IS THERE A WOOLY RHINOCEROS PETROGLYPH IN THE GRAND CANYON?

Wolly rhinoceros. Online image, public domain.

On 10 January 2015 I published a column on RockArtBlog about the Doheny Expedition to the Grand Canyon to record petroglyphs of dinosaurs. In this column I wrote “This expedition was led by Samuel Hubbard, director of the expedition and an honorary curator of archaeology at the Museum (The Oakland Museum, Oakland, California), and accompanied by Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology at the United States National Museum. The report on this expedition was written by Hubbard and published on January 26, 1925.” (Faris 2015) I tend to be quite critical of creationists and all of their claims such as ‘dinosaurs and humans living together in history.’ In order for there to be a petroglyph of a dinosaur most people would expect that dinosaurs had to be alive at the same time that there was a human artist to record it. Although there is the possibility that the petroglyph could have been the result of a prehistoric interpretation of fossil remains, that strikes me as unlikely.

The Moab petroglyph, Doheny expedition report, p. 27. Photo by Mr. Kelly of Grand Junction, Colorado, 1925.

The Moab petroglyph as seen today showing re-pecking. Photograph Dell Crandall, 2004.

Then, I continued “On page 27 of the report is the astonishing claim that the petroglyph found along the Colorado River near Moab, Utah, and often called the “Moab Mastodon” is really the picture of a wooly rhinoceros. Hubbard wrote: ‘A PREHISTORIC GAME TRAIL: From the Grand Canyon in southern Utah comes another remarkable petroglyph. This was photographed and sent to me by Mr. George Kelly of Grand Junction, Colorado. The outline of the figure was so faint that he was obliged to chalk it in to secure a satisfactory photograph. There is not the slightest question in my mind that this was intended to represent a rhinoceros. All the ‘rhino’ character is present. The menacing horn; the prehensile upper lip; the short tail; the heavy body and short legs, all suggest a ‘rhino’ about to charge. This is the first time it has ever been known that prehistoric man in America was contemporary with the rhinoceros. I have before me an outline of a wooly rhinoceros sketched by an artist-hunter on the limestone wall of the Cavern of Les Combarelles in France. The difference between the two is that the Cro-Magnon hunter shows the ears of his ‘rhino’ erect and pointed forward, while the American artist shows the ears turned over. I venture the prediction that there was that difference in the two animals.’ The photograph illustrating this claim shows the “Moab Mastodon” as it was prior to 1925. How much prior we cannot know because Hubbard does not reveal when he actually received the photo from Mr. Kelly of Grand Junction, Colorado. What I find very interesting is that this early photo allows us to compare with the same petroglyph as it is presently found. The first time I visited the “Moab Mastodon” I suspected that the figure had been seriously re-pecked as the patina across its torso seemed to me to show a suspicious variability. Indeed, comparing a new photo of that image with the pre-1925 photo suggests that the torso has indeed seen a major episode of touchup. This could possibly be a relic of the conditions under which it was originally photographed, so I cannot claim this to be any kind of definitive proof. The other major problem that I found with the “Moab Mastodon” was that it shows definite toes or claws. Checking those features in the 1925 photo they seem to be even slenderer and more defined. These are definitely not the feet of either an elephant or a rhinoceros.” (Faris 2015) I have elsewhere stated that while I do not believe we will ever be sure, I think that the so-called ‘Moab Mastodon’ is likely a bear with a large fish in its mouth.

So-called Wooly rhinoceros petroglyph in the Grand Canyon. Photograph by Jennifer Hatcher.

Now we have another report of a petroglyph of a wooly rhinoceros, this one actually from the Grand Canyon. In 2020 Ray Urbaniak wrote in Pleistocene Coalition News: “Jennifer Hatcher is a high stamina Grand Canyon, Arizona, rock art photographer whose pictures of rarely-depicted animals I have featured in two earlier articles, with what resembled a saiga antelope and with what resembled a peccary. Jennifer recently sent me a couple of new photos also taken in the Grand Canyon. One photo, which she described as a ‘bison,’ caught my attention right away. However, it didn’t strike me as a bison but I wasn’t sure what else it could be until I noticed what appeared to be a small horn near the middle of what is the presumed ‘head.’ I then thought it looked strikingly like a wooly rhinoceros – and extinct animal known for one long horn on the snout and a smaller horn farther back.” (Urbaniak 2020) The photograph in question shows what appears to be a quadrupedal animal of some sort although quite crudely done as no legs are shown. In the area presumed to be the head on the right there are two projections; a large curled on at the end, and a smaller one a little way in from the right end. I assume Hatcher called it a bison thinking the larger projection was a horn and the smaller an ear.

Wooly rhinoceros from Chauvet Cave, France. Online image, public domain.

Another Wooly rhinoceros from Chauvet Cave, France. Online image, public domain.

We now have one major problem in this identification. All of the references I could I could find agree that the wooly rhinoceros never lived in the Americas. “By the end of the Riss glaciations about 130,000 years ago, the woolly rhinoceros lived throughout northern Eurasia, spanning most of Europe, the Russian Plain, Siberia, and the Mongolian Plateau, ranging to extremes of 72˚to 33˚ N. Fossils have been found as far north as the New Siberian Islands. Even during the very warm Eemian interglacial, the range of the woolly rhinoceros extended into temperate regions such as Poland. It had the widest range of any rhinoceros species. It seemingly did not cross the Bering land bridge during the last ice age (which connected Asia to North America), with its easterly-most occurrence at the Chukotka Peninsula, probably due to the low grass density and lack of suitable habitat in the Yukon combined with competition from other large herbivores on the frigid land bridge.” (Wikipedia)

Wooly rhinoceros image from Les Combarelles Cave, France. Online image, public domain.

So, it would seem that we are faced with two possibilities; either there were wooly rhinoceroses in the Americas and we have just not found the fossil evidence yet, or this is another misidentification of a Grand Canyon petroglyph. For the first possibility, if there were actually wooly rhinoceroses in the Americas people would have arrived before their disappearance so they would have been able to see them, but, lacking any fossil evidence to back that up, I have to assume that this just is another case of misidentification. I will add another possibility to the mix, perhaps, as in the case of the Moab Mastodon, this is also meant to be a bear eating a fish and the smaller projection is meant to be an ear. All in all, it is an interesting question, but I am pretty sure it would not be accepted as proven in a court of law.

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:

Faris, Peter, 2015, Is There a Wooly Rhinoceros Petroglyph Near Moab, Utah?, 10 January 2015, https://rockartblog.blogspot.com.

Urbaniak, Ray, 2020, Possible Wooly Rhinoceros Petroglyph, Pleistocene Coalition News, edited by John Feliks, Volume 12, Issue 6, November/December 2020. Accessed online 30 September 2024.

Wikipedia, Wooly Rhinoceros, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooly_rhinoceros. Accessed online 30 September 2024.

PREHISTORIC SPECIES IDENTIFICATION FROM CAVE IMAGERY:

European Steppe Bison. Illustratuon by Constantine Fierow, 1989, from Pinterest.

I have written previously in RockArtBlog that rock art in general, and cave art in particular, might provide insights into extinct animals that otherwise are only known from fossils. Of course, in the past decade or so, DNA analysis has reached the point that quite an amazing amount of knowledge can be gleaned from those fossils. However, I believe that having good art showing a subject can also help in the understanding of the real creature. A paper published in 2016 by a team of researchers led by Julien Soubrier of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA at the University of Adelaide described the DNA discovery of a new species of bison, only to find it already pictured on the painted cave walls in Europe.

Aurochs. Internet image, public domain.

In 2016 Soubrier wrote that “the two living species of bison (European and American) are among the few terrestrial megafauna to have survived the late Pleistocene extinctions. Despite the extensive bovid fossil record in Eurasia, the evolutionary history of the European bison (or wisent, Bison bonasus) before the Holocene (<11.7 thousand years ago (kya)) remains a mystery. We use complete ancient mitochondrial genomes and genome-wide nuclear DNA surveys to reveal that the wisent is the product of hybridization between the extinct steppe bison (Bison priscus) and ancestors of modern cattle (aurochs, Bos primigenius) before 120 kya, and contains up to 10% aurochs genomic ancestry. Although undetected within the fossil record, ancestors of the wisent have alternated ecological dominance with steppe bison in association with major environmental shifts since at least 55 kya. Early cave artists recorded distinct morphological forms consistent with these replacement events, around the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, ~21–18 kya).” (Soubrier et al. 2016:1)

Wisent, the product of hybridization between the extinct steppe bison (Bison priscus) and aurochs, (Bos primigenius). Internet image, public domain.

Over the millennia that early humans inhabited Europe there were swings in climate between glacial and non-glacial which affected the biome. These early humans recorded some of those changes in the images they created.

Painted aurochs from Lascaux Cave. Internet image, public domain.

‘More than 30,000 years ago, early cave artists in what is now southwestern France ventured deep underground into limestone caves, where they painted elaborate and detailed frescoes of the huge animals that dominated their lives. The accuracy of the depictions was remarkable – far better than most of us could manage crouched under a sloping damp wall under the flickering light cast by flaming bundles of vegetation and fat. The paintings record a world of cave lions, mammoth, bison and horses, which we are only just beginning to unravel using the combined technologies of ancient DNA and radiocarbon dating. The results show that despite studying cave art for hundreds of years, we have been blind to some of the important stories the artists were telling.” (Cooper and Soubrier 2016) This is, of course, due to the modern jingoistic assumption that these Paleolithic peoples were primitive and unsophisticated, an assumption that we are finally beginning to understand as seriously wrong.

Painted wisent, Altamira Cave, Spain. Image from newworldencyclopedia.org, public domain

“Our research is a case in point. We have used ancient DNA from fossil bones to deduce the existence of a newly discovered bison species – only to discover that it was already recorded on the walls of caves across Europe, such as in Niaux Cave in southwestern France 17,000 years ago.” (Cooper and Soubrier 2016)

Cave painting of a Steppe Bison from Niaux Cave, France. Image from Bradshaw Foundation.

“Since the DNA from our ancient bones was neither Steppe bison nor wisent, we appeared to have found a new species - or had we? We started referring to it as the “Higgs bison”, because – just like the elusive Higgs boson which physicists spent decades tracking down – we had surmised the existence of something without knowing what it looked like.” (Cooper and Soubrier 2016) This would appear to be the result of a kind of compartmentalization in scholarship, the idea that only we know the truth about whatever it is we are studying. While art historians knew of the differences in the images of bison we did not actually know the cause, while the scientists had hints of the cause but had no idea that the images existed.

Comparative morphology of Steppe bison and Wisent. Image from Soubriere et al., 2016, page 2.

Once the research was made more public other data began to come in that would help clarify the situation. “Dutch colleagues reported that among the many Steppe bison and Aurochs bones dredged from the North Sea they had noticed another, less common, smaller animal. Meanwhile, French cave art researchers replied that they had noticed that among the cave drawings were two distinct forms of bison: a wedge-shaped one with big horns, rather like a modern American bison; and a more evenly shaped animal with smaller horns, like a modern wisent.” (Cooper and Soubrier 2016) In other words, putting the genetic evidence together with the differences in stylistic representation of bison in the caves of southern France and northern Spain the researchers discovered that pictures of the different species actually existed and could be studied.

Cave painting of Wisent, Font-de Gaume Cave, France.

Image from musee prehistoire-eyzies.fr.

The DNA studies of fossil bison from the Paleolithic period indicated that steppe bison and aurochs had interbred and led to the hybrid species of bison and the ancestor of the wisent. “Combined evidence from genomic data, paleoenvironmental reconstructions and cave paintings strongly suggest that the hybridization of steppe bison with an ancient aurochs lineage during the late Pleistocene led to a morphologically and ecologically distinct form, which maintained its integrity and survived environmental changes on the European landscape until modern times. Although further analyses of deeper ancient genome sequencing will be necessary to characterize the phenotypic consequences of such hybridization, this adds to recent evidence of the importance of hybridization as a mechanism for speciation and adaptation of mammals as is already accepted for plants. Lastly, the paraphyly of Bos with respect to Bison, and the evidence of meaningful hybridization between aurochs and bison, support the argument that both groups should be combined under the genus Bos.” (Soubrier et al. 2016:1) The new bison species, a result of hybridization of had been noticed by cave art researchers as a different body shape and horn length. Their question of whether it was a different animal, or a different style of portrayal, was answered by the DNA studies confirming a new bison. In this way both fields, genetics and art history, combined to confirm each other’s findings. How great is that?

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:

Cooper, Alan, and Julien Soubrier, 2016, How we disovered the ‘Higgs bison’, hiding in plain sight in ancient cave art, 18 October 2016, https://theconversation.com. Accessed online 7 September 2024.

Soubrier, Julien et al., 2016, Early cave art and ancient DNA record of the origin of European bison, 18 October 2016, Nature Communications, DOI:10.1038/ncomms13158, www.nature.com/naturecommunications.