BRAZILIAN PETROGLYPHS RECORDED NEAR DINOSAUR TRACKS:

 

Caatinga landscape. Illustration from Wikipedia.

Two of my favorite things in the natural world are rock art (which readers of RockArtBlog will have recognized by now), and fossilized dinosaur tracks. Any report of finding them in conjunction in the same site is positively exciting, and now we have a report of just such an occurrence in Brazil.

Aerial view of Outcrop 1. Illustration Troiana et al., 2024.

Leonardo Troiano wrote in the 2024 paper describing this discovery: “The Serrote do Letreiro Site, found on the northwest periphery of the Sousa Basin, Brazil, presents a remarkable convergence of paleontological and archaeological elements. It is constituted of subhorizontal "lajeiros", or rock outcrops, intermingled with endemic Caatinga vegetation. The three prominent outcrops feature fossilized footprints of theropod, sauropod, and iguanodontian dinosaurs from the Early Cretaceous Period. Adjacent to these dinosaur tracks, indigenous petroglyphs adorn the surface. The petroglyphs, mainly characterized by circular motifs, maintain a striking resemblance to other petroglyphs found in the states of Paraíba and Rio Grande do Norte.” (Troiano et al. 2024) Caatinga is a type of semi-arid tropical vegetation, and an ecoregion characterized by this vegetation in interior northeastern Brazil (Wikipedia). Rock outcroppings in this forest have been found to contain not only three different types of dinosaur footprints, but petroglyphs as well, and it is herein postulated that the dinosaur tracks themselves were one reason for the subsequent placement of petroglyphs on those rock faces. 

Outcrop 1, dinosaur tracks (enhanced) and petroglyphs (dotted circles). Illustration from Scientific Reports, 2024.

"The lithological support on which petroglyphs and dinosaur tracks are located are sub-horizontal sandstone and comglomerate sandstone strata situated on a small hill, known as 'Serrote'. There is evident displacement of sizable surface portions due to rainwater runoff on the inclined support. The makers' preference for such type of sandstone is commonly observed in the Northeast region of Brazil, where many of these rock formations were used as support for petroglyphs. Additionally, the site in question is positioned near a water source, specifically a small lake and a temporary stream, which is likewise a recurring factor is similar sites in the region. The process of creating the petroglyphs involved the use of mixed techniques. The petroglyphs were first carved by scraping with light contact between an abrasive instrument and the rock surface. Irregularities are observed on the inner endes of the rock grooves, a result of fast movement, causing friction between the instrument and the surface. Many of the petroglyphs underwest subsequent pecking so that the ingraving line was refined by a series of continuous impacts using a sharp instrument. This complementary process resulted in small and repeated concavities of greater depth than those observed in petroglyphs made only through scraping. The preference in some instances for the scraping technique often produces shallow petroglyphs, with renders them more vulnerable to erosion, resulting in the current low visibility and legibility of many petroglyphs." (Troiano et al. 2024) Note, they report that some of the petroglyphs had been renewed or repecked. When I carefully read the authors' description of how these petroglyphs were produced I found myself in disagreement. Carving stone with "scraping with light contact" and then "fast movement, causing friction" is not a practical way to remove stone. One either grinds or pecks the surface with a harder stone. The comment about "subsequent pecking", however appears to be right on. No real blame though, kunless a person has actually worked stone they can be forgiven for not totally understanding the process.

Outcrop 1, Dinosaur footprints and petroglyphs. Illustration Troiana et al., Figure 4, 2024.

 “Concerning the morphology of the identified petroglyphs, the presence of tetrapartite or pentapartite circumferences stands out. Nevertheless, there are notable exceptions to this trend, including engravings comprised of rectangular grid structures and others resembling stars. Despite the profusion of identified petroglyphs, no overlap was observed between these inscriptions and the fossilized footprints. In none of the cases was it found that the creation of a petroglyph resulted in damage to the existing footprints, suggesting thoughtfulness by the makers. In some cases, there is an extreme proximity between petroglyphs and footprints, with some occurring immediately adjacent to the fossilized tracks. This only highlights and establishes a more profound relationship between the archaeological and paleontological records. Concerning the graphic identity, or the "set of characteristics that allow attributing a set of graphisms to a particular social authorship, it was determined that the Serrote do Letreiro site belongs to a broad set of archaeological rock art sites in the Brazilian Northeast region that present an identical repertoire of motifs, either pure or abstract, and of similar or identical execution techniques. In the first rock outcrop, located further north, it is possible to identify a higher concentration of dinosaur tracks. Reports from previous visitors to the site from the past twenty years, as well as statements from residents, indicate that until not long ago, there were a minimum of thirty such petroglyphs that were discernible on outcrop 1. The legible petroglyphs found on this outcrop consist predominantly of circles internally divided by lines and are positioned close to the footprints, in some cases as close as a distance of 10 cm.” (Troiano et al. 2024) It would appear to be important that “no overlap was observed between these inscriptions and the fossilized footprints.” This implies to me that the makers of these images carefully avoided overlapping any of the dinosaur footprints, suggesting that they were recognized as being of import.

        

Outcrop 1, Dinosaur footprints and petroglyphs. Illustration Troiana et al., Figure 5, 2024.

No culture leaves basic questions unanswered. I have written elsewhere that one thing that the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas knew well was animal tracks. So many of the tribes depended upon hunting for sustenance would have made reading tracks a priority. Finding these tracks in stone would have presented a conundrum to them – animal tracks in stone that they did not recognize. Something made those tracks, and they did not fit any of the contemporary animals that they knew. I have speculated that this would be one of the factors that led to beliefs in supernatural creatures that could have made the tracks, and once the idea of supernatural is involved such a site probably acquires ritual and spiritual importance. In the past I have referred to this as Native American Paleontology. They had their answers, just not the same ones that we had come up with. This spiritual importance led to the production of the petroglyphs, carefully avoiding the tracks.

Outcrop 3, Dinosaur footprints and petroglyphs. Illustration Troiana et al., Figure 7, 2024.

Here, the authors refer to the eloquent writings of Adrienne Mayor. “Overall, the systematic examination of interactions between humans and the fossil record, such as fossil discoveries in the pre-Columbian era, is a relatively recent scholarly endeavor. Adrienne Mayor played an important role in highlighting the evolution of this research in two significant publications: "The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times" (2000) and "Fossil Legends of the First Americans" (2013). As early as 1935, there was recognition that the discipline of paleontology is indebted to Native Americans, considering their relevant discoveries, as described by Edward M. Kindle in his notes in the Journal of Paleontology. Despite this, some prominent paleontologists, such as G. Gaylord Simpson, held the opposite view, exemplifying the paradigm that prevailed for most of that time. According to him, pre-Columbian fossil findings were occasional events and are not to be considered in the history of paleontology. Furthermore, he claimed that Native American reports were untrustworthy, being of little ethnological and no paleontological value. This hegemonic conception disregarded native contributions, arguing that fossil discoveries made by indigenous people were the mere result of chance finds, devoid of any scientific continuity (see page 26 in Mayor). Nonetheless, today, it is indisputable that Native American thought represents a distinct and valuable form of scientific reflection and inquiry. This knowledge, developed over generations, is often referred to as “Native Science”. It is important to highlight that, despite the differences between the Western Scientific Method and Native Science or Traditional Knowledge, both represent equally valid efforts to grasp, describe, and understand the reality that surrounds humans. The integration of Native science knowledge provides a valuable opportunity for academic exchange while at the same time contributing to the empowerment and inclusion of Native American voices in this sphere.” (Troiano et al. 2024)

Therapod track. Illustration Troiana et al., Figure 13A, 2024.

Petroglyph resembling a therapod track. Illustration Troiana et al., Figure 13C, 2024.

These last few lines once again provide a well presented view of what I have called Native American Paleontology. Our science might not have agreed with their conclusions, but their conclusions were valid for their world view and belief systems, and worked for them.

NOTE: Previous RockArtBlog columns on the concurrence of rock art and dinosaur tracks can be accessed through “dinosaur tracks” in the cloud index at the bottom of this column. For much more thorough descriptions of the three sites read the original paper by Troiano et al. (2024).

PRIMARY REFERENCE:

Troiano, Leonardo P., Heloísa B. dos Santos, Tito Aureliano, Aline M. Ghilardi, 2024, A remarkable assemblage of petroglyphs and Dinosaur footprints in Northeast Brazil, Nature/Scientific Reports 14:6528, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56479-3. Accessed 22 March 2024.

SECONDARY REFERENCES:

Mayor, Adrienne, 2000, The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times, Princeton University Press.

Mayor, Adrienne, 2013, Fossil Legends of the First Americans. Princeton University Press.

A NEW AMMOGLYPH (PLEISTOCENE SAND SCULPTURE) DISCOVERED IN SOUTH AFRICA:

The site of the discovery of the new ammoglyph. The arrow points to a human figure for scale. Illustration from Helm et al., 2024, Fig. 2.

On May 22, 2021, I wrote about what we might call a completely new kind of rock art discovered in South Africa. I wrote “It is not often I get to pass along news about a whole new kind of rock art, but it was with some excitement that I found this report of a team of South African researchers who have discovered ammoglyphs. These originated as human created designs in beach sand which was later turned to sandstone, preserving the markings in the process, voila - rock art.” (Faris 2021) Now we have a remarkable newly discovered ammoglyph from the Cape south coast of South Africa thought to be a figurative sculpture.

We have long been aware of prehistoric tracks preserved by later consolidation of the sandy or muddy surface they were left on. Preserved dinosaur track sites along with those of ancient animals are fairly common. More recently have come discoveries of ancient hominin and human track sites. “Aeolianites (cemented dune sands, sometimes also referred to as calcarenites) and cemented foreshore deposits on the Cape south coast of South Africa preserve not only the tracks that our hominin ancestors made on Pleistocene dunes and beaches but also other evidence of their activities. Consequently, the term ‘ammoglyph’ was coined to represent an anthropogenic pattern registeredin unconsolidated sand, which is now evident on a palaeosurface of rock. These reports complement the identification of several Pleistocene hominin tracksites on this coastline. To date, ammoglyphs have not been reported from any other region.” (Helm et al. 2024:58) My previous report (2021) concerned marks and geometric symbols that had been made in the sand which were later preserved by such cementing. These had been made on the flat two-dimensional sandy surface.

Upper surface of the new ammoglyph. Illustration from Helm et al., 2024, Fig. 3A.

The report herein cited (Helm et al. 2024) is for a three-dimensional object believed to have been created in the same way. “A purported cemented sand sculpture found in Pleistocene aeolianite deposits on the Cape south coast of South Africa resembles a stingray  (minus a tail) in outline. Symmetryis evident in the rock’s shape and the pattern of grooves on its surface. It is postulated that it may be a three-dimensional example of representational art of another species. Optically stimulated luminescence studies of rocks in the vicinity indicate that it dates to the MiddleStone Age, most probably during Marine Isotope Stage 5 (when high sea levels imply a nearby coastline). The correspondence in shape between the purported sand sculpture and the blue stingray (Dasyatis chrysonota) suggests that it may have been traced from a fresh specimen. Tracings on sand are postulated as a possible ‘stepping stone’ between abstract early palaeoart and representational rock art. Features of the rock suggest that the creation of a stingray sand sculpture may conceivably have been followed by symbolically wounding it and amputating its lethal end. Identification of further ammoglyphs will be important in refining the analysis of this newly identified form of early palaeoart.” (Helm et al. 2024:58) To clarify, they mean that marks on the back of the purported ammoglyph are thought to represent ritual wounds (or maybe just for fun, a game) of the sand sculpture, and the missing tail may have been cut off in the same way. It is also possible that the tail was originally there but as the thinnest part of the shape may have eroded away.

Lower surface (underside) of the new ammoglyph. Illustration from Helm et al., 2024, Fig. 3B.

“It was identified in 2018, close to the high-tide mark, at the base of coastal cliffs from which it had presumably been dislodged. It exhibited multiple examples of symmetry. It was noted that its shape resembled that of a stingray, and it was suggested that it might represent the preservation of a sand sculpture. Sensu strictu, the symmetrical grooves on its upper surface would be classified as an ‘ammoglyph’, and the whole feature would more accurately be described as an ‘ammo-sculpture’, but for convenience, we retain the term ‘ammoglyph’ throughout.” (Helm et al. 2024:59) Entirely reasonable as far as I am concerned. Ammo-sculpture would be a really awkward designation.

“The shape of the rock resembles that of a stingray. The arms of the cross feature intersect very close to the position of the eyes. The row of grooves may be associated with patterns evident on the dorsal surface of a species such as the blue stingray Dasyatis chrysonota. The lateral corners correspond to the position of the pectoral fins, and the protuberances on either side of the ‘posterior’ corner of the rock correspond to the position of the pelvic fins. Slight concavities on either side of the vestigial tail accentuate it. The symmetrical groove pattern also serves to orientate the sculpture on an ‘anteroposterior’ axis.” (Helm et al. 2024:64)

Blue Sting Ray, Illustration from Helm et al., 2024, Fig. 7 (illustration by Elaine Heemstra, reproduced from NISC – SAIAB).

The authors explain their reasoning in designating the shape as a sculpture. “The concept that the initial stage in creating the purported sand sculpture involved tracing the outline of a fresh stingray is unprovable. However, it is suggested by the near-perfect outline and proportions. The close correspondence in shape suggests that the artist was phenomenally gifted in recording such detail, or the image was traced. If it was traced, the disc width of ~30 cm implies it was a male or small immature female. Given the fact that large females enter shallow southern Cape waters to pup in summer and then mate with smaller males, the inference is that the purported sand sculpture was probably based on a small male rather than an immature female.” (Helm et al. 2024:67) This would seem to add plausibility to their argument, however, can we know that stingrays behaved the same way in the same locality back then as they do now?

Tail stub end of ammoglyph seen from top side and bottom side. Illustration from Helm et al., 2024, Fig. 5.

“The possibility that the combination of multiple symmetrical features is due to chance alone is, in our view, remote. The findings most plausibly represent a sand sculpture from the MSA, dated to MIS 5e. The close correspondence in shape between the sand sculpture and the blue stingray suggests that it may have been traced from a fresh specimen. In such an interpretation, the symmetrical pattern of surface grooves may be related to the features on the dorsal surface of the blue stingray and serves to orientate it along an anteroposterior axis. Extending this interpretation, the posterior stub would represent what remains of the tail portion, which may have been removed prior to burial in an act of symbolic wounding. The asymmetrical features may be incidental, for which an anthropogenic origin cannot be asserted, although the ‘gouge’, directed towards the tail, may also represent symbolic wounding. If such postulates are valid, the sand sculpture would qualify as the oldest known representational art of another species.” (Helm et al 2024:59-60)

3-D photogrammetry model of the upper surface of the purported sand sculpture. Illustration from Helm et al., 2024, Fig. 6.

The reference (above) to MIS 5e refers to "Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5e, called the Eemian (Ipswichian in Britain) around 124,000 - 119,000 years ago - the last interglacial period before the present (Holocene)." (Wikipedia)

This type of sculpture reminds me first of all of the clay bison found in the cave of Tuc d’Audoubert or the clay bear sculpture in Montespan cave in France. Both of these examples were involved in some sort of rituals, so it is perhaps inevitable that Helm et al. also speculate a ritual purpose for the sand sculpture of a sting ray. Whatever the case if really is a fascinating discovery and may anticipate more such remarkable discoveries.

REFERENCE:

Faris, Peter 2021,  A Whole New Type of Rock Art – Ammoglyphs, 22 May 2021. https://rockartblog.blogspot.com.

Helm, Charles W., Andrew S. Carr, Hayley C. Cawthra, Paul D. Cowley, Jan C. De Vynck, Pieter-Jan Gräbe, Renée Rust, Willo Stear and Alan K. Whitfield, 2024, A Purported Pleistocene Sand Sculpture from South Africa, Rock Art Research 2024,  Volume 41, Number 1, pp. 58-73. Accessed online 9 April 2024.

Wikipedia, Marine Isotope Stage 5, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Isotope_Stage_5 . Accessed online 16 April 2024.