Beth and Ray Hill’s excellent book, Indian Petroglyphs of the Pacific Northwest, inspired me to visit the petroglyph closest to home: the Agate Point beach boulder.

From the Shilshole Bay Marina, the crossing was approximately seven miles each way, made longer on the outbound leg when I mistook Fay Bainbridge State Park for Agate Point, landed at the state park, and began hunting fruitlessly for the petroglyph.

In reality, Agate Point was two miles farther on than Fay Bainbridge State Park. From the marina, Agate Point was concealed behind Point Monroe, such that the park falsely appeared to be the northernmost point.

A faint crosswise current and five- to ten-knot wind were negligible factors on the outbound leg. On the return leg, a 1.4-knot adverse current and seventeen-knot cross wind made for a slower crossing.

In the desert southwest, a layer of “desert varnish” builds up on rocks, which can be dated through various techniques (the quality of which has improved following unreliable early efforts in the 1990s). The carving of a petroglyph disturbs the original varnish, after which varnish resumes its build-up atop the petroglyph. By comparing the date of the varnish atop the petroglyph with the varnish on the undisturbed surrounding rock, the petroglyph can be dated.

Rocks in the Pacific Northwest do not accumulate varnish. For this reason, petroglyphs in our region cannot be dated forensically.

A handful of petroglyphs can roughly be dated by reference to their subject material. Petroglyphs depicting horses must postdate the early 1700s. Petroglyphs depicting square-rigged sailing ships must postdate first contact. Petroglyphs depicting steamships must postdate the mid-19th century.

Anthropological interviews have only been able to date a handful of petroglyphs with precision. By the time Europeans first began asking about petroglyphs in the late 19th century, most Indian respondents were unable to date the petroglyphs or even describe their function. Some petroglyphs in BC have been vaguely described as the creations of ancient chiefs, but in the vast majority of cases, Indian respondents have not known who carved petroglyphs or why.

On different occasions, European explorers and anthropologists observed Indians of diverse nations treating petroglyphs with neglect or with respect. Even in the case of respectful treatment, Indian respondents were not able to date or describe the function of the petroglyphs.

In a tiny number of cases, Europeans either observed petroglyphs under production or else talked to respondents who could identify specific carvers. At least one petroglyph in BC was carved to commemorate a feast. Others were carved by known individuals but for unknown purposes of their own.

In the case of the Agate Point petroglyph, a local Indian man named Jack Adams was observed carving a petroglyph on the boulder in 1952. He claimed he had carved some of the petroglyphs on the rock and his father had done the rest. Mr. Adams’s stated motivation was to pass the time while waiting for the tide change in nearby Agate Pass. However, there are also reports from 1916 that this rock already had petroglyphs at that time and that local Indians were “much afraid” of the Agate Point stone. If this earlier report is accurate, it seems unlikely Mr. Adams or even his father were the first to carve the boulder, even if they did add later carvings or modify existing ones.

The Agate Point petroglyph, called “Haleets” by the local Suquamish Indians, consists of at least half a dozen faces and a few smaller designs. However, the petroglyph has been severely damaged by barnacles in recent decades, such that only one face is still clearly visible.

One of the obscured figures has a circular design below its face that may represent a labret, or lip plug. Coastal tribes ceased wearing the labret in approximately 500 CE. If the design is a labret, and if the petroglyph was intended to portray contemporary as opposed to historic or mythical figures, this would give a minimum age to the petroglyph of 1,500 years and possible much older. However, this dating is highly speculative, resting as it does atop several layers of assumptions about the nature of the design.

The Suquamish Tribe claims cultural ownership of the Agate Point petroglyph. However, even they do not know its age or purpose.

The Suquamish Indians or their predecessors were not the only people to carve the Agate Point boulder. Atop the boulder are two markings by a different civilization. First is a deeply chiseled “CS,” standing for “Coast Survey,” a US government agency. Second is a geodetic survey marker stamped 1931. The former was carved in 1856, the latter emplaced in 1934, according to the National Geodetic Survey, the modern successor agency.

Interestingly, the NGS datasheet for this marker, the source for the 1856 and 1934 dates, says the marker is “above high tides” and “outside [the] high-water line.” Yet today, there are barnacles growing on all faces of the rock, including the dorsal face, even directly atop the “CS” carving and the geodetic survey marker.

I am at a loss to explain this discrepancy. Perhaps this portion of Puget Sound has subsided. Perhaps the stone has been moved (although it is a very substantial boulder). A geologist friend of mine suggested that the beach at Agate Point may have eroded over the past 90 years, dropping the stone such that high tides now wash over it.

The apparently lowered beach may also explain the barnacle growth that has damaged and obscured most of the carvings in recent decades. At the time of the carvings, the water line may have been lower.

Few Washingtonians know of the Agate Point petroglyph, and fewer still have seen it with their own eyes. Paddling back toward Shilshole, I felt as if I had joined a secret, recondite fraternity.

Finding the petroglyph was a great morning’s adventure. It was wonderful to be able to place my hand on a work of art created by people who lived here long ago—whether that art was carved in 1952, 1852, or the year 52.

—Alex Sidles