Assessing the Stability and Sustainability of Rock Art Sites: Insight from Southwestern Arizona

Abstract

In light of global trends in human population growth and urbanization, burgeoning cultural heritage tourism industries, and climate change, cultural heritage places in nearly every corner of the world are significantly threatened, and will remain so into the foreseeable future. Rock art sites are some of the most imperiled, with their exposed contexts posing unique challenges to conservation. Consequently, effective management of publically accessible rock art sites necessitates a sustainable approach that weighs visitation in regard to cultural significance and site stability. This essay integrates rock art stability and sustainability assessment methodologies at the Painted Rock Petroglyph Site in southwestern Arizona. The study specifically applies the Rock Art Stability Index (RASI) to evaluate the natural and anthropogenic weathering forces impacting the site, and the Heritage Asset Sensitivity Gauge (HASG) to assess site sustainability under existing management practices in relation to current and forecasted rates of visitation. A spatial analysis of aggregated RASI data shows that visitor foot traffic has had some of the most profound impacts to the petroglyphs. Unrestricted access to the site area is also highly correlated with the presence and location of vandalism and graffiti, and visitor-related trampling has adversely affected the site’s surface artifact assemblage. Application of the HASG projects that, while existing management practices are fairly sustainable, they become less so under forecasted increases in visitation. Further, the HASG appraises the site’s cultural significance as outweighing its market appeal, indicating management efforts should prioritize conservation over tourism-related development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Notes

  1. 1.

    This condition assessment of the Painted Rock Petroglyph Site originated through communication with descendant communities and consideration of their interests. During meetings with the Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe’s Cultural Committee and Tribal Council regarding the proposed Great Bend of the Gila National Monument, participants voiced concern for how cultural heritage places would be managed, citing the impact of high levels of unrestricted visitation to Painted Rocks as a case in point (Wright and Hopkins 2016:112). Similar concern was voiced by advisors from the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community during a presentation to the Four Southern Tribes Cultural Resource Working Group on August 18, 2017.

  2. 2.

    Penetrative vandalism can be cosmetically treated by camouflaging it with pigment matched to the host rock’s surface (Griswold 1999) or even through the creation of artificial desert varnish (Elvidge and Iverson 1983, pp. 238–240; Elvidge and Moore 1980). Even if treated in such ways, the vandalism has not actually been removed, and its physical imprint can often still be detected under close inspection. Land managers made two prior attempts to use color-matching pigment to “hide” penetrative vandalism at Painted Rocks, one being a cluster of recent peck marks and the other a group of names, initials, and dates from 1981 and 1982. Those attempts proved ineffective since the pigment has since changed color and faded, with the vandalism once again readily visible. It is possible to remove penetrative vandalism through abrasive techniques, such as controlled sand blasting, and then color-match. However, such methods remove more of the host rock and any protective rock coating, thus weakening the rock. The best methods to mitigate penetrative vandalism should be determined on a case-by-case basis with input from all stakeholders.

References

  1. Åberg, G., Stray, J., & Dahlin, E. (1999). Impact of pollution at a Stone Age rock art site in Oslo, Norway, studied using lead and strontium isotopes. Journal of Archaeological Science, 26, 1483–1488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Agnew, N., Deacon, J., Hall, N., Little, T., Sullivan, S., & Taçon, P. S. C. (2015). Rock art: a cultural treasure at risk. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ahnert, G. T. (2011). The Butterfield Trail and Overland Mail Company in Arizona, 1858–1861. Canastota: Canastota Publishing Company.

  4. Allen, C. D. (2008). Using rock art as an alternative science pedagogy. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, Arizona State University, Tempe. Ann Arbor: ProQuest.

  5. Allen, C. D., & Groom, K. M. (2013). Evaluation of Granada’s “Carib Stones” via the Rock Art Stability Index. Applied Geography, 42, 165–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Allen, C. D., & Lukinbeal, C. (2010). Practicing physical geography: an actor-network view on physical geography exemplified by the Rock Art Stability Index. Progress in Physical Geography, 35, 227–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Allen, C. D., Cutrell, A. K., Cerveny, N. V., & Theurer, J. (2011). Advances in rock art field assessment. La Pintura: The Official Newsletter of the American Rock Art Research Association, 37(1), 4–6, 13.

  8. Allen, C. D., Kennedy, C. D., Groom, K. M., Cerveny, N. V., Dorn, R. I., & Whitley, D. S. (2018). The Rock Art Stability Index: a non-invasive rapid field assessment for condition evaluation. In T. Darvill & A. P. Batarda Fernandes (Eds.), Open-air rock-art conservation and management: volume 2. New York: Routledge, in press.

  9. Anati, E., Wainwright, I., & Lundy, D. (1984). Rock art recording and conservation: a call for international effort. Current Anthropology, 25, 216–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bahn, P. G., Franklin, N., Strecker, M., & Devlet, E. (2016). Rock art studies: news of the world V. Oxford: Archaeopress.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Batarda Fernandes, A. P. (2014). Natural processes in the degradation of open-air rock-art sites: an urgency intervention scale to inform conservation. Oxford: Archaeopress, BAR international series no. 2609.

  12. BBC Research & Consulting (2014). Economic impacts of national monument designation: Great Bend of the Gila. Final report, prepared for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Denver: BBC Research & Consulting.

  13. Bemend, E., Liang, H., & Bencsik, M. (2014). Non-invasive methods for in-situ assessing and monitoring of the vulnerability of rock art. In T. Darvill & A. P. Batarda Fernandes (Eds.), Open-air rock-art conservation and management: state of the art and future perspectives (pp. 244–258). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Berltilsson, U. (2008). Rock art at risk. In M. Petzet & J. Ziesemer (Eds.), Heritage at risk: ICOMOS world report 2006/2007 on monuments and sites in danger (pp. 172–174). Altenburg: E. Reinhold-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Black, J. L., Macleod, I., & Smith, B. (2017). Theoretical effects of industrial emissions on colour change at rock art sites on Burrup Peninsula, Western Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 12, 457–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Brierley, J. D., Gospodarowicz, M. K., & Wittekind, C. (2016). TNM classification of malignant tumours (8th ed.). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brigandi, P. (2009). The Southern Emigrant Trail. The Branding Iron, 256(Fall), 1, 3-11, 16.

  18. Brink, J. W. (2014). Managing chaos: vandalism and rock-art at the Okotoks Erratic, Alberta, Canada. In T. Darvill & A. P. Batarda Fernandes (Eds.), Open-air rock-art conservation and management: state of the art and future perspectives (pp. 174–188). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Browne, J. R. (1864). A tour through Arizona (second paper). Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, 29(174), 689–711.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bureau of Land Management. (1991). Recreation project plan: interim campground operations and facility upgrade for Painted Rocks Campground. Phoenix: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District, Lower Sonoran Field Office.

  21. Bureau of Land Management. (1998). Business plan: Painted Rock Petroglyph Site and campground recreation fee demonstration site. Phoenix: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District, Lower Sonoran Field Office.

  22. Bureau of Land Management. (2005). Painted Rock Petroglyph Site and campground business plan. Phoenix: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District, Lower Sonoran Field Office.

  23. Carmichael, B. (2016). Supporting indigenous rangers’ management of climate-change impacts on heritage sites: developing an effective planning tool and assessing its value. The Rangeland Journal, 37, 597–607.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Newbury Park: Sage University, Sage Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences no. 17.

  25. Cerveny, N. V. (2005). A weathering-based perspective on rock art conservation. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, Arizona State University, Tempe Ann Arbor: ProQuest.

  26. Cerveny, N. V. (2006). Rock Art Stability Index field study. http://alliance.la.asu.edu/rockart/stabilityindex/NiccoleIntroRASI_1/index.htm. Accessed 20 Aug 2017.

  27. Cerveny, N. V., Dorn, R. I., Gordon, S. J., & Whitley, D. S. (2007). Atlas of petroglyph weathering forms used in the Rock Art Stability Index (RASI). http://alliance.la.asu.edu/rockart/stabilityindex/RASIAtlas.html. Accessed 20 Aug 2017.

  28. Cerveny, N. V., Dorn, R. I., Allen, C. D., & Whitley, D. S. (2016). Advances in rapid condition assessments of rock art sites: Rock Art Stability Index (RASI). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 10, 871–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Clottes, J. (2006). Rock art today. The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter, 21(3), 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cooke, R., Warren, A., & Goudie, A. (1993). Desert geomorphology. London: UCL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Correns, C. W. (1949). Growth and dissolution of crystals under linear pressure. Discussions of the Faraday Society, 5, 267–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Crotty, H. K. (1989). Preserving our rock art heritage: proceedings from the symposium on rock art conservation and protection. San Miguel: American Rock Art Research Association, occasional paper no. 1.

  33. Darvill, T., & Batarda Fernandes, A. P. (2014). Open-air rock-art conservation and management: state of the art and future perspectives. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Deacon, J. (2006). Rock art conservation and tourism. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 13, 379–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Deacon, J., & Agnew, N. (2012). Theoretical approaches and practical training for rock art site guiding and management. In B. Smith, K. Helskog, & D. Morris (Eds.), Working with rock art: recording, presenting and understanding rock art using indigenous knowledge (pp. 247–255). Johannesburg: Wits University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dean, J. C. (1999). Images past, images present: the conservation and preservation of rock art: proceedings from the rock art preservation and conservation symposium, International Rock Art Congress, Flagstaff, Arizona, 1994 (Vol. 2). Tucson: American Rock Art Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Di Lernia, S. (2005). Incoming tourism, outgoing culture: tourism, development and cultural heritage in the Libyan Sahara. The Journal of North African Studies, 10, 441–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Disturnell, W. C. (1881). Arizona business directory and gazetteer. San Francisco: W. C. Disturnell.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Doehne, E. (2003). Salt weathering: a selective review. In S. Siegesmund, A. Vollbrecht, & T. Weiss (Eds.), Natural stone, weathering phenomena, conservation strategies and case studies (pp. 51–64). London: Geological Societyof London, special publication no. 205.

  40. Dorn, R. I. (2006). Rock Art Stability Index overall panel scoring. http://alliance.la.asu.edu/rockart/stabilityindex/DornEndScoring/index.htm. Accessed 20 Aug 2017.

  41. Dorn, R. I., Whitley, D. S., Cerveny, N. V., Gordon, S. J., Allen, C. D., & Gutbrod, E. (2008). The Rock Art Stability Index: a new strategy for maximizing the sustainability of rock art. Heritage Management, 1, 35–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. du Cros, H. (2001). A new model to assist in planning for sustainable cultural heritage tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3, 165–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dudgeon, R. C. (2017). Interpreting a private Ancestral Pueblo artifact collection from Montezuma County, Colorado: a case study in identifying collector bias and cultural heritage value. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Montana, Missoula.

  44. Durgin, P. B. (1977). Landslides and the weathering of granitic rocks. Reviews in Engineering Geology, 3, 127–131. Boulder: Geological Society of America.

  45. Duval, M., & Smith, B. (2013). Rock art tourism in the uKhahlamba/Drakensberg world heritage site: obstacles to the development of sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21, 134–153.

  46. Duval, M., & Smith, B. (2014). Seeking sustainable rock art tourism: the example of the Maloti-Drakensberg Park world heritage site. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 69(199), 34–48.

  47. Eatherly, C. (2006). Painted Rocks State Park. In C. Eatherly (Ed.), Arizona state parks: “the beginning…” (pp. 19–20). Phoenix: Arizona State Parks.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Elvidge, C. D., & Iverson, R. M. (1983). Regeneration of desert pavement and varnish. In R. H. Webb & H. G. Wilshire (Eds.), Environmental effects of off-road vehicles: impacts and management in arid regions (pp. 225–244). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Elvidge, C. D., & Moore, C. B. (1980). Restoration of petroglyphs with artificial desert varnish. Studies in Conservation, 23, 108–117.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Fernández-Lozano, J., Gutiérrez-Alonso, G., Ruiz-Tejada, M. Á., & Criado-Valdés, M. (2017). 3D digital documentation and image enhancement integration into schematic rock art analysis and preservation: the Castrocontrigo Neolithic rock art (NW Spain). Journal of Cultural Heritage, 26, 160–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Fitzner, B., Heinrichs, K., & La Bouchardiere, D. (2004). The Bangudae petroglyph in Ulsan, Korea: studies on weathering damage and risk prognosis. Environmental Geology, 46, 504–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Giesen, M. J., Mazel, A. D., Graham, D. W., & Warke, P. A. (2014a). The preservation and care of rock-art in changing environments. In T. Darvill & A. P. Batarda Fernandes (Eds.), Open-air rock-art conservation and management: state of the art and future perspectives (pp. 38–52). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Giesen, M. J., Ung, A., Warke, P. A., Christgen, B., Mazel, A. D., & Graham, D. W. (2014b). Condition assessment and preservation of open-air rock art panels during environmental change. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 15, 49–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Goudie, A. S., & Viles, H. E. (1997). Salt weathering hazards. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Griggs, D. T. (1936). The factor of fatigue in rock exfoliation. Journal of Geology, 44, 783–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Griswold, J. (1999). Camouflaging graffiti: the problem of outdoor inpainting. In J. C. Dean (Ed.), Images past, images present: the conservation and preservation of rock art: proceedings from the rock art preservation and conservation symposium, International Rock Art Congress, Flagstaff, Arizona, 1994 (Vol. 2, pp. 41–46). Tucson: American Rock Art Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Groom, K. M. (2017). Rock art management and landscape change: mixed field assessment techniques for cultural stone decay. Ph.D. dissertation, Environmental Dynamics Program, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Ann Arbor: ProQuest.

  58. Hall, K. (1999). The role of thermal stress fatigue in the breakdown of rocks in cold regions. Geomorphology, 31, 47–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Hambrecht, G., & Rockman, M. (2017). International approaches to climate change and cultural heritage. American Antiquity, 82, 627–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Harmon, D. L. (2001). American camp culture: a history of recreational vehicle development and leisure camping in the United States, 1890-1960. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, Iowa State University, Ames. Ann Arbor: University Microforms, Inc.

  61. Harris, B. B. (1960[1849]). The Gila Trail: the Texas argonauts and the California gold rush. Richard H. Dillon (Ed.). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

  62. Hasse, R., & Hasse, G. (2009). Painted Rock Petroglyph Site. DigitalRockArt database. Compact disc in possession of the author, also on file with the lower Sonoran field office, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix.

  63. Haubt, R. A. (2015a). The global rock art database: developing a rock art reference model for the RADB system using the CIDOC CRM and Australian heritage examples. ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences II-5/W3, 89–96. Paipei, Taiwan.

  64. Haubt, R. A. (2015b). The global rock art database. http://www.rockartdatabase.com/v2/. Accessed 10 Aug 2017.

  65. Heltsley, E. (1971). State pastime: mar rocks. The Arizona Daily Star 17 September, B1. Tucson.

  66. Hoerlé, S. (2006). Rock temperatures as an indicator of weathering processes affecting rock art. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 31, 383–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Hoerman, R. (2017). Global rock art network. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/globalrockartnetwork. Accessed 10 Aug 2017.

  68. Holmlund, J. P., & Wallace, H. D. (1994). Paleoseismicity and rock art in southern Arizona. In K. K. Sanger (Ed.), American Indian rock art (Vol. 13 and 14, pp. 1–8). Flagstaff: American Rock Art Research Association.

  69. Jenkins, K. A., & Smith, B. J. (1990). Daytime rock surface temperature variability and its implications for mechanical rock weathering: Tenerife, Canary Islands. Catena, 17, 449–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Joint Research Centre-European Commission. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Kim, J. (2014). Conservation and management of the world’s petroglyph sites. Ulsan: University of Ulsan, Bangudae Petroglyphs Institute, World Petroglyphs Research no. 2.

  72. Kinahan, J. (2003). Giving the past a future: sustainable tourism for rock art sites in Namibia, 20th to 24th October 2003: workshop information dossier. Windhoek: Quaternary Research Services, job no. 48.

  73. Laver, M. E., & Wainwright, I. N. M. (1995). An investigation of the dissolution of a marble petroglyph site by acidic precipitation. Studies in Conservation, 40, 265–273.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Lee, G. (1991). Rock art and cultural resource management. Calabasas: Wormwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Little, T., & Borona, G. (2014). Can rock art in Africa reduce poverty? Public Archaeology, 13, 178–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Loendorf, L. (2001). Rock art recording. In D. S. Whitley (Ed.), Handbook of rock art research (pp. 55–79). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Loubser, J. (2001). Management planning for conservation. In D. S. Whitley (Ed.), Handbook of rock art research (pp. 80–115). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Loubser, J. (2014). The state of rock art management and conservation in North America. In J. Kim (Ed.), Conservation and management of the world’s petroglyph sites (pp. 125–142). Ulsan: University of Ulsan, Bangudae Petroglyphs Institute, World Petroglyphs Research no. 2.

  79. Magar, V. (2012). Managing rock art sites. In J. McDonald & P. Veth (Eds.), A companion to rock art (pp. 532–545). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, Blackwell Companions to Anthropology no. 18.

  80. Malla, B. L. (1999). Conservation of rock art. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, Rock Art Series no. 5.

  81. Marshall, M., & Taçon, P. S. C. (2014). Past and present, traditional and scientific: the conservation and management of rock-art sites in Australia. In T. Darvill & A. P. Batarda Fernandes (Eds.), Open-air rock-art conservation and management: state of the art and future perspectives (pp. 214–228). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  82. McKercher, B., & du Cros, H. (2002). Cultural tourism: the partnership between tourism and cultural heritage management. New York: Haworth Hospitality Press.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Miller, J. (1938). The Painted Rocks, proposed national monument. Arizona Highways, 14(9), 15.

    Google Scholar 

  84. National Monuments Council of Namibia. (2003). Giving the past a future: sustainable tourism for rock art sites in Namibia, 20th to 24th October 2003: conference proceedings. Windhoek: National Monuments Council of Namibia.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Nicholson, D. T. (2004). Spheroidal weathering. In A. S. Goudie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of geomorphology (Vol. 2, p. 992). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Nielsen, A. E. (1991). Trampling the archaeological record: an experimental study. American Antiquity, 56, 483–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Norder, J., & Zawadzka, D. (2016). What the places teach us: challenges for cultural tourism and indigenous stewardship of rock art sites in the North American midcontinent. In L. M. Brady & P. S. C. Taçon (Eds.), Relating to rock art in the contemporary world: navigating symbolism, meaning, and significance (pp. 59–82). Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Omar, H. (2013). The development of sustainable cultural heritage tourism in Malaysia: implication for planning and management. PhD dissertation, College of Law, Government, and International Studies, Newcastle University, England.

  89. Pearson, C. (1978). Conservation of rock art: proceedings of the international workshop on the conservation of rock art, Perth, September 1977. Sydney: Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Material.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Pearson, C., & Swartz, Jr., B. K. (1991). Rock art and posterity: conserving, managing and recording rock art. Melbourne: Australian Rock Art Research Association, occasional paper no. 4.

  91. Ramos, M., & Duganne, D. (2000). Exploring public perceptions and attitudes about archaeology. Report prepared for the Society for American Archaeology. Washington, D.C.: Harris Interactive, Inc.

  92. Robbins, K. J. (2013). Balancing the scales: exploring the variable effects of collection bias on data collected by the portable antiquities scheme. Landscapes, 14, 54–72.

  93. Rockman, M., Morgan, M., Ziaja, S., Hambrecht, G., & Meadow, A. (2016). Cultural resources climate change strategy. Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science Climate Change Response Program, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/culturalresourcesstrategy.htm. Accessed 30 Aug 2017.

  94. Rodrigues, J. D. (1999). Conservação da arte rupestre do Parque Arqueológico do Vale do Côa. Lisbon: Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Rossi, A. M., & Webb, R. E. (2007). The consequences of allowing unrestricted tourist access at an aboriginal site in a fragile environment: the erosive effect of trampling. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 9, 219–236.

  96. Sánchez, J. P., Sánchez-Clark, A., & Abreu, E. L. (2008). Set in stone: a binational workshop on petroglyph management in the United States and Mexico. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Sanger, K. K., & Meighan, C. W. (1990). Discovering prehistoric rock art: a recording manual. Calabasas: Wormwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Sanmartín, P., Cappitelli, F., & Mitchell, R. (2014). Current methods of graffiti removal: a review. Construction and Building Materials, 71, 363–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Sanz, N. (2012). Rock art and the UNESCO world heritage list. In J. McDonald & P. Veth (Eds.), A companion to rock art (pp. 489–514). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, Blackwell Companions to Anthropology no. 18.

  100. Schroeder, A. H. (1952). A brief survey of the lower Colorado River from Davis Dam to the international border. Boulder City: The Bureau of Reclamation, Region Three.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Sedelmair, J. (1856[1748]). Entrada á la nacion de los yumas gentiles por el mes de Octubre y Noviembre del año de 1749. Documentos para la historia de Mexico cuatro série, tomo I pp. 18–25). Mexico City: Vicente García Torres.

  102. Smith, B. J. (1994). Weathering processes and forms. In A. D. Abrahams & A. J. Parsons (Eds.), Geomorphology of desert environments (pp. 39–63). London: Routledge Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  103. South African National Parks (2006). Heritage significance and vulnerability assessment of Tokai and Cecilia. www.sanparks.org/parks/table-mountain/ library/documents.php. Accessed 30 Aug 2017.

  104. Sundstrom, L., & Hays-Gilpin, K. (2011). Rock art as cultural resource. In T. F. King (Ed.), A companion to cultural resource management (pp. 351–370). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, Blackwell Companions to Anthropology no. 11.

  105. The Arizona Republic. (1962, January 10). County begins fight to save pictographs, p. 3. Phoenix.

  106. The Arizona Republic. (1982, May 2). State park preserves Hohokam Indian petroglyphs. p. 106. Phoenix.

  107. The Stone Age Library. (1964, February 16). Arizona days and ways magazine. p. 40–43.

  108. Thorn, A., & Brunet, J. (Eds.) (1995). Preservation of rock art. Melbourne: Australian Rock Art Research Association, occasional paper no. 9.

  109. Tucson Daily Citizen. (1972a, August 4). ‘Resources’ to determine park sites. p. 46. Tucson.

  110. Tucson Daily Citizen. (1972b, August 11). Painted rock park gets more land. p. 5. Tucson.

  111. Turner, R. M., & Brown, D. E. (1982). Sonoran desertscrub. Desert Plants (special issue: botic communities of the American Southwest—United States and Mexico), 4(1–4), 181–221.

  112. Van Der Werf, M. (1989). Contaminated fish close Painted Rock Reservoir. The Arizona Republic 31 January, B1, B3. Phoenix.

  113. Varotsos, C., Tzanis, C., & Cracknell, A. (2009). The enhanced deterioration of the cultural heritage monuments due to air pollution. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 16, 590–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Ward, G. K., & Ward, L. A. (Eds.) (1995). Management of rock imagery. Melbourne: Australian Rock Art Research Association, occasional paper No. 9.

  115. Warke, P. A., Curran, J. M., Turkington, A. V., & Smith, B. J. (2003). Condition assessment for building stone conservation: a staging system approach. Building and Environment, 38, 1113–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Wasley, W. W., & Johnson, A. R. (1965). Salvage archaeology in Painted Rocks Reservoir, western Arizona. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona no. 9.

  117. Watchman, A. (2005). Conservation of Australian rock art. Coalition: CSIC Thematic Network on Cultural Heritage Electronic Newsletter, 10(July), 14–18.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Whitley, D. S. (2006). U.S. rock art in the twenty-first century: problems and prospects. The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter, 21(3), 16–19.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Whitley, D. S. (2011). Introduction to rock art research (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Wright, A. M. (2014). Religion on the rocks: Hohokam rock art, ritual practice, and social transformation. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Wright, A. M. (2018). A site condition assessment of the Painted Rock Petroglyph Site, southwestern Arizona. Tucson: Archaeology Southwest, technical report no. 2017–102.

  122. Wright, A. M., & Hopkins, M. P. (2016). The Great Bend of the Gila: contemporary Native American connections to an ancestral landscape. Tucson: Archaeology Southwest, technical report no. 2016–101.

  123. Wright, A. M., Stein, P. H., Lewis, B. V., & Doelle, W. H. (2015). The Great Bend of the Gila: a nationally significant cultural landscape. Tucson: Archaeology Southwest.

  124. Wurz, S., & van der Merwe, J. H. (2005). Gauging site sensitivity for sustainable archaeotourism in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 60(181), 10–19.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Zarankin, A., & Salerno, M. A. (2014). The “wild” continent? Some discussions on the Anthropocene in Antarctica. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, 1, 114–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by the Conservation Lands Foundation and supported by charitable contributions from private donors to Archaeology Southwest. The field team consisted of the author, Jaye Smith, Kirk Astroth, Fran Maiuri, Carl Evertsbusch, and Lance Trask. Mr. Trask also kindly provided several of the photographs in this article, and Niccole Cerveny, from Mesa Community College, trained the field team in the Rock Art Stability Index. This project benefited from the cooperation of several institutions and their staff, most notably Cheryl Blanchard of the Bureau of Land Management’s Lower Sonoran Field Office in Phoenix. Kim Beckwith, Registrar with the National Park Service’s Western Archaeological Conservation Center, arranged access to the artifacts from Al Schroeder’s 1952 survey. Three anonymous reviewers and a proofreading by Katherine Cerino improved the quality and presentation of this manuscript. While grateful to all of these individuals and organizations for their support and encouragement, the author takes full responsibility for this article’s content and any shortcomings or errors therein.

Funding

This study was funded by the Conservation Lands Foundation and Archaeology Southwest.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aaron M. Wright.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author has received research grants from The National Endowment for the Humanities and the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society, and he has received a speaker honorarium from the Arizona Archaeological Society and the Southern Nevada Rock Art Research Association.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(XLSX 44 kb)

ESM 2

(XLSX 119 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wright, A.M. Assessing the Stability and Sustainability of Rock Art Sites: Insight from Southwestern Arizona. J Archaeol Method Theory 25, 911–952 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-017-9363-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Rock art
  • Sustainability
  • Stability
  • Condition assessment
  • Weathering
  • Conservation