Dr. Kenneth B. Castleton is a unique individual, who after a distinguished medical career of forty-two years produced an authoritative work on the rock art of Utah, Petroglyphs and Pictographs of Utah, Volumes I and II. Without formal training in anthropology, Dr. Castleton became a student of ancient rock art, and turned what began as a hobby into an important contribution to the field.

Dr. Castleton was born in Salt Lake City on July 29, 1903. He attended the University of Utah and received an A.B. in Chemistry in 1923. In 1927, Dr. Castleton was awarded an M.D., with honors, by the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. He completed his internship with the University of Pennsylvania Hospital from 1927 to 1929, and residency as a Surgical Fellow at the Mayo Foundation from 1929 to 1933. He completed his formal education with a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in 1933.

In 1933 Dr. Castleton began his private practice of surgery in Salt Lake City, which he continued until 1962. He was an Associate Clinical Professor of Surgery at the University of Utah College of Medicine from 1942 to 1962, when he became Dean and Professor of Surgery until 1969. In January of 1969, Dr. Castleton was appointed Vice President for Medical Affairs, and held this position until July 1971, when he was named Emeritus Professor of Surgery. While at the University of Utah, his research centered on the study of gastrointestinal surgery, on which he published forty-two papers. Dr. Castleton was also one of the founding members of the Salt Lake Surgical Society.

During his distinguished years at the University of Utah, Dr. Castleton was also vice-chairman of the Public Fund Drive for the Medical Center, and in this capacity raised nearly $1 million in private funds. Later, as dean, he raised more than $1 million for the Medical Center. In 1974 Dr. Castleton received a honorary degree for his understanding of his fellow man, his lifelong commitment to the healing of the sick, and his constant devotion to excellence in teaching, research and patient care.

Dr. Castleton's involvement in professional organizations included being president of the Salt Lake County Medical Society (1949-1950), president of the Utah State Medical Association (1952-1953), and Utah Delegate to the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association (1958-1960). During his presidency of the Utah State Medical Association, he spearheaded a drive for sewage disposal and water purification plants. Dr. Castleton also received the Medici Publici Award from the University of Utah College of Medicine in 1965, and a Merit Honor Award from the Emeritus Club in 1971.

Dr. Castleton currently (1988) resides in Salt Lake City with his wife, Heloise. He is the father of four children and three step-children.

A river expedition down the Colorado in 1953 stirred Dr. Castleton's interest in rock art, but he did not seriously study petroglyphs and pictographs until his retirement from the University of Utah. Encouraged by Dr. Jesse D. Jennings, retired Professor of Anthropology at the University of Utah, and Donald V. Hague, Director of the Utah Museum of Natural History, Dr. Castleton explored the state's rock art, visiting old sites and discovering some new ones. He took thousands of photographs, recorded the exact locations of the sites, and kept field notes and analyzed the types of rock art encountered. He became the president of the Utah Museum of Natural History Board of Associates in 1975, and was a guest speaker at the American Rock Art Research Association Symposium in 1975 and 1976. In 1979, Dr. Castleton was the symposium chairman of the ARARA.

In a July 15, 1978 Deseret News article Dr. Castleton stated that rock art can be appreciated as primitive art that steps across centuries to "capture moments of time that fill the modern observer with an intense closeness to the prehistoric past."


INTRODUCTION TO ROCK ART PHOTOGRAPHIC COLLECTION

By Kenneth B. Castleton*


Historic and prehistoric rock art is found in many parts of the world. The famous cave art of southern France and northern Spain is probably the best known, oldest and finest of any. In the United States ancient Indian rock art has been reported in 47 of the 50 states but the most abundant and possibly the best examples are in the West and Southwest, especially in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and California. Utah is a veritable treasure house of such art and has literally hundreds of sites, among them some of the finest found anywhere. In reviewing the archaeology files and records at the University of Utah and in reading the reports of such writers as Reagan, Claflin-Emerson, Gunnerson, Jennings, Hunt, Aikens, Rudy, Schaafsma, and others, I have found that over 400 sites have been identified in this state alone, and to these I have added about 50 more.

In 1970 Polly Schaafsma prepared a Survey Report of Rock Art in Utah. This was not published but was mimeographed and a limited number of copies made. In it she described 59 rock art sites, their elements, information on their location, and in some cases their cultural relationships. It is a valuable document and provides an abundance of interesting and valuable information. She visited most of the sites personally and those that she did not visit were reported from information obtained from the literature and from personal discussions with knowledgeable people, usually people who lived in the area. In 1971 her Rock Art of Utah was published by the Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology. This is a scholarly document in which she discusses rock art on a geographic and cultural basis, profusely illustrated with photographs, drawings and tables. These two documents constitute a major contribution to the literature of rock art in general and that of Utah in particular. She makes a real effort to determine the age of rock and her efforts in the field (a very difficult one) might be regarded as pioneering.

This document tends to supplement and extend Schaafsma's Survey. In the past three years I have been traveling to all parts of the state hunting to identify, inspect, and photograph all possible examples of rock art, armed with information obtained from the files of the University of Utah, reports by Gunnerson, the Claflin-Emerson Expedition, Reagan, Morss, Aiken, Steward, Rudy, and many others. Schaafsma's Survey has been of great assistance, especially in describing access to those sites that she reported. At the same time, in discussions with many people, usually local residents, I have been able to see and photograph many other sites not previously reported so far as I have been able to determine. It is this latter group that I have especially concentrated on, although I have visited almost all those reported by Schaafsma, and many of those reported by others, not included in her Survey.

In reporting this material I have several objectives in mind. (1) To identify and locate as many sites as possible, especially those not previously reported. (2) To provide accurate location and detailed access information for use by students and scholars in this field. I have found by experience that it is often difficult, sometimes extremely so, and very time consuming to try to find these sites, even with what appears to be fairly accurate directions and instructions. (3) Hopefully to stir up interest and sentiment that will lead to measures that will lead to better protection of these sites, especially from vandalism.

It was the observation that many fine panels were being defaced and even destroyed that stimulated my interest in the first place. (4) It is a fascinating hobby which has made it possible to see some incredibly beautiful country unspoiled and even unseen except by a relatively few people.

Taking good pictures is often difficult and at times impossible, especially when one is an amateur like me. However, even a professional will have difficulty at times. Petroglyphs are often badly worn by natural erosion, obscured by patination or damaged by vandalism. In some cases the contrast between the figures and the rock on which they are made is very minor indeed. Getting favorable lighting may pose a problem. Various aids may be used to improve the photography including polaroid filters to reduce glare, reflectors, chalking, wetting the surface, using side lighting, using flash bulbs, etc. I have elected not to use chalking even though many believe that it is justified. My reason for not using it is that I am not entirely sure that it is harmless and I don't want to take a chance on damaging the panel. Sketchings and tracings may be of great value but I have not done any, and I have tried rubbings on only a few occasions.

Rock art can be divided into two main types--petroglyphs and pictographs. Petroglyphs can be made by several techniques. The most common form is made by pecking with a sharp stone. Others are made by incising, carving, abrading and rubbing. Drilling was occasionally used to make small holes, thus producing a stippled effect. Bas-relief carvings are rarely seen. The rare occurrence of incised patterns on small stones probably deserves a separate category (Schuster).

Pictographs are produced by painting with mineral paints. Most of them are red, pink or brown, and composed of iron oxide pigment. Other colors are white (gypsum, calcium carbonate or lime); yellow (assumed to be yellow ocre); green (assumed to be malachite); black (carbon); and blue (probably from copper ore). All of these are of mineral origin except carbons.

Several figures were found in which petroglyphs and pictographs were found in the same figure, especially in the Uinta Basin. This is an uncommon finding.

The primitive Indian cultures that concern us here begin with the Pleistocene Period which extended from 1 million to 10,000 or 15,000 years ago. The Sandia Man existed as recently as 25,000 years ago, and the Folsom Man, Yuma, and others from 25,000 to about 15,000 years ago or less. Indians have lived in every part of the state from very ancient times. The earliest evidence of them was found in Danger Cave and dates about 9000 B.C. More recent cultures include Basketmaker I (1050 B.C. [?] to 200 A.D.). This term has largely been discontinued due to the lack of direct evidence of any culture, a result of their nomadic life. These were hunters and wild food gatherers and did not engage in farming. Basketmaker II, now called Basketmaker, existed about 200-400 A.D. These were semi-agriculture and semi-hunting people who produced fine baskets but little pottery and grew some corn and squash. Basketmaker III existed from 400-700 A.D. These people began to establish communities. They improved pottery and made excellent baskets. They also replaced the spear thrower with the bow and arrow. Pueblo I improved pottery and built villages and communal houses of true masonry. Pueblo II dates from 850 to 1000 A.D. Pueblo III the Mesa Verde Period from 1000 to 1200 A.D. Pueblo IV Regressive, from 1200 to 1700 A.D. saw droughts and migrations and ended with the invasion of the Spaniards. Pueblo V Historic from 1700 A.D. to the present.

Rock art has usually been identified with three cultures: Fremont, Anasazi, and Desert although recent evidence seems to indicate that much of the Desert culture, except for the very old art, is really Fremont of a somewhat earlier period than that usually associated with Fremont, that is, that which is essentially east of the Wasatch Mountains.

The culture that is characteristically and almost exclusively Utah's is the Fremont and most of the rock art is identified with it. It includes such great sites as the Uinta Basin, Nine Mile Canyon, the many sites south of Price, Capitol Reef National Monument, Canyonlands National Park, and some in the Escalante River drainage. In fact, the rock art east of the Wasatch and north of the Colorado River is almost exclusively Fremont, and it dates from 550 A.D. to 1000 A.D., with most of it probably in the latter half of that period.

Recent studies seem to indicate that much of the rock art in the western part of Utah is definitely Fremont in origin, and not just Fremont-influenced by roving bands of that culture. This has led to modification of the earlier subdivision of Fremont into the following by Marfitt: (1) Uinta Fremont (2) Great Salt Lake Fremont (3) Sevier Fremont (4) Parowan Fremont (5) San Rafael Fremont. There is however considerable uncertainty and controversy about the Fremont culture--its origin, dates, and fate, as indicated by the fact that much of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archeology in Mexico City in 1970 was devoted to a symposium on this subject.

The second great culture responsible for rock art is the Anasazi which is found in the southeastern part of the state south of the Colorado River, and across the southern part of the state, including the Kanab area, Zion National Park, and the Cedar City and St. George areas.

Finally, the third culture, usually described as the Desert Culture, but now believed to consist largely of Fremont, includes the entire remainder of the state west of the Wasatch and north of the Cedar City area. Terms associated with the rock art of this area include Desert Archaic, Western Painted Style, Great Basin Curvilinear Style, etc.

Schaafsma divides the Fremont area into three subdivisions. (1) Uinta Fremont including the Uinta Basin, (2) the Northern San Rafael which includes the area from the junction of the White River with the Green on the north to the entrance of the Price River into the Green on the south, and (3) the Southern San Rafael from there down to Glen Canyon north of the Colorado and a little beyond the river.

The Anasazi area is also divided into three subdivisions. (1) The San Juan in southeast Utah, (2) the Kayenta-Anasazi southwest of the Escalante, and (3) the Virgin subdivision along the Virgin River to the Nevada and Arizona lines.

Naturally none of these lines are distinct or rigid. In all cases there is overlap due to social intercourse, traveling groups, and perhaps wars, so that Fremont influence is found in the Anasazi areas and vice versa.

Nonetheless, there are marked differences in the rock art found in different areas. For example, in some areas of the Uinta Basin the dominant and characteristic figure is the large anthropomorph with a trapezoidal or tapered trunk, flat or inverted-bucket head, necklaces, ear bobs and chest decorations. These are found in abundance in McKee Springs, Cub Creek and Dry Fork. Yet at Nine Mile Canyon, only 30 miles from Myton and about 70 miles from Vernal, the dozens of panels have few of these figures, but an abundance of deer, mountain sheep and curved and wavy lines which are infrequent in the Uinta Basin. Also, in the Uinta Basin most of the figures are pictographs, while those of Nine Mile are petroglyphs. In Cave Valley in Zion National Park we find the "Cave Valley Style," consisting of human figures with triangular trunks, and upper and lower extremities, which is peculiar to this area. In the western part of the state the figures are mostly geometric figures: circles, spirals, wavy lines, meandering lines and maze figures. Deer and mountain sheep are quite common but they are simple, crude, small, and appear to be older than those in the eastern part of the state. Examples of these are at Pumice, Connor Springs, Stansbury, and Deseret.

The dating of rock art is difficult and uncertain. In dating studies of ruins, archaeologists are extremely fortunate in having two valuable tools: dendrochronology and radiocarbon. Carbon-14 studies are often quite accurate and dependable, and dendrochronology may give the exact year in some cases. Neither of these are applicable to petroglyph or pictograph dating because organic material is essential to the process and neither of these involve organic material except possibly the use of carbon as black paint. So there is a great need for a reliable technique which will make positive dating possible. Meanwhile, the archaeologist is forced to rely on such indirect evidence as the association of rock art with habitations, and artifacts whose ages can be determined by existing methods. In some cases this may be quite reliable, but in others it is uncertain because the rock art may be found associated with artifacts of several different ages, and there is no way of knowing which of these cultures corresponds with the petroglyphs or pictographs.

One of the most urgent and difficult problems associated with this matter is that of vandalism. Many ruins have been explored and destroyed or seriously damaged, and many panels of rock art defaced by amateurs. I am convinced that most of this damage is done by otherwise reputable citizens who hunt for arrowheads, pottery, bones, and baskets like other people hunt for specimens of wildflowers or butterflies. Many feel a sense of proprietorship even though the land on which these things are found does not belong to them personally, and they point with great pride to their personal collection which they have found over a period of years. Some of those who deface rock art panels see nothing wrong with adding their names or initials to the ancient figures that were placed there by earlier generations. Some are malicious but these are probably few in number. In recent years, however, there seems to be an increasing number of commercial "pot hunters" who sell artifacts, sometimes at rather handsome figures. Recently I heard of a basket that was dug up in southern Utah that was sold for $1,400.

The solution of the problem is not easy. Better laws and better enforcement of laws would help, but it is extremely difficult to obtain convictions. Most residents of the area where these are found are much opposed to people coming in and digging and for this reason they are reluctant to give strangers information regarding the location of these sites. Some officials have told me that they are reluctant to put up signs reminding people that it is against the law to deface or dig in these sites, because they feel that to do so simply calls attention to the fact that these sites exist and this will in their opinion tend to lead to more vandalism. However, this too is not the answer because the interested public should be permitted to enjoy them, if this can be done without leading to more destruction. Fences around the better sites would help but will not eliminate the problem because determined visitors will manage to climb over, or this failing, they can always shoot at the panels with rifles, pistols, or shot guns, and I have found many panels where this has occurred. Moreover, there are so many sites that it would be impossible or impractical to build fences around all of them. Then there is the added problem that many of them are on private land.

So the solution seems to be (1) Better laws and better enforcement. (2) Better physical protection by fences, etc. where feasible. (3) Most important of all better education of the public so that it realizes the great value of these sites to the people of not only the present but of future generations. Only with widespread public support will protective measures be successful.

*Note: This was adapted from Dr. Castleton's introduction to his photographic collection which is found in Box 37 of the Manuscript material.