A PALEOLITHIC SHRINE IN THE SINAI PENINSULA?

 

Flint nodule manuports erected in the shrine on Har Karkom. Image from Emmanuel Anati.

This column originated when I accidentally ran across a picture on the internet of a shrine on Mount Har Karkom in Israel’s Sinai Desert. It was labeled Paleolithic in age and what attracted my interest was that it is centered on upright standing stones that look weirdly human. When I tracked it down it came from a book by Emmanuel Anati (2001) titled “The riddle of Mount Sinai: Archaeological discoveries at Har Karkom.”

This book presents a great deal of archeological work in this area and mentions hundreds of features and thousands of petroglyphs, unfortunately, it does not give any scientific facts so the reader has to take Anati’s conclusions on trust. For instance, Anati seems to have set the age of this shrine as Paleolithic based on the styles and shapes of a large number of stone tools located there. There is no mention of any scientific dating.

Eastern cliff of Har Karkom, site HK86B. Emmanuel Anati, Fig. 9, p. 20.

Anati’s writings, of which the book cited is only one sample, ostensibly about the archaeology of Mount Har Karkom, are actually expressing Anati’s interpretation of the facts to prove his theories about biblical truth and that this is indeed Mount Sinai. “Presuming that the Israelites travelled across the Sinai Peninsula towards Petra in a fairly straight line, a number of scholars have contemplated the possibility of Har Karkom being the biblical Mount Sinai. Following this theory, Emmanuel Anati excavated at the mountain, and discovered that it was a major Paleolithic cult centre, with the surrounding plateau covered with shrines, altars, stone circles, stone pillars, and over 40,000 rock engravings. Although Anati, on the basis of his findings, advocates the identification of Har Karkom with Mount Sinai, the peak of religious activity at the site may date to 2350-2000 BCE, and it appears to have been abandoned perhaps between 1950 and 1000 BCE. The Exodus is sometimes dated between 1600-1200 BCE. However, there is no archaeological evidence supported by scholars to maintain a date of 1600-1200 BCE. Anati instead places the Exodus, based on other archaeological evidence, between 2350 and 2000 BCE.” (Wikipedia)

View of the two "breasts," the twin summits of Har Karkom, from the Paleolithic shrine site HK 86B. Emmanuel Anati, Fig. 198, p. 176.

Now I am uninterested in whether Har Karkom is or is not Mount Sinai, but the discovery of the shrine on top of the mountain fascinates me.  “In 1992 the discovery of the Palaeolithic ‘sanctuary’ (HK86B) changed the previous assessment of Har Karkom’s cult use. The flint industry in the sanctuary belongs to a phase known in several sites at Har Karkom as ‘Karkomian,’ that is the initial phase of the Upper Paleolithic age, likely to be about 40,000 years old. This site is located on the eastern edge of the plateau, where its heights dominate the Paran Desert from above.”  (Anati 2001:16)  I cannot say that Anati does not have hard dates for any of this. I can only state that I have been unable to find any. So to repeat what I said above, Anati apparently is basing his paleolithic age for the shrine on the style of flint tools found there in large numbers. A practice that I find somewhat shaky.

Petroglyph on a nodule shaped like a resting animal. Emmanuel Anati, Fig. 193, p.171.

“Traces of Neolithic and Hellenistic cult sites have thus been found in the area of Har Karkom. Further, the discovery of the Paleolithic sanctuary HK86B provides a new temporal frame for the cult functions of this mountain. We know of no other cult sites with such a testimony: a Paleolithic sanctuary likely to be 35,000 to 40,000 years old, a Neolithic sanctuary, and over 100 BAC (Note: BAC stands for Bronze Age Culture.) cult sites, then, after a lapse of time, an Iron Age sanctuary and a Hellenistic sanctuary.” (Anati 2001:111-114) But, once again notice no sign of actual data on how these dates were assigned.

Anati uses a number of features in the landscape to back up his conclusions. “Another ceremonial trail runs from the Paran Desert to the Paleolithic sanctuary (HK68B). These various roads show a tradition of ceremonial processions while people climbed to the Har Karkom plateau.” (Anati 2001:117) Notice that this is a ‘ceremonial’ trail. If it is a ceremonial trail it must lead to somewhere that ceremonies happen.

Modified manuport, Emmanuel Anati, Fig. 192, p.171.

What immediately caused my interest in this is the use of large flint upright stones in this shrine. As can be seen in the photographs there are some that are eerily human looking. These remarkable examples of pareidolia would also be great evidence for the fringies who look for ancient aliens. “About forty flint monoliths with sinuous and provocative shapes were grouped in the ‘sanctuary’ by Paleolithic man. Some were collected locally and erected, while others derive from two different flint sources, one of which is nearly three kilometers away. Some, more than one meter high, are still standing, like silent ghosts with human forms, while others have fallen from upright positions. On the surface of this area of about four hundred metre, several flint stones of natural anthropomorphic and zoomorphic shapes have been found, along with numerous flint tools. Some have been retouched by man, modified by an Upper Paleolithic technique of flaking, picking, and etching to produce figurative details and more defined facial features.” (Anati 2001:16) Large numbers of these flint forms are manuports, having been gathered from around the mountain together as a collection at this shrine. And, as reported, some have been altered to emphasize an appearance.

 

Geoglyph near Paleolithic shrine. Emmanuel Anati. Fig. 188, p. 169.

“In a corner of this ‘sanctuary’ the paleosoil is covered by alignments of flint pebbles in non-figurative patterns.” (Anati 2001:16)

There are also geoglyphs here created, like the ones at Nazca, by removing stones to leave the soil bare, and alignments of stones as well.

“The geoglyphs of Har Karkom represent anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figures and a variety of patterns. Several details give clues to their dating. Non-figural geoglyphs in the palaeosoil of the Paleolithic sanctuary (KHK86B) seem to mark sectors in the area next to the sanctuary. Because of the quantity of Upper Paleolithic flint implements, it may be postulated that the geoglyphs belong to the same age as the sanctuary.” (Anatie 2001:114) So, once again we see that the whole dating construct is based upon the appearance of the stone tools. Anati may be correct, I really do not know, but again this seems to me to be a pretty shaky conclusion.

Anati’s main aim seems to be verification of the bible and to try to prove that Mount Har Karkom is the biblical Mount Sinai. I couldn’t care less about any of that, but am absolutely fascinated by the flint figures in and about the shrine HK86B recorded in his writings. I am really grateful he has recorded these and will let him interpret things any way he wishes. I just do not have to agree.

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:

Anati, Emmanuel, 2001, The riddle of Mount Sinai: Archaeological discoveries at Har Karkom, Studi Camuni Vol. 21, Valcamonica, Italy.

Wikipedia, Mount Karkom, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Karkom. Accessed online 26 July 2025.

A NEWLY DISCOVERED PRE-DYNASTIC EGYPTIAN ROCK ART PANEL:

Map of location of panel near Aswan, Egypt (the red dot in lower left). Image from cambridge.org.

A newly discovered rock art panel near Aswan in Egypt is considered pre-dynastic and thought to shed light on the beginnings of the Pharaohs. “A rock art panel near Aswan, Egypt, may depict a rare example of an elite individual from the First Dynasty, shedding light on the formation of the ancient Egyptian state. The late 4th millennium BC was a key period in Egyptian history which saw the beginning of political unification across Egypt, ultimately leading to the formation of the Egyptian state by the first pharaoh, Narmer, about 3100 BC.” (Egan 2025) The composition was carved at the bottom of a cliff and was pretty much covered by talus from above; soil washed down from above, sand blown up against the cliff, mud deposited from high water events and detritus from quarrying up above the petroglyphs position on the rock face.

Site of panel (seen on left). Photograph by Dorian Vanhulle.

Dorian Vanhulle, of the Musẻe du Malgrẻ-Tout, in Viroinval, Belgium, wrote “Uncovered on the west bank of the Nile at Aswan, the engraving consists of a putative authority representative seated in a processional boat, a scene that is otherwise well attested in Late Predynastic (Naqada IIC–D, c. 3450–3350 BC) and Protodynastic (Naqada IIIA–B, c. 3350–3085 BC) iconography. Stylistic similarities between this decorated rock panel and Protodynastic and early First Dynasty official imagery suggest the existence of rock-art specialists commissioned by regional authorities. Building on this contextual analysis, this article also advocates for the better integration of rock art in discussions focusing on the development of kingship and state formation in Egypt and Lower Nubia.” (Vanhulle 2025) The style of boat portrayal is pre-dynastic and the figures are simple and lack much detail, indeed, the five individuals pulling the rope seem to be simple vertical lines.

                               

Image on cliff partly covered by talus. Photograph by Dorian Vanhulle, Figure 5.

The identification of the lines on the right as five figures pulling a rope would seem to be reasonable. What was important was the boat and its passenger (and the steersman) so they are the parts of the composition that deserved more careful attention to detail. “The engraved composition consists of an ornate boat dragged by five figures to the right. The boat is propelled by a standing figure holding a rudder-oar and transports what seems to be a seated figure. The engraving is positioned at the eastern edge of a long, flat and otherwise untouched sandstone canvas that is visible from the modern road, although the drawing is too small to be observed from that distance. The current topography of the hill has, however, been drastically altered by quarrying activities and does not offer a pristine image of the original landscape. The (lack of) visibility of the panel in antiquity would have varied depending on factors such as the level of river water during flooding, light levels and the time of day/year.” (Vanhulle 2025) This suggests that it represents either a procession with an elite individual being pulled on the boat, or perhaps the boat is in the Nile being pulled upstream by the five individuals at the end of the rope. In either case, the passenger must be an important person.

                              

Panel exposed showing petroglyph. Photograph by Dorian Vanhulle. Figure 6A.

As stated elsewhere, the boat image is in the style of pre-dynastic watercraft on the Nile river. “The outline of the boat is traced by an accumulation of peck marks. The inner part of the hull is left untouched. No trace of smoothing nor any kind of enhancement of the final image has been identified. The boat consists of a sickle-shaped hull completed by two vertical extremities. The apex of the prow (pictured right) ends with a horizontal bar from which emerge two short garlands that curl down inwards and another that falls vertically outwards. The stern (pictured left) adopts a slightly incurved movement and shows a rounded profile. The standing figure, with a rounded head and square shoulders, is wedged between the stern and the rear deck structure. Only the right arm and front leg are depicted, the other limbs being hidden as an effect of the perspective. The figure is holding a long rudder-oar that ends with a rounded blade. The prow is oriented to geographical north, and the boat is thus depicted sailing downstream, against the wind, which could justify the presence of the stylized figures that appear to be pulling it. Yet even if the direction of travel is incidental, ceremonial barques, with no proper means of propulsion, were presumably always dragged.” (Vanhulle 2025) In other words, with no sign of a sail or oars for propulsion, this watercraft can be reasonably assumed to be a ceremonial craft. This is, in effect, a stage setting to show off a very important person. This boat is oriented north because the cliff it is carved into is oriented north/south. The artist may have chosen to have it pointing downriver, or may have not thought about that at all. Presumably, a boat going downriver could have drifted on the current so five figures pulling may in fact suggest that it was intended to indicate that it is going up river, against the current. I do not believe we can know this one.

                              

Drawing of petroglyph by Dorian Vanhulle, Figure 6B.

Vanhulle is here assuming that the location of the boat is purposeful, in this place that was an ancient power center in Egypt. “The Aswan-Kom Ombo region and the First Cataract were inhabited by a population mixing Upper Egyptian and Lower Nubian cultural traits. Various forms of political and territorial power could, therefore, have emerged at the same time in the Lower Nile Valley, with their evolution shaping the process of state formation in Egypt. It could also be suggested that Lower Nubian polities were less able to control a population that largely remained attached to a nomadic way of life. Differences in pace and form in the structuring of power in Egypt and Nubia could partly explain the outcome, which saw Narmer found the First Dynasty in Egypt c. 3085 BC and the A-Group disappear from the Nubian archaeological record in the subsequent reigns. Pharaonic kingship is the result of a centuries-long process, and its inception was not as straightforward as generally assumed, nor was it restricted territorially or culturally.” (Vanhulle 2025) This, the most stable of ancient cultures, developed a political system that, although it had its ups and downs lasted for over one millennium.

Enlarged from the Photograph by Dorian Vanhulle. Figure 6A.

Vanhulle is assuming that the panel was created upon instruction by a person in authority. “Rock art was not an accidental practice but rather a social action that followed rules and had intrinsic meanings, functions and goals. Addressing the use of rock art by local and regional rising powers in Egypt during the fourth millennium BC offers new insights on the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods. It also facilitates discussions about the constitution of a centralized management of the original Egyptian territory and its administrative delimitation. It offers information on how Nilotic and desert landscapes were invested with

codified messages by local authorities, and the ways in which these messages were diffused, influenced and appropriated by groups of different ethnic origins. The rock panel at SM36 is an important addition to the existing corpus of engravings that can help us to better understand the role of rock art in the crucial events that led to the

formation of the Egyptian state. Its fortuitous discovery shows the extent of the work to be done and the wealth of data yet to be discovered in the vast open-air museums of Egypt and Nubia.” (Vanhulle 2025: 14) Here, I take him to be saying that this image would not have been created without permission. This description of the importance of the rock art may make sense in a society as tightly controlled by a small number of elites as ancient Egypt, but I am not sure that this would preclude independent creation of petroglyphs by commoners. If this were done on the instruction of an elite these early period stone carvers are certainly not as accomplished as the sculptors of later Pharaohnic Egypt.

REFERENCES:

Egan, Robert, 2025, Rock art hints at the origins of Egyptian kings, Antiquity Publications Ltd., https://phys.org/news/2025-07-art-hints-egyptian-kings.html. Accessed online 10 July 2025/

Vanhulle, Dorian, 2025, An early ruler etched in stone? A rock art panel from the west bank of Aswan (Egypt), Antiquity Publications Ltd., published online by Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2025.60. Accessed online 10 July 2025.

EARLY EUROPEAN ART IN GROTTE FUMANE, ITALY:

Fumane Cave (Grotte Fumani), Italy. Internet image, public domain.

According to Rebecca Sykes (2020) Fumani Cave in north-west Italy has Neandertal deposits dating back to between 47.5 and 45 ka. In an area just about the size of a school classroom it contained some 50 hearths and lithic scatters, as well as over 100,000 pieces of bone. Sykes, however, did not attribute any cave art to the Neandertal occupation(s).

 

Painted plaque, Fumane Cave (Grotte Fumani), Italy. Internet image, public domain.

“Discovered in 1964 by archaeologist Giovanni Solinas, the Fumane Cave sits in the Lessini Hills about 15 km northwest of Verona. Although it was examined immediately by the Natural History Museum of Verona, it was only in 1988 that a proper excavation took place. This excavation uncovered a sequence of human occupation of the cave spanning the Mousterian, Aurignacian and Gravettian cultures of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic. Neanderthals occupied the cave from 60,000 to about 38,000 BC, during the Mousterian and early Aurignacian periods.” (Artslookup) This is a very long period of occupation and began during Neandertal periods and probably ended with occupation by Homo sapiens.

Possible weasel, Painted plaque, Fumane Cave (Grotte Fumani), Italy. Internet image, public domain.

Writing about the painted rock finds in Fumane Cave, Elvira Visciola (undated) stated “rock finds found in different points of the Fumane Cave, in the Aurignacian levels, with dimensions between 10 and 30 centimeters, with red ocher representations, some representing schematic motifs, other naturalistic motifs including animals, plants and a very particular anthropomorphic figure. The rocks are all fractured in places that interrupt the figures and were all found upside down at the base of the archaeological level; these tests made it possible to ascertain that the fragments certainly detached cue to cryoclastic effect during the Aurignacian occupation of the site from the vaults or walls of the cavity which were therefore decorated. Inside the cave, the use of ocher is attested in several places, with the discovery of about 50 blocks of red and yellow ocher, as well as two areas whose surface was entirely covered by it, one in the internal part and the other in the entrance, corresponding to a dating of about 41,000 years ago; subsequent investigations made it possible to ascertain that the ocher was recovered from quarries located at a distance between 5 and 29 kilometers from the cave. It is very probably that the age of the rock decorations is contemporary with the ocher deposits found, so that Fumane’s paintings can be considered the most ancient form of European wall art.” (Visciola) Cryoclasty is fracturing by means of freezing, so the assumption is that the paintings were originally parts of the cave wall but that freeze/thaw cycles eventually broke them loose – spalls. Given the fact that all of the painted slabs were found turned over with the painted side down we can probably assume that they were placed that way purposely, it is highly unlikely that they would all fall face down naturally. Perhaps the goal was to conceal or protect them somehow.

Painted plaque, Fumane Cave (Grotte Fumani), Italy. Internet image, public domain.

The painted stone slabs did turn out to be quite old and were not in great condition. “Stone slabs bearing images of a four-legged animal and a half-human, half-animal figure were discovered during the excavation of the cave. Three more figures could be seen on the slabs, but couldn’t be identified due to their bad preservation. As they were embedded in the sediment, they could be dated to between 32 and 36,500 BP, which would make them contemporary to the Chauvet Cave paintings” (Wikipedia) These dates were on the sediment that the rock slabs were embedded in.

Shaman?, Painted plaque, Fumane Cave (Grotte Fumani), Italy. Internet image, public domain.

“In 1999, following a series of excavations, beginning in 1988, researchers came across numerous examples of cave painting buried under layers of debris. The pictures were painted on slabs that had broken off the cave ceiling. Measuring about 30-70cm in length, they include an image of a creature with an elongated neck (perhaps a weasel, as in the Niaux Cave), a strange five-legged animal, and a figure of a man – thought to be a shaman  - wearing a mask with horns. The man's arms are spread, while in his right hand he holds what may be a ritual object which hangs downwards.” (Artslookup) So, we are dragging out the S-word again. Unless you were there 35,000 years ago and could observe the culture I think that designating an extremely crude apparently anthropomorphic figure as a shaman is quite a stretch.

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:

Artslookup, Fumane Cave Paintings, https://artslookup.com/prehistoric/fumane-cave-paintings.html. Accessed online 27 July 2024.

Sykes, Rebecca Wragg, 2020, Kindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art, Bloomsbury Sigma, London.

Visciola, Elvira (ed.), Painted stones from Grotta Fumane (VR), https://www.preistoriainitalia.it/en/scheda/pietre-dipinte-da-grotta-fumane-vr/. Accessed online 27 July 2024.

Wikipedia, Fumane Cave, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumane_Cave. Accessed online 27 July 2024.

A MYSTERIOUS RUNE STONE IN ONTARIO HAS BEEN DECIPHERED:

Ontario rune-stone. Illustration from Ancient-origins.com.

A mysterious carved boulder in Ontario has now determined to be inscribed with a long inscription in runes, as well as a nearby petroglyph of a boat surrounded by crucifixes.

“Archaeologists have cracked the code of 255 mysterious symbols carved into a rock in Canada more than 200 years ago. The writing was discovered in 2018 after a fallen tree revealed the square-shaped inscription near the town of Wawa, located about 155 miles from the nearest US border crossing in Michigan.” (Liberatore 2025) This strikes me as a terrible way for the whole story to start, being found under a fallen tree sounds like the backstory of the Kensington Rune Stone.

Rune panel carved on Ontario rune-stone. Internet image, public domain.

“Ryan Primrose, an archaeologist from the Ontario Center for Archaeological Education, has identified the characters as Nordic runes, part of an old alphabet once used in Sweden and other parts of Scandinavia.” (Liberatore 2025)

Primrose studied the carved symbols for seven years. The rock bears 255 symbols lined up like writing as well as an image of a boat. With the help of Swedish researcher Henrick Williams, Primrose finally solved the riddle. The markings spell out a 1611 version of the Lord’s Prayer in Swedish.

“It was a surprising find in the middle of Canada, but researchers later discovered that Swedish workers were hired by the Hudson’s Bay Company in the 1800s to work at remote trading posts – suggesting one of them may have made the carving.” (Liberatore 2025)

Boat carving and crucifixes by Ontario rune-stone. Photograph by Ryan Primrose from the Ontario Center for Archaeological Education.

“The carved boat, containing 16 figures and marked by 14 crosses, hints at a deeper symbolic meaning hidden within the mysterious runestone. Experts are still undecided on whether it served for communal worship or was just the project of one person.” (Brucker 2025) This is a little confusing – the 14 crosses are not on the boat, but are divided up into two groups on either side of the carved boat, with five on the left and nine on the right. No explanation or speculation so far whether there is any significance to the numbers 16, 14, 5 or 9. It may be that the boat represents the trip over to Canada from Sweden by the workers.

The Ontario rune-stone. Photograph by Ryan Primrose from the Ontario Center for Archaeological Education.

 “Scholars are still struggling with core mysteries: why is this text here, of all places, in the boondocks of northwestern Ontario? Was it part of a gathering-place for spiritual reflection, or the creative act of a loner? The reason for the deliberate burial is also still unknown. Ongoing archival work and site analysis may yet bring answers to these lingering questions.” (Brucker 2025) Given the location I am going to assume that this was the personal obsession of an eccentric loner working for the Hudson’s Bay Company.

It also appears to have been intentionally buried although available articles do not explain the relationship to the tree, was it intentionally planted or a natural growth from the intervening 200 years. Let us hope that archival work in records of the Hudson’s Bay Company eventually turns up references that will help explain the history of this inscription. In the meantime it is an interesting curiosity.

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:

Archaeology, 2025, Mystery of Strange Canadian Rock Carvings, 18 June 2025, Ontario Centre for Archaeological Research and Education. https://archaeology.org. Accessed online 19 June 2025.

Brucker, Miles, 2025, Researchers deciphered a mysterious runestone found in a forest in Canada, 3 July 2025, Things, https://www.factinate.com. Accessed online 3 July 2025.

Liberatore, Stacy, 2025, Mysterious carving with biblical message linked to Jesus’ crucifixtion found in North America, 16 June 2025, Dailymail.com. Accessed online 19 June 2025.

DUCK-HEADED FIGURES REVISITED:

Bird-headed figure, Kiva Point, Ute Mountain Ute Reservation, Colorado. Photograph Peter Faris, 1981.

RockArtBlog has previously visited the subject of bird-headed figures in 2011 and 2016 (see references below) but it has come back up in an article by Eric A. Powell in Archaeology magazine.

Tracing of figure with a duck on his head. Procession panel, Combs Ridge, near Butler Wash, Utah.

Just to reset the stage, there are essentially two kinds of bird-headed figures. On kind is an anthropomorph with a bird sitting on top of his head. The second kind has the head replaced by a bird. In this column I am going to limit my comments to bird-headed figures surmounted by what seem to be ducks.

Bird-headed figure from Muley Point, John's Canyon, Utah. Illustration from Castleton, Petroglyphs and Pictographs of Utah, Vol. 2, 1984, Fig. 7.78, p. 239.

In the July/August issue of Archaeology magazine, an excellent article by Eric Powell (2025) credits the creation of figures of anthropomorphs with ducks resting on their head to the Basketmaker culture. “Around AD 550, Basketmaker artists began to focus on depicting groups of simplified human figures rather than emphasizing individuals. In the canyonlands surrounding the San Juan River, crane, quail, and the occasional turkey are shown alongside humans but ducks resting on the heads of human figures dominate the bestiary of this later Basketmaker rock art.” (Powell 2025:48) Basketmaker is the name given to archaic cultures represented in the American southwest running from as early as possibly 7,000 BCE to 750 CE. (Wikipedia)

Flock of ducks and duck-headed figures. Photograph by Jim Larkey, image 45170426.

In his article Powell mentions various potential meanings for the figure of an anthropomorph with a duck on its head to the Basketmaker people. One possibility mentioned is that it is the symbol for a “duck clan.” Another possibility discussed is some sort of deity. “Some archaeologists have speculated that ducks represented a single Basketmaker clan, much as animals symbolize modern-day Pueblo kin groups, including the Hopi Bear and Spider Clans. In this scenario, the duck-head figures would have served as a kind of logo for a clan whose descendants eventually spread throughout the region. Other scholars have proposed that the duck-head figures might all have been meant to depict a single deity. Schaafsma believes clues to the importance of ducks might lie in present-day Pueblo oral traditions that give these birds a special role. According to traditions of the Zuni people in western New Mexico, a duck guides the blind god Kiaklo as he wanders the Earth.” (Powell 2025:50)

Duck-headed figure, Ute Mountain Ute Reservation, Train Rock -2, Colorado. Photograph John and Daphne Rudolph, 1991.

Ducks are unique creatures in the animal world because of their abilities to travel under the water and on it, on the land and through the sky. Later Pueblo people’s beliefs that the duck was a messenger to the katsinas may have been handed down from the Basketmaker cultural pantheon. “Ancestral Zuni spirits are also believed to transform into ducks to travel between Zuni Pueblo and a lake known as Kolhuwalaaw'a, the  underwater home of the spirits. These beliefs were recorded some 1,500 years after Basketmaker people created images of duck-head figures. Nevertheless, Schaafsma says these oral traditions suggest that people in the Four Comers region revered the duck's ability to travel through many realms with ease. "The duck is at home in the sky, walks on the land, swims on the water, and dives under the water for minutes at a time," she says. "Of all the birds, ducks seem to most explicitly traverse a layered cosmos." For the Basketmaker people, combining themselves with an animal that possessed the adaptive abilities of the duck would have been especially meaningful, says art historian Anna Blume of the Fashion Institute of Technology. "These are real powerful hybrids," she says. "In the imagination of the people who made them, these murals would have given them access to that special connection." (Powell 2025:50)

Closeup of Bird-headed figure, Kiva Point, Ute Mountain Ute Reservation, Colorado. Photograph Peter Faris, 1981.

On March 5, 2011, I posted a column that was titled BIRD-HEADED FIGURES. In this I presented a petroglyph panel from Kiva Point on the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation in southeastern Colorado that includes a portrayal of an Ancestral Puebloan figure with a duck-like bird perched on its head, and I pointed out the fact that Lovelock Cave in Nevada held 3,000-year-old duck decoys. I cited Sandra Olsen's description of their creation and use: "Remarkable preservation at Lovelock Cave, Nevada, has led to the recovery of 3,000-year-old duck decoys - - - that were made by stretching a bird skin over a tule reed form. Many ethnographic reports describe hunters putting duck skins - on their heads as they swam right up to live ducks. They captured the ducks by grabbing their feet and pulling them underwater, so as not to disturb other nearby fowl." (Olsen 1998:104) I suggest that the Basketmaker fascination with duck-headed figures may be a tradition passed down from this early duck hunting technique.

Tule reed duck decoys, Lovelock Cave, Nevada.

In 1985 Rob Buchanan wrote about the findings in a cache in Lovelock Cave. This discovery was made by M. R. Harrington of New York City’s Museum of the American Indian in 1924. “This contained eleven remarkable decoys made of rushes, most of them feathered and painted to represent ducks. The decoys, which resemble  canvas-back drakes, were about 11 inches long, their bodies formed by 25 or 30 large bulrush stems bound in a tight hairpin and trimmed at the ends to simulate a duck’s tail. A billed head, smoothly tied with split reeds, was sewed fast to each body. White feathers were attached lengthwise to the body with twing. ‘Some waterfowl hunter had hid his decoys here against another season,’ concluded Harrington.” (Buchanan 1985) The finding of such a group of duck decoys provides strong evidence to back up Olsen’s testimony.

This becomes more likely when we see climatic data suggesting that the climate in the American southwest was wetter during the Basketmaker period. V.J. Polyak et al., studied past climates in the record preserved in a stalagmite. “Here, we report data from stalagmite HC-1, from Hidden Cave, Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico, covering the past 3400 years, showing an interval of increased frequency of droughts from 1260 to 370 yr B2K that is coeval with the entire pre-Hispanic Pueblo period. Our record suggests that this Puebloan Late Holocene climatic interval was the most arid and highly variable climatic period of the last 3400 years. Climatic conditions favoring the introduction of cultivation existed prior to the Pueblo period during more pluvial-like conditions from at least 3400 to 1260 yr B2K.” (Polyak et al. 2022) This suggests that wetter climatic conditions of early Basketmaker may have favored duck hunting as part of their subsistence scheme.

Duck-headed figure with flute player, Southwestern Utah. Photograph from Carol Patterson

Referring back to Olsen (1998) I can see Basketmaker duck hunters tying a tule reed duck decoy covered with the skin of a real duck on top of his head, or just pulling the preserved duck skin down over his own head and slipping gently into lake Lahontan to collect dinner. Powell (2025) did not include that interpretation as a possibility, but given the wetter climate of the American southwest during the Basketmaker era I believe it should be considered a strong possibility. As a final thought, if these figures do not represent duck hunters then I suggest that they may represent dance costumes. Indeed, in some places the duck headed figures are accompanied by flute-players, suggesting some kind of ritual situation. This would mean that the Lovelock Cave findings, interpreted as duck decoys, would be dance headdresses instead, but given Olsen’s (1998) testimony I personally favor the duck hunting interpretation.

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:

Buchanan, Rob, 1985, When it came to duck decoys the Paiute Indians made them to last, 25 February 1985, Sports Illustrated Vault online. https://vault.si.com. Accessed online 22 June 2025.

Faris, Peter, 2016, Bird-Headed Figures Revisited, 5 March 2016, https://www.rockartblog.blogspot.com.

Faris, Peter, 2011, Bird-Headed Figures, 5 March 2011, https://www.rockartblog.blogspot.com.

Olsen, Sandra L., 1998,   Animals in American Indian Life: An Overview, pages 95-118, in Stars Above, Earth Below: American Indians and Nature, Marsha C. Bol, editor,  Roberts Rinehart Publishers, Niwot, CO.

Polyak, V.J., Asmerom, Y. and Lachniet, M.S., 2022, Climatic backdrop for Pueblo Cultural development in the southwestern United States. Scientific Relports 12, 8723. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022012220-6.

Powell, Eric A., 2025, Birds of a Feather, Archaeology, July/August 2024, Vol. 78, No. 4. pp. 46-51.

Wikipedia, Basketmaker Culture, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketmaker_culture. Accessed online 5 July 2025.

 

CALENDRICAL INSCRIPTIONS AT GOBEKLI TEPE?

Gobekli Tepe, Turkey. Photograph from fountainmagazine.com.

A new theory has been put forward that inscriptions at Gobekli Tepe, Karahan Tepe and Sayburc in Turkey record a lunisolar calendrical system and also apparently also refer to the proposed comet impact that caused the Younger Dryas period. Well no, they don’t.

Pillar with "V-symbols" at Gobekli Tepe. Internet image, public domain.

In 2024 Martin Sweatman of the Institute of Materials and Processes, at the University of Edinburgh School of Engineering wrote “Göbekli Tepe, an archaeological site in southern Turkey, features several temple-like enclosures adorned with many intricately carved symbols. It is located centrally among a group of Taş Tepeler pre-pottery Neolithic sites which include Karahan Tepe and Sayburç. Here, an earlier astronomical interpretation for Gobekli Tepe’s symbolism is supported and extended by showing how V-symbols on Pillar 43 in Enclosure D can be interpreted in terms of a lunisolar calendar system with 11 epagomenal days, which would make it the oldest known example of its type. Furthermore, it is shown how Göbekli Tepe’s 11-pillar enclosures and a megalithic 11-pillar pool structure at nearby Karahan Tepe can also be interpreted in terms of the same lunisolar calendar system. Other V-symbols at Göbekli Tepe are also interpreted in astronomical terms, and it is shown how the Urfa Man statue, a wall carving at Sayburç and a statue at Karahan Tepe that display V-symbol necklaces can be interpreted as time-controlling or creator deities. Symbolic links with later cultures from the Fertile Crescent are explored. Throughout, links are made with the Younger Dryas impact and Cauvin’s theory for the origin of the Neolithic revolution in the Fertile Crescent.” (Sweatman 2024:1) To me this is an example of how an academic can get into trouble when they stray too far out of their own particular field. Just as with Barry Fell’s nonsense, Sweatman’s theories are shaky at best, and **** at the very least. I have nothing against engineers, in fact I admire a good number of them and count them as friends, but, if I were to write a paper on some aspect of engineering I suspect that Sweatman would be among the first to criticize it. Martin, this is my field and I disagree with your conclusions.

And, you don’t have to take my word for it. Andre Costopoulos, Chair of the Arts and Anthropology Department of the University of Alberta (and someone with actual credentials in the field) wrote an excellent review of Sweatman’s paper in 2024 that analyzed and discussed its errors.

Boar and birds carved on a pillar at Gobekli Tepe. Internet image, public domain.

Sweatman claims that “earlier work provided an astronomical interpretation for some of Göbekli Tepe’s symbolism. Specifically, animal symbols on the broad sides of Göbekli Tepe’s pillars were interpreted as constellations similar to some of those from ancient Greece. In addition, Pillar 43 from Enclosure D was suggested to use precession of the equinoxes to display a date around 10,950 ± 250 BCE and interpreted as a memorial to the Younger Dryas impact event.” (Sweatman 2024:2) Now the earliest hard date at Gobekli Tepe is approx. 9530 ± 215 BCE which would mean, remarkably, that its carvings are a record of an event which supposedly happened 1,000 earlier.

He goes on to state that “pillars 2 and 38 at Göbekli Tepe were suggested to describe the path of the radiant of the Taurid meteor stream which is thought to have caused this impact event. Also, Pillar 18, one of the two central pillars from Enclosure D, was suggested to symbolize a comet related to the impact event.  If this interpretation is correct, it has profound consequences. Partly, this is because it implies that astronomical knowledge was far in advance of what is generally assumed for this time.” (Sweatman 2024:3) I can give credit to proposals of long-term memories in cultures, and a certain amount of astronomical knowledge among ancient and pre-literate cultures. But I just cannot quite believe that these people understood that a fragment of a comet had collided with the earth one thousand years earlier (which theory, by the way, is contested).

Pillar 43, Gobekli Tepe, Turkey. Images from Reddit.

"Unisolar calendar" on Pillar 43, "V-symbols," Gobekli Tepe. Photograph by Martin Sweatman.

And as far at the V-symbol’s significance, Sweatman states that “Pillar 43 is split into two sections by rows of V-symbols and small box-symbols. The lower, main portion has a circular disc symbol supported above the wing of a bird of prey. Below this bird symbol is a scorpion symbol. If the circular disc represents the sun, as expected, then the animal symbols probably represent constellations. In particular, the scorpion reminds us of the Greek Scorpius constellation. Its position relative to a circular disc clearly points to an astronomical interpretation.” (Sweatman 2024:9) I find a problem in identifying the various V-symbols as astronomically important, no where I can see in his paper does Sweatman state what the V-symbol actually represents. It seems he is basing his conclusions on an unidentified fact.

And herein lies another problem, a trap fallen into quite frequently by writers on things archeoastronomical. They assume that the names and identities of the constellations we see in the night sky have always been the same. The sad fact is we have no idea what, if any, constellations the inhabitants back then imagined in the night sky, and yet Sweatman bases his conclusions on identifying the constellations that are supposedly portrayed in carved stone.

Pillar 33 from enclosure D, Gobekli Tepe. Photograph by I. Wagner.

“Let us now return to Pillar 33 from Enclosure D. This is the only other pillar at Göbekli Tepe known to exhibit V-symbols. Earlier, it was explained how Pillar 33 can be viewed as a picture of the Taurid meteor stream if the animal symbols on its broad faces correspond to the constellations Pisces (tall birds) and Aquarius (fox), with the snakes representing meteors. Indeed, it was suggested that it shows how the Taurid meteor stream radiant moves from Aquarius to Pisces over the course of a few weeks. However, Pillar 33 also has V-symbols on its inner, narrow face. On the right, 13 V-symbols ascend vertically, while on the left there are 14. As for Pillar 43, these are expected to represent the counting of days. In this case, these symbols might count the duration of the meteor shower from the direction of each constellation as the radiant point moves over the course of nearly one lunar month; 13 days from the direction of Aquarius (the fox) and 14 days from the direction of Pisces (the tall bird). Thus, interpretation of the V-symbols as representing individual days is consistent across Göbekli Tepe and supports the earlier interpretation of Pillar 33.” (Sweatman 2024:37-8) Some carved animals and V-symbols represent a meteor stream, based on what? Give me a break.

And now to Costopoulos’ review of Sweatman’s article. Andre Costopoulos, Chair of the Arts and Anthropology Department of the University of Alberta (and someone with actual credentials in the field) wrote an excellent review of Sweatman’s paper in 2024 that analyzed and discussed its errors.

Fox carved on a pillar at Gobekli Tepe. Internet image, public domain.

We first need to establish the credentials of the source. “Despite being published in a peer reviewed journal, the study is what I would call scaffolded speculation. It consists of a collection of completely untestable and largely unrelated hypotheses, piled on top of one another, to reach an exceedingly unlikely conclusion.” (Costopoulos 2024:1) It makes one wonder exactly whose peers reviewed Sweatman’s paper? I doubt that they were archaeologists or art historians.

The whole Sweatman premise is basically a house of cards. “This is apparent in the structure of the article itself, in which the phrase “If this interpretation is correct”, or a close variation of it, occurs no fewer than five times at critical points in the argumentation, with no attempt at finding out whether those proposed interpretations are actually correct. And this ignores all the previous speculations published by the author, and which are also called on for key support of the argument.” (Costopoulos 2024:1) Too often we see this in articles supposing to explain meaning in rock art. On one page a “this may mean” becomes assumed as a proven fact on subsequent pages, Costopoulos’ “scaffolded speculation.”

Constellation? at Gobekli Tepe. Internet images, public domain.

And Costopolis gets to the crux of his argument. “Their entire interpretation rests on the associations they propose between the constellations and the animal carvings. In order to accept every other argument that follows, including this recent 2024 paper, one has to accept those identifications. As far as I can tell, Sweatman and Tsikritsis make no attempt to actually test the validity of their associations. They just visually match constellation stick figures with stone carvings on the pillar. Frankly, I think I could do just as well finding matches for the constellations on a page of a Beatrix Potter book.” (Costopoulos 2024:3) This goes back to my point about the supposed identification of stellar constellations in the night sky all those millennia ago. We just cannot know this.

More constellations? at Gobekli Tepe. Internet images, public domain.

The main premise of Sweatmans’ paper is somewhat confusing. Half of it discussed the supposed Gobekli Tepe calendrical system based on identifying animals as constellations, and the other half tries to present it as proof of the supposed Younger Dryas comet impact, which is not universally accepted as scientific fact. “The other “established fact” in this system of hypotheses is that there was a Younger Dryas comet impact at all. This is far from certain, and given the current state of scholarship on the question, while it is not completely out of the question, I would say it is exceedingly unlikely. In other words, the scaffolded speculations about the Göbekli Tepe animal carvings are used to support the scaffolded speculations about the YDI. And all of it rests on claimed associations between stick figures and some really stunning and rich animal carvings at an archaeological site in Turkey.” (Costopoulos 2024:4) The stick figures referenced here are drawings of portions of stellar constellations and asterisms that Sweatman identified with the carved animals.

Enough beating on poor Martin Sweatman. I believe he is totally convinced of the truth of his speculations and excited about the new contributions he is making to our knowledge, but it is just this excitement that can lead us astray. We forget to apply critical analysis to our own suppositions. Gobekli Tepe is certainly a fascinating subject, we just need to be careful and self-analytical when we try to understand it.

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.

PRIMARY REFERENCES:

Costopoulos, Andre, 2024, The Gobekli Tepe calendar and the Younger Dryas Impact: another major media fail, 16 August 2024, ArcheoThoughts blog, https://archeothoughts.wordpress.com. Accessed online 17 October 2024.

Sweatman, Martin B., 2024, Representations of calendars and time at Göbekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe support an astronomical interpretation of their symbolism, Time and Mind, 24 July 2024, DOI:10.1080/1751696X.2024.2373876. Accessed online 6 August 2024.

SECONDARY REFERENCE:

Sweatman, M. B., and D. Tsikritsis, 2017, “Decoding Göbekli Tepe with Archaeoastronomy: What Does the Fox Say?” Mediterranean Archaeometry and Archaeology 17 (1): 233–250.