42EM65, The Temple Mountain Pictograph Panel · 42EM65, The Temple Mountain Pictograph Panel The Temple Mountain rock art panel, as it is called locally, is a group of large and striking

47

Steven J. Manning

42EM65, The Temple Mountain Pictograph Panel

The Temple Mountain rock art panel, as it iscalled locally, is a group of large and strikingdarkred pictographs (Figure 1). They are locat-ed on the north side of South Temple MountainWash, roughly one mile west of the turnoff toGoblin Valley State Park, which is in the SanRafael Reef area of central Utah.

Because the site can easily be seen from thepaved road it is well known and heavily visited.The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rang-er in an information trailer at the turnoff toGoblin Valley said that he personally had over10,000 visitor contacts the previous year(2001). These contacts are with people request-ing information about the San Rafael Reef areaas they drive in from State highway 24. I no-ticed, during the hour I spent visiting with theranger one morning, that only about one out ofevery ten cars stopped as they passed the trailer;so 10,000 people is certainly an underestimateof the number of people visiting the area.

Perhaps a more accurate picture of visitationmay be obtained from visitor statistics at GoblinValley State Park. In 2001, 75,702 people vis-ited Goblin Valley (Utah Division of StateParks statistics). April had the highest visita-tion with 13,000 people. Many of the peoplewho visit Goblin Valley, and stay overnight,camp in and along the San Rafael Reef wherethere are no camping fees. Additionally, thereare people who come to the area specifically tovisit the San Rafael Reef and the San RafaelSwell. The area is a popular off-road vehiclerecreation destination. The road that passes thepanel provides vehicular access to the Swell,and it continues northwest to Interstate 70.Given this information, visitation to the areasurrounding the pictographs is probably morelike 100,000 people annually.

The location of the Temple Mountain panel hasbeen discussed in several "guide books"(Barnes 1982:136, Castleton 1984:160, Slifer2000:126). The content of the panel has alsobeen discussed in the rock art literature on sev-eral occasions (Gunnerson 1957, Manning1990, Schaafsma 1970, 1971 and Siegrist1972).

The Temple Mountain pictographs are excep-tional—more exceptional than is generally ap-preciated, especially considering the apparentpoor condition of the panel. The cliff face ismarred by large areas of exfoliated sandstone(Figure 1). It appears that most of the picto-graphs have been destroyed, and the ones thatremain are severely damaged. Despite this de-terioration, the panel contains a great deal ofextremely valuable information, and the re-maining images are unique and obviously irre-placeable.

One reason that the site is exceptional is that itappears to contain both Barrier Canyon Styleand Fremont type images. Of particular signifi-cance is the apparent superimposition1 ofFremont over the Barrier Canyon Style(Schaafsma 1971:49, 73, her Figures 71 and130). The definitiveness of this conclusion,however, and its resulting influence on the Bar-rier Canyon Style and Fremont relationships hasbeen previously questioned (Manning 1990:61)and is further discussed below.

The Temple Mountain panel provided one ofthe principal evidences used by Schaafsma toplace the Barrier Canyon Style in the Archaicperiod, thus preceding the later Fremont Culture(Schaafsma 1971:128-135). This superimposi-tion, if it indeed exists, has the potential to de-termine the relative placement of Fremont andBarrier Canyon Style images in this panel and

Utah Rock Art, Volume 21, 2001

48

consequently provide information on their rela-tive age. The Fremont culture is believed tohave existed in this area from about A.D. 650-700 to about 1200-1250 (Madsen 1989). TheBarrier Canyon Style is generally believed tohave been created by Archaic peoples betweenabout 6,000 B.C. to A.D. 500 (Kelen and Sucec1996:13). Schaafsma, however, later suggestedthat the date during which the Barrier CanyonStyle was being constructed is more likely lim-ited to a shorter period, i.e., 500 B.C. to A.D.500 (Schaafsma 1980:70).

I believe that the Barrier Canyon Style contin-ued to be created long past A.D. 500 and cite assupporting evidence the existence of panels thatfit the current definition of the Barrier CanyonStyle, but that contain characteristics and imag-es of objects associated with later periods, suchas, for example, the bow and arrow (Manning1990). Additionally, Barrier Canyon Style pet-roglyph panels exist with very little patination,indicating that they are of recent origin (Man-ning, this volume).

Undoubtedly, some of the incongruities and po-lemics on the age of the Barrier Canyon Styleexist because of problems intrinsic to the defini-tion and use of the concept of style in orderingprehistoric rock art (Manning 1993) and be-cause no reliable dating techniques currentlyexist for Barrier Canyon Style images.

The Temple Mountain pictograph panel is alsosignificant because it contains some of the larg-est prehistoric painted figures in Utah. Theirlarge size (one anthropomorph2 is about six feettall) suggests that the creators of these paintingswanted their images to be easily seen. Theirlarge size also seems to suggest that these im-ages were of some exceptional significance totheir creators.

HISTORY OF OBSERVATIONS ANDPREVIOUS DESCRIPTIONS

I first visited the panel in the spring of 1971 ona trip to the Maze area of Canyonlands National

Park. Unfortunately, I have no photographs ofthe panel on that date because of a malfunction-ing camera (or more likely a malfunctioningcamera operator). The oldest photographs Ihave were taken at a later visit in 1979 (Figure1). Since that date, I have visited the panel onmany occasions, and I have made some interest-ing observations and discoveries, most of whichhave not been discussed previously. The pur-pose of this paper is to present this information.

Since that first visit, I have observed changesoccurring to the images within the panel, aswell as major changes occurring to the envi-ronment surrounding the panel. For example,the State of Utah allowed an oil and gas explor-atory well to be drilled directly in front of thepanel, i.e., between the cliff face and the mainroad. This resulted in the destruction of thevegetation and natural environment surroundingthe panel. The area was left looking much likea giant dusty parking lot. Down stream (east ofthe panel) and on the opposite side of the pavedroad a large area was filled with dirt, leveled,and then abandoned. No reclamation of eitherarea was done. These appalling scars stand asmonuments to the indifference and negligenceof the State of Utah in managing our publiclands.

Also damaging the landscape are large numbersof off-road vehicles using the area. Fourwheelers, often with children and teenagersdriving them, have driven over much of the areacreating a maze of trails. While I was recentlyvisiting the panel, two off-road motorcyclistsraced up the small drainage east of the site,drove directly beneath the panel and continuedup the canyon oblivious to the rock art, the veg-etation they had crushed and the deep furrowsthey left behind.

Recently the site was on the television news andin the newspapers (Joe Bauman, Deseret News,March 29-30, 2000). On or about March 16,2000, the panel was vandalized. Charcoal wasused to place drawings beneath the main por-tion of the panel and on part of the panel itself

Steven J, Manning, The Temple Mountain Pictograph Panel

49

(Figure 2). The source of the charcoal was un-doubtedly from campfires at the site. This isone reason why camping should be prohibitedin the area around the panel.

Becoming thus aware of changes to the paneland its environment, I became interested in howthe panel was surviving the ravages of time andthe ravages of people, which are certainly themost destructive. I have tried, therefore, to lo-cate old photographs of the panel for furtherevaluation of these changes. These photo-graphs, and the changes they illustrate, are dis-cussed below.

Obtaining old photographs of the panel hasproven difficult. Certainly, there must be olderphotographs than those discussed here. Perhapspublication of this article will lead to the dis-covery of older photographs that will yield ad-ditional information about the panel.

The site was first recorded by James H. Gun-nerson, an archaeologist from the University ofUtah, on August 24, 1955 and assigned Smith-sonian site number 42Em65. Gunnerson de-scribed the panel as follows:

Pictographs are above a ledge ca. 40 ft.above canyon floor and under a slightoverhang. Much of the panel has scaledoff, but the figures left are bright and atleast life size. Older faded figures are alsoevident and would seem to be a little moretypical of Fremont. The brighter onestend to be a little more square but still ofthe same motif, even though in one casean animal looks like an out of proportiondog rather than the more common quadru-ped (Site form 42Em65, Utah State His-torical Society, Antiquities Division).

The panel was similarly described in a subse-quent report (Gunnerson 1957:80). Gunner-son's photographs of the site from 1955 werenot included with the site form at the Antiqui-ties Division of the Utah State Historical Socie-ty, but were archived at the University of Utah(Figures 3 and 4).

Kenneth Castleton first visited and photo-graphed the site on August 6, 1970, and accord-ing to his notes, he visited it again in April of1973 (Castleton 1978:160161). Castleton de-scribed the panel as follows:

Unfortunately, part of the cliff face haschipped away, thus damaging the figures.The upper parts of two large red anthropo-morphic figures have been damaged by thisweathering. One is a Fremont style figurewith very broad shoulders, a tapered trunk,and no extremities. It largely obscures anoth-er slender figure with "bug eyes". The other,a Barrier Canyon Style figure, has a shortright arm and is holding a snake, much in thesame manner as figures in the Head of Sinbadand Horseshoe Canyon. To the left are twoanimals, one with a rectangular body decorat-ed by a single white horizontal stripe throughit. The second larger animal has a small headwithout horns, a curved tail, and a verticalwhite stripe through the fore part of the body.It resembles a quadruped in Barrier Canyon.Farther left are the head and upper torso of ananthropomorph; to the right is part of a long,slender trunk with short legs and small feet.At the far right are several faint figures thatare barely discernable (Castleton 1978:160).

Polly Schaafsma also first visited the site in1970. Interestingly, she was there on July 30,missing Castleton by only few days. She notes:

This is an important site because it helpsunwind the relative positions of the stylesin the region. There are both Fremont andBarrier Canyon Styles present, with theFremont clearly superimposed over theBarrier Canyon Style. The site needs pro-tection as it is in full view of a well-traveled road. At present, it is in dangerof vandalism by gunmen. The flaking thathas already occurred may be partly due togunfire. It is currently receiving no pro-tection from the BLM since it is on Stateland (Schaafsma 1970).

(Note: It has been over 30 years since this waswritten and never during this time, has therebeen any protection provided for this site.)


50

Schaafsma described the panel further:

The Barrier Canyon Style figures includea number of elements common in that art.There is a large dog with finely drawnhairs on its tail and a white sash throughthe middle. There is a triangular headwith earrings and a white face. A hugerectangular-bodied anthropomorph with awhite sash holds a snake in stubby out-stretched arms. A spectral "bug-eyedman" peaks over the shoulder of the super-imposed Fremont man, and his narrow, ta-pering torso is clear beneath the youngerfigure. At the bottom of the panel are theremains of a large, red quadruped, verysimilar to the animals at Fish Creek Cove.There are many details on the figures andscattered over the panel. A long thin an-thropomorph is on the right side with shortfeet under a long smock. The panel isabout 60 feet long by about 8 feet high(Schaafsma 1970:86).

Schaafsma also discussed the site in 1971.

Six miles west of Utah Highway 24 at themouth of Temple Mountain Wash in theSan Rafael Reef are paintings of Fremontand Barrier Canyon Style origin. One ofthe two Fremont figures here is a vividlypainted anthropomorph with short hornsand a thin line extending diagonally acrossthe torso…. Encountered here for the firsttime is the depiction of a low, curved chin.This method of chin representation occurssporadically among Fremont figures of theSouthern San Rafael Zone. The other fig-ure of Fremont origin is a heroic broad-shouldered anthropomorphic form super-imposed on the Barrier Canyon Stylepaintings…. (Schaafsma 1971:49).

Along with the above description, Schaafsmaincluded a sketch of the panel but unfortunatelynot a photograph (Schaafsma 1971:73). Shelisted the source of the sketch as: "DeHarportphoto". Somewhere in Utah, then, there existsan earlier photograph.

Another photograph of the Temple MountainPanel appeared in an exhibit at the University of

Utah's Museum of Fine Arts in 1972 (which Iattended). The published catalog from the ex-hibit (Siegrist 1972:57) contains copies of thelarge photographs in the exhibit. Figure 5,showing the Temple Mountain Panel, is one ofthese photographs. Roland Siegrist apparentlytook this photograph in the latter part of 1971 aspart of an interdisciplinary art class at the Uni-versity of Utah (Siegrist 1972:5). Dean Brim-hall acted as guide and informant to this projectand also provided me with site information. Adescription of the panel as it currently exists isgiven below.

CURRENT CONDITION ANDEXFOLIATION

A person viewing the Temple Mountain picto-graph panel for the first time readily reaches theconclusion that the majority of the panel hasbeen lost. The cliff face surrounding the picto-graphs contains massive scars from exfoliation(Figures 15). For a distance of about 23 meters(75 feet) across the face of the cliff, much of thesurface that existed when the paintings weremade is obviously missing. The presence ofthin layers of light-colored sandstone in thescars surrounding the remaining paintingsshows that the surface has simply broken upand fallen off. The panel once may have beennearly 30.5 meters (100 feet) long.

Schaafsma suggests that gunfire has contributedto the exfoliation of the cliff face. There is noevidence, however, to support this idea. Theabsence of freshly fallen white sandstone be-neath the exfoliated areas indicates that the ex-foliation is not recent and that it likely occurredover a period of many years.

The apparent loss of much of the surface, unfor-tunately suggests to some that the panel has lit-tle value. That is certainly not true, as will beexplained below.

The right half of the panel contains an areawhere the cliff face has exfoliated for a distanceof about 15.25 meters (50 feet). This exfolia-


51

tion almost certainly eliminated many figures,as well as the upper and lower portions of thebest remaining images in the panel. There wereat least two large figures below the remainingimages, as evidenced by the presence of the up-per back of two animals, each apparently hav-ing horns. There was also at least one largeimage above the remaining figures, as evi-denced by the presence of the lower portion of alarge roughly rectangular area of dark reddishpigment beneath some of the heads and shoul-ders of the figures. Traces of pigment in thisarea of the panel, both in and below the scar,suggest that at one time there were other proba-bly large paintings along the cliff face.

On the left half of the panel, exfoliation is alsoextensive. About 12 meters (40 feet) of cliffface has been lost in this area. The bottom ofthe horned anthropomorph is missing and so ismost of what appears to have been a large con-centric circle that surrounds what may havebeen a small anthropomorph. To the left ofthese two figures is an area 4.5 meters (16 feet)long and about 1.8 meters (6 feet) high that hascompletely exfoliated. Traces of pigment be-neath this area suggest that it also containedpainted images.

After looking at the size, complexity and detailof the remaining images, one can only lookwith despair at the large blank areas and wonderwhat remarkable images once existed along thiscliff face. Likely, there were quite a few. Alt-hough most of the panel may be gone, there isstill a lot that remains, and there are images thatwere created long ago that are still there, but wecannot see them today. This will be explainedbelow.

DIFFERENCES IN PHOTOGRAPHS

Examination of Gunnerson's 1957 photographs,Castleton's 1970 photograph and Siegrist's 1972photograph show changes during this short pe-riod of time. Perhaps the most obvious is theconspicuous absence of a group of large boul-ders below the Barrier Canyon Style figures

(compare Figures 2 and 4). Evidently, vandalspushed these boulders from the ledge. In thephotographs taken around 1970 only some ofthe rocks had been removed. This indicates thatpeople have pushed boulders from the ledge onmore than one occasion. Note also the changedcondition of the tree in the photographs.Campers have broken off the limbs for fire-wood. (Should this also be considered vandal-ism since it occurred at an archaeological site?)

Charcoal Vandalism

Another significant difference in the photo-graphs is evident in Siegrist's 1972 photograph.Major vandalism is shown on the right side ofthe panel (Figure 5). In this location there areseveral crude images, which appear to be re-cently constructed. The Utah's Museum of FineArts catalog states that the, "…fourth and fifthfigure from the right are added later (vandal-ism)". These images were made with charcoal,although this is not necessarily evident from theblack-and-white photographs.

The vandalism appears to mimic two of the pic-tographs in the panel. The charcoal drawing onthe left is a human image with horns, which issomewhat like the anthropomorph at the far leftof the panel. The charcoal drawing on the rightappears to be a dog(?) with a vertical stripe thatis standing on the back of what may have beenmeant to be an animal, again mimicking figuresto the left.

Further to the right of these drawings, is anothercharcoal drawing of an oval figure, perhaps rep-resenting a bird. Farthest to the right is a char-coal drawing of a second figure that holds two"fringed" linear objects. These charcoal draw-ings again mimic other images in the panel.

On the left side of the panel, Siegrist's photo-graph shows a second concentric circle to theright of the horned anthropomorph. This ismore vandalism, and it was also done withcharcoal. Note that once again this mimics animage in the panel.


52

With the aid of these photographs it is possibleto determine approximately when this vandal-ism was done. Castleton's photograph, taken inAugust of 1970, does not show the vandalism.Therefore, it was done between Castleton's visitin 1970 and Siegrist's visit sometime in 1971.As mentioned above, I visited the panel in thespring of 1971 and I do not remember seeingany vandalism, however, without photographs itis not possible to conclusively verify its ab-sence. During my trip into Horseshoe Canyonand the Maze, the scaffolding used by Siegristand Brimhall to photograph the High Gallery inHorseshoe Canyon was still in place, and Iclimbed it to photograph the panel. I was,therefore, in the area about the same time asSiegrist. Based on this information, the vandal-ism was done sometime late in 1970 or early in1971.

After attending the Fine Arts Museum exhibitand learning of the vandalism, I was surprisedthe next time I visited the site, which was inOctober 1979, because the vandalism was notimmediately evident from below the panel(Figure 1). However, the charcoal figures werelocated after a close examination of the cliffface. They were considerably fainter than inSiegrist's 1971 photograph. A remnant of thecharcoal concentric circle is visible in Figure 1at the left of the horned anthropomorph, and atrace of the charcoal horned anthropomorph canstill be seen.

Removal of Charcoal from the Surfaceof the Cliff

While these photographs might be believed toprovide evidence showing the rate of charcoalerosion from the cliff face, it is not that straight-forward. Three factors appear to be responsiblefor its lessening intensity. The first is that someof the soft and friable charcoal was removed bythe erosion of wind and rain, as would be ex-pected. The second is that someone tried to ruboff some of the charcoal figures. The main re-sult of this action was mostly just a smearing of

the charcoal and more abrasive damage to thepanel, as I observed it in 1979. The third factorresponsible for the indistinctness of the charcoalimages, at least on the right side of the panel, isthat they were covered over with streaks or riv-ulets of mud.

The mud is deposited when water from rain(and perhaps snowmelt) flows down the cliffface picking up silt and dust as it moves, then,as the volume of water slows and stops as itsoaks into the dry sandstone, the silt is left onthe cliff face. All of the photographs aboveclearly show the streaks of mud. The streaksstart far above the images, then continue downover the section of the panel containing the ma-jor elements of vandalism and then, in someareas, onto the exfoliated area beneath the pan-el. Covering by mud is, therefore, a major fac-tor in the apparent disappearance of imagesfrom this panel.

The deposition of mud on the panel seems tooccur mostly during a heavy rain, perhaps moreso when there is a lot of wind. In October1981, I visited the site during a period of majorthunderstorms. The cliff face above the panelwas wet and a few streaks of water came downtoward the panel. One particular streak cameall the way down the cliff face to the ledge. Ihave a picture with the water streak in it. InJanuary 1999, I observed that several streaks ofmud had recently appeared along the side ofone anthropomorph. In October 2001, I notedmore new streaks of mud on the panel. It is ob-vious from these observations that the deposi-tion of mud is a continuing process.

While the removal of charcoal by non-naturalprocesses on the right side of the panel negatesinformation concerning the natural rate of ero-sion, the vandalism on the left side of the paneldoes provide that information. Mud is not be-ing deposited on the cliff face in this location,and this charcoal (the second concentric circlebelow and to the right of the horned anthropo-morph) was apparently not disturbed by people,probably because it is in a more difficult place


53

to reach. The difference between Siegrist's1971 photograph and my photograph from Oc-tober 1979 suggests that it took eight years toerode to the extent pictured in Figure 1. Thisinformation may be useful to people involved inconsidering the removal of charcoal vandalismfrom rock art panels and sandstone surfaces.

BURIED IMAGES

Near the right side of the main panel, as shownin the photographs above, is a sloping narrowband of reddish pigment. It shows up in theblack-and-white photographs as a dark band. Itis located just to the right of the long streaks ofmud that come all the way down to the bottomof the ledge, and just above the right side of thetwo large boulders on the ledge, but left of thesmaller figure with upraised arms (Figure 5). Itis obvious when this area is viewed from theledge directly in front of the panel that this ispart of a panted image; the rest of it is buriedbeneath the long streaks of mud. As of this date(2002), it is also obvious, because of erosion ofthe mud that the band of pigment is the rightside of a Barrier Canyon Style anthropomorph.The majority of the image still lies hidden be-neath the mud.

In June of 1982, I discovered that there wereseveral other prehistoric images beneath themud. Farther to the right beyond the edge ofthe photographs (except for Figure 3), I discov-ered traces of yellow and reddish-brown pig-ment appearing where a few small flakes ofmud were exfoliating from the cliff face. Thepigments were in an area about 0.76 meters (2.5feet) wide by 1.54 meters (5 feet) high. Abovethese revealed bits of color, and out of reach, Idiscovered two large adjacent round circles cutinto the cliff face. Even though they were com-pletely covered with layers and streaks of mud,they were still visible. Each circle had a crossinside of it. Each cross consisted of a roughlyvertical and horizontal line.

On another visit to the site a few years later,and following a period of especially heavy

summer thunderstorms, I discovered, surpris-ingly, that more mud was missing from the im-age. (Major floods came down several of thecanyons in the San Rafael Reef that summer.One flood coming down Old Woman Wash al-most washed out Highway 24, which is a abouta mile from the mouth of the canyon. The tor-rent made the interior of the small canyon near-ly unrecognizable. The floods eliminated mostof the road and completely washed away an ar-ea of sand dunes, which was one of my favoritecamping sites.) Why the mud was missingfrom the image is somewhat of a mystery. Per-haps rain being blown against the panel by thefierce winds accompanying those unusuallylarge thunderstorms washed away some of themud, or perhaps it was just removed by theforce of the wind or wind blown sand. It is un-likely that someone removed the mud, since itis beyond reach and above a particularly narrowpart of the ledge. Whatever the cause, this re-moval was a marked change from the usualdeposition. The removal of the mud, by whatappears to be a natural process, explains whymud has not built up to several inches thickover the panel since it was created.

The partial elimination of the mud revealed alarge abraded horizontal oval that enclosed thetwo circles (Figure 6, photograph taken in Sep-tember 2000). The interior of the abraded oval,except for the circles, was painted with a darkreddish-brown pigment. It was now obviousthat the two circles were eyes inside of a verylarge oval head—the head of a Barrier CanyonStyle anthropomorph. The diameter of the headis about 45 centimeters (18 inches) and the an-thropomorph is about 1.65 meters (65 inches)tall. The shape of the head of this figure ischaracteristic of a particular and distinguishingtype of Barrier Canyon Style anthropomorph.This head shape is found in Barrier CanyonStyle images as far south as Kanab and as farnorth as Vernal, Utah.

On subsequent visits to the site, beginning in1993, I observed that mud is still being progres-sively removed from the cliff face. It is now


54

possible to see that the eyes and head are clear-ly part of a tall painted and abraded BarrierCanyon Style anthropomorph.

People passing by the image on the narrowledge and brushing against it and the cliff facehave recently removed a substantial amount ofthe mud covering the lower part of the image.Unfortunately, they have also removed some ofthe pigment. The anthropomorph is much morevisible now than it was previously.

Like other images in the panel, the body of thefigure is painted with a reddish-brown pigment.Running vertically through the torso are fouryellow, narrow bands of pigment. It is alsopossible to now see that the lightly abraded linearound the head continues down both sides ofthe neck and across the top of the torso anddown its side. This line is more visible on thefigure's left side than on the right side where themud is thicker. Also visible is part of a red,upward extending arc coming from the shoulderon the figure’s right side. This arc appears tobe an upraised right arm; a hand, or fingers, isnot visible. Apparently they are still buried be-neath the mud. The conclusion that this arc rep-resents an upraised arm is based upon the shapeof the arc, the shoulder and the torso in compar-ison with other figures. There does not appearto be an arm on the opposite side (the anthro-pomorph's left arm). The basic form of this an-thropomorph is shown in Figure 7. It is similarto another Barrier Canyon Style anthropomorphin a panel near Castle Dale, Utah (Figure 8).Note that this figure's left arm is upraised, whilein the Temple Mountain Panel the figure's rightarm is upraised. As more mud is removed fromthe image, other features may become clearerand more information may be revealed.

The presence of bright yellow pigment in thepanel is significant. Its occurrence in the Barri-er Canyon Style is rare. One site near Moab,Utah that also contains yellow pigment is simi-larly covered with mud and badly exfoliated.The presence of this bright yellow pigment attwo sites where images have been covered with

mud suggests that covering the pigment withmud led to its preservation. It appears that yel-low pigments are less able to resist erosionalforces than red pigments. The presence of yel-low pigment in these figures suggests that yel-low pigment may have been used in the creationof other figures in this panel, but erosion hasremoved it.

The discovery of this image created many ques-tions. Some are listed below. Eyes with cross-es inside have also been found in Nine MileCanyon, presumably on Fremont or Ute figures.(URARA members will recognize one of theseas appearing on the URARA logo, i.e., the"Cross-eyed Owl".) The cultural affiliation ofthis particular image is still being debated;some people believe that it is Fremont; othersbelieve that it is Ute. Are eyes like these foundon any other Barrier Canyon Style figures,which would support a Barrier Canyon Styleorigin? Which group originated the uniqueeyes: the Barrier Canyon Style artists, theFremont or the Ute? Did the Fremont or Utemodify the Barrier Canyon Style anthropo-morph at Temple Mountain Wash and add eyeswith crosses? Does the presence of these pecu-liar eyes in other rock art types indicate that theBarrier Canyon Style and the Fremont (or Ute)were contemporaneous? Could the presence ofthese eyes on figures of different styles be ex-plained by some naturally occurring feature thatwould have influences the people of both cul-tures? Is there a consistent meaning for eyessuch as these that would cross cultural and tem-poral boundaries? Do these eyes symbolizeowls or some characteristic of owls? Was theBarrier Canyon Style figure painted on the mudor was the mud scraped off first, or was theremud on the cliff face when the figures werepainted? Obviously there are many unansweredquestions.

If the mud was removed from this section of thepanel to reveal the underlying figures, theremight be more information to answer these (andother) questions. However, there are some im-portant considerations that must be made if and


55

when this event ever takes place; these are dis-cussed below.

Another Discovery, Exfoliation Continues

In July 1981, I discovered that the top of a fig-ure near the center of the Barrier Canyon Stylesection had begun to separate from the cliffface. Fearing that the small section wouldbreak off sometime in the future and be lost, Iwas determined to photograph it before it wasgone. This was not an easy task. It was high onthe cliff face and beyond reach, and I needed aladder. I constructed a rickety substitute fromsome mining debris that was located further upthe road. On close examination, I discoveredthat the part of the cliff face that was pullingaway contained the upper part of a Barrier Can-yon Style anthropomorph's head. No one, ap-parently, has mentioned the existence of thisfigure before.

The head has several distinctive and unusualfeatures. The first is exceptional and one notpreviously encountered in the Barrier CanyonStyle. The anthropomorph's face is composedof four painted rectangular areas (Figure 9).These four areas are outlined in white paint.There is also an arc of white paint across the topof the anthropomorph's head just above the fourrectangular areas. Note that there are alsobands of white paint in several other figures inthis panel.

The second distinctive feature is the presence oftwo parallel lines extending upwards at about45 degrees from the upper right corner of thefigure's head. They are connected to an imagecomposed of a wavy vertical line, which has asplit end, and there are four small downwardcurving lines attached to the curved top. Thisimage is snakelike, but with unusual features.

On a later visit to the site (October 1993), I wasdismayed to find that some of the sandstone onthe anthropomorph's head had fallen from thecliff face. No longer is the top of the "snake"present, and more of the anthropomorph's head

is missing. I did not realize that this wouldhappen so quickly. Wondering if the piece hadbroken off or if someone had removed it, Isearched beneath the panel for the fallen piece.There I found its remains. All that was left wasa scattered quantity of light yellow-coloredsand. The section was completely pulverized,either from its fall or by people walking on it.Nothing could be salvaged.

Faces Divided into Four Areas

The discovery of a face divided into four rough-ly rectangular areas has the potential to providesignificant information about the Barrier Can-yon Style. Painting a face into four sections,without any indication of normal facial features,is such a considerable departure from the natu-ral or ordinary that it must be considered auniquely determinative characteristic. Peculiarand extraordinary characteristics like these areso exceptional that they provide a means ofidentifying a commonality or link betweenanalogous ideologies and cultures.

The interpretation of what this image representsis uncertain. Do these rectangular areas repre-sent a mask, face painting or some intangiblesymbol? A full discussion of masks verses facepainting verses symbolism would be toolengthy for this paper and still would not likelyprovide a definitive answer for exactly whatthis feature represents. For simplicity then, thiselement will be referred to here simply as a"feature", with an understanding that it mightwell be any of these.

Rock art types and styles in other locations con-tain faces that are divided into four areas. Thepresence of these images in the rock art of thevarious cultures that created them suggests thatthey all shared the same ideologies that resultedin their creation. Four of these are listed anddiscussed below.

1. The large well-known Basketmaker panel atSand Island along the San Juan River nearBluff, Utah contains Basketmaker heads whose


56

faces are also divided into four areas (Figure10). This example is just one of several that areknown to exist in the Basketmaker Culture.These images are likely representations of thedecorated, detached skins of human heads thatmay or may not have been used as masks(Manning 1987, Cole 1989). Note the presenceof loops at the tops of the heads that may havebeen used for carrying them.

2. The images shown in Figures 11 and 12 arefound in a tributary of the Colorado River southof Kanab, Utah in Northern Arizona. (On theright side of the anthropomorph in Figure 11 isanother anthropomorph with similar features. Itis in bright sunlight and not visible in the pho-tograph. This figure is discussed below.)These images, which are part of an unusualcluster of pictographs, appear to share charac-teristics of both Anasazi Basketmaker andFremont rock art; however, they appear to be ina class by themselves. The cultural affiliationof these figures has not been satisfactorily de-termined. At last report, very little archaeologi-cal work has been done in the location wherethey appear to be concentrated, so associativedates are lacking.

3. In Nine Mile Canyon there are several panelswhere rectangular painted sections appear onthe faces of anthropomorphs. The panel knownlocally as "The Family" (Figure 13) contains anexcellent example. This panel is recognized ashaving Fremont cultural affiliation.

4. Surprisingly, two anthropomorphs, nearlyidentical to those in Figure 11, were discoveredin Utah (Figure 14A). Both of these paintedanthropomorphs, which were adjacent to eachother, have their faces divided into four areas.The images were found in 1877 by Fredrick S.Dellenbaugh. They were adjacent to a group ofruins situated along the Colorado River a shortdistance below the mouth of the Dirty DevilRiver in southeastern Utah (Dellenbaugh 1877),which is an unexpected and significant location.Presumably, and unfortunately, the area is nowbeneath Lake Powell. The location of the fig-

ures adjacent to a group of ruins suggests thatthey date from a period where masonry struc-tures were used, which further suggests thatthey were of late Fremont or possibly AnasaziPueblo cultural affiliation.

Figure 14B is a drawing of the two anthropo-morphs found in Northern Arizona in a tribu-tary of the Colorado River, one of which isshown in Figure 11. These two images are alsoside-by-side. The nearly identical form of thesetwo sets of figures is striking. Rarely are twopanels of pictographs with complex images sonearly identical. Their similarity suggests thatthe same person made both of them, and there-fore, suggests that the same person was in bothof these two widely separated locations.

The presence of both sets of images near theColorado River suggests that the river couldhave been a landmark that was followed be-tween the two sites. Carrying this idea further,a person can reach the mouth of the Dirty DevilRiver from the Temple Mountain panel by fol-lowing well-defined stream courses. All onehas to do is follow Wild Horse Creek (not acreek, but a dry wash), which is only a fewhundred feet southeast of the Temple MountainPictograph panel, until it reaches Muddy Creek,which at its confluence with the Fremont Rivernear Hanksville, becomes the Dirty Devil River.

All Existed at the Same Time?

The existence of these extraordinary facial fea-tures and their distribution indicates that thecreators of the Barrier Canyon Style, theAnasazi Basketmaker Culture, the Fremont andthe creators of these pictographs in NorthernArizona, share an exceptionally unusual ideolo-gy characterized by the distinctive and extraor-dinary faces that are divided into four areas.The sharing of this feature, suggests further thatthe creators of these images all existed duringthe same period.

These images argue further for the propositionthat images of the Barrier Canyon Style exist in


57

time later than the Archaic (Manning 1990).The face being divided into four areas is so un-usual that it is unlikely that it could have devel-oped independently in each of these cultures. Itis equally as unlikely that both the Basketmakerand the Fremont cultures could have acquiredthe ideology, that resulted in the creation ofthese images, from the Barrier Canyon Styleartists and not created any of them until hun-dreds or thousands of years later. Furthermore,it is unlikely that both the Basketmaker and theFremont could have acquired this ideology fromjust the Barrier Canyon Style images when theyare so rare. To this date, the Temple MountainPanel is the only known example of this unusu-al feature in the Barrier Canyon Style. If therewere many examples of it in the Barrier CanyonStyle rock art, then the possibility might existthat the Fremont and Basketmaker culturescould have acquired it by seeing Barrier Can-yon Style images, but so far, there is only oneknown image. With more examples existingduring the Basketmaker period, it is much morelikely that the Fremont and the creators of thisBarrier Canyon Style panel obtained the con-cepts from the Basketmaker.

This type of comparative approach to age de-termination has been used to suggest that theBarrier Canyon Style dates to the archaic period(Coulam and Schroedl 1995, Smith 1980). Inthese studies, similarities were noted betweenthe figurines found in Cowboy Cave in contextsdating to 7430-5260 B.C. and Barrier CanyonStyle anthropomorphic images. These similari-ties consist of rows of dots along the torso andthe shape of the body. These features, however,are common and they are found in many prehis-toric and historic cultures, even in other coun-tries, so they are not such a unique entity asfaces that are divided into four areas. There-fore, when determining age by comparative as-sociations, if more weight or reliability isplaced on unique features rather than on com-mon features, the conclusion that some of theBarrier Canyon Style artists existed later thanthe Archaic period would be more correct.

The rarity and distribution of this facial featuresuggests that whatever ideology spawned it; itwas confined to a limited geographic area andlikely existed for only a short period of time.Thus, it is more likely that the ideologies re-sponsible for the unique face painting existedcontemporaneously among the creators of theimages: the Anasazi Basketmaker, Fremont andBarrier Canyon Style artisans.

ADDITIONAL FEATURES AND DETAILS

The Temple Mountain Pictograph panel con-tains other images that have not been discussedpreviously in the literature. These images areimportant because some of them have detailsthat appear to be unique to this panel. Further-more, these features provide additional insightsinto the ideologies of their creators and intotheir temporal relationships and areal distribu-tions. Because of these values, it is deemedworthwhile to discuss these images along with amore precise description of the panel. The pan-el is described starting from the far left andmoving to the right.

The Left Side of the Panel

Beginning at the left side of the large scar thatis left of the Fremont anthropomorph, i.e., thefar left side of Figure 4, there are traces of redpigment below the scar at 2.13 meters (84 inch-es), 2.36 meters (93 inches), 2.64 meters (104inches) and 3.6 meters (142 inches). At 4.52meters (178 inches), in about the center of thescar, are the remains of a segment of the origi-nal panel that still adheres to the cliff face. Thissmall area contains both thick dark red pigmentand thin lighter red pigment. It is not, however,of sufficient size to determine what the imageor images may have been. Its complexity andrich color suggests that it was part of an impres-sive figure, and may have been part of superim-posed images. This area of pigment fullysubstantiates the existence of figures on thispart of the cliff face. These images may havebeen comparable to the others that are farther to


58

the right, but this will probably never be known.This segment and all the traces of pigment be-low the scar suggest that the panel extendedperhaps 7.62 meters (25 feet) to the left of thehorned anthropomorph.

About 5.86 meters (231 inches) farther to theright is the center of the red painted concentriccircle and at 70.6 meters (282 inches) is thecenter of the horned anthropomorph. This an-thropomorph, which is believed to be Fremont,was painted with dark reddish-brown pigment(Figure 15). It has a roughly square head with ashort "horn" on each side. Arms are indicatedby simple straight narrow lines. Five short linesat the end of the arm are added to depict hands.The Fremont anthropomorph and the concentriccircle appear to be contemporaneous. The twoimages also appear together at a few other loca-tions in Utah. The diagonal line across the an-thropomorph's torso, the line across the face andthe single-line "necklace" or "chin line" weremade by abrading away the pigment. Theabraded lines on this image seem be the same asthe abraded lines in the "cross-eyed" BarrierCanyon Style anthropomorph that was coveredwith mud. Perhaps the abrasion on both figureswas done at the same time. Figure 15 is a cur-rent photograph of the anthropomorph. It waschosen to show the current state of vandalism.

There is also a lightly abraded area across thetop of the shoulders, along both sides of thehead and between each arm and the correspond-ing sides of the body. The abrasion along thebody of the anthropomorph is particularly inter-esting. Several anthropomorphs attributed tothe Fremont Culture, apparently especially ineastern central Utah, have features on the sidesof the body, or on the outside of the body. Onpetroglyphs these features often take the formof a line or long narrow area parallel to the side,or sides of the body, see Figure 13 for example.On pictographs, there is often an area paintedalong the side, or sides of the body that is a dif-ferent color. Fremont figurines have also beenfound where paint was applied just along theedges of the body. Perhaps the abraded areas

along the sides of the body of the anthropo-morph in this panel are part of a feature indica-tive of some unknown important characteristicor symbolic feature.

The Right Side of the Panel

The Barrier Canyon Style section of the panelbegins 5.03 meters (16.5 feet) farther to theright with another large exfoliated area (Figure5). Beginning on the left side of this area andfor about 0.36 meters (14 inches) there areagain traces of dark reddish-brown pigment be-low the scar, suggesting that the panel was oncemuch larger.

First Large Quadruped

1.9 meters (75 inches) from the beginning ofthe exfoliated scar are two horns, apparently ofa large quadruped (Figure 2), but this is not cer-tain; they may belong to another animal. Thelength of the quadruped is difficult to determineaccurately because much of it is missing, butthe remnants are about 2.38 meters (94 inches)long, suggesting the animal was at least 2.43meters (8 feet) long. This appears to be one ofthe largest, if not the largest, animal in the Bar-rier Canyon Style. Only the large quadruped'sback, which consists of two large humps, ashort wavy neck and the top of what appears tobe the two horns are visible. The rest has beenlost to exfoliation. There is a small pecked ver-tical line through the center of the quadruped'sback. There is also a broad pecked line that be-gins near the front of the animal and follows itsback. Pigment was applied over this line, so itis not readily apparent. This suggests that theremay have been petroglyphs in this area beforethe large animal was painted, or the creator ofthe panel changed his or her mind. The animalfaces to the left (west). Were it not for thepresence of what appear to be horns, the size,the humps on the animals back and the generalshape of the body would suggest that this was adepiction of a large bear, not a mountain sheep.Perhaps the horns are part of a different animal.


59

Anthropomorph with Prickly Pear EarPendants

Above the large quadruped are three smallerimages. The two on the left are shown in Fig-ure 16. The image at the far left is an anthro-pomorph with some interesting features. Thisfigure has been called "Cactus Woman".Where the face should have been there is only alarge open oval area with five thin horizontallines across it. Only the upper torso of the fig-ure is present; the bottom, if there was one, hasbeen lost to exfoliation. The pigment compris-ing the central portion of the torso is missing,having been removed by pecking. This peckingforms a broad gently sloping line across thechest. There are several fine lines of pigmentthat extend downward from the painted areaonto the pecked out area, suggesting that thepecking was done at the time the image wascreated, or that the image was later repainted.

Perhaps at one time the image depicted an en-tire person, but this is difficult to ascertain,since so much of it is lost. The figures left sideseems to be indicated by a pecked out line, butthe large animal is superimposed over it, so on-ly a small amount of it can be seen. Also belowthe broad pecked line across the torso, and inthe small space above the edge of the exfolia-tion, there are traces of pigment, suggesting thatperhaps the image had a full body.

On each side of the anthropomorph's head, thereappears to be a representation of an ear pendant.Each pendant appears as an outward-slopingoval joined to the head with a short broad line,giving the appearance of an ornament at the endof a braid of hair. Each oval has three rows ofsmall vertical dots in the interior and short linesradiating outward from the bottom and sides ofthe oval. This gives the appearance that the ob-jects are either prickly pear fruit (the pulpypear-shaped edible fruit of various varieties ofprickly pear cactus) or the prickly pear cactuspads themselves. Either one would certainly beuncomfortable to wear.

Prickly pear cactus fruits are covered with bothlong and short spines. The short, barbed, bris-tle-like spines (glochids) are the most irritatingand most difficult to remove before the pads orfruits can be consumed. Colyer (1962-1963)found these prickly pear bristles in ninety per-cent of the human feces examined in researchstudies at Mesa Verde National Park, suggest-ing that prickly pear cactus fruits were part ofmost peoples diet in that region. This imagesuggests that the prickly pear was also an im-portant part of the lives of the Barrier CanyonStyle people, and may possibly of had symbolicsignificance.

This anthropomorphic image and other figuresto the right of it share an interesting feature.They are all outlined with a densely painted,broad line. Since the interior pigment overlapsthe broad outline, it appears that the imageswere created by first outlining the image andthen filling it in with pigment. The pigment inthe interior of the images seems to have beenapplied with fingers since there are denserstreaks of finger-width pigment present.

Quadruped with Broad Vertical Stripe

To the right of the anthropomorph is a largequadruped with two upward-pointing ears. Itfaces west. On the snout of the quadruped aretwo white painted lines which go from the tip ofthe nose to the base of the ears. There is a largevertical stripe through the front of the torso,which was painted with off-white pigment. Thequadruped has a long bushy tail arcing forwardover its back. Its feet are illustrated by roundsmooth protuberances. The rear feet of the an-imal are superimposed over the back of thelarge animal beneath it. Quadrupeds similar tothis, with curved tails arcing over the back,round or oval paws and sometimes even claws,exist in many Barrier Canyon Style panels, usu-ally, however, without the stripe. Schaafsmacalled this figure a dog, however, the long curv-ing tail and round paws suggest that this figurecould also represent a mountain lion. Noticethat this figure is also outlined, and that the


60

broad dark line does not follow the completeoutline of the figure. Instead, it traces two rec-tangles in and around the body. These darklines ignore the head and vertical stripe of theanimal. This indicates that the rectangularshape of the body and the stripe were envi-sioned before the figure was constructed andbefore the head and tail were added. This fig-ure was also constructed by outlining it first andthen filling in the body with pigment.

Quadruped with Horizontal Stripe

To the right of the quadruped is another smallerfigure, which appears to be another quadruped(Figure 17). Like the other animals, it also fac-es to the left (west). It has a horizontal whiteline through the body. This figure, like the oneto the left, also has a heavy outline that does nottrace the head. There is also a darker line sur-rounding the horizontal white line in the bodyof the figure, suggesting that here too, the out-line was part of the planned construction.

This quadruped is more abstract or symbolicthan the one on the left. The figure does notappear to have a head; there is only a thick neckor broad protuberance from the body. If thisrepresents a head, it is not in proportion to therest of the body. A more likely conclusion isthat the head is missing. At the end of the neckare two long downward-sloping wavy lines.These wavy lines suggest or portray flowingliquid. Since these lines are in a location wherea head should be, and they are red, they maywell represent blood. If this explanation is cor-rect, the image may represent a slaughtered an-imal with a decapitated head.

At the end of the short neck are two curved par-allel lines that face forward. These suggestmountain sheep horns, but they are facing in thewrong direction. This may also symbolize thatthe head is no longer attached to the animal.

At the front and back of the animal where legsshould be there are two sets of two parallelthick lines separated by a wide space containingfour parallel thin red lines. The legs of this

quadruped extend to the back of the large ani-mal beneath it. Notice that one of the back legsof the figure was extended downward so itwould also touch it. The line had to be bent soit would touch the back of the large quadrupedindicating that there was some necessity andthus significance to this feature. A broad stripeof paint was applied along the top of the back ofthe large quadruped at some point in the crea-tion of the figure, perhaps to cover up the peck-ing. It also covered over the ends of the linesextending downward from the body of theheadless quadruped.

Red lines extending downward beneath blackpainted animals was found in a panel in Dino-saur National Park (Manning 1995:109-116). Itwas proposed that these red lines and red cross-hatched areas were representations of blood thatwas being collected and stored in ceramic ves-sels, which were also depicted in the panel.This supports the idea that the red lines beneaththis anthropomorph in the Temple Mountainpanel also depict blood.

Large Figure Holding a Snake

Touching the quadruped's back are five or sixvertical wavy lines that extend downward fromthe tail of what appears to be a snake. It is heldin the hand of a large anthropomorph with anearly rectangular body (Figure 17). The fol-lowing parts of these images have been lost toexfoliation: the top edge of the snake, the top ofthe anthropomorphs head, its left shoulder andarm (if there was one) and the bottom of thetorso.

The red wavy lines descending from the snake'stail again seem to symbolize a flowing liquid —possibly blood. Perhaps the snake has beenkilled. Some small spots of dark red paint arepresent in front of and below the head of thesnake (Figure 18). These again seem to be adepiction of blood or perhaps this is venom.

The large anthropomorph that is holding thesnake in its right hand is similar in size, appear-ance and adornment to the images in the Great


61

Gallery in Horseshoe Canyon, except that it hasa more rectangular body (Figure 18). The edgeof the head slopes outward above a straightneck at about 45 degrees, which suggests thatthe head is similar in shape to images in theGreat Gallery. This anthropomorph, like theother figures to the left, has a wide dark lineoutlining the body and head.

The complexity of the designs on the torso ofthe anthropomorph is also analogous to thoseon Great Gallery anthropomorphs. This figureappears to have been modified many times inthe past. Across the lower portion of the an-thropomorph's face, and just above the neck, arefour thin horizontal white lines. These arepainted over the pigment comprising the bodyand also over the dark outline. On the anthro-pomorph's upper body is a dark-outlined, com-plex, roughly diamond-shaped pattern that isdifficult to see. This appears to have been theinitial design. This seems to have been fol-lowed by a horizontal pattern of white dots andwhite outlined long horizontal rectangles thatare below the diamond patterns. The white dotpatterns consist of four or five dots in horizontalrows, both to the left and to the right of outlinedhorizontal rectangles. They stretch from oneedge of the figure to the other edge. There arethree sets of these patterns. This was apparent-ly followed by the placement of a single row ofwhite dots painted in a horizontal wavy lineacross the chest. There is also a horizontal rowof small reddish-brown dots just below the topof the shoulders. They also go all the wayacross the figure. Above the shoulders on bothsides of the anthropomorph's head is anotherhorizontal line of smaller dots that are a differ-ent color than the anthropomorph, suggestingthat they are from a different period of painting.At the bottom of the anthropomorph are twobroad horizontal white stripes that seem to echothose on other figures (Figure 2). They mayhave been painted in white pigment at one timebut now they appear to have been lightly abrad-ed. Above them are faint indications of twoother broad white lines across the torso with

opposing crescents between them, but this is notwell defined.

There are also traces of a reddish-brown pig-ment on the torso (which appears to be the lastpigment applied to the panel), and there is awhite paint splatter near the center of the chest.Perhaps some of the reddish-brown blotchesmay have formed a diagonal line across the tor-so, but this also is not well defined. In addition,there has been some mud smeared across thebody of the figure. Most of this has erodedaway.

Large Anthropomorph with BroadShoulders

To the right of this large rectangular figure isanother large anthropomorph with a broad-shouldered tapering body (Figure 19). Theright side of this image is about 1.5 meters (59inches) from the right side of the large animal'sback. The top of the head and the bottom of thetorso have been lost to exfoliation. This is thefigure that Schaafsma (1970) refers to as beingFremont. It is a different color than the othersurrounding images (it contains more red) and itappears newer. This may, however, be due tothe greater thickness and different color of thepigment.

The large anthropomorph also has a wide darkoutline around its body and head, which is easi-ly seen in Figure 19. Short stripes of dark pig-ment show where paint was applied byfingertips to fill in the body. The density of thepigment in the body seems to be eroding. It isnot as thick as I remember it being about thirtyyears ago.

The large anthropomorph was painted over thebody of a tall slender anthropomorph that wascreated using a dark purplish pigment. Theshape of the slender anthropomorph's head andthe presence of eyes is similar in form to theanthropomorph with the crosses in the eyes thatwas discussed above. The remnants of a smearof orange-brown pigment are located in the


62

chest area of the slender anthropomorph, cover-ing both figures with this pigment.

The large anthropomorph’s right side coincideswith the slender anthropomorph’s right side ex-cept at the top. The slender anthropomorph'shead and right hand are not covered by largeanthropomorph. The slender anthropomorph'shand is open; the fingers are spread wide. Be-low the open hand is a broad pattern of faintvertical thin lines. This arrangement gives theappearance that the hand has just opened anddropped something that appears to be a liquid.

The slender anthropomorph's left hand is be-neath the large anthropomorph, but its form andposition can still be discerned. It is holdingwhat appears to be a snake in its hand as evi-denced by the presence of a wavy line that ispartly above and descending from the end of thearm (Figure 19A). The slender anthropomorphhas a vertical row of three white dots on its facebetween its eyes. The row of dots apparentlycontinues farther down beneath the overlyingpigment of the larger anthropomorph. Thissuggests that the slender anthropomorph bodywas decorated with a few white dots, some canbe seen beneath the large anthropomorph.There are also about a dozen small verticalscratches on the face of the slender anthropo-morph.

The large anthropomorph is also superimposedover two other images. The first is also paintedwith the same color pigment as the tall slenderanthropomorph. It is visible as a broad area ofpigment running diagonally beneath the headand top left side of the large anthropomorph(Figure 19). This figure is also outlined with abroad dark line. The pigment is clearly visibleabove the figure’s left shoulder. An edge is justvisible outside the junction of the figures headand right shoulder. The painted area exits thebody beneath the shoulder and continues to theright where it enters an area of extensive oblite-ration and disappears. The upper part of thefigure has been lost to exfoliation. No featuresare preset in this image to suggest what it was.

It may have been a large anthropomorph thatwas bent or turned at an angle.

The second image that the large anthropomorphis placed over is what appears to be a largemountain sheep. The bottom of the figure waspainted over the back of the sheep (Figure 19).The head of the sheep is visible on the left sideof the large anthropomorph. About half of thebody of the sheep is covered with the anthro-pomorph and half is exposed on the right side.On the back of the sheep's body there is a seriesof short vertical lines extending upwards.There is also a series of scratched vertical linesall along the sheep's body. The sheep's bodyends abruptly near the tail because it has beenremoved by abrasion (Figure 20). This musthave been a very large figure at one time.

A horizontal pecked line was added through thebottom of the torso of the large figure. Thepecking apparently continued outside the bodyjust to the left. Someone tried to remove thehead of the mountain sheep creating a deeplypecked line that curves downward from thepecked line to the exfoliated area.

Above the sheep's body and on the right side ofthe large anthropomorph, is a small figure, orgroup of abstract lines, that appears to be some-thing different every time I look at it (Figure19).

Extensively Modified Area

Immediately to the right of the large anthropo-morph and the large mountain sheep is an areathat has been extensively modified (Figure 20).This area is about 1.74 meters (5 feet) wide andit extends from near the lower exfoliated area tobeyond the upper exfoliated area. It appears toextend to just beyond the left side of the head ofthe large trapezoidal image (Figure 19). Mostof the surface of this area has been heavilyabraded with what appears to have been a flatstone, likely a mono. In addition to the abra-sion, the surface has also been scratched, chis-eled and hammered.


63

Remnants of figures, traces of dark reddish-brown and grayish-red pigment and variousstains in several different colors suggest thatseveral images were created and then removedin this area. Much of the surface is covered in alight "wash" of moderate red pigment (5R4/6)of varying intensity, which appears to havecome from the various figures that were de-stroyed. Late in time, petroglyphs and dark-brown pictographs were added at the bottom(Figure 20).

It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine anaccurate sequence to the creation and removalof all these images. The surface has been modi-fied too many times.

The very top of this modified area, and the fig-ures it contained, has unfortunately been lost toexfoliation. The upper portion of what remainsis especially difficult to see unless the lightingis just right. The best time to view these imagesseems to be in the early afternoon when sun-light is shining on the ledge but not on thepaintings. Even then, they are not easy to see.

The large dark image that was beneath the up-per part of the large anthropomorph describedabove extends into this area. Some of it canstill be seen beneath and adjacent to the upperright side of the large figure. A large part ofthis unknown image was apparently removed.At the bottom of the modified area the rear ofthe second large animal described above hasbeen completely removed by abrasion.

There may have been two large anthropo-morphic figures in this modified area. Perhapsthe principal one was a large tapering and slant-ed Barrier Canyon Style anthropomorph. Thelower portion of the figure's tapered body is vis-ible at the edge of the lower exfoliation. It isjust to the left of the names "Aria '95" and "Ad-am". It seems to have two colors: a grayish red-purple and a moderate red, although the redmay have come from the later addition of pig-ment to enhance or cover up the figure. As thisfigure is followed upward, it disappears, havingbeen nearly completely abraded from the cliff

face. Minute traces of it can still be seen in afew small depressions in the sandstone thatwere present when the figure was painted.Higher up, evidences of the figure become morenumerous, because abrasion was not as com-plete.

The upper part of this section, where the headof the anthropomorph would have been, con-tains so many different colors and parts of im-ages that it is difficult if not impossible toestablish what was there. Complicating the sit-uation is that it appears that this area and thevarious figures that were in it were coveredover with pigment or mud at least three differ-ent times.

From below, it appeared that the head andshoulders of the large anthropomorph were vis-ible at the top of the modified area. However, aclose up inspection revealed that the line thatappeared to be the top of the shoulders was ac-tually a row of small mountain sheep; two werefacing right and two were facing left (Figure20).

The actual top of the torso of the anthropo-morph appears to be below the line of mountainsheep, and it appears as a spotty horizontal bandof pigment that is slanted to the left. Below itare random blotches of the anthropomorph'sbody. No head or distinct sides of this imageare visible. Left of the anthropomorph and ex-tending downward, are a broad wavy line andtwo broad straight lines. These appear to havebeen associated with the anthropomorph, butthis is not certain. They could also have beenpart of another figure that has been removed.

Above the line of mountain sheep is the head ofa large trapezoidal anthropomorph. It does notappear to be the head of the anthropomorphwhose body is partly visible below because is adifferent color. Further suggesting that the headis part of another anthropomorph, are the obser-vations that the head does not connect to the topof the torso of the other large anthropomorph,and the sides of the head would have to gothrough the bodies of the sheep. However,


64

again, this is not entirely clear. These featuresare more readily seen in Figure 21, which wasobtained by digitally enhancing a close-up pho-tograph. The remains of the top of the apparenttorso are visible at the bottom of the photo-graph. Two of the sheep are easily seen directlyabove it. The head of the large anthropomorphis visible above and to the right of the sheep.Figures 22A and 22B provide a suggestion ofwhat the images may have looked like. ThisFigure was produced by replacing the red pig-ment with black and filling in the missing parts.

Obscuring part of the face of this figure is agroup of dark brown lines that may be the fin-gers of a handprint (Figure 21, 22). The samecolor pigment or mud used to make the"handprint" was smeared over the top of thissection along with several groups of parallellines of pigment, which also appear to havebeen placed with fingers. Later in time, por-tions of the top of the area were covered againwith a light orange-brown pigment.

Lastly, several petroglyphs and pictographswere added near the bottom of the abraded area(Figure 20). These figures consist of a peckedwavy line or snake with possibly two heads, apecked two-headed mountain sheep and a smallpecked anthropomorph with upraised arms.Three footprints in a dark brown/orange pig-ment were also added. These are probably thelast images placed on the panel, since the pig-ment covers parts of the petroglyphs.

Also present in this area are the various namesof some thoughtless and apparently unintelli-gent people. Janae, Aria and Adam were herein 1995, David Addley was here in 1974, and atsome time so were Ray Figieroa and GaryHakson, and they carved their names in thepanel. This is further evidence that vandalismis not only occurring but also increasing at thisheavily visited site.

Tall Narrow Anthropomorph

To the right of the extensively modified area isa tall figure that apparently is an anthropo-

morph (Figure 20 and 23). It is located about1.55 meters (61 inches) to the right of the largedark anthropomorph. This figure again has adark outline. Unfortunately, the top of the an-thropomorph has been lost to erosion. Whatapparently is an arm extends downward fromthe anthropomorph's right side into the upperedge of the abraded area. It is barely visible atthe top center of Figure 20. The arm is repre-sented by two curving parallel groups of shortline segments. In the upper part of the anthro-pomorph's chest, there are two rectangular areaswithout pigment. The upper one is divided intoa grid pattern by four horizontal lines and twoinclined vertical lines. In about the center ofthe image, there is another area without pigmentthat is divided into thirds by two upward-arching horizontal lines.

At the bottom of the figure, there are what ap-pear to be four legs, two on each side of thebody. Each one has toes(?) that are composedof a flaring pattern of 3 or 4 lines that extenddown from the end of each leg (Figure 20).

On the right side of the tall figure is a row offive small animals placed vertically (Figure 23).They alternate, each is placed in an oppositeposition. Half of the topmost animal has beenlost to exfoliation. Below them is a long verti-cal narrow line split at each end. This image isalso found in several Barrier Canyon Style pan-els in Utah.

Anthropomorph with Pendant on the Chest

To the right of the row of sheep is anotherunique figure. It is an anthropomorph that has along neck, a horizontal oval head and two largeoval, almost D-shaped, eyes (Figure 23). Whatappears to be an arm extends outward from theanthropomorph’s right shoulder, and it goes be-neath the second animal in the vertical row ofanimals that was discussed above. The arm iscomposed of three occasionally dashed parallellines. It is similar to the arm of the anthropo-morph described previously. The figure's leftarm(?) is indicated by a small loop. This an-


65

thropomorph also appears to have been con-structed by outlining. This is most visible onthe figure’s right side (Figure 23). This figureat one time was apparently covered over bymud, as traces of it still cover parts of the im-age. The mud can be seen in Figure 23 on theface and chest.

On the top corner of each side of the head aretwo upward-arching parallel lines. Extendingupward from the center of the head is a singlewide wavy line that seems to have two rectan-gular areas missing from it. These missing are-as appear to have contained something (fugitivepigment?) that prevented the paint from adher-ing to the rock face. Then when the substanceweathered away it took the paint with it, leavingan unpainted area.

On the center of the chest, there is a rectangularto oval area of faint white pigment. This sug-gests the depiction of an ornament, like a pen-dant necklace. Below this element are fourwide lines, also apparently of faint white paintthat run vertically through the torso of the fig-ure. Pendants, or chest ornaments, of this formare rare in the Barrier Canyon Style.

Just to the figures left is a horizontal thick linethat ends with two small parallel lines next tothe face (Figure 23). This appears to be asnake, however most of the snake's head ismissing because a small section of the cliff facehas been lost to exfoliation. The anthropo-morph's body is inclined away from the snake,as though it is trying to avoid it. The body ofthe snake passes close to the anthropomorphwith the four-sectioned face, which was dis-cussed above, and it travels down along the sideof its body.

Other Figures to the Right

The next figure to the right is the anthropo-morph with the face that is composed of foursections that was discussed above (Figure 9). Itlocated about 1.22 meters (48 inches) from theright side of the anthropomorph with four feet.The arms of this figure were not discussed

above, so they will be described as follows.The anthropomorph's left arm is represented bya short curving arc, which is shown in Figure 9.The anthropomorph's right arm is representedby a longer arcing line that ends above theshoulder of the anthropomorph with the pendanton the chest (Figure 23).

0.82 meters (32 inches) from the right edge ofthe anthropomorph's lower body are morestreaks of pigment buried beneath the mud onthe cliff face. 1.24 meters (49 inches) to theright of this point is the body of the large an-thropomorph that has the right side exposed asdiscussed above. Along the cliff about 0.96meters (38 inches) farther to the right is a singlesmall anthropomorph with upraised arms (Fig-ure 24). Descending from each hand are twolong parallel wavy lines that have numeroussmall lines attached to the outside of each paral-lel line.

Farther to the right a distance of 0.96 meters (38inches) is an area that contains more red pig-ment buried beneath the mud. 0.76 meters (30inches) beyond that is yet another area that con-tains red pigment buried beneath the mud.There is not enough pigment showing in eitherarea to give any indication of what is buriedbeneath the mud.

1.5 meters (59 inches) farther to the right is theright side of the Barrier Canyon Style anthro-pomorph with crosses in the eyes that was dis-cussed above (Figures 6 and 7). 0.76 to 1.06meters (30 to 42 inches) farther to the right aremore evidences of red and yellow pigment andabrasions beneath the mud. Finally, 1.62 me-ters (64 inches) father to the right is one moretrace of red pigment that visible beneath themud. The total extent where images may behidden beneath the mud is greater than 9 meters(30 feet)!

Farther to the right is a simply executed compo-sition of an anthropomorph and an animal (Fig-ure 25). The color of these images is a fadedred. Note that the animal has a vertical linethrough the torso like the other animal in the


66

panel. In addition, the horned anthropomorphhas a wavy line (perhaps a snake) in its lefthand like other figures in the panel. Becausethese images are so rudimentary in comparisonto the other images in the panel, they appear tohave been created in historic times. However, Iwas surprised to discover that simplistic paint-ings like these are also present southeast ofKanab, Utah in the same canyon as theFremont-like pictographs that have their facesdivided into four areas (Figure 26). This sug-gests that these images are prehistoric. Theirpresence in both areas seems to again demon-strate the presence of the same people in bothlocations. Whether these images represent twodifferent groups of people or just two differentpeople with different artistic abilities from thesame group is a mater of conjecture. It appearsthat is much happening here of which we arenot aware.

WHAT IS FREMONT AND WHAT ISBARRIER CANYON STYLE?

As noted above, because of Schaafsma publica-tions many people believe that the large taper-ing anthropomorph that is superimposed overthe slender Barrier Canyon Style anthropo-morph is Fremont, and that this proves une-quivocally that the Barrier Canyon Style ismuch older than the Fremont. However, thedefinitiveness of this conclusion has been pre-viously questioned (Manning 1990:61). Acomplete discussion of this subject is beyondthe scope of this paper, however, comments re-lating to the images in the Temple Mountainpanel in this respect are warranted.

While the large tapering anthropomorph doessuperimpose the slender Barrier Canyon Stylefigure and the pigment does appear to be darkerand newer, a close examination of this supposedFremont image shows that it is precisely thesame shape and in the same proportions as otherBarrier Canyon Style images. Figure 27 showsa tracing of the large "Fremont" anthropomorphin the Temple Mountain pictograph panel andan anthropomorph from the Great Gallery in

Horseshoe Canyon. The head and bottom ofthe anthropomorph from the Great Gallery hasbeen "exfoliated" so that it corresponds to theanthropomorph from the Temple Mountain pic-tograph panel. Which anthropomorph in Figure27 is from Temple Mountain and which one isfrom Barrier Canyon?

As is easily seen from this example, there is nodifference between the two. It is only the ab-sence of the top of the head and the bottom ofthe body of the anthropomorph and the differentcolor of paint that make the Temple Mountainimage appear to be Fremont. It could just aseasily be Barrier Canyon Style.

Furthermore, the technique by which the largeanthropomorph was created is identical to otherBarrier Canyon Style images in the panel. Theimages both left and right of the large“Fremont” anthropomorph, i.e., Prickly PearWoman, the animal with the white vertical linethough its body, the headless animal, the largerectangular Barrier Canyon Style anthropo-morph holding the snake in its right hand, thetall anthropomorph with rectangular designedareas on the torso, etc., all have the same darkoutline and the same apparent subsequent fillingin of the body with pigment. This suggests thatall of these figures were created by the BarrierCanyon Style artists, albeit at different times. Acomparative study of both Fremont and BarrierCanyon Style paining techniques to determinehow often and in what style this outlined pain-ing technique occurs would certainly be inter-esting.

The large “Fremont” anthropomorph also oc-curs next to, or part of an area that was exten-sively modified. It is not unexpected, therefore,to find another figure here that was added to thepanel at a later date. Perhaps the creation of thelarge anthropomorph was done by the BarrierCanyon Style artists late in the period whenthere was so much remodeling and restructuringof this section of the panel.

In summary: these findings suggest that thelarge anthropomorph is not a Fremont style, it is


67

Barrier Canyon Style, and thus its superimposi-tion over another Barrier Canyon Style anthro-pomorph does not support the conclusion thatthe Barrier Canyon Style is older than theFremont. This superimposition, the newer ap-pearance of the large anthropomorph and thesimilarity in pigment color to the hornedFremont anthropomorph, support the assess-ment that the ideologies that resulted in the cre-ation of the Barrier Canyon Style existed formany years, and is not just confined to the Ar-chaic period.

DATING CONSIDERATIONS

One aspect of this panel has singular im-portance. One of the problems with radiocar-bon dating pigment from a pictograph is that ofcontamination. A painted image, open to theatmosphere since it was created, has been ex-posed constantly to multiple sources of micro-scopic carbon contamination. Mold, mildew,bacteria, lichens, insects, lizards, bird drop-pings, wind-blown dust containing decompos-ing plant and animal material, radioactivefallout and contamination from a myriad ofcombustion sources are but a few of the possi-ble sources of contamination that could ad-versely affect radiocarbon dating. However, ifa pictograph panel was covered over with mudshortly after it was painted, it would have beenprotected from these contaminates. Additional-ly, if the surface was cleaned of mud before theimage was painted, contamination (from oldmaterial) would even be further reduced.

Dating pigments that were covered over withmud may provide a far more accurate date forthe creation of a Barrier Canyon Style imagethan dating pigment that has been exposed forhundreds of years. The Temple Mountain pic-tograph panel has pigment that appears to havebeen buried shortly after it was created. Someof this pigment is being exposed now becauseof visitation to the site and perhaps the currentdrought. People are rubbing up against the cliffface, and thus also the pictographs, when they

move along the narrow ledge, removing mudand also some of the pigment from the images.In addition, some of the pigment has been fur-ther exposed because the thin coating of mud isflaking naturally from the cliff face. Theseconditions present perhaps the first opportunityto obtain a more accurate date for the BarrierCanyon Style, providing, of course, that an or-ganic binder was used in the pigment.

Those who "clean up" this panel (and other pic-tograph panels) must consider the possibilitythat cleaning up images will destroy dating pos-sibilities. Dating possibilities may have beenlost or limited when the Sego Canyon andBuckhorn Wash panels were cleaned. Duringthe cleaning, mud was removed from imagesthat may have been covered shortly after theywere created. No dating efforts were undertak-en. Care should be taken so this will not hap-pen in the future.

CONTINUING IMPACTS

Unfortunately, the Temple Mountain pictographpanel is in a location where it is heavily visitedand the area surrounding it is heavily damaged.The State of Utah was negligent in managingthis particular archaeological site, since it per-mitted a drilling rig to operate right in front ofthe panel.

As discussed above, nearby Goblin Valley StatePark attracts many people to the area who campalong the San Rafael Reef to avoid paying thecamping fees at the State Park The Reef itselfattract many visitors, principally because of itspublicity. Governor Mike Levitt recently at-tempted to make the San Rafael Reef a NationalMonument. Two large areas of the San RafaelReef have been designated a wilderness studyarea. This has not helped either. The easiestway to make a wilderness area not a wildernessarea is to designate it a wilderness area or awilderness study area. The designation itselfattracts multitudes of people into areas thatwere previously seldom visited. The San Ra-fael Reef is a perfect example. As mentioned


68

above, likely 100,000 people visited the area in2001.

The authors of popular guidebooks and articlesin newspapers and magazines contribute greatlyto the overuse of the area. The proximity to apaved road makes access to the Temple Moun-tain Panel easy. At the present time, there is noinformation about the panel at the site, nor arethere any regulations governing visitation.People camp right at the base of the panel androutinely build campfires below it.

In the past few years there has been an escala-tion of names being carved everywhere alongthe cliff face, including over some of the fig-ures. I am amazed at the proliferation of namescarved in the cliff face along the ledge leadingto the panel. In Siegrist's 1971 photographthere are no names carved in the back of thelarge animal in the right side of the panel. Nowthere are several. There are also names carvedin the Barrier Canyon Style section of the panel.

Continuing vandalism to the panel in the formof bullet holes is also apparent. In Siegrist's1971 photograph there appear to be one or twoholes present in the horned anthropomorphicfigure at the left of the panel. Today there are14 bullet holes, and more in the rest of the pan-el. Given these circumstances, continued van-dalism to the panel is inevitable and it continuesunabated.

This continued vandalism, despite the panel be-ing visible from a well-traveled paved road,contradicts the belief that increased visitationprotects rock art. In a recent publication DennisSlifer states:

…public lands contain many natural, sce-nic, and cultural resources, including rockart sites, and although most of them havealways been accessible to the public, visit-ation of them has usually not been pro-moted in order to protect them fromdamage or looting. However, many ar-chaeologists and resource managers nowbelieve that some of these sites are bestprotected and managed by encouraging in-

formed and responsible visitation. Sincesites in remote locations are more vulner-able to damage from vandals and lootersbecause these people think they are notlikely to be observed, a public presencecan act as a deterrent (Slifer 2000).

The vandalism to the well known and heavilyvisited Temple Mountain rock art panel is notunique. It is occurring all over Utah. The ma-jority of it goes unreported and unpublicized.Another example of vandalism to a well knownrock art site, that is next to a major highway, isthe Courthouse Wash panel near Moab, Utah.It was damaged by someone trying to remove itwith abrasive household cleanser. These twoexamples, and many others that could be cited,prove that a public presence alone will not detervandalism.

Encouraging visitation, even informed and re-sponsible visitation, as a means of protectingrock art sites is a fallacy. It is simply not possi-ble to educate everyone, as much as we wouldlike that to happen, but we must still make theeffort, because it is possible to educate somepeople.

People camping at the Temple Mountain rockart panel likely have done most of the vandal-ism. Camping at the site should be ended assoon as possible.

There is one feature that is lacking at most, ifnot all of the vandalized sites mentioned above.There is no physical evidence to suggest to theuninformed public that this rock art site has anyvalue. Signs, fences, interpretative exhibits,etc., suggest, indicate, prove, demonstrate, state,that the rock art here is something that has val-ue, that someone cares about it. Physical evi-dence of the importance of rock art mustbecome part of rock art sites that are easily ac-cessible to the public if rock art is to be pre-served.

The patrolling of sites is also a major deterrentto vandalism. Signs should also be placed atrock art sites informing visitors that the site is


69

being monitored. Clearly, multiple approachesmust be taken to deter vandalism.

The Utah Rock Art Research Association'spreservation committee is working to obtainfunds to build fences and install signs and inter-pretative exhibits at the Temple Mountain site.Additionally, the BLM contact person at thejunction to Goblin Valley has agreed to patrolthe site, however last week the trailer was gone,presumably due to budget constraints. Hopeful-ly, something can be done to eliminate the con-tinued vandalism to this very important panel.

CONCLUSION

Clearly, the Temple Mountain pictograph panelis an important site. It contains unique imagesof the Barrier Canyon Style that are found no-where else.

There is a great potential for obtaining datesfrom pigment that likely was covered with mudnot long after it was created, effectively "seal-ing" it from contaminates that affect the datingpotential of other pictographs. It is likely thatseveral additional Barrier Canyon Style images,and perhaps images from other cultures, lie bur-ied beneath the mud.

The images, both visible and obscured, have thepotential to provide important informationabout the Barrier Canyon Style and its temporalrelationships to the various cultures that sur-round it. It is apparent that the Temple Moun-tain pictograph panel has much to offer, despitethe severe damage it has suffered. This site de-serves to be protected.

NOTES

. It is important to note that when superimpositionoccurs in pictographs, it is generally difficult to de-termine the length of the interval between the crea-tions of the two images. Pictographs do not, as arule, have levels of patination, as do petroglyphs.Where superimposition occurs with petroglyphs, itis usually possible to make an estimate of the timedifference between the creation of the images be-cause of the differences in the relative degrees of

patination. The superimposition of pictographscould have occurred any time after the first imagewas placed on the rock surface – even the very sameday. Thus, just because an apparent Fremont paint-ed figure has been placed over a Barrier CanyonStyle painted figure there is no assurance that thisevent occurred thousands of years apart. Other fac-tors need to be considered and investigated whenconsidering age differences by superimposition.

2. Anthropomorph (or anthropomorphic) has twodefinitions: 1 Described or thought of as having ahuman form or human attributes, “anthropomorphicdeities” 2 Ascribing human characteristics to non-human things “anthropomorphic supernaturalism”Merrian-Websters Collegiate Dictionary, 2001.The definition used here is definition number one.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Jennifer Graves of the Ar-chaeological Center at the University of Utahfor her help in locating Gunnerson's photo-graphs and in obtaining copies of them for usein this paper.

REFERENCES CITED

Barnes, Fran A.1982 Canyon Country Prehistoric Rock Art.

Wasatch Publishers, Salt Lake City,Utah.

Castleton, Kenneth1978 Petroglyphs and Pictographs of Utah,

Volume 1, Utah Museum of NaturalHistory, Salt Lake City.

Colyer, M.1962-1963 Observations on the Edible plants of

Southwest Colorado. Unpublished man-uscript, Mesa Verde National Park.

Cole, Sally1989 Iconography and Symbolism in Basket-

maker Rock Art, in Rock Art of theWestern Canyons, Colorado Archeolog-ical Society and the Denver Museum ofNatural History, Johnson Publishing,Boulder, Colorado.


70

Coulam, Nancy J. and Alan R. Schroedl1995 Early Archaic Clay Figurines from

Cowboy Cave and Walters Caves inSouthwestern Utah. Kiva 61(4): 401-412.

Dellenbaugh, F. S.1877 The Shinumos-A Pre-Historic People of

the Rocky Mountain Region, Bulletin ofthe Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences,volume 3, number. 4.

Gunnerson, James H.1957 An Archaeological Survey of the

Fremont Area, University of Utah An-thropological Papers, number 28. SaltLake City.

Kelen, Lslie and David Sucec1996 Sacred Images A Vision of Native Amer-

ican Rock Art. Peregrine Smith, Saltlake City, Utah.

Madsen, David B.1989 Exploring the Fremont. University of

Utah Occasional Publication, numbereight. Utah Museum of Natural History.

Manning, Steven J.1995 Evidence from Pictographs that Prehis-

toric Fremont Indians Collected AnimalBlood in Ceramic Jars. Utah Rock Art,14:109-116. Papers presented at theFourteenth Annual Symposium, CedarCity. Carol Patterson-Rudolph editor.Salt Lake City, Utah.

1990 Barrier Canyon Style Pictographs of theColorado Plateau. Part One: Hypothesisand Evidence of Post Circa A.D.1300Panels, Utah Archaeology 1990:43-84.

1987 Distribution and cultural affiliation oflarge, two stranded pendant necklaces inthe rock art of the Colorado Plateau.

Utah Rock Art, volume 7, section 12,pages 1-10. Papers presented at the Sev-enth Annual Symposium, Fremont StatePark, Clear Creek Canyon. Bonnie L.Morris editor. Salt Lake City, Utah.

1983 A Modal Based Classification Systemfor Rock Research: Overcoming Stylis-tic Methodological Problems. Utah Ar-chaeological Research Institute,Occasional Papers, Number 5, NorthSalt Lake, Utah. And Utah Rock Art,volume 11, section 10, pages 1-31. Pa-pers presented at the Eleventh AnnualSymposium of the Utah Rock Art Re-search Association, John Wesley PowelMuseum, Green River, Utah.

Schaafsma, Polly1971 The Rock Art of Utah. Papers of the

Peabody Museum of Archeology andEthnology, Volume 65, Harvard Univer-sity, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

1970 Survey Report on the Rock Art of Utah.Manuscript on file, Utah State HistoricalSociety, Salt Lake City.

Siegrist, Roland1972 Prehistoric Petroglyphs and Picto-

graphs in Utah. Utah Museum of FineArts and Utah State Historical Society,Salt Lake City.

Slifer, Dennis2000 Guide to the Rock Art of the Utah Re-

gion, Sites with Public Access. AncientCity Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Smith, Gary1980 Utah's Rock Art: Wilderness Louvre.

National Geographic. January 157(1)94117.

Steven J. Manning, The Temple Mountain Pictograph Panel

71

Figure 1. The Temple Mountain pictograph panel. Photograph taken by Elna ElizabethManning, October 1979. Author and son David are on the ledge. Note the size of the images.


72

Fig

ure

2.R

ecen

tva

ndal

ism

toth

eT

empl

eM

ount

ain

pict

ogra

phpa

nel

,whi

choc

curr

edon

orab

out

Mar

ch16

,200

0.


73

Figure 3. One of Gunnerson’s 1957 photographs. Special Collections, J. WillardMarriott Library, University of Utah.

Figure 4. Another of Gunnerson’s 1957 photographs. Special Collections, J. WillardMarriott Library, University of Utah.


74

Fig

ure

5.S

iegr

ist’

s19

72ph

otog

raph

.U

tah

Sta

teH

isto

rica

lS

ocie

ty,U

tah

Mus

eum

ofF

ine

Art

s.


75

Figure 6. Barrier Canyon Style anthropomorph buried beneath the mud. The figurehas a cross in each eye and vertical bands of yellow pigment on the torso.

Figure 7. Sketch of anthropomorph beneath mud.Figure 8. Anthropomorph near CastleDale, Utah with similar features.


76

Figure 9. Barrier Canyon Style anthropomorph with the face divided into four sections.Note that each eye is outlined in white paint and there is a band of white paint in an arcacross the top of the head. Since this photograph was taken, the top of the snake andmore of the anthropomorph’s head has fallen from the panel.


77

Figure 10. Anasazi Basketmaker heads or masks with faces divided into four areas,Sand Island, San Juan River, San Juan County, Utah.

Figure 11 (left) and Figure 12 (above).These images, located in a tributary ofthe Colorado River in Northern Arizona,also have their faces divided into foursections.


78

Figure 13. “The Family” from Nine Mile Canyon. The face of the anthropomorph on the rightside of the panel contains four rectangular areas. This photograph was taken on April 28,2002. It was chosen to show the current condition of the panel. Note the damage to the rocksurface, i.e., all the lighter marks. Like the heavily visited Temple Mountain panel, this also isbeing continually vandalized. It is located next to a road.

Figure 14A (left). Drawing of two anthropomorphs found along the Colorado River a shortdistance below the mouth of the Dirty Devil River (after Dellenbaugh 1877).

Figure 14B (right). Drawing of two anthropomorphs found in Northern Arizona in a tributaryof the Colorado River. Note the similarity between the two sets of images.


79

Figure 15. This anthropomorph, which is on the right side of the left section of thepanel, is believed to be Fremont. It was painted with dark reddish-brown pigment.

Figure 16. Barrier Canyon Style figures from the far left side of the panel.


80

Figure 17 (right). The small figure beneath the snakemay represent a headless, perhaps slaughtered animal.The image is above the back of a very large animalwith two large humps.

Figure 18 (below). The anthropomorph appears tohave been modified many times in the past. Thecomplexity of designs on the torso is comparable tothose on Great Gallery figures.

Notice that the images in Figures 17 and 18 both havea dark outline.


81

Figure 19 (left). The large broad-shouldered anthropomorph issuperimposed over a tall slenderanthropomorph. Notice the broaddark outline around the largeanthropomorph and around thesmall anthropomorph. The largeanthropomorph is the figure thatSchaafsma refers to as beingFremont.

Figure 19A (below) is a graphicrepresentation of the top of thesmall anthropomorph.


82

Figure 20. This area of the panel has been extensively modified.

Figure 21. Digitally enhanced detail of upper right side of the modified part of the panel.


83

Figure 22A (left) and 22B (right). Digitally enhanced images with missing areas filled in. Thisis a suggestion of some of the features at the top of the modified area of the panel.

Figure 23. Digitally enhanced photograph showing a tall narrow anthropomorph with a verticalrow of small animals along its side, and an anthropomorph with two large eyes and a decoratedtorso; note the “pedant” on its chest.


84

Figure 24. Small anthropomorph holding or waving fringed objects.Note the recent vandalism.

Figure 25. Simplistically painted image at the far right side of the panel.Note the presence of the vertical white line through the small quadruped.


85

Figure 26. These simplistic paintings are located southeast of Kanab, Utah in NortheasternArizona. Compare them to those in Figure 25.

Figure 27. This is a comparison of the large anthropomorph from Temple Mountain, whichis believed by some to be Fremont, and a Barrier Canyon figure from the Great Gallery inHorseshoe Canyon. The head and lower torso of the anthropomorph from the Great Galleryhave been “removed by erosion” to correspond with the figure from Temple Mountain.Which one is from Temple Mountain?


86

Documents

42EM65, The Temple Mountain Pictograph Panel · 42EM65, The Temple Mountain Pictograph Panel The Temple Mountain rock art panel, as it is called locally, is a group of large and striking