| The study of the methods and techniques for analyzing prehistoric rock art is discussed. Case studies, based on data from the southern Sierra Nevada and the western Great Basin of North America, illustrate some of the analytical notions suggested. Initial concern is with the problems of classification and chronology. Classification in Americanist rock art studies is argued to revolve around the concept of the style, and to ultimately be derivative of the Culture-Area concept and the Diffusionist School in Anthropology. It is suggested that Americanist archaeologists have failed to define styles in terms of the basic components of cultural-historical classification: geographical, temporal and cultural placement. A factor analysis of 1,523 rock art elements from 89 southern Sierra Nevada sites is used to provide hypothetical classificatory units from which cultural-historical hypotheses can be tested.; A variety of methods of absolute and relative dating are reviewed, including the analyses of subject matter and seriational and superimpositional sequences, the petroglyphs of the Coso Range, California. A matrix algebra solution of superimpositional data is proposed. Absolute dating of the Coso petroglyphs is obtained using cation ratio dating. This technique suggests that certain of the sampled petroglyphs are in excess of 6,000 years old.; An interpretation of the Coso petroglyphs addresses two issues: the symbolic meaning of specific elements; and the rate of production of this assemblage. Oral traditions of the western Shoshone speakers suggest that there is a continuity in the symbolic meaning of certain motifs, and that these are indicative of male success and virility. Production figures suggest that the Coso petroglyphs required little average yearly investment of labor. This, in turn, indicates that the petroglyphs could easily have been produced by a population size and structure similar to that recorded for the region ethnographically. Recourse to formalized hunting cults and the possibility of a cultural devolution or deculturation to explain the divergence between ethnographic models for the area and hypothesized prehistoric condition is unwarranted. The various methods and techniques reviewed provide a model for the analysis of rock art. |
