ANTLERS IN CAVE ART - MEGALOCEROS OR REINDEER:

Caribou, Wikipedia.

Public domain.

Large numbers of cave images in the painted caves of France show hoofed animals with antlers, and a large number of these are identified as European reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) or caribou (the North American version of the species). These Reindeer and caribou are of the same species, but their subspecies have slightly different characteristics, and these subspecies tend to be found in different geographical locations. Examining a number of pictures of reindeer and caribou we can see differences in the antlers. North American caribou often have palmate antlers while reindeer tend to have antlers with tines along the main beam. I believe that it is this difference that has led to mislabeling of some of the creatures illustrated in European cave art.

Megaloceros, Internet photo.

Public domain.

"Megaloceros is an extinct genus of deer whose members lived throughout Eurasia from the early Pleistocene to the beginnings of the Holocene and were important herbivores during the Ice Ages. The largest species, Megaloceros giganteus, vernacularly known as the "Irish elk" or "Giant elk" is also the best known. Most members of the genus were extremely large animals that favoured meadows or open woodlands. they are the most cursorial deer known, with most species averaging slightly below 2 metres (6ft 7in) at the withers. Despite its name, the Irish elk was neither restricted to Ireland now closely related to either species commonly referred to as elk (Alces alces in British English and other European languages; Cervus canadensis in north American English) but instead is closely related to the fallow deer genus Dama." (Wikipedia)

Megaloceros, Chauvet

Cave, France. Internet

photos. Public domain.

"Cave art from early humans depicts Megaloceros as having a dark coat of fur with a white underside, quite similar to other deer today. The art also shows Megaloceros to have had a small hump above its shoulders which has been interpreted as being for the storage of body fat for survival in lean times. The presence of a hump is supported by observation of the forward dorsal vertebrae on Megaloceros which have enlarged neural spines (bony projections that point up from the vertebrae) that would have granted structured support for a hump."  (prehistoric-wildlife.com)

Megaloceros, Grotte de la Greze, France.

Internet photo, Public domain.

Megaloceros, Cougnac, France.

The Neanderthal Museum,

Mettman, Germany.

(Note the hump on left animal

and antlers on the right animal.)

Curiously enough, most Paleolithic parietal portrayals of Megaloceros, while readily identifiable by this hump, seem to lack the gigantic antlers of the adult male. This suggests that they are either meant to picture female animals or males during the season when the antlers have dropped off and not yet re-grown. Modern deer shed their antlers in the first quarter of the year, between January and April, so if these images are meant to picture Megaloceros males it may indicate that time of year. When the antlers of a Megaloceros are pictured they are large palmate antlers reminiscent of the antlers of our North American moose.

Reindeer, Chauvet Cave, France.

Reindeer, Chauvet Cave, France.

Reindeer, on the other hand, are frequently pictured in cave art, perhaps because in many instances they were the most important food animal for the people who lived there. Their remains are often the most common bones found in excavations in those locales.

Reindeer, Lascaux Cave, France.

Internet photo, Public domain.

Reindeer, Lascaux Cave, France.

Internet photo, Public domain.

Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) are European members of the caribou deer family. "In the largest subspecies, the antlers of large males can range up to 100 cm. (39 in) in width and 135 cm (53 in) in beam length. They have the largest antlers relative to body size among living deer species. The prominent, palmate brow tines extend forward, over the face. The antlers typically have two separate groups of points, lower and upper." (Wikipedia) As to whether reindeer antlers are palmate or not there is considerable variation, but, in general, reindeer seem to lack this trait (except for the brow tines) while caribou antlers can be quite palmate. A black painting of a reindeer in Lascaux Cave shows the upper antlers to be slightly palmate, but certainly not to the extent of a Megaloceros, while a red reindeer from Lascaux lacks that trait. Reindeer images from Chauvet Cave, however, seem to lack the palmate antlers altogether.

So, with careful attention to the presence or absence of a hump, the presence or absence of a brow tine on antlers, and the degree to which the antlers are shown as palmate, we should be able to confidently identify which members of the deer species are being depicted, the Megaloceros (Megaloceros giganteus), or the Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus).

NOTE: 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.

REFERENCES:

http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/m/megaloceros.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaloceros

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reindeer

INTERIOR FIGURE ANTHROPOMORPHS:

"The Great Gallery," Barrier Canyon

Style Anthropomorphs, Horseshoe

Canyon, Wayne County, Utah.

Photo Peter Faris, May 1992.

In early rock art of Utah, western Colorado, and to some extent southwestern Wyoming, we find the magnificent and fascinating imagery of the Barrier Canyon Style Archaic (roughly dated to at least 1500 to possibly 4000 years ago - Wikipedia) and the later Fremont people (from AD 1 to 1301 (2,000 - 700 years ago - Wikipedia). A common trait in their rock art is the one considered herein, the Interior Figure Anthropomorph. These consist of a pecked or painted figure containing within its torso one or more smaller figures of anthropomorphic or zoomorphic form. These might just represent the decoration on garments. Alternatively they may represent internalized spirits of ancestors or totem animals residing within a person - the source of their personal power. Or my favorite possibility, combining the two possibilities: it might represent spirits of ancestors or totem animals residing within a person, the source of their personal power, but painted on their garments for all to see.

There appear to be three different classes of Interior Figure images.

1. Animals within animals.

2. Animals within humans.

3. Humans within humans.

In the case of 1. animals within animals, the obvious explanation would seem to be a pregnancy or birthing motif. There are also a few examples of 3. human within human images that seem to suggest pregnancy or birthing.

Interior figure desert bighorn

sheep, Alex Patterson, 1992,

Coso Range, CA. p. 162.

Interior figure anthropomorph,

Alex Patterson, 1992, p. 162

Gobernador Basin, New Mexico.

In his 1992 Field Guide to Rock Art Symbols, Alex Patterson gave examples of petroglyphs that represent pregnancy to him. One example, from the California Coso Range, shows a bighorn sheep within a bighorn sheep, and the second example, from New Mexico's Gobernador Basin, shows a pair of anthropomorphs, apparently holding hands, one of whom has a smaller anthropomorph upside down inside its torso. He interpreted the bighorn sheep as a pregnant female, and the anthropomorph with the interior figure as a pregnant human female. (Patterson 1992: 162) I can see little reason to argue with Patterson's interpretation, although in the case of the bighorn sheep the interior figure seems to have half grown horns and I would think that the prehistoric artist would have to have known that baby sheep are born hornless (perhaps the horns are shown as clues to the identity, not meant as realism).

Having given these examples I now wish to move on to the more classic Interior Figure Anthropomorph, the aforementioned These consist of a pecked or painted human figure containing within the torso one or more smaller figures of anthropomorphic or zoomorphic form. 

"The Great Gallery," Barrier Canyon

Style Interior Figure Anthropomorph,

Horseshoe Canyon, Wayne County,UT.

Photo Don I. Campbell, 16 May 1984.

                           

"The Great Gallery," Barrier Canyon

Style Interior Figure Anthropomorph,

Horseshoe Canyon, Wayne County,UT.

Photo Don I. Campbell, 16 May 1984.

Interior figure anthropomorph

indicated, combined Barrier

Canyon Style and Fremont panel,

Sego Canyon, UT.

Photo Peter Faris, October 8, 2016.

Close-up of interior figure

anthropomorph, combined Barrier

Canyon Style and Fremont panel,

Sego Canyon, UT.

Photo Peter Faris, October 8, 2016.

Although in some instances the occurrence of a figure within another figure may portray pregnancy, David Sucec of the Barrier Canyon Style Project is skeptical of that meaning for most occurrences with anthropomorphs. "I suspect that although animals within animals my suggest pregnancy, I don't think that is the case for figures. It is hard to say because gender is not often indicated, especially in Archaic imagery." (Sucec 2020)

Fremont Culture interior figure

anthropomorph lower center,

McConkey Ranch, Uintah County, UT.

Photo Peter Faris, September 1989.

Close-up of Fremont Culture

interior figure anthropomorph,

McConkey Ranch, Uintah County, UT.

Photo Peter Faris, September 1989.

As to the question of most of the Interior Figure anthropomorphs, I have to agree with David Sucec. I do not see any possibility that most of the images herein discussed are examples of pregnancy. The anthropomorphs with human and/or animal figures on them clearly represent something else. Sucec stated that "In any case, whatever the reading, I think that the interior figure is a significant (spirit, deity, etc.) form . . .in Archaic rock art, specific identities are mostly out of the question." (Sucec 2020)  The question I see here goes as follows; "is the interior figure actually an internalized spiritual presence (an ancestor or totemic animal of some sort) or is it decoration on an outer garment. In most examples I would argue that it is probably decoration on an outer garment. I have often written elsewhere that in a culture wherein everything is handmade, everything is unique and recognizable as belonging to a certain individual, and thus is a clue to personal identity. So, showing a unique garment in a portrayal is tantamount to producing a portrait of the individual.

Doll with painted shirt, Oglala.

Nat. Museum of the American

Indian, Internet photo.

In the Encyclopedia of American Indian Costume (1994) by Josephine Paterak we find that "Some Plateau and early Plains shirts had life forms painted on them, such as buffalo and otters." (Paterak 1994:210) And elsewhere Paterak tells us "When the Cheyenne adopted the war shirt, they wore it long (almost to the knees), painted with such symbols as thunderbirds, dragonflies, and celestial motifs." (Paterak 1994:100)

Painted war shirt with figures,

From Visions of the People,

Evan M. Maurer, Minneapolis
Institute of the Arts, 1992, p. 130.

"Shirts were often painted with important history lines or pictures. A vision or a noteworthy conquest might lead an eminent warrior to paint his shirt with  - - pictographs to provide a readable, billboard record of his war history - - . The Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Kiowas often painted celestial symbols on their war shirts." (Mails 1995:338)

Now these historic examples that I have cited certainly do not cast much direct light on Archaic practices, however I think that we can honestly look at two points of applicability. After all, even if there is not an observable material connection, the Barrier Canyon Style and Fremont Interior Figure Anthropomorphs we are considering are in the same general geographic area as the examples of painted shirts cited herein. The first point of applicability is that these historic practices may be holdovers influenced by long tradition handed down from Archaic practices. And second, that the examples cited indicate a possible philosophical openness to seeing value in this kind of garment decoration.

In addition to painted, or otherwise decorated shirts, we also know that Native Americans wore sometimes lavishly decorated robes of animal hide (buffalo, elk, deer, etc.) as garments and for warmth. Indeed, many Barrier Canyon Style anthropomorphs show complexly decorated torsos that could well represent such painted or porcupine quilled robes. In addition, a large proportion of the Fremont Culture anthropomorphs wear complex decorative accessories (pectorals, earrings, etc.) as well as having indications of specific items of clothing. 

I believe that we have to consider the possibility that Interior Figure Anthropomorphs might represent images of personages wearing their recognizable painted or porcupine quilled garments, decorated with totemic animals, illustrious ancestors, their visions, or their deeds. These will have been recognizable to other members of their band and/or clan, and thus, represent portraits of a sort. A recognizable image representing an important individual left painted or pecked into the cliff as a memorial record of a specific person.

NOTE: I wish to thank David Sucec of the BCS (Barrier Canyon Style) Project for his cooperation and sharing photographs and comments with me in the preparation of this column. His knowledge of Barrier Canyon Style rock art is unmatched. The BCS Project was formed by David Sucec (Director) and Craig Law (Photographer). Documentation has continued since 1991 and it has been a non-profit since 1992. The goal of the BCS Project is to photograph and record all Barrier Canyon Style rock art sites. For further information I recommend that you consult bcsproject.org.
Also: David Sucec does not agree with this possible interpretation of the Interior Figure Anthropomorphs. His statement to me on April 14, 2020 was "I have heard the interpretation that the formal motifs (patterns, designs) may represent clothing designs but, in Archaic, I question this interpretation (not to say that this is the case in latter imagery. I think they are symbolic (e.g., the parallel line motif as a water family symbol)." (Sucec April 14, personal communication)

Pilling figurines, nos. 1, 2 & 3

with paint traces, Wikipedia.

Internet photo, public domain.

I have not been able to locate any examples of Archaic clothing to compare with, except for sandals which do not seem to apply to this question. However, some of the famous Pilling figurines (Fremont culture) have painted decoration suggesting painted clothing, so  I submit that the question must at least remain open at this time.

REFERENCES:

Mails, Thomas E.

1995 Mystic Warriors of the Plains, Barnes and Noble Books, New York.

Paterak, Josephine

1994 Encyclopedia of American Indian Costume, W. W. Norton & Co., New York.

Patterson, Alex

1992 A Field Guide To Rock Art Symbols of the Greater Southwest, Johnson Books, Boulder.

Sucec, David

2018 I've Got You Under My Skin, The Figure in Figure Motif in Northern Colorado Plateau Rock Art, presentation to URARA, 2018, www.bcsproject.org

Sucec, David

2020 Personal Communication, April 9 and 14, 2020.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_Canyon_Style

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont_culture

IMAGINARY CREATURES IN ROCK ART - THE INUIT MERCARIBOU:

Eskimo Monster Petroglyph,

the mercaribou.

Internet file.

In addition to the quasi-realistic zoomorphs found in rock art - the images of real animals found in nature - there are another category of animal petroglyphs and pictographs. These are imaginary creatures imagined from the mythology of the population or spiritual animals from their religious beliefs. Of course, one problem in studying this category of creatures is the challenge of deciding whether a particular zoomorph is an imaginary creature or just a particularly bad portrayal of a real one. One example of this is the image of the so-called "unicorn" in the cave of Lascaux in France.

On July 28, 2018, I published a column titled "The Paleolithic Unicorn - Found at Last?" in which I reported on the proposal that this image may have recorded an ice age relative of the rhinoceros, the elasmotherium. Based upon the morphology of the body of this image I personally see it as an aurochs with very poorly drawn horns, not an imaginary creature or an elasmotherium, thus my question mark in the July 28 title (see the picture).

The so-called Lascaux

unicorn, Internet picture,

Public Domain.

There are, however, a veritable zoo of actual imaginary creatures portrayed in rock art that have no equivalent in real life. But, before continuing, I need to clarify that these imaginary creatures are considered imaginary by us but were real to the believers.

      

Eskimo Monster Petroglyph,

the mercaribou.

Internet file.

Many years ago I ran across this image labeled Eskimo Monster Petroglyph. I know no more about it than that, not which particular people or where it came from (although I vaguely recall it was an online image from the Smithsonian Institution), but it appears to be a creature combining the front half of a caribou with the back half of a sea creature - a mercaribou. Perhaps a clue to the age of the record can be seen in the label "Eskimo" instead of the term "Inuit" suggesting that it is an old record, but source and details are lost to me.

As can be easily seen it is the body and forequarters of a caribou with the hindquarters replaced by the tail of a marine mammal such as a porpoise or small whale. Interpretations of the portrayal will probably interpret the lines over its back as representing a harpoon strike or the like.

Royal St. John's Regatta crest,

Internet file, public domain.

A modern version of this creature is found in the crest of the Royal St. John's Regatta, a boat race or racing shells first documented in 1816 (although likely held earlier, in the 18th century) on Quidi Vidi Lake at St. John's, Newfoundland. In their crest the central shield is flanked by two mercaribou supporters, shown with fish tails (brown trout) instead of marine mammal hindquarters as in the Eskimo image (this crest was developed in 1993 so it does not have nearly the antiquity of the Eskimo petroglyph). (Wikipedia)

The Eskimo mercaribou rather neatly portrays the two areas of concern of a hunting culture heavily dependent on both the caribou and sea mammals for food, and, as such perhaps represents a spiritual figure involved in food security for the population. In any case, it is a wonderfully inventive and imaginative creature.

REFERENCES:

Faris, Peter

2018 The Paleolithic Unicorn - Found at Last?, July 28, 2018, https://rockartblog.blogspot.com

Palacio-Perez, Eduardo, and Aitor Ruiz Redondo

2014 Imaginary Creatures in Palaeolithic Art: Prehistoric Dreams or Prehistorians Dreams?, pp. 259-66, Antiquity, http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/088/ant0880259.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_St._John%27s_Regatta

SWEETWATER CAVE. COLORADO, A UTE INDIAN PICTOGRAPH SITE:

Sweetwater Lake, Colorado.

Photograph Jared Peltzman. 

I recently received a communication from Jared Peltzman including a number of photographs he took of rock art at Sweetwater Cave, northwest of the town of Dotsero here in Colorado.

Sweetwater Cave, Colorado.

Photograph Jared Peltzman.

Sweetwater Cave, Colorado.

Photograph Jared Peltzman.

According to Peltzman "A branch of the Dotsero Ute Trail starts on the eastern bank of the lake." (Peltzman 2020)

His photographs show predominately Ute Indian pictographs.

Ute pictograph.

Sweetwater Cave, Colorado.

Photograph Jared Peltzman.

Bighorn sheep, Ute.

Sweetwater Cave, Colorado.

Photograph Jared Peltzman.

"This was an obvious stop on the ancient Ute trail, during the seasonal rounds between the high and low country. Within this cave are protohistoric and historic era Ute pictographs, painted in charcoal, ochre, and other plant and mineral based pigments. It depicts hunters on horseback, animals such as bighorn sheep, bison, and deer, and a few abstract designs including a large yellow and red shield or "medicine wheel" symbol on one of the back walls, where light directly hits it through the entrance." (Peltzman 2020)

Ute pictograph.

Sweetwater Cave, Colorado.

Photograph Jared Peltzman.

According to Peltzman "it is about 7800-7900 feet above sea level, and is a very rich and diverse ecosystem. It is very pristine and beautiful, with tons of wildlife (including bald eagles) and old growth forests lining the limestone cliffs." (Peltzman 2020)

Back on December 16, 2011, I wrote a column titled Ochre Pigment in Pictographs in which I included photos of some Ute pictographs and also some ochre mined in a cave named Shield Cave. These illustrations from Sweetwater Cave fit closely, both in subject and in style, to some of the pictographs from Shield Cave. As the two caves are roughly 12 miles apart the pictographs could well have been made by members of the same band.

I am grateful to Jared Peltzman for sharing his photographs with us and giving me permission to reproduce them. Thank you Jared.

REFERENCE:

Peltzman, Jared

2020 Personal communication.

AN ANCIENT GREEK LAPTOP PICTURED IN A MARBLE RELIEF CARVING:

Carved Marble Naiskos,

Eastern Greek, circa. 100 BCE.

Internet photo, Public Domain.

It seem like almost every day we learn how some ancient civilization was surprisingly advanced. Now I have proof that the ancient Greeks had laptop computers.

Carved Marble Naiskos,

Eastern Greek, circa. 100 BCE.

Internet photo, Public Domain.

"Currently on display at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu, Calif., the marble carving is titled "Grave naiskos of an enthroned woman with an attendant" and dates to about 100 B.C. The relief, which is a little over 37 inches tall, depicts a woman sitting on a cushioned throne while a servant girl holds an open box. According to the museum, the rectangular object held by the servant is "the lid of a shallow chest." (Rossela 2016)

I know that laptop computers in ancient Greece just doesn't seem possible, but, given the Antikethera Mechanism we just have to broaden our mental limits to fit the evidence.

Antikythera Mechanism, bronze,

Greek, circa 200 BCE,

Internet Photo, Public Domain.

The Antikythera Mechanism "is a complex clockwork mechanism composed of at least 30 meshing bronze gears. Detailed imaging of the mechanism suggests that it had 37 gear wheels enabling it to follow the movements of the Moon and Sun through the zodiac, to predict eclipses and even to model the irregular orbit of the Moon, where the Moon's velocity is higher in its perigee than in its apogee. This motion was studied in the 2nd century BC by astronomer Hipparchus of Rhodes, and it is speculated that he may have been consulted in the machine's construction." (Wikipedia)

It is nothing less than an analog astronomical computer, and, if the ancient Greeks could build such a machine, how hard is it to picture them experimenting with some form of laptop computer? Actually, it is really easy on April Fool's Day.

NOTE: 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.

REFERENCE:

Lorenzi, Rossela

2016 No, The Ancient Greeks Didn't Have Laptops, February 5, 2016, https://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/no-the-ancient-greeks-didnt-have-laptops-160205.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/antikythera_mechanism