This is a pretty nice site of pictographs and petroglyphs but my main memory of the visit is of being miserably itchy, since we were plagued by hordes of no-see-ums! They had a great time finding spots to land and had a feast wherever they ended up. With long sleeves and a bug net the visit would have been better, but we did not expect to be swarmed and were not prepared at all!
Also not helping matters was the humid, muggy feel in the air, despite it still being early in the day.
Pictographs and petroglyphs are scattered along the low cliffs on the right side of this draw.
All this meant we ended up scurrying up the wash towards the site in a hurry, snapping photos, and then hightailing it back to the vehicle.
I’d like to head back in better weather sometime since this site has some interesting man-made features ( rock circles and a low rock wall ) that I didn’t even try to investigate due to the duress we were under. I used to think no-see-ums could not be that bad. How much can something you can barely see hurt when it bites, anyway? Ha ha.
The site, situated near the mouth of a draw, sits on the eastern edge of a wide flat. The high elevation means there is plenty of tree cover at the site itself. From the lip of the draw you can look out across the treeless, shrubby plain below.
The draw winds back into the hills, providing an access point to a high meadow. From this meadow there is access over a lower mountain range to a large valley. This topography means that the site might have been a good spot to ambush migrating deer — and indeed, the low rock wall that cuts off easy access to areas other than the draw suggests as much. Funneling sheep or deer into the steep-sided draw would give hunters an easy opportunity.
Ah, there’s something up there, high above the floor of the wash. See the red pigment right next to the tree, up on the lighter colored band at the top of the cliff? Let’s scramble up there and take a closer look.
That doesn’t mean the pictographs and petroglyphs were necessarily associated with hunting, though. They are further up the wash than the rock wall, though they are at a place that might have made a good ambush point.
The rock circles usually were the foundation for dwellings of some sort, though they could be hunting blinds, too. This may also have been a seasonal settlement for hunting purposes.
Now that we have some background into the layout of the site we can look at the pictographs and petroglyphs.
That is a nice pictograph. Unusual, too. Apart from the hourglass-like figure and circle on the left, there is also a grid and bisected circle in the center, done in a darker red pigment. Finally, there is a very faded rake element at the very right.
DStretch shows that what we thought was a bisected circle is instead just a half-circle with a line. Next to it is a bunch of poorly spaced lines, connected on the right but not the left, and finally, a spindly rake symbol on the right.
This site is unusual in the lack of uniformity that its elements exhibit. Often petroglyphs or pictographs seem to be made by the same hand or for the same purpose: entoptic designs, firmly pecked lines, uniform pigment colors and execution.
In this case, the pigment colors for the pictographs differ: some are darker red than others. The care taken with the elements is also uneven: some are carefully drawn, with crisp, solid lines, but others seem less steady and more haphazard. Just in the panel above you can look at the DStretch photo to see how much smoother the edges of the element on the left is when compared with the half-circle.
The petroglyphs are also of two main flavors: either pecked, with thick, bold lines, or else very thinly scratched, like you’d get if you scratched a rock with a nail or the point of a knife.
A lille further along the wash we find a monolith with a brightly colored pictograph and some petroglyphs. In all cases petroglyphs overlay pictographs at this site.
There is a very faint pictograph at the foot of this pillar, in the shape of a hoop, with a circle inside it. This site is unusual in this regard too – pictographs right at ground level. Since the site sits in a wash, these pictographs are very faded due to rainwater washing over them when the wash is active.
A close-up, with DStretch. The pictographs are overlaid with thinly scratch designs. I typically regard these as inauthentic since they look like designs vandals scratched with nails or other sharp iron objects. Some of the petroglyphs are more in the typical style, thicker, pecked lines. Let’s look at the one you can see on the right of the picture.
That looks more like a real petroglyph. It overlays some faint pictographs. On the far left the scratchings are obvious modern vandalism. The strange thing about this petroglyph is its strong resemblance to a Western symbol that’s been in use for ages – the Rod of Asclepius, the symbol of the medical profession.
This panel is pretty representative of the site: pictographs underpin a jumble of petroglyphs in various different styles. There is certainly plenty of modern graffiti present, mostly initials scratched into the rock face with thin, sharp objects, but some of the thin scratches also look like genuine petroglyph motifs. Interspersed with these are more typical petroglyphs with thick pecked lines depicting common Abstract motifs.
There are also several faint or rudimentary panels scattered along the wash: a basic petroglyph, a blotch of faded pigment, or maybe a scratched petroglyph design. I’m not going to show these here.
This photo suggest something interesting about the site. As I said before, the petroglyphs are scratched over the pictographs. The more authentic petroglyphs look like they have a darker patina than the spindly vandalism does, but maybe that is just a function of the exposed surface area. Look really closely here, just to the right of the upper part of the large petroglyph. See how the red pigment appears to be *inside* the thinly scratched lines? Maybe the pigment was applied after those scratches were made. The pigment certainly remains now because the scratches removed the impermeable desert varnish, allowing the pigment to bond to the porous rock beneath.
There’s a band of pigment right on the edge of this rock.
A very saturated DStretch look shows a surprise – a rather nice burst element hidden in the center of the rock face.
The panels of pictographs and petroglyphs get larger and more elaborate as we travel up the wash. Here are more pictographs and petroglyphs. The petroglyphs are mostly pecked, but there are also some deeply incised designs to the lower right.
The top part of the panel has three styles of petroglyphs on it. The pecked petroglyphs ( which on this panel includes another snake-like squiggle ) appear to be overlaid by thicker lines that were gouged into the rock, and of course, the thinly scratched petroglyphs are also scattered all over. This panel also has underlaying pictographs, now very faded.
The other part of this second panel has several circular pictographs as well as abstract petroglyphs.
Both pictographs and petroglyphs pop more with DStretch.
The spindly figure in the lower right of the panel. It looks like the thicker scratched lines overlays the thin ones. The pictograph is overlaid by both.
The main petroglyph is surprisingly intricate, with splitting appendages. The pictograph is a poorly made shield design.
As you go deeper up the wash, the wall at one side turns into a low cliff. On the other side there is a steep, crumbly slope underpinned by a rock shelf. This layout would have been well-suited to an ambush – the tall walls with the petroglyphs and pictographs would prevent the prey from escaping up that side.
On the other side hunters could have crouched down ready to make the kill. The bottom of the wash is rocky in places, with low dry waterfalls, which would also have discouraged the animals from trying to escape up the wash, funneling them towards the hunters on the slopes.
Given these features, I think it is worth considering that this may have been a hunting site, even if the pictographs and petroglyphs doesn’t depict anything associated with hunting, like animals or weapons.
These two pictographs are on a boulder right down in the wash. Any time the wash is active they will be underwater.
At the upper end of the wash is the most elaborate of the panels. Like all the others, this one also has pictographs with petroglyphs on top of them, but the petroglyphs seem better made than elsewhere, and the whole panel feels more coherent and more typical of petroglyph sites in the Great Basin.
Finally, just around the corner ( note the two panels we looked at just now in the background ) is the main panel in the wash. There are many very nicely pecked petroglyphs here, overlaying the pictographs. An especially interesting pictograph is the hand print in the center of the panel, just to the right of the “target” design.
A good helping of DStretch to show the pictographs better. Notice the faint pictographs on the boulder in the lower left corner.
Let’s really take in that nice main panel. You can clearly see the pecks making up the petroglyphs and also the many spindly circular grid elements to the left. Some of these are overgrown with lichen which suggest they are several centuries old if that is a slow-growth lichen species. Some lichen takes a century to grow a quarter-inch. There are a few misdirected pecks in the panel but for the most part it is nicely made.
Now you can clearly see the handprint I referred to earlier. The other two large pictographs are bisected circles or shield designs. This panel has a very vibrant, lively feel to it.
And finally, here are the pictographs on that low boulder.
Well, I hoped you enjoyed seeing this site! It was pretty nice to look at the photos now, in the comfort of my cool, bug-free house!
If you visit this site bring your bug spray, just in case, and remember to keep your hands off of the panels! The pictographs are already faded enough. Touching them hastens the deterioration. The site seems sparsely visited now but it was better-known at some point, as the graffiti and vandalism shows. I seldom publish photos of vandalism, as you may have noted, but I do note which sites are damaged.
Hi,
This site is mentioned in Heiser, Baumhoff: Prehistoric Rock Art of Nevada and Eastern California. It is one of their “Hunting Hypothesis” sites.
Nearby is an antelope wing trap which I think was mentioned in someone’s journal in Fremont’s expedition, but I cannot find the reference. There are many antelope traps not too far away in California and Nevada although the main concentration of traps is in NE Nevada.
Look at Phil Wilke’s article on Bow Stave Trees (http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4v5249w9) for more interesting stuff up the canyon.
I really like your use of DStretch. You do it very well and even get the name right. I feel I must have met you somewhere?
Regards,
Jon
Jon Harman! What a delight to get a comment from you, and on DStretch too!
No, unfortunately we haven’t met, but I am in debt to you for developing DStretch. I use the ImageJ plugin for the blog, and recently got the app on my iPad which I’m really excited about. I actually have some pictures from a site up in the western Sierra I visited recently – and on one of the photos is a really faded element, neatly cut in half because I didn’t see it until I ran it through DStretch. So I’ll have to go back once the weather settles a bit. Now that I have the app, I will be able to easily see such things while I’m at the site.
Thank you for that link! That is extremely interesting. Well, I meant to go back to this site sometime this year and now I have my suspicion that there might be more up that canyon confirmed! I planned to go back during a time that isn’t no-see-um season and walk the canyon back to the plateau / valley that is SSE of it. Now I have even more interesting history on it to keep in mind on that walk. I also want to thoroughly examine that antelope wing trap. I think in this case Heiser & Baumhoff was correct and this site has strong hunting ties. I’ve also been to a site down on the Volcanic Tablelands (http://www.peregriff.com/wanderings/fall-funnel-petroglyphs/) that appears to be a hunting site for sure.
Great hearing from you! If you’re ever curious about or would want to visit any of these sites ( I’m sure you’ve been to or know of just about all of them ) drop me a line on the contact form.
Hi,
There are many of your sites in Joshua Tree that I haven’t visited, I’ll contact you if I ever plan a trip there.
I am interested in the High Sierra Meadows site and would like to know more about it.
I know the “Fall Funnel” site and will comment there about it.
I sent you an email about High Sierra Meadows. For JTNP, just let me know! There’s some fantastic sites there. Also keep an eye out, in the next couple of months I should be posting a couple more sites in JTNP, one of which is previously unrecorded as far as I know.