What Do These Symbols Mean a Critical Review of the Images Found on The

7/24/2019 What Do These Symbols Mean a Critical Review of the Images Found on The

1/86

WHAT DO THESE SYMBOLS MEAN? A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE IMAGES FOUND ON THEROCKS OF THE CANADIAN SHIELD WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE PICTOGRAPHS OF THELAKE OF THE WOODSAuthor(s): Alicia J.M. COLSONSource: Revista de Arqueologa Americana, No. 25, MANIFESTACIONES SIMBLICAS EN MESO YNORTE AMRICA (2007), pp. 101-185Published by: Pan American Institute of Geography and HistoryStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27768517.Accessed: 21/09/2014 04:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Pan American Institute of Geography and Historyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access toRevista de Arqueologa Americana.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:29:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=paighhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/27768517?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/27768517?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=paigh


2/86

WHAT

DO

THESE

SYMBOLS

MEAN?

A

CRITICAL

REVIEW

OF

THE IMAGES

FOUND

ON

THE ROCKS OF THE CANADIANSHIELD WITH

SPECIFIC

REFERENCE

TO

THE PICTOGRAPHS

OF

THE LAKE

OF

THE

WOODS

Alicia

J.

M.

COLSON*

Abstract

This article

not

only

surveys

but

critically

comments

on

the

publications

of

those researchers

who

have

worked

on

the Lake of theWoods.

It

lso refers

to

studies

in other

regions

on

the Canadian

Shield. Previous studies

have

utilised different

paradigms

and had their

own

opinions

as

to

the value of

particular approaches,

methods,

and

framework of different

approaches

adopted by

previous

work. For the frontiers

of

research

can

only

be

pushed

forward

if

every

generation

of researchers

challenges

and re-examines the

work

of

its

predecessors.

Such

surveys

of

previous

work should form

part

of

a base which is founded on a solid understanding of the fundamental issues

and

problems

of the field at

hand. Each

investigator

must

conduct

a

detailed

survey

and

analysis

of

their

predecessor's

work. This

to

enable them

to

establish

which

approach

has been the

most

popular,

what

have been

the

previous findings,

what

were

their

premises,

what

have been the

methods

and the frameworks that have been utilized. The studies reviewed

have

been

categorized

according

to

the

theoretical

approach

taken

by

the

principal

investigator

of the

study.

The author

concludes

with

a

short

discussion of her

rationale in

choosing

and

establishing

the

sequence

of several

theoretical

approaches foruse inpath breaking research.

4243

rue

Gamier,

Apt.

21, Montreal, Quebec, Canada,

H2J 3R7.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/86

102

Revista

de

Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

Resumen

?Qu?

significan

estos

s?mbolos?

Una

revisi?n cr?tica de

las

im?genes

encontradas

en

las

rocas

del

Escudo

Canadiense

con

referencia

espec?fica

a

las

pictograf?as

de

Lake

of the

Woods

Este

art?culo

no

s?lo

revisa sino

que

comenta

cr?ticamente

las

publicaciones

de

aquellos

investigadores

que

han

trabajado

en

Lake

of the Woods.

Se

refiere

tambi?n

a

los

estudios

en

otras

regiones

del Escudo

Canadiense.

Los

estudios

previos

han

utilizado diferentes

paradigmas

y

tuvieron

sus

propias

opiniones

en

cuanto

al valor de los

enfoques

y

m?todos

particulares,

as?

como al marco de referencia de los diferentes

enfoques

adoptados

por

trabajos

anteriores.

Las fronteras de

la

investigaci?n

s?lo

pueden

ser

empujadas

si

cada

generaci?n

de

investigadores

desaf?a

y

re-examina la

labor de

sus

predecesores.

Estas

revisiones

de las

investigaciones

previas

deber?an

formar

parte

de

una

base

que

se

fundamenta

en

una

s?lida

comprensi?n

de

las cuestiones

y

problemas

fundamentales

del ?mbito

que

nos

ocupa.

Cada

investigador

debe

realizar

una

revisi?n

y

un

an?lisis

detallado

del

trabajo

de

sus

predecesores.

Esto

les

permite

establecer

qu?

enfoque

ha sido

el m?s

popular,

cu?les

han

sido

los

hallazgos

anteriores,

cu?les

fueron

sus

premisas,

cu?les han

sido los

m?todos

y

los

marcos

de

referencia

que

han sido

utilizados.

Los estudios revisados se han clasificado

de acuerdo

con

el

enfoque

te?rico

adoptado

por

el

investigador

principal

del

estudio.

La autora

concluye

con

una

breve discusi?n

sobre

su

justificaci?n

para

elegir

y

establecer

una

secuencia

de varios

enfoques

te?ricos

a usar en

una

investigaci?n

de

vanguardia.

R?sum?

Que

veulent dires

ces

symboles?

Une

?valuation

critiques

des

images

rupestres

trouv?es

dans

le

bouclier

Canadien

avec

une

attention

particuli?re

pour

la

r?gion

du lac

des

Bois

Dans

cet article

nous

effectuons

un

survol

ainsi

qu'une

?valuation

critique

des

publications

de

ceux

et

celles

qui

ont

dans

la

r?gion

du lac

de

Bois ainsi

qu'ailleurs

sur

le

bouclier

Canadien.

Les

?tudes

ant?rieures

ont utilis?

des

paradigmes

diff?rents

et

ont

eu

leurs

propres

opinions

quant

?

la

valeur

des

diff?rentes

approches,

m?thodes

et

cadres

de

r?f?rence

des

approches

ant?rieures.

Car

les limites

de

la

recherche

ne

peuvent

?tre

?tendues

que

si

chaque

g?n?rations

de

chercheurs

remets

en

question

et

r?examine

les

travaux de

ses

pr?d?cesseurs.

De

tel survols

de

recherches

ant?rieures

devraient former la base d'une compr?hension solide

des

questions

et

probl?mes

fondamentaux

du

domaine

en

question.

Chaque

chercheur

doit

entreprendre

un

survol

et

l'analyse

des

travaux

de

ses

pr?d?cesseurs.

Ceci

leur

permet

d'?tablir

quelle

approche

a

?t?

la

plus

r?pandue,

la

nature

de

leurs

d?couvertes,

les

pr?mices

de

base,

les

m?thodes

et les

cadres

de



4/86

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

103

r?f?rence.

Ici

nous

avons

cat?goris?

les ?tudes ant?rieures

selon

l'approche

th?orique.

L'auteur

conclue

avec

une

courte

discussion

expliquant

son

raisonnement

pour

?tablir

une

s?quence

d'approches

th?oriques

?

utiliser

dans de la

recherche

de fine

pointe.

Resumo

O

que

estes

s?mbolos

significam?

Urna

revis?o

cr?tica

das

imagens

encontradas

?as

rochas do

Canadian Shield

com

referencia

especifica

para

os

pictograf?as

do

Lake

of

the

Woods

Este

artigo

nao faz

apenas

um

levantamento,

mas

comenta

criticamente

as

publica??es

dos

pesquisadores

que

trabalharam

no

Lake of

The

Woods.

Ele

se

refere tamb?m

aos

estudos

de

outras

regioes

do

Canadian

Shield.

Os

estudos

precedentes

utilizaram

diferentes

paradigmas

e

tem

sua

pr?pria

opini?o

sobre

o

valor

de

abordagens

e

m?todos

particulares

e

o

quadro

das

diferentes

pesquisas

adotadas. Para

que

da

pesquisa

avance

?

necess?rio

que

cada

gera?ao

de

pesquisadores

examine

o

trabalho

de

seus

predecessores.

O

levantamento

de

trabalhos

precedentes

deveria

fazer

parte

da

base

para

a

constru?ao

do

conhecimento s?lido

dos

temas

e

problemas

fundament?is do

campo

em

quest?o.

Cada

pesquisador

deve

conduzir urna an?lise e um levantamento detalhado dos trabalhos dos seus

predecessores.

Isto

permite

o

estabelecimento de

qual

tem

sido

a

abordagem

mais

popular,

quais

foram

os

achados

pr?vios,

quais

foram

as

premissas,

quais

tem

sido

os

m?todos

e

os

quadro

de

referencia

utilizados.

Os

estudos

revistos

foram

classificados

de

acordo

com

as

abordagens

te?ricas

usadas

pelo

principal

pesquisador

do

estudo. O

autor

conclu?

com

urna

curta

discussao da

sua

raz?o

na

escolha

e

estabelecimento da

seq??ncia

de

diferentes

abordagens

te?ricas

para

usar

na

pesquisa.



5/86

104

Revista

de

Arqueolog?a

Americana

No.

25

Introduction

The

collection and

interpretation

of data

are

intergenerational

processes

in

which each

new

generation

of scholars

amplifies,

and

modifies

the work

of

its

predecessors.

This

is

clearly

a

truism;

the

implications

of this

are

rarely

understood

and

developed.

On

the

one

hand

most

investigators

work

within

their

own

paradigm.

This

does

not render them

immune

from

criticism,

set

in

aspic.

This

article

surveys

the

publications

of

researchers

working

on

the

pictograph

and

petroglyph

sites

in

the Lake

of theWoods

area. I

stablish

the

approaches

which

have

been

the

most

popular,

previous

findings

on

pictograph

sites, and the way materials were examined. A standard of

comparison

emerges,

to

become

a

yardstick

against

which

new

data

can

be

examined.

Much

of

this

article

is

specifically

concerned

with

the

analysis

of

the

pictograph

sites

of the Lake

of

the

Woods

area,

but

references

are

made

to

studies

of

sites elsewhere

on

the

Canadian

Shield.

The

literature

falls

into

seven

sections.

The

first

discusses

the

earliest

investigations

of

these

images.

The

second

(with

three

subsections)

examines

the

technical

literature

with

special

emphasis

on

(a)

the subdivision

of

the

sites

into

sections,

(b)

the

vocabulary

used

to

describe

the

images (c)

the

development

of

the

recording

techniques.

The

third

section

is concerned

with the works that

present

the technical analysis of these sites. It is

subdivided

into

(a)

the

techniques

used

to record

the

pictographs

and

petroglyphs

nd

(b)

the

conservation

of

the

pictographs

nd

the different

methods

used

to

analyse

them.

The

final

sections

critique

the

archaeological

literature.

They

cover

five

approaches:

culture-historical,

contextual,

intuitive,

analogical

and

homological.

These

complementary

theoretical

approaches

should

be

employed

in

a

specific

order

(see

Figure

1).

Flaws

in

each

of

the

first

two

stages

will

limit

he effectiveness

of

all

others.

An

archaeologist

must

first

implement

the

culture-historical

approach,

then

the

contextual

approach,

and

finally

either

the

intuitive,

analogical,

or

homological

approach.

These

theoretical

approaches

are

important

because unlike scholars from other

disciplines,

contemporaneous

textual

data

are

rarely

available

to

an

archaeologist.

In

their

absence

researchers

must

draw

upon

the

remaining

material

evidence

to

interpret

the

manner in

which

different

groups

of

people

thought,

and

interacted.

A

systematic

interpretive

approach

may

enable

archaeologists

to infer

human

behaviour

and

meaning

from

archaeological

data.

Each

approach

will

dictate

the

types

of

questions

asked,

and

indicate

the

levels

of

understanding

obtained

regarding

the

archaeological

evidence

under

examination.

Analysts

must

examine

the

same

data

using

these

different

approaches sequentially,

since

this

increases

the

potential

quantity

of

information

to

be

gained

from

the

images.

Therefore

it is

important

for the

literature

belonging

to each

approach

to be

examined

in

sequence.

Section

five,

therefore,

considers

the

literature

belonging

to

the culture-historical

approach,

where

archaeologists

have

examined

the

shape,

location,

and



6/86

What do These

Symbols

Mean?.

105

date of the

images.

Section six assesses the value of the literature

belonging

to the contextual

approach.

This

involves

the

search for

patterns

which

might

relate different

images

and

combinations

of

images

both

between and within

sites. This

approach

must

be

employed

to

connect

the

culture-historical

information

with the

larger

issues,

the

totality

of the

images

and

the

natural

features

of the site itself.

In

this

case

I

use

the

word

contextual

in

a

broader

and less technical

sense

than

Hodder

(1991)

intended. For low-level

generalisations

can

be

made

that relate

data,

without

searching

for

larger

explanations

of

meaning.

The seventh and final

section reviews

the

literature

in

which

archaeologists assign meanings

to

images

on

the

basis

of

three

methodologies

which

may

be

employed

either

together

or

separately.

This

section

contains

three

parts,

each

dealing

with

a

different

approach:

(i)

the

intuitive

approach,

(ii)

the

analogical

approach,

and

finally

(iii)

the

homological approach.

Each

of

these

approaches

should

be

briefly

discussed.

CULTURE-HISTORY

Les/el

1

:

stablishes

the

shape,

location,

nd

date of

the

images.

CONTEXTUAL

Level

2:

Relates

various

types

of

empirical

informationo

the

ite

where

they

ere

found,

and

considers

a

broad

set

of

associations

and

relations

mong

the

images

themselves,

and

between

the

images

and

their

physical

settings.

A

contextual

pproach

involves search

for

patterns

relating

ifferent

images

and

combinations

of

images

within

ites.

INTUITIVE

nd/or

NALOGICALnd/or

OMOLOGICAL

Level

3:

Assigns

meanings

to

images

on

the

bass of three

methodologies

which

are

employed

together

r

separately.

Figure

1.

Sequence

in

which

archaeological

approaches

must be

utilised.

The

intuitive

(narrative,

constructivist,

or

so

called

'humanist')

approach

associated with post-processual archaeology developed as a reaction against

the

positivism

of

the

processual

archaeologists

during

the

1970s

and

1980s.

The

intuitive

or

narrative

approach

is

popular

among

petroglyph

and

pictograph

scholars

because

it

enables

them to

address

the

issue

of

the



7/86

106

Revista

de

Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

meaning

of

an

image,

even

when

there

is

a

paucity

of

detailed

textual

records. This

is

of

questionable

utility.

The

strong

relativists load their

theoretical

discussions

with

tortuous

vocabulary. They

claim

a

great

deal but

fail to

advance

beyond

the

subjective.

Though

authoritative

and

assertive

in

tone,

their

interpretations

are

exercises

in

navel

gazing.

The

readers,

finds

themselves

at

the whim

of

each

scholar's

intuition. The

applications

of

this

approach

cannot

be

duplicated,

since researchers

rarely

explain

how

they

reached

their

findings.

A scholar interested

in

establishing

the

meaning

of

rock

images

in

a

more

rigorous

and

persuasive

fashion

cannot

stay

there,

and should adopt the analogical or homological approach (see Figure 1).

The

analogical

approach,

associated

with

processual

archaeology,

was a

reaction

by

positivists

to the

culture-history

which dominated

the

post

war

era.

Its

proponents

argued

that behaviour

could

be

inferred from

material

culture

because

many

uniform connections

exist

between

the

various

components

of

socio-cultural

systems,

material

culture,

and

human

behaviour. Scholars

who

practice

this

approach

argue

that

it is

only

worth

employing

universal

regularities

in

human behaviour.

Biologists

define

analogies

as

similar

features

of

different

species

without

close

evolutionary

relations.

The similarities

have

resulted

from

natural selection

operating

to

adapt different species to a similar environment (Abercrombie, Hickman and

Johnson

1985:20).

An

archaeological

analogy

is

a

likeness

or

partial

likeness

assumed

to

exist

as

a

consequence

of

convergent

development

under

comparable

conditions.

Interpretation

using

analogies

allows

scholars

to

use

strong

cross-cultural

regularities

between

behaviour

and

material

culture

in

systemic

contexts

to attribute

behavioural

correlates

to

material

remains

recovered

from

archaeological

contexts.

This

assumes that

correlations

can

be

argued

between

past

and

present

day cognitive

and behavioural

capabilities

of

human

beings.

So,

if

imilar

behavioural

characteristics

can

be established

between

specific

aspects

of

material culture and behaviour in the contemporary world, scholars can

extend

them

to

cover

the

same

or

similar

aspects

of

material

culture

in

the

archaeological

record

(Binford

1981).

Scholars

adopting

analogical

approaches

use

universal

generalisations,

rather

than

concepts

specific

to

individual

or

historically

related

cultures.

This has

one

major

drawback.

For

if

they

deem

only

universal

correlations

to be

relevant

then

it

is

difficult

to

deal

with the

idiosyncratic

facets

of

a

single

image.

The

homological

approach

might

offer

an

alternative

to

this

bleak

picture.

An

archaeological

homology

is

a

similarity

in

two

or more

cultures

occurring

as

the

result

of

shared

historical

origin

unobscured

by

adaptation

to

different

cultural environments. Archaeological homologies result from diffusion as

well

as common descent.

In this

they

differ

from

biological

ones.

In

biology,

reproductive

isolation

ensures

that

homologies

occur

only

among

species

descended

from

a

common

ancestor.

Consequently,

homological

similarities



8/86

What do These

Symbols

Mean?.

107

imply

evolutionary

relationships

among

organisms

(Abercrombie,

Hickman,

and

Johnson

1985:145).

Scholars establish

homologies by tracing

cultural

continuities

through

time

within

a

single,

or

a

series of

historically

related cultural traditions.

Interpretations

employing homologies frequently

utilise the

direct

historical

approach.

This

approach

identifies

parallels

between

culturally

specific

beliefs

and

their material

expressions

during

the

early

historical

period,

and

employs

material

culture

to trace

these beliefs

back

into

prehistoric

times. The

bridging

arguments

for

establishing

homologies

between the

present

and

the

past

are

culturally specific. According

to

Watson, LeBlanc,

and

Redman

(1971:50),

homologies

are

advantageous

in

regions

of

strong

cultural

continuity

and where

the

same

techniques

and

implements

have

been

utilised for

a

long

period

of

time. Written

records,

oral

heritage,

and

ethnographic

observations

are

probably

the

strongest types

of

evidence

used when

devising bridging arguments

(Trigger

1995:452).

Scholars

exploit

these materials

to

establish which

beliefs

existed

in

specific

cultures.

The

direct

historical

approach

connects

archaeology

with

other

disciplines,

providing

information

concerning

the

practices

and

beliefs of

specific,

or

groups of, historically related societies. By relying on a wide

variety

of

evidence,

archaeologists

can

attempt

to

establish

whether

continuity

exists

over

the

very

long

term

in

the

practices

and

beliefs

in

question.

The

homological

approach

allows

in-depth

analysis

of

a

specific

group

and

its

material

culture.

It

permits

archaeologists

to

consider

what

human

beings

might

have

thought

about in

the

past,

and

provides

insights

into

the

meaning

of

specific

symbols

and

objects.

It

may

even

be

possible

to

determine

that

similar

images

used in

a

variety

of

different

mediums

might

have

held

similar

meanings.

It

is

a

very

demanding approach

to

execute

for

scholars

intending

to

use

homological

interpretations

must

have a detailed understanding of the skills required to use archaeological,

historical,

and

ethnographic

materials from

the

region

in

question.

These

materials

demand

multidisciplinary

skills to

be

exploited

effectively.

Those

taking

this

approach

must

verify

how

cultures

establish

entrenched

beliefs,

and

how

susceptible

these

are

to

evaluation in

terms

of

that

culture.

Any

scholar

intending

to

use

the

homological

approach

must

be

aware

of

different cultural

perspectives.

They

must

acknowledge

that

using

the

direct

historical

approach

is

neither

straightforward

nor

simple.

Continuity

of

form

does

not

necessarily

imply

continuity

of

meaning.

Meaning

can

also

change,

especially

since

icons

tend to

be

polys?mie.

Material symbols can obtain new meanings and become examples of

what

Davis

(1992:25)

called

an

iconographie

disjunction.

Continuity

or

discontinuity

in

beliefs

over

time

cannot

be

simply

correlated

with

material

culture.



9/86

108

Revista

de

Arqueolog?a

Americana No. 25

'Rock

Art'

and Its

Study

-

Some

Preliminary Thoughts

I think that the

images

that

exist

on

the

surface of rocks

should be

termed

rock

images,

or

petroglyphs

and

pictographs

instead

of

rock

art.

I

realise

that

the

term

'rock

art'

is

applied

world-wide

to

images

that

are

placed

on

the

surfaces

of

rocks. It

occurs

in

many

different

places

and

settings:

Australian

rock

shelters,

the

surfaces

of boulders

in

the

Jordanian

desert,

vertical

rock

faces

or

rock

outcrops

on

the Canadian

Shield,

the

sides

of the

stone

passages

of New

Grange

in

Ireland,

and

the walls

of

deep

caves in

France

and

Spain.

'Rock

art'

also

covers

features created

using

rocks

of

different

sizes to

produce

'rock,' or 'boulder

alignments'.

I

think that the

term

'art'

is

problematic

because

it

suggests

that

these

images

have

primarily

a

decorative

value

and

no

intrinsic

value

or

meaning

of

their

own.

It lso

implies

classification

of

these

images

according

to

Western

notions

of

high

or

low

art,

or,

perhaps,

a

craft.

These

terms

have loaded

meanings,

since

they

impose

the

analyst's

conventional

values.

Rock

images

should

not be considered

within

such

a

perspective,

since,

evidently,

the

cultural

context

of

the

'reader'

or

'viewer'

influences

perception

and

classification.

This

prejudgement

affects

how

images

are

understood

(Blocker

1994;

Conkey

1987;

Price

1989).

Notwithstanding these continual dangers, scholars interested in these

images

continue

to

use

the

term

'art'.

Images

similar

to

those

found

on

rock

surfaces

of

the

Canadian

Shield

are

encountered

in

other

cultural

contexts

(Densmore

1974

[1928];

Phillips

1999;

Ritzenthaler

nd

Ritzenthaler

1970).

The

designation

of

all

these

sorts

of

images

as

'art',

'folk art'

or

'handicrafts'

has

created

problems

for

their

analysts.

Delineated

guidelines

do

not exist

to

indicate

the

manner

in

which the

meaning

of

such

images

should

be

unpacked.

Yet,

whether

or

not

these

images

were

intended

as

'art',

they

are

a

form of

communication,

and,

therefore,

they

challenge

us

to

understand

them.

I

disagree

with

Whitley's

(2001:22-23)

argument

that the

term

'rock

art'

should not be changed since a western intellectual

tradition

has

used

it

for

over

one

hundred

years.

The

use

of

a

term

for

a

long

period

of

time

should

not

justify

its

continued

usage,

particularly

if the

users

acknowledge

that

problems

exist

with

it.

Continuing

such

a

practice

or

'tradition'

merely

leaves

the

arena

open

for

continual

disputes

and

discussions

over

whether

these

images

are

art

or

not.

Rock

image

sites

cannot

be studied

using

the

same

techniques

as are

applied

to other

archaeological

sites.

The

theoretical

approaches

used

and

the

questions

asked

may

be

the

same but

the

data

sources

are

radically

different

and

generally

far

more

limited.

These

images

cannot

be excavated

using

the

techniques

for

recovering,

cataloguing,

and

analysing

data

that

archaeologists

apply

to 'conventional'

archaeological

sites. The area

surrounding

such

images

may

be

excavated

but

the

physical

context

of

the

site

often

provides

little

r

no

information

about

the

meaning(s)

of

the

images

themselves.



10/86

What do

These

Symbols

Mean?.

109

The subjectivebeliefsand ideas held by thepeople who created these

images

did

more

to

shape

them

than

technological

processes

or

the

economic

or

political

systems

in

which

these

people

lived.

Therefore,

the

archaeologist

must

rely

to

an

unusual

degree

on a

range

of

non

archaeological

sources

in

order to

establish

the

meaning

of

the

images.

It is

very

difficult

to access

this

information

for

a

group

whose

past

is

available

only

through

the

archaeological

record.

The

difficulties

in

accessing

the

symbolic

knowledge

of

a

group

of

people

through

the inherent

attributes

and

physical

location of such

images

may

explain

why

these

sites have often

been

ignored,

or

merely

described,

in contrast

to

similar

images

found

on

birch bark scrolls. Fieldwork and archival work must be considered as equally

important

in

this

study,

since

information

must be

drawn

from

a

wide

range

of

disciplines,

including

archaeology,

anthropology, history,

art

history,

geology,

and

geography.

The

earliest

investigation

of

these

images

Mackenzie

(1793),

Schoolcraft

(1851),

Bell

(1879-80),

Lawson

(1885)

and

some

of

the

early

French

explorers,

such

as

Lafitau

(1794)

and

Dablon

(1896-1901),

were

among

the

first

to

record the

presence

of

images

either

painted or engraved on rocks in the Canadian Shield. While examining the

geology

of

Molson's Lake

to

the

west

of

Hudson

Bay

in

1879,

Bell

(1881:7c)

found

a

pictograph

site

on

the

north

side

of

Pai-Musk-taban

Sipi

near

its

mouth.

The

painted

figures

existed

on

a

gneiss

cliff that

measured

up

to

100

feet

(ibid.)

in

the

form

of

small

figures

in

red

ochre,

said to

have

been

painted

by

the

father f the

present

chief

of

the

colony

of

Indians

which

removed

a

few

a

years

ago

from Little

Playgreen

Lake

to

Fisher

River,

on

the

west

side

of

Lake

Winnipeg.

The

largest

images

were

not

more

than

one

foot

high

(ibid.),

and

most

of them

were

less

than

eight

inches.

According

to

Bell,

among

them

were

representedfed]

a

boat,

canoe,

tortoise,

bird,

deer,

otter,

Indian,

pipes,

etc.

He

stated

that

the local

Indians

described them

as

being

much

more

wonderful

than

they really

are.

Afore recent

literature

More

recent

examinations

of

rock

image

sites

are

published

in

a

variety

of

places.

Some of

these

publications

have

summarised

the

discoveries

of

pictograph

and

petroglyph

ites in

the

Canadian

Shield

(Brenner

1994;

Conway,

T.

1979;

Dewdney

1963,

1965,

1977,

1979a;

Molyneaux

1977,

1980a;

Nute

1948;

Wellmann

1979a).

A

few

have

considered

issues

such

as

tourism

(Arsenault

1996)

and

political

and

ideological

conflicts

(Arsenault1997; Nelson and Hinshelwood

1998).

Others have discussed

trips

that

involved

searching

for,

finding

or

visiting,

sometimes

recording

sites

in

the

Canadian

Shield,

and

also

speculating

on

the

meanings

of

images

found

(Ashdown

1973;

Cameron

and

Cameron

1979;

Dewdney

1958,

Knowlton



11/86

110

Revista

de

Arqueolog?a

Americana

No.

25

1992;Macfie 1992;

Mallory

1961;Olson 1961;

Pettipas 1991a).

Some

briefly

discussed and

referenced

rock

image

sites

as

being

widespread

throughout

the

Canadian

Shield

within

a

larger

discussion

of

some

other

related

topic.

One

of

this

group,

Dickason

(1972:13),

used

part

of

DhKm-3

from

the

Lake

of

the

Woods

as

her

example

of

the

pictographs

of

the

Canadian

Shield. Several

archaeologists

were

determined

to find the

oldest

pictographs

or

petroglyphs

in

the

Canadian

Shield

(Pohorecky

Jones

1968a;

Steinbring

1986,

1993,

1999).

During

the

1970s and the

1980s,

archaeologists

concerned

with

pictograph

sites

were

interested

in two

related

issues:

the

selection

of

a

place

in the landscape and the orientation of the site. Reid (1980) observed from

the

information

on

the

pictograph

sites

in

theWest

Patricia

region

north

of

the

Lake

of

the

Woods that

pictograph

sites

tended

to

occur

on

straight

shorelines,

or

coastlines

that

were

not

broken

into

parts

by bays,

islands

or

points

and that

the

creators of

these

sites

preferred

rock faces

that faced

in

south-to-east

direction.

Rajnovich

(1980a:34)

developed

this

idea

further

in

her

discussion

of

pictograph

sites

in

Cuttle

Lake,

arguing

that

straight

shorelines

were

predominately

selected

to

increase

the

spectacular

effect of

the

images

because

these

shorelines

enabled

the

images

to

be

visible

both

from

nearby

and

from

afar. She

reasoned

that,

based

on

her

examination

of

sites from the Rainy River region (south of the Lake of theWoods), south-to

east

facing

rock

walls

were

selected

as

light

conditions

here

were best

for

creating

and

seeing

paintings.

The

rising

and

noontime

sunshine

reflected

from

the

water

beside

the cliff

face caused

dancing

light

sparkles

over

the

work

heightening

its

dramatic

value

(ibid.).

She asserted

that

cliff faces

which

faced

west-to-north

only

experienced

shadows

or

the

weakest

sunset

light.

She

assumed

that

pictograph

sites

always

occurred

on

a

cliff

face

immediately

beside

a

body

of

water close

enough

to

reflect

light

on

any

images

painted

upon

the

rock's

surface.

Archaeological

licence

reports

are

useful for

finding

rock

image

sites

and

establishing the range ofwork conducted

at

different

sites

in

the

Lake

of

the

Woods

(for

example:

Cameron

1982,

Molyneaux

1978,

1979,

and

1981).

Molyneaux

(1978)

wrote

in

his

report

to the

Ontario

Heritage

Foundation

that

his intention

was

to

create

a

photographic

record

of

two

petroglyph

sites

when

the water

level

was

abnormally

low.

He noticed

that

Lawson

(1885)

had

described

the lake

levels

as

varying

over

a

range

of

10

feet

(ibid.A)

but

by

1906

the lake's

level

was now

regulated.

Molyneaux,

like Cameron

(1982),

did

not

use

Borden

numbers,

only

local

names:

Kennedy

Island,

or

DjKp-4,

and Sunset

Channel,

or

DiKo-2.

Molyneaux

(1979)

for

his

subsequent

study

produced

a

detailed

photographic

record

of six

of the

seven

pictograph

sites

inWhitefish

Bay,

in

the south

eastern

portion

of

the

Lake

of

the

Woods:

DiKm-3,

DiKm-4, DiKm-1,

DhKm-3,

DhKm-4,

and DhKm-5.

Molyneaux

hoped

to

use

photography

to

record

the

images

systematically,

accurately,

and

efficiently

given

the

difficult field

conditions

(ibid.A)

and

also

to

minimise

human

error

and

interpretation.



12/86

What

do These

Symbols

Mean?.

111

Other

reports

by Molyneaux

discuss

sites

in

areas

neighbouring

the Lake

of theWoods

(Molyneaux

1981, 1982, 1985a;

1985b).

Both his 1974 and

1975

publications

resulted from

projects

conducted

under

the

auspices

of

Trent

University

and the

Canadian Conservation

Institute. The Trent

University

team headed

by

Molyneaux

examined twelve

pictograph

sites

during

the

1975 field

season

and twelve

pictograph

sites

during

the

1974 field

season.

All of the

sites

except

for the

pictograph

site

in

Trampling

Lake

in

Manitoba

were

in

Northwestern

Ontario.

Eight

of these

sites

existed

in

the

Lake

of

the

Woods,

including

DiKm-3, DhKm-5,

DhKm-1,

DhKm-4,

DhKn-1,

DiKo-1,

DjKn-1,

and the

now

extinct

licheno-glyph

site

called DhKn-2.

(Lichenoglyphs become extinct when the lichen grows over

image

or

glyph,

created

by

someone

having

scraped

away

the lichen

growing

on

the

rock's

surface.)

However,

the

team

considered

only

one

Lake of the Woods

site,

DiKp-1

on

Cliff

Island,

in

the

1975

study.

Still

other

studies

only

briefly

escribed

sites in

the

Lake

of

the

Woods

(Fox

1974;

Reid

1976 and

1977).

Reid

surveyed

numerous

archaeological

sites,

among

which

were

fifteen

pictograph

sites.

These

sites

were

examined

as

part

of

an

inventory

that

was

conducted at

the

request

of the

Regional

Lands

Co-ordinator,

Northwestern

Region,

Ministry

of

Natural

Resources

(1976:ii).

The

goal

of

this

archaeological

project

was

to collect

data

for

the

Lake of theWoods General Land Use Plan and itsprincipal concern was the

densest current

and

potential

development

within the

northern

half of

the

Planning

Area

(ibid.).

A

number

of

specific

archaeological

sites

were

tested

at

the

request

of

the

Senior

Lands Planner.

A

total of

seventy-one

archaeological

sites

were

recorded

in

May

1975. All

the

pictograph

sites

were

allotted

Borden

numbers

and

assessed

as

to

their

level of

interpretability

to

the

public

as

well

as

their

level of

representability

(/M/.:

13-15).

What

these

terms

meant

is

unclear. Reid

provided

the

precise

geographical

location

and

accessibility

of

each

site.

He

also

postulated

their

cultural

affiliation,

essentially

their

age,

and

sought

to

determine

whether

the

site

had

any

religious significance

to

the

local indigenous population. The physical

condition

of

each site

was

evaluated,

and

Reid

established whether

the

general

public

knew

of its

existence

and

whether

it had

been

discussed in

print.

He

did

not

describe

the

images

but

photographed

and

determined the

size of

each

site.

Fox

(1974:3) only

described

DhKm-1,

a

pictograph

site

called

Devil's

Hole,

in the

southern

part

of

Whitefish

Bay,

Lake

of the

Woods. He

observed

that

bundles of

clothing

were

stuffed

into

a

cleft

in

the

rock

surface

of

this

site.

An

informant told him

of

rumours

that

these

bundles

had been

placed

there

by

local

native

people

attempting

to

affect

a

cure

for

a

sick

child.

He

considered

that

perhaps

the

offerings

of

these

bundles

were

closelyconnected to the

offering

tree which Ritzenthaler and Ritzenthaler

(1970)

had

described

as

existing

among

the

southern

Chippewa.

Fox

found

similar

items

of

clothing

such

as

buttons,

buckles,

and

suspender

components

at

this

site

which

he

presumed

to

be

evidence of

earlier

offerings.

He

also

found



13/86

112

Revista de

Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

lead

sinkers,

a

corroded

metal

bowl,

and

numerous

coins

(1974:3.).

The

presence

of these

objects

was

recorded

and

they

were

left

where

they

had

been

found.

He

speculated

that the

clothing

bundles had

not been

disturbed

since

they

were

left

s

offerings.

Birch

bark

scrolls

were

not

found

at

this

site,

although

fragments

of birch bark with

stitching

punctures

were

found

one

to

two

metres

back

in

the

large

cleft

at

this

site.

Fox

posited

that

these

fragments

might

have

been

part

of

a

birch

bark

container used to

hold

food

offerings

and

sent

these

fragments

to

the

Canadian

Conservation

Institute

for

preservation.

Before

Fox

finished

recording

this

site,

all the

adjacent

clefts

in

the

rock

were

checked

and

photographs

were

taken

(ibid/A).

Lambert

(n.d.)

used the same

procedures

as Reid in 1975

(1976)

to

record

eight pictograph

sites

(DkKn-7,

DkKn-6,

DjKn-1,

DhKm-5,

DjKn-2,

DhKm-18,

DhKm-4,

and

DhKm-1)

in the

Lake

of

the

Woods.

This

report

was

never

published.

All the

pictograph

sites

he recorded

in the Lake

of the

Woods

were

photographed,

recorded

using

direct 'dot-for-dot'

tracing

(ibid.:20)

and

described

in

considerable

depth.

These

sites

were

discussed

in

the

findings

of

the

third

Northwestern

Ontario

Rock

Art

Project,

conducted

in

1985-1986.

This

project

considered

some

of

the

pictograph

sites

in the

Lake

of the

Woods.

The

other

reports

dealt with

pictograph

sites

elsewhere

in

Northwestern

Ontario

(Lambert

1983,

1985).

Lambert

(n.d.:201)

asserted that

classification of the images from the pictographs examined in the 1985-1986

project

permitted

him

to

distinguish

between

sub-areas

of

the

Winnipeg

River

drainage

basin

and

the Bloodvein

River

drainage

basin

(ibid.??).

The abstract

of his

third

survey

indicates

that

he

viewed

these

images

not

as

'art'

but

as

a

method

of communication.

Lambert

(n.d.:201)

observed

that the

largest

number

of

images

of

animal

creatures

occurred

in

the Bloodvein

River

Region,

north

of the

Winnipeg

River

drainage

basin.

This

led

him conclude

that

the

provision

of

hunting

magic

was

an

important

function

of the

rock

images

in

the

Bloodvein

drainage

basin.

In

the

Winnipeg

River

region,

images

of

canoes and

anthropomorphs occurred more often. He (ibid.: 199-200)

observed

that

there

were

more

hand

prints,

and

pairs

of

handprints

in

the

Winnipeg

River

region

than

in

the

Bloodvein

River

drainage

basin.

For

two

sites

in

the

Bloodvein

River

region,

Lambert

(ibid:202)

argued

that

a

connection

existed

between

the

orientation

of the

site

and its

function.

Almost

all of

the

images

at both

sites

were

hand

prints

and

both

had

similar

orientations.

He

suggested

that

both sites

signposted

a

possible

avenue,

by

way

of

a

portage

to

another

lake

(ibid..202).

The

pictograph

sites

he

called

the

Rushing

River

sites,

DjKn-1

and

DjKn-2,

in

the

Lake

of

the

Woods

region

acted

in similar

manner,

since

they

both

used

to

exist

on

rapids

or

falls

prior

to the

raising

of

the

Lake of

theWoods

water level

(ibid.).

Pictograph

sites,

he

proposed,

had

a function to

guide

the traveller

especially

when

they

occurred

in

narrow

situations

since

those site

areas

were

difficult

to avoid.

This

meant

for

Lambert

(ibid.)

that

these

sites

could

be

interpreted

as

message

boards,

maps

or

navigation

aids.

Unfortunately

he

was

unclear



14/86

What do These

Symbols

Mean?.

113

whether the message was to guide or identify,or warn of fast water or

malevolent

spirits.

He

(/?/'cf.:204)

asserted that the

images

he examined

were

related

to

various secular

activities such

as

hunting, fishing,

and horticulture.

Specific images

he

argued

(/

/.

:204-205),

although

unstated,

were

connected

to

hunting

ungulates

and

sturgeon,

others indicated

a

life

threatening

disaster

connected

to

horticulture,

and that

some

images

were

connected

to the Midewiwin

Society. (The

Midewiwin

Society,

or

the

Grand

Society

of

Medicine,

is

a

highly

stratified

organization

of

shamans.

Individuals

or

Mid?,

who

were

initiated

into

this

society

could read

the

images, mnemonics, of the birch bark scrolls which recorded the traditions

and

practices

of

the

Midewiwin.)

It

is

evident,

upon

close examination of

Lambert's

discussion

of

DhKm-1

and

DhKm-4,

that he has included

and

treated

the

images

which

comprise

the site

DhKm-1

as

part

and

parcel

of

DhKm-4.

This

may

have occurred because

Dewdney,

in

1960,

called

DhKm-4

Site

# 92 and

DhKm-1

Site #

92A. It is clear fromhis

field

drawings,

in

Figure

2,

that the

images

on

Faces

II

and

III

of

Site # 92A

are

part

of

the

pictograph

site

subsequently

classified

as

DhKm-1.

Face

I of

Site #

92A is

now

called

DhKm-4.

Figure

2.

Dewdney's

15th

July

1960 field record of Site #

92A,

now

called DhKm-1

and

DhKm-4.

?

Royal

Ontario

Museum,

Toronto Canada.

Pictograph

and

petroglyph

sites

were

frequently

recorded

as

part

of

larger

archaeological surveys concerned with other types of archaeological sites in

the Lake

of

the

Woods. One notable

example

in

the

Lake of theWoods is

Pastershank's

(1989)

report,

in

which she considered

pictograph

sites

as

separate

units

of

analysis,

therefore not

to

be

analysed

in

conjunction

with

%the

archaeological

sites examined at the

same

time. These

studies,

aimed

to



15/86

114

Revista

de

Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

establish

that sites

existed

and to

describe

them,

did

not

analyse

them

in

detail.

This

treatment occurred elsewhere

in the

Canadian

Shield

(Conway

1975, 1984;

Dawson

1973;

Halverson

1988;

Hill

1982, 1983;

Lema?tre

1995;

Smith

1981).

Occasionally

archaeological

surveys

were

conducted

for

the

sole

purpose

of

surveying

for

pictographs

and

petroglyphs

but

not

for

conventional

archaeological

sites

that could

be

excavated

(Lambert

1983,

1985,

and

n.d.;

Rusak

1992a;

Scott

1980;

Pelshea

1980;

Pelleck

1981;

Rajnovich

1980a,

1981b).

The

quantity

of

literature

published

in

other

government

reports

indicates

that

archaeologists

were

concerned

with these

images

(Conway

n.d.b;

Friend

1983;

Jones

1966,

1981a;

Petch

1991;

Pohorecky

and Jones 1968b;

Rajnovich

1980b, 1980c, 1981c; Rusak 1991,

1992b;

Steinbring

nd

Iwacha

1982;

Steinbring

1998;

Tass?

1977a).

These

sites would

have

been

recorded

and

discussed

at

some

length

in

the

reports

required

by

the

relevant

government

bodies

to

inventory

and

analyse

them

for

any

given

region.

Techniques

used to

record

the

pictographs

Subsequent

methods

used

to

record

and

analyse

rock

images

are

derived

from

Dewdney's

work.

Indeed,

Dewdney

is

rightly

considered

to

be

the

father of Canadian rock art studies since he was the first person to

undertake

a

comprehensive

study

of these

images.

The

initialmethod

for

determining

the

size

of

sites

appears

to

have

emerged

as

Dewdney

(Dewdney

and

Kidd

1962)

developed

his

techniques

for

sketching

and

measuring

pictograph

sites.

The technical

literature

is

divided

into

three

parts: (a)

subdividing

the

sites

into

sections;

(b)

describing

the

images;

and

(c)

recording

the

images.

Subdividing

sites

into

sections

It is

crucial

to understand

the

problems

involved in

Dewdney's

use of the

terms 'face'

and sometimes

'panel'.

If the

area

covered

with

ochre

is

large,

sites

are

invariably

subdivided

into

smaller

components

to aid

recording,

photography,

and

description.

The

initial

method

for

determining

the size

of

a

site

emerged

as

Dewdney

developed

his

techniques

for

sketching

and

measuring

pictograph

sites.

Dewdney's

sketches

of the

rock

surfaces

once

he

had

identified

a

new

site

was

present

probably

enabled

him

to

specify

and

identify

the

physical

location of

various

groups

of

images (ibid.).

Yet

he

did

not

identify

different

parts

of

a

'face'

as

'panels'

if

they

had

different

orientations

to

each other.

It

is

possible

that this

practice

developed

as a result of other fieldworkers

beginning

to

take

compass

bearings

of

rock

faces.

It

was

observed

that

the

surface of

the

rock used

for

paintings

faces

the

rising

or

the

setting

sun

or

in

a

southerly

direction

(ibid.:6).

Hence

the

pictograph

sites

that

Dewdney



16/86

What do These

Symbols

Mean?.

115

examined faced towards the east, thewest, and the south. Indeed,

Dewdney

(ibid.)

stated

that he

had

seen

only

three

sites

on

which the

sun never

shines,

where

lichen

grew,

but he

did

not state in

which

direction

the surface

of

the

rock

was

faced.

Difficulties exist

with the

meaning

of

the

terms

'face'

and

'panel'

since

researchers

often

do not

clarify

their

meanings.

Unlike

Pastershank

(1989),

who

used these

terms

but

did

not

define

them,

Rusak

(1992a:1)

defined

a

'Face'

as a

single

figure

or

group

of

figures

on

a

common

rock

plane.

She

stated

that

the F must have

its first letter

capitalised

to

distinguish

itfrom its

common

meaning.

It

appears

that

she used the

concept

of

panels

to

subdivide large sites, especially if two areas containing pictographs were

physically

separated

on

the

same

face.

These

panels

were

numbered

sequentially

if

he

panels

had different orientations.

It

eems

likely

that

the

concepts

of

faces

and

panels

were

used to

divide

the

rock

face

into surfaces that could

be discussed

and

analysed

easily.

In

his

unpublished

report

(n.d.:21),

Lambert

developed

the idea of

splitting

sites

even

further into

manageable

parts,

if

cliff

faces

with

paintings

were

sufficiently

large

to

warrant

supplementing

the standard

Face and

panel

designations

with

serial,

horizontal data

points.

Lambert

maintained

that

serial

horizontal

points

were

useful

if

separations

appeared

on

the

rock

face.

He (ibid.) applied it at Bloodvein 1 Pictograph, EiKs-1, in the Bloodvein

drainage

basin,

but

maintained that this

technique

would

have been

useful in

the

1982

and 1984 Northwestern

Ontario

Rock Art

Project

(Lambert

1983,

1985)

studies.

However,

he

acknowledged

that he

had not

discovered

many

sites where

there

were

continuous

paintings

for

long,

relatively

flat,

cliff

lengths

(ibid.:23).

While

archaeologists

use

this

technique

to

subdivide

pictograph

sites for

the

purpose

of

making

them

easier

to

describe and

quantify,

it

can

cause

problems

for

subsequent

researchers,

since

precise

rules

do not

exist

concerning

how

this

technique

should be

employed. Eight

pictograph

sites

in

the Lake of

the

Woods

were

divided into

parts

when

they

were

first

recorded. This

group

includes

DiKm-3, DhKm-3,

DhKm-1,

DhKm-4,

DiKn-1,

DhKn-1,

DjKn-1,

and DhKm-5.

It

is

clear

that both

Dewdney

and

Pastershank

invariably

subdivided

sites into

parts

if

they

were

the

first

individuals

to

examine

a

site. It

is

therefore

easy

to

subdivide

this

group

into

two

smaller

groups

according

to

whether

Dewdney

or

Pastershank

recorded

the site.

Dewdney

examined

DiKm-3, DhKm-3,

DhKm-1,

DhKm-4,

DiKn-1,

DhKn-1,

and

DjKn-1,

while

Pastershank

examined

DgKI-19

and

DgKI-17

first.

However,

Pastershank

contradicted

Dewdney's

divisions

of

DgKI-1

and

DgKI-2

when

she

examined

them in

1989.

DhKm-5,

rather

than

being

subdivided,

grew

in size.

Five

of

these

sites,

DhKm-1,

DhKm-4,

DjKn

1, DgKI-1, and DgKI-2 are examined below to illustrate themanner inwhich

these

subdivisions

have

affected

their

descriptions

and

subsequent

interpretation.



17/86

116

Revista

de

Arqueolog?a

Americana

No. 25

DhKm-1 and

DhKm-4

Dewdney's

field

rawing

f

Site

#92

A

and

Site

# 92

indicates

hat

the

two

sites DhKm-1

and

DhKm-4

were

considered

one

site

(see

Figure

2).

Dewdney

found

and

recorded

both

in

1960,

classifying

them

as one

site.

He

recorded

only

half of

the entire

site,

possibly

because

he

did not

think that

smears

of ochre

were

paintings (see

Figure 3).

However,

why

Dewdney

only

recorded

the

images

from

part

of

DhKm-1,

which he

called

Site

#

92,

remains

unclear.

Dewdney's

Face

I

is

DhKm-4,

while

Faces

II

and

III

re

part

of DhKm-1.

DhKm-4

is

clearly

not

immediately

beside

DhKm-1

as

Dewdney's

field

rawings

see Figure

4) ofboth ites imply.owever,whyDewdney only

recorded

the

images

from

part

of

DhKm-1,

which

he

called

Site

#

92,

is

unclear.

The sites

are more

than

a

few

metres

apart

from

each

other

as

the

annotated

photograph

of

the

sites

taken

in

2001

in

Figure

4 indicates.

Dewdney

missed

an

image

now

classified

as a smear

as

indicated

by

the

annotated

photograph

in

Figure

3)

and

Dewdney's

field

rawing

f

the

ite

in

Figure

2.

Lambert,

inhis

(1985)

unpublished

tudy

f

some

of

the

pictograph

sites,

made

the mistake of

considering

some

of the

paintings

of DhKm-1

as

part

of

DhKm-4,

despite

Reid

(1976)

in1975

reporting

hat

he

two ites

were

separate

entities

with

their

own

Borden

numbers.

Why

this

confusion

existed

for Lambert

is difficult to

determine,

since he would have known that Reid

had

already

designated

DhKm-1

as

a

separate

entity

from

DhKm-4.

His

own

records

show

that

Lambert

(n.d.)

knew of

Dewdney's

1973

publication

and

had

probably

seen

Dewdney's

1960

field

drawings

of DhKm-4

and

DhKm-1.

The

images

of Lambert's

Face

II

of

DhKm-4

are

images

of

DhKm-1

that

he

recorded,

if

ne

examines

the annotated

photograph

in

Figure

5.

Lambert

recorded

the

images

that

he

deemed

were

the

site.

He

applied

a

technique

of

classification

developed

during

his

field

survey

of

some

pictograph

sites

in

the

Upper

Severn

region

of Northwestern

Ontario

in 1982

(1983).

DjKn-1

Dewdney

recorded

this

site

as

Site

# 29

in 1958.

From

examining

two

photographs

of this

site,

his

field

notes

in the

New

World

Archives

at the

Royal

Ontario

Museum,

and

Dewdney

and

Kidd's

publication

(Dewdney

and

Kidd 1962:27

and

1967:29)

it

eems

that

it

was

divided

into

two

distinct

components.

Unfortunately,

it remains

unclear

whether

Molyneaux

in

1974,

Reid

in

1975,

or

Pelshea

in 1978

used

Dewdney's

method

of

dividing

the

site

into

two parts. However, Lambert (n.d.)

considered

the

site

as two

separate parts,

recording

two

parts

of

this

site

as

Face

I and

Face

II.

Rusak

in

1993

expanded

the

site

to

include

a new

section

which

she

called

Face

III.

This

was

the location

of

a

hand

print

that

existed

higher

up

the

same

cliff

s

part

of

the

same

site

but

not

near

the

water's

edge (see

Figure

6).



18/86

What do These

Symbols

Mean?...

117

Figure

3. The Close

Proximity

f

DhKm-4 to DhKm-1.

? Alicia

Colson 2006.

Figure

4. Annotated

photograph

of

DhKm-1

in

2001

by

Colson

according

to

Dewdney's

divisions. ? Alicia Colson 2006.



19/86

118

Revista de

Arqueolog?a

Americana No. 25

Figure

6.

Photograph

of the hand

print

that

belonged according

to

Rusak

in

1993

in

Face

III.

Alicia Colson 2006.



20/86

What do These

Symbols

Mean?.

119

Dewdney recorded and examined the following two sites inAugust 1964.

Pastershank

challenged

his

subdivisions

in

1989. Both sites

are

close to

each

other,

but

differ

in

terms

of

size,

and

in

what has

occurred since

Dewdney

first,

then

Pastershank,

examined them.

DgKI-1

The

water

below

this site is

shallow,

and the site is

partially

protected

from

the

main channel

by

two

of

the

three

small,

neighbouring

islands. It

lies

on a

south

facing

spit

of land

on

the main travel

channel,

between two

red

channel

markers called

S56

and

S60

at

the northern end of

Sabaskong

Bay.

Dewdney

identified

wo

groups

of

images

which he called Face

I

nd II

f

Site

#

197

(Figure7).

Pastershank

in

1989

(1989:51)

contradicted ismethod of

subdividing

the

images.

She found

images

on

a

surface

to

the

left f

his Face

I

and, hence,

renamed his

Face

I

as

her Face

II

and his

Face

II

as

her Face

III.

The

'new'

images

to

the

left f

her Face

II

were

called

Face

I.

The site

was

clearly

subdivided

as

indicated in

the

photograph

in

Figure

8,

into three

parts,

Documents

What Do These Symbols Mean a Critical Review of the Images Found on The