human activity is evident (Bednarik 2001). 1 determined the 90 boundaries of the rock art sites according to the natural features of the land, where I considered the location of the paintings and how that corresponded to the rock outcroppings and cliff faces. Through this approach I recognized 14 rock art sites (cf. Figure 7, p. 101; Figure 8, p. 102). Within each of these sites I organized the paintings according to panels. Whitley (2001) defines a rock art panel as “a natural rock cleavage plane or surface.” I determined the boundaries of the panels in accordance with the natural orientation of the rock surface. If the surface of the rock changed in terms of the direction it faced I classified it as a separate panel. This approach resulted in varying numbers of panels between sites. For example Site 2 extends for several hundred feet and contains eighteen panels while Site 13 is composed of a single painting. These organizing approaches enabled me to acknowledge the placement of the paintings in the physical landscape. In addition to photographing the rock art, I filled out a separate recording card for each panel. I generated a site and panel number for each painting and 1 recorded measurements, where possible, and the direction each panel faced. I recorded the location of each rock art panel onto a Garmin etrex Vista global positioning system (GPS) as a waypoint. These waypoints recorded the location of the rock art sites digitally and they provided me with a way to keep the rock art images organized in the order they were located along the shoreline. GPS units vary in precision according to the satellite signal received by the unit. Location and cloud cover for example, can interrupt and alter the aecuracy of the signal received by the unit. In order to acknowledge this fluctuation I recorded the level of accuracy in distances of feet for each waypoint. 91 Ethnographie Fieldwork At the time I began my research, many aspects of the Carrier culture were in the process of being studied through organized efforts in each of the community treaty offices. Attention was focused on incorporating research results into the First Nations school curriculum so that the knowledge gathered during projects was reciprocated with the communities. The timing and nature of this project fit nicely into the agenda and scope of TTazt’en and Nak’azdli research aspirations and the aims of the Yekooche people to highlight the traditional ways of their people. Interviews with First Nations People I chose to conduct the archaeological survey prior to the ethnographie portion of my fieldwork. At the beginning of my working relationship with the people at Tache we discussed the possibility of Elders accompanying me to the rock art sites during the recording stage, but unfortunately this did not happen. The busy nature of people’s lives, my own included prevented us from successfully coordinating group-trips to the rock art. Recording the rock art prior to conducting the interviews enabled me to develop a familiarity with the paintings prior to speaking with First Nations people and to bring photographs of the markings to the interviews. 1 felt it would have been inappropriate for me to arrive at an interview without the information 1 gathered during the archaeological survey, to have done otherwise seemed to me to be disrespectful to the people who had agreed to an interview. Arranging Interviews. Once 1 had all of the rock paintings photographed and recorded 1 started to organize and arrange interviews with First Nations people at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. At the time of my initial meeting with Chief Alexis, 1 was furnished with a list of potential Tache respondents. 1 worked from this list to organize interviews and I eoordinated 92 this process with the Treaty Office at Tache, under the supervision of Beverly Bird and Mona Anatole. From this list 1 interviewed Philip Felix and Josie Felix on October 25, 2004 and Celestine Thomas on November 9, 2005. My interviews with these people took place in their homes at Tache. A similar process occurred at Nak’azdli, where 1 coordinated my efforts with Sharon Bird at the Treaty Office. At Nak’azdli I interviewed Mildred Martin in her home on October 27, 2004. At Yekooche 1 coordinated my activities with Dean Joseph who supervised and helped me arrange interviews. The people from Yekooche that participated in this project are Johnny Joseph, Bessie Joseph, and Agnes Joseph. I interviewed the Josephs in their home at Yekooche on March 16, 2005. With the exception of the Yekooche participants, who were contacted in person, all the remaining participants were contacted by telephone to arrange interviews. Despite the close working relationship between the Tache and Nak’azdli offices, each operates in a very different manner. Negotiating the expectations and protocols of each office took some getting used to. For example, at Tache the research department preferred to control the arranging of interviews. At Nak’azdli, the research department was happy for me to organize my own interviews and inform them of who intended to participate. Once 1 was familiar with the intricacies and expectations of the individuals on staff at these offices, I was better able to navigate this portion of the fieldwork. The Yekooche office also operated in a different manner. There I was invited to an Elders’ gathering in Fort St. James. Dean Joseph introduced me to several people and initiated the interview process by explaining the project and asking people if they would like to be interviewed. 93 In addition to contacting people on the reserves, I telephoned the Dakelh Elders’ Society in Prince George and explained my project and asked if they knew of anyone who would like to participate. I was referred to Nellie Prince, who agreed to an interview on April 9, 2005. During the initial telephone conversation with Nellie, she suggested I contact Yvonne Pierreroy in Prince George. Yvonne and I met at UNBC on October 5, 2004 to talk about the rock art. My conversation with Yvonne led to an interview with her mother Mildred Martin, of Nak’azdli. The Tache Treaty Office kindly provided me with transcripts from six interviews conducted by the Tl’azt’en Nation in 1998 and 2004. These interviews covered a variety of topics, but only two interviews pertained to the pictographs, consequently they are the only previously conducted interviews 1 utilize in this researeh. These interviews were conducted in 2004 with Robert Hanson and Sophie Monk. Conducting Interviews. At the interviews 1 conducted, each participant was provided with a consent form and a written description of the research project. 1 explained the project to each person and we reviewed the consent form in detail before we began talking about the rock art. Most people were uncomfortable signing the eonsent form before we had diseussed anything, but 1 was careful to explain the necessity of informed consent and how the interview could not begin without their written permission (cf. Crabtree and Miller 1999; LeCompte and Schensul 1999). 1 recorded onto tape each of the interviews 1 conducted. Recording the interviews in this manner permitted me to listen with undivided attention to what people were saying and to fully appreciate the many family photographs 1 was shown. 1 transcribed each interview tape 94 and organized the information people provided into several themes, according to the functions and purposes of the rock art. I discuss these themes in detail in the next section. At each interview I made sure the participant was aware that they could choose to be anonymous at anytime during the research process (cf. Flick 1998). However, none of the informants chose to be anonymous therefore their names appear in this research. Without the input of these individuals this project would not have been successful at revealing the unique and purposeful nature of the rock paintings at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. As a way of bringing recognition to the people who taught me about the rock paintings I have been careful to include their names and voices throughout this thesis as testimony to their presence in this research and the knowledge they shared. Each informant also had the opportunity to request copies of the transcripts and details of the research as it unfolded. I made sure each person was aware of this and I was careful to include several ways in which I could be contacted so people could make such a request. None of the informants or members of the various treaty offices made any requests to see transcripts or read drafts of this research. The type of questions asked during an interview can play a significant role in the kind of information that is passed on. I wanted to be sure that I did not sway the interviews in any particular direction. I saw my role as being to encourage people to talk about their knowledge and feelings toward the paintings (cf. Maguire 1987; Reinharz 1992). I did go to each interview with a list of questions (Appendix J) I hoped would be answered, but in reality the answers to my questions arrived in varying degrees throughout the conversations I had with people. 95 Asking participants to “tell me about the rock paintings” was at times the only question from my list that I inquired about. I preferred to listen to what people had to say and how they wanted to say it, rather than control the direction of conversation (cf. Hesse-Biber et al. 1999). By listening to Elders speak and by following their paths of consciousness I was led to unexpected and interesting places that my prepared questions could never have reached. During the interviews people spoke about the rock art in terms that reached far beyond our diseussion of the paintings. People spoke of their experiences that were relevant to the rock art in personal ways. They expressed their knowledge of the functions attributed to the paintings and they spoke of traditional life-ways of the past. Accompanying the knowledge they provided were expressions of sentiment and respect toward the past and its people. At Tache and Nak’azdli, Elders participating in this research received monetary acknowledgement for their contributions. The Nak’azdli and Tache offices respectfully and kindly provided this support. I contributed to this acknowledgement by bringing a gift of appreciation for all of the informants at the time of the interview, including the people I spoke with at Yekooche. I had originally intended to engage in collaborative story or “tour” writing with the people I interviewed. I envisioned band members gathering together to develop a story line for a rock art narrative that could be incorporated into this thesis - one that could illustrate the human activities associated with rock painting. Unfortunately, this joint writing activity did not come about for a variety of reasons, of which the lack of space to hold such a meeting and my own lack of familiarity with orchestrating such an event played key roles. 96 Analysis This interview process generated a vast amount of interesting information. In order to organize and thoroughly utilize the knowledge and experiences that had been passed on to me, 1 examined the transcripts of each interview and isolated two general themes associated with the meanings and purposes of the rock art. Within these two broad categories 1 identified several sub-categories. Table 1 below illustrates these themes and the associated sub-categories. The intricacies of these themes are fully explored in Chapter 5. Message-Paintings Divination-Paintings Informative to the audience Informative to the painter 1. Provide details about the painter’s location and activities on the land. These paintings aid the audience to find the painter. 2. Provide details about the territory and how to travel through an area. 3. Provide details about the sightings and locations of animals. 1. Function as divination portals that provide information about the painter’s adversary. Table 1. Themes in the meanings and purposes o f the Stuart Lake/Nak’ai Bun rock art. In addition to this information regarding the functions of the rock art people talked about the paintings in terms of contemporary personal meanings. This information was important to my research because it indicated that meaning continued to be embedded in the rock art landscape despite the disappearance of the painting tradition. 1 isolated these personal meanings from the transcripts and organized them according to participant. 1 present these personal meanings in Chapter 5. 1 found during the analysis stage of my research that negotiating the transformation from spoken to written word presented some challenges. 1 realize that this transformation is a very 97 real and necessary part of research. This thesis is an example of a type of research that is dependant on that transformation, but one that simultaneously allows the voices of the participants to be heard. During this transformation process, I paid particular attention not to distort or filter words. I do, however, recognize that my presence has not been completely removed. I feel that by presenting the words and experiences of the informants I have successfully navigated this transformation. I feel that by including the words of the informants as they were spoken effectively removes myself as researcher from the traditional position of omniscient observer thereby maintaining a focus on the participants and their knowledge (ef. Tuhiwai Smith 1999). In terms of analyzing the rock art sites I recorded during the locating and recording stage of my fieldwork I organized the photographs of the paintings according to their location on the lake. I kept these photographs easily accessible and visible throughout the analysis stage of my researeh so that I could become completely familiar with the motifs and their locations on the lake (Figure 6). IÜ Figure 6. Working-organization o f the rock art photographs. 98 I worked through the images of the roek art and identified the subject matter of each painting according to seven main categories. I divided each of these base-categories into several sub-categories. I was not able to identify all of the images down to this smallest classification because some of the motifs did not contain enough detail to make this possible. My interest here was to be able to identify as much detail as possible in each of the motifs. Table 2 illustrates this organization and category scheme. The catalogue of photographs in Appendix L contains this information for each of the paintings. Animal Carnivores Fox/Wolf/Coyote Bear Otter Ungulates General Caribou Amphibians Frog Reptiles Snake Lizard Rodents Beaver Birds General Swan Grouse Fish General Sturgeon Animal Related Den Human Standing Human Related Canoe Dam Walking Trap/trapline Water Trail Laying down Fishing basket Pawprint Natural Features Mountain Abstract Unknown Dot Tallymark Moon Star Finger­ mark Circle Arch Table 2. Rock art m otif categories and sub-categories. I identified the subject matter of each painting according to the interpretations contained in Morice (1893), Comer (1968), and McMurdo (1971). In order to understand how each 99 image was constructed I spent time drawing the motifs. This exercise enabled me to recognize intricate details and identify basic elements in each of the motifs that aided me in the interpretation stage. My interpretations of the rock paintings appear in Appendix L. Throughout this project I endeavored to understand the rock art based on First Nations knowledge and information. The sources I relied on to understand the social processes associated with the paintings are the interviews I conducted with First Nations people and to a lesser degree the work of Moriee (1893). I continued with this sentiment in the interpretation stage even through I relied on secondary sources to identity the markings. The secondary sources I draw from to interpret the paintings are rich with First Nations identifications of the motifs. In the following chapter. Rock Art Tours and Meanings, I focus on the incentives and motivations for the production and use of the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art. I also provide information regarding the location, access and orientation of the rock art sites and I include some photographs and interpretations of the rock art, along with the personal narratives generated in this research. 100 Chapter Five ROCK ART TOURS AND MEANINGS Since the onset of this project it has been my goal to emphasize human action and agency with respect to the rock paintings at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. This goal has stemmed from my interest to reach beyond a strictly quantitative approach to the study of rock art. It is my belief that the adoption of a research framework that includes an examination of the social processes of rock art and the content of markings is better suited to the aims of archaeology and its endeavor to understand the human past. It is when we consider the human social processes associated with rock art in conjunction with the markings themselves that we gain a richer insight into the past as a place and a time of meaning(s). In this chapter I present the information and experiences that comprise my fieldwork and archival research. This chapter represents my journey of learning about the rock art. Here I embrace the concept of “tour” first introduced in Chapter 3, as I include my experiences of conducting this project. In keeping with the spirit of the “tour,” the voices of First Nations people resonate throughout this chapter including those who participated in this research and projects conducted in 2004 by the Tl’azf en Nation. The words of Father Morice as he endeavored to understand the rock art at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun are also included in this chapter. I begin with an account of the rock art landscape and the physieal context of the markings. I provide details concerning location and accessibility and orientation of the pictographs. From there I move on to a consideration of the rock art motifs themselves where I provide a discussion of the symbols and signs traditionally used by the Carrier 101 peoples for communication. Here I make the connection between the rock art motifs and this larger system of non-verbal communication based on a shared subject matter and image style. Next, 1 discuss the human action and agency associated with the production and use of the rock art by focusing on the teachings of the First Nations Elders who participated in the interviews for this research and projects conducted previously. 1 also draw from Morice in this discussion of social processes. Finally, I present the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art as a landscape of continuous meaning. My own photographs of the rock art punctuate this chapter and 1 provide a catalogue of roek art images and interpretations in Appendix L. The Physical Landscape of the Rock Art In addition to locating and photographing the rock paintings during the archaeological survey portion of my fieldwork, the time I spent on the lake looking for paintings provided me with a sense of the physical landscape of Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun as well as a familiarity with the location and types of rock art images. The process I utilized to locate the paintings included traveling slowly along the water close to the shore, examining rock surfaces for markings and exploring the many trails and escarpments located near the water. It was during this leg of my research that I became familiar with the rock art in the context of the physical landscape of the lake and the immediate surrounding area. It is with this context that I begin the “tour” of the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art. ^ ®Previous research efforts in the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun area have recognized several o f the same sites that I identify in this thesis. In particular, the work o f Morice (1893), Comer (1968) and Richards (1978) have identified the location o f rock art sites along the southeast shoreline o f Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. In this research 1 build on these previous efforts to include a survey o f the entire shoreline of the lake, including the islands. My survey o f Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun results in the identification o f rock art panels not previously recorded. Each o f Morice (1893), Comer (1968) and Richards (1978) have their own unique ways o f organizing the rock art into sites, as do 1, making it difficult to identify exactly how many more sites have been identified in this thesis. 102 Tache k Yekooche g ■■■il! /^jproxmiiikfOCA'IO.? o f rivif .ifT A'fr Figure 7. Map o f Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun with rock art sites Location Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun is approximately 50 miles in length and it is roughly 6 miles across at its widest point. The northern shoreline in particular exhibits a natural landscape that is breathtakingly beautiful and considerably more suitable for rock painting than the southern shore. The lake is circumscribed by exposed rock faces and mountainous areas along the northern shore and forested lowlands along its southern edges. The rock faces of the northern shore provide miles of potential painting areas, and it is this shoreline toward the east end of the lake, that the largest concentration of rock art sites is found (Figure 7). The lake contains roughly 30 islands, many of which exhibit exposed rock surfaces that are suitable for painting. Interestingly, only one of these islands - Battleship Island - houses paintings. The map below (Figure 8) illustrates the distributions of sites around the lake and complements the information in Table 3. ’ ^ I have chosen not to disclose the exact locations o f the rock art sites identified in this research because o f my personal concerns regarding vandalism. 103 * Hk Yekooche  A pproxim ate location o f inland rock art site Figure 8. Map o f Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun identifying the inland rock art sites. Site Site 1 Site 2 Sites Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site? Sites Site 9 Site 10 Site 11 Site 12 Site 13 Site 14 Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun Rock Art Site Locations Mainland Island Shoreline Inland Northeast Northwest Paintings Paintings ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Table 3. Rock art site locations on Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. Open Air ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Rock Shelter ♦ 104 .SÊ£ Figure 9. Rock art site near Yekooche Bay, Site 14. Figure 10. Rock art site at Rainbow Rock, Site 13. The pictographs at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun are located on prominent rock outcroppings and exposed cliff faces along the shore for the length of the lake (Figure 9 and 10). To a certain extent, the painters chose the location for their markings based on the presence of these outcroppings and cliffs, but a substantial amount of suitable roek surface along the shore remains unpainted - indicating that the placement of paintings was dependant on criteria other than the availability of roek. Today we started and finished surveying the section o f lake near Tache. Found only one pictograph today near the Caroosat Reserve. Iw as surprised to fin d ju st this one painting in an area o f this size, especially considering the amount o f exposed rock along the shore. Today has left me contemplating the placement o f paintings and questioning why here and not there? Field Journal entry for June 2, 2004 At this point during my fieldwork in June, 2004 1 knew the locations of the paintings were not solely dependant on the presence of exposed rock, but it would not be until 1 spoke with the First Nations Elders during the interviews that the connection between the placement of the paintings in the landscape and the messages contained in the markings would be fully revealed. All of the rock art sites at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun contain paintings located along the shore. Two of these sites also have markings located at inland areas away from the shoreline. 105 These inland sites are located within a few hundred feet of the main shoreline. Even though these sites are accessible from the shore I have categorized them as “inland” versus “shoreline” because they are not directly accessible or visible from the water. The photographs in Figures 11 and 13 illustrate the location of these two sites with respect to the water’s edge. The paintings that are located on Battleship Island are also positioned at the water’s edge. With the exception of one pictograph, all of the paintings at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun are located at open-air sites where the markings are exposed to the year-round forces of nature. The exception to this condition is a large rock shelter that houses one painting (Figure 12). This pictograph is located at the top of a steep slope and it cannot be seen from the water. At the top of this rocky rise a trail skirts the edge of the rock shelter and continues up the mountain. This rock shelter houses one of the 18 rock art panels at Site 2. Despite the presence of exposed rock surfaces and small outcroppings on the mountain I did not locate any more paintings in this area. Figure 11. Photograph o f the rock shelter site at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. The white arrow indicates the approximate location o f the painting at Site 2. Figure 12. The pictograph located in the rock shelter. 106 Figure 13. One o f the inland sites at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. The white arrow indicates the approximate location o f the paintings, Site 8. Accessibility and Orientation All of the rock art at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun can be reached via water travel, including the two inland sites. While some sites are only accessible from the water others have shore access that would have provided a landing on which the painters stood to produce the markings. Many of the sites can be accessed from both inland and water routes, however, at most sites there is little room or suitable ground surface for people to have been at the location for purposes other than to paint the rock. Large jagged rocks compose much of the ground cover at many of these sites. Consequently, the opportunities to excavate the areas directly associated with the paintings are minimal. The graph below illustrates the accessibility of the rock art panels at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun (see Appendix K which provides more in-depth details about site accessibility). Stuart Lake Rock Art Site A ccess » 35 o 25 m Water and Land ■ Water Only □ Water with Shore □ Land Only Figure 14. Access conditions for the Stuart Lakc/Nak’al Bun rock art. 107 The paintings at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun have not always been accessible and oriented in the manner that they are today. The information contained in Figure 14 and Appendix K reflects the contemporary accessibility and orientation of the rock art. The position of the paintings relative to the shoreline would have been different during the time the paintings were created and used. Changes in the physical landscape caused by lake level fluctuations would have affected access, orientation and travel to the rock art to some degree. Determining the exact condition of the landscape at the time of the painters is beyond the scope of this project, however it is important to note that the physical landscape of the rock art has changed over time. S tu art Lake Daily Recorded S easo n al Fluctuations (1955 - 1995) 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 T I ? m 3.0 2.5 y 2.0 1.5 ■ 1 .0 # 0.5 -H 0.0 - Jan F eb M ar A pr M ay Jun Ju l A ug S ep O ct N ov D ec M o n th -M ED IA N ="^#™™AVBRAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM I Figure 15. Seasonal fluctuations in water level at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. Graph kindly produced by Terry Chamulak, Senior Hydrologist, Basin Operations, Saskatchewan Watershed Authority. Reproduced with permission by Terry Chamulak. Changes over time to the physical landscape at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun in terms of lake level fluctuations have been recorded by the Water Survey of Canada (www.wsc.ec.gc.ca). This organization maintains records regarding the history of lake level fluctuations throughout the country. These records for Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun span from 1955 through to 1995. Since the time this record keeping began, Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun has exhibited a 108 general seasonal trend in lake levels where the highest fluetuation occurs in the months of June and July. At this time of the year the lake level fluctuates approximately 4.5 meters (Figure 15). A significant change in lake level potentially affects both the accessibility and location of the rock art. The physical changes to the rock art landscape in terms of lake level are illustrated below (Figures 16, 17 and 18). Figure 16. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art, Site 9. Photograph taken in 2005. Lake level is considerably lower than it is in the 1948 photographs o f the same site in Figures 17 and 18 below. Figure 17. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art, photograph taken in 1948. Tbe white box location o f the paintings, o f British Columbia Archives, 1-20885. Figure 18. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art, taken in 1948. The white box indicates the location o f the paintings. Photograph courtesy o f British Columbia Archives, 1-20886. 109 The history of annual water levels at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun indicates that on a yearly basis the average daily water level peaked inconsistently throughout this forty year period (Figure 19). Consequently, the mean monthly water levels for Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun reveal no historic trend capable of estimating historic water levels prior to 1955 (personal communication Terry Chamulak December 22, 2005). This condition prevents calculating the water levels associated with the distant past and the creation of the paintings, however, characteristics of some of the paintings indicate that a significant change in water level, relative to today’s conditions, is plausible for the time period when the paintings were placed onto the rock. Annual Peak Mean Daily 5,00 4.50 4,00 3.50 m c* 3.00 O 2.50 O 2 .0 0 UJ 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 IS a a a 25 Y ear Figure 19. Annual peak mean daily water level for Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. Chart kindly produced by Terry Chamulak, Senior Hydrologist, Basin Operations, Saskatchewan Watershed Authority. Reproduced with permission from Terry Chamulak. Some of the paintings at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun are located so high up the rock faces that reaching them from the water is impossible (Appendix K). In the cases of all of these higher elevation paintings, no footholds or ledges are available to provide access for humans to 110 ascend the cliff face. Here it is important to consider how the painters could have reached these heights and how the level of the lake may have played a role in the placement of these higher elevation paintings. Elsewhere in the province, Aboriginal rock art is located at similar heights on what seems like impassable rock surfaces. The Stein River Valley in southern British Columbia is such a place. Several rock paintings are located in places much higher than is humanly possible to reach. For the Stein River rock art, First Nations oral history reported that in the past people dangled from above, secured by ropes, to access and paint prominent rock panels (York et al. 1993; see also Williams 2001 for a contemporary approach to high elevation Aboriginal rock painting). The terrain associated with the higher-elevation paintings at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun is such that it is unlikely for someone to have descended from the roek elifts above. The condition of the rock surface is such that a person would have to descend an incredible distance to reach these panels. Descending the mountain from above to reach the loeation of these higher-placed paintings would also entail bypassing equally suitable if not moreprominent rock surfaces located much higher up. Such methods of painting are not indicated in the ethnographic material for Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun, nor were they discussed during the interviews with First Nations people. It is more likely that the water level, at the time of painting, was higher than it is today. An increase in the water’s level anywhere from 5 to 15 feet would have provided the elevation increase needed to place these higher-located paintings in their current positions. The inerease in water level that provided the conditions necessary for the painters to plaee these higher-elevation markings onto the rock would have also caused the submersion of other paintings (Figure 20). Ill m w m . Figure 20. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art, Site 2. Photograph taken in 2005. These paintings would have been submerged during the time o f higher water levels. When I conducted the lake survey for this research I started looking for rock art sites at the northwest end of the lake near Yekooche, and I traveled southeast toward Nak’azdli. On previous trips to the lake I had always traveled in the opposition direction, beginning at the east end and working my way up the lake in the direction of Yekooche. Part of my reason for beginning at the northwest shore was to vary my experience on the landscape and to begin recording the rock art at the farthest point on the lake. This new route meant that the rock art sites I was already familiar with would be reversed in order and therefore 1 would see them from a new perspective. Some of the paintings that I had so easily seen when I traveled the lake in my usual direction toward Yekooche, were now not so easily visible. For these paintings I had to look 112 back, away from the direction I traveled in order to see them. If I had not already known where some of these markings were positioned I could have easily missed locating them because of the direction of my journey. These paintings are not so much obstructed from view when approached from the northwest as they seem to have been consciously placed with travelers from the east in mind. Could the painters have oriented their markings with the target audience’s direction of travel in mind? Or did the orientation of the markings reflect the painters’ direction of travel? Figure 21. Shoreline rock art site oriented away from the water. The white arrow indicates the approximate location o f the painting. "igure 22. Pictograph Ideated at the site featured in Figure 21, Site 11. Other markings around the lake are positioned on rock surfaces so as to be visible via a particular approach or route of travel. The paintings loeated along the shoreline are typically oriented toward the lake and most are only visible from the water, indicating that water travelers were the expected audience and that the painter had used the same mode of transport. However, two shoreline paintings are purposely oriented away from the water and positioned on the rock to be most visible to travelers arriving at the shore via an overland route (Figures 21, 22, 23 and 24). The position of the paintings at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun does not necessarily function to dictate a path of movement across the landscape but rather positioning reflects the direction of travel most commonly taken by the audience. Placing 113 paintings according to common routes of travel would have been in the painters’ best interests for communicating their messages. e Figure 23. Shoreline rock art site oriented away from the water. White arrow indicates the general placement o f the painting. Figure 24. Pictograph located at the site featured in Figure 23, with inset illustration, Site 11. During the archaeological survey it was my intention to locate and record as much of the rock art possible, but I recognize that my efforts have produced only a partial recording of the entire rock art assemblage. The vastness of Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun and the abundance of exposed rock surfaces both contribute to the likelihood of me having “missed” locating and recording some of the paintings, as do the processes of weather and the effects of taphonomy which work to deteriorate and remove pictographs from the rock surface (cf. Bednarik 2001 ; Watchman 1991; Whitley 2001). Figure 25. Deteriorated pictograph. Site 2. Figure 26. Deteriorated pictograph, Site 2. Figure27. Deteriorated pictograph, with inset, Site 4. 114 Given the extent to which First Nations people have oeeupied the area of Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun and the rest of the province, it is feasible to expect more rock art to be located in this region. It is plausible that much more rock art (than was recorded in this study) did exist at one time at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun and that the affects of weather and taphonomy have successfully removed these older paintings. I did located evidence of eroded pietographs at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun during the archaeological survey. The photographs in Figures 25 to 31 illustrate examples of some of the deterioration that has occurred with the passage of time. ill Figure 28. Deteriorated rock art panel. Traces o f pigment indicate that at one time many paintings covered this rock panel, Site 4. Figure 29. Illustration o f pictograph panel featured in Figure 28. Figure 30. Pictograph encased in calcium carbonate, Site 2. Figure 31. Illustration o f pictograph featured in Figure 30. Produced by John Comer, 1968. Reproduced with permission from Mrs. Dora Comer. 115 Locating and recording the rock art was one part of my fieldwork. Identifying and I interpreting the images was another part. Although some of the motifs are easily recognized as animals and humans, others are more difficult to identify. Despite the challenges of interpretation, it is evident that the paintings share a remarkable similarity in terms of form. Once I had learned to identify the subject matter of the motifs I recognized that the content of the markings was also significantly similar. This comparability in style and subject matter indicated that the painters constructed their markings based on a collective understanding of symbols, rather than as an individual expression of style. The Carrier practice of using commonly understood symbols to communicate with one another was not limited to rock art motifs. Carrier Communication Symbols Toward the end of the 19th century Father Morice investigated the symbols commonly used by the Carrier people. His research included an investigation of the rock art at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun where he recorded illustrations and First Nations interpretations for a few of the pietographs (Figures 32 and 33). At this time, the Native peoples considered most of the pietographs at the lake to be “very old” (Morice 1893:207). In addition to his interest in the rock art motifs, Morice was also concerned with other types of symbols. In particular, he gathered information about the symbols used by the Carrier people for facial and bodily tattoos (Figures 34 and 35) and the signs used by hunters for communication in the forest (Figure 36). 116 @ A cnneor âb ig e b e e lk Ademoammounhin Acanbouonmmoontmin Figure 32. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art images identified by First Nations peoples o f the area, circa 1890. Illustration produced by Morice (1893). Reproduced with permission from Early Canadiana Online, produced by Canadiana.org, CIHM 15679. A ApWybewwi&mWabeliWd B *** D Yihla, the Great Bear E Atoadorftog P A bW O A grew a Afhh Figure 33. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art images identified by First Nations people o f the area, circa 1890. Illustration produced by Morice (1893). Reproduced with permission from Early Canadiana Online, produced by Canadiana.org, CIHM 15679. Just as a similarity is evident in the rock art motifs at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun, a correlation in terms of style and subject matter exists between the markings made on rock, the images used for tattoos and the hunters’ symbols recorded by Morice. The important role animals played (and continue to play) in First Nations economic and subsistence strategies is 117 reflected in this system of non-verbal communication where animal forms dominate the assemblage of symbols. The types of animals portrayed in this system of symbols were (and most still are) the basic food and raw materials traditionally harvested by the Carrier people (cf. Morice 1889, Hudson 1983). It is because of this similarity in form and subject matter that 1 draw from this assemblage of symbols to identify and understand the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art motifs (Appendix L). 1 recognize that Morice recorded only a selection of symbols rather than an entire system of graphic images. It is therefore likely that the assemblage of tattoo symbols and hunting signs used by the Carrier people contained additional images unreported by Morice, just as the types and quantity of rock art motifs present at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun exceed those markings recorded by him. Nonetheless, these symbols and the interpretations provided by the First Nations people offer a logical starting point from which to understand and identify the subject matter portrayed in the rock art. \ Otter 1 Any fish 1 ? Fern root Mountains digger i Any bird Beaver 'h c Marten Silhouette of a stick Lizard Caribou Figure 34. Carrier facial tattoos identified by First Nations people in the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun area, circa 1890. Produced by Morice (1893). Reproduced with permission from Early Canadiana Online, produced by Canadiana.org, CIHM 15679. The subjects depicted in this system of symbols were part of the “real-world” in which the Carrier people lived and engaged in a reciprocal relationship with the land and its resources. 118 but the way in which these images were rendered was coded rather than “real”. This coded form of communication was based on a series of simple efficient line-types where only the predominant features of the subject were depicted. For example, the fish in Figure 34 has been reduced to several solid lines that represent its body, tail, gills, and fin, as have other animal forms in this same table. Similarly, the beaver and other animals in Figure 36 are composed of straight lines that represent the main features of each animal’s body. These characteristics are also reflected in the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art motifs (Appendix L). •Ù I t Beaver Toad Ü 0 Grizzly Bear Grizzly Bear Hindpaw Forepaw Moon Figure 35. Carrier bodily tattoos identified by First Nations people in the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun area, circa 1890. Produced by Morice (1893). Reproduced with permission trom Early Canadiana Online, produced by Canadiana.org, CIHM 15679. Most of the symbols recorded by Morice are of this “sold-line” type but others are more “outlined” in terms of style, where characteristics of the subject are indicated by blank internal spaces. The crane/beetle motif in Figure 32 and the beaver symbol in Figure 34 are examples of this style. Some “outlined” images contain internal markings which provide details which are characteristic of the subject. The frog motif in Figure 33, the fern root digger in Figure 34 and the beaver symbol in Figure 35 are examples of images displaying internal detailing. Other symbols have this internal space completely filled in with pigment, rendering the image in a “silhouette” style. The caribou marking in Figure 32, the grizzly bear, grouse, and sturgeon motifs in Figure 33 are examples of this “silhouette” style. 119 X A Bird Lizard Beaver r r (f O ' Lynx Caribou Marten Î t 1 Woman Man Snake Bear Canoe « tn r % Unknown Figure 36. Carrier hunting communication symbols identified by First Nations people in the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun area, circa 1890. These symbols were drawn with charcoal onto trees. Produced by Morice (1893). Reproduced with permission from Early Canadiana Online, produced by Canadiana.org, CIHM 15679. Morice (1893:206) indicated that the practiee of tattooing had already hegun to diminish by the time he recorded this information. He also indicated that the knowledge and ability to interpret tattoo images and roek art motifs were also rapidly dwindling by the time of his writing (1893:209). The paucity of Native knowledge regarding these practices, however, may not have been so pronounced. It is possible that Morice, eager to demonstrate his success at assimilating the Native peoples, exhibited a certain level of resistance with respeet to reporting the eontinuation of traditional ways and traditional knowledge (cf. Mulhall 1986). Based on a letter sent to Harlan Smith in 1929, Corner (1968:117) indicated a similar reeeded level of First Nations knowledge regarding the interpretation and understanding of the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun pietographs. At this time. Chief Louis Billy Prinee and “other Carrier Indians” (Comer 1968:117) interpreted some of the rock markings at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. The interpretations these people provided appear in Figure 37 and 38. The 120 rock art interpretations gathered in 1929 differ somewhat from the identifications made in 1893. For example, Morice (1893:207) records the central animal symbol in Figure 37 as a grizzly bear with a trail of paw- prints. The Native people interpreting this image in 1929 identified this same animal figure as a caribou with grizzly bear tracks (Corner 1968:117). 4lJ # . E. Sturgeon A. Lizard B. Frog F. Grizzly hear tracks C. Bush D. Caribou with grizzly bear tracks Figure 37. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art images identified by First Nations peoples, circa 1929. Produced by Comer (1968). Reproduced with permission from Mrs. Dora Comer. The discrepancies in interpretations can be attributed to a variety of causes. It seems from Corner’s report that the efforts in 1929 to record interpretations of the rock art were based on the knowledge of a very small group of people. The small population providing the interpretations, along with the passage of time, discontinuation of the painting tradition and physical changes to the motifs due to the affects of weather and taphonomy likely contributed to these discrepancies. 121 Figure 38. Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art images identified by First Nations peoples, circa 1929. The motifs labeled A and B were interpreted as collectively illustrating a “man-eating fish.” Produced by Comer (1968). Reproduced with permission from Mrs. Dora Comer. Despite the alleged lack of knowledge regarding the subject matter of the rock art motifs, the people providing interpretations in 1929 acknowledged the context in which the paintings originated as being dreams and life events (Comer 1968:117). This context echoes Morice’s account of the role dreams played in the creation of some of the pietographs featured in Figure 33. Similar sentiments regarding the connection between the motifs and real life events were made by the contemporary First Nations people participating in the interviews conducted for this research. 1 discuss these aspects of the purposes and functions of the rock art shortly. Here what is important is that the Native peoples from the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun area have identified the same influences and contexts for the production of the rock paintings over the past one hundred and twelve years. In addition to these “hand drawn” symbols, hunters and other people traveling through the forest left other types of messages for one another (Morice 1893:210; see also Blaekstock 2001). These additional types of messages were constructed from tree branches which were cut, secured into the ground and modified according to the nature of the message (Figure 39). 122 These messages were left in the forest at prominent places along the path. This type of communication was used in conjunction with the symbols in Figure 36, which were typically drawn onto trees with charcoal. Morice (1893:210-211) recorded the following examples and interpretations of this mode of communication. B G y > y y ' — y y A. an unmodified branch B. “we are going to camp a short distance off. You need not be in a hurry” C. “we are going to camp a long distance from here; hurry up!” D. “we have turned back a while, but finally gone on” E. “a burnt rag hanging from a bent down rod; it is the signal o f famine and an appeal for help, the direction o f the stick always points to the trail o f the distressed party” F. “a small bunch o f dry grass wherein a small rod has been driven as an indication that a member o f the band has been sh o t” G. “a short stick is found hanging across the trail...everybody will understand that a person in the preceding party has come to his death from natural causes” Figure 39. Carrier communication signs identified by First Nations people in the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun area, circa 1890. Produced by Morice (1893). Reproduced with permission from Early Canadiana Online, produced by Canadiana.org, CIFIM 15679. The level to which the Carrier people could effectively communicate with one another through this system of symbols and messages is made evident by the following passage by Morice (1893:210), I was traveling in the forest at a time when the yearly reappearance o f the salmon was eagerly looked for. At a certain spot not very far from a stream we came upon one o f those aboriginal drawings made by an old man who had no knowledge o f the syllabic signs now used to write the Dènè 123 languages. The drawing represented a man with a woman, a horse with a burden, the emblem o f a bear with three marks underneath, and a caribou. Above the whole and hanging from a broken branch were four pieces o f young bark cut out in the conventional form o f the fish. Now the message was instantly read by my companions, and it ran thus: “Such a one (whom they named) has passed here with his wife, and a good load o f furs, after having killed three bears and one caribou; and furthermore he capturedfour salmon two days ago. He is now gone in that direction that we follow ourselves. ” This date could evidently not have been told had the Indian marked with charcoal the sign o f the salmon. He was so well aware o f this and was so much intent upon fixing the time o f the first appearance o f the fish that he had had recourse to the pieces o f bark, the relative degree offreshness o f which he knew could easily be determined by the experienced eye o f his fellow Carrier. George M. Dawson reported a similar incident in his journal of 1875-1876 (Cole and Lockner 1989:256). Referring to a Carrier man he hired to guide him from Fraser Lake to Francois Lake, Dawson recorded this experience, Where stopped fo r lunch, found an old canoe drawn up, & near it, tied to a piece ofbark-string & depending from a pole, a bundle o f weeds, about 9 inches long, neatly folded together, & a piece o f spruce bark, on the inner side o f which roughly drawn a figure... Could not quite understand the Indians explanation o f these signs, but appears that the Indian owning the canoe left it here, & not having returned, or been seen for a long time, is supposed to be dead. These signs put up by some o f his friends to make this known. Both Morice and Dawson provide explicit examples of the extent to which this system of symbols and signs were capable of communicating detailed messages. These examples also demonstrate the existence of a collective understanding, on behalf of the Carrier people, regarding the interpretation and meanings embedded in this system of graphic images. During the interview process, contemporary Elders spoke of the rock art motifs at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun in terms of this shared understanding of form and meaning, and the ability of people long ago to read details from a few simple rock markings. 124 The Humanized Landscape of Action, Agency and Rock Art Philip and Josie Felix were the first Elders to teach me about the paintings. We sat at their kitchen table in their home at Tache, and looked at the photographs I had brought and we talked about the rock art (Figure 40). Philip often pulled pictures from a family photo album to show me the places and experiences he spoke of. Flis voice was confident and his manner was that of a man easy to respect. I saw faces of cherished family members in the photographs and heard Philip tell stories of travel and expeditions into the mountains. A sense of pride resonated in his voice when he spoke of the past, and at times, I sensed a pang of longing in him for days gone by. Figure 40. Looking across Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun from Tache. Philip explained that the paintings were cormected to people traveling across the land as they went about their business. “Afy dad used to tell me, they go, wherever they travel, they pen these, or any rock where people pass by, ” he said, pointing to the photographs (Figure 41). “Whatever they had been doing, they put their design on the rock. ” He explained further that, clans all over the place, they got their own design... and they put it, they put it on the rock... when they go traveling around looking fo r animals, when they see one, they put it on, they put their mark on the rock. ” 125 Figure 41. Rock art motif associated with trapping/hunting, Site 4. Philip informed me, in the past, people used to locate and follow animal trails in order to make observations about animal behavior and learn the habits of the creatures in their territory (Figures 42, 43 and 44). He explained, that because different areas had different animals, people were usually familiar with the patterns and habits of the animals in their own territory, but not the animals found in other regions. Markings, he said, left on the rock, worked to help those people traveling outside their own territories find the animals they were looking for. As an example, Philip explained, IfManson Creek man pass through down here he ’II put his design like the caribou - them, they got caribou - so these people around here, they don Yknow where this animal like that kind is [but] then after that (the painting) they know where to go, where to get caribou. Anywhere they travel...thempeople, they used to travel all over, they were hunters, they hunt all over, no little small area. We just hunt what we know best around here - like moose, deer, and bear and things like that, and beaver. All that we know w e’ve got here, that’s our design - all that animals around here. And them, they got caribou and elk further down south, and out west they might have something else, they’ve got all kinds o f designs. That’s how these got on the rock. 126 Figure 42. Caribou motif, Site 9. Figure 43. Two bear pawprints with inset illustration, Site 2. Figure 44. Beaver motif. Site 10. Throughout the time that Philip spoke about the paintings, Josie offered insightful information that brought clarity to our discussion of the rock art. Josie commented that the paintings indicated things like the location of meeting places for hunters to draw together and that the short tally-mark paintings indicated a system of counting - perhaps relating to the number of days spent in the bush, or the expected duration of a trip (Figures 45 and 46). Figure 45. Human motif with two sets o f four tally-marks. Site 14. Figure 46. Frog m otif with four tally-marks, Site 14. My interview with Philip and Josie Felix revealed information about the rock art that surprised me. 1 had not expected them to speak about the markings in terms of practical functions associated with everyday life. Most of the readings I had done about the purposes of rock art usually contained a link between the creation of motifs and vision quests, rites of 127 passage and dreams (cf. Teit 1896; York et al. 1993). From the teachings of Philip and Josie, however, it became apparent that the rock art was once part of a vernacular landscape of the past that was associated with the painter’s everyday activities of economic and subsistent pursuits. Two days later, after having spent the morning with Philip and Josie at Tache, I found my way to Mildred Martin’s house near Nak’azdli. Soon after my arrival and our initial greetings, I sat on the floor of her living room and we paged through the roek art photographs. Mildred studied the photographs carefully and thoughtfully before she spoke. She told me the paintings were ^'messages that they leave fo r each other, ’’ so people could tell one another what they were doing. The paintings were messages that contained information about peoples’ activities on the land. Mildred explained that painting the rock was like ''leaving a message fo r the person to know what he is doing, when he will be back.'” 1 asked Mildred how someone reading the paintings could know who went where, and she answered by reassuring me that the people reading the messages, "know where and what it means. ” Mildred explained that most people in general were well aware of each other’s activities out on the land, "everybody knows where they set their traps. They know their lands. Just about everybody knows each other’s lines, where their lines are, where they ’re trapping, where this person is trapping, and that person, where he is trapping. They all know each other’s lines. ” Mildred associated the painted circle image, which appears with considerable frequency at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun, as representing traps or traplines. She interpreted the painting in Figure 47 as "three days out, three days back, ” with respeet to traveling to a trapline (see also Figure 48). 128 Figure 47. Trapping related motif. Site 9. Figure 48. Animal m otif with trap/trapline symbol and a trail o f fmger-dots, Site 2. Figure 49. Human motif near Yekooche, Site 14. Mildred identified the painters as men ^'because they are the ones that travel around” but, she also noted, “ there was always a woman with them. The woman traveled with the men on the traplines, long time ago. Sometimes, the whole family would go together on traplines. ” We talked next of men and women and how they would have been represented in the paintings. Mildred explained that women would be Figure 50. Human motif with fmger-dots, Site 9. depicted wearing a long tunic-like skirt, much like the image of the woman illustrated by Morice in Figure 36. I eagerly scanned the rock art photographs hoping to find a human figure portrayed in the manner Mildred described, but I did not—all of the figures seemed to be wearing pants rather than skirts and others were only head and shoulder depictions that did not reveal either gender (Figures 49, 50 and 51). Mildred Martin spoke of the purposes of the paintings in the same Figure 5 1.Human motif with fmger-dots, Site 9. practical manner as Philip and Josie Felix had discussed subsistence practices and the communication function of motifs. Even though I had not identified the images of women in the rock art motifs or confirmed their role as painters as I had originally hoped, Mildred’s knowledge of the rock art revealed that the presence and importance of 129 women was associated with the paintings because they were present during the activities marked onto the roek. Not only were the images associated with the activities and work of women and men, but the presence of entire families traveling together on the land was contained in some of the markings. Figure 52. Looking out toward Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun from Yekooche. My next interview was in the home of Johnny, Bessie, and Agnes Joseph, at the community of Yekooche (Figure 52). I sat at the kitchen table with Johimy and Bessie and we talked about the paintings and looked at the photographs. Someone had recently placed a bough on top of the wood stove in the kitchen and gradually a fresh forest scent mixed with the warmth of the fire spread throughout the room—it was lovely. Johnny’s extensive knowledge and experience with traditional hunting and trapping was demonstrated to me as soon as we began talking. The way he spoke of such things reflected a level of knowledge that could have only come from a lifetime of experience. This knowledge was what was embedded in the detailed miniature traps and snares he had skillfully crafted and happily showed to me. Johnny began to explain the rock paintings by telling me ''the paintings are stories o f what they have been doing, all those things, what they been doing when they go out trapping, fishing. They set rabbit snares, they set w olf snares, all that. ” 130 Bessie Joseph explained that the details recorded in these stories could aid in the recovery of lost hunters and trappers, by revealing information related to the whereabouts of the missing people. Bessie stated it was more likely when someone was hunting, rather than trapping, that they ' : . would become lost. A lost hunter would be inclined to stay underneath a spruce tree overnight and then find their way back in the light of day, she said. The painting feature in Figure 53 Figure 53. Human motif with arch and finger dots, Site 1. reminded Bessie of a lost hunter sleeping under the trees. Agnes Joseph joined us at the table shortly after I arrived. Her hair was silvery white and her face beautifully etched with time. She sat beside the table in a comfortable chair and listened thoughtfully to our conversation. After a few minutes, Agnes began to explain the paintings. “/ong- time ago, they write on this - where they are going, what they are doing- that’s what they do... When they were in the bush there, that’s what they do, they write on the rock, where the path is and they tell them where they ’re going...the Indian ways, they write...so they don’t get lost, i f they get lost they have to look fo r it... they write things the Indian way, our language ” (Figures 54, 55 and 56). Agnes explained the concept of how the paintings would have & been used, with respect to lost trappers, “when our husbands they going to go to their trapline or some other place they tell us where they are going, and then i f they don’t come back, then somebody has to go and look fo r them if they get lost... he writes where he is going to go and i f he don’t come back, they have to lookfo r it (the painting).” Figure 54. Rock art motif associated with hunting and trapping activities, Site 8. 131 Figure 55. Pietographs associated with a trail. Figure 56. Detail o f markings located near a trail. Site 8. Johnny, Bessie, and Agnes all explained the rock art to me with a conscious effort to focus on the past and explain how things used to be. They commented about how things have changed so much with the passage of time and that gaining a complete understanding of the roek paintings and the messages contained in them is very difficult to achieve today. Bessie identified this problem and eloquently stated that it was so because, “r/ze people who knew about the rock art are gone now. ” The Josephs spoke of the messages contained in the rock art that were associated with subsistence activities and the desire on behalf of the painter to communicate with others who were out on the land. In particular, Agnes Joseph highlighted the function of the paintings as serving to aid in the location of individuals or groups out on the land. In this manner the rock art motifs functioned in a similar way as the hunting signs reported by Moriee (1893:210- 211). In both the rock art and hunting signs, placement in the landscape played a key role 132 alongside a shared understanding of the symbols. The knowledge shared by the Josephs complemented the real life activities discussed by the other participants and the association of such events with the rock art. I returned to the community of Tache some months later to meet and interview Celestine Thomas. Two people from the Treaty Office, Morris Joseph and Nathan Seymour had arranged to be present for the interview and to video tape Celestine. 1met Morris and Nathan at Celestine’s house and we gathered in the living room next to the wood stove. The door to Celestine’s house was propped open which allowed the crisp November air to mix with the warmth from the fire. Throughout the interview, Morris and Celestine often spoke in Carrier to one another and I wondered about the impact English was having on the research and how different things would be if 1 were able to speak Carrier. We began our discussion of the rock art by talking about people traveling through the territory and Celestine explained that, "‘‘p eople used to go from place to place depending on the game and what time the fish is ready. Especially when the salmon run, that’s when they come here. They move from place to place, they never stayed in one place, they were all over” (Figure 57). Celestine explained the process of making paint by first identifying that a """special type o f rock” was needed and “not any type o f rock Figure 57. Fish symbol and will do. ” Once the proper rock was ground into a fine powder, shoreline m otif with inset illustration. Site 4. she said, it was boiled and then ready for use. Our conversation turned to the durability of the paint itself and Celestine and Morris both commented how the paintings at the lake had just simply always been there. 133 One of the First Nations people participating in the interviews conducted in 2004 by the Tl’azt’en Nation, spoke about the preparation of the paint used in the pietographs. The red ochre, he said, was taken from the hillside across from Honeymoon Island. The people long ago, he said, would "''make it ju st like powder. They pound, they pound until it get just like powder and they put grease on it and that’s what they paint it with. ” Another person participating in the 2004 Tl’azt’en Nation interviews was Sophie Monk, who stated that the rock paintings used to function in a similar way to placenames in that they provided information to travelers regarding how to move through an area. In particular, she indicated, rock paintings tell of important land and water-use places such as sites to take off for fishing. In cases such as this, the proper placement and location of a painting on the rock was most important. Morice (1893:207) discusses this importance of placement with respect to one of the rock art sites at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun (Figures 58 and 59). The site Morice (1893:207) examines is perhaps the best known of all the rock art on the lake. This painting was created by many individuals over a lengthy period of time, therefore it does not have a continuity in that all the images work to communicate a single message, but rather many individual messages have been left at this site. 134 3C y T Figure 58. Illustration o f rock art panel pictured earlier in this chapter, circa 1890. Produced by Morice (1893). Reproduced with permission from Early Canadiana Online, produced hy Canadiana.org, CIHM 15679. Figure 59. Rock art panel at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun, photograph taken in 2004 o f the same panel above in Figure 58, Site 9. Based on information provided by First Nations people, Moriee (1893:207) reported that the images at this site were personal totems painted over time hy inhabitants of the area. According to Morice (1893:203), personal totems were usually an animal revealed during a dream, after which the dreamer was hound to “look upon it as sacred and to he especially revered and protected.” The totem, then considered a relative, was believed to provide powerful protection in return (1893:203). 135 Morice (1893:207) explains the significance of this site and the painted totems, It is to be seen about halfway between this place, Stuart’s Lake or N a ’kraztli (Nak’azdli) and Pintce, (Pinchi) the nearest village by water. By painting in such a conspicuous place the totem which had been the object o f his dream, the Pincte Indian meant to protect himself against any inhabitant ofN a ’kraztli, as the intimate connection between himself and his totem could not fail, he believed, to reveal by an infallible presentiment the coming o f any person who had passed along the rock adorned with the image o f his totem. The Carrier people of Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun “believed that every youth obtained a guardian spirit, but that only a few favored individuals, through dreams of a special character, apparently, acquired definite medicine power and ranked as medicine men” (Jenness 1943:543). Morice (1889:161) explains this aspect of dreaming further by saying that. It was while dreaming that they pretended to communicate with the supernatural world, that their shamans were invested with their wonderful power over nature, and that every individual was assigned his particular nagural or tutelary animal-genius. Oftentimes they painted this genius with vermilion on prominent rocks in the most frequented places, and these rough inscriptions are about the only monuments the immediate ancestors o f the present Denès have left us (see Figure 60). It is unclear from Morice’s account of personal totems whether the process of producing the totem image was as essential as the form of the motif. He identifies the need for a Figure 60. Bird motif located on a prominent rock outcropping, with inset, Site 13. particular animal motif in order for divination to occur, but he does not indicate whether all representations of that animal provided the same connection for all individuals who considered that animal kin. The process of painting the totem onto the rock may have been an integral component in establishing this “supernatural” connection between the individual and the totem motif. 136 The “supernatural” function of the roek paintings highlighted by Moriee contributes an additional understanding of the purposes of the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art. For this type of pictograph the “success” of the painting was not as dependant on an accurate reading by the audience as it was with the message-paintings, but rather on the relationship the painter had with the motif and the faith she/he had in their personal totem. What is particularly interesting here is that the subject matter and location of motifs in the landscape were important components to these divination-paintings, just as the subject matter and placement were also essential to the message-paintings discussed earlier. Despite the different functions in these types of pietographs a shared reliance on form and placement existed. Continuous Meanings Although the rock art is no longer produced or used in the same marmer as the Elders and Father Moriee revealed, the paintings continue to be part of an important and meaningful landscape to the First Nations people of the area. The discussions that took place during the interviews I engaged in with First Nations people included topics that ranged far beyond the actual paintings. People were constantly reminded of the past while we spoke of the pietographs. People recalled personal memories that were not always directly related to the rock art, but it was apparent that the paintings both triggered and were connected to the memories they spoke of. In each case, the people looked back to their own past with fondness. It is these memories and meanings that I highlight here. Yvonne Pierreroy described the meanings and her personal memories that are invested in the roek art landscape at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. Yvonne was the first person I interviewed 137 for this research and we met on campus at the University of Northern British Columbia. Yvonne took time to listen to my research ideas and she made suggestions regarding people to contact. One such person was her mother, Mildred Martin. Although I had not yet met her mother at the time Yvonne and I spoke, I would soon find out where she acquired her patient and thoughtful manner. Yvonne explained the significance the paintings hold for her by saying, “/Ytells that we were here, and we are still here, this is p roof that we were always here. ” Yvonne’s memories, invoked by our discussion of the paintings, were focused on family and the past. As we talked about the paintings she remembered events from her childhood. My dad would travel all around the lake and all around the lakes around it, all our lives we did this, and our ancestors too. As children, every summer, my dad used to take us, he used to build river boats and he would go when we were out o f school in the summer. We lived in Fort St. James and he kept a twenty foot river boat, he would pack about a month’s supply offood and fuel fo r the boat and just take us up the lake and camp in a tent and then we would just camp along the lake. We’d visit family and friends along the lake andjust camp out (Figure 61). Figure 61. Looking toward North Arm, Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. 138 Mildred Martin, Yvonne’s mother also spoke of memories associated with her own past as she identified particular features in the paintings that were connected to the traditional trapping efforts of the painters. Our talk of traditional trapping and the painters moving about the land reminded Mildred of a time with her own family, When I first came out o f Lejac I was fifteen years old. That’s when we started out on the trapline. They teach me how to trap... I was more like a tomboy! I was ju st right along with them...my dad, me and my mother and my brother, David - he never went to school, my dad had him out on the trapline all these years he was growing up. We used to go by boat, we had a small motor and we had a little camp stove right in the boat, there we had a fire going in the boat fo r the children. My mother, she hadfour boys, smaller ones, we had them in the boat. Keep fire going, cook our food right there on the stove. Yeah, we hadfun! That’s really really good, I learned lots and ju st like nothing, we never feel the cold or anything, all fun fo r us. We went around the lake and wherever there was creek running out we set some more traps. Mildred explained her feelings toward the rock art and the people who had created the paintings, 1feel very proud o f the people that left it there. They had something to show that they understood each other, like they were there fo r each other. I t ’s really something how they made it (see Figures 62, 63 and 64). Figure 62. Pictograph panel near Pinchi Bay, Site 11. During Robert Hanson’s interview with the Tache research staff he identified the durability of the paint itself as having a particular personal significance for him. 139 You know, that’s why they say Indian people they have more power than anyone else. By the looks o f this, you know, the p ain t it d o n ’t rub off. Ordinary paint, you know, it rub o ff right now, about a couple o f years, that’s all it lasts, but this, look how many years that water has been slashing in there, it never change, and the sun. That really means something.... Figure 63. Bear paw-prints with shoreline symbol and beaver images, Site 8. Figure 64. Beaver motif with fish symbols, Site 8. In a similar vein, Philip Felix, of Tache, spoke about the rock paintings in terms of the traditional ways associated with the lives of the people who had painted the rocks. The connection between the rock paintings and the painters traveling across the land in search of animals reminded Philip of his own journeys through the area and the values he attached to traditional ways. You see, we go from Middle River, we go up the mountain, that’s how them old people they used to travel, they would stay in their old cabins... We were going up the mountain and that’s where we see all kinds o f signs there. People went through there hunting. That’s seven thousand feet up that mountain, we walk, them old people, they ’re just like mountain goats! They run around all over, in the past. It took us three days to get up there. We had to bring powersaws, that trail was long time ago. Now its oldtime windfall, we had to cut it out. We even fin d a post carved out like that, out o f a tree, carved name, Gunanoot... Lot ofpeople living like that when I was up the mountain, you met up with them, you help them out, you give them what they need. That’s the way they do it in them days, but now even in our days that’s the way I teach my boys. I ’ve got some pictures o f them. I bring them out with me wherever I go trapping or hunting when they were small, about 4 or 5 years old. You ju st bundle them up and put them on the skidoo and I go. No matter how cold it is, you go! 140 Josie Felix recalled an experience her parents had on the water at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun that she felt may be connected to one of the pietographs. Her memory was sparked directly from the painting featured in Figure 65 where a giant fish is seemingly about to devour a man. Josie remembered what her parents told her, I wonder if this is that one, long time ago they talk about this,rock bluff. Down there, they say, they see some kind o f a they call it snake... maybe that’s what they see! They call it some kind o f big big snake, that thing. I think it lives in there, you know where the rock bluff is? They say maybe it lives in there somewhere ...this is where that rock bluff is, somewhere near Honeymoon Island. Somewhere around there they, my parents, seen it too. Really seen it, they see something out there, big waves under the surface, you know. It could just live somewhere down below in the rock bluff, it is deep! Dangerous... harmful... do something to the people who paddle a long time ago. Figure 65. Detail from rock art panel on northeast shore, Site 9. Summary My effort in this chapter has been to provide an exploration of the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art and to present my journey of learning about the markings. I have incorporated information pertaining to the location, orientation, accessibility and interpretation of the motifs with the teachings of the Elders and other First Nations people along with information gathered from the existing ethnographic record in order to understand the physical rock art landscape and the social processes and meanings associated with the markings. These sources have provided insight into the rock art in varying ways. It is the contributions these sources make to the understanding of the rock art that 1 review here. The narratives presented in this chapter affirm a connection between the rock art and activities of the past that were associated with traditional economic and subsistence pursuits. 141 These message-paintings articulate the real life activities of people traveling through the area and experiencing the landscape as they hunted, fished and trapped. The intimate knowledge the painters and their audiences possessed regarding the land and its resources is reflected in the rock markings. The functionality of these message-paintings was dependant on both content and location. An understanding, shared between the painters and their audiences, of the symbols themselves and the meanings embedded in the markings was essential to the success of message-paintings. Without this common understanding the paintings would be illegible to the audience. The placement of such markings was equally important because a “mis-placed” message-painting would be ineffective in communicating information about animal sightings and the locations of people engaged in activities on the land. The information 1 have drawn from the existing ethnographic record, namely the work of Father Morice, reveals that a connection exists between the practice of painting the rock and the process of acquiring and engaging in a “supernatural” relationship with personal totems.^ The adornment of a totem image onto the rock afforded the painter protection in the form of advanced warning regarding encroaching adversaries. The connection people shared with their personal totem images was intimate and powerful and it was this connection that enabled the transmission of information to occur between the painting and the painter. The placement of these divination-paintings in the landscape and the subject matter depicted onto the rock both played important roles in terms of the functionality of this type of marking. The ability of a divination-painting to communicate in a “supernatural” manner with the painter was dependant on the relationship an individual had with her/his personal Personal “totem” is reflective o f Morice’s terminology. I use “totem” throughout my discussions o f divination-paintings rather than “crest” because I draw from and build onto information contained in Morice’s work. 142 totem; therefore only this type of image would enable divination to occur. Sites chosen for divination-paintings were necessarily strategically located in the landscape so as to be informative regarding the whereabouts of rivals. Dreams provided the content for divinationpaintings and the painter’s experience in the landscape provided the knowledge of where to place the painting. The need for a collective understanding of the symbols used in rock paintings was more essential for message-paintings than it was for divination-paintings. A painting intended for divination would have been functional to the painter regardless of its interpretation by others, as long as it was a representation of the individual’s personal totem. Message-paintings however, would have only functioned if the audience were able to accurately read and interpret the markings. In addition to a common understanding of the symbols used in message-paintings, the painters and their contemporaries also shared a collective understanding o f the use o f the landscape as a means fo r communication. The practice of painting the rocks in order to leave messages for others was one that occurred at various points along the length of Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. The survey portion of my fieldwork revealed that the many rock art sites at the lake exhibit a common subject matter, style and placement. It is these commonalities that affirm a collective use of the landscape for communication. This collective use of the landscape to communicate with one another is a practice that extended well beyond the boundaries of Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. Many of the lakes in the nearby vicinity exhibit painted symbols similar in content, form and placement as those at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun (cf. Corner 1968; McMurdo 1971). The rock art at Stuart 143 Lake/Nak’al Bun (and the surrounding area) avows to a continued presence of people over time and it expresses the traditional relationship the people had with the land. The narratives presented in this chapter also suggest that the rock art continues to be revered by First Nations people of the area as a landscape of meaning, despite the cessation of the painting tradition. The narratives shared by First Nations people discuss the meaning and importance of the rock art in terms of the values associated with the distant past of the painters and the more immediate personal pasts of contemporary First Nations. Here we can understand the rock art landscape at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun as the engagement of people in place over time, where meanings continue to be acknowledged despite the changes to the “original” use of the markings. “Even after the “original” meaning(s) of an inscription is forgotten the mark - “fixed” in the landscape - participates in people’s constructions of the world” (Wilson and David 2002:6). In the following and final chapter I offer my conclusions and comments regarding this study of the rock art at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. 144 Chapter Six CONCLUSIONS Throughout the pages of this thesis I have explored a method for researching rock art that is atypical for such studies in British Columbia. I have engaged in this method through a case study of the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock paintings. I bring a concern for vandalism, which is prevalent at many rock art sites in the province and around the world, as my initial motivation for exploring this alternate research approach. In this research I have also explored a method of photographing pietographs that enables consistency and quality in terms of generating photographic reproductions. I review and discuss these research component in this final chapter. First, I begin with an assessment of the photographic process 1 created to record the rock art. Second, I discuss the research theories and approaches I utilized in this study. Third, I examine the concepts of “tour” and “map.” Here I discuss the communicative function of the rock art. Fourth, I acknowledge the contributions offered by this project. I conclude this chapter with a discussion of rock art as a social landscape. The Photographic Process The process I employed to photograph the rock paintings at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun enabled me to generate reproductions of the motifs that exhibit clarity and consistency in terms of colour and quality. These are important aspects of photography in general, but especially in rock art research where photography plays a potentially key role in future studies. Because of the non-renewable nature of rock art and the many adverse conditions 145 affecting rock paintings and carvings, photographs will potentially be all that remains for future study and appreciation (cf. Bednarik 1994, 2001). Photographs generated today will enable First Nations communities to continue teaching their children about the rock art, and in doing so keep the meanings of the landscape alive. Incorporating the MiKs Chart into my photographs permitted me a method for establishing consistency among the many pictures of the rock art 1 generated during this research. Editing each photograph with the use of the Chart was time consuming, but the results made this tedious process worthwhile. Utilizing the Chart in Adobe Photoshop removed colour casts and enhanced the details in both the shadowed and highlighted areas of the photographs. Research Theories and Approaehes In this thesis 1 have endeavored to understand the pietographs at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun in terms of human action and meaning. 1 have explored a humanistic approach to the study of rock art where the central challenge has been to understand the social processes traditionally associated with the production and use of the rock art. My efforts in this study have been to create a body of research that speaks to a broad audience and illustrates the significance of rock art in terms of people, both past and present. Thus 1 initiated a theoretical and methodological inquiry into the study of rock art that was guided by post-processualism. In keeping with this spirit, I have incorporated theories and methods conducive to interpretive archaeology, landscape studies and feminist scholarship. 1 have explored the humanistic interests associated with these avenues of post-processual research through the “tour” concept exercised in this study. These theories and methods also 146 speak to the interdisciplinary nature of this research and its integration of archaeology, anthropology and First Nations studies, where the presence and importance of people are central interests. I have adopted a de-colonized approach to research that is embedded throughout this study. From the onset of this project I consulted and collaborated with the First Nations people from Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun, where I ensured this research was of interest and importance to them and that they approved of the research topic itself as being one in which they would like to participate. These are essential components to de-colonized research, where acquiring permission prior to conducting inquiries into First Nations cultures is paramount, as is the participation of the First Nations people who are cormected to the research topic (Tuhiwai Smith 1999:175-176). Central to the concept of de-colonized research is the action of “recognizing” the people who choose to participate in research (Tuhiwai Smith 1999:175). Acknowledging the participants in this study as individuals and as members of the Yekooche, Tl’azt’en and Nak’azdli nations is one of the ways I attribute “recognition” in this thesis. I continue in this vein by “recognizing” that through their sharing of knowledge and feelings about the rock art, the Elders and other First Nations people played a vital role in the outcome of this research (cf. Nicholas and Andrews 1997). Research that respects people, in terms of both research methods and interests, is not only one of Tuhiwai Smith’s (1999:176) elements for de-colonized methods, it has been one of my key interests for this project since its earliest inception. Because rock art reports in British Columbia tend to focus on form and completely ignore process, the people responsible for the paintings are denied both agency and presence in our understandings and ways of 147 thinking about rock art. This fact has been one of the driving forces for this project - to understand the social/human processes of rock painting. Paintings are created and used by people and it is essential to acknowledge and explore these social processes in order to better understand roek art and to conduct research that respects people. 1 have approached this study of the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art as a product of human agency rather than simply a typology of material culture. This is reflected in my interest to understand the roek art in terms of the people associated with the creation and use of the markings in the past and my desire to understand the roek art as a contemporary landscape of meaning. By focusing on human action and agency I have respected the efforts and presence of the people connected to the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art landscape, past and present. I recognize that the humanistic interest associated with post-processualism is typically missing in British Columbia rock art studies, where an exelusive focus on form usually prevails. However, I have argued that a blended approach that acknowledges both form and process is better suited to the study of rock art and the aims of arehaeology. I have acknowledged the “traditional” approach of British Columbia rock art research and its concern for quantitative data in this study, but the bulk of my researeh interests and efforts have been to highlight the human eomponent of rock art. In this endeavor, the adoption of the “tour” approach has produced interesting and valuable information that would not have been generated by a focus on form alone. 148 Rock Art “Tours” and “Maps” The “tour” approach implemented in this research is based on the teachings of First Nations Elders in the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun area. The knowledge shared by Elders was complemented by the testimonies of other First Nations people along with information gathered from the existing ethnographic record to produce a series of narratives. These narratives provide insight into the social nature and meaning of the rock art during the time the paintings were “originally” produced and used in the distant past. These narratives also indicate that the rock art landscape continues to be invested with meaning for the First Nations people of the area. The “map” component of my research is represented in part by the focus I place on the content and form of the symbols and the correlation I recognize between rock markings, tattoo images and hunting signs. 1 continue in the tradition of the “map” in Appendices K and L where I provide in-depth information regarding the rock art motifs in terms of form, orientation, accessibility and interpretation. I combine the “map” and “tour” concepts to reveal the communicative nature of the rock art in terms of human action. Here I draw from “traditional” rock art research approaches by focusing on the form and content of the markings to make a connection between painted motifs and other forms of graphic communication recorded in the ethnographic literature. Support for this communicative role of the paintings was established during the interview process that formed the basis of the “tour.” When combined, these two concepts provide a meaningful understanding of the function of the paintings in terms of human action and agency. 149 The quantitative data gathered through the “map” approach provides essential information such as, site location, image form, painting size and marking orientation. The “map” approach is what provides a visual experience of the paintings through its focus on motif form and content. Through this approach, important information is gathered regarding the rock art assemblage, but the “map” essentially acts to catalogue the past and discount the presence and activity of the people who created the markings. It is through the “tour” that access to the people of the past is provided. The “tour” of the rock art at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun allows for the contemplation of the people associated with the paintings by discussing the social processes of motif production and use. It is through this approach that we become acutely aware of the painters and the audiences as people active on the land and knowledgeable of the terrain and its resources. The “tour” enables us to envision women, men and children traveling across the territory and engaging in traditional subsistence activities, which permits us to identify the function of the rock art as being a form of communication and to understand the human context of the production and use of the markings as the traditional activities of hunting, trapping and fishing. Here we see the rock art at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun as part of an embodied landscape of meaning that affirms a continued human presence over time. Communication Through the Rock Art Information provided by contemporary First Nations Elders revealed a connection between the rock art and traditional economic and subsistence aetivities of the past, where the painted motifs functioned as a form of non-verbal communiqué. The similarity, in terms of content, style and purpose, between the message-paintings identified by Elders and other 150 forms of graphic communication recorded by Father Morice, indicate that the paintings were an interrelated component of a graphic system of communication. This system of pietorial communication resided outside the normal spoken word and although these symbols did not replicate speech in the same manner as an alphabetic system, (Hill Boone 1994:8) these markings did communicate thoughts and knowledge with the same effectiveness a system of writing communicates ideas. The efficiency of this graphic communication system is attested to in this research through the experiences of Morice (1893) and Dawson (Cole and Lockner 1989), who recounted the depth of information contained in messages created with this system of symbols. The First Nations Elders participating in this research indicated the same level of communicative effectiveness of the symbols and the ability of the Carrier people to “read” details in the painted messages. These painted motifs were part of a meaningful socially constructed landscape that involved bodily and cognitive experiences. It was through the experience of painting the rock and the experience with the painted rock that people engaged in spatial encounters with one another. Through the symbols, the Carrier people were able to “envision information” (Tufte 1990:33) and recall to mind details of the land, rivers and paths located at important places throughout the territory. This familiarity with the markings and the physical landscape was essential for the transmission of information and the success of the messagepaintings. In this manner the rock art functioned as a form of mapping the landscape which was both in and o f place. Here we can understand the painters and their contemporaries as a people deeply connected to the land. An intimate knowledge of the land and the whereabouts of others’ traditional-use areas and activities were revealed, in the interviews conducted for this research, to be common- 151 knowledge both in the past and the present. Even in the short time 1 spent in the First Nations communities it was apparent to me that people today have a deep connection to the land that has been passed on from previous generations and a strong familiarity with one another that has been forged over time. All of the informants indicated that the painters and their audiences created and used the pietographs based on their experience and knowledge of the land and its resources. The context in which the message-paintings were created and used was directly connected to the day to day activities in which everyone participated - painting the rocks with messages was a common practice that was likely available to the general population. Some of the rock art at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun also had a function that was specialized and more likely only available to a few select members of society. Jenness (1943:543) notes that although all members of society had the opportunity to acquire a guardian spirit, the ability to exert “medicine power” through the painted image of that spirit was a privilege afforded to only those who achieved the rank of medicine woman/man. In a similar vein, Morice (1889:161) notes that only shamans had access to the power of the supernatural world and the ability to communicate through dream images. The production and use of these divination-paintings at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun was dependant on a level of power and “sight” vested in only a few members of society. Contributions The information presented in this thesis contributes to the understanding of the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art in terms of its meanings and purposes. Through contemporary First Nations narratives we are able to identify the rock art at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun as a 152 vernacular landscape and through the interpretations and explanations provided by First Nations people to Father Morice we are also able to understand the rock art as a spiritual landscape. The narratives also make us aware that the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art landscape eontinues to be meaningful to the First Nations people today. This project has explored an approach to the study of rock art that is rigorous in theory and method, and productive in the knowledge it has generated, but is not solely dependant on purely scientific methods and objectives. The “tour” and “map” concepts explored in this research are representative of the blended approaeh eharacteristie of interpretive archaeology, where researchers utilize alternative researeh models that allow for both seientifie and humanistic goals to be achieved. Through its emphasis on conducting interviews and generating ethnographic narratives and locating, recording and identifying the rock art, this research brings recognition and respect to the Carrier people’s tradition of oral history and roek painting. The “tour” and “map” eoncepts employed in this researeh have enabled the generation of information that is important and relevant to developing an understanding of rock art in terms of the human past. This study has highlighted the importance of developing narratives of meaning and recognizing human action as a way of approaching rock art research. Through the generation of roek art narratives of meaning, rather than reports focused exclusively on quantitative information, the general public has an opportunity to develop an appreciation for rock art which has the potential to address issues of vandalism. These concepts and the approach taken in this study provide a model for “doing” rock art research at other locations throughout British Columbia. Through this combined approach it is possible to recognize 153 rock art sites as meaningful humanized landscapes (past and present) at loeations other than Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. This research provides a contribution to the First Nations communities at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun in three important ways: first, this thesis eontains a thorough survey of the rock art at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun where photographs and details regarding the pietographs have been carefully recorded and presented; second, the knowledge and teachings of Elders regarding the rock paintings is documented in this thesis; and three, the information generated in this research provides an opportunity to create a rock art component for the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun school curriculum. The words of the Elders and the photographs of the paintings will provide the basis for developing an educational module for the school curriculum that will teach the children about the cultural and physical landscapes of the Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun rock art. This project has demonstrated the importance and benefit of working cooperatively and respectfully with First Nations people in archaeological research endeavors (cf. Nicholas and Andrews 1997). The contributions made by First Nations people in this study were central to developing a more complete understanding of the paintings. Without their partieipation, the understandings of the purposes and uses of the paintings generated in this researeh would not have been as insightful. As a result of the inclusion of First Nations people in this projeet an understanding of the rock art at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun as a social landscape of meaning, past and present, has been generated. 154 Social Landscapes of Rock Art When we talk and write about rock art sites as social landscapes a change occurs in our perception of the importance of these types of places. Focus is no longer exclusively placed on the images and we begin to realize and acknowledge the processes of human action and interaction involved in the creation of rock markings, as well as a more embedded and holistic connection between people, agency and the larger landscape. This connection between the landscape and people is interdependent where landscapes are both influenced by and influential to human action and behavior (C. Smith 1999:189). Landscapes “are not a record but a recording, and this recording is much more than a reflection of human agency and action; it is creative of them” (Bender 2002:103). In this manner we can understand landscapes never to be “finished” in terms of the meanings they hold for people and as such they are “living.” “Living” landscapes are simultaneously artifact and process in that they are the material product of the aetions and behavior of people in the past and in that they continually play a significant role in how we perceive our personal and collective identities today (Tilley 1994:18). Through the “living” landscape we are connected to the past and in turn the past is linked to the present. “The past lengthens life’s reach by linking us with events and people prior to ourselves” (Lownethal 1985:48). We use this connection to the past and its people as one of the many ways in which we make sense of ourselves and the present. Just as landscapes are “living,” the past too, is never dead. Even though “we can’t see the past, back in the bends and curves behind us ... it’s there” (Finney in Lownethal 1985:20). The ability to recall and identify one’s ovra personal past provides a sense of identity, purpose and meaning (Lowenthal 1985:41). The past that is interpreted from the 155 archaeological record also provides us with a sense of purpose and meaning, but it does so on a more colleetive or global human scale. On this note Lowenthal (1985:40) reminds us that “we eombine not only our lived experiences through memory but what we have heard and read to form an understanding of the present.” This conneetion between the past and the senses of purpose and meaning we ascribe in the present reveals not only the importance of the archaeological record itself but the significance of our interpretations of its material culture. The public learns about the past through archaeological reports and books, television programs and museums. Typically the public experiences a detached way of learning about the people and the material culture of the past that is solely dependant on the writing, presentation and interpretation of others. Rock art however, offers an opportunity for an extraordinary “lived experience” of ancient paintings and carvings located exactly where they were created and used by people in the past. Visiting a rock art site means to travel both physically and mentally. The location of rock art enables a journey across a physical landscape that provides us with a personal experience of the terrain and the setting of the rock art. The in-situ nature of paintings and carvings enables us to envision painters and their audiences and to experience a moment of timelessness where we share the landscape with the people of the past. It is because of these important and interesting features that rock art sites should be protected, respected and appreciated. 156 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ashmore, Wendy and A. Bernard Knapp 1999 Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational. In Archaeologies o f Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 1-30. Blackwell, Malden, Mass. Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies 1998 Ethical Principles fo r the Conduct o f Research in the North. Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies, Ottawa, Ontario. Ball, Erica 2004 Anlagasimdeex: The History o f a Gitxsan Settlement. Master’s Thesis, University of Northern British Columbia, Department of First Nations Studies, Prince George, British Columbia. Baravalle, Richard 1977 Report on a Survey of Lower Kootenay Pietographs, Kootenay Lake, B.C. Archaeological Field Permit 1977-31. 1978 Second Report on a Survey of Lower Kootenay Pietographs, Kootenay Lake,B.C. Archaeological Field Permit 1978-4. 1981 Final Report on a Survey of Kootenay Lake Pictograph Sites. Archaeological Field Permit 1980-9. Beaton, John 1994 Seven Ways of Seeing Rock Art. Antiquity 68:158-62. Bednarik, Robert G. 1994 A Taphonomy of Palaeoart. Antiquity 68:68-74. 2001 Rock Art Science: The Scientific Study o f Palaeoart. Brepols, Belgium. Bellet, Gerry 2003 Native Band Boycotts Bookstores: Destruction of Pietographs Feared After Book on Subject Released. Vancouver Sun 5 September: G3. Vancouver, British Columbia. Bender, Barbara 2002 Time and Landscape. Current Anthropology 43:103-112. Bentley, Mary and Ted Bentley 1981 Cabriola: Petroglyph Island. Sono Nis Press, Victoria. Bishop, Anne 2002 Becoming an Ally: Breaking the Cycle o f Oppression in People 2"^ edition. 302 Beco Fernwood, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 157 Blackstock, Michael D. 2001 Faces in the Forest: First Nations Art Created on Living Trees. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal and Kingston, Ontario. Boas, Franz 1955 Primitive Art. Dover Publications Inc. New York. Bradley, Riehard 1997 Rock Art and the Prehistory o f Atlantic Europe: Signing the Land. Routledge, New York and London. Bradley, Richard, Felipe Criado Boado, and Ramon Fabregas Valearee 1994 Roek Art Research as Landscape Archaeology: A Pilot Study in Galcia, North-West Spain. World Archaeology 25(3):374-387. Brand, Ross 1975 Report on the British Columbia Provincial Museum 1975 Petroglyph Casting Project. Archaeological Field Permit 1975-13. Brand, Ross and Doris Lundy 1974 Report on the 1974 BC Provineial Museum Petroglyph Casting Projeet. Archaeologieal Field Permit 1972-3. British Columbia Arehives, Indian Rock Paintings, Stuart Lake, 120885 and 120886. Chamulak, Terry 2005 Personal eommunication December 22, Prince George, British Columbia. Chippindale, Christopher and George Nash 2004 The Figured Landscapes o f Rock-Art: Looking at Pictures in Place. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Chippindale, Christopher and Paul S. Taeon (editors) 1998 The Archaeology o f Rock Art. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Clottes, Jean 2002 World Rock Art. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, California. Clottes, Jean and Jean Courtin 1992 The Cave Beneath the Sea: Paleolithic Images at Cosquer. Harry N. Abrams, New York. Cole, Douglas and Bradley Lockner (editors) 1989 The Journals o f George M. Dawson: British Columbia, 1875-1878 Volume 1, 18751878. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. 158 Conkey, Margaret W. 1993 It Makes a Difference? Feminist Thinking and Archaeologies of Gender. In The Archaeology o f Gender: Proceedings o f the 22'^ Annual Chacmool Conference, edited by Dale Walde and Noreen Willows, pp. 25-38. The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. Conkey, Margaret W. and Joan M. Gero 1991 Tensions and Pluralities, and Engendering Archaeology: An Introduction to Women and Prehistory. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by Joan M. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, pp. 3-30. Blackwell, Oxford. Conkey, M. and J. Spector 1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by J. Schiffer, pp. 1-38. Academic Press, New York. Corner, John 1968 Pietographs in the Interior o f British Columbia. Wayside Press, Vernon, British Columbia. Crabtree, Benjamin F. and William L. Miller (editors.) 1999 Doing Qualitative Research 2"^ edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi. Crosby, Harry W. 1997 The Cave Paintings o f Baja California: Discovering the Great Murals o f an Unknown People. Sunbelt Publications, San Diego. Crumley, Carole 1999 Landscapes: Constructed and Coneeptualized. In Archaeologies o f Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 270276. Blackwell, Malden, Mass. Darvill, Timothy 1999 The Historic Environment, Historic Landscapes, and Space-Time-Action Models in Landscape Archaeology. In The Arehaeology and Anthropology o f Landscape: Shaping Your Landscape, One World Archaeology 30, edited by Peter J. Ucko and Robert Layton, pp. 104-118. Routledge, London and New York. 2002 The Concise Oxford Dictionary o f Archaeology. Oxford University Press, Oxford. De Certeau, M. 1984 Spatial Stories. In The Practice o f Everyday Life. University of California Press, Berkley, California. 159 Dewdney, Selwyn 1963 Indian Rock Art. Popular Series No. 4. Saskachewan Museum of Natural History, Regina. 1964 Writings on Stone Along the Milk River. The Beaver, Outfit 295, Winnipeg. 1977 Rock Art Research in Canada - The First Hundred Year. In CRARA ’77: Papers from the Fourth Biennial Conference o f the Canadian Rock Art Research Associates, edited by Doris Lundy, pp 1-4. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. Dewdney, Selwyn and Kenneth E. Kidd 1967 Indian Rock Paintings o f the Great Lakes. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. Duff, Wilson 1964 The Indian History o f British Columbia: The Impact o f the White Man. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. Edmonds, Mark 1999 Ancestral Geographies o f the Neolithic: Landscapes, Monuments, and Memory. Routledge, London and New York. Ehrenberg, Margaret 1989 Women in Prehistory. British Museum Press, London. Felix, Philip 2004 Personal communication October 25, Tache, British Columbia. Felix, Josie 2004 Personal communication October 25, Tache, British Columbia. Flannery, Kent V. and Joyce Marcus 1998 Cognitive Archaeology. In Reader in Archaeological Theory: Post Processual and Cognitive Approaches, edited by David S. Whitley, pp. 35-48. Routledge, London and New York. Flick, Uwe 1998 An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, London and Delhi. Francis, Julie E. and Lawrence L. Loendorf 1998 Ancient Visions: Petroglyphs and Pietographs from the Wind River and Bighorn Country, Wyoming and Montana. University of Utah Press, Utah. Gero, J.M. 1983 Gender Bias in Archaeology: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. In The Socio-Politics o f Archaeology, edited by J.M. Gero, D.M. Lacey, and M.L. Blakey, pp. 51-57. Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 160 1985 Socio-Politics and the Woman-at-Home Ideology. American Antiquity 50:342-350. 1996 Archaeological Practice and Gendered Encounters with Field Data. In Gender and Archaeology, edited by Rita P. Wright, pp. 251-280. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Gero J.M. and M.W. Conkey (editors) 1991 Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Routledge, New York and London. Gessler, Nick 1979 Archaeological Field Permit 1979-11. Gjessing, G. 1967 Petroglyphs and Pietographs in British Columbia. In Indian Tribes o f Aboriginal America: Selected Papers, edited by Sol Tax, pp 23-29. Cooper Square, New York. Government of British Columbia 2001 First Nations Peoples in British Columbia. Electronic document, www.bced.gov.bc.ea\abed\map.htm, accessed April 28, 2006. Grant, Campbell 1967 Rock Art o f the American Indian. Thomas Y. Crowell, New York. Habgood, Thelma 1967 Petroglyphs and Pietographs in Alberta. Archaeological Society o f Alberta Newsletter 13 and 14. Edmonton, Alberta. Haggarty, James C. and Richard 1. Inglis 1984 Interim Progress Report Historical Resources Site Survey and Assessment: Pacific Rim National Park. Archaeological Field Permit 1983-8. Hall, Lizette 1992 The Carrier, My People. Friesen Printers, Cloverdale, British Columbia. Harding, Sandra G. 1986 The Science Question in Feminism. Cornell University Press, Itharca and London. Handsman, Russell G. 1993 Whose Art Was Found at Lepenski Vir? Gender Relations and Power in Archaeology. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by Gero J.M. and M.W. Conkey, pp. 329-365. Blackwell, Oxford. Hanson, Robert 1998 Transcripts, TUS project, July 16. 161 Haynes, Barry and Wendy Crumpler 1997 Photoshop 4 Artistry: A Master Class fo r Photographers, Artists, and Production Artists. New Riders, Indianapolis. Hays-Gilpin, Kelly A. 2Q0A Ambiguous Images: Gender and Rock Art. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. Hays-Gilpin, K. and D.S. Whitley (editors) 1998 Reader in Gender Archaeology. Routledge, New York and London. Hesse-Biber, Sharlene, Christina Gilmartin, and Robin Lydenberg 1999 Feminist Approaches to Theory and Methodology: An Interdisciplinary Reader. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hester, Thomas R., Harry J. Shafer, Kenneth L. Fedder 1997 997 Field Methods Method. in Archaeology 7**' edition. Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View, California. Hill, Beth 1978 Guide to Indian Rock Carvings o f the Pacific Northwest Coast. Hancoek House Publishers Ltd., Surrey, British Columbia. Hill, Beth and Ray Hill 1973 Archaeological Field Permit 1973-34. Hill Boone, Elizabeth 1994 Introduction. In Writing Without Words: Alternative Literacies in Mesoamerica and the Andes, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone and Walter D. Mignolo, pp. 3-26. Duke University Press, Durham and London. Hobler, Phillip 1978 The Rock Art of the Northwest Coast. Archaeological Field Permit 1977-13. Hodder, Ian 1987 The Archaeology o f Contextual Meanings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1999 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2001 Introduction: A Review of Contemporary Theoretical Debates in Archaeology. In Archaeology Theory, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 1-13. Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge and Oxford. Hodder, Ian and Michael Shanks 1995 Processual, Post-Processual, and Interpretive Archaeologies. \n Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past, edited by Ian Hodder, Michael Shanks, Alexandra Alexandri, Victor Buchli, John Carman, Jonathan Last, and Gavin Lucas, pp. 3-27. Routledge, New York and London. 162 Hoffmann, Tanya 2000 Out o f Time: First Nations, Archaeology and the Excavation o f Human Remains at QiL-XE’ma:t (Craig Bay). M.A. Thesis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prinee George, British Columbia. Hudson, Douglas 1983 Traplines and Timber: Social and Economic Change Among the Carrier Indians o f Northern British Columbia. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Alberta, Calgary, Alberta. Inglis, Joy 1998 Spirit in Stone. Horsdal and Schubart, Vietoria, British Columbia. Jenness, Diamond 1943 The Carrier Indians of the Bulkely River: Their Social and Religious Life. In Antrhopological Papers No. 25, Bureau o f American Ethnology, Bulletin 133, pp. 475586. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Johnson, Matthew 1999 Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell, Oxford. Johnson, Peter 1999 Glyphs and Gallows: The Rock Art o f Clo-oose and the Wreck o f the John Bright. Heritage House, Surrey, British Columbia. Jones, T.E.H. 1981 The Aboriginal Rock Paintings o f the Churchill River. Anthropological Series Number 4. Saskatchewan Department of Culture and Youth, Regina, Saskatchewan. Kennedy, Roger G. 2002 F oreward: The Value of Arehaeology. In Public Benefits o f Archaeology, edited by Barbara J. Little, pp. xiii-xv. University Press of Florida, Gainsville. Kehoe, Alice B. 1999 A Resort to a Subtler Contrivance. In Manifesting Power: Gender and the Interpretation o f Power in Archaeology, edited by Tracy L. Sweely, pp. 17-29. Routledge, New York and London. Keller, C. 1994 The Theoretical Aspects of Landscape Study. In Decoding the Landscape, edited by Timothy Collins, pp. 79-98. Centre for Landscape Studies, Social Sciences Research Centre, University College, Galway, Ireland. Keyser, James D. 1992 Indian Rock Art o f the Columbia Plateau. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 163 Keyser, James D. and Michael Klassen 2001 Plains Indians Rock Art. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Kirby, Sandra and Kate McKenna 1989 Experience, Research, Social Change: Methods from the Margins. Garamond, Toronto, Ontario. Lamb, W. Kaye 1960 The Letters and Journals o f Simon Fraser 1806-1808, edited by W. Kaye Lamb. MacMillan Company of Canada, Toronto, Ontario. Layton, Robert and Peter Ucko 1999 Introduction; Gazing on the Landscape and Encountering the Environment. In The Archaeology and Anthropology o f Landscape: Shaping Your Landscape, pp. 1-20. Routledge, New York and London. LeCompte, Margaret D. and Jean J. Schensul 1999 Designing & Conducting Ethnographic Research: Ethnographer’s Toolkit. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. Leen, Daniel 1984 A Preliminary Inventory of Haisla and Kitkiata Rock Art. Archaeological Field Permit 1984-19. Lewis-Williams, David 1986 The Sign of All Times: Entopic Phenomena in Upper Paleolithic Art. Current Anthropology 29 (2):201-245. Little, Barbara 2002 Arehaeology as a Shared Vision. In Public Benefits o f Archaeology, edited by Barbara J. Little, pp. 3-19. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Lipe, W. 2002 Public Benefits of Archaeological Research. In Public Benefits o f Archaeology, edited by Barbara J. Little, pp. 20-30. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Lovell, N 1998 Introduction: Belonging and in Need of Emplacement? In Locality and Belonging, edited by Nadia Lovell, pp. 1-24. Routledge, London and New York. Lownethal, David 1985 The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lundy, Doris 1974 The Rock Art o f the Northwest Coast. Master’s Degree Thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. 164 1975 Archaeological Field Permit 1975-22. 1979 CRARA ’77: Papers from the Fourth Biennial Conference o f the Canadian Rock Art Research Associates, edited by Doris Lundy. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 1983 Styles of Coastal Rock Art. In Indian Art Traditions o f the Northwest Coast, edited by Roy L. Carlson, pp. 89-97. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. Maguire, Patricia 1987 Doing Participatory Research: A Feminist Approach. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. Mallery, Garriek 1893 Picture Writing of the Ameriean Indians. Tenth Annual Report o f the Bureau o f American Ethnology, fo r 1888-89. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. Mark, Robert and Evelyn Billo Newman 1997 The IFRAO Color Scale: Some Considerations. In Proceedings o f the 1996 International Rock Art Congress, Nambia, pp. 28-31. Martin, Mildred 2004 Personal communication October 27, Fort St. James, British Columbia. Martineau, LaVan 1973 The Rocks Begin to Speak, KC Publications, Eas Vegas, Nevada. Marucci, Georgina Elizabeth 2000 Lake Babine Women’s Rites o f Passage: An Archaeological Inquiry. Master’s Degree Thesis. University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George. Maurer, John Dee and James Patrick Whelan 1977 A Canadian Shield Pictograph Classification Design. American Antiquity 42(2): 96202 . McGlade, James 1999 Archaeology and the Evolution of Cultural Landscapes: Towards an Interdisciplinary Approach. In The Archaeology and Anthropology o f Landscape: Shaping Your Landscape, edited by Peter J. Ucko and Robert Layton, pp. 458-483. Routledge, London and New York. McMurdo, John 1971 Archaeological Field Permit 1971-23 1989 Archaeological Field Research in British Columbia: An Annotated Bibliography. Province of British Columbia: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Resource Information Services Program, Victoria, British Columbia. 165 Meade, Edward 1971 Indian Rock Carvings o f the Pacific Northwest. Gray’s Publishing Ltd., Sidney, British Columbia. Milledge-Nelson, Sarah 1997 Reader in Archaeology: Analyzing Power and Prestige. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. Milledge-Nelson, Sarah and Myriam Rosen-Ayalon (editors) 2002 In Pursuite o f Gender: Worldwide Archaeological Approaches. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. Monk, Sophie 2004 Transcripts, CURA TEK Stream Plaeenames Project, June 3. Moore, Henrietta L. 1991 Epilogue. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by Joan M. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, pp. 407-477. Routledge, New York and London. Morice, A. G. 1889 The Western Dene-Their Manners and Customs. Proceedings o f the Canadian Institute, 7 October 1889, pp. 109-180. Canadian Institute, Ottawa, Ontario. 1892-93 Notes on the Western Dene: 1892-1893. Transactions o f the Canadian Institute. Canadian Institute, Ottawa, Ontario. 1893 Notes Archaeological, Industrial, and Sociological on the Western Dene. Transactions o f the Canadian Institute. Canadian Institute, Ottawa, Ontario. 1905 History o f the Northern Interior o f British Columbia. William Briggs, Toronto, Ontario. Mulhall, David 1986 Will to Power: The Missionary Career o f Father Morice. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. Nankivell, Simon and David Wyse 2003 Exploring B.C. ’s Pictographs: A Guide to Native Rock Art in the British Columbia Interior. Mussio Ventures Ltd., Burnaby, British Columbia. Nash, George and George Children 1995 Establishing a Discourse: The Language of Landscape. In Semiotics o f Landscape: Archaeology o f Mind, edited by George Nash, pp. 1-4. BAR International Series 661. Nicholas, George P. and Thomas D. Andrews (editors.) 1997 A t a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada. Archaeology Press, Department of Archaeology Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. 166 Pearson, M.P. 1993 Visitors Welcome. In Archaeological Resource Management in the U.K.: An Introduction, edited by J. Hunter and I. Ralston, pp. 225-231. Alan Sutton Inc., Dover. Pierreroy, Yvonne 2005 Personal communication October 5, Prince George, British Columbia. Preucel, Robert W. and Ian Hodder 1996 Understanding Sex and Gender: In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: A Reader, edited by Robert W. Preucel and Ian Hodder, pp. 415-430. Blackwell, Oxford. Rajnovich, Grace 1994 Reading Rock Art: Interpreting the Indian Rock Paintings o f the Canadian Shield. Natural Heritage/Natural History Inc., Toronto, Ontario. Reinharz, Shulamit 1992 Feminist Methods in Social Research. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Richards, Thomas H. 1978 A Pictograph Survey of Southeast Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun, British Columbia. Annual Research Report o f the British Columbia Heritage Conservation Branch, pp. 133-165. British Columbia Heritage Conservation Branch, Victoria, British Columbia. Rowe, Marvin W. 2001 Dating by AMS Radiocarbon Analysis. In Handbook o f Rock Art Research, edited by David S. Whitley, pp. 139-166. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. Schaafsma, Polly 1980 Indian Rock Art o f the Southwest. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Shanks, Michael and Christopher Tilley 1992 992 Re-Constructing Re-Constru Archaeology: Theory and Practice. 2"“^edition. Routledge, London and New York. Shanks, Michael and Ian Hodder 1998 Processual, Postrprocessual and Interpretive Archaeologies. In Reader in Archaeological Theory, edited by David S. Whitely, pp. 69-95. Routledge, London and New York. Small, David 1991 Initial Study of the Structure of Women’s Seclusion in the Archaeological Past. In The Archaeology o f Gender, edited by Dale Walde and Noreen Willows, pp. 336-342. The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. 167 Smith, Claire 1999 Ancestors, Place and People: Social Landscapes in Aboriginal Australia. In The Archaeology and Anthropology o f Landscape: Shaping Your Landscape, edited by Peter Ucko and Robert Layton, pp. 189-205. Routledge, London. Smith, Claire and H. Martin Wobst (editors) 2005. Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonising Theory and Practice, One World Archaeology 47. Routledge, London and New York. Smith, Harlan I. 1897 The Jesup Expedition to the North Pacific Coast. Science 54(145):535-538. 1900 Archaeology of the Thompson River Region, British Columbia. In Memoirs o f the American Museum o f Natural History, pp. 401-442. 1910 A Visit to the Indian Tribes of the Northwest Coast. American Museum o f Natural History Journal 10:31 -42. 1927a A List of Petroglyphs in British Columbia. American Anthropologist 29(4):605610. 1927b A Pictograph on the Lower Skeena River, British Columbia. American Anthropologist 29(4):611-614. Spector, Janet 1993 What This Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village. Minnesota Historical Society, Minnesota. Spector, Janet and Mary Whelan 1990 Incorporating Gender into Archaeology Courses. In Gender and Anthropology: Critical Reviews for Research and Teaching, edited by Sandra Morgan, pp. 65-94. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. Teit, James Alexander 1896 A Rock Painting of the Thompson River Indians, British Columbia. Bulletin American Museum o f Natural History VIII, edited by Franz Boas, pp. 227-230. 1900 The Thompson Indians o f British Columbia. Nicola Valley Museum Archives, British Columbia. 1927/28 Salishan Tribes of the Western Plateau. Forty-Fifth Annual Report o f the Bureau o f American Ethnology, To The Secretary o f the Smithsonian Institution, 1927-1928. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Thomas, Celestine 2005 Personal communication November 9, Tache, British Columbia. Thomas, Julian 2001 Archaeologies of Place and Landscape. In Archaeology Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 165-186. Polity Press, Cambridge. 168 Tilley, Christopher 1994 Phenomenology o f Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Berg, Oxford. Trigger, Bruce G. 1989^ History o f Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tufte, Edward R. 1990 Envisioning Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire, Connecticut. Tuhiwai Smith, Linda 1999 Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. University of Otago Press, Dunedin, New Zealand. Ucko, Peter 1995 Archaeological Interpretation in a World Context. In Theory in Archaeology: A World Perspective, edited by Peter J. Ucko, pp. 1-27. Routledge, London and New York. van Dommelen, Peter 1999 Exploring Everyday Places and Cosmologies. In Archaeologies o f Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 277-285. Blackwell, Malden, Mass. Vastokas M. and Romas K. Vastokas 1973 Sacred Art o f the Algonkians: A Study o f the Peterborough Petroglyphs. Mansard Press, Peterborough, Ontario. Watchman, Alan 1993 Perspectives and Potentials for Absolute Dating Prehistoric Rock Paintings. Antiquity 67:58-65. Water Survey of Canada, Electronic document www.wsc.ec.gc.ca. accessed on December 22, 2005. Whitley, David S. 1998 New Approaches to Old Problems: Archaeology in Search of an Ever Elusive Past. In Reader in Archaeological Theory: Post Processual and Cognitive Approaches, edited by David S. Whitley, pp. 1-28. Routledge, London and New York. 2001 Handbook o f Rock Art Research, edited by David S. Whitely. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. Williams, Judith 2001 Two Wolves at the Dawn o f Time: Kingcome Inlet Pictographs, 1893-1998. New Star Books Ltd., Vancouver, British Columbia. 169 Wilson, Meredith and Bruno David 2002 Introduction. Inscribed Landscapes: Marking and Making Place, edited by Bruno David and Meredith Wilson, pp. 1-9. University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. Wellmann, Klaus F. 1979 The American Rock Art Research Association - Past, Present, and Future. In CRARA ’77: Papers from the Fourth Biennial Conference o f the Canadian Rock Art Research Associates, edited by Doris Lundy, pp. 375-380. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. Wylie, Alison 1994 Facts and Fictions: Writing Archaeology in a Different Voice. In Archaeological Theory: Progress or Posture?, edited by I.M. Mackenzie, pp. 3-18. Avebury/Ashgate Publishing Company, Brookfield. York, Annie, Richard Daly and Chris Arnett 1993 They Write Their Dreams on the Rock Forever: Rock Writings in the Stein River Valley, British Columbia. Talonbooks, Vancouver, British Columbia. Young, M. Jane 1988 Signs from the Ancestors: Zuni Cultural Symbolism and Perceptions o f Rock Art. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Zimmerman, Larry J. 2003 Presenting the Past. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. 170 APPENDIX A BAND COUNCIL RESOLUTION NAK'AZDU BAND CO U N C IL P.O. 00 * 1 3 % Fom S i |« n e k B.C. V0I1P0 996-7171 F«i 9866010 Band Council Resolution B.C.R.# 040615.00 Nov#r BmcoPHmo# Seconded: JmmeeT. Mme# Day June Month 15 Year 2004 WHEREAS (he Nek^zdW Bend euppod* reeaeich etudke cenied ou( wNNn our (en-Kodee: AND WHB*EAS eny reeearcher or reeeerch conduded muet fd#ow the approved Nak'azdN Reeemroti protocol; AND WHEREAS eny reeeerch conducted muet be monitored by the eppmprtete Bend repreeentethm. Quorum: Five (S> Chief Councillor 2CowKwr CouncNof CodhdSor C oundX dr C ouncillor 171 APPENDIX B UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA ETHICS APPROVAL UNIVERSITY OF N O R IM N BRITISH COLUMBIA RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD MEMORANDUM To: Suzamno MKcheâ From: Henry Harder, Chmr Research ElMce Board Data: August 31,2004 Re: E2004.0719.073 MkxNng the Gap: An e v k r a k n Into the aocM nature of rook art and rock art landscapes Thank you for eubmMIng th e ab o w n o te d ree rw c h propoeal to A e Research Ethica Board. Your propoeal has tieen approved. Good hick with your research. Sincerely, Henry Harder 172 APPENDIX C EARLY CANADIANA ONLINE PERMISSION TO PUBLISH ILLUSTRATIONS Friday, November 22, 2005 9:11 AM To Whom it May Concern I am a graduate student at the University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George, BC. I would like to include the following illustrations in my Interdisciplinary Master's Degree thesis that will be published. CIHM # 15679 Morice, Adrian Gabriel 1893 Notes Archaeological, Industrial, and Sociological on the Western Dene. Transactions of the Canadian Institute Session 1892-93. Illustrations: Page 207 Figure 190; Page 208 Figure 191, 192, 193, 194; Page 209 Figure 195,196,197; and Page 211 Figure 198. Thank you Sue Mitchell Thursday, November 24, 2005 6:53 AM Hello Ms Mitchell You may use the images requested for your thesis. It would be appreciated if you indicated that the images are from Early Canadiana Online produced by Canadiana.org along with the CIHM number. It is important for us that users identify ECO with CIHM. I have been suggesting using "... from Early Canadiana Online, produced by Canadiana.org, CIHM number# , page #" Sincerely, Judi McNeil Cataloguing Coordinator Canadiana.org /Formerly Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions (CIHM)) 395 Wellington Street, Room 468 Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0N4 Phone: 613-232-3472 Fax: 613-235-9752 iudi. mcneilfa)canadiana. ore www.canadiana.org 173 APPENDIX D MRS. DORA CORNER PERMISSION TO PUBLISH ILLUSTRATIONS This letter is to state that Sue Mitchell has been given permission to reproduce the following illustrations in tier Interdisciplinary Master's Degree Thesis. From: Comer, John 1968 Ackigraphs m the W erw o f BhBsh CO/wmWe. Vl^yside Press: Vernon. Illustrations: Page 115 for Site No. 100 æ d Site 101; and Page 116&117 for Site No 101 Dated . 2 ^ .Z Permission graited by J P a / g /, (To (Pkme e pnnl nam e) 174 APPENDIX E BRITISH COLUMBIA ARCHIVES PERMISSION TO PUBLISH PHOTOGRAPHS R o y a l BC M u s e u m NOV 162805 8iBire«i»s.g^wyas«ii^Oo«Bawaite w vM . me M usem oompoRAnow VMM#» me v m w m omw# #kg») rax: asr-807a Sue. o ^ n = w 8 -o 6 ________________ WM* V tn ia n*4nmm*# (b c qvPo(\c.& GecB)% ig) rA A: PMM*zbo»#\/LL\CJ7 ggg O*H»m«9 « -cnPmhWimilofllimhtMUi# QMMIwDWpbY Mmw AMeMb* intir use ar OHmeFW»# MTiNDEDtlSE Irilow(«•< »n US&l-Ta mc=rpofa,f8 u—knW W f M " W w W i#m«»»nii,n»am ElMWcWoô [jMi^eo^Klor 1 SRde Of Powmf Po«it PmaeoMom ]«h*>____________ jp\4» * Pl imEn liim. rm * . Ëw M il T „ «fp l MK*"Wl b« W w N »d k t » U * n # ig A gW W ## iiiii, «n iiiimiiw, *m *###*#«w#*rPimW ilimri*L mm»* #* *mWk ml |i« # i& il "PTI, M#id, «m*f ,l#Wcil «fiWoEank mmw ÉH*:; I* m*et K C s ln n M ii A r M v c s Qrn^ Sip^liffeofApplfcam Sk;#M» of Officor. BCA*^Am$and R@W BC Mtmewn /< / o v A — ? m « llli * l* i III « 3 3 )3 ' F e e s Not A pplicable - 175 APPENDIX F ROCK ART RECORDING CARD 8TUART LAKE ROCK ART RECORDMG PRO JEC T AnWymW mud M m VmfWkmd o n I # _________________________________ OmW:_________ LOCATION: MAINLAND INFORMATION PER FIGURE FIG URE# PERSPECTIVE: ABOVE BELOW HORIZON DORSW. FRONTAL PROFILE APPLICATION: FINGER BRUSH "FW O E R D O T S" INSIDE BESIDE LINE TYPE: STRAIGHT CURVED COMPOSITE STYLE: FK3URE*_ PERSPECTIVE: ISLAND K C n O N O F T W E L A K E :__________________________________ ABOVE DORSAL BELOW HORIZON FRONTAL PROFILE A CCESS: WATER SHORE INLAND APPLKATION; FINGER BRUSH ORIENTATION: WATER SHORE INLAND "FM O E R O O T S" INSIDE BESIDE LSÆ TY PE: STRAIGHT C m V E D DIRECTION;___________________________ TRAVEL: TO NORTH ARM PAINTED FROM: FR NORTH ARM BOTH ______________________________________ STYLE: FIG U R E # _____ PERSPECTIVE: UNCERTAIN UNCERTAIN COMPOSITE ABOVE DORSAL BELOW HORIZON FRONTAL PROFILE APPLICATION; FINGER BRUSH "FINGER DOTS" INSIDE BESIDE LINE TYPE: STRAIGHT CURVED COMPOSITE UNCERTAIN COMMENTS: STYLE: SKA S ID E S 176 APPENDIX G GRETAGMACBETH COLORCHECKER COLOR RENDITION CHART 177 APPENDIX H IFRAO STANDARD COLOR SCALE IFRAO 10 cm II I m N ovem ber2001 178 APPENDIX I MIKS IMAGE CALIBRATION CHART oo 179 APPENDIX J INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. Tell me about the rock paintings at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun. 2. Who painted them? a. Ancestors? Or people from outside your society? h. Did both women and men paint? c. Did people of alternate genders paint? 3. When were they painted? a. Circumstances? h. Time of year/day/moon phase? c. Era? 4. Why were they painted? a. Tell me about that circumstance/occasion/ritual. 5. How were locations chosen? a. Did locations already have a certain meaning? b. Did that meaning play a role in the choice of location? c. Or was meaning instilled because of the process and presence of the painting? d. What happened to an area after it was painted? 6. How were images chosen - how did someone decide what to paint? 7. How was the paint prepared and applied? a. How was the area/locale prepared? 8. Do people still paint today? a. Why or Why not? 9. Have you ever made a painting? a. Tell me about that experience. 10. Has anyone you know made a painting? a. Tell me about that circumstance. 11. How important are the rock paintings to you today? a. What do the rock paintings at Stuart Lake/Nak’al Bun mean to you today? b. Has this meaning always been the same for you or has it changed overtime. c. What has made it change? 12. How did you first learn about the rock art? a. When? How? From whom? 13. Does the rock art have a place in your day to day life? a. How do you interact with the rock art? 14. Can you identify the images? (Or more images if not all finished) 15. Do you know any traditional stories that are connected to the panels? 16. Can you tell me where more paintings are located? 17. Can you suggest anyone that would be interested in being interviewed about the rock art? 18. In terms of conservation, protection, and education what would you like to see done with the rock art? 00 # 14/2/1 E Unknown Traces o f pigment Organic deposits # 14/7/1 SE Unknown, possible moon Erosion No photograph o f this motif See illustration below # 14/3/1 SB Beaver symbol Erosion Pictograph measures 12 inches high Illustration o f# 14/7/1 No photograph o f this motif # 14/4/1 SE Unknown Traces o f pigment No photograph o f this motif II# # 14/5/1 SE Unknown Traces o f pigment # 14/8/1 Unknown Traces o f pigment Erosion See illustration below Illustration o f # 14/8/1 No photograph o f this m otif # 14/6/1 to # 14/6/7 SE Beaver symbols Erosion and organic deposits No photograph o f this motif # 14/9/1 SW Unknown Pictograph measures 87 inches wide See illustration on next page 200 Illustration o f # 14/9/1 à # 14/10/1 Animal Erosion # 14/10/2 Unknown Erosion SW # 14/11/1, # 14/12/1, #14/12/2 and # 14/12/3 SW See illustration below for interpretations See illustration below Illustration o f # 14/10/1 and# 14/10/2 # 14/12/3 # 14/12/2 #14/12/1 #14/11/1 Unknown Unknown Unknown I Unknown M otif Motif traces o f Measures measures I pigment 38 inches 45 inches high high See #421 See # 421 and# 141221 and# 14123 for similar for similar motifs motifs 201 # 14/13/1 to # 14/13/23 Calcium carbonate, lichen growth and other organic deposits See illustration below for interpretations * a FI : Animal on a trapline with a trail F2; Human with tally-marks x 8 Depleted frontal or dorsal view F3: Bear paw-print F4: Bear paw-print F5; Unknown See FIO, # 9/6/1 and # 9/4/30 for similar motifs F6: Unknown F7:Beaver symbol F8: Fish symbol F9:Unknown FIO: Unknown See F5, # 9/6/1 and # 9/4/30 for similar motifs FI 1 : Unknown, possible human 12^ F 12: Human Depicted in profile and “walking” F13: Frog with tally-marks x 4 F 14: Unknown with tally-marks x 4 F I5: Beaver symbol F 16; Human Depicted in profile F 17: Unknown F I8: Animal F19: Bear paw-print F20: Unknown, motif has elements o f beaver symbol but remains unidentified F21: Beaver symbol F22: Unknown F23 :Shoreline with unknown symbol See # 14/12/2 for similar motif 202 Human Motifs #4/3/2 # 1/3/1 # 8/2/2 # 5/3/1 # 14/13/12 # 14/13/2 # 14/13/16 # 7/2/1 # 9/1/1 # 9/4/26 and # 9/4/25 # 9/4/23