DINOSAURS IN ROCK ART? THE BLACK DRAGON CANYON PTEROSAUR - REVISITED:

Drawing of the traditional image

of the supposed "pterosaur" in

Black Dragon Canyon, UT. From

Geggel, 2015, Photos:'Winged Monster'

Rock Art in Black Dragon Canyon',

August 18, 2015,

http://www.livescience.com/51892-
photos-utah-rock-art.html.

On May 24, 2014, I posted a column titled DINOSAURS IN ROCK ART? - THE BLACK DRAGON CANYON PTEROSAUR, about the supposed pictograph of a pterosaur seen on a cliff wall in Utah. In that column I stated: "To me one of the strangest sub-studies of the field of rock art consists of attempts of creationists and evolution deniers to find dinosaurs in rock art. Apparently this is to prove that humans and dinosaurs lived concurrently because that is the only way primitive people would have their examples to portray. As best I can tell this is the work of a group of creationists who ascribe to the theory that the bible says the earth is only 6,000 years old based upon 17^th century Bishop Usher’s calculation that “the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC” (Wikipedia), so dinosaurs and humans have to have coexisted." (Faris 2014)

Chalked pictograph in Black Dragon

Canyon, UT. Public Domain.

I then continued, citing Phil Senter whose July 2012 exploration of the subject (Rock Art “Dinosaurs”, More “Dinosaur” and “Pterosaur” Rock Art That Isn’t, Palaeontolical Association) took on the crazy ideas of creationists and evolution-deniers directly. I wrote "Whatever their motivation, there are a few tired examples that get trotted out over and over to supposedly prove that there are indeed portrayals of dinosaurs in rock art. Of these, perhaps the most ubiquitous example is the supposed pterosaur pictograph in Utah’s Black Dragon Canyon. In 2012 Phil Senter stated “An alleged pterosaur painting in Black Dragon Canyon, Utah, is actually not a single painting. Its "head" and "neck" are a painting of a person with outstretched arms. Its torso and limbs are those of a painting of a second person with outstretched arms, whose body continues into the "pterosaur's" "wing." The other "wing" is a painting of a horned serpent. The three paintings only appear connected because someone outlined the group with chalk.” (Senter 2012)" (Faris 2014)

Phil Senter's analysis of the image.

Senter presented a detailed analysis showing that the supposed pterosaur was a combination of smaller painted (and quite faded) Fremont images. An August 18, 2015 article in LiveScience written by Laura Geggel, and titled "Photos: 'Winged Monster' Rock Art in Black Dragon Canyon'" presents a project that resulted in even better analysis of the image and shows the original imagery in greater detail using DStretch analysis of high quality photographs of the panel.

The new DStretch analysis of the

pictograph, Black Dragon Canyon, UT.

From LiveScience.com.

Now a more recent (2015) analysis of the image of the supposed "pterosaur" in Black Dragon Canyon has utilized DStretch to provide even more detail of the real image. This study was conducted by Jean-Loïc Le Quellec, Paul Bahn and Marvin Rowe, ("The Death of a Pterodactyl," Antiquity, Volume 89, p 872-884, 2015, Copyright Antiquity Publications Ltd., published by Cambridge University Press.), and reported on in LiveScience by Laura Geggel in her article Photos: 'Winged Monster' Rock Art in Black Dragon Canyon, August 18, 2015. Where Senter had conclusively proven that the image was not a pterosaur, but was instead a combination of Fremont pictographs including a pair of anthropomorphs, a pair of animals, and a long sinuous image which might represent a therianthropomorphic figure, Le Quellec, Bahn, and Rowe, have now given us even more detailed images of the original Fremont figures, and even more proof of the fallacy of the Creationist position. And, thank you to Laura Geggel and LiveScience for making this accessible. Go to

http://www.livescience.com/51892-photos-utah-rock-art.html to read the whole article and see a number of detailed photographs.

REFERENCES:

Faris, Peter

2014 Dinosaurs in Rock Art? The Black Dragon Canyon Pterosaur, May 24, 2014, httpp://rockartblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Black%20Dragon%20Canyon

Geggel, Laura,

2015 Photos:'Winged Monster' Rock Art in Black Dragon Canyon', August 18, 2015, http://www.livescience.com/51892-photos-utah-rock-art.html

Jean-Loïc Le Quellec, Paul Bahn and Marvin Rowe,

2015 The Death of a Pterodactyl, Antiquity, Volume 89, p 872-884, 2015, Copyright Antiquity Publications Ltd., published by Cambridge University Press.

Senter, Phil

2012 Rock Art “Dinosaurs”, More “Dinosaur” and “Pterosaur” Rock Art That Isn’t, Palaeontolical Association, July 2012. (http://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2012-issue-2-articles/275-rock-art-dinosaurs).

Wikipedia

PALEOLITHIC HORSE DOMESTICATION?

Paleolithic Horse paintings from Chauvet cave.

Photo from www.bradshawfoundation.com.

There is an interesting school of thought today that maintains that cave paintings of horses, as well as horse effigies carved in bone or antler, contain clues that point to domestication of the horse by Magdalenian people. One of the major proponents of this interpretation is Paul Bahn. I have elsewhere expressed my great admiration for Paul Bahn for his imaginative approach to interpreting cave art, and his willingness to confront and argue against dogma. I am afraid, however, that in this instance I find myself in the position of arguing against Bahn. 

"15. Carving of a horse head from Saint-Michel d'Arudy, France, showing facial lines that indicate the line demarcating the mealy muzzle and the natural contours of the face. These lines have been interpreted by Bahn to represent a bridle. (Drawing courtesy of Randall White)" (Olsen 2003:5)

            "The strongest evidence presented for the control of horses at this early date consists of depictions of what Bahn (Paul) interprets as bridles on the heads of horses in wall engravings and effigies carved in stone or antler. These artistic renderings display lines encircling the nose and running from the nose back toward the ear (figure 15). At first glance these lines could be interpreted as part of a bridle, including the nose band, chin strap, and cheekpieces. On closer inspection, however, it is clear that these lines represent natural features on the heads of the Pleistocene horses. The wild Asiatic (Przewalski) horse, which is colored like many of the prehistoric depictions of the European Ice Age horses, has what is known as a mealy muzzle, or pale cream-colored ring around the end of the snout (figure 16). This is one of the characteristics of what is today called a Pangare' coat pattern on horses. Although there are no clear examples of a mealy muzzle in cave paintings, it is possible that some of the engravings with lines around the nose are meant to portray this change in coloration around the tip of the muzzle. The horizontal lines running from the nose back toward the neck probably represent natural contours or the horse's head. Curved lines are often incised to represent the contours of the large masseter muscle at the back of the lower jaw, and some lines indicate changes in fur patterns. Similar lines are seen on engravings of bison and other animals, although their positions are slightly different, but no one has suggested that bison were domesticated. (Olsen 2003:54)

Paleolithic baton de commandment. Public

domain photograph from the internet.

            "Bahn also believed that the Paleolithic batons de commandment were cheekpieces for a bridle. Although they bear a vague similarity to much-later Bronze Age antler cheekpieces, the batons are generally larger and heavier with only one very large perforation near one end. Bronze Age cheekpieces typically have two or three holes for the leather straps." (Olsen 2003:55)

            "Further, Bahn presented examples of damage on incisors (the anterior teeth) of Paleolithic horses that he hypothesized was caused by the nervous habit of crib-biting. This practice has been observed in horses that get bored with being penned and begin to chew on their stalls. If this behavior occurs only in situations where the animal is enclosed by a human-made structure, then surely horses were being controlled in the Paleolithic. R. A. Rogers and L. A. Rogers have shown, however, that similar damage appears on horse incisors dating to the early and middle Pleistocene of North America, long before the arrival of humans, Littauer pointed out that such wear could have just as easily been formed when the animals browse on the bark of trees." (Olsen 2003:55)

"16. A Przewalski horse showing the contours of the face and sharp color demarcation around the muzzle depicted in figure 15. (Photo by Sandra Olsen)" (Olsen 2003:5)

            "Some scholars, notably Paul Bahn, have suggested that horses were at least managed an perhaps domesticated 20,000 years ago by Ice Age hunter-gatherers who created the cave paintings, ornaments, and mobile art of the Upper Paleolithic (see chapter 3). This idea has been widely popularized by Jean Auel in her best-selling fiction books beginning with Clan of the Cave Bear. 

            Stocky, thick-legged, large-headed horses living throughout Europe during the Pleistocene Ice Ages were depicted magnificently in cave paintings and sculpted bone objects by Upper Palaeolithic artists, particularly in southwest France and northern Spain. Some of these depictions seem to show rope halters around horse heads (see chapter 3, figure 1). This interpretation is convincing at first. However, the shaggy winter coat of the modern Przewalski horse often sports a line of tufted hair running down the cheek and around the nose in exactly the positions marked by the "halter" lines in Paleolithic art. The "winter coat" interpretation of these lines is simpler and more likely than an interpretation based on bridling.

            Some Upper Paleolithic horse teeth exhibit odd wear that Bahn has suggested resembles the wear caused by crib-biting, a vice associated with stalled or penned horses. However, similar wear has been found on the teeth of Early Pleistocene equid fossils from America, animals that could not possibly have been domesticated because they predate the evolution of both modern humans and horses (see chapter 3). There has never been a controlled study that reliably identifies the diagnostic traits of cribbing wear on equid teeth so that it can be positively distinguished from natural wear or incidental damage to the incisors. The crib-biting suggestion remains untested and inherently unlikely. It would require not only domestication but long-term stalling of horses by Paleolithic hunters.

            On the whole there is little archaeological evidence even for herd management and no convincing support for domestication associated with the Ice Age horses of the European Upper Paleolithic." (Anthony 2003:69)

Wood chewing, or crib-biting, is behavior in which the horse gnaws on wood rails or boards as if they were food. This behavior eventually gives a distinctive wear pattern on the horse's teeth that a good veterinarian can identify in making his diagnosis. Wear patterns resembling this have been found on some teeth on Paleolithic (Ice Age) horse skeletons which has led some investigators to rash statements that this is proof of horse domestication that early. In other words, Cro-Magnon supposedly had built corrals and confined their domesticated horses there, where they performed crib biting. I think that nothing could be further from the truth.

Horses, both wild and domesticated, will chew wood on occasions. Where I live in the American West, if a horse corral contains a cottonwood tree it is almost invariable dead, the horses having girdled it by chewing the bark off. Inner bark is a nutritious food that they purposely seek out, especially when grazing conditions are poor. If drought has prevented normal grass growth for grazing, or if deep snow has covered the grass, horses will naturally turn to chewing the bark on trees. Indeed, ethnographic reports of Plains Indian tribes tell us that they sometimes kept their favorite horse tethered by their tipi in winter encampments which were usually in a heavily wooded area to provide some protection from cold winds. The owners of these horsed would gather branches of surrounding cottonwood trees to feed these horses which readily chewed off the bark and ate small twigs and branches. This bark was supposedly nutritious enough that the horses reportedly could put on weight on such a diet, even during harsh winter conditions. 

With reasonable explanations for the marks on the carvings and paintings that might resemble harnessing, and with a reasonable explanation for wood chewing by horses, I believe that the preponderance of evidence is against the proposed domestication of horses in the paleolithic period. Additionally, I can think of no way that evidence of crib-biting could be deduced from the paintings or carvings of the Paleolithic period. Therefore, with this analysis, I think that we can make an informed judgement on the question of domestication and, to me, all the evidence argues against it. 

REFERENCES:

Anthony, David W.,

2003    Bridling Horse Power, chapter 4, p. 58-82, in Horses Through Time, edited by Sandra L. Olsen, Roberts Rinehart Publishers, Boulder, for the Carnegie Museum of Natural History.

Olsen, Sandra L.,

2003    Horse Hunters of the Ice Age, chapter 3, p. 35-56, in Horses Through Time, edited by Sandra L. Olsen, Roberts Rinehart Publishers, Boulder, for the Carnegie Museum of Natural History.

THE OLDEST ROCK ART PHOTOGRAPH:

On June 3, 2009, I posted the following column under the title Charles Darwin's Bear. 

"Don't Deface the Bear", 5BN651, Picketwire canyon, Bent 

County, CO., Photograph, Peter Faris, June, 1991.

"At the time of his death Charles Darwin had in his correspondence files a letter that had accompanied a photograph of a Colorado pictograph. According to the on-line database of the Darwin Correspondence Project at the University of Cambridge, England, they (the letter and accompanying photo) were sent on May 24, 1874, by Lieut. George J. Anderson, of Fort Lyon, Colorado. The database entry refers to the letter, which describes the image as a “photograph of a ‘natural curiosity’, a bear apparently ‘painted’ with red iron on the face of a soft rock”. The letter itself forms part of the Darwin Archive at Cambridge University Library, but the photograph has not been found.

I had found mention of this a number of years ago and was interested enough to pursue a search in an attempt to identify which bear image from southern Colorado this might be. During a subsequent conversation with Larry Loendorf we agreed that it might be the large Picketwire bear. This figure was prominent, had been discovered and publicized early on - its photograph had been printed in newspapers. Loendorf also pointed out that it was originally known as the “cinnamon bear” because rain runoff from the canyon rim had dyed it red with the red dust of the soil. This seems to match the description of it being “apparently ‘painted’ with red iron on the face of a soft rock”.

On May 13, 2009, I received from the Darwin Correspondence Project a transcription of the letter, which described the picture and its location. “The image is painted – as it were – on a perpendicular face of a very soft grey sandstone rock, about 40 feet from its base & 38 feet from its top, but may be easily reached – to the level of the bottom of the picture – by climbing over the dèbris at the foot of the bluff. . . . The coloring matter appears to be iron (probably Fe3O4) and penetrates the rock to a depth of more than ½ inch. . . . The image is in length, from nose to tail, about 8½ feet”. (This preliminary transcription has yet to be published in the Correspondence of Charles Darwin.)

Anderson’s description of the image size seems to fit that of the large Picketwire Bear and I know of no other bear pictograph in southeastern Colorado of that size, but its location is nothing like that described in the letter. The location of the large Picketwire Bear is basically just a little above the present ground surface on a slight slope. Unless we can be assured by a geomorphologist that the canyon bottom has been raised by nearly 40 feet (unlikely since the canyon bottom can be demonstrated to have been eroding deeper) since the creation of the pictograph, then I see no way to reconcile the present location of this bear with the described location. If we are lucky the original picture may some day be located in the Darwin archives: meanwhile the identity of the southeast Colorado bear pictograph sent to Charles Darwin remains a mystery.

(I wish to extend an extra thank you to Rosemary Clarkson of the Darwin Correspondence Project for her generous assistance with my inquiry.)"

At that time I had not yet read Paul Bahn's 2010 book Prehistoric Rock Art: Problems and Polemics. In that book Bahn takes up the question of trying to determine the oldest existing rock art photograph.

Bahn wrote “One interesting question which was not answered in my earlier book is that of when the first photograph was taken of rock art; two examples were given (Bahn 1998a : 30, 69) of photos of rock art in the United States taken in the 1890s, and it was also stated (ibid.: 69) that the first known photograph of an African rock painting was taken by von Bonde in 1885. Recently, however, two earlier examples have come to light.” (p. 7)

“On the Carrizo Plain of California is the (now much damaged) Chumash painted site known as Painted Rock. Four photographs of this, taken by R. A. Holmes, were published in a fanciful book by Myron Angel called The Legend of Painted Rock (Angel 1920), which claims that the pictures were taken in 1876. The photograph reprinted here (Fig. 3) is now housed in the collections of the San Luis Obispo Historical Society (W. Hyder, personal communication).

If that 1876 date is accurate, this may be the earliest known rock art photo, and on present evidence it is probably the earliest to have survived. There is at least one other claimant, however, which has not survived as far as is known. In France in 1878, Leopold Chiron, a schoolteacher, noticed deep engravings in the cave of Chabot (Gard); he published a note about hem, although he could not know their date of origin. He mistakenly thought he could see birds and people among the lines; unfortunately, the Chabot engravings are difficult to decipher, and the figures are far from clear. In May 1879, Chiron wrote to the eminent Gabriel de Mortillet to tell him of the discovery of a cave with Paleolithic flint tools and with engravings on the walls – Chiron had no doubt the drawings were ancient because they were covered in calcite. De Mortillet, however, who was certain that no parietal art could exist in Palaeolithic times, did not deign to reply – or to present the information in the journal he published (Bahn and Vertut 1997: 16).

In the 1890s Chiron exchanged letters with Francois Daleau, another pioneer who had excavated the decorated cave of Pair-non-Pair near Bordeaux, and had seen its art in 1883, although he did not make the discovery of the art public until 1896. It is from this correspondence that we know Chiron had the Chabot engravings photographed in 1878.” (p. 8)"

In this we see that Bahn's oldest example so far seems to be the 1876 photograph of Chumash rock art on the Carrizo plain in California. Until Charles Darwin's bear photograph is relocated by the good folks at the Darwin Correspondence Project it is likely to remain so. However, from the correspondence we know that Darwin's Bear photograph existed in 1874 so it would be the oldest known example. How about you, what other early rock art photos can you suggest to Paul Bahn?

REFERENCES:

Bahn, Paul G.

2010    Prehistoric Rock Art: Problems and Polemics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Faris, Peter

2009     Charles Darwin's Bear, http://rockartblog.blogspot.com, June 3, 2009.

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-9466.html.

THE NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL AND HALLUCINOGENS:

Castle Gardens, Wyoming. Photo Peter Faris, 1992.

There is a modern theory about interpreting rock art known as the Neuropsychological Model. At this point I must confess that I do not care much for the Neuropsychological Model. It basically states that rock art is created by shaman to record the visions they saw after taking hallucinogenic drugs or otherwise inducing a trance. Now some rock, art in some places, might actually fit that description, but proponents of this theory try to apply it to all rock art, and that just doesn’t work.

It has been proposed, for example, that some of the flower blossom petroglyphs in the American Southwest portray the hallucinogenic datura blossom. If we have believable documentation about use of datura to induce trances or visions in the southwest then this might make sense. One example of a petroglyph that I know is intended to illustrate a hallucinogen is the example here which can be found on a cliff at Castle Gardens, Wyoming, among the shield petroglyphs that this locale is so famous for.

Readers who would like to learn more about the Neuropsychological Model should read any of David Lewis-Williams books of the last 3 or 4 years. Then, to read an eloquent refutation of it I will direct you to the book by Paul G. Bahn listed below.

Bahn, Paul G.

2010       Prehistoric Rock Art: Problems and Polemics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.