REDISCOVERED LATE UPPER PALEOLITHIC IMAGERY IN A CAVE IN BRITAIN:

 

Bacon Hole cave, Gower Peninsula, South Wales. Photograph from Nash et al., 2026, figure 2.

The oldest cave art in Britain has been essentially rediscovered in Bacon Hole cave, on Gower Peninsula in South Wales. First seen in 1912 by Henri Breuil and Professor William Sollas they were called the first Paleolithic cave art in Britain. This was, however, dismissed by skeptics and subsequently ignored and all but forgotten, until recently. The painted marks have been looked up again and reexamined by scientists (Arnold 2026). Records of the cave painting, however, still existed.

 

The first photograph of the panel, taken in 1913 by W.L. Morgan. From Nash et al., 2026, figure 6.

“Following the rediscovery of the painted panel in 2022, the First Art team, in collaboration with dating specialists from the University of Southhampton, conducted two expeditions to Bacon Hole in 2023 and 2024. Both visits were commissioned by the National Trust and scheduled outside the bat hibernation season (October to April). The primary aim of these visits was to create a photographic record of the wall sections within the eastern side chamber, focusing particularly on the area surrounding the painted panel.” (Nash et al. 2026) The painting was rediscovered in September 2022. The international team of scientists conducted pigment analysis looking for organic residues, and collected samples from calcite flows for Uranium-Thorium dating on a vertical painted surface within a side chamber. (Nash et al. 2026) It is, perhaps, of note that the investigation occurred outside of bat hibernation season. This may have been done out of consideration for the wildlife, but my guess would be that it was prompted by the range of viruses carried by bats.

 

The panel as photographed (left) and then processed with dStretch (right). From Nash et al., 2026, figure 9.

The teams did a quite complete job of studying and sampling the paint as well as the calcite layers on the cave wall. “In addition to the photographic survey, the painted surfaces originally discovered by Breuil and Sollas in 1912 were sampled to establish potential minimum and maximum date ranges. A total of twelve samples (six from each expedition) were collected. These included samples for both dating purposes (calcite overlapping pigments) and pigment geochemical analysis. The latter aimed to identify potential organic and inorganic binders using Attenuated Total Reflectance Fourier Transform Infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy and Micro-Raman analysis.” (Nash et al. 2026)

 

The samples taken for Uranium-Thorium dating revealed a range of dates with the oldest being 15.7 ka (at a 95% confidence level). (Nash et al. 2026) Other dates came back from more recent eras, such as the Bronze Age.

Locations sampled on the panel. From Nash et al., 2026, figure 10.

The conclusions of the teams back up the original estimates by Breuil and Sollas. "Based on the evidence gathered from the two fieldwork visits, we concur with the original interpretation proposed by Breuil and Sollas in 1912 - that the horizontal lines (or streaks) represent anthropogenic activity. The painted lines are arranged horizontally and are equidistant from one another, indicating a deliberate and structured patternn. Furthermore, the hematite used to produce the ten lines likely derives from a single source, probably located at the rear of the side chamber" (Nash et al. 2026).

Bacon Hole also has a wide range of images, scribbles and initials from since the time of the original painting (see Nash et al. below).

REFERENCES:

Arnold, Paul, 2026, Britain’s oldest cave art may have been rediscovered in Bacon Hole cave, 2 June 2026, The Gist (Phys.org online). Accessed online 2 June 2026.

Nash, George H. et al., 2026, Rediscovered Late Upper Paleolithic Painted Imagery at Bacon Hole, Gower Peninsula, South Wales, Quaternary (online), Vol. 9, No. 3, 26 May 2026, https://doi.org/10.3390/quat9030043.  Accessed online 2 June 2026.

THE HIDDEN MOUNTAIN DECALOGUE STONE, LOS LUNAS, NEW MEXICO:

This is a column on a subject that I have long wrestled with in my own mind. It is the epigraphic question of prehistoric inscriptions in Old World scripts in the New World. I became aware of the arguments pro and con through many years of friendship with Bill McGlone. That friendship with Bill probably makes this a more subjective column than an objective one.

Hidden Mountain, New Mexico. Internet image, public domain.

I first met Bill McGlone in the mid-70s in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He had only recently become interested in epigraphy and was, at that time, convinced that there were examples of Ogam in southeastern Colorado. I called him to introduce myself and he graciously invited us to visit at his home where he and I debated rock art until my poor wife could stand it no longer. He later moved to La Junta, Colorado, to be closer to the subject that so fascinated him, and on frequent visits he and I would have many late night debates about epigraphy. We had to agree to disagree because I could not accept theories about prehistoric Old World visitors to southeast Colorado and Bill was a believer. He later dialed back his enthusiasm on Ogam in the New World considerably (although I don't know that he gave it up entirely) because he had shifted his interest to the subject of possible Near Eastern and ancient North African inscriptions in southeastern Colorado. In that enthusiasm Bill and his partner Phil Leonard visited and intensely studied many, many sites, and became quite conversant with the subject of epigraphy. Their enthusiasm led to a level of expertise that allowed them to be quite objective on certain aspects of the subject, and over the years they went on to debunk many fraudulent epigraphic  claims such as those of Barry Fell, although they still believed that there were some examples that were authentic.

The Decalogue Stone inscription. Internet image, public domain.

One site that they studied was the Decalogue Stone, on Hidden Mountain, 16 miles from Los Lunas, New Mexico. "The Los Lunas Decalogue Stone is a large boulder on the side of Hidden Mountain, near Los Lunas, New Mexico, about 35 miles (56 km) south of Albuquerque, that bears a very regular inscription carved into a flat panel. The stone is also known as the Los Lunas Mystery Stone or Commandment Rock." (Wikipedia)

And, in spite of their openness to epigraphic arguments, McGlone and Leonard decided that the Decalogue Stone inscription is a hoax (Personal communication with Bill McGlone). This conclusion is shared by almost any archaeologist who has ever studied the subject.

“One argument against the stone’s antiquity is its apparent use of modern Hebrew (or otherwise atypical) punctuation, though amateur epigrapher Barry Fell argued that the punctuation is consistent with antiquity. Other researchers dismiss the inscription based on the numerous stylistic and grammatical errors that appear in the inscription.

According to archaeologist Kenneth Feder, ‘the stone is almost certainly a fake.’ He points out that ‘the flat face of the stone shows a very sharp, crisp inscription. . .’ His main concern is the lack of any archaeological context. He argues that to get to the location of the stone would have required whoever inscribed it to have ‘stopped along the way, encamped, eaten food, broken things, disposed of trash, performed rituals, and so on. And those actions should have left a trail of physical archaeological evidence across the  greater American Southwest, discovery of which would undeniably prove the existence of foreigners in New Mexico in antiquity with a demonstrably ancient Hebrew material culture. . .’ and states that ‘There are no pre-Columbian ancient Hebrew settlements, no sites containing the everyday detritus of a band of Hebrews, nothing that even a cursory knowledge of now the archaeological record forms would demand there would be. From an archaeological standpoint, that’s plainly impossible.’” (Wikipedia)

The inscription and Barry Fell's translation. From Fell's book 'America BC.' (Image sharpened by chatGPT).

“British Archaeologist Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews has concluded that ‘Viewed dispassionately, the Los Lunas inscription is a clear, but well constructed forgery (for its day). Despite the claims of high antiquity, there are features of the text (such as the mixing of letter forms between two separate alphabets) that are much more likely to derive from the work of a modern forger than from an ancient Hebrew or Samaritan scribe. The evidence for its origin is poor, but a comparison with the Bat Creek Stone suggests that it is a Mormon forgery. The ‘Mormon Battalion’, which was part of the US Army during the Mexican War, is known to have marched from Santa Fe down the Rio Grande Valley, passing close by, and it is possible that this is the date of the inscription.” (Wikipedia)

The Zodiac Map star chart. Internet image, public domain.

On the other hand there are investigators who believe in it’s authenticity. Carl Lerhburger (2015) cites Allen Deal (1984) in his chapter on Hidden Mountain. Deal referred to a petroglyph panel that he concluded is a “zodiac map.” “Referred to as the ‘zodiac map,’ it is a flat horizontal rock with petroglyphs that seem to record the constellations in the sky when a solar eclipse occured in 107 B.C. - - - According to Deal, each of the pecked rock art images represents constellations specific to Semitic cultures, which would rule out their being made by native peoples. - - - In short, by overlaying a modern computer-generated sky chart as seen in New Mexico on September 15, 107 B.C., onto the Hidden Mountain star chart petroglyphs, Deal demonstrated a connection that fits with the dating of the epigraphy on the inscription and supports the idea that the Los Lunas Decalogue Stone is an approximately two-thousand year old Hebrew inscription.” (Lehrburger 2015:290) While Lerhburger does not specify the distance and relationship between the inscriptions, or give any other indication as to relative weathering, or apparent style, he does seem convinced that they relate directly to each other and that the “zodiac map” proves the authenticity of the Decalogue inscription.

And finally, Daniel de Caussin claims that there is a Mediterranean terebinth tree from the Holy Land growing over this rock. “The tree above this rock is a Terebinth tree. In this area there are five of these trees and these trees are not native to North America. The scriptures talk of the Terebinth trees and the Hebrews are compared to this tree.” (Academia:2) I have seen no claims in other sources of these trees from the Holy Land being anywhere around the rock, and as I said I have not visited the site so I cannot commit to any personal knowledge of this.

While I do think a fairly strong case can be made for some prehistoric visitation to the Americas from Europe, the Mediterranean, etc., I have not yet seen any examples of so-called epigraphic inscriptions that convince me that they were actually carved by prehistoric visitors from the Old World. Additionally, I am convinced that any indications of these early visitors would be much more likely to be found near the coast, not the middle of the continent.  But regardless of my own beliefs and opinions on the subject I do feel that these inquiries have a valid place in the field of rock art studies. Let us never become closed-minded and hostile to input from many sources, even if we do not agree with it. These inputs help keep the study of rock art so fascinating.

NOTE 1: I have not personally visited this site so any information I could present on it comes from personal conversations with Bill McGlone and other people’s published reports listed below.

NOTE 2: Some images in this posting were retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs. If any of these images are not intended to be public domain, I apologize, and will happily provide the picture credits if the owner will contact me with them. For further information on these reports you should read the original reports at the sites listed below.

PRIMARY REFERENCES:

De Caussin, Daniel, Undated, The Rock In New Mexico, Academia, https://www.academia.edu/4440411/The_Rock_in_New_Mexico. Accessed 17 July  2021.

Lehrburger, Carl, 2015 Secrets of Ancient Ameri:ca: Archaeoastronomy and the Legacy of the Phoenicians, Celts, and Other Forgotten Explorers, Bear and Co., Rochester, Vermont.

McGlone, William R., and Phillip M. Leonard, 1986, Ancient Celtic America, Panorama West Books, Fresno, California.

McGlone, William R., Phillip M. Leonard, James L. Guthrie, Rollin W. Gillespie, and James P. Whittall, Jr., 1993, Ancient American Inscriptions: Plow Marks or History, Early Sites Research Society, Sutton, Massachusetts.

Wikipedia, Los Lunas Decalogue Stone, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Lunas_Decalogue_Stone. Accessed 17 July 2021.

SECONDARY REFERENCE:

Deal, Allen, 1984, Discovery of Ancient America, Hoffman Printing Co., Muskogee, OK.

 

CLAVIFORM, VENUS OR STEATOPYGIA?

Equine, Image from Hussein et al., 2025, Figure 5, page 20, (Image sharpened with chatGPT).

A recent study of a rock shelter with considerable rock art, found in the central Sinai Peninsula of Egypt has been released. Al-Zolma rock shelter is decorated with a profusion of petroglyphs, including anthropomorphs of considerable interest.

Gazelle, Image from Hussein et al., 2025, Figure 6, page 20, (Image sharpened with chatGPT).

“The study of the twelve panels identified 366 individual petroglyphs, including 146 animal figures, 112 human figures, 16 unknown scratches, and 92 indeterminate forms. These petroglyphs encompass several types of images, such as Bovids, Equids, Antelopes, Camels, Gazelles, Ostriches, Ibex, Felines (Lions and Leopards), and headless women. Most of Al-Zolma Rockshelter’s engravings are depicted in a naturalistic style, with variations in quality and size among subjects.” (Hussein 2025)The variations in quality and size suggest that the images were created by different people across an unknown span of time.

Bovid (auroch?), Image from Hussein et al., 2025, Figure 8, page 20, (Image sharpened with chatGPT).

“The execution style techniques appear to have evolved over time. Some engravings were done by incision, where the outline of the subjects is made with shallower grooves. Others exhibit a more developed technique, appearing as raised relief.” (Hussein 2025) The reported differences in technique seem to rely on how deeply the outlines and details of the figures are carved, although some are essentially carved deep enough to qualify as relief carvings.

Female, Image from Hussein et al., 2025, Figure 7A, page 21, (Image sharpened with chatGPT).

Line drawing of female, Image from Hussein et al., 2025, Figure 7A, page 21, (Image created with chatGPT).

A particular surprise at this site was a series of headless female figures. “One of the prominent petroglyph examples from Al-Zolma Rockshelter is the depiction of headless women, totaling 112 figures, each displaying different styles and engraving techniques. These figures typically represent the torso of a female figure de picted in profile, featuring prominent breasts and buttocks, yet lacking both the head and lower limbs in several instances.”  (Hussein 2025)

Female, Image from Hussein et al., 2025, Figure 7D, page 21, (Image sharpened with chatGPT).

“Interestingly, the majority of these figures face left, with only three facing right. They vary in height from 10.87 cm to 32.65 cm, and are often superimposed by images of bovids, antelope, camels, and equids. The execution techniques range from scratches and incised lines to what appears to be raised relief. Similar examples of headless women have been found at other sites in Egypt, such as Qurta (QI-QII) and el-Hosh ATB11. Moreover, the significance of these ‘Headless Women’ figures extends beyond Al-Zolma Rockshelter, and other Egyptian sites bearing resemblance to depictions found across the European Magdalenian world, both in rock art and as statuettes made of various types of stone.” (Hussein 2025) The reference to headless women ‘found across the European Magdalenian world’ refers to claviforms and/or the so-called ‘Venus’ figures of the European Paleolithic. These were small figurines carved from stone or from mammoth ivory.

Claviforms, La Roche de Lalinde, France. Picture from donsmaps.com.

Venus figurine, Grimaldi, Italy, ca. 22,000 BCE. Internet image, public domain.

So, were the artists of Al-Zolma rock shelter influenced by European claviforms, ‘Venus’ figures, or something else? In other words. is this evidence of cultural contact between the Sinai and Paleolithic Europe? Another possible interpretation might be considered. The females of Khoisan and related tribes of Africa often display steatopygia, a condition where extensive fat deposits accumulate on the buttocks and thighs. It can be found randomly pretty much worldwide, but is more common among the ‘Hottentots’, the pre-colonial inhabitants of much of southern Africa. Of course, it is possible that the European ‘Venus’ figures are also meant to depict steatopygia, but that is not the general assumption for their meaning.

'Hottentot' woman displaying steatopygia. Image from Wikipedia.

No direct dating has been done on the art in Al-Zolma Cave. “Dating the Al-Zolma engravings remains a challenge, but stylistic similarities to established Late Paleolithic sites in Egypt suggest a potential age. Further research, including radiocarbon dating and OSL dating in association with the engravings and a deeper understanding of the surrounding environment and potential archaeological sites in Wadi Al-Zolma, could offer valuable context for interpreting the rock art and provide more precise chronological information.” (Hussein 2025:24)

“”The more I looked at the engravings,” says Hussein,” the more I thought the artworks resembled those you might find in Lascaux Cave or other famous European Paleolithic sites.” Hussein learned that an engraved depiction of an aurochs very similar to the one in Al-Zolma Cave had been made in southern Egypt around 15,000 years ago.’” (Powell 2026) This coincidence helped confirm the age of the Al-Zolma art in his mind leading to the announced Paleolithic age for these petroglyphs.

The authors of the study have concluded that this rock art is potentially Paleolithic in age based upon stylistic similarity to other sites in the Sinai peninsula that have been dated.  “The engravings in Al-Zolma Rock shelter executed in a naturalistic style, similar in appearance to the rock assemblages found at other sites in Upper Egypt, such as Wadi (Chor) Abu Subeira (Wadi (Chor) Abu Subeira, an Eastern Desert Wadi, located 12 km north of Aswan): CAS-1320 and CAS-6,21 as well as to those of Qurta (QI, QII, and QIII),22 and Abu Tanqura Bahari 11 (ATB11) at el-Hosh, both north of Kom Ombo. Studies conducted at these sites have successfully dated rock art to the late Paleolithic period, approximately 16,000-15,000 BP. This provides a strong possibility for attributing the engravings in Al-Zolma Rockshelter to the late Paleolithic period.” (Hussein 2025) So, were these female figures inspired by Paleolithic European claviforms or ‘Venus’ figures, or by steatopygia? Can we ever know? It is, however, certainly a wonderful surprise and a really fun idea to speculate on.

NOTE: Some images in this column were retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs. If any of these images are not intended to be public domain, I apologize, and will happily provide the picture credits if the owner will contact me with them. For further information on these reports you should read the original reports at the sites listed below. Additionally, some of the quotations I have included have had citations removed from their text. These can also be acquired from the original texts.

REFERENCES:

Hussain, Hesham, 2025, The Rock Inscriptions Documentation Project: Al-Zolma/Al-Dalma Rockshelter in the north-central part of the Sinai Peninsula: A Preliminary Report, Abgadiyat, Volume 20, No. 1, pp. 49-63. Published in Academia online.

Powell, Eric A., 2026, Light in the Cave, Archaeology Magazine, July/August 2026, Volume 79, Number 4, page 19.

WHO MADE IT? DNA ANALYSIS FROM CAVE PAINTINGS:

Location of test sample from Escoural Cave, Portugal. Image from Mesa et al., 2026, Figure 2, page 3 (image sharpened with chatGPT). This sample held the human DNA.

Back on 17 August 2024, I wrote a column here on RockArtBlog titled ‘DNA Analysis From Cave Paintings,’ in which I expanded upon the recent news that DNA had been discovered in the sediments of anciently inhabited caves. At that time I wrote “for some time now it has been possible for scientists to extract DNA from the sediments in caves, including human and hominin DNA. This leads me to speculate that perhaps we may also be able to detect DNA from manually applied cave paintings such as positive handprints and get an analysis of the artists themselves. Considering that the human body sheds cells constantly it would seem logical that any paint on a cave wall that was applied by hand might contain detectable DNA in human skin cells shed during the application of that paint. And with the advances in DNA analysis this might be a way to personal data such as skin color, eye color, gender, and other data that would allow us to generate a detailed picture of the artist.” (Faris 2024) This speculation seems completely logical to me. Never  bet against scientific advance.

Location of test sample from Covaron Cave, Spain. Image from Mesa et al., 2026, Figure 2, page 3 (image sharpened with chatGPT).

Now we have a report of a study that attempted to do just that – find DNA in the cave art. The team tested 24 rock art panels and located human DNA in a sample from one panel, admittedly only a partial success, but a step in the right direction. “With ancient human DNA obtained from only one of 24 rock art panels sampled, despite generally favorable preservation conditions at many rock art sites, our findings suggest that pigmented surfaces themselves rarely retain enough DNA to remain detectable after thousands of years. The absence of ancient DNA in the Altamira airbrush further supports this notion.We also detected no faunal or other non-human DNA that could be clearly linked to the use of organic binders. Nevertheless, given the diversity of rock art techniques and contexts, it remains possible that rock art from other sites, periods, or styles could more consistently yield ancient DNA. For example, it would be desirable to test DNA preservation in additional samples from figurative rock art, or in hand stencils from sites with better DNA preservation than Maltravieso. As demonstrated here, systematic sampling of both the artwork and adjacent surfaces, along with sensitive methods for faunal DNA detection, should be incorporated into future research to help distinguish DNA related to art production from that introduced by other processes. It should also be investigated whether DNA extraction protocols can be improved specifically for cave wall surfaces.” (Mesa et al. 2026:7) This is really just the beginning of the process.

Location of test sample from Les Pedroses Cave, Spain. Image from Mesa et al., 2026, Figure 2, page 3 (image sharpened with chatGPT).

When you remember how many scientific advances begin as failures – how many tests did Edison have to make before he found a usable light bulb filament? “Despite favorable conditions for ancient DNA preservation at many sites, ancient DNA was detected in only one of the 24 rock art panels examined, and two additional locations adjacent fo other rock art panels. This rarity suggests that pigment surfaces rarely retain enough DNA to survive for thousands of years, particularly if they are not protected by mineral crusts or sealed environments. ‘The preservation of human KNA on cave walls is highly variable’, says Bossoms Mesa. ‘But when it does survive, it tells a powerful story. And while these first results are promising, I think our priority now should be to refine the methods and to understand under what conditions we can expect a higher success rate’.” (Max-Planck-Gesellshaft) And, as these conditions are learned future studies can focus on sites with a higher chance of success.

Location of test sample from the wall of Blombos Cave, South Africa. Image from Mesa et al., 2026, Figure 2, page 3.

Matthias Meyer, a member of the team that did this study, expresses optimism about the potential of such a project. “’This is just the beginning’, adds Meyer. ‘We now know that cave walls are genetic archlves of past human presence. The next step is to test more sites, art styles and techniques, especially hand stencils and figurative art in caves with good molecular preservation, as far as minimally invasive sampling allows’. With further work, it may become possible to reveal the makers of at least some pieces of cave art – and to put faces, or at least genetic identities, to the artists who created them.” (Max-Planck-Gesellschaft) As the ability to detect and analyze DNA improves we can expect result to get better as well.

Heretofore DNA studies and analysis seem to have developed following to Moore’s law. Originally postulated in regards to integrated circuits, Moore’s law stated that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles every two years. Admittedly it is a stretch to apply that to DNA studies in rock art, but look at the development of DNA analysis in the short time since its beginnings. This may not be too far from the truth. And, I would still like to know the color of the eyes of the artist who painted Lascaux, and I think it is coming.

REFERENCES:

Faris, Peter, 2024, DNA Analysis From Cave Paintings, RockArtBlog, 17 August 2024, https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/7760124847746733855/4193206136611181049

Mesa, Alba Bossoms et al., 2026, Investigating ancient human DNA preservation on cave walls and in rock art, Nature Communications (online), 23 June 2026, pp. 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-74234-2. Accessed online 5 July 2026.

Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (online), 2026, Ancient DNA Found on Cave Walls, 24 June 2026, https://www.mpg.de/26841305/ancient-dna-found-on-cave-walls. Accessed online 5 July 2026.

ATLATL PORTRAYALS IN ROCK ART SUGGEST ROUGH DATING ESTIMATES:

Hunter with atlatl, Jeffer's Site,Cottonwood county, Minnesota. Photograph enhanced, Peter Faris.

Knowing that the atlatl technology for hunting has existed since the Paleolithic in the Old World, it has been long assumed that the atlatl entered the New World across Beringia with the earliest migrants to North America. Given this assumption it was easy to assume that the later Clovis culture dated to roughly 13,340–12,710 years ago possessed atlatl technology. Yet, a study published in 2026 (Metin Erin et al.) questions this assumption and, based on the evidence available today, could find no support for Clovis use the the atlatl.

Rattlesnake Shelter, West of Langtry,  McClennon County, Texas. Photograph by Teresa Weedin, Oct. 1987.

"Late Pleistocene North American foragers assigned to the Clovis culture have long been assumed to have hunted megafauna with the atlatl, which would have provided several advantages. Yet, we chronologically modeled radiocarbon ages from preserved Holocene atlatls and show that Clovis atlatl use is not supported. If Clovis hunters did not use atlatl technology, then its emergence in the Americas during the early Holocene represents a case of technological convergent evolution analogous to atlatls in Late Pleistocene Europe. A further implication is if Clovis hunters used spears, javelins, or bow technology then models concerning megafaunal hunting need to be rethought given the distinct effectiveness, hunting risk, and tactics associated with these weapons." (Erin et al. 2026:1)

Basketmaker hunt panel. Internet photograph, public domain.

Erin and the members of his team compiled dates for known examples of atlatls and their figures suggest a 4,000 year gap between the end of the  Clovis culture and the adoption of atlatl technology in North America. “Researchers turned to the ages of the oldest securely dated atlatls from across the Americas. Their statistical model indicates that the earliest probably appearance of the weapon system was about 9,996 years ago, nearly four millennia after the disappearance of the Clovis culture.” (Raza 2026)

White Dog Cave, Arizona. Internet photograph, public domain.

This suggests that any image which indicates an atlatl in use likely dates from the period between 9,996 BCE and the adoption of the bow and arrow.

John Blitz, in 1988, compiled a comprehensive study of when the bow and arrow first appeared in North America. “The earliest evidence of the bow and arrow in North America is in the Arctic. A prepared core and microblade technology characterizes a number of local Alaskan complexes grouped into the Paleoarctic Tradition from 9000 to 6000 B.C. This technology derives from similar complexes m northeastern Asia with Old World Mesolithic techniques). After 6000 B.C. in interior Alaska and northwestern Canada, the microblade technology is infused with an Archaic technology of more southerly origins to form the Northern Archaic Tradition. These microblades may have paralleled Mesolithic usage as arrow barbs but there is no direct evidence; and a series of lanceolate, leaf-shaped, side-notched, and stemmed large points were used throughout this long sequence. While bow technology may have occurred in these early traditions, clear evidence appears only after 3000 B.C.” (Blitz 1988:127)

Blitz continues with a list of what he considers to be the first certifiable appearance of the bow and arrow throughout North America, leading to the abandonment of atlatl and dart technology in the north.

Arctic, 3000-1600 BC

Canadian Arctic, 2500-800 BC

Subarctic, 500 AD

Plains, 500 AD

Texas, 500-600 AD

Great Basin, 200-500 AD

California, 500 AD

Southwest, 575-750 AD

Southeast, 700 AD

These dates are illustrated in his map (Blitz 1988, Figure 1, page 132)

If the dates given in these studies are indeed correct then this gives us a vehicle for rough estimation of the dates of examples of rock art that shows an atlatl, it would fall between the adoption of the atlatl, and the adoption of the bow and arrow technology that replaced the atlatl in that region.

NOTE: Some images in this column were retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs. If any of these images are not intended to be public domain, I apologize, and will happily provide the picture credits if the owner will contact me with them. For further information on these reports you should read the original reports at the sites listed below. Additionally, some of the quotations I have included have had citations removed from their text. These can also be acquired from the original texts.

REFERENCES:

Blitz, John H., 1988, Adoption of the Bow in Prehistoric North America, North American Archaeologist, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 123-145.

Erin, Metin I. et al., 2026, Late Pleistocene Clovis atlatl hunting fails a chronological modeling test, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, PNAS online, Vol. 123, no. 28, https://www.pnas.org. Accessed online 30 June 2026.

Raza, Hassan, 2026, Clovis Hunters Likely Never Used Atlatl, New Study Shows Weapon Gap Spanned 4,000 Years, BioScience, 29 June 2026, ISSN 2521-5760. Accessed online 30 June 2026.

A DECORATED BONE PLAQUE FROM GOBEKLI TEPE:

 

Gobekli Tepe, Turkey. Internet photograph, public domain.

An interesting, and pretty much unique, object was recovered in 2011 during excavations at the site of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey. It was described in a 2016 paper by Oliver Dietrich and Jens Notroff, published in Neo-Lithics, Newsletter of Southwest Asian Neolithic Research.

Carved bone plaque, Gobekli Tepe, Turkey. Internet photograph, public domain.

“In 2011 a special object was discovered at Göbekli Tepe in one of the excavation trenches in the tell’s northwestern depression (area K10-45, Locus 7.2; Fig. 3). Excavation had just proceeded into layers undisturbed by modern plowing, but there were still no traces of architecture, when the fragment of a bone object was found. The artifact was described preliminarily as a ‘spatula’ made from a rib bone. It measures 5.3 x 1.9 x 0.3 cm and carries a carved depiction that is only partially preserved. The image is unclear, however the upper part features two hatched T-shaped forms, one of which is completely preserved, the other only fragmentarily. These T-shapes rapidly led to associations with Göbekli Tepe’s most prominent architectural feature, and to a vivid discussion within the research team focusing on the probability of this interpretation and our comprehension of Neolithic art in general. Indeed, due the complexities of the find the decision was made in 2011 to refrain from any form of premature interpretation. In the meantime, the object was put on display in the Şanlıurfa Museum, where it has since attracted the attention of visitors.”  (Dietrich and Notroff 2016:22) There can be little disagreement with the similarity to the T-shaped pillars of Gobekli Tepe.

Carved bone plaque from Gobekli Tepe, Turkey. Drawing produced by ChatGPT.

It has been customary to describe flattened objects like this as spatulas, as if they were intended to spread a Neolithic peanut butter and jelly sandwich. While that is a description of the shape I have never been comfortable with the connotations of the designation ‘spatula.’

“From the moment of its discovery some colleagues were convinced that the T-shaped objects on the spatula must be representations of the iconic find category of Göbekli Tepe´s archaeological record: the T-shaped pillars. In adherence to this line of thought, a roughly human shaped figure was interpreted as standing in front of the pillars, while in the bottom left corner of the spatula the enclosure walls were thought to be represented. Notably, there are some problems with this interpretation. The perspective of the depiction is not easily understandable, as inside the real enclosures the central pillars stand side by side, not facing each other. An explanation might be sought in the artist’s intention to display the T-shape of the pillars, which was obviously important to Göbekli Tepe’s builders. Furthermore, one of the visible ‘pillar shafts’ is depicted very slender, curved and narrowing in the lower part. An explanation for this could lie in the abilities of the artist to depict a perspective view, or it was not important to them to show these details in a realistic manner.” (Dietrich and Notroff 2016:25) As I stated above there can be little disagreement with the similarity of the engraving to the T-shaped pillars of Gobekli Tepe. The “human shaped figure standing in front of the pillars” is another matter. While many of the T-shaped pillars at Gobekli Tepe are decorated with carved animals and designs, some of them are meant to be stylized humans. I submit that the engraving on the bone plaque is meant to represent those. These pillars have a relatively plain (undecorated) surface but they are carved with arms that come around from the sides and the hands meet in the front, what would be the abdomen on a human. Below the hands are a belt and a draped fox hide. What is being interpreted as a human on the bone plaque may simply be the inner sides of the pillars showing these arms on the surface. If there is any special or sacred significance to these T-shaped pillars then this small carved bone replica may well carry the same significance, and protective power.

Pillar at Gobekli Tepe, Turkey, showing human hands folded on the abdomen above a belt and fox pelt. Photograph from Pinterest.

“If the decoration of the find from Göbekli Tepe remains enigmatic, the object itself could be more revealing. The ‘spatula’ is elongated in shape, the preserved end is curved. This feature makes it doubtful that this is the active part of a tool we commonly would describe as spatula (i.e. a tool with a flat blade used to spread or lift substances). The parallel, only slightly converging rims show that the piece was originally much longer.” (Dietrich and Notroff 2016:27) Of course this is not intended as a spatula as I wrote above.

Closeup of pillar at Gobekli Tepe, Turkey, showing human hands folded on the abdomen above a belt. Photograph from Pinterest

Dietrich and Notroff then go on to make a case for the object to be a fragment of a bullroarer. “A group of objects with a similar general form well known from archaeological and ethnographical contexts are bullroarers, i.e. musical instruments, usually made of wood, that produce a noise when swung on a long cord. Ethnographic data offers a wide variety of possible uses of bullroarers ranging from cultic ritual to more profane tasks, like scaring away animals from plantations. In the archaeological record, bullroarers have been identified since the Paleolithic. In many cases, however, their function has been open to doubt. Prominent, sometimes richly decorated items with a likely bullroarer function stem from important French Palaeolithic sites, inter alia from La Roche de Birol, Dordogne (Magdalenian), Abri de Laugerie Basse (Magdalenian), Lespugue (Solutreen), (and) Badegoule.” (Dietrich and Notroff 2016:28) I believe that this object (app. 2” x >1”) is probably too small to be part of a functioning bullroarer. "The bullroarer, rhombus, or turndun is an ancient ritual musical instrument and a device historically used for communicating over great distances. It consists of a piece of wood attached to a string which, when swung in a large circle, produces a roaring vibration sound." (Wikipedia) This remarkable humming sound can carry for quite a distance, and the larger the bullroarer is, the deeper or more roar-like the sound produced. "A bullroarer consists of a weighted airfoil (a rectangular thin slat of wood about 15 to 60 centimeters (6 to 20 in) long)." This carved bone object does not seem to conveniently fit into the description of a bullroarer.

I suggest that this opject is more likely to be a portable sacred charm referring to the sacred site of Gobekli Tepe, carried like a Medieval relic for its spiritual or protective power, or like a St. Christopher on the dashboard of your car. Whether originally hung like a pendant or carried in a small bag I see it much more like a medicine pouch than a spatula or bullroarer, but whatever the case, it is a fascinating object.

NOTE 1: Some images in this column were retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs. If any of these images are not intended to be public domain, I apologize, and will happily provide the picture credits if the owner will contact me with them. For further information on these reports you should read the original reports at the sites listed below.

NOTE 2: I have omitted citations of sources in some of my quotes from the authors above. To get a full picture of the authors sources go to their original paper listed below.

REFERENCE:

Dietrich, Oliver, and Jens Notroff, 2016, Decordted Bone ‘Spatula’ from Gobekli Tepe: On the Pitfalls of Iconographic Interpretations of Early Neolithic Art, Neo-Lithics, Newsletter of Southwest Asian Neolithic Research, 2016, No. 1, pp. 22-31, Ex Oriente, Berlin. ISSN 1434-6990, Available on ResearchGate.

Wikipedia, Bullroarer, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullroarer.

WHAT DO FOOTPRINTS MEAN?

 

Footprints (Podomorphs) in Sweden. Image from Fahlander, 2026, Figure 3A.

RockArtBlog has had a number of columns about footprints in rock art over the years (click on footprint in the cloud index at the bottom of the blog). Various sources have speculated that they are meant to symbolize travel, personal identity (like a signature) or even a sort of ‘Kilroy was here’ mark. Now, a new possible meaning has been proposed by Fredrik Fahlander (2026) in a recent publication, the footprints might represent a contract.

Footprints (Podomorphs) in Sweden. Image from Fahlander, 2026, Figure 3B.

Fahlender uses a term for footprints, podomorph, which is somewhat obscure, although I suppose we can consider it accurate. “During the Bronze Age, a particular type of podomorphic petroglyph was produced on the outcrops by the sea in southern Scandinavia, in the Mälaren region of central-eastern Sweden. The study shows that the petroglyphs are organized in relation to water as well as to different minerals visible in the rock. This pattern indicates that they are not simply images or symbols but also physical ‘devices’, produced to do something. One purpose was for the frequent single podomorphs to be paired with another at a later stage. Because podomorphs in a pair generally are of different sizes and form, it is suggested that each one belongs to an individual of different age and/or sex– potentially depicted in stone to show existing or desired future relations, agreements, pacts, friendship, marriages etc.” (Fahlander 2026:1) Fahlander’s paper studies Bronze Age footprints and he points out a very interesting, and diagnostic, fact. In many pairs of footprints the left foot and the right foot are created with differences in style and/or technique, suggesting that they were created by different people and perhaps at different times.

Footprints (Podomorphs) in Sweden. Image from Fahlander, 2026, Figure 3C.

Breaking down footprints in detail Fahlander discusses their styles and the techniques used to create them. “Traditionally, Bronze Age rock art has mainly been discussed from a representational perspective as images or symbols: as is particularly evident in the manner of documentation in which the motifs are rendered as two-dimensional black figures on a white background. This despite the numerous examples reported of how petroglyphs integrate and interact with the microtopography of the rock The representational focus also entails problems of categorization, where different types of motifs of diverse techniques, contexts and potential functions are amalgamated into one single category.” (Fahlander 2026:2) He is looking at the petroglyphs much more closely than just how they relate to the landscape or environment.

Footprints (Podomorphs) in Sweden. Image from Fahlander, 2026, Figure 3D.

 There have long been theories of relationships between rock art and features in the rock like cracks. But, Fahlander seems to take it down almost to a microscopic level in significance. “In recent years, however, research has put more emphasis on aspects of production and how petroglyphs relate to waterflows, fissures and mineral veins in the outcrops. This expanded perspective partially bridges the nature-culture divide and stresses the physicality of the Bronze Age petroglyphs as a type of visual and physical ‘device’ rather than being mere images or symbols.” (Fahlander 2026:2) One potential problem with this, however, is that we may not have much, or accurate, knowledge of waterflow, fissures and mineral veins when the rock art was created. So this assumes that the surface of the rock has not changed since the footprint was placed there.

Differing footprints interacting with the microtopography of the rock. Image from Fahlander, 2026, Figure 6A.

In Scandinavia, Bronze Age podomorphs are produced in various types and can be either fully hollowed out, resembling actual footprints or outlining the shape of a foot sole or a print. Both types can have one or more crossing lines commonly assumed to represent straps to fix the leather sole. Pairs also occur as being merged, sharing a common groove. It is important to note that both types of clad podomorphs are designed to look like real footprints. Several preserved fragments of footwear with and without lacings have been found in Bronze Age oak-coffin burials of both sexes. A real Bronze Age footprint in snow, clay or sand would thus leave either a crossing line like in many of the contour-lined podomorphsor just the plain oval shape of the leather sole.The chronology of the different types is complex. Although the majority of South Scandinavian rock art can be firmly dated to the Bronze Age period, some petroglyphs might be slightly earlier and a few may be of later Iron Age date. The podomorphs stand out from the other motifs since many researchers attribute the majority to the late Bronze Age andpre-Roman Iron Age.” (Fahlander 2026:3) This observation interests me the most in his paper. That the footprints in a pair may not match up. Fahlander’s reasoning here is fascinating.

“One interesting aspect of the Bronze Age podomorphs is that, in contrast to the animal tracks of the Neolithic rock art tradition of northern Fennoscandia, podomorphs only rarely seem to indicate movement . The Järrestad and the Rickeby sites have four naked and six clad podomorphs in succession, respectively. At first glance, they seem to indicate movement, until you realise that they consist of right feet only. At the Tisselskog site in Dalsland is another example of ten podomorphs with toes that seem to take steps down the outcrop. Judging by the toes and arch of the foot, all of them are also right feet. This could suggest an attempt to illustrate movement by jumping on one foot, but it is more likely to be the result of other considerations. At Rickeby, for example, it is striking that the ‘trail’ is actually a series of podomorphs produced within a natural depression in the rock, which is regularly flooded after rain.” (Fahlander 2026: 5-6) These observations, of course, may only be true for Bronze Age footprints (podomorphs) in northern Fennoscandia. Studies elsewhere should show us where else such conclusions can be applied 

Footprint interacting with the microtopography of the rock. Image from Fahlander, 2026, Figure 6B.

“Different interpretations of their meaning and functions. Most common is the idea that they represent actual persons. As such, the imprints are argued to be produced in connection with initiation rites, marking presence or remembrance. Another common theme concerns symbolic representation. Almgren, for example, suggested that podomorphs symbolize the tracks of an elusive deity that cannot be depicted. A third connection is made between podomorphs and death.” (Fahlander 2026: 7)

 Bradley (1999) proposes that podomorphssymbolize the transition between aquatic (realm of death) and land (realm of the living) by leading from the burial mounds on the hillocks down to the sea. Later, Goldhahn (2012) explores a similar connection, emphasizing a relation between podomorphs and graves. Among his examples are Törnsfall 107, a cairn that partly covers a series of podomorphs on the rock beneath, and a block with a pair of podomorphs found adjacent to a cairn in Norway (Simonsen and Vogt 2005). Even though all these interpretations have their merits, none is sufficiently supported by the wider bodyofrockart. The idea of an invisible deity does not resonate well with the abundant single and pairs of podomorphs at some sites. The association of movement of either the sun or the dead lacks footing in the rock art itself, as the podomorphs are static and irregularly oriented in different and opposite directions. The idea that footprints represent real people is somewhat contradicted by the sometimes impossible sizes. In general the sizes are quite small. If taken at face value, the great majority would represent children’s footprints with only a small number belonging to adults. (Fahlander 2026: 7)

      

Footprints interacting with the microtopography of the rock. Image from Fahlander, 2026, Figure 6C.

So the first step is a careful examination of the petroglyphs to decide how closely they might match. “A first question to discuss is whether the visual qualities of the pecked podomorphs refer to shoes, feet or prints. The distinction is important because tracks and feet tend to be considered quite differently in terms of their powers and purposes. The survey of the Mälaren podomorphs shows no indications that any podomorphs are feet viewed from above. On the contrary, the naked feet with toes and the fully hammered-out types both qualify as prints that could have been outlined after a wet footprint on the rock. The contour-lined types are less evident, but the ones with cross-straps are also most likely to represent prints. This attention to detail and the fact that someone took the extra time to peck a crossing groove to make them look like a real print from a shoe with straps must thus be regarded as important. A second significant question is whether podomorphs are general ideograms or prints of particular individuals. The variable sizes of the podomorphs might allow them to be interpreted as particular prints. Taking their lengths at face value would mean that the majority (i.e. 18–25 cm) are imprints of 7–10-year-olds. However, it would not explain the impossible sizes in the lower and uppermost registers (Table 3). Moreover, as many podomorphs are often found on irregular boulders and on rather steep outcrops, where it is difficult for a person to stand, not all (if any) podomorphs are likely to emanate from actual footprints. Thus, we should not expect podomorphs to be exact facsimiles of someone’s print, nor to represent or relate to particular individuals.” (Fahlander 2026:12-13) Now, if we can determine that the individual footprints are not identical this opens up a whole new range of possibilities.

And at this point Fahlander puts it all together with his creative possibility. “Another option that better fits the organization and articulation of the podomorphs relies on the fact that they are produced both as singles and in pairs. That the podomorphs of the majority of pairs - are of different lengths and shapes is probably not a coincidence. This opens up a scenario where the examples of a single podomorph might be the first step in making a pair. A ‘material invitation’ to add another. A case supporting such a notion can be seen in at Boglösa 138, where one of a pair of is only partly hammered out, indicating a process divided into sequential stages transforming one type into another (Fig. 8a). Such a prolonged ritual could potentially involve a quid pro quo scenario where a second podomorph was added after a request or wish has been fulfilled. This would, however, not explain the joined pairs, which most likely were produced in one event. But if each podomorph of a pair ‘belonged’ to different individuals, particularly if of a different age and/or sex, it would make sense of the diverging designs of paired podomorphs (e.g. different sizes and forms, number of straps and contrary orientation, see Fig. 5). Considering the permanence of the petroglyphs, podomorphs might have been employed as a ritualized (or ontological) way of creating a lasting bond between persons: for example, to demonstrate materially friendship, agreements, pacts or marriage etc.” (Fahlender 2026:15) So there we have it. If a footprint represents and individual, then a pair of footprints differing in detail could represent two different individuals, in other words a relationship – a contract. A very intriguing proposition and some very original thinking.

NOTE: In quoting from Fahlander I have removed most of his citations. Readers looking for the original material and his sources should go to his original paper listed below.

REFERENCE:

Fahlander, Fredrik, 2026 , A Step in Stone, Ontologies of Podomorphic Petroglyphs in Southeastern Scandinavian Bronze Age, Oxford Journal of Archaeology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. on behalf of University of Oxford.