CARVED STONE MODEL LANDSCAPES – PART 2:

This is the second part of my column on Carved Stone Model Landscapes.

Jemez mountains, New Mexico. Internet image, public domain. (Image sharpened with chatGPT)

There are examples of boulders carved to resemble landscapes much closer to home as well. In 2017 Rory P. Gauthier and Emily J. Brown published a paper about carved landscapes on the Pajarito Plateau in New Mexico. These were carved into volcanic tuff boulders. The first one described was on the Tsankawi Unit of Bandelier National Monument.  “LA 65742 is known as Doll House, an apt name.  It is situated at the base of an unnamed mesa separating Los Alamos Canyon from Pueblo Canyon in the Tsankawi Unit of Bandelier National Monument.  It consists of three carved tuff boulders.  The most elaborate is the Doll House—a boulder .8 x 1 m in size carved with two ascending roads leading to a house with five or six stories that is 50 x 50 cm square.  Two staircases have been carved into the northeast and southwest ends of the house; of all the carved boulders we documented, this is the only one that exhibited stairs. They lend credence to the interpretation that it represents a miniature pueblo, and it is somewhat reminiscent of North House at Taos Pueblo.” (Gauthier and Brown 2017:93-94)

The Doll House, Gauthier and Brown, 2017, Figure 8, Feature 12, page 95, Hannaford Site, New Mexico. (Image sharpened with chatGPT)

The next two examples are found in a large site that Gauthier and Brown refer to as the Hannaford Site. “Named for archaeologist Charles Hannaford (who, as a small boy, played around this cluster of carved boulders on the rim of Pueblo Canyon) and situated on the south rim of Pueblo Canyon, the Hannaford Site has two loci separated by a residential street.” (Gauthier and Brown 2017:95)

Gauthier and Brown, 2017, Figure 7, Feature 5, page 97, Hannaford Site, New Mexico. drawing Jeff Brown. (Image sharpened with chatGPT)

The one they identify as feature 5 resembles a stereotypical pueblo. “Two features in particular are remarkable for the extent of the carving and their representational qualities.  Feature 5, titled Home Sweet Home, is a large bedrock boulder with an extensive complex of roads, courtyards or plazas, and houses, some of which are multistory. The buildings vary in shape and are rectangular, triangular, D-shaped, L-shaped, or simply irregular.  A small hole on the north side of the rock may be a purposefully carved cavate; it is 8 cm in diameter.  The boulder would appear to represent an entire village or pueblo.” (Gauthier and Brown 2017:95)

The Inca House, Gauthier and Brown, 2017, Figure 8, Feature 12, page 98, Hannaford Site, New Mexico. drawing Jeff Brown. (Image sharpened with chatGPT)

Then Gauthier and Brown’s feature 12 was named for its resemblanc e to the Inca carved boulders showing agricultural terraces. “We called Feature 12 Inca House for its resemblance to extensively terraced Inca agricultural sites.  Made up of three tuff bedrock boulders, the feature lacks the road and house creations carved into so many of the other boulders at the site.  Instead, the large boulder was carved with ten levels of terraces over an area 3.5 x 1.8 m in size. They generally follow the contours of the rock, but employ straight lines and angled corners rather than curves to do so.  The much smaller ancillary boulder to the southeast has three incised pits.  On the west side, another smaller boulder exhibits a deeply carved road or cleft that angles directly toward a small cavity in the main boulder that may represent a cavate.”  (Gauthier and Brown 2017:95) Gauthier and Brown’s ‘Inca House’ very much resembles the examples found in the Sondondo Valley of Peru.

They note a number of other examples of worked boulders and bedrock at this Hannaford Site but their descriptions of these sound much more like traditional rock art with carved faces, lines, and pathways. Based upon lichen growth on the carvings and dendochronological dating of a fir tree growing out of a crack in a boulder with signs of carving on it Gauthier and Brown assign a tentative date of between 1910 and 1940 to the carved models. (Gauthier and Brown 2017:103)

Trail and steps worn into volcanic tuff by foot traffic. Internet photograph, public domain.

So, who made these? They appear to be fairly young and show tool marks that imply metal tools. “Manufacturing techniques: Some of the features at the Tsankawi sites and those located on the rim of Los Alamos Canyon exhibit manufacturing scars indicative of metal tool use.  Many of the features are sufficiently eroded to give no indication of manufacture techniques, but given the soft nature of tuff, the stone can even be shaped with a sharp stick. Obviously the marks left by metal tools (possibly a hatchet or chisel and the claw of a hammer or crowbar) indicate a historic date of manufacture.” (Gauthier and Brown 2017:103)

There was a private school that might have been implicated in the creation of the carved stones. “We believe the most likely suspects were students from the Los Alamos Ranch School.  The school catered to young men from east coast, well to-do families, and endorsed outdoor activities— favoring horseback riding, camping, and hiking— as well as academics. The school was established in 1917 and closed in 1943 when it was taken over by the United States Army for the Manhattan project.  This is the same timeframe in which our research suggests the model villages were created. In addition to matching the timeframe, there are other lines of evidence that point to the students at the Ranch School.  The horseback riding and hiking that were part of the school’s curriculum utilized a number of local trails and roads for these activities, including a trail that entered Pueblo Canyon near the location of the Hannaford site, the Breakneck Trail that entered Los Alamos Canyon, and the original road to Los Alamos, all of which gave access to the Tsankawi area.”  (Gauthier and Brown 2017:105). This school, dedicated to healthy outdoor activities and college preparation was where Los Alamos is today. “The students lived near the Hannaford Site, had easy access to it, and probably used the area as a place to get away from the daily regimentation of the school. They would also have had the time to create the many boulder sculptures. During their outdoor activities, the students would have had access to the Tsankawi Unit as well. In addition, the students would have traveled in the northern Rio Grande region and would have been familiar with nearby Native American and Hispanic settlements as well as the Ancestral Pueblo site of Puye and those located at Frijoles Canyon, Tsankawi and Otowi. They therefore would have had the knowledge of the local architecture and could have recreated these details in their sculptures.” (Gauthier and Brown 2017:106)

I would be very interested to find more material on these carved stones. If any of my readers have images or knowledge of them please contact RockArtBlog. Thank you.

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:

Christie, Jessica Joyce, 2012, A New Look at Q’enqo as a Model of Inka Visual Representation, Reproduction, and Spatial Structure, Ethnohistory 59:3 (Summer 2012). DOI 10.1215/00141801-1587478.

Cmielewski, Bartlomiej et al., 2020, Digital close-range photogrammetry of El Fuerte de Samaipata, Architectus, Vol. 2, No. 62, pp. 35-42. DOI:10.37190/arc200206. Accessed online 30 September 2026.

Gauthier, Rory P., and Emily J. Brown, 2017, Does Size Really Matter? Carved Boulders on the Pajarito Plateau, pp. 91-107, from Parallel Passions, A Life Together in Archaeology, Papers in Honor of Karl W. Laumbach and Toni S. Laumbach, Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Volume 43, Edited by Emily J. Brown, Carol J. Condie, and Helen K. Crotty.                                 

Nina, Freddy Leon, and Antonio Pizarro Ñahui, 2025, Petroglyphs and Pictographs: Interpretation of rock art linked to water sources, terraces and astronomy, Kazakhstan Archeology 2 (28), https://doi.org/10.52967/akz2025.2.28.159.180. Accessed online 24 September 2026.

Pazstory, Esther, 1998, Pre-Columbian Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Powell, Eric A., 2026, Cultivating Fields of Stone, Archaeology, Vol. 79, No. 5, pp. 36-41.

Wikipedia, El Fuerte de Samaipata, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Fuerte_de_Samaipata

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.

3D IMAGES ON ROCK PROJECTIONS:

Large and small faces on projecting corners of rock, Three Rivers Petroglyph Site, New Mexico. Photograph by Peter Faris.

We are used to thinking about rock art as being created on the flat face of a cliff, boulder or cave wall. There are many examples, however, where the image is carved or painted on an uneven surface, not just rough, but over or around a projection of the rock face. In many instances this seems to be an attempt to create a three-dimensional image.

Closeup of the small face on a projecting corner of rock, Three Rivers Petroglyph Site, New Mexico. Photograph by Peter Faris.

At the Three Rivers petroglyphs site in New Mexico there are a number of human face petroglyphs. They are not as ornate as many from the Rio Grande area so it is not clear whether they are intended to represent masks or not. Some of them, however, have been carved around the corner of a boulder in a seemingly intentional effort at three-dimensional imagery. These images were carved by the Jornada Mogollon people between about 900 and 1300 CE.

By its very nature rock art is produced on generally uneven surfaces so there is some depth variation in most examples. This seems different, however, this looks very much like the corners of boulders were sought out to carve the faces on to produce the three-dimensional effect.

'Corner Mask', 3D face on a rock projection. Photograph provided by Margaret Berrier.

DStretch enhancement of the 'Corner Mask', 3D face on a rock projection. Photograph provided by Margaret Berrier.

Margaret Berrier (personal communication 2026) described these faces as “corner masks” and provided me with pictures of one that she has in her possession, adding she knows of another one. I am not completely comfortable with designating many of the faces at Three Rivers as masks. They lack much of the decorative detail found in acknowledge mask images from elsewhere in the southwest. I rather think that some of them are simply meant to be faces, perhaps portraits. Of course, if they have the added details they can and will, of course, be defined as masks. 

Face on a projecting corner of rock, Three Rivers Petroglyph Site, New Mexico. Photograph from pinterest.

At the Three Rivers Site government signage identifies the makers of the imagery as Mogollon people, various other references use the phrase Jornada. In fact the people of the region of the Tularosa Basin, which the Three Rives Petroglyph Site is on the edge of, are referred to as Jornada Mogollon so the terms seem to be used almost interchangeably.

Face on a projecting corner of rock, Three Rivers Petroglyph Site, New Mexico. Photograph by Peter Faris.

In his 1998 book ‘Signs of Life: rock art of the Upper Rio Grande’, Dennis Slifer calls the petroglyphs of faces found in the Upper Rio Grand ‘masks.’ “Apparently the masks represented ancestral spirits, similar to the kachinas of the modern Pueblo people. Consequently, the meanings must have been similar to those of Hopi, Zuni, and other pueblos in the Upper Rio Grande region.” (Slifer 1998:188) As I said above, however, Slifer’s masks usually have more detail and decorative elements than the faces at Three Rivers.

Face on a projecting corner of rock, Three Rivers Petroglyph Site, New Mexico. Photograph by Peter Faris.

Polly Schaafsma (1992) somewhat splits the difference as she refers to “Masks and faces are featured in both Jornada Style paintings and petroglyphs. These elements are only occasional in western Jornada Style sites, including the Mimbres Valley, but figure more prominently in the rock art of the Rio Grande Valley and the Tularosa Basin” (p.67). Schaafsma has also recognized the phenomenon of faces on rock corner and projections, stating “Variations on the mask themes are faces lacking outlines and masks carved on rock angles. The latter, in which the corner becomes the nose region or the most prominent part of the face, are not unusual.” (p.67) Polly’s description here is right on, when the faces are produced around the corner of the rock the nose is generally right on the angle.

Face on a projecting corner of rock, Three Rivers Petroglyph Site, New Mexico. Photograph by Peter Faris.

Joan Price (2018:185) presented a couple of interesting theories about the possible reason for these corner depictions at Three Rivers. “Innumerable glyphs of faces and maps span smooth or sharp corners of single stones with facial directional orientation or continual lines, chains of simple visual elements, feet, animal tracks and more. These wrap around stones were termed ‘animated canvas’. Concave or convex surfaces selected for glyphs take into consideration the play of light and/or dark over the course of a day suggesting a core   concept in Puebloan and other indigenous languages of balance between opposing forces within a person and a stone that emphasizes that idea.” (Price 2018:185) First she suggests that they were produced to emphasize the effects of light on the differing angles of the rock, and second that this is related to the concept of opposition between dark and light, winter and summer, etc. that is so prevalent in the beliefs of people in the American southwest.

I wish I could present numerous examples of these faces from many other sites, but alas, I cannot. Although I have found records of some outside of this area there do not seem to be any locations with anywhere near this large a concentration.  In this case it seems to have been primarily a local idea that came and went with the Jornada people in the area of the Three Rivers Petroglyph Site (either that, or there are just a whole lot of them that I have not been able to find records for). And anyone who does have this information please let me know. In either case, the prevalence of them at this location lead me to conclude that the carvers of these faces were purposely giving them three dimensions in their portrayals in an attempt to make them more lifelike.

REFERENCES:

Berrier, Margaret, personal communication, February 2026.

Price, Joan E., 2018, Clay and Stone: Petroglyphs at Three Rivers Petroglyph Site Compared with Mimbres Ceramic Painted Bowls, pp. 177-192, in Collected Papers from the 20^th Biennial Mogollon Archaeology Conference, October 11-13, 2018, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, edited by Lonnie C. Ludeman. Accessed online 17 December 2025.

Schaafsma, Polly, 1992, Rock Art in New Mexico, Museum of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Slifer, Dennis, 1998, Signs of Life: rock art of the Upper Rio Grande, Ancient City Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

HUMAN INTERACTION WITH GIANT GROUND SLOTHS:

Artist's rendition of human interacting with a Giant Ground Sloth. Image from www.extinctanimals.org.

One of the iconic megafauna of the Paleolithic period is the Giant Ground Sloth with more than a dozen related species of Giant Ground Sloths distributed throughout North and South America. Ground Sloths ranged in size from small, just a few pounds, to the truly giant Megatherium. Interest in Megatherium began centuries ago, President Thomas Jefferson had tasked Lewis and Clark to attempt to locate them in the West on their journey of exploration.

Human with Giant Ground Sloth skeleton. Internet image, public domain.

“Megalonyx, which means ‘giant claw’, was a widespread North American genus that lived past the close of the last Wisconsin glaciations, when so many large mammals died out. Remains have been found as far north as Alaska and the Yukon. Ongoing excavations at Tarkio Valley in southwestern Iowa may reveal something of the familial life of Megalonyx. An adult was found in direct association with two juveniles of different ages, suggesting that adults cared for young of different generations. The earliest known North American Megalonychid, Pliometanastes protistus, lived in the southern U.S. about 9 million years ago and is believed to have been the predecessor on Megalonyx. Several species of Megalonyx have been named; in fact it has been stated that ‘nearly every good specimen has been described as a different species.’ A broader perspective on the group, accounting for age, sex, individual and geographic differences, indicates that only three species are valid (M. leptostomus, M. wheatleyi, and M. jeffersonii) in the late Pliocene and Pleistocene of North America, although work by McDonald lists five species. Jefferson’s ground sloth has a special place in modern paleontology, for Thomas Jefferson’s letter on Megalonyx, read before the American Philosophical Society of Philadelphia in August 1796, marked the beginning of vertebrate paleontology in North America. When Lewis and Clark set out, Jefferson instructed Meriwether Lewis to keep an eye out for ground sloths. He was hoping they would find some living in the Western range. Megalonyx jeffersonii was appropriately named after Thomas Jefferson.” (Wikipedia)

"The earliest megatherid in North America was Eremotherium eomigrans whish arrived 2.2 million years ago, after crossing the recently formed Panamanian land bridge. With more than five tons in weight, 6 meters in length, and able to reach as high as 17 feet (5.2 m), it was larger than an African bush elephant bull. Unlike relatives, this species retained a plesiomorphic extra claw. While other species of Eremotherium had four fingers with only two or three claws, E. eomigrans had five fingers, four of them with claws up to nearly a foot long." (Wikipedia)

We now have a number of lines of proof of human interaction with Giant Ground Sloths. Speaking on the PBS Newshour about the recent discovery of Paleolithic footprints at White Sands of both animals (including megafauna) and humans, David Bustos of White Sands National Park stated "We were brushing out a set of sloth prints, and Matthew found the human pring right iside the middle of the sloth print. And that's sort of sealed the deal, Oh, yes, you definitely have the megafauna and humans together. So that's sort of where the the human side of the story all began." (Sy and Jackson 2022)  

"A human footprint is shown above with a raised heel mark inside the larger, curved footprint of a giant sloth. Below, researchers mapped the sloth and human tracks to re-create the chase scene, with 'flailing circles' to mark where the the animal reared up on two feet to defend itself."  Illustration from Garisto, 2018.

"Tests of sediment showed the sloth and human prints were made at the same time. An analysis of the track also suggested the two species were interacting with one another. 'We're getting a view into the past, of an interaction between two species,' says Sally Reynolds, a paleontologist at Bournemouth University in Poole, England. ' This was a moment of action, a moment of drama.' Raynolds, Bustos and their colleagues reconstructed the chase. Humans stalked a sloth, of several sloths, which the hunters surrounded in the open. At seven places, a sloth reared up on its hind legs - towering over the humans - to fendd off an attack. But the chase continued, with the humans in hot pursuit. The encounter 'wasn't luck or happenstance; it was cold calculation,' Reynolds says. 'Our intention was to kill them.' The trail of footprints ends, though, and it's not clear who came out victorious." (Garisto 2018) This would have been a windfall of food for the Paleolithic hunters, although difficult to procure.

So, we now have evidence of humans tracking and hunting Giant Ground Sloths, is there any other evidence of interactions? "The Santa Elina rock shelter in Central Brazil shows evidence of successive human settlements from around the last glacial maximum (LGM) to the Early Holocene. Two Pleistocene archaeological layers include rich lithic industry associated with remains of the extinct giant ground sloth Glossotherium phoenesis. The remains include thousands of osteoderms (i.e. dermal bones), three of which were human modified." (Pansani et al. 2023)

Giant Ground Sloth osteoderms drilled and polished for use as adornment. Images from Pansani et al., 2023.

In this case the term modified means holes drilled in the osteoderms, apparently for use as jewelry. The modifications include the drilling of the holes as well as polishing. "We document the smoothing of the surface; traces of stone tool interaction with bone, including incisions and scars, scraping marks, scratches, percussion notches; polish and gloss; use-wear smoothing of the rim and the attachment systems. - Unmodified mylodontid osteoderms show a naturally rough external surface, notably different from the smooth polished surfaces of the three human-modified osteoderms. Among the thousands of fossil osteoderms on the site, the perforated and polished state of the three osteoderms studied here is exceptional." (Pansani et al. 2023)

So now, in addition to apparent hunting of Giant Ground Sloths by early human inhabitants, we have the use of parts of the animal for adornment. 

Panel and close-up of the image from La Lindosa, Colombia of what is assumed to represent an adult and juvenile Giant Ground Sloth interacting with humans. Online image, public domain.

My final example of human interaction with Giant Ground Sloths comes from a painted cliff in Colombia. Among the recently recorded pictographs at the remarkable site of La Lindosa in Columbia is a figure that has been identified as a Giant Ground Sloth. "The animal is accompanied by an offspring and surrounded by animated miniature men, some of whom extend their arms towards the painting. The relationship of the animal with the men appears to be central to the artist's message." (Irarte et al. 2020) This could almost be considered a visual illustration of the interactions recorded at the White Sands track site of human interaction with one or more ground sloths. Identification of this animal as a Giant Ground Sloth is apparently based on body and head shape, the relative length of front and rear legs, and an emphasis on the toes and claws projecting from the feet. It is being shown with an offspring is reminiscent of the Iowa discovery of an adult skeleton with two juveniles referenced above from Wikipedia.

Given the size of these creatures, and the length of their claws, they would have been formidable prey for early human residents in the New World.

NOTE 1: 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.

NOTE 2: I have recollections in the past of having seen a photograph of a petroglyph of an animal in Brazil somewhere that had been identified as a Giant Ground Sloth. But, apologies, I have been unable to relocate it. If anyone knows of such a picture please share it with me for posting on RockArtBlog.

REFERENCES:

Garisto, Dan, 2018. Footprints prove humans hunted giant sloths during the Ice Age, 25 April 2018, https://www.sciencenews.org. Accessed online 3 January 2024.

Irarte, Jose, et al., 2022, Ice Age megafauna rock art in the Columbian Amazon?, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0496.

Pansani, Thais R. et al., 2023, Evidence of artefacts made of giant sloth bones in central Brazil around the last glacial maximum, Published online by Royal Society Publishing, 12 July 2023, DOI:10.1098/rspb.2023.0316. Accessed online 20 Novmeber 2023.

Sy, Stephanie, and Lena I. Jackson, 2022, Ancient Footprints in New Mexico raise questions about when humans inhabited North America, 4 April 2022, PBS Newshour, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/ancient-footprints-in-new-mexico-raise-questions-about-when-humans-inhabited-north-america#transcript. Accessed online 9 February 2024.

ARE THERE IMAGES OF SUPERNOVAS IN ROCK ART?

 

Chaco Canyon, Penasco Blanco trail, San Juan county, New Mexico. Photograph Peter Faris, May 1994.

Everyone who is interested in archeoastronomy knows about the proposed pictographic record of the supernova of A.D. 1054 in Chaco Canyon. The triad of the handprint, starburst, and what is assumed to be a crescent moon have become famous. These claims have even proliferated. A number of other combinations of crescents and what might represent stars in the American West have been declared to be records of that supernova.

Crescent and Sun, Arroyo del Parral, Crosby, Baja California. From The Cave Paintings of Baja California, Harry W. Crosby, 1984, p. 36, Copley Press, La Jolla, CA.

In 2015, astronomer E.C. Krupp wrote "Star and crescent combinations in rock art in the American Southwest were first interpreted in 1955 as eyewitness depictions of the 1054 AD Supernova explosion that produced the Crab nebula. While the Crab nebula is visible only telescopically, the event that generated it was brilliant, and for a time only the Sun and Moon were brighter. Additional Crab supernova candidates in California and Southwestern rock art were suggested 20 years later, and they included Chaco Canyon's Penasco Blanco pictograph panel, which became the poster child for Crab supernova rock art and is now called 'Supernova' on signage at the site. By 1979, a list of 21 Crab supernova rock art sites was assembled, and the inventory has continued to expand more slowly since then." (Krupp (A) 2015:167)

Possible representations of the AD 1054 supernova. Left to right: El Parral, Baja California; White Mesa, Arizona; Navajo Canyon, Arizona; Chaco Canyon, New Mexico; from "The Cave Paintings of Baja California", Harry W. Crosby, 1997, p. 227, Sunbelt Publications, San Diego, CA.

And in a second piece in 2015 Krupp wrote - “Astronomical studies of rock art began in the American Southwest, in 1955. William C. Miller, a staff member at Mount Wilson and Palomar observatories, initiated this research with a report on the pairing of a “star” symbol with a crescent at two different rock art sites in northern Arizona. He also suggested both panels might depict the Crab supernova of 1054 AD, a conspicuous event which was recorded at the time by official astronomers in China and Japan. Miller’s work was never forgotten by the astronomers, but astronomical interpretation of rock art went dormant until the 1970s, when additional examples of star/crescent combinations in California and Southwest rock art were noticed. In 1972, paintings of a “star” and crescent were reported from Fern Cave in Lava Beds National Monument, in northeast California, and a year later, the star and crescent on an overhang at Penasco Blanco in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, captured attention. In June, 1973, at a conference in Mexico City, a group of eight investigators discussed five different supernova rock art sites and mentioned the possibility of two others in the first survey of supernova rock art. Two years later, astronomers John C. Brandt and Ray A. Williamson confirmed the two provisional sites and added six more. At the same symposium, Dorothy Mayer, a rock art researcher, discussed more than a dozen sites in California and Nevada and judged that four might represent the Crab supernova. By 1979, a new review listed 19 possible supernova depictions in rock art. By 2005, however, detailed, disciplined review demonstrated some of the classic examples could not possibly represent the Crab supernova. It was also clear no one knew the locations of the two original “supernova” sites and that no one had seen them since Miller described them. When the two sites were finally recovered and reappraised, it was evident the supernova interpretation at both sites is compromised, and ongoing scrutiny of the other canonical star/crescent rock art panels may now result in a complete reassessment of the supernova record in Southwest rock art.” (Krupp (B) 2015:594-5)

Navajo Canyon (actually Binne Etteni Canyon) Arizona. From Krupp (A), 2015, Figure 2.

It has gotten to the point where every crescent in rock art that is accompanied by another object is branded the A.D. 1054 supernova. Probably the most important question we have to ask is “what would a supernova look like to an ancient naked-eye observer, and how would they draw it?” I have never seen a supernova so I do not know what it would really look like.

White Mesa, Arizona. From Krupp (A), 2015, Figure 1.

Virtually all descriptions of the event go something like the following. “Chinese astronomers noticed the sudden appearance of a star blazing in the daytime sky on July 4, 1054 CE. It likely outshone the brightest planet, Venus, and was temporarily the 3rd-brightest object in the sky, after the sun and moon. This “guest star” – the exploding supernova – remained visible in daylight for some 23 days. At night it shone near Tianguan – a star we now call Zeta Tauri, in the constellation of the Taurus the Bull – for nearly two years. Then it faded from view.” (Sessions and Gonzaga 2023)

Supernova explosion. Internet image, public domain.

The speculation then continues, usually starting with the panel from the Penasco Blanco trail in Chaco Canyon. “The ancestral puebloan people in the American Southwest may have viewed the bright new star in 1054. Also, a crescent moon was in the sky near the new star on the morning of July 5, the day following the observations by the Chinese. So the pictograph below, from Chaco Canyon in New Mexico, may depict the event. And the multi-spiked star to the left represents the supernova near the crescent moon. Furthermore, the handprint above may signify the importance of the event or may be the artist’s ‘signature.’” (Sessions and Gonzaga 2023)

Petroglyph originally designated an eclipse. I suggest it as a much better candidate for the AD 1054 Supernova. Photograph High Altitude Observatory, public domain.

I would like to nominate another candidate for the supernova of A.D. 1054. Also found in Chaco Canyon, it has been designated as a solar eclipse in the past, but, as I have written before, a total solar eclipse should not have the center pecked out like this, it should be a ring of light showing prominences. This petroglyph seems to me to be a much better candidate for early stages of an exploding supernova. There are any number of public domain photographs on the internet of supernovas in their various stages, and some of them look very much like the Chaco Canyon petroglyph in question. Can I prove any of this? No, I cannot – but I submit it makes a certain amount of sense.

NOTES: 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 claims you should read the Krupp’s excellent reports listed below.

REFERENCES:

Krupp, Edwin C. (A), 2015, Crab Supernova Rock Art: A Comprehensive, Critical, and Definitive Review, August 2015, Journal of Skyscape Archeology 1(2), 167-197. DOI:10.1558/jsa.v1i2.28255.

Krupp, Edwin C. (B), 2015, Rock Art of the Greater Southwest, pp. 593-606, in Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy, edited by Ruggles, Clive L. N., Springer Company, New York

Sessions, Larry, and Shireen Gonzaga, 2023, Meet the Crab Nebula, remnant of an exploding star, 15 January 2023, https://earthsky.org. Accessed online 21 October 2023.