Unintentional Vandalism of Rock Art Sites

With resilience to the elements and time, rock surfaces resulted to be the ideal canvas for lasting expressions of past cultures. Unfortunately, they are also accommodating for lasting vandalism, the effects of which survive indefinitely alongside original rock art. Unintentional damage often occurs from visitor use.

Spirit Bird Cave Petroglyph Panel (San Juan County, UT)

Spirit Bird Cave Petroglyph Panel (San Juan County, UT)

There are multiple factors which must be considered including environmental, social, and economic factors (Deacon 2006), as well as concerns of vandalism.There are two general types of vandalism that affect rock art sites: deliberate and unintentional.

Deliberate vandalism involves a conscious decision to alter the rock art with various methods; including graffiti, initial carving (Individuals feel the need to mark that the have been at the site as well, and carve their name or initials), looting, and target practice. Preventing deliberate vandalism is not my primary focus for this research, as the effects of deliberate vandalism are instant, and in many cases unavoidable.

Unintentional vandalism occurs due to misinformation or ignorance, with adverse effects accumulating over time.

There are several factors which impact theories of rock art conservation. Deacon (2006) points out that although many groups consider conservation to be a “good” reaction to detriments or vandals, there are several other points of view that must be taken into account. She asserts that theories regarding rock art conservation delicately balance between environmental, social, and economic factors (Deacon 2006).

Environmental factors are Necessary to consider, due to their presence at every site. Environmental considerations for the conservation and preservation of rock art sites include: the material of the host rock surface, surrounding climate, and types of paints, pigments, or engravings used in the rock art. It is also important to consider any physical alterations from people, plants or animals, or artifacts that may be associated with the site (Deacon 2006). Because the environment is ever present and constant at art sites even without the human element, their effects must be considered.

The social factors which should be considered for conservation include the rights of descendant communities, property owners and researchers, management policies and legislation, and public expectations and attitudes (Deacon 2006). Many legislation decisions and management policies are dependent on who the property owner is.

Accountability may be one of the most important considerations for the protection of rock art sites. When individuals feel connected to a site, they feel a responsibility to protect it. Grant says those with private ownership of a site may be inclined to protect it more, rather than a Federal entity with no personal connection to the land (Van Tilburg 1980). This is where public expectations and attitudes become exceedingly important. These are the local individuals, rather than tourists, who may have information, time, or resources that they are willing to contribute. For example, there are site steward programs which train volunteers to periodically report on the conditions of a site (Whitley 2005).

Because it inevitably takes money to enact many conservation procedures, economic considerations include the location of the site in relation to roads, type of ownership of the site and tourism facility, tourism marketing strategies, level of income generated by tourism, and the extent to which local people lose or derive income from rock art tourism (Deacon 2006). Tourism can be very beneficial in that it generates the income needed to protect and maintain a site; however there is an increase in concern when visitor numbers increase. Concerns which may have little adverse effect in small numbers may significantly affect rock art integrity or dating potential. An example would be a significant increase in carbon deposits from campfire smoke.

Visitors interpret the context of a site in much the same way archaeological researchers do, therefor the manner of presentation of a site to visitors is essential to discouraging vandalism, whether intentional or unintentional. A site which is free of graffiti and visitor garbage presents the image that there is a person nearby who is involved and concerned for the site. If funding permits, the ideal tourism tactic involves guided tours and educational outreach. Infrastructure such as low fences, informative signs, and visitor sign-in boxes are beneficial when funding may not provide for a guide. These still provide a perceived official presence which may detour vandals.

A really great idea I stumbled upon recently on this Leave No Trace blog, allows visitors to leave their mark in a designated area, deterring unintentional vandalism. It is a simple idea, with a message informing visitors to help preserve as well as leaving behind a personal connection. Check it out!


Deacon, Janette

2006    Rock Art Conservation and Tourism. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 13, No. 4, Advances in the Study of Pleistocene Imagery and Symbol Use [Part I]

Van, Tilburg JoAnne, and Clement W. Meighan

1981    Prehistoric Indian Rock Art: Issues & Concerns: Report of the 1980 Conference Proceedings, Institute of Archaeology, the Rock Art Archive, University of California, Los Angeles. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Whitley, David S.

2005    Introduction to Rock Art Research. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast.