BajaNomad

Age of Catavina cave paintings?

BajaVida - 5-16-2004 at 08:43 PM

anyone have an idea about how old they are?

my first photo post--hope it works

David K - 5-16-2004 at 11:14 PM

BajaVida, until you get your photos to show... use mine taken last July by my daughter while I had a siesta below in my truck! http://vivabaja.com/703/page5.html

Age of Petroglyphs

academicanarchist - 5-17-2004 at 04:13 AM

I am not an expert on petroglyphs, but I will hazard a guess. I have previously posted photos of petros from the Big Bend region of Texas that are that old if not older, and they are much simpler than the ones at Catavina. On the other hand, they are very similar to the Chumash petroglyphs from California, which are protohistoric.

David K - 5-17-2004 at 07:03 AM

Robert, for the non-academics among us, what/when is protohistoric?

In Moon Handbooks "Baja",

Natalie Ann - 5-17-2004 at 07:23 AM

Joe Cummings says that though no one is certain who painted the geometric patterns and humanoid figures on the rock face, "the Cochimi have been suggested due to the presence of Equestrian images". Perhaps AA can tell us what dates that might be.

protohistoric

Taco de Baja - 5-17-2004 at 08:34 AM

Protohistoric is the time period just before the beginning of recorded history of a particular people/culture . This of course will vary depending on what people/culture you are studying.

As for the age of Catavina pictographs, I would guess not too old. The crumblyness of the granite would suggest that after less then 1,000 years they would have all fallen off.

Rock art

bajalera - 5-17-2004 at 01:41 PM

As yet, here really isn't a valid method of assigning dates to rock art. An estimate can be made based on artifacts found at a site, but how do you know the artifacts were used by the people who made the art? Precise dates are much more likely to be applied to pictographs and petroglyphs by amateur enthusiasts than by archaeologists, most of whom are very cautious about slapping dates on them.

That Huell Howser PBS presentation, incidentally, was by far the most annoying Baja crap I've ever forced myself to sit through. The "native experts" who supplied the 4,000 date for the rock art also told him the church at San Ignacio was built by Jesuits in 1725. Don't have my books with me during a brief stay up here in Gringolandia, but I think that's the date the mission--meaning the overall effort to convert the Indians of the area--was founded. The mission church, begun by a Jesuit much later, was completed by Dominicans.

Howser, who made this video without doing any homework at all, was totally amazed at stands of cardon and cholla and ocotillo growing in the same location. At date palms and oranges and carrots and garlic and lettuce growing "out here in the middle of the Baja desert." At motorcyclists who had come all the way from--gulp!--KANSAS. Apparently convinced that San Ignacio is way off the beaten path, he wondered how they had found their way there.

Just imagine: within a block of that ancient mission church (which he somehow assumed tourists never enter) there's a place where a row of young people were playing video games. Will wonders never cease!!! And somehow he got the impression that the townsfolk come to the plaza to take their siesta naps.

It was about Baja, though, so I watched it all the way through. And managed not to barf, although this wasn't easy.

bajalera

JESSE - 5-17-2004 at 01:51 PM

A.D. 1352 and 1512 according to the Baja State University.

But.

The paintings where usually painted on top of others, so they are probably older than that.

[Edited on 5-17-2004 by JESSE]

KurtG - 5-17-2004 at 04:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bajalera
As yet, here really isn't a valid method of assigning dates to rock art. An estimate can be made based on artifacts found at a site, but how do you know the artifacts were used by the people who made the art? Precise dates are much more likely to be applied to pictographs and petroglyphs by amateur enthusiasts than by archaeologists, most of whom are very cautious about slapping dates on them.

bajalera


I wonder what the researchers from The Australian National University, Canberra and The National Geographic Society would have to say about that " no valid method of assigning dates to rock art" statement. They were pretty firm in their statements last year about dating murals in the Sierra Guadalupe at 5-7500 yeas old. For info see: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0717_030717_...

Petroglyphs and San Ignacio

academicanarchist - 5-18-2004 at 07:36 AM

That was a pretty good trick by the Jesuits to build the church at San Ignacio in 1725, and establish the mission three years later in 1728. FIgure that. Actually, the Dominicans completed the church, using native labor of course, in 1786. Protohistoric has already been defined as the period immediately prior to written records. In this case it would be the mid-18th century for the Central Desert region. The comparison with the Chumash petros is useful. It is believed that many of the Chumash petros were drawn by shaman and shaman in training while on vision quests stimulated by datura. The similar types of designs at Catavina suggest a similar origin. If datura was associated with the petros, then they would date to the spread of datura use in the region.

Natalie Ann - 5-18-2004 at 08:22 AM

And so, AA - what approximately would be the dates of the spread of the use of datura in the Catavina area... and also of the Cochimi, thank you.

Bajalera - Always try to avoid any production in which Huell Howser plays a part. You can bet the family farm on the "facts" being fiction and on old Huell making no sense. The only PBS program Steve has banned in our house.
Also, sorry I missed you recently. Yes, you did miss/are missing some of LP's most beautiful weather. Hope you and Steve are doing well and enjoying life.

bajalera - 5-18-2004 at 10:59 AM

KurtG - Okay, maybe I'm being too picky. But I just find it difficult to consider "5000-7500 years old" to be a precise date. And while I don't know zip about the qualifications of the Australian researchers, I do know something about the National Geographic Society: this is not a scholarly journal but a commercial magazine that's focused on acquiring a wide circulation, and it has published some pretty scuzzy material on Baja California in the past.

As a member of the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, I rely on its Quarterly for info on the peninsula--and also on the reports of Eric Ritter and Mexican archaeologists Fermin Reygadas Dahl and Guillermo Velazquez Ramirez. For assessments of current dating methodologies, I look to American Antiquity and the American Anthropologist.

Natalie Ann - hope to catch you next time!

bajalera

Dr. Eric Ritter

Barry A. - 5-18-2004 at 12:25 PM

Bajalera----Doc Ritter lives a few blocks away from me, but he is out to lunch right now. I will call him about 1 PM and find out what he thinks about the Catavina Petro/Picto glyths/graphs. More later. Barry A.

Cave Carvings

jrbaja - 5-18-2004 at 12:53 PM

While on the subject, this cave was encountered on my last trip down. Local lore has it that when their TVs would go out and no "Real TV" shows were to be viewed, they got so bored they marked up the walls. Circa- many many years before the nonsense.:lol:

jrbaja - 5-18-2004 at 12:57 PM

jrbaja - 5-18-2004 at 01:01 PM

jrbaja - 5-18-2004 at 01:05 PM

jrbaja - 5-18-2004 at 01:10 PM

jrbaja - 5-18-2004 at 01:17 PM

jrbaja - 5-18-2004 at 01:24 PM

I saw that PBS show also....

M - 5-18-2004 at 01:47 PM

I agree, what a total load of crap! Old Huel is another Garrison Keillor wannabe. NOT!
JR, I was SO distressed to see your photos (excellent as usual) of those vandalised rock art. Such a shame that a peninsula full of wonderfull people are so damn careless about their own historical culture and environmental care. Sigh... Before I get blasted for being a generalizing tree hugger, yes not ALL Baja Mexicans are like that, my point is, those that are there doing the damage are too much. Thanks all for the interesting info. Hugs, M

Datura Cult

academicanarchist - 5-18-2004 at 01:59 PM

Datura cult was well established among the Chumash when the Spanish arrived after 1769. I would guess that somewhere around 1500-1760 as the age for the Catavina site.

"The word" from Dr. Eric Ritter

Barry A. - 5-18-2004 at 02:18 PM

I just got off the phone with Dr. Ritter. He says that the whole subject of the age of pictographs in Baja CA has been turned topsy-turvy due to a new technique that is able to age the pigments in the paint used to produce the pictoglyphs. The ages they are coming up with on the murals north of San Ignacio, and west of Mulege, are considerably older than previously thought-----like in the neighborhood of 7000 years old. The Catavina pictographs have not yet been dated using these new techniques. Traditionally, Eric has dated the Catavina sites at about 1000 years old, or slightly older, based on artifact identification in the immediate area. He admits that this is very speculative, at best, and totally in error at worst. He has heard the rumors of association with the Chumash culture to the north in Alta California, but he does not buy into this theory, at all. In fact he was rather irritated at the idea. So, the answer to your original question is a big question mark. It is generally thought that Dr. Ritter is an authority on Baja Archaeology, and he has worked there for 30 years plus. Barry

bajalera - 5-18-2004 at 02:38 PM

Way to go, Barry! You've provided us with dating info based on fact rather than fiction. But I'd revise that description of Dr. Ritter--he's generally considered not just as "an" authority on Baja archaeology, but as THE authority. You're lucky to have him as a friend.

AA--I expect a historian to have better sense than to guess at dates that archaeologists aren't willing to take a stand on.

bajalera

[Edited on 5-18-2004 by bajalera]

The dates

jrbaja - 5-18-2004 at 02:41 PM

Some "professional" evaluation placed my collection between 4,000 and 10,000 years old depending on which pieces. They originated from three different tribes including the Yaqui from the mainland.
The funny part is, none of those guys were tall enough to paint the ceilings of some of the caves I have seen.
Unless of course, there were those before them who were. This is common belief amongst the locals that actually live in these areas.
And since nobody actually knows their true origin or dates/time period, it is quite interesting to hear the locals beliefs and foreigners ideas on when and who.
From what I have observed including reading some of the scientific studies, there is a lot more to these paintings than we yet know and they are probably a lot older than we think.
And for M, those pictures aren't that good as that is not vandalism. In the area of those caves, there are a number of them with scratchings rather than paintings. I posted some pictures in the historic section of Nomads of another cave with some similar markings. There are a lot of them as well as caves with human bones, metates, peyote dolls, etc. although, they are not very easy to get to and are only known by the locals.
Trips to some of these caves can now be arranged if anyone is interested in seeing some non touristy history. Again, it is a lot of work and a long way to get to them but prior to me, no white guys have visited them and they are now protected as the locals all have their credentials through Profepa. Victory!

What about Harry Crosby?

Barry A. - 5-18-2004 at 02:50 PM

Doc says that Harry is "the" authority, but I know what you mean, and yes, I treasure Eric's friendship-----I used to work with him in the southern deserts, many years ago, and later in N. CA.. First met him in about l974, in El Centro, CA-----very interesting guy, and down to earth. He wants to start Archy research in the Bahia San Luis Gonzaga area, next, in JULY!!!!! Mucho Caliente!!!! (-: Barry

KurtG - 5-18-2004 at 03:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bajalera
KurtG - Okay, maybe I'm being too picky. But I just find it difficult to consider "5000-7500 years old" to be a precise date. And while I don't know zip about the qualifications of the Australian researchers, I do know something about the National Geographic Society: this is not a scholarly journal but a commercial magazine that's focused on acquiring a wide circulation, and it has published some pretty scuzzy material on Baja California in the past.
bajalera [/quote

Since The Geographic Society is described as a "partial sponser' of this project I have trouble seeing a commercial interest on their part. As to the 5-7500 years, that was not a general estimate but the range of dating they found at least as I read the article. As was mentioned by another poster the new methods of dating the pigments are said to be more accurate. I am not a scientist, just someone who has visited a number of painting sites and thus has an ongoing interest. Also regarding the Geographic, remember that in the Dec 89 issue they published Crosby's article on the people of the Sierra San Francisco which was outstanding. I haven't seen any of their "scuzzy" stuff on Baja, can you direct me to it?

bajalera - 5-18-2004 at 03:12 PM

Barry - Harry isn't an archaeologist. I consider him to be THE authority on Baja history. He's as comfortable on horseback as he is in the archives, and writes well too--a really unusual combination.

bajalera.

Response to Kurt

bajalera - 5-18-2004 at 04:38 PM

For the record, you're the one who wondered what Australian and National Geographic researchers would have to say about my statement that "as yet there really isn't a valid method of assigning dates to rock art" (which you cited only part of). I don't know what those people would say, but Eric Ritter didn't disagree--eventually, a time-tested method of assessing pigments will be developed.

To me, National Geographic is an interesting magazine that has great pictures, but I don't view it as a reliable source of historical and anthropological information. It published a notably scuzzy piece about travel on the old road while I was living in La Paz, which would have been some time between 1963 and '68. (Or perhaps a bit earlier--I can't recall the exact date.) And that recent article on "Pericu" skulls struck me as being pretty naive.

You say it has also run a story by Harry Crosby, which I assume would be very well done. So what's your point here?

The only point I can see is that Geographic has published articles on Baja that aren't worth reading, as well as others that are.

bajalera

Questions for Dr. Ritter

academicanarchist - 5-18-2004 at 04:42 PM

If Barry can get Dr. Ritter on the phone again, there are several questions I would appreciate his clarifying:
1. If he believes that datura was involved in the creation of the geometric designs at Catavina? And if the Catavina site dates to similar periods as sites in other parts of the larger Southwestern region?
2. If the shamanic figures north of San Ignacio date to about the same time as shamanic figures from other areas, such as the Big Bend Region of Texas and Del Rio Texas?
3. Citations on recent journal articles on the age of sites such as Catavina or in surrounding regions such as California, Sonora, Texas, or New Mexico?
Thanks.

Questions from AA

Barry A. - 5-18-2004 at 05:06 PM

AA----I would be happy to take these questions over to Dr. Ritter, but he is a working Archaeologist and I hesitate to impose on him by another phone call. I would suggest that you two e-mail each other, if Dr. Ritter chooses to do that. Along those lines, I would need your e-mail address. I can be e-mailed at: barrynmeredy@charter.net

OK

academicanarchist - 5-18-2004 at 05:17 PM

No problema. I have found that scholars often are happy to answer questions from the gentle public.

[Edited on 5-19-2004 by academicanarchist]

KurtG - 5-18-2004 at 07:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bajalera
For the record, you're the one who wondered what Australian and National Geographic researchers would have to say about my statement that "as yet there really isn't a valid method of assigning dates to rock art" (which you cited only part of). I don't know what those people would say, but Eric Ritter didn't disagree--eventually, a time-tested method of assessing pigments will be developed.

To me, National Geographic is an interesting magazine that has great pictures, but I don't view it as a reliable source of historical and anthropological information. It published a notably scuzzy piece about travel on the old road while I was living in La Paz, which would have been some time between 1963 and '68. (Or perhaps a bit earlier--I can't recall the exact date.) And that recent article on "Pericu" skulls struck me as being pretty naive.

You say it has also run a story by Harry Crosby, which I assume would be very well done. So what's your point here?

The only point I can see is that Geographic has published articles on Baja that aren't worth reading, as well as others that are.

bajalera


I was really making two points, first in regard to your original post where you said there was no reliable way to date the paintings I simply posted a link that pointed out that scientists from a reputable university felt they could date these things. I have no position on the dating since I don't have the scientific background to do so. Secondly, you stated that Geographic had published some "scuzzy" things about Baja and I pointed out one very good article and asked for directions to read the "scuzzy" ones. Again here you say they have published articles on Baja "not worth reading" and I'm simply asking for issue dates so I can decide for myself. Don't read anything else into my words, I'm just looking for good info. What issue was the "Pericu" skull article?

Baja Bernie - 5-18-2004 at 09:52 PM

JR

Damn! You keep this up with the pictures and exploring and building bamboo stuff and National Geographic will 'make' you GO TO WORK for them.
Enjoy your stuff and your heart more each time you post. Have you noticed that the further away from civilization you have gone the more calm and introspective you have become?

Natalie Ann, I normally dislike it when someone attempts to push a post in a different direction BUT I gotta tell you you are the first person that has quoted Rumi anywhere that I know of. Love the guy so please forgive me in this instance.

bajalera - 5-19-2004 at 10:47 AM

It's certainly possible that what I viewed as "scuzzy" was enjoyed by some Geographic readers as a great adventure story. I read it soon after driving a Power Wagon down the old carretera to La Paz on a trip that took two months because we tarried here and there. I no longer remember exactly what irritated me, but think it was that ranches and geographic features were misnamed.

As nearly as I can recall, the Pericu piece ran in September or October of 2003. I found it by searching for Pericu (which also brought up--to my surprise--the Deja Vu Pericu I wrote for the Nomad board). The Geographic article struck me as being another Baja-was-settled-by-Micronesians thing, which stressed sensational aspects and ignored some important research that has been done on this subject.

bajalera

[Edited on 5-19-2004 by bajalera]

Dr. Ritter's response to my questions

academicanarchist - 5-19-2004 at 01:29 PM

I will briefly and off the top of my head answer your inquiries: First,
there are pictographs at Catavina, not petroglyphs. At least one appears
to be vulva-like, perhaps fertility related. There is nothing to confirm
Datura use at this site---these could be entoptic images
(trans-state-shamanic) that could come from tobacco-induced altered states
just as easily as Datura, or from some other cause. These is no solid
dating of these pictographs or any other Northern Abstract pictographs.
Most have thought they date to the last 2000 years based on nearby
archaeology but this is highly hypothetical. The Great Mural art is being
dated as we correspond by Alan Watchmann and Luz Gutierrez---dates run from
7000 to last 500 years. Still very provisional. They have several
articles out in English and Spanish publications (Arqueologia; Nature?).
If these dates prove correct they are even earlier--in part--than the Pecos
art. Associated archaeology (cf. Hyland's thesis) in the Great Mural
region does not agree wholly with the dates obtained. Possible
contamination factors must be determined. Watchmann et al. have taken
samples from several Northern Abstract sites (Montevideo for
instance)--don't know the results but this site has a Great Mural
anthropomorph which may suggest correspondence of some of the art with the
dates from the Sierra de San Francisco/Sierra Guadalupe--very tenuous. I
see no direct connection between much of the central Baja California rock
art and elsewhere in the Southwest. These are some anomalies for
sure---scratched stuff all over the west; plumed serpent in one shelter
near Santa Marta; possible shamanic/trans-state traditions and so on. Much
to work out as yet.

At San Fernando Velicata we spent part of one day salvaging some of the
burials that were exposed by erosion and looters. These are as yet only
partially studied (Eldon Molto of Lakehead University). He did find a case
of bejel apparently. At one time I had a pollen sample run from one of the
adobe bricks---no invasive weeds found in the sample--not much pollen
preservation in any case.

Go the the American Rock Art Research Association web site and see if there
is more of interest---much on rock art dating in many journals plus other
items of note. Hope this helps some. What is the bulletin board address?

bajalera - 5-19-2004 at 02:06 PM

Thanks, Robert, for making that informative response available to us.

bajalera

bajalera - 5-19-2004 at 04:18 PM

And to you, too, Barry and Dr. R. (I would have added this thank-you to my previous post, but the EDIT feature has gone missing from it.)

Lera

How many years??

thebajarunner - 5-19-2004 at 04:58 PM

Baja Vida and I are having lunch today at our monthly Salvation Army board meeting.
He leans over and whispers," Sure glad I asked the question about the cave painting, now we know, for sure, that they are somewhere between 100 years old and 2 billion years old."
(I think he was commenting slightly tongue in cheek, but with B.V. you never know)

Baja Arriba!!

bajalera - 5-19-2004 at 05:02 PM

That's a good one, Runner!

bajalera

elgatoloco - 5-19-2004 at 07:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jrbaja

The funny part is, none of those guys were tall enough to paint the ceilings of some of the caves I have seen.


Maybe the ground was closer to the 'canvas' those many years ago?

Erosion and all that?

I checked them out.

jrbaja - 5-19-2004 at 08:07 PM

I have to find the picture but one of the largest caves had metates built into a seat that pretty much surrounded the inside of the cave. And others on the floor and lots of evidence of punta making and unnatural rocks for that area.
Also, they would have had to dig a long way down to bury some of the bones that we have observed.
I think more likely, it was the equivalent to the graffiti on the bridges and hard to get to places of nowadays. They were just better at it. No spray paint but lot's of Palo to extend their brushes with.

BajaNomad - 6-8-2004 at 08:46 PM

J.R.

I am absolutely pleased for the opportunity to have this board host some of your fabulous photos.... but file sizes of 50kb or less would be very much appreciated: