Jeffers petroglyphs: examining socioeconomic and cultural differences between late archaic and late prehistoric periods introduction

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH METHODS OF ROCK ART

According to Ian Hodder, Archaeologists have no authority to interpret the prehistories of other ethnic or cultural groups and should instead offer individuals from these communities with the capacity to develop their perspectives of the past (Hodder 1984:25–32). In the interpretation of Jeffers rock art, this approach was applied in the example of the Dakota tribe Elders (Sanders 2017). In theory, this strategy creates a link between the archaeological site and the interpretation, but the interpreter's capacity is essential in practice. In general, the comparative ethnographic method has been constantly criticized during its existence. Laming wrote about comparative ethnography when it was first employed in the interpretation of rock art:

The deficiencies and uncertainties of comparative ethnographical methods are very apparent. They seek to make comparisons between archaeological data and heterogeneous communities with nothing in common save their classification as 'primitive peoples'. There is much indiscriminate quoting of facts appertaining to communities which often differ greatly one from another and whose social, economic or religious structure may be very different from those of prehistoric communities of which, in any case, practically nothing is known (Laming 1959: 167).

Although archaeology does not have direct access to the social system or ideology of ancient societies, it can reveal a material culture that has been in direct contact with these sub-systems. The formal structure of an archaeological assemblage and the elemental contextual relationship can comprehensively and systematically reflect ancient cultural systems (Binford 1962:218-219).

Anthropologists looked into the structural and symbolic aspects of art and material culture style. Some authors draw connections between design organization on one hand and social or environmental organization on another. The symbolic element of material culture has been linked to the operation of society by researchers (Hegmon 1992:525).

As a social discipline, archaeology must be concerned with patterns of behaviour rather than isolated, random, or unique acts. For any inferential confidence to result, the empirical data evaluated must represent the entire population, and the research must be systematic rather than anecdotal (Whitley 2005:77). According to Chippindale (Nash 2004:14), a rigorous procedure should be used to study rock art. They cite the study as vital that incorporates informed and formal methodologies and through analogy. Ethnographic and ethnohistoric analogies can be used to apply the informed method. The formal techniques are used when no outside information is accessible and data is collected from the site's properties, the images themselves. The site's archaeological setting determines the formal method. They are etic, or outsider"s, interpretations of art, and as such, they frequently involve latent social function rather than symbolic meaning. Much competent rock art study incorporates both techniques and evaluates interpretations using the scientific method (Whitley 2005:79).

Since rock art is part of the spiritual culture of ancient societies, and often reflects material culture, both spiritual and material culture must be taken into account in their interpretation.

The study of the material aspect of rock art is possible as a result of the application of archaeological methods. This includes both analogical interpretations of examples of material culture identified as a result of iconographic analysis of petroglyphs and the archaeological study of monuments that are directly or indirectly related to rock art sites.

Reliable sources on the spiritual culture of ancient societies are usually few. Although the oral tradition, which has traditionally come to us in writing and verbally, is seen as a source for societies' mythological and symbolic worldviews and belief systems, the extent to which such sources reflect reality must be assessed based on rigorous scientific methodology.

The information reflected in the oral tradition can be used for archaeological interpretation if it is confirmed by information obtained from other sources (archaeological, ethnographic, linguistic, etc.) (Parks 1985:57).

A direct historical method is a common kind of ethnographic analogy. This method draws on modern cultures genetically or geographically connected to the archaeological culture of interest to develop parallels that may be used to interpret results. While archaeologists have traditionally utilized ethnography to compare prehistory, ethnographic material is not collected with specific archaeological aims in mind. For this reason, the methodological basis for the use of a combination of archaeological and ethnographic information is one of the topics constantly discussed in archaeology. However, the ethnographic analogy was not widely accepted as a genuine approach to archaeology until the 1960s, when archaeologists began to investigate the various scientific uses it may have.

The analogy is defined by Ascher as follows: "In its most general sense interpreting by analogy is assaying any belief about non-observed behaviour by referral to observed behaviour which is thought to be relevant". When employing an analogy in interpretation, he highlights the relevance of economic compatibility, the proximity of time, space, and shape of the selected samples (Ascher 1961:317).

Because of the nature of human's and human culture's evolution, critics of the ethnographic comparison believe it is inappropriate to employ this interpretation approach. Thus, opponents argue that the behavioural patterns that existed at various phases of evolution no longer exist and that the behavioural patterns of existing hunter-gatherer tribes cannot be used to recreate former patterns of conduct (Orme 1974:203). Such an approach throws into question the ethnographic analogy method and the study of anthropology as a whole, which investigates human behaviour in general.

Another claim states that all interpretation alternatives should be based on archaeological evidence and inferred from material culture samples. Of course, this statement is theoretically correct. On the other hand, the archaeological inference is based on the fact that the processes observable now, following the principle of uniformitarianism, occurred in the same way in the past, or that the change happens with a particular regularity. Inference in archaeology is based on the already tested and operationalized laws of other sciences.

Each stage of archaeological research is based on dozens, perhaps hundreds, of assumptions and predictions, which are considered accepted if no anomalies occur. In many cases, the function of archaeology is to independently test the hypotheses of other sciences about evolution and development based on material culture samples (Watson 1976:58).

For strengthening and assessing analogical conclusions, criteria and accompanying methodological procedures exist. Analogical inference can be validated or falsified using these procedures (Wylie 1985:84).

Binford presents an accelerated technique of interpreting recorded archaeological phenomena based on ethnographic analogies and examines the hypothesis that smudges pits discovered in Midwest archaeology are used for hiding smoking, as known from Native Indian ethnography (Binford 1967).

It turns out that ethnographic analogies in archaeological interpretation can only be employed when material culture is insufficient for a complete interpretation. In at least 99 percent of situations, material culture consists of small "fragments" of the event and process to be investigated; hence the archaeologist should hunt for examples for analogies and infer interpretation models relevant to the object of investigation.

The challenge of selecting the existing analogies to use and which criteria to use gets more significant at this point. The interpretation variation chosen must be plausible.

Of course, a present, alive culture with a historical relationship to the culture under study may be the most appropriate source of comparison. Archaeologists, on the other hand, seldom experience such "pleasure". Examples of different cultures with the same degree of development as the investigated culture and function in a similar natural setting in terms of area and time might be considered for inference in this scenario.

In archaeology, location is a critical source of information. The nature of monuments or artefacts is determined by their position in relation to one another or to geographical objects and resources. The stratigraphic appearance of monuments or artefacts before or after each other, their location in the centre or periphery, their presence by a river or at the foot of a mountain, and so on, provide information about their date, position in the hierarchy, or affiliation.

Every historical and archaeological process occurs in a certain landscape or geographical location. The locations of events are linked in the communal memory to the repercussions of those events, and as a result, these landscapes serve as a geographical basis in the creation of identity. Events influence social development by either driving historical processes or structuring the historical process itself (Beck et al., 2007:834). Furthermore, the landscapes in which this process occurs reflect the spatial and material indications of events. Through spatial analysis and the study of material artefacts, archaeology analyzes the changes that occur as a result of events and processes and their social reflection.

Landscape played an essential role in the identity of ancient societies. Ancient societies attributed social value to landscapes with distinctive natural features for reasons other than archaeology or history. Landscapes treasured for their natural attributes gradually acquire a social and memorial aspect as a legacy of previous generations by future generations (Tilley and Bennet 2001:335). In the beginning, when the first anthropogenic impact occurs, any natural feature of the area, unusual geological structure or richness of resources play an important role.

Spatial analysis is used at both the micro and macro levels in the study of rock art. The general archaeological methodologies outlined above and the position of monuments (rock art sites) in relation to geographical objects, resource sources, and other archaeological monuments are investigated at the macro level. The features of the rocks on which the images are drawn, as well as the usage of the natural properties of the rock surface, are studied at the micro-level. During micro-level spatial analysis, the placement of images on rocks and their position relative to each other (for example, sometimes superimposition or the relative placement of an image in the center or corner of a rock on a panel with multiple images can be a valuable source of information about its approximate age) are also taken into account.

As can be observed, successful interpretation of rock art can be achieved through the use of a variety of archaeological, ethnographic, geographical, and other methodologies. Such a multidisciplinary approach is determined by the essence of rock art - archaeological, ethnographic, aesthetic and artistic aspects of art.