Malheur County covers a large area, 6.35 million acres. Before recording archaeological sites with petroglyphs, the locations had to be chosen and the methods for recording had to be determined. The Owyhee uplands in southern Malheur County were chosen as the study area (Figure 2). To compare archaeological sites with petroglyphs to all other archaeological sites, a database of the sites was also compiled.
It was difficult to find and select rock art sites to visit in the Owyhee uplands which cover approximately the southern two thirds of Malheur County, especially with very little existing information. The entire existing record of known rock art sites totaled ten locations along the Owyhee River and five locations on the mesas. For these recorded sites, the site forms contained the locations, a short description of the site and some pictures; only one of the sites had been surveyed. Archaeologists at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Vale, Oregon had additional notes documenting where some "Indian drawings" were with more or less accurate locations. From this initial status, the research proceded using known sites and ideas of where other sites might be located. Because of the paucity and sketchy nature of the rock art record prior to 2000, the research reported here was originally conceived in the narrow context of finding, documenting, and describing rock art features at undocumented sites in the Owyhee uplands.
A limiting factor to recording rock art and other surface archaeological features is accessibility of the sites. Most sites along the Owyhee River are only easily accessible by raft in brief spring rafting seasons following wet winters. Mesa sites, if roads are nearby, are accessible almost year-round, so research started at mesa sites which were thought to have "Indian drawings", i.e. undocumented sites. All of the locations visited by the author were relatively close to established gravel roads or more or less passable jeep tracks.
No systematic scheme was applied to choose sites to record. However, the mesa sites were easier to reach and therefore chosen more frequently. Many of the sites recorded in the present work were entirely undocumented or discovered by the author. Of the sites with site forms prior to the start of this project, the author visited six of the fifteen. At four of these six sites, information specific to the rock art panels was added to documented information. Because of these factors, the sample of petroglyph specific data accumulated for the Owyhee uplands by the author has a greater emphasis on newly recorded sites and sites on the mesas. At the end of recording in 2001, twenty eight sites are documented for the county and twenty five of these are in the Owyhee uplands. Personal communications with amateur archaeologists led the author to believe that there are at least four well known, undocumented rock art sites along the Owyhee River and its tributaries.
Recording rock art at archaeological sites is primarily a three step process: surveying, recording the rock art and post-processing of data. However the recording step has many aspects, some of which are site dependent. Rock art sites in the Owyhee uplands are located primarily on two types of features: basalt rim rock and basalt boulder fields. The survey method used was different for the two types of sites.
The rock art sites had not previously been surveyed. The first aspect of surveying was determining the extent of the site and which archaeological features were a part. While petroglyphs were the focus, other archaeological features were noted. When a site was located, all sides were walked to find and record associated features. It was expected that some lithic scatters or ground stone might be associated with the rock art sites, however to the author's amazement rock features were also discovered and documented at some sites.
Basalt rims are essentially cliff faces, so there is usually only one surface upon which petroglyphs can be made. Therefore a rim containing petroglyphs is surveyed by walking from end to end and recording rock art as it is encountered. Fields of boulders pose a slightly more difficult scenario because there are many possible locations where petroglyphs may be found. These include all faces of the boulders and associated basalt rims if the boulder field is located in a draw.
One of the aspects which could be distinguished in areas of boulders were places with prominent growth of grass. If these could be found, plastic tent stakes were pounded into the ground so that a colored string between them delineated a width. With two parallel strings in place from side to side across the boulder field, the area between was canvassed. This involved walking back and forth between the strings marking each petroglyph panel with a florescent colored flagging tape. Once all of the rock art in one area was located, it was recorded before proceeding to the adjacent rectangular area. In a draw, the strings could run from the rim rock, so portions of the rim were included with each section of the boulder field. Each boulder or piece of rim rock that faces in one direction is called a panel or face. More succinctly, "A rock art panel is defined as any rock surface containing art and oriented, for the most part, in one direction" (Loendorf 2001:61).
The first step of the petroglyph recording process was to determine the location of the panels. This was done using a hand held Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. During the 2000 field season, a Lowrance Global Map 100 GPS was used. A waypoint (record of the position) for each rock art panel was created using the averaging function to eliminate some of the introduced variations. A Trimble GeoExplorer3 and Beacon on a Belt was used during the 2001 field season to record locations in a similar manner. For sites located along a basalt rim, the GPS unit was set away from the cliff face. This allowed the unit to locate satellites throughout the sky. The distance and direction between the GPS unit and petroglyph panels were recorded. When operating in a boulder field, the GPS unit was placed on top of the boulder. In some instances of proximity, two adjacent boulders were recorded using the same position as designated by a waypoint.
In both types of locations, along rim rock and in boulder fields, the recording of panels proceeded in the same manner. The first step was to record general data for each panel of rock art (Appendix 1). The dimensions of the panel were recorded, along with its distance from the ground. A compass reading was taken to determine the direction from true North which the rock was facing. An inclination of the face was measured using a protractor and plumb bob from vertical, so zero degrees was vertical. This implies that an overhanging panel would have a negative degree measurement, while boulders would have a range of positive degree readings. At least one photograph was taken of each panel from an angle where all elements were visible (Appendix 2). The data included for each panel were similar to those in Loendorf's (2001) example rock art recording forms. Both the inclination and the compass direction involved human judgment for selection of a spot for the characteristic measurement because few rock faces are completely flat.
The next step was to determine what constituted a single element within the panel. This procedure could be subjective. However, to facilitate recording a general set of guidelines were developed. Distinguishing elements started in the broad reference frame of the entire panel. The first observation was whether or not superimposition was present as verified by the differential coloring of pecked lines. In any case where there were obviously lighter and darker lines, elements were distinguished by their color (one lighter, one darker). The next and more utilized principle was whether or not line, circle, and other design touch. In any instance when it was impossible to distinguish a clear space between designs, they were recorded as one. (One example is three circles connected by a line.) So far, an element was defined as consisting of one color and being connected to its other parts by contiguous lines.
This however was not sufficient because many panels were complex. One general rule of thumb was that if the composition of the designs was identical, a larger area could be designated as one element. This was often seen in the case of circles, for example when four parallel, vertical chains of circles of similar patina were encountered, they were recorded as one element. The same was true with the occurrence of vertical or horizontal lines which lay parallel to one another. Upon panels where dots were prevalent, it was assumed that the dots composing one element would be close in size and have a general theme, such as line of dots, jumble of dots, rectangle of dots, or multiple parallel lines of dots. This designation was subjective, but the occurrence of a group of identical elements with similar lengths and color warranted their classification as a single element. This subjectivity is recognized by Loendorf (2001:61), "A row of dots could be considered a single element, or each dot could be considered an element in itself."
Once the elements had been determined, their width and height were measured to the nearest centimeter using a meter stick. The range of the apparent line width was recorded to a tenth of a centimeter using calipers. A small sketch was drawn on the recording sheet to give a general idea of the design element when the photographs were developed and examined. Any superimposition of elements or distinctively different coloring of designs was recorded in the sheet for the panel (Appendix 1). Elements were also classified using a modified version of Heizer and Baumhoff's (1962) styles. First the elements were split by method of production, all elements produced by scratching the rock surface were designated "scratching" (Photo 1), a broad classification. The petroglyphs produced by pecking (Photo 2), or hitting the rock surface, were further separated by design type: elements which were dots were called "dots" (Photo 3), elements which were judged to be abstract designs were called "abstract" (Photo 4), elements which were judged to show a human, four legged animal, human hand or footprint were called "representational" (Photos 5 and 6), and elements which were deeply pecked dots, over 1 cm deep, were called "pitted" (Photo 7).
The recording method was basically the same for both years of fieldwork. However in 2001 a new section of data was accumulated. The condition of the individual panels was recorded in a yes/no or present/absent format. The categories and specific items were: material - basalt, other; rock surface - even, uneven, smooth, rough; rock condition - holes, cracked, spalling; sources of deterioration - wind, water, rockfall, lichen, patina. Most of these are self-explanatory. The category which presented the most problems for interpretation was rock surface; the difference between even and smooth was that even and uneven referred to the whole panel and whether it looked flat or not, while smooth and rough referred to the texture of the surface. Spalling is a geological term for flat, thin sheets breaking off of the exterior surface of a rock through weathering (Photo 8). Since basalt naturally tends to have spalling, whether or not it was recorded tended to be a judgment call. Spalling can be as damaging to rock art as when large chunks of a rock break off. These additional observations can be valuable on future visits to the sites, however since similar data was not recorded in 2000, these observations have not been included in the current compilation of the data.
Following field work, data was processed in a manner to prepare it for later analysis. The information from the data sheets was entered into a Microsoft Access spreadsheet. Photographs were curated in digital format by scanning the three by five inch color prints at 400 dpi and saving both a color and gray scale copy. GPS information was processed in the Arc/Info software package on a UNIX system.
The processing of site forms and photographs was for analytical purposes as well as creating an archive of the previously undocumented archaeological sites containing rock art.
While the placement of petroglyphs and associated features at an archaeological site is interesting, a more significant GPS analysis would compare distribution of petroglyph sites to the other archaeological sites in the Owyhee uplands. This analysis was conducted in Arc/Info (Appendix 5, Appendix 6).
In order to make a comparison between sites with petroglyphs and other archaeological sites in the Owyhee uplands, a summary of known sites was needed. The Vale Bureau of Land Management had not compiled a summary of site locations and types, however they have a site form for every site. Therefore all the recorded sites have been compiled by the author into a summary as part of this research project. Data from site forms was entered into a Microsoft Access database (Appendix 4).
Prior to entering data from the site forms, the following were designated as fields for the database: Smithsonian number, a unique number assigned by the State Historic Preservation office (SHPO), northing and easting for location in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 11 projection, excavated, bearing, area in hectares, and then designations for features that the site could contain. These features were petroglyph, pictograph, lithic scatter, lithic tool, shelter/cave, campsite, ground stone, rock wall, rock circle, rock feature, weaving, bone fragments, shell fragments, source rock, pit house, refuse midden and ceramics. These features cover all known site types in the Owyhee uplands.
Since the data was pulled from site forms, the recorder acted as a skeptic in accepting information on these forms. The following were cases where the author exercised the right of interpretation. Bone and shell fragments were only recorded if the site was an excavated or potted cave, or if the bone and shell were associated with lithics in an eroding bank. A campsite was defined by having fire cracked rock at surface sites, charcoal in a excavated site or a combination of lithic scatter and ground stone.
Rock wall and rock circle are self explanatory, but why is rock feature, a broader classification, included? Many rock features are of historic origin: cairns were built by Basque sheepherders and some large rock circles were constructed by Scotch sheepherders. So all cairns were thrown out, and then if the picture or description was such to indicate that the feature was historic, it was thrown out. Therefore the designation of rock feature was used by the recorder if the feature was possibly of prehistoric origin and it was not well defined or pictured in the site forms. A rock feature that was well documented or pictured and clearly of prehistoric origin could be classified as a rock wall or a rock circle. It is unfortunate that this precaution was necessary, however some areas with rock strewn in a single layer on top of other rock have been recorded as "rock features". The author observed this type of layering of single rocks on top of base rock occurring naturally, particularly on basalt. For this documentation, rock features were only identified as such if there was a consistent design of one rock piled atop another or if there were three or more rocks stacked. Areas with structures three, four and five rocks high were not made by natural erosion of basalt.
For this database, lithic tool was also a closely defined category. Tool was marked whenever mentions were made of projectile points, knives, blades, scrapers, etc. The designation of tool was not used for mentions of bifaces unless a clear picture or sketch accompanied the report showing bifacial working. This was because some of the pictures of "bifaces" included with site forms were pictures of unaltered flakes.
In order to carry out spatial analysis, the locations and features of archaeological sites in the Owyhee uplands were exported from the database and imported into Arc/Info (Appendix 5).