Pompeys Pillar - Minot State University

Transcription

Baseline Rock Art Documentation at
Pompeys Pillar,
24YL176
A Report Written by Linda A. Olson, Minot State University
With documentation assistance from: Mary Cool, Joel Dias, Jonathan Dias, Rudha Dias, Laura
Emerson, Brian Fricke, Cheryl Olson, Heidi Olson, Jeanne Rodgers, Dan Sharbono, Gregory A.
Vettel, Alyssa Weyrauch
2
Baseline Rock Art Documentation of
Pompeys Pillar
24YL176
A Report Written by Linda Olson, Minot State University
With documentation assistance from: Mary Cool, Joel Dias, Jonathan Dias, Rudha Dias, Laura
Emerson, Brian Fricke, Cheryl Olson, Heidi Olson, Jeanne Rodgers, Dan Sharbono, Gregory A.
Vettel, Alyssa Weyrauch
Project funded by Bureau of Land Management
Billings Resource Area
5001 Southgate Drive, Post Office Box 36800
Billings, Montana 59107-6800
Agreement Number ESA000017
MT019 00 1220 BD 992E 252F
3
Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 6
Abstract........................................................................................................................................... 7
Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 8
Site Setting...................................................................................................................................... 8
Pompeys Pillar Prehistory and History ......................................................................................... 9
Pompeys Pillar Documentation History...................................................................................... 14
Pompeys Pillar Baseline Documentation.................................................................................... 17
Field Documentation............................................................................................................................. 17
Rock Art Panel Supplement Completion............................................................................................................ 18
Panel Location, Descriptions and Measurement............................................................................................ 18
Element Classification, Manufacture and Description .................................................................................. 18
Resource Management and Conservation Assessment.................................................................................. 19
The Documentation Process ............................................................................................................................... 19
Photographic Record............................................................................................................................ 20
Site Overview Photography................................................................................................................................ 20
Panel Identification Photography ....................................................................................................................... 20
Digital Photography............................................................................................................................................ 21
Field Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 21
Hazardous Working Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 22
Laboratory Procedures ........................................................................................................................ 22
Digital Imaging................................................................................................................................................... 23
Processing and Verifying Drawings .............................................................................................................. 23
Enhancement Treatments............................................................................................................................... 23
Form Verification ............................................................................................................................................... 24
Drawing Verification .......................................................................................................................................... 26
Future Directions for Documentation ........................................................................................ 26
Intensive Rock Art Documentation..................................................................................................... 27
Priority 1 Documentation Needs ........................................................................................................................ 27
Section C........................................................................................................................................................ 27
Section I ......................................................................................................................................................... 28
Section I ......................................................................................................................................................... 29
Panel I-01 through I-09.................................................................................................................................. 30
Section J ......................................................................................................................................................... 30
Section J ......................................................................................................................................................... 30
Other Section J Panels ................................................................................................................................... 30
Element Analysis and Condition Assessment..................................................................................... 30
Researching Historic Context of the Butte ......................................................................................... 30
Age of Rock Art at Pompeys Pillar.............................................................................................. 31
Estimating Age from Manufacture Technique .................................................................................. 32
4
Estimating Petroglyph Age from Rock Varnish ................................................................................ 32
Estimating Petroglyph Age from Erosion Rate ................................................................................. 33
Estimating Petroglyph Age from the Record..................................................................................... 33
Conservation Recommendations ................................................................................................. 34
Reconstructing Historic Rock Falls .................................................................................................... 34
Eastern Rock Fall ................................................................................................................................................35
West Side Rock Falls ..........................................................................................................................................36
Clark’s Signature’s Conservation ....................................................................................................... 37
Identify and Conserve Key Panels ...................................................................................................... 38
Monitor Humidity and Temperature ...................................................................................................................39
Management Recommendations ................................................................................................. 39
Analyze Need and Develop Conservation Plan .................................................................................. 39
Prioritize and Begin Conservation ...................................................................................................... 40
Monitor and Control Access ................................................................................................................ 40
Hours of Operation..............................................................................................................................................41
Security................................................................................................................................................................41
Liability ...............................................................................................................................................................41
Site Monitoring....................................................................................................................................................42
Environment Concerns ........................................................................................................................ 42
Viewshed Concerns.............................................................................................................................................42
Signage ................................................................................................................................................................43
Gateway Signage ............................................................................................................................................43
Interpretive Signage........................................................................................................................................43
Educational Programs.......................................................................................................................... 43
Seasonal Employees Training Programs.............................................................................................................45
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 45
Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 46
Appendix A: Panel Descriptions.......................................................................................................... 46
Appendix B: Panel Forms and Field Sketches ................................................................................... 46
Appendix C: CDrom Collection of Digital Photographs................................................................... 46
Appendix D: CDrom Collection of Scanned Panel Identification Photographs ............................. 46
Appendix E: CDrom Collection of Filemaker Pro Database Information...................................... 46
Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................... 47
5
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map locating Pompeys Pillar
8
Figure 2. Northeast view of Pompeys
9
Figure 3. Conner, Feyhl and Colberg’s tracings
16
Figure 4. Field documentation in Section C
18
Figure 5. Documenting panels in section H
20
Figure 6. Difficult access
22
Figure 7. Labeling element drawings
23
Figure 8. Digital photograph of C-18, AF
24
Figure 9. Digital manipulation of C-18, AF
24
Figure 10. Verifying RAPS
25
Figure 11. Site of east rock fall
35
Figure 12. Boulder from top of Pillar
36
Figure 13. Site of west rock fall
36
Figure 14. Clark Signature
37
6
Abstract
William Clark, Northwest Corps of Discovery, wrote in his journal, “… at 4 PM I arrived at a
remarkable rock … I marked my name and the day of the month & year July 25th, 1806”
(Thwaites: 292-3). Thus began a well-documented trend at Pompeys Pillar, Montana. Following
Clark’s lead, historic travelers have left their own images, names and dates in overwhelming
numbers.
Although Clark began the fashion of whites signing the Pillar, native peoples had long been
placing their images on Iishbiiammaache, Where the Mountain Lion Lies. Perhaps the first white
to provide a description of Pompeys Pillar may have been Francois Antoine Larocque who wrote
of “a whitish perpendicular rock on which was sketched with red soil a battle between three
people on horseback and three others on foot” (Wood and Thiessen: 193-4).
The first to follow Clark’s lead were his fellow travelers, Pryor and Shannon, who, according
to later traveler’s reports, added their signatures when they passed Pompeys on August 8 the
same year. Following them, a steady stream of trappers, surveyors, soldiers, settlers, ranchers,
farmers, and even picnickers engraved their names on Pompeys Pillar. They left no accessible
section of the butte untouched, and indeed, engraved many less accessible areas, even as the
threat of dire consequences reigned. The best example of the determination to produce a unique
signature for posterity is that of H. C. Baker, who, according to local legend, on May 6, 1915,
had his companions lower him with ropes tied to his saddle so that he might chisel his name and
date on the butte (Phillips). This large signature is readily visible from below the butte.
Billings Resource Area Bureau of Land Management contracted Minot State University in
2001 to provide baseline documentation of the signatures and rock art at Pompeys Pillar National
Monument. This project commenced in May 2001. The project recorded over 2000 separate
names, dates and initials on 147 separate panels from the 11 designated sections of the butte.
Earlier attempts to capture the glyphs on the rock had been sporadic and no complete
baseline record of the rock existed. Billings Archaeological Society members Ken Feyhl, Stuart
Conner and Dick Colberg put a body of work together in the early 1970s. They mapped, traced,
and described the visible Native American glyphs on one section of the butte at that time, some
of which can no longer be located. This proved a valuable resource to the present study.
Each element was located, sketched and described. The vast majority of elements are
attributed to the recent period. Some interesting inscriptions date to the military period and
include the names of soldiers, their military units and dates ranging between 1871 and 1888.
Other interesting historic glyphs include a chiseled bas-relief Native American figure in
association with eroded block letters spelling “FR GREENGO.”
This report outlines the findings of that documentation and makes recommendations for
future development of Pompeys Pillar National Historic Landmark. A number of avenues for
researching the names on the Pillar are open to future researchers now that the baseline recording
exists for this important “register rock” on the Yellowstone.
7
Introduction
Pompeys Pillar National Historic Landmark (24YL176) is a petroglyph site administered by the
Bureau of Land Management near the towns of Pompeys Pillar and Ballantine, about thirty miles
east of Billings, Montana on Interstate 94 in south central Montana. The Bureau of Land
Management acquired the land in 1992.
In 2001, Billings Resource Area Bureau of Land Management contracted Minot State
University to provide baseline documentation of the signatures and rock art at Pompeys Pillar
National Monument. This project commenced in May 2001. The project recorded over 2,000
separate names, dates and initials on 147 separate panels from the 11 sections of the butte, as
well as a sampling of Native American petroglyphs and pictographs. These elements were
located all over the butte, on every accessible rock surface. Representatives of the Art
Department of Minot State University, Minot, North Dakota completed field documentation of
Pompeys Pillar in May and June 2001 with panel re-visits taking place in September of 2001.
Lab work commenced in summer of 2001 and continued through 2002. The baseline
documentation project commenced in preparation for the biennial anniversary of the Meriwether
Lewis and William Clark’s Northwest Corp of Discovery expedition. This report outlines the
findings of that baseline documentation and makes recommendations for future development at
Pompeys Pillar National Historic Landmark.
Site Setting
Pompeys Pillar National Historic Landmark is a
prominent, isolated, block of sedimentary rock,
primarily fine-gained sandstone, located on the
Yellowstone River. The Pillar rises over 100 feet
above the floodplain. Once part of the cliffs that
line the north bank of the Yellowstone River,
Pompeys Pillar became an outlier during the
Cretaceous age, as the river’s meander cut it off
from the main cliffs (Colton et al: 347). The
Figure 1: Pompeys Pillar in south central
sandstone at Pompeys Pillar is primarily of the
Montana.
Hell Creek Formation, Cretaceous age. Mudstone
and shale bedding planes at Pompeys Pillar cause great instability of the sandstone blocks, which
are easily broken and eroded.
Cretaceous sandstones erode so quickly that only in protected circumstances can petroglyphs
survive more than a few centuries on their surfaces (Loendorf 2003a). This is also true at
Pompeys Pillar where most, if not all, of the petroglyphs and pictographs postdate the 1700s, and
even more of the elements that are preserved postdate 1900.
8
Although Clark began the
trend for whites to sign the Pillar,
native peoples had long been
placing their images on Pompeys
Pillar. The first white to provide a
description of Pompeys may be
Francois Antoine Larocque, who
describes, “a whitish
perpendicular Rock on which is
painted with Red earth a battle
between three persons on
horseback and 3 on foot” (Wood
and Thiessen: 193-4). Native
American pictographs and
petroglyphs have been written
Figure 2: Northeast view of Pompeys, from the angle that over by Euro-American names and
Clark would have seen.
dates in most cases. Extant
fragments of them are decipherable, and it is likely that more exist, but would only reveal
themselves with additional work, better access to key sections and digital enhancement. For
example, several Native American elements are noted in the Section I, but some fine elements
very high on the panel look as if they may be additional prehistoric petroglyphs.
Pompeys Pillar Prehistory and History
Native American occupation of the Pompeys Pillar region dates to over 5000 years (Kyte 2001a).
The first two whites to visit the Pillar wrote descriptions of the Native American paintings and
engravings. The Crow name for the Pillar, Iishbiiammaache, has been translated as the Mountain
Lion’s Lodge, Where the Mountain Lion Prays, Where the Mountain Lion Died, and more
recently as Where the Mountain Lion Lies Down (McCleary).
Long thought to be the only physical evidence from the Northwest Corps of Discovery,
Clark’s signature remains in fair condition today, having survived the onslaught of graffiti over
the years through the protection and conservation measures of those who sought to preserve it for
posterity. While archaeologists discover additional sites on the Lewis and Clark Expedition’s
trail, none have the security of the signature’s provenance.
Although Clark began the trend for whites to sign the Pillar, native peoples had long been
placing their images on Pompeys Pillar. From the earliest prehistoric images like those described
by Francois Antoine Larocque to the initials “PM” over “2001”, people have decorated Pompeys
Pillar with their images, names, and dates. Because of the popularity of the landmark, and its
reputation as a camping site, graffiti has almost erased the evidence of this battle scene and the
other Native American pictographs and petroglyphs from the butte. To provide historical
background for the Pillar, the following history regarding the carvings has been edited from the
draft Pompeys Pillar cultural resource management plan (Kyte 2001a).
Through the millennia of Native American occupation of the region to the recent past,
Pompeys Pillar has commanded an important natural ford of the Yellowstone River.
Relatively safe natural crossing points are rare on the river, particularly where the
topography on both sides allows easy access to the country beyond, as it does here. The
9
next good crossing point upstream may have been as far away as the present eastern edge
of Billings (where Sergeant Pryor's party crossed their horses on the return of the Lewis
and Clark Expedition). Downstream the next important crossing would have been near the
town of Forsyth. Abundant evidence indicates repeated use of the flats surrounding the
Pillar as a campsite. Historic documents, such as the autobiography of James P.
Beckwourth, indicate that the Pillar served as a landmark and rendezvous point, as it
probably did also in prehistoric times (Bonner, 227). Prehistoric and historic Native
Americans left paintings and inscribed glyphs on the Pillar, and Euro-American explorers
and travelers, including William Clark of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, carved their
names and the dates of their visits into the soft sandstone of the Pillar, although many of
these inscriptions are now so weathered as to be illegible.
Pompeys Pillar is well within the historic territorial homeland of the Apsaalooke, or
Crow people. The Pillar's name in the Crow language, Iishbiiammaache, is variously
translated as “Where the Mountain Lion Lies,” or more recently “Where the Mountain Lion
Lies Down,” in the sense of lying down to rest or lying down exhausted (McCleary). The
origin of the Crow name is presently unknown. The Mountain Lion could refer to the
animal or a person’s name. The presence of Native American rock carvings and paintings
can be an indicator of ritual and religious activities. Plains rock art includes many varied
motifs, styles, media, and temporal periods, was produced in a variety of settings, and
almost certainly was made with a range of intents reflecting ceremonial, marker, and
biographical functions (Keyser and Klassen, 13-15).
Some rock art galleries occur in conjunction with well-used campsites, while others
appear far removed from domestic sites. Often petroglyphs and pictographs occur on
“landmark” topographic features with suitable surfaces and features commanding a wide
view of the surrounding countryside seeming to have the aim of public display. Also found
in inaccessible, secluded canyons and valleys with very limited views, they must have been
private expressions. Rock art scholars are only just beginning to decipher some of the
cultural meanings and motives encoded in the drawings and paintings. Northwestern Plains'
researchers now believe the locations of prehistoric and protohistoric rock art panels are
neither random nor predictable. Clearly, successive societies used many Northwestern
Plains rock art sites repeatedly for centuries, and the places with rock art were places of
importance to the ancient artists (Francis and Loendorf: 192-4).
The use of Pompeys Pillar as a Native American burial site is a persistent local belief.
Pompeys Pillar Association informants have indicated they knew of at least one tree burial.
The prior owners, the Footes, had an exhibit on the Pillar trail set up to mimic a late
nineteenth century Crow burial, with a glass-topped coffin containing artifacts. The skeletal
remains of a number of Native Americans were among the materials acquired from the
Footes when BLM purchased the property. These may have come from the Pillar, and they
may have been the inspiration for the Footes' coffin display, but there is no accompanying
documentation.
A number of willow switches with attached calico strips were also among the acquired
Foote materials. The Footes supposedly gathered these from the slopes of the Pillar, where
Native Americans left them as offerings. This is a known contemporary Plains Indian
custom (Olson). Glass seed beads found by John Taylor in ant hills on the top of the Pillar,
and a single polished bone bead found in a 1998 excavation unit behind the Visitor’s
Center may also be evidence of the scattered grave goods that accompanied tree, scaffold,
or crevice burials (Taylor: 11).
10
Native American groups occupying the Yellowstone Valley may first have felt EuroAmerican influence many generations before the first European ever saw the North
American Plains. As early as 1524, the first pandemic of smallpox swept the continent,
decreasing the population by as much as seventy-five percent. A century later EuroAmericans were far into the interior, where they documented smallpox epidemics
throughout the eastern woodlands and Great Lakes areas. Repeated decimation by disease,
and the fierce, all-engulfing politics of New France and New England sent waves of native
populations toward the west, displacing their neighbors, who in turn were forced into the
lands past their own western borders. Similar group-to-group effects emanated from distant
European and Euro-American trade bases and settlements on the Northwest Coast and in
feudal New Spain to the south (Trimble).
The origin of the eighteenth and nineteenth century horse culture of the Plains Indians
can be found in the Pueblo Revolt in New Mexico in 1680, and the temporary Spanish
abandonment of the upper and middle Rio Grande ranches with their huge herds of horses.
The protohistoric and historic record reflects a bewildering procession of native ethnic
groups dividing and fusing, moving into, across, and out of the Northwestern Plains, both
pushed and pulled by the far-off Euro-American settlements with their new technologies,
trade goods, religions, diseases, armies and allies.
The earliest Euro-Americans to visit Pompeys Pillar are unknown. By 1650, the French
had reached all five of the Great Lakes, and by 1695, Le Sueur had brought the first Dakota
to Montreal to trade. With the end of the Anglo-French King William's War in 1697, the
government of New France turned its attention to securing and fortifying the Mississippi
Valley. The new policy included an active program of developing trade alliances with the
tribes, and released hordes of Couriers du Bois into the interior West. Evidence indicates
Euro-American resident traders in the Arikara villages of South Dakota by 1700 or earlier.
By the 1740s official exploring expeditions under the direction of La Verendrye had
reached as far west as the eastern foothills of the Bighorn Mountains, where they found
mounted Crows in a general war with the Shoshone to the west (Burpee).
The first written reference for a Euro-American passing near the Pillar belongs to a
French-Canadian Northwest Company trader, Francois Antoine Larocque, who visited the
middle Yellowstone Valley with a band of Crows in September 1805. Larocque does not
specifically mention the Pillar, but describes a whitish perpendicular rock that fits Pompeys
Pillar’s description (Wood and Thiessen: 193-4). From Larocque's journal, and from the
journals of Lewis and Clark we learn that a French-Canadian trader named Menard passed
through this portion of the Yellowstone Valley in the last decade of the eighteenth century,
with the Hidatsa war party that captured Sacagawea and other children from Shoshone
camps in the Rocky Mountains. Whoever else may have been in the northern Plains region
during the eighteenth century, other French and English traders and explorers left no extant
earlier written record. Most likely, Euro-Americans who ventured beyond the frontier and
settled among the Middle and Upper Missouri tribes were familiar with “Where the
Mountain Lion Lies Down” as an important landmark.
The Northwest Corps of Discovery commanded by Captains Meriwether Lewis and
William Clark was the first United States military expedition to explore the upper Missouri
River Basin. Leaving St. Louis in May of 1804, their small band, guided throughout their
journey by Native Americans and Euro-American trappers, ascended the Missouri River to
its source in the mountains of western Montana. Crossing the Rocky Mountains, the
expedition reached the Pacific coast in November of 1805.
11
On the return journey the travelers split into two groups in western Montana. The group
under Captain Lewis' command explored the northern reaches of the Missouri watershed
along the Marias River, and then descended the Missouri. The group under Captain Clark
made their way down the Yellowstone River, pausing briefly at Pompeys Pillar on the rainy
Friday afternoon of July 25, 1806. Captain Clark climbed the northeast slope of the
sandstone bluff, stopping to carve his name and the date where “the natives have engraved
on the face of this rock the figures of animals &c.” Continuing to the top, Clark recorded
his observations of the “delightful prospect of the extensive country around, and the
emence herds of Buffalow, Elk and wolves in which it abounded” (Thwaites: 292-3). Clark
named the bluff “Pompy's Tower” in honor of Jean Baptiste Charbonneau, son of
Sacagawea and the guide Toissant Charbonneau. Clark's pet name for the child, “Pompy,”
or “little Pomp,” comes from the Shoshone word for chief. A literary pun on the old-world
Pompeii’s Pillar, led to the 1814 publication of the official journals of the Corps of
Discovery with the name “Pompy’s Tower” transformed into “Pompeys Pillar” (Billings
Gazette, 1940). Clark and his party continued down the Yellowstone, making camp the
evening of July 25, 1806 a few miles downstream. Clark reunited with Lewis’s party just
below the confluence of the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers, and arrived back in St.
Louis in September 1806 (Thwaites: 292-3).
During the first several decades of the 1700s, Euro-American fur trappers and traders
operated extensively in the Yellowstone Valley through a series of remote wilderness
trading outposts, or as bands organizing to sell their furs at summer rendezvous. A late
1800 journal entry notes that at least two, “Derrick” and “Vancourt,” left their names and
the date 1834 inscribed on the Pillar (Stuart: 157). St. Louis trader Manuel Lisa built a
Missouri Fur Company post at the mouth of the Bighorn in 1807, employing former
members of the Lewis and Clark expedition as traders and guides (Oglesby: 54). This
location was the upper limit of navigation on the Yellowstone at the time; trade goods were
brought in, and furs shipped out by boat. The unrelenting hostility of the Blackfeet and
other tribes from the north and west with ties to the Canadian fur companies forced
subsequent trading posts built by the major companies to relocate further and further
downstream, in less vulnerable locations. Many documented, in the post journals routinely
kept by most of the company factors, the extreme danger to life and property for the traders
in these outposts. The Crow considered these posts as “their” posts. With tacit Canadian
approval, if not encouragement, the Blackfeet tried for decades to dislodge the Americans
from the Yellowstone posts where their Crow enemies obtained guns, ammunition, and
other trade goods, even as the Crow attempted to dislodge the Canadians (Denig: 172-85).
As the nineteenth century progressed, increasing numbers of Euro-Americans passed
through the Yellowstone Valley. The famous Jesuit missionary Father Pierre-Jean DeSmet
came to Montana in the 1840s. He traveled what later became the “Old Government Road,”
the upland trail along the Yellowstone’s north side. DeSmet probably passed near the Pillar
and may have used the ford there (DeSmet: 394-7).
An enigmatic relief carving on the north face of the Pillar, not far from the Clark
signature panel, depicts a longhaired figure with a lance, facing to his left and kneeling
beneath a prominent Christian cross with a circular motif in the center. A second smaller
cross with the central circular motif and other symbols is carved near the kneeling figure.
Deeply cut with a chisel, the kneeling figure is realistic, in the Euro-American fashion. The
lance, however, has an oversized head similar to others commonly seen on Native
petroglyphs in the region. The crosses and other symbols suggest Catholic symbolism,
perhaps representing an ostensorium or monstrance, the reliquary for the host. Large
12
chiseled, block letters in relief, visible below and to the side of the kneeling figure are
eroded and nearly illegible. These may or may not be part of the same composition. Father
DeSmet delivered his sermon to the Apsaalooke people in 1842 somewhere in this area.
Possibly, the kneeling figure on Pompeys Pillar may somehow relate to Father DeSmet's
activities.
With the mid-century discovery of gold in western Montana came the first large-scale
intrusion into the Yellowstone Valley by Euro-Americans. Increasing friction and conflict
followed. Official Euro-American exploration and survey expeditions visited the middle
Yellowstone, and Pompeys Pillar, in 1860, 1863, 1872, 1873, and 1874. In 1875 Captain
Grant Marsh, pilot of the steamboat Josephine, raised an American flag on the summit of
the Pillar (Hanson).
The middle and lower Yellowstone country filled with troops during the middle 1870s,
although officially they stayed on the north side of the Yellowstone River. The third
transcontinental railroad survey expedition made its way through the middle Yellowstone
Valley in 1873. On March 15 this large group of over 373 civilian surveyors and support
staff and more than 1,500 cavalry and infantry troops, including 10 companies of the 7th
Cavalry under the command of Lieutenant George Armstrong Custer, camped at the mouth
of Pompeys Pillar Creek, opposite Pompeys Pillar. On the morning of March 16, while
many of the troopers and teamsters were bathing and washing clothes in the river, they
were fired on by Lakota snipers who had worked their way into the brush at the base of the
Pillar. Only one man was hurt in the incident (Stanley: 7).
Bands of free roaming and adversarial Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, and Northern
Arapaho found themselves under increasing pressure from white settlers and the military.
Northern Plains’ warriors confronted or were confronted by government forces in an
escalating series of battles and skirmishes that culminated in Custer's disaster at Little Big
Horn in 1876. The following year, with tensions still running high, the military established
a short-lived military tent post christened Camp Josephine at Pompeys Pillar (Taylor: 36).
By the early 1880s, for the most part Native Americans had been forced onto
reservations. In 1882, the Northern Pacific Railroad (NPRR) completed it tracks through
the Yellowstone Valley. In addition to being an important landmark for travelers through
the 1800s, the Pillar had early acquired some notoriety because of Captain Clark's signature
and the Pillar’s description in the Expedition's journals. Most literate travelers who passed
the Pillar were aware of its association with Clark. Tourists stopping at the railroad station
half a mile to the south of the Pillar routinely made their way to the signature rock to gaze
on Clark's inscription, and often to add their own names near the heroic Captain’s. This
diversion was so popular that the NPRR sought to protect the Clark panel from overzealous
pilgrims by covering it with a heavy iron screen. This screen remained in place until
replaced by a heavy glass box by the Footes in the 1950s (Windser: 164-6).
During this period the last of the northern buffalo herds were slaughtered in the
Yellowstone and Musselshell Valleys, and their hides used to supply leather belts for
running the machinery of the industrial revolution. Stockmen quickly filled the open range
with cattle. During this period the broad valley bottom around the Pillar was known as “the
Pastures.”
The passage of the General Allotment (Dawes) Act in 1887 allowed division of
agricultural and grazing lands on the reservations into individual allotments. Pompeys
Pillar lay within the boundaries of the Crow Reservation in 1887 and the Crow or EuroAmerican men and their Native American spouses took up several allotments, including
those encompassing the Pillar property. Tradition holds that the community of Indian
13
allotments at and around the Pillar was purposely located to capitalize on the potential of
Pompeys Pillar as a tourist attraction (Taylor: 41).
By the turn of the century, the agricultural potential of the rich Yellowstone
bottomlands had become apparent to settlers, land speculators, and Congress. In 1904,
legislation directed the Crow tribe to cede the valley floor on the south side of the
Yellowstone River. Compensation promised encouraged Native Americans already settled
on Indian allotments to patent those allotments as private land. In the same year,
construction began on the Huntley Irrigation Project. This first Federal irrigation project
was designed to water what was then known as Pompeys Pillar Bottoms. In 1909, the
Huntley Project lands were opened to homestead and were quickly settled (Taylor: 43).
Interest in Pompeys Pillar by Lewis and Clark buffs continued, and it was recognized as
a locally important historic and cultural landmark as well. The local Shining Mountain
Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution had the weathered Clark signature
cut more deeply in 1926. In 1928, the same group had a plaque placed on the Pillar to
commemorate Lewis and Clark (Billings Gazette). In 1938, the Masons had a plaque
placed on the Pillar honoring the explorers as Masons (Billings Gazette). Until the 1950s,
the Pillar served as the site of the Huntley Project’s annual Fourth of July picnic.
The Indian allotments encompassing the Pompeys Pillar property eventually passed
through a number of private owners who either farmed the land or leased it for farming. In
1956, Don Foote rented the parcel that contained the Pillar in order to develop a scenic and
historic attraction. In 1957, Don and Stella Foote acquired the property including the Pillar,
and over several years accumulated additional surrounding acreage. The Footes developed
the site for visitors as a frontier theme park, building trails and visitor facilities, and
bringing in historic buildings and artifacts for display. In 1968, a plaque commemorating
the efforts of Don Foote in the Pillar's preservation was placed near Clark's signature [The
forgoing material was edited from the Bureau of Land Management’s Draft Cultural
Resource Plan by Michael Kyte 2001a].
Pompeys Pillar Documentation History
Pompeys Pillar was assigned site number 24YL176. John Taylor, Billings Bureau Land
Management archaeologist completed the original site form. In that form, he designated
inscription areas as Sections A – I and offered a brief description for each. This work laid the
foundation for the documentation efforts that followed, as others reviewed and added to John
Taylor’s framework. While he did not designate areas for the entire butte, stopping at Section I
and some of the section’s panel descriptions are unclear, this did lay a logical foundation for
future documentation. John Taylor did write descriptive narratives about several glyphs on the
butte, but some of these cannot be relocated. He describes Cheyenne Morning Stars that he saw
in Section J, but we located nothing fitting his description during baseline documentation. He
also wrote of the pictographs in the C-12 to C-19 panel area being the ones described by
Larocque. The digital image enhancement confirms that is a likely possibility.
Stuart W. Conner, Dick Colberg and Ken Feyhl did trace several prehistoric petroglyphs and
pictographs in the 1970s in Section I. Their original tracings, a sketch map to relocate the
tracings, correspondence, and a news article on their project and Conner’s original field notes
complete their data. Most of what they documented is still visible, but very fine incised line
petroglyphs are hard to find even under the best conditions. One panel located on an isolated
14
boulder may be gone. The inability to relocate its one glyph, a shield warrior, indicates that
either it was physically removed or has eroded beyond recognition. There is a bit of confusion
regarding the numbering and renumbering of certain tracing elements on the Conner fieldwork,
but we were able to relocate all other elements following their narrative description.
The following catalogue contains all prehistoric images documented on Pompeys Pillar
during the 2001 field season. On Panel A-04, triangles line the bottom of the rock face. These
may be possible tipis, because the lines completely match the background surface of the rock
indicating an old age. These triangular lines are extremely eroded, and limited information could
be gleaned from this area. The panels in Section A have received so much washing from the
mudstone and shale layers that even recent petroglyphs are hard to decipher. Another possible
indication that these triangles may be prehistoric is their proximity to the face’s bottom. Using
the bottom as a baseline is more characteristic of prehistoric art than modern graffiti.
The next prehistoric elements are found on panel C-01. This panel contains at least one
anthropomorph and possibly two or less clearly three. Although incomplete, the elements on
panel C-01 are likely candidates for Native American authorship, a square-shouldered body, with
a partial head, and faint traces of legs and finely incised lines suggest the outlines of tipis, or
even more likely, x-figures in the Blackfoot tradition. See Figure 2 in Appendix A.
The section of panels between C-12 and C-18 include some of the clearest and best-preserved
prehistoric elements. The prehistoric elements include three pictographic elements on C-13. See
Figure 4 in Appendix A. This panel contains the first complete, verifiable, prehistoric
pictographs. Three painted elements; T, U and V are high on the rock face above the graffiti.
Element V is visible from the road. Two of the elements are clearly anthropomorphs, one
Figure 3: Relocation of Conner, Feyhl and Colberg’s tracings and additional petroglyphs and
pictographs in Section I.
15
outlined and one solid, painted in red. The third element is a smaller line of pigment evenly
spaced between the other two, a bit higher on the panel. The possibility of additional elements on
this panel exists, as the access is quite limited.
Continuing east, C-14 contains indecipherable scratched elements, but no discernable
prehistoric elements. All of the panels in this alcove may include additional prehistoric elements
that one might find in detailed documentation and element analysis, if it is conducted with
adequate access. C-17F-I is the painted horse and rider scene. See Figure 8 and 9. Also on this
panel are an incised element and other pigment areas covered with bird droppings. C-18C, E-G
are also painted and incised elements. Element G is a prehistoric incised zoomorph, possibly a
bear. See Figure 9 in Appendix A.
Additional prehistoric elements are located in Section I (See Figure 3). Matching the
elements to the previous tracings proved difficult, as some confusion over the numbering of the
tracings existed in the record. Someone relabeled #7 as #4. Using the accompanying
descriptions, our project matched the elements as closely as possible. This outline matches the
prehistoric elements, as we documented them, to Conner’s notes as nearly as possible. Beginning
at the far left of the panel complex, I-01B and I-01E, (Conner’s #2, bear paw, shield bearer) are a
large incised shield figure and a possible bear paw. Underneath these elements remain pigment
traces. See Figure 22 in Appendix A.
Continuing to the apparent right of these elements is a large keyhole-shaped shield bearer, I02B and red pigment, I-02H (Conner’s #3, shield bearer and bear paw). We did not document
another bear paw here, just a shield figure. Two more prehistoric elements, I-02O and N are
shield figures, one large and one smaller (Conner’s #1, shield with lines radiating from center,
and #4, shield bearer). See Figure 23 in Appendix A.
To the right of these are the red pigment, I-03BH, and a previously unrecorded feather and
shield figure, I-03BJ (Conner’s unnumbered simple incised circle), and the stick figures abraded
through the pigment, I-03BK, I-03BL-I-03BP (Conner’s #5, deeply incised two stick figures
over large pictograph shield, abraded, fine lines, red purple). These elements were documented
as individual elements and as a group element to provide additional information. More red
pigment and the v-necked warriors are next, I-03BI, I-03BQ, and I-03BR (Conner’s #7, the two
v-necked warriors with hair locks, lodge with air flaps; “D.W. MAXWELL” over figure, “J
BLAKE” at base of figure). See Figure 26 in Appendix A.
A lance and possible zoomorph above these last few elements (Conner’s #6, overwritten by
“Eugene Parker, MO 1939” and the drawing shows the animal that may have inspired William
Clark to put his name there) were recorded as I-04F. See Figure 27 in Appendix A.
As well, high above these elements is an additional possibly prehistoric element, I-06B, an
incised and painted area, possibly another shield figure. Elements initially documented as a
possible peace sign, look more similar in style and revarnishing to the old shield figures on the
panel than the newer peace signs found in other places on the butte. A closer look with
scaffolding would verify this. One would need better access to document these elements more
thoroughly, and to scour the cliffs above these panels for additional prehistoric elements. See
Figure 28 in Appendix A.
In 1995, Michael Kyte, Billings Bureau of Land Management archaeologist, also worked on
the west side of the Pillar recording in Section A. Kyte also completed one scaled drawing of
Panel C-19, high on the south side. He emailed that he: “Also did a lot of b/w photos of that
particular high area, (its a dangerous place to spend time) but the photo guys' developing
machine broke on my prints—and they’re all pretty worthless. Could be one of those things
where I wasn't supposed to be photographing some image or other there—we'll see how your
photos come out for those panels” (Kyte 2001b).
16
Pompeys Pillar Baseline Documentation
Pompeys Pillar Rock Art Documentation project began with employee training and a review of
literature pertaining to the butte that Michael Kyte, Billings Resource Area Bureau of Land
Management, had provided from the Pillar file. During spring semester of 2001, students were
trained in techniques for recognition of petroglyphs and pictographs in eroded conditions, under
varying lighting conditions, and procedures for completing baseline documentation forms and
photography processes. Field assistants were selected for their artistic skills and computer
experience, as well as their experience with documentation projects.
Figure 4: Employees complete field documentation in Section C, panel 05-06, and Section E,
while visitors view the Clark signature from the boardwalk to the right.
Field Documentation
Fieldwork began May 14, 2001. During the rest of May and a few days in June, Linda Olson and
four field assistants, Mary Cool, Dan Sharbono, Gregory A. Vettel and Alyssa Weyrauch,
documented 147 panels of petroglyphs. The crew began by setting up a computer lab in a nearby
motel. Laptop computers were used to complete forms in the field. Michael Kyte provided
additional information regarding prior documentation and prior research during the fieldwork
period. Here, we present a brief overview of baseline documentation of Pompeys Pillar
highlighting the success of our efforts and the difficulty encountered. The rock art recording
process is described in detail in A Manual for Rock Art Documentation (Loendorf et. al.) The
processes described there were refined and adapted to address Pompeys Pillar’s unique baseline
documentation challenges.
17
Rock Art Panel Supplement Completion
Project designers modeled the rock art panel supplement forms, RAPS, for Pompeys Pillar after a
Filemaker Pro database format currently used by Robert Mark, Ph.D. and Evelyn Billo, of
Rupestrian CyberServices of Flagstaff, Arizona, as well as forms used by the states of Colorado,
Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming. Scott Travis devised this form for use in Canyon de
Chelly, and modeled it after forms developed and used by others, notably Stuart Conner and
Lawrence Loendorf with input from rock art conservator J. Claire Dean of Dean and Associates.
We determined that creating a searchable database would be the best alternative considering the
numbers of panels and elements we anticipated. Such a database would easily import new data or
export existing data to other programs as a tab delineated file. The information gathered could
easily accommodate additional research.
The rock art panel supplement, RAPS, included detailed information on the following: panel
location, panel measurements, chronological information, rock characteristics, manufacture
techniques, element attributes, detailed panel documentation, description of elements,
classification, documentation information, resource management assessment, conservation
assessment, and a photographic record. As a Filemaker database, the information collected
during the baseline documentation could be linked to a web site for public access. Public wanting
to search for signatures could access the database to look for familiar names. While this is
possible, initially the project was limited in using this database to search elements, as you can
only search within a single field with Filemaker Pro. By importing the information into Adobe
Acrobat, we created a fully searchable printer destination file that enables the searching across
fields.
Panel Location, Descriptions and Measurement
Using John Taylor’s alphabetical section designations as a starting point, completion of detailed
RAPS committed to database nearly 700 pages of data. The database form includes panel
location information—the panel’s location within the site, a brief description, the best lighting
for viewing the petroglyphs, assumed cultural affiliations and a location description. Also
included were panel measurements: the panel’s facing, surface orientation and dimensions as
well as its distance from ground, and chronological evidence: the objects depicted, any
superimpositions, and revarnishing and weathering comments. All compass measurements are
presented in degrees from magnetic north. Rock characteristics and colors were noted with
Munsel color charts, and manufacture techniques and element attribute categories noted. Panels
were located within their relationship to immediate other panels within the site; their orientation
statistics, measurements, Munsel color and manufacture details were noted. This included
element descriptions, the figures represented, their method of production, as well as the number
and types of elements or motifs, their size, placement, and environment. This information will
enable one to relocate the elements in the field.
Element Classification, Manufacture and Description
The element description provided a detailed narrative locating and describing predominant
individual elements, their height and width, and their distance from a common panel datum.
Field workers devised a code to keep all descriptions within the allotted database space without
compromising size and readability of type. All elements were transcribed as closely to their
actual field equivalent as possible, using script, block or italic text, and upper or lower case
letters where indicated. The exact information was transcribed in quotations. A “/” was used to
designate that one element part was placed above another on the rock surface, and “over” implies
18
the superimposition of one element on another. Parentheses around a question mark, (?), indicate
a questionable letter or letters, [????].
Elements were classified according to their estimated age of manufacture. Only elements
looking very old in motif, revarnishing amounts and manufacturing techniques were designated
prehistoric. Historic elements must be older than 1950, and look commensurate with dates in
motif, manufacture and varnish. Recent elements were created after 1950 and looked relatively
new in manufacture technique and varnish coatings were relatively absent.
Element manufacture techniques were described, as well as the depth, width and cross
section shape of the petroglyphs. Pictograph manufacture was classified according to technique.
Resource Management and Conservation Assessment
Finally, resource management comments were completed and a conservation assessment
estimating future threats to the panel was completed. The resource management activities
included making recommendations and prioritizing additional documentation procedures, as well
as determining management recommendations and assigning a conservation priority. Researchers
determined the accessibility and visibility of the panel and included management comments.
Conservation assessment included considering natural and cultural agents of deterioration,
estimating the years the panel might last without intervention, and making additional
conservation comments when necessary.
This element of documentation often
becomes the best guess of the personnel
completing the forms, because none were
trained conservators. A standardized approach
helped crewmembers make reliable judgments
regarding recommendations, and we outline
that standardization below.
The Documentation Process
Information regarding the actual process of
documentation and the crewmembers
responsible was included on each form. The
weather and lighting conditions were indicated
along with the date and time of documentation.
An additional RAPS field outlining the
physical qualifications necessary to complete
the documentation process with issues of
difficult access may prove helpful for future
researchers at Pompeys Pillar and could easily
be added. This information was more generally
included in other parts of the form when
appropriate. Some panels required a good deal
of climbing to reach them. Some panels were
very inaccessible necessitating a modification
of standard procedures to gather as much
reliable information as possible.
Figure 5: Documenting panels in section H.
19
Photographic Record
The project photographer has one of the most significant and time intensive tasks on any
documentation project. The field crew completed conventional baseline photography and made a
determined effort to obtain digital photographs of all visible elements in optimal lighting
conditions completing the photographic record of the panels. General photography was
completed in black and white print and color slide formats, as well as color digital imaging. The
photographer sent the color slide film by mailer to national photofinishers, as soon as possible
after it was exposed. The project captured over 2000 raw digital images of the petroglyphs at
Pompeys Pillar, over 300 color slides and 180 black and white negatives. These photographs in
turn were computer processed adding another 1,250 items used in the verification process. To
accommodate working with so many images, the project utilized a digital image management
program, Extensis Portfolio.
Baseline documentation photography progresses at two levels, site overview photography
and panel identification photography. Generally, element and panel detail photographs are taken
at the intensive documentation level; however, for this project the element’s deteriorated
condition frequently warranted proceeding with more detailed photography at the baseline
documentation level. This helped personnel determine more exactly certain indecipherable
elements through digital manipulation. We initiated this process during the fieldwork and
continued in the laboratory stage at Minot State University.
Site Overview Photography
Site overview photography places the rock art site within the context of its greater environment.
A series of site overviews were completed from even intervals around the butte at a distance
sufficient to provide context for and locate panels within these overview photographs. Both
digital and conventional color slide photography completed the site overview record, as well as a
few black and white overview photographs. Overview photographs of the documentation in
progress improved the overview record.
Additionally panel complex photographs more closely facilitate locating panels within a
section. This worked relatively well for Sections A-I, but brush obscures many of Section J and
Section I panels and that made providing overviews of this section difficult to impossible.
Section K panels are located on the top of the butte, and too spread out to facilitate locating them
with panel complex photographs. Several of these panels can be located on other site overview
photographs.
Additional landscape photographs would add to the record, and should be part of an intensive
documentation project. A few great opportunities to take photographs of the landscape and flora
presented themselves; so a few examples are included in the baseline documentation record.
Panel Identification Photography
The purpose of panel identification is to verify relocation of a panel and identify its predominant
elements. The photographer took panel identification photographs from a rectified position of all
the accessible panels at Pompeys Pillar in color slides, black and white, and some may have
digital counterparts. Manipulation of the photographic process was limited to use of reflectors
and contrast-enhanced black and white photography.
Occasionally, the access to the panel limited what could be done photographically. In such
cases, these panels were photographed from the best position available. For example, a narrow
ledge allowed only a poorly rectified photograph to be taken. Whenever possible, these panels
20
were also shot from below with a longer lens. Often these photographs were better than the
closer photographs. Some panels had insufficient access to provide a full panel overview. In such
cases, the sections of the panel were digitally stitched together to create a single panel overview
photograph. An occasional element is located at an acute angle to the remainder of the panel and
thus not depicted in the overview photograph.
Digital Photography
To ensure that we not exclude important data, the project quickly turned to digital imaging
realizing that a photograph taken in a fraction of a second during an optimal lighting condition
could better represent a panel than information gathered over a longer period when the light was
not as advantageous. These digital photographs quickly proved an asset, when elements
described as indecipherable during the initial documentation could be authenticated. We
discerned indecipherable elements by enhancing the contrast and altering the value of highresolution digital images. Computers could zoom in on high-resolution digital photographs to
provide details of individual elements that were out of reach in the field. While this could
provide a more accurate and complete record, it compounded the documentation process by
highlighting eroded elements from a layer of historic signatures that had been all but eradicated
by recent signatures. The eroded state of these historic signatures, primarily from the later half of
the 1800s, makes them impossible to see without enhancement. Once enhanced, the eroded
images become more obvious confusing later elements.
Field Conditions
Between May 14th and 31st each crewmember
worked almost 166 hours, averaging close to
nine-hour days. Lightly engraved and badly
eroded petroglyphs are hard to see in the best
of conditions, and precarious access at
Pompeys Pillar often hindered the field crew’s
best efforts. Despite such access hindrances,
the crew was able to document with accuracy
all located panels at Pompeys Pillar.
The time of the year was good for
temperature, and it did not rain, although a
couple days of stronger wind blowing sand
caused some consternation. Cloudy and hazy
times provided useful alternative lighting
conditions. Lighting was generally good
during documentation; however, the north side
might have more advantageous lighting a
month or two later, nearer the summer solstice,
and the south side may not lighten as severely
in direct-lighted photographs as it did during
the earlier months. Completing additional
photographic documentation in the summer
may add to or verify the record, especially in
Figure 6: A difficult access in Section H.
21
Section J where highly eroded and obscured panels could receive better lighting and Section I,
which would be cross-lit early in the day in the later season. Section J’s panels did receive the
best light in the late afternoon and early evening during this season, because of the butte’s
orientation.
Hazardous Working Conditions
The sandstone at Pompeys Pillar is badly eroded and highly friable. The instability of many
sandstone blocks warrants caution. Many panels have incredibly poor access, and only
professionally trained technical climbers could access others. Standing precariously perched on a
narrow ledge, or wedged into a crevice makes accurate documentation difficult. Several
crewmembers were good free climbers and could access most of the difficult panels (Figure 6).
On a narrow ledge, one can only document the panel by having an assistant below guide their
progress, while another assistant completes the forms. Climbing to access panels was dangerous
and forbidden whenever safety was questionable. Adequate safety standards were upheld, while
completing the most accurate work possible. The balancing of these two factors was important,
and we did not manage to directly record every element on every panel in the field
documentation. Sometimes extending equipment could accommodate more accurate and
complete documentation, and readings could be taken off similar nearby surfaces rather than the
inaccessible surface. This was done in all situations where located panels were high out of reach
or too dangerous to access safely. Any variance from standard documentation procedures was
faithfully noted on the rock art panel supplement forms. (See Appendix C.)
The visibility of some of the elements varied greatly in different lighting conditions making it
hard to complete the documentation during a single observation. This necessitated returning to
panels repeatedly to verify information gleaned from digital photographs. Time consuming as
this process was, it did allow for a much more complete record of the images that existed at
Pompeys Pillar, and greater insight into the processes whereby they were created.
Any instances where the documentation produced a record by any means other than direct
observations, the panel form notes how we determined the record. The panel descriptions in this
report contain the same information. (See Appendix B.)
Laboratory Procedures
Pompeys Pillar laboratory research began immediately following the field period and proceeded
through increasingly computer-intensive procedures. Minot State University student employees
computerized and printed additional digital images for corroboration with the panel supplement
forms. Images digitally stitched together
completed panel overviews whenever field
conditions had prohibited accomplishing this
in the field. Transitional difficulty from one
semester to the next slowed progress, as
student employees completed their
university commitment and others took over.
Joel Dias, Jonathan Dias, Rudha Dias,
Cheryl Olson, Heidi Olson, and Jeanne
Rodgers created and inked field drawings.
Though time intensive and demanding, the
Figure 7: Labeling element drawings.
22
verification processes did result in a highly accurate product.
Digital Imaging
Digital images were sized, color corrected, contrast enhanced, sharpened and printed. Panel
overviews and element details were scrutinized to determine the exact element formation. From
these photographs, we created an overlay of the panel on which we labeled elements. This in turn
enhanced and verified field sketches producing accurate drawings that were inked and archived.
The digital lab work for the rock art project proved time-consuming and challenging, as
computer-enhanced images made elements visible that lighting conditions in the field could not
reveal. Personnel added a few elements that the field crew obviously overlooked to the panel
supplement forms, but many less clear elements with no field counterpart found during the
verification process were left unlabeled, but indicated on the field drawings. These less reliable
elements may be difficult to relocate under typical lighting conditions.
Processing and Verifying Drawings
We digitized the inked field drawings, scanning them into the computer, and adding
computerized element letters to better differentiate the label from the graffiti elements. This task
also referenced panel drawings to the RAPS element listings and used digitally enhanced
photographs to corroborate initial data. Laura Emerson, Brian Fricke and Heidi Olson verified
the drawings and forms.
Enhancement Treatments
Francois Antoine Larocque documented: “a whitish perpendicular Rock on which is painted with
Red earth a battle between three persons on horseback and 3 on foot” (Wood and Thiessen: 1934). The location’s description was vague and many have debated whether this location was
Pompeys Pillar. During our final image processing for Pompeys Pillar, we determined that the
pictograph shown in Figures 8 and 9 might describe that same pictograph. John Taylor
previously recognized the pictographs during his initial inventory at Pompeys Pillar.
Documented in this project as Section C17AF-AG, in raw images these pictographs are
practically nonexistent (Figure 8). Using the selection tool to choose a red pixel, then choosing
similar pixels and grow allowed the image processor to push the red channel of the pictograph in
the digital image (Figure 9). This increased the contrast and the saturation of the red pigment in a
selected area, while not affecting the rock’s color in the photograph. Through this process, at
least one, perhaps two, and maybe even three horses and riders become apparent. With the bullet
hole removing part of the image, it becomes harder to decipher. The bird guano likely covers
other pictographs, perhaps people on foot, and they may be located below the more obvious
examples shown in the figures above. Digital imaging is a process that promises to improve
capabilities in the documentation of poorly preserved pictographs and petroglyphs. This should
Figure 8: Digital photograph of C-18, AF.
Figure 9: Enhanced red channel C-18, AF.
23
at the very least prove the existence of pictographs similar to those Larocque describes on
Pompeys Pillar, although the long debate regarding whether actually referred to Pompeys Pillar
may continue (Wood and Thiessen: 193-4). As the determination of whether or not Larocque
referred to Pompeys Pillar hinged on the absence of those pictographs, the presence of
pictographs matching his description will open that debate again at the very least.
Digital image enhancement carries the ethical requirement that such images be labeled as
such whenever published. A simple graphic can indicate image enhancement. We developed an
image for this purpose. Available on most computers, the character 8 in the standard Winding
font gives an image of a computer mouse. To make it more visible, we added red fill to the
mouse, . Easily recognized, this clarifies the nature of the image without being overly intrusive.
Marking images lets viewers know that images are enhanced, and not in the condition in the
field. Not marking digitally produced images sets unrealistic expectations for a field visit, which
sometimes results in vandalism.
Form Verification
The next task was to proof all the sections of the form
for completeness and accuracy. We confirmed most
sections of the RAPS without any problems. The
element section and the resource management and
conservation assessment recommendations presented
more problems. Elements at Pompeys Pillar are
fleeting in the best light; here one minute and
overlooked the next. In some instances, the
preponderance of signatures on a panel, 50-145,
brought confusion. Occasionally, the documentation
crew gave an indecipherable element located very
near another the same designation.
Additionally, confusion regarding the meaning of
certain management and conservation categories
caused the field crew to designate these
recommendations inconsistently. Insecurity regarding
these two areas led us to standardize the assignment
of the options in this portion of the form. Some of the
Figure 10: Verifying RAPS.
required information is self-explanatory, while other
options needed detailed explanation. We developed
and strengthened criteria for the additional documentation recommendations, cultural agents,
estimated threat, management recommendations and conservation priority. These sections
seemed the least reliable amongst crewmembers in the field documentation.
The “additional documentation” recommendations value list includes: no further
documentation, measured panel drawings, measured element drawings, element analysis form,
element condition assessment form, and research historic context. Generally, these escalating
documentation measures are not completed for all panels within a site. A “no further
documentation” recommendation would be given for indecipherable graffiti, poorly made recent
graffiti and extremely eroded historic graffiti. “Measured panel drawings” are suggested for
panels with good recent and historic graffiti with a sufficient number of elements to warrant it.
Occasionally a more recent element may have some special connotations that would warrant
additional work. “Measured element drawings” are reserved for unique and historic elements. An
24
“element analysis” form or “element condition assessment” is recommended only for the best
historic and prehistoric elements. “Research historic context” was determined as significant for
all decipherable elements. Some new information discovered during research may lead to the
reevaluation of additional documentation, management and conservation recommendations. In
that case, one could record it more thoroughly in the future. Documentation priority was
determined by the relative value and current condition of the rock art element.
The management recommendations’ value list includes: no further work, water diversion,
covering, patrol site vicinity, sign posting, vegetation removal, vegetation planting, screening,
instrument monitoring, conservation, fencing, monitor site regularly and protection. “No further
work” is indicated when recent indecipherable elements are primarily graffiti. Occasionally
prehistoric elements are insignificant or eroded enough to warrant this recommendation. If panel
receives washing from above, water diversion may help preserve the panel. The diversion of
water should only be completed with the guidance of a trained conservator. Generally,
“covering” a rock art element is not recommended, but may be appropriate in high-risk situations
where graffiti is likely or if the value of a single panel warrants it, as in the case of the Clark
signature. The signature remains solely because of the efforts of those who sought to protect it.
Coverings that do not alter the rock art environment should be selected. Coverings that trap
moisture are detrimental to the preservation of rock art. Under no circumstances should
coverings contact the petroglyph or pictograph’s surface. “Patrol site vicinity,” particularly when
new and continuing instances of graffiti are present, is best practice in resource management.
The length of time between visits should be as short as possible. “Sign posting” might be a
recommended interpretive measure, or even used to establish a presence at unmonitored sections
of sites. Signs at unmonitored sites should be unobtrusive and allow guests to sign a register and
leave comments regarding their experience. To “avoid” a site is an important recommendation
when a simple presence will significantly affect the rock art site. In fragile environments, to
recognize that walking destroys cryptogrammic soil is important. Sites that are badly eroded
might warrant such a suggestion. When this recommendation was checked on the Pompeys Pillar
forms, we determined that erosion was so significant that staying out of an area was best.
“Screening” is important when unmonitored sites are highly visible. While vegetation removal
might be advised for fire safety or when vegetation directly wears on a panel, vegetation
planting, especially natural undesirables like poison ivy, rose bushes or yucca, will discourage
off-path travel.
“Instrument monitoring” of significant panels, both historic and prehistoric, should be
undertaken when monitoring may yield information that may help develop conservation
programs. Knowledge of the humidity and temperature variations in a rock art environment is
important for a conservators work to proceed. Advocate “conservation” whenever historic and
prehistoric elements warrant further work, and when such intervention may significantly
influence the life of the rock art. “Fencing” to keep animals and humans from rock art is
appropriate in limited situations. Often fencing to limit human access merely increases visitors’
hostility resulting in vandalism. Establishing unobtrusive natural barriers is a better answer than
fencing. Finally, “monitoring” a site regularly is always appropriate security and should be a
matter of routine. Suggesting monitoring as a site management routine would imply establishing
a regular system of documented site visits with written forms to establish a record.
Conservation priority includes: immediate treatment, within 1–2 years, within 3–5 years and
no treatment. Endangered, valuable panels with significant elements and solid provenance should
receive an immediate treatment classification, if significant threats exist. This recommendation
balances the value of the panel and its current condition until reaching a “no treatment”
assignment.
25
Natural agents are self-explanatory and noted when present on or near the rock art panel.
Cultural agents include: vandalism/defacement, recent scratched graffiti, recent spray paint
graffiti, bullet scars, complete/partial removal, excavation, vehicular traffic, livestock, vegetation
removal and stabilization. Most of these are self-explanatory; however, some explanation may
help indicate how a determination was made at Pompeys Pillar. “Vandalism/defacement” at
Pompeys Pillar, for example, was assigned for graffiti superimposed on other historic or
prehistoric elements. On rock art sites with more prehistoric rock art than graffiti, that
designation might be used for all instances of Euro-American graffiti. “Recent scratched graffiti,
recent spray paint graffiti, bullet scars, complete/partial removal” are self-explanatory.
“Excavation” implies that knowledge of excavation is available, but if no knowledge exists, it is
left unchecked. “Vehicular traffic” is indicated when it influences a site, either through dust or
direct impact. “Livestock” are also important to note when they affect a site either through dust
or direct impact. “Vegetation removal” may be necessary to establish a fire zone or in cases
where vegetation directly affects a panel. “Stabilization” would indicate that intervention could
halt erosion in an especially vulnerable area, or that one could prevent a panel from falling, if it
were in danger of doing so.
Estimated threat is indicated as immediate loss, loss within 10 years, loss within 20 years,
loss after 20 years and no anticipated threat. An “immediate loss” designation signifies that a
panel is detached from the cliff or in a precarious position. Where a surface is soft, subject to
direct water erosion, already significantly eroded, or in immediate danger from falling rock may
warrant a loss within 10 years. An extreme case with impact of one or more of these factors may
merit a designation of immediate loss. One must assess the condition of the panel face, the
panel’s connection to the larger cliff, its stability, and any recent rock fall occurrences from or
near the panel. “Loss within 20 years” is employed if any significant problem exists with the
panel, say cracks or erosion. Lichen encroachment would warrant a loss within 20 years
designation. “No anticipated threat” is used if the panel’s condition looks good overall. “Loss
after 20 years” is similar to no anticipated threat, but problems other than immediate erosion
concerns may be present. For example, development may encroach on a site and change the
estimation of no anticipated threat, or encroaching lichen growth may be more generally located
in the region rather than in the immediate area of the panel.
Drawing Verification
The final task involving the rock art panel supplements and the field sketches involved
rechecking the drawings and the form for completeness and accuracy. This activity assured that
all information was correct and included. A very few elements are not included, because their
eroded nature made it impossible to relocate them in the given lighting condition. A listing of
these elements includes: H-03C located inside a crack, and elements far back inside the dark
cave that forms panels J-27U and V.
Future Directions for Documentation
Any future documentation program must make intensive use of digital imaging skills.
Photographs taken at a close proximity rectified to the panel are invaluable when determining the
history of a rock face. Although Clark began a trend for whites to sign the Pillar, native peoples
had long been placing their images on Pompeys Pillar. Through such digital enhancement, it may
be possible to verify other accounts of carvings on Pompeys Pillar.
26
Embracing digital techniques is important because it lessons the impact on the resource.
While digital photography still does not have the capability of conventional photography, in the
future digital cameras will be able to gather information at a compatible level and the price will
be commensurate. Recent CMOS chip advancements look promising enabling cameras to gather
as much as 14 megapixels of data. Balancing storage and resolution is still a problem. Storage is
expensive, and the best resolution takes an incredible amount of storage. The documentation in
this report provides a comprehensive baseline, from which to carry out further intensive
documentation.
Intensive Rock Art Documentation
The following intensive rock art documentation needs are prioritized in levels. Priority 1 contains
the most valuable rock art and Priority 2 panels with slightly lower need. Priority 3 panels might
be important, but contained no prehistoric elements. All panels’ documentation needs are
prioritized on the RAPS. The highlighted information gives an indication of the expense and
processes that might be utilized to provide a lasting, complete picture of the butte’s most
important assets.
A few additional Native American Native American Prehistoric petroglyphs have been identified
on the Pillar, and continued intensive examination of the panels under varied natural and
artificial lighting conditions may reveal additional elements. Reflected and low-angle light,
projected ultraviolet light, infra-red film, cross-polarization techniques, colored light studies or
other examination methods might reveal even more pictographs and petroglyphs that cannot be
clearly seen.
Priority 1 Documentation Needs
Section C
Section C contains some examples of the butte’s enduring Native American petroglyph and
pictographs. These are mentioned in historic references, and require complete documentation.
We only include the two panels with obvious prehistoric elements, but a more thorough analysis
of this area may reveal additional documentation needs.
Panel C-13
Panel C-13 begins the series of C panels located in the alcove high on the south side of the butte.
One must climb a ledge at the southwestern base of this series in order to access it. This panel is
12.4 m above and to the right of C-12, and is adjacent to C-14. This panel presents access
problems, as it is located on the left edge of the alcove where the ledge has long since eroded.
Panel C-13 contains names, initials, dates, varying from deeply chiseled to shallowly incised,
three painted square-shouldered anthropomorphs. With a measurement of approximately 1.5 by
3m or 4.5m2, the approximate intensive documentation cost is $5,000.00, and the approximate
intensive photography cost equals $1,000.00
Panel C-18
Panel C-18 is located on southern side of butte in the high alcove. C-16 is to the adjacent left of
this panel, while C-17 is above it, and C-19 is to its apparent right at a right angle. Panel includes
names, dates, initials, and some Native American pictographs and petroglyphs. Measuring
approximately 1.5 by 2.5m or 3.75m2, the approximate intensive documentation cost equals
$4,000.00, and the approximate intensive photography cost is $1,000.00.
27
Section I
Section I contains the Clark signature and several of the butte’s remaining Native American
petroglyphs. Given the time and money, one could reconstruct, both photographically and
graphically, how these rock faces looked when Clark signed his name. While some of the
aboriginal petroglyphs were documented earlier, this documentation did not include all of the
petroglyphs. It did provide us with a guide as to where one might relocate the prehistoric
petroglyphs.
Panel I-01
Panel I-01 is the farthest left panel of Section I from the boardwalk. It is approximately 4m
above present ground surface. Intensive photography should be conducted, along with
appropriate additional documentation where photography alone cannot reveal the complete
representation.
This panel is a large rectangular shaped section of the cliff face farthest from Clark’s
signature. The panel has few Euro-American elements, because of its height, and they are mostly
toward the right side. Digital enhancement suggests that additional elements may be located on
this panel. In good condition, this high rock surface would long retain petroglyphs.
Approximately 1m squared, this includes the area above the documented panel height. The
approximate intensive documentation cost is $1,000.00 and the approximate intensive
photography cost is $1,000.00.
Panel I-02
Panel I-02 is adjacent right of panel I-01 approx. 3.5m above present ground surface.
This panel is a smaller section of the entire cliff face. Panel I-02 has various names, initials,
dates, and a small shield figure with red-pigment is obscured by graffiti that are more recent.
“Susie Anne Cleo” superimposes aboriginal element N. “ADAT”, and “H LR” superimpose
aboriginal element O. This information is included to make location of these elements easier.
Panel size is approximately 1.5 by 1.5m = 2.25m2, and the approximate intensive documentation
cost is estimated at $2,000.00 with an additional $1,000.00 for intensive photography.
Panel I-03
Panel I-03 is to the adjacent right of I-02, and is 2.18m above the ground surface. Panel I-03 is
completely covered with historic graffiti, many superimposed over preexisting Native American
petroglyphs and pictographs. Some of these latter elements are still visible and large areas of
pigment are spread across the top left area of the panel. Entire panel exists above a large area of
flaking mudstone, which composes panels I-10 and I-11. The panel measures approximately 1.5
by 2.5m = 3.75m2 and the approximate intensive documentation cost is estimated at $4,000.00,
with an approximate intensive photography cost of $1,000.00.
Panel I-06
Panel I-06 is the exposed cliff face to the left of the Clark signature. Panel I-06 continues past the
curve on the rock under the plaques imbedded in the rock. This panel consists of the entire left
section of the cliff face above I-04 and to the left of the Clark panel. Elements high on the panel
may be aboriginal. It measures approximately 1.5 by 1m to encompass 1.5m2. The approximate
intensive documentation cost is $1,500.00, while the approximate intensive photography cost is
$1,000.00
28
Section I
Panel I-04
Panel I-04 is directly above I-03, and is approx. 3.5m above the ground surface. The panel is
located high up on cliff and has been badly eroded due to water seepage out from the rock. The
panel is a smaller section nearly completely underneath a large face. Panel contains names and
dates many superimposed over preexisting Native American petroglyphs and pictographs.
Approximately .5 by 1m, the panel encompasses .5m2 , and the approximate intensive
documentation cost is estimated at $1,000.00, with an approximate intensive photography cost of
$1,000.00.
Panel I-05
Panel I-05 is to the apparent right of I-03, and to the apparent left of I-06. It is 1.8m above the
ground surface. Panel I-05 is divided into two sections by a natural curve in the rock. The surface
has become significantly varnished. I-05 is visibly separated from I-03 by a raised edge curved
down in a quarter circle from the fissure marking the edge of both panels.
Approximately 1 by 1m, the panel encompasses .5m2 , and the approximate intensive
documentation cost is estimated at $1,000.00, with an approximate intensive photography cost of
$1,000.00.
Panel I-07
Panel I-07 is a section of the rock face to the right of I-03 and I-05, and to the left of I-08. It is
perpendicular to those panels, joining them. I-07 has been severely washed by water along the
left side. Several elements in the panel have had some kind of sealant used on them. The panel
measures approximately .5 by 1m or .5m2. Approximate intensive documentation cost is
$1,000.00 and approximate intensive photography cost is $1,000.00
Panel I-08
Panel I-08 is to the left of I-07. It consists of the brass box surrounding the Clark signature and
everything above. Below the brass box is I-09. This is the Clark Panel, with the brass box
covering Clark’s signature. The panel has experienced severe wind and water erosion as the cliff
face is directly below a water channel. Nearly all higher elements are completely eroded away
because of sheet wash. Many of the elements were deciphered from a1960 era photo. Elements
after H are in the brass box. It measures approximately .5 by 2.5m or 1.25m2. The approximate
intensive documentation cost is $1,500.00 and the approximate intensive photography cost is
$1,000.00.
Panel I-09
Panel I-09 is located below I-08 and to the right of I-07. It starts at the bottom of the brass box
and at the sheet wash marks to the left. The panel runs all the way to the termination of the face
approximately 1m above the present ground surface. The panel is severely water eroded from
seepage and sheet wash. The cement compound used in sealing the brass Clark box to the wall
has dripped down the face onto elements below. Other elements have the remnants of sealants
used in an attempt to preserve them. These appear as white in the elements. Lastly, some
elements have been traced with orange pigment, possible chalk, colored pencil or crayon.
Approximately 1.5 by 2m or 3m2, this panel’s approximate intensive documentation cost is
$3,000.00, while its approximate intensive photography cost = $1,000.00.
29
Panel I-01 through I-09
Panel I-01 through I-09: A high priority task would be a comprehensive reconstruction of the
information present when Clark signed his name. This would be valuable for obvious interpretive
reasons. Additionally photographs could be digitally manipulated to provide a look at what was
there. The approximate cost for this reconstruction would be $2,000.00, with an approximate
photography cost of $1,000.00. This process could proceed once the documentation process was
complete.
Section J
Panel J-17
Panel J-17 is located on the NE section of the butte above the boardwalk. View of panel from
boardwalk is obscured by vegetation, but that does not protect it from weathering. J-16 is located
to the adjacent right and J-18 is to the left. The panel covers a very large area and has been
extremely eroded by water and wind. A horizontal pattern of lines has been formed by the wind
across the entire panel. Water seepage has caused calcite deposits to form on the rock and the
majority of the elements. This panel contains the figure with the staff and the cross symbols. This
panel also contains numerous small signatures. Approximately 1.5 by 8m or 12m2, this panel’s
approximate intensive documentation cost is $12,000.00, while its approximate intensive
photography cost = $5,000.00.
Section J
Other Section J Panels
This section contains many significant Historic Euro-American signatures that could be
prioritized for future work. Members of the military escorts, like those for the steamboat
Josephine rank foremost among them. Many panels throughout the north side of the butte contain
these signatures.
Element Analysis and Condition Assessment
Many panels at Pompeys Pillar could benefit from a thorough element analysis and an intensive
condition assessment. Most notably any panels in the alcove, I-01 to I-11, J-16 to J-18 and J-3443. A closer look at these areas would provide additional data regarding the locations and
condition of particular elements, rather than assigning a general value for all elements.
Researching Historic Context of the Butte
Pompeys Pillar provides an excellent opportunity for researching the provenance of the butte’s
signatures. Researching and developing a local history aspect could enhance the record for
posterity. Local oral histories could be gathered. County histories could be examined. Cemeteries
could be visited. Several of the surnames on the butte can be found on tombstones in the
Ballantine cemetery. There must be local connections for finding the history of those and other
names.
30
A white sealant covered several elements in both Section J and Section I. This may indicate
that the elements were identified by the Footes as important enough to try to preserve. This
provides another rich possibility for research. The man who worked for the Footes, Carl
Dassinger, should be interviewed for all that he may know, if he is still alive. Footes’
descendants could be interviewed. Local people would be the best resource to accomplish this.
Support groups may know those who would know more about the butte’s history. This
information could be added to the database.
The information collected during the baseline documentation could be linked to a web site
for public access. Public wanting to search for signatures could access the database to look for
familiar names. This would have to be undertaken with some thought to the long-term impact of
such publicity. People may be inclined to want to be included in such a record and motivated to
add their own signature. With the limited security provided at the butte, this could be
problematic. With some discretion, perhaps a computer could be set up at the Visitor’s Center for
people to search for names on location, enabling site personnel to collect additional reliable
information without encouraging additional vandalism.
Highlighting historic signatures through researching the historical context must proceed with
a caveat. Offering a database so folks can learn if uncle Al signed the rock may encourage
additional graffiti. Education regarding the importance of maintaining the historic record as it is
must be emphasized and some admonition regarding signing rocks must be. Research into the
effects of providing total access to the public and monitoring the effect that has on the resource
must be completed. As the current practice is to provide this information as it is at the new Trail
Center in Casper with historic signatures along the entry way and Wyoming’s archaeology
month poster has historic signatures on it (Loendorf 2003b). A controlled study of the effect of
this publicity should already be underway.
Age of Rock Art at Pompeys Pillar
Cretaceous sandstones erode so quickly that only in protected circumstances can petroglyphs
survive more than a few centuries. As stated earlier, at Pompeys Pillar most, if not all, of the
petroglyphs and pictographs postdate the 1700s. Greater majorities of elements preserved at
Pompeys Pillar postdate 1900. Certainly, the majority of visible rock art is Euro-American
graffiti much less than 100 years old.
The determination of petroglyph and pictograph age at Pompeys Pillar is possible. Complex
and reliable, dating methods are available, but quite expensive. Less expensive, albeit less exact,
methods for determining the relative ages of petroglyphs do exist. The most applicable of these
methods to Pompeys’ situation are manufacture technique, rock varnish estimations, erosion
variations, and the written record of the site.
A problem encountered when using erosion or petroglyph revarnishing rates to categorize
petroglyphs by age is the impact on individual glyphs of previous documentation. Panels cast in
the past exhibit significantly rounder and softer contours than nearby similar glyphs that were not
cast. The casting may have introduced some substance into the substrate of the rock that breaks
down the rock matrix enhancing erosion. Sometimes the casting has physically removed the
varnish from the petroglyph. Other documentation methods like surface printing and rubbing can
also contribute to a reduced sharpness in the petroglyph’s contour.
31
Estimating Age from Manufacture Technique
The list of possible manufacture techniques includes: pecked, solid, stipple or outline; abraded;
chiseled, incised (deep and shallow), and scratched engraving; drilled, or cupule holes and
monochrome, bichrome, or polychrome paintings or drawings. Of these, only a couple of pecked
elements (recent), a few monochrome prehistoric pictographs and a couple of cupules and drilled
holes are clearly present at Pompeys. The majority of the elements, prehistoric, historic and
recent, are incised, carved or chiseled into the sandstone. We can determine the relative age of
many elements at Pompeys Pillar according to their manufacture technique.
The creators of the Recent Euro-American elements used shallow incising, and only
occasionally deeply incised the elements. A few recent graffiti elements were drawn with colored
materials: graphite and teal colored pencils, purple marker and pink and red lipstick. Many
carved the surviving historic elements quite deeply into the sandstone. Others chiseled historic
glyphs deeply into the sandstone cliffs. While additional finely incised Historic Euro-Americans
elements may be present, little indication of great numbers of them remains. These finer
examples are very easy to miss in all but optimal lighting, and they may have been missed and
carved over unintentionally.
What remains of the prehistoric monochrome paintings is the pigment that was absorbed by
the sandstone, and the paintings appear very light in color. They only exist in protected areas.
Primarily finely incised, prehistoric elements appear close to the rock varnish color. The degree
of revarnishing helps to differentiate these elements from the recent graffiti of the same
manufacture methods.
Estimating Petroglyph Age from Rock Varnish
Rock varnish forms at a continual rate over time, and it can often become a useful indicator of a
petroglyph’s age. Sophisticated dating methods using petroglyph revarnishing are available.
Noting the closeness of the rock varnish to the petroglyph’s varnish can help develop an informal
scale for determining the relative age of a petroglyph. An assignment of 100 percent means that
background and petroglyph color do not differ, a 50 percent designation indicates that petroglyph
color is a value midway between the freshly broken rock’s interior and the panel’s darkest
varnish color.
Newer engraved graffiti at Pompeys Pillar appears gray white. Signatures dated to the early
1900s are often approximately 10-20 percent as dark as the rock surface. On Panel C-12,
chiseled elements from the early 1900s are about 20 percent revarnished. One can make the same
observation at panel E-01. Signatures with dates from the late 1800s appear 30 to 40 percent
revarnished. Prehistoric elements like C-18G, the aforementioned bear element, and C-01A-C
exhibit very little, perhaps only a 10-20 percent difference between the color of the incised line
and the background. This would indicate they are 80-90 percent revarnished.
Because wind and water act upon rock varnish, the same observations cannot be made
indiscriminately; however, with the abundance of varying dates at Pompeys a useful scale could
be created. Designating rock and varnish colors with Munsel soil color charts will improve the
accuracy of the scale.
A problem with accepting this without caveat at Pompeys Pillar is the significant erosion of
many parts of the butte. The rock varnish is simply absent from several areas. The south side of
32
Pompeys offers better candidates for this type of relational dating as the north side is more
completely eroded.
Estimating Petroglyph Age from Erosion Rate
Two opposing forces of nature act upon rocks as they age. This is evident with petroglyphs also.
These forces form new rock, and they erode it away. A single petroglyph line can travel from
one action to the other in a short length. Where a panel is protected from direct weathering, it
will often show an accumulation of rock in the lines of the petroglyph causing them to become
smaller and narrower, as they fill in with rock varnish. Other times, the lines become softer and
larger as wind and water erode them. Panels that receive significant soil washing from above do
not follow the above observations.
Size alone is not a good indication of petroglyph age. A clearer indicator of a petroglyph’s
age is the cross-section shape of the petroglyph. As engraved lines age, their shape becomes
more rounded. When coupled with varnishing and other petroglyph indicators, erosion rate and
cross-section shape can contribute to the assessment of a petroglyph’s relative age. The actual
shape of the petroglyph is probably not as important as the shape of the line’s edges; the sharper
the shoulder, the newer the petroglyph.
Estimating Petroglyph Age from the Record
We may use two written records to determine the age of petroglyphs. The first is the record
contained within the names and dates on the Pillar; the second, the age as indicated by people
passing through the area who kept a journal record of the butte. Most often, when someone put a
date on the Pillar, that date indicated the date of manufacture. Infrequently, this date could be
some other important date, a birth date, national holiday or anniversary.
We know the prehistoric paintings and petroglyphs were there in the early 1800s, because of
Larocque and Clark’s records. If they were readily observable at that time, as the journals seem
to indicate, they may have been quite new. Now, they are clearly visible only with digital
manipulation. While accelerated erosion may have increased the deterioration of the pictographs,
more likely they are not older than those few hundred years.
Pompeys’ oldest elements certainly are the prehistoric petroglyphs and pictographs,
concentrated in Section C, Panels C-01, C-13 through C-18 and Section I, Panels I-01 through I09. These are two of the most protected areas on the butte. The superposition of Euro-American
graffiti establishes their age as older than the elements over them. The pictographs and
petroglyphs would be better preserved if not for the extensive superimposition of Euro-American
graffiti. Even in this condition, a better record of their existence could be produced than currently
exist. This would entail intensive field and laboratory investigation.
Following the written record about Pompeys Pillar, we find that in 1863, James Stuart noted
the names of Derrick and van Court, Captain Clark and Sergeant Pryor and Private Shannon.
While Clark’s is the only signature extant, we can know that the others were there as indicated
by the record. They also might be covered by elements that are more recent or be eroded like
others near Clark’s signature. Likely, Clark’s signature only survived through intervention.
The bulk of the historic signatures are the names of surveyors, soldiers and settlers from the
last half of the 1800s. Many signatures include dates from the 1880s. The most legible names
with historic dates date primarily from the early 1900s. Dates that are more recent and names
33
superimpose most of the dates from the 1800s. In some instances, newer elements overlay
extremely eroded historic signatures. In Section J, we determined while processing digitally
enhances images that often the number 8 came into the background, showing only because of the
digital enhancement. As recorded by Lt. James H. Bradley in 1876, “Our boys have been busy all
day transmitting their names to posterity by carving them in the soft sandstone of Pompey’s
Pillar A number of earlier visitors have done so…” (Bradley: 65-6). These written records
provide valuable relative dates for a great number of the signatures. Following up on steamboat
and military records could identify other names and dates. As more names are verified and dated,
more information can be integrated to date others through these methods.
Conservation Recommendations
The Cretaceous sandstone’s shale and mudstone layers create major instability of large blocks of
sandstone at Pompeys Pillar. The sandstone cliffs erode out of the ground exposing two tiers on
the south and three tiers of sandstone on the north side of the butte. As the large sandstone
block’s underlying support structure erodes, the blocks become increasingly insecure and
eventually fall. Talus boulders surrounding the butte, provide evidence of this.
The long history and notoriety of Pompeys Pillar should speed historic research necessary to
develop a conservation plan. Throughout the years, visitors have taken several photographs. A
file of photographs with any details of the butte should be established and researched.
Establishing objective criteria for determining erosion rates of key panels will assist in the
planning conservation steps. Utilizing historic photographs could help formulate rates of erosion
and new photographs could identify those with accelerating erosion. Analyzing the erosion of
dates would also help to identify key areas to proactively conserve.
Reconstructing Historic Rock
Falls
Figure 8: Site of historic rock fall
possibilities at Pompeys Pillar.
34
Large rocks up to 18 inches in diameter have detached
from the Pillar and rolled onto the access road as
recently as the summer of 1993. This type of small rock
fall is inevitable because of the instability of the butte
caused by the erosion of foot traffic in the absence of
adequate vegetation. While these types of minor rock
falls have been noted at the butte more recently, two
major historic rock falls are documented at Pompeys
Pillar. Charles Francis Roe noted as early as April 17,
1876, that: “Great blocks that have broken loose are
scattered around its base, and on the east side a huge
rock nearly as high as the Pillar and 5 or 6 yards in
diameter, appears ready to fall” (Roe).
Researching the history of these major rock falls
may enable conservators to make better judgments for
preventing future rock falls. The more recent of the two
is the fall of the rock that may have held the Josephine
signature from the northwest corner of the butte. Interestingly, we know less about this fall than
the fall of the front pillar capstone that may have inspired Clark to call the rock Pompey’s
Tower. The east end of the butte with its famous signature garnered more attention than the west
end hidden by trees. A study of the west side indicates that the potential rock falls are more
plentiful there.
While the project did not have access to actual historic photographs, we did have a few key
photocopies with Michael Kyte or John Taylor’s notations and could discern the necessary
information from them. A more complete study with that earlier photography would confirm or
refute the following discussion.
Eastern Rock Fall
Comparing historic photographs proved essential to determining
what part of Pompeys Pillar had fallen, where it fell and when.
Earlier, someone indicated that the entire front of the pillar had
fallen; however, we determined that only the top of the pillar
fell, and when viewed from the correct angle, the remaining
pillar matches the contour from the earlier photograph. The best
guess for how the boulders fit is that panels G-01 or H-01 were
from the lower part of the pillar and that the rounded boulder
that was on top of the pillar is now G-03. While uncertainty
surrounds whether the boulder that fell from the pillar became
G-01 or H-01, most likely it became G-01. H-01 likely fell from
the alternative space marked with a heavier arrow.
The Macer signature boulder, the top portion of panel G-03,
is the boulder that most likely formed the top of the pillar at the
Figure 9: Boulder with knob
front of the butte. Dates on this boulder include: the earliest date from top of Pillar.
of 1914 in a box with the Macer signature, “1914” over
“HENryK.KMACER.” above “POMPEYS PIL” quite eroded and “FAR” inside a box. Next to
the signature in a similar box, “CC SEVERSON” over “POMPEYS PILLAR” over “MONT.”
signed his name. Higher to the left on the boulder “DEC. 26, 1919” is associated with “HAR”
and more indecipherable lettering, over “MONT.”
This boulder is the likeliest candidate for the top boulder on the front Pillar for two reasons.
The top of this boulder has the small sandstone knob, upon which the smaller top rock, visible in
the historic photograph, would have sat in its original position (Figure 12). I could easily view
the small top standing on the top of the boulder looking down over the front edge. The knob has
eroded some, as evidenced by the lichen bare portions of the rock around it. Viewed from the
North side at the correct angle one can match its sloping contour to the rounded, sloping boulder
in the historic photograph perfectly. This indicates the boulder likely fell between L. A.
Huffman’s historic photograph of 1899, and the Macer signature date of 1914.
Boulder G-01, located near the road with the letters “P.H.” readily visible, probably came
from the front of the pillar near the top. The boulder’s present top contour matches the pillar’s
front bulge from the1882 photo, when viewed from the correct angle. This makes it the most
likely candidate for the tower, rather than H-01. The P.H. signature side would have been the
bottom of the boulder at that time as indicated by absence of the lichen growth that remains on
the other surfaces of the boulder. The east side, north side and top of the boulder would have
been the exposed faces.
35
A second major rock fall from the front of the
pillar most likely slid down the hill to become the
talus pile southeast of the boardwalk at the Clark
panel in Section H. We designated this boulder as
panel H-01. Panel H-01 contains the “R.W.
DAY” above “11/20/10” and, in cursive lettering
like that on the Clark panel, “July” on the same
face and “GS” on another face. The orientation of
the R.W. DAY and the associated date indicates
its placement after the rock fall. The alternatively
sideways-oriented, cursive July may have been
Figure 10: Many rocks have fallen from the done before the rock fall, although the access
west end of Pompeys Pillar.
path to that portion of the rock in its original
position is uncertain.
After examining the provided historic photograph photocopies, I estimate that rockslide
occurred between 1906 and 1910. The front pillar section shows in the photograph marked 1906
with the north rock fall section in place, although only slightly visible and in a different
perspective. R. W. Day dated his reoriented signature 1910. That portion of the main pillar fell
sometime between 1906 and the 1914 date that Macer carved into it at its current orientation.
The boulders on the hillside that were marked, “removed ?” in the historic photograph’s
photocopy are likely under the new cap they acquired in the fall. See Appendix B for additional
discussion.
West Side Rock Falls
At the northwest end of the butte, several large, talus boulders fell from the top of the butte. The
area from which they fell shows as unvarnished, whitish sandstone. Panels A6, A7 and A8 are
likely located upon boulders from one of the more recent rock falls. A more thorough
examination of this section of the butte is necessary to determine where the section that
contained the name and date from the steamboat Josephine might have landed. In 1962, Stuart
Conner recorded a conversation with F.C. Krieg who had met J.A. Blummer of Polson, Montana,
in Helena the week before. Krieg related that Blummer claimed he was contractor on the first
road from Billings to the Pompey Pillar area about 50 years before. Blummer claimed that a
large slab of rock that had an 1873 date and steamboat Josephine’s name on it had fallen off the
Pillar after Blummer saw it, and he claimed to be the only person knowing where the slab was
buried.
In Section J, the crack between the two rock ledges has widened significantly since the
photograph of the Boy Scouts in that section in the 1960s. Most of the ledges in this northwest
corner have lost underpinnings.
36
Clark’s
Signature’s
Conservation
The Clark signature has
received the most attention
of any facet of Pompeys
Pillar (Figure 14). Many
travelers mention the
signature and its condition,
beginning with Clark
himself. In 1863, James
Stuart found “the names of
Captain Clark and two of
his men” (Stuart: 157) as
well as the signatures of
two others. In 1875, Grant Figure 11: Clark's signature as it appeared in 2001.
Marsh found the signature
“as clearly defined as when
chiseled there by the illustrious explorer, sixty-nine years before” (Hanson). An anonymous
writer asserted that soldiers from Ft. Buford could have recarved the signature in 1875, before
Marsh saw it (Billings Gazette 1940).
Marsh describes the signature as “chiseled,” but Clark states he merely “marked” his name.
This seems merely a matter of semantics, as the signature bears no chisel marks today. Likely
that is true, as in April of 1876, General John Gibbon makes no mention of the signature’s
reworking and offers evidence to the contrary. Gibbon writes:
My first thought, was that some later visitor has amused himself by inscribing the great
explorer’s name on this landmark; but on examination of the more recent inscriptions showed
them all to be light-colored, whilst the lines of this one were of the same tint as the face of
the brown sandstone upon which the writing was placed, and I remained satisfied that I stood
face to face with Captain Clark’s name inscribed nearly seventy years before (Gibbon 271304).
Interestingly, this indicates that significant revarnishing occurred in as short a time as seventy
years.
The original signature may have been re-inscribed by the army later in the 1870s, and/or by
the Northern Pacific Railroad in the 1880s. An interesting fact to consider is that no other
signatures from the same era survive. Henry J. Windser notes the next conservation of Clark’s
signature in the Guide to the Northern Pacific Railroad and Its Allied Lines. He notes that the
signature covers a space three feet long and was about 18 inches high. Perhaps that is closer to
the thirty x twenty-four inch grate that the railway installed, rather than the signature. During the
documentation of 2001, the signature measured 20 x 29 cm, roughly 8 x 12 inches, much
smaller. There is mention of the signature being framed in a box, but even that does not account
for it being one-third the size. Perhaps the writer only estimated the size or his estimation was
exaggerated for effect. The guide was written to encourage tourism along the rail line. At any
37
rate, the iron grate protected the signature behind it (Windser: 164-6). The Billings Gazette
reported in 1926 that the Northern Pacific Railroad Company had “authorized the Hazelton
Brothers, of Billings Marble and Granite Works, to cut the letters deeper” (Billings Gazette
1926). There may be additional extant records regarding these activities given the importance
people attached to the monument and its signature.
In 1899 L.A. Huffman and Olin D. Wheeler noted that the Clark’s signature was still to be
seen, but “hard to decipher, for some irrepressible fool has been there, and has scratched and cut
his various names around it, and even over some of the letters and between the lines” (Wheeler:
350-2). At this point, the graffiti, of which remnants remain around the signature, was clearer.
This panel has received significant washing from above that has eroded most of the petroglyphs
not protected by the box.
The Shining Mountain chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution sponsored the
final “conservation” of Clark’s signature that took place in 1928. By 1926, the carving was
gradually wearing away from weathering, rather than vandalism. According to the reporter, this
action restored the inscription to its “original state.” At the time of the dedication, a plaque was
placed on the south side of Pompeys Pillar. This plaque was moved in 1968 to near the Clark
signature from its original location in Section D. The recessed former location of this panel is
still visible. Documentation project personnel noted moisture frequently clouded the signature’s
case during the 2001 project. Additionally, sunlight striking the case may magnify and intensify
negative effects of trapped moisture. The box has inadequate ventilation to provide for the panel
to dry. Small holes drilled on the sides of the box may have been an attempt to deal with the
inadequate ventilation.
A former employee of Donald Foote, Carl Dassinger visited the monument in 1993. He had
worked for Don Foote and Carl, with the help of John (Don’s son) put the glass casing over the
signature sometime after 1965, probably in 1966. Carl could not remember the exact year but it
was sometime after 1965, when the NPS dedicated Pompey’s Pillar as a National Historic
Landmark, and before Don Foote died in 1968. Carl Dassinger was also a witness at the NPS
dedication in 1965 (Maas).
At this time, the grate was replaced with the metal and glass box. The Clark signature panel
is padlocked with a large lock on the bottom of the case that encloses it. This padlock, though
large, could be cut with a bolt cutter. One visitor suggested that the lock be replaced with a more
secure military ammunition-type lock. We would suggest that a method of securing it with no
visible lock would not remind people that it is locked, and curtail the temptation. One could
design a correctly ventilated, less obtrusive, clear, protective case that would stabilize the
environment of the signature.
Identify and Conserve Key Panels
Certain panels are deemed more important, because of their historical ties, but all the elements
on Pompeys have the potential to become more interesting with the passing of time. Attention
should be paid to all. Panels recommended for conservation that should take place in 1-5 years
have been identified on the panel forms.
A key to identifying additional panels with historic significance for conservation purposes
may be in studying those that had been covered with the white sealant in an effort to preserve
them. White sealant that had fallen below the panel was collected during the project and could be
analyzed. Once the composition of the sealant is known, steps may be made to counteract its
effect on the matrix of the sandstone.
38
Monitor Humidity and Temperature
Instrument monitoring of significant panels, both historic and prehistoric, should be undertaken
when such monitoring may yield information that may help develop conservation programs.
Knowledge of the humidity and temperature variations in a rock art environment is important as
these factors directly affect the condition of the rock. Conservation is advocated whenever
historic and prehistoric elements warrant further work, and when such intervention may
significantly influence the life of the rock art. The key areas that would benefit from this type of
intervention are one area in Section C, one area in Section I and two areas from Section J. The
important panels to prioritize are C-13 to C-19, I-01 to I-11, J-16 to J-18 and J-34-43. These all
hold important historic and prehistoric elements and are subject to greater weathering from
natural elements.
Management Recommendations
Land managers now pay better attention to all matters of resource management and conservation
than in the past; however, much work remains in the field of cultural resource management. The
conservation and proactive management of significant sites must become a funding priority. If
we do not manage cultural and natural resources proactively, and conserve them aggressively,
we will lose these valuable assets. Studies must be conducted that would lead to increased
standardization of procedures. Increased sharing of generated information on best practice in the
field must be encouraged. The sooner these conservation activities begin, the longer the butte’s
interesting rock art will last. The sharing of these activities would benefit all cultural resources.
The quality and significance of Pompeys Pillar calls for special protective measures. With the
completion of this project as reported in this document, the site is well recorded at the baseline
level. The photographs and panel sketches provide information with which any changes in the
petroglyph condition can be monitored.
Suggestions for protection of the site are outlined in the following paragraphs. Law
enforcement should respond to every incident of intrusion. Make the monitoring devices,
cameras and infrared detection, low to the ground.
Analyze Need and Develop Conservation Plan
All stakeholders should meet and determine an appropriate conservation plan. The obvious
stakeholders include the support group for Pompeys Pillar, the Montana Tourism Department,
Montana Archaeological Society, monument employees, the Bureau of Land Management and
members of the public. Consultation with regional Indian Nations needs formalizing. The results
of these meetings as well as any previous consultation with Indians should be incorporated into a
management plan. Meeting to establish goals and timetables to complete these goals will ensure
that they are carried out. The plan could involve all aspects of conservation, from creating goals
and objectives to providing financial and moral support to see that they are accomplished.
The planning process should provide for consultation with a professional rock art
conservator. Such a trained individual could advise the planning process. Certainly, at the outset
such a person should be called on to analyze the need and imperative nature of the process.
While the project documentation project makes recommendations in the process of
39
documentation, those assessments cannot be accorded a status equal with that of a person trained
solely in conserving and preserving rock art.
Prioritize and Begin Conservation
Once a plan has been made and funding secured, conservation should begin. This process must
begin soon, as many important panels will not last without intervention. The areas mentioned
above have need of immediate attention from a professional conservation process. Water damage
and erosion are significant and worsening on I-01 to I-11, J-16 to J-18 and J-34-43. An analysis
and possible redirection of watershed and intervention to prevent the salts currently leaching to
the surface will prevent the panel’s destruction.
Bird droppings are damaging prehistoric elements on C-13 to C-19. The removal of
droppings covering pictographs would allow intensive documentation to commence. Already
faint, this process must proceed soon if a record will be completed for the impacted sections.
Netting of the type used to keep birds off produce could be stretched over the C panel alcove to
limit the new accumulations.
Monitor and Control Access
Perhaps the greatest difference in the conservation of Pompeys Pillar could by made by limiting,
monitoring, and controlling all access. The boardwalk has ameliorated some of the concern, but
it does not control the problem completely. Natural vegetation, an indication of a healthy
environment that will control erosion, is absent on the more trafficked lower levels and even on
many of the second levels. The documentation crew found cryptogrammic soil only in one small
location on the butte. Appearing as a black crust, cryptograms hold soil in place stopping water
erosion. Hiking destroys this soil, which can take decades to return to effective levels.
Looking at the overview photographs confirms that access points are erosion points. Where
people climb, people cause erosion. This is especially true on the south side of the butte. Large
triangles of soil have built up in the areas accessed most frequently. The view of the south side of
Pompeys Pillar shows triangular piles of dirt that have eroded to the lower level from the points
where the top is accessed (Figure 4).
All people should be prohibited from climbing into ledges not accessed by the boardwalk.
The public should be informed of the reasons for the limitations on their access. Severe erosion
has resulted from the heavy foot traffic of the past. A crewmember’s foot sank several inches
into the sand at the base of one eroded section. Sand would drain down from the top sections we
could access, as we attempted to record the panels on the more eroded south side. This dust
would be caught by the wind and travel upward to the higher sections of the butte.
Dust from the road presents another problem. It will continue to obscure the pictographs in
section C. A remedy to this would be to enforce a slow speed limit and to pave the road. The
current 25 mph limit allows vehicles to raise considerable dust that travels upward in the wind.
This dust will continue to dim the already hard to see pictographs above. When paving the road,
an additional consideration must be the proximity of that road to the panels. Roads that support
larger recreational vehicles affect sites through vibration. In fragile archaeological environments,
this should be an obvious concern.
40
Hours of Operation
Currently the monument allows “walk-in” traffic when the monument is closed and
unmonitored. We recommend modifying this practice to either disallow walk-in traffic or
develop better procedures to accommodate those who arrive unchaperoned. One Saturday during
fieldwork, we counted 15 vehicles and over 50 walk-in tourists. Better accommodations for these
tourists would improve their visit. The monument should gradually extend its hours from now
until the anniversary date of the Clark visit. Now at least adding weekends from May through
September or October, even with limited staff present, would provide better security.
A volunteer site host program could provide a measure of security. This program is
implemented in campgrounds throughout the United States, and some variation of that would
provide a better measure of protection. Perhaps a local watchperson could be enlisted to monitor
guests during unsupervised times. Locals with a connection to the butte could develop an
interpretive slant benefiting themselves and the monument. Interpreters with a connection to the
people from the region who signed the butte might provide information and host unsupervised
visitors.
Security
On May 19, 2001 while we were working, the security alarm went off in the Visitor’s Center at
11:46 a.m. A crewmember at the top of the butte may have set the alarm off. From the top there
is no alarm noise to discourage a trespasser from continuing off the boardwalk at the top of the
butte, and the crewmember was unaware they had set the alarm off. The alarm continued to
sound below until 12:05 p.m. This accidental tripping of the alarm system yielded no reaction, no
investigation by anyone. An alarm system that does not work protects nothing.
Two individuals, who had the gate combination, drove in to do some “birding.” The
combination should be changed so this practice is not continued.
A speaker placed at the site of the Clark panel and at the top of the butte could enable park
personnel to direct people back to the boardwalk when they trespass off it, rather than their
having to wait at the bottom until they descend or walk to the top.
Liability
Several additional precautionary measures could be taken to limit liability problems at the
monument. Traversing the uneven boardwalk, an older woman tripped, which resulted only in
bruises, but could have been much worse. Among measures to reduce liability are establishing a
written record of the monitoring and replacement for boardwalk boards. Several of the
replacement boards are inferior, and they have warped badly. Regular examination of the
boardwalk should be implemented, and timely repairs made. Impeccable maintenance of the
boardwalk is a precaution that will limit the monument’s liability and enhance the visitor’s
experience.
Providing accurate and complete signage at the entrance to the monument is imperative if
hours of operation and the walk-in practice continue. Providing the amenities for after hour
visitors would improve the tourist’s experience. Several people asked for water and the
possibility of closer proximity to pick up less able members of their group. On days when there
is no employee present, an accident would be impossible to report in time to receive an adequate
response from emergency medical personnel. A pay phone could be installed near the visitors’
center to accommodate a 911 call.
Enlarging the viewing station at the top and providing additional benches built into the railing
for people to rest will accommodate the increased numbers of visitors expected for the
41
anniversary of Clark’s visit, adding to their comfort and improving the likelihood of their safe
travel up and down the boardwalk. Already on many days, it seemed crowded, and people were
reticent to advance to take in the view while others were at the top. Adding a medium-sized
shrub in an advantageous location would provide shade for their rest on a hot afternoon. If this is
at variance with the history of the butte, alternatives providing the same amenity could be
explored.
Site Monitoring
Site monitoring should allow for the development of a checklist of important concerns that will
provide knowledge that will enhance the monument visitor’s experience and increase
conservation of the site. A monitoring program carried out by site stewards, docents, and by
employees would provide data that would refine planning. Likely candidates for monitoring
include graffiti prone panels and badly eroding areas.
Planning a Site Stewards Program could begin. Candidates for inclusion in such a group
include the support group for Pompeys Pillar, the Montana Tourism Department, Montana
Archaeological Society, and employees of the monument, the Bureau of Land Management and
members of the public. Site stewards could visit panels to locate instances of graffiti or monitor
the condition of a panel or element with check forms. Forms can be developed with the local site
steward groups. The current Pompeys support group could be enlisted to bring this about.
Environment Concerns
Tour guides at Pompeys did an excellent job of exploiting the natural environment in the days
that we watched them. They pointed out wildflowers, mammals, and reptiles. A problem with the
environment at Pompeys is that the native species have been eradicated from the lower tier of the
butte. Replanting native species on the lower levels, where the constant traffic has eliminated all
but the hardiest plants and the cheat grass could enhance the tour experience, while decreasing
erosion. Perhaps even, instead of non-native geraniums, plant native species of wildflowers in
the parking lot turn around.
Viewshed Concerns
Concern with the viewshed of the butte is heightened by the recent construction of the large
elevators nearby. Develop a proactive educational program with respect to economic
development and the impact on the local economy that tourism does have. Work hard with the
local chamber of commerce groups and service organizations to inform the public and the
business world. Proactive lobbying about tourists valuing an authentic view could have
prevented the construction of this unsightly competition. When Clark looked out from Pompeys
Pillar, he saw the “delightful prospect of the extensive country around...” (Thwaites: 292-3).
Work proactively to be sure that view stays positive. Having a river in the state that Lewis and
Clark saw is a positive addition to the resource. Many rivers have been dammed and forever
changed. Thus, the value of unchanged scenery must not be underestimated.
42
Signage
Gateway Signage
The visitor signage at the entrance to the monument should be redone. Current signage simply
notes that walk-in traffic is welcome when the monument is closed. At the very least signage at
the gate should state the distance and elevation involved in climbing to see the signatures from
that distance. Many walk-in guests arrived ill prepared to climb. Notifying them that water is
unavailable at the monument and other information might make their visit more pleasant. As an
alternative, literature could be provided for those unable to make the visit.
Interpretive Signage
Interpretive signage or literature should make allowances for unguided tours. Providing a guide
for purchase or for return to a central location would enhance visitor experiences. Interpretive
signage should be updated and correct. Interpretive signage could be placed at a key location
along the boardwalk or provided in a guide.
Rather than mixed-race son with negative connotations, the signage could read, “The Pillar
was named after Jean Baptiste Charbonneau, the son of the French trapper Pierre Charbonneau
and Lewis and Clark’s Native American guide, Sacagawea, his wife.” The story of Jean
Baptiste’s life could be developed as an interpretive lesson. Handling the slavery issue with
better terminology than “Black Slave, York” is important also. Multi-cultural signage would
create awareness of the contributions of these people, encourage tolerance and awareness, and
help to eliminate subtle racism of the type the monument signage presently connotes.
Often Euro-American graffiti is most interesting to casual visitors. Whose grandfather put
their name there? Researching and developing the local history aspect could enhance their
experience; for example, “W. H WILSON” above “BALLANTINE” and another “H.C.BAKER”
with an animal drawing above it are of local interest. Several of the surnames on the butte can be
found on tombstones in the Ballantine cemetery. There must be local connections for finding the
history of those and other names. Because of its long history as a landmark for the region,
multiple avenues could be explored for interpretation.
Educational Programs
The Pompeys Pillar employees and support group obviously dedicate positive energy to the
protection of the butte, learn about its cultural and environmental assets, and investigate its
historic value. During our work at Pompeys, employees and volunteers conducted tours of the
butte for school children. The tours were well monitored and informative. We did, however,
make observations of a few harmful practices that should be modified to improve interpretation
and protection of the butte and its resources.
One Middle School tour group was allowed to travel the shoulder of the butte. Advise
rangers not to continue this procedure, because of the erosion it causes, as well as the ease with
which new graffiti is scratched in the soft sandstone. Maintaining a distance from the shoulder is
important for the management of the butte, as well as the protection of the children’s welfare.
The more traffic on the shoulder the faster erosion will proceed. Most leaders kept their group on
the road and designated paths, a safer and more conservation minded practice. Traversing the
shoulder may encourage more adventuresome students to leave the group.
After an informative talk about geology and dinosaurs, another tour guide encouraged
children to “rub the sandstone” at the west side of the butte. While the practice is good, allowing
43
kinesthetic learners to experience the lesson, it presents problems for the management and
protection of the butte that are easily remedied. We observed a very wide path leading to the
“rubbing” boulder that contains panels A7 and A8, where this activity took place. The wide,
worn section narrows to a well-traveled path allowing access to the petroglyphs in section A.
Providing an invitation to accessing the butte’s side in an unobservable location accounts for
the recent graffiti in section A. Advise staff to discontinue this procedure and replant the
vegetation in that section. Providing a natural barrier will discourage unauthorized access and
should decrease the likelihood of continuing graffiti of the “PM” above “2001” sort. Perhaps the
guides could begin with the geology lesson at the front of the butte and allow the children to
“rub” the boulder with the commemorative plaque on it. Planting a rose bush of the type
common there at the beginning of the path would eliminate that access point. This
recommendation could be made for many of the “paths” that allow easy foot travel around the
butte.
Encourage rangers to become living history practitioners of the type seen at other historic
monuments. Dressing in uniform and using “lingo of the time,” would be an improvement over
giggling about Hell Creek sandstone or stating that the signature was important because it
“proved that Lewis and Clark didn’t make it up in a bar in St. Louis.” Living history could
provide a more exciting adventure for students of the middle school age. The development of
engaging exercises for the children would improve their response, while they learned history.
To improve the children’s tours, perhaps living history activities could be improved and
thoughtfully developed with help from Native American consultants. One day an animated
storyteller got a wonderful response from the group. He presented Native stories and hunting
practices during the short time we watched. Interestingly, we saw no Native Americans involved
in the presentation of the story of the Pillar, although their history at the pillar is long, pertinent
and interesting.
The story of the Pillar could begin with prehistory before Clark’s visit. What use did the
Native people make of the Pillar? Which groups of Native Americans visited the Pillar? Which
lived or hunted in the area? Clark’s visit activities could include aspects more closely related to
children. What kind of games would Pomp or his peers have played? What was life like for very
young Native children at that time? What was their music? What songs did they sing? What
games did they play? How did they trade for food? What kind of money did they use?
Pre-visit activities should be developed to orient the students toward the wealth of resources
Pompeys provides. Protection concerns and conservation aspects could be part of pre-visit
curriculum. Units including history about the Corp of Discovery could provide anticipatory
enthusiasm. We observed that some students were not as interested in the Pillar as in the day
away from the traditional classroom and the fresh air. One busload arrived with a preset lesson to
discover the circumference of the butte—a good lesson, but not one relating to some of the better
lessons Pompeys Pillar can teach us. Following their visit, students could be given post-visit
activities. This practice would provide meaningful closure for their visit.
Interpretive programs could be developed for learners of all ages to enhance the year-round
experience and attract visitors to the monument in all seasons. Age appropriate literature relating
the entire saga of the Corps of Discovery could establish the importance of Pompeys Pillar in
relation to Lewis and Clark’s journey.
It may be tempting and seem appropriate at a signature rock to provide a sanctioned area for
people to create their own signatures, but studies show that this practice encourages graffiti
rather than deterring it.
44
Seasonal Employees Training Programs
All employees should be involved in planning programs to train seasonal employees. A
procedures manual should be required reading. An orientation video could provide the new
employees with a better overview of the butte and its significance historically. Presentations by
returning employees and a mentoring program could strengthen employee loyalty. Stem attrition
by providing a system of incentives and rewards. Employees could become your best avenue for
interpretation and preservation planning.
Conclusions
Pompeys Pillar contains a wealth of information that could confirm historic records. Many
significant petroglyphs and pictographs, both historic and prehistoric still exist in good condition.
The value of the Clark signature, even with the vagaries of its conservation and preservation, is
indisputable. The painted and engraved prehistoric images are important even in their present
condition.
Pompeys Pillar served an important function as a landmark through history. Pompeys
position as an advantageous river crossing guaranteed its use. The evidence of that use exists in
the number petroglyphs, pictographs and historic signatures and dates. Pompeys Pillar is one of
the few rock art sites where the history can still be gathered, researched and verified. This task
must proceed quickly, as many informants with important information are quite old.
Each element has been located, sketched and described. A number of avenues for researching
the names on the Pillar are open to future researchers now that the baseline recording for this
important “register rock” on the Yellowstone exists. The project to provide baseline
documentation presents a first step in the future conservation of Pompeys Pillar. The
environmental assessment amendment for the Pompeys Pillar Interpretive Center is another
important first step. Providing for the conservation of Pompeys Pillar’s assets—while providing
a meaningful experience for visitors—is paramount.
Disaster planning, conservation planning, and exhibition planning are paramount in the
preservation of the Pillar. Learn best practice from the museum world. They have been planning
for the preservation of fragile artifacts for many years. They have developed proactive ways to
balance sharing objects while preserving them for posterity. You have one huge artifact to
conserve.
45
Appendices
Appendix A: Panel Descriptions
Under separate cover.
Appendix B: Panel Forms and Field Sketches
Appendix C: CDrom Collection of Digital Photographs
Appendix D: CDrom Collection of Scanned Panel
Identification Photographs
Appendix E: CDrom Collection of Filemaker Pro
Database Information
46
Bibliography
Anonymous
1926 Pompeys Pillar Mark Restored – D.A.R. Starts Move to Deepen Capt. Clark Carving.
Billings Gazette: 13 October.
Anonymous
1928 Pompey Tablet to be Unveiled – Ceremonies to be Held at Famous Rock this Afternoon
Billings Gazette: 24 May 24, or
1926 Pompey Pillar is Marked with Tablet – 150 Attend Unveiling of Marker Erected by Dar
in Honor of Men Who Visited Rock with Capt. William Clark Billings Gazette: 24 May.
Anonymous
1938 Masons Attend Rites Monday – 1,000 Assemble Here for Ceremonies at Pompeys Rock
Billings Gazette: 21 June.
Anonymous
1940 Pompeys Pillar Recarved by Fort Buford Soldiers during Trip Made in 1875
(Yellowstone Kelly Led Party Headed by General Forsyth to Determine Navigability of
Yellowstone River.) Billings Gazette: date unavailable.
Bonner, Thomas D.
1981 The Life and Adventures of James P. Beckwourth. Delmont R. Oswald, editor. Bison
Books: Lincoln.
Bradley, Lt. James H.
1991 The March of the Montana Column. Edgar I Stewart, editor. University of Oklahoma
Press: Norman.
Burpee, Lawrence J.
1927 Journals and Letters of Pierre Gaultier de Varennes de la Verendrye and his sons. The
Champlain Society, Toronto.
Colton, R.B., Naeser, N.D., and Naeser, C.W.
1985 Drainage changes in eastern Montana and western North Dakota during late Cenezoic
time. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 18.
Conner, Stuart
1981 Notes from the Pompeys Pillar file.
Denig, Edwin Thompson
1961. "Of the Crow Nation" in John Ewers, ed. Five Tribes of the Upper Missouri: Sioux,
Arickaras, Assiniboines, Crees, Crow. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Originally
published in 1953.
DeSmet, Pierre-Jean
1905 Life, Letters and Travels of Father Pierre-Jean DeSmet, S.J. 1801-1873. Hiram M.
Chittendon and A. T. Richardson, editors. Francis P. Harper: New York.
Francis, Julie E., and Loendorf, Lawrence L.
2002 Ancient Visions: Petroglyphs and Pictographs of the Wind River and Bighorn country,
Wyoming and Montana. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Gibbon, General John
1877 Last Summer’s Expedition against the Sioux and Its Great Catastrophe. American
Catholic Quarterly Review Vol. 11: 271-304.
Hanson, Joseph Mills
1909 The Conquest of the Missouri. A. C. McClurg and Company: Chicago.
47
Keyser, James D., and Klassen, Michael A.
2001 Plains Indian Rock Art. University of Washington Press, Altona, Manitoba, Canada.
Kyte, Michael
2001a Pompeys Pillar Draft Cultural Resource Plan. Unpublished manuscript, on file with the
Bureau of Land Management, Billings Resource Area, Billings, Montana.
2001b personal communication with Linda Olson.
Loendorf, Lawrence; Olson, Linda; Conner, Stuart; and Dean, J.Claire;
1998 A Manual for Rock Art Documentation. U.S. Department of the Army, National Park
Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation.
Loendorf, Lawrence
2003a Tolar Petroglyph Site. Unpublished manuscript, on file with the Bureau of Land
Management, Rock Springs Resource Area, Rock Springs, Wyoming.
2003b personal communication with Linda Olson.
Maas, Colin
1993 Note from Pompeys Pillar lined notebook kept in the Visitor’s Center at the monument.
McCleary, Tim
2001 Little Big Horn College, personal communication with Michael Kyte.
Oglesby, Richard Edward
1963 Manuel Lisa and the Opening of the Missouri Fur Trade. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
Olson, Linda
1990—2002 Personal observations principally at the Medicine Rocks Site, North Dakota.
Phillips, John
2001 Personal conversation with Linda Olson.
Roe, Charles Francis
1927 In Custer’s Last Battle. National Highways Association: New York.
Stanley, Col. D. S.
1874 Report on the Yellowstone Expedition of 1873. Government Printing Office: Washington
D. C.
Stuart, James
1902 The Yellowstone Expedition of 1863. Samuel T. Hauser and Granville Stuart, editors.
Contributions to the Historical Society of Montana: Volume I: 132-205.
Taylor, John
1992 Pompeys Pillar: Snapshots at a Crossroads. Unpublished manuscript, on file with the
Bureau of Land Management, Billings Resource Area, Billings, Montana.
Thwaites, Reuben Gold, ed.
1969 Original Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Arno Press: New York.
Trimble, Michael K.
1986 An ethnohistorical interpretation of the spread of smallpox in the Northern Plains
utilizing concepts of disease ecology. Reprints in Anthropology: v. 33. J & L Reprint Co.,
Lincoln.
Windser, Henry J.
1883 Guide to the Northern pacific Railroad and Its Allied Lines. G.P. Putnam: New York.
Wheeler, Olin D.
1926 The Trail of Lewis and Clark, 1804-1904. G.P. Putnam’s Sons: New York.
48

Pompeys Pillar - Minot State University

Transcription

Similar documents

Building Code Training – August 30th at Burgundy Basin Inn

4M605051 Raaco Kufry na náradie Polypropylene XL - 34

ISO 9001 : 2008

Making PV Panels Smarter

H2 HUMMER

Song List - Gator James Band

Grid-Wall Panel installation instructions

EVERLOCK````$flfatllJ!l Foundation Sidi,,!l.

social raquet - ALEXANDER PARK TENNIS CLUB

evolocity one sheet