NEW
PERSPECTIVES
ON
THE
UTAH
MAMMOTH
PETROGLYPHS
Jonathan Bailey
2014
Many scoff at the idea of Paleolithic rock art within North America. When Joe Pachak, of Bluff,
Utah, found a panel of prehistoric petroglyphs depicting what appeared Pleistocene megafauna, the
outcries from the rock art community were to be expected. Since then, Ekkehart Malotki and Henry
Wallace presented a paper acknowledging the possibility of its authenticity (Ekkehart, Wallace, 2011).
In counter, Mary Gillam and Lillian Wakley presented a paper rejecting its authenticity (Gillam,
Wakeley, 2013). This project was undertaken to provide new perspectives that will add to the growing
body of evidence supporting a Pleistocene age for the petroglyphs.
Aging
Before starting this paper, we must establish the prehistoric status of the petroglyphs. In their
study, Ekkehart and Wallace noted the repatination and weathering was greater than the Puebloan art on
the same face and is thus prehistoric (Ekkehart, Wallace, 2011).
Glen Canyon Linear Style
Glen Canyon Linear Style is the immediate fallback for many rejecting the Pleistocene age of
the petroglyphs due to the segmented body of the 'main' mammoth (see Gillam, Wakeley, 2013). With
close inspection of that style, stylistic similarities are reduced.
Figure 1: Glen Canyon Linear Elements
Stylistics
Figure one correctly illustrates the rough distribution of elements within the San Juan variant
(Glen Canyon Linear 5) of Glen Canyon Linear Style. Although GCLS elements in regions such as
Glen Canyon or Escalante are predominately zoomorphic, it is not something carried through into the
San Juan. The majority of the San Juan GCLS sites depicted few zoomorphs and an abundance of
anthropomorphic forms. The sites containing zoomorphs also contained anthropomorphic figures.
Isolated zoomorphs were never noted in the panels surveyed for this paper. The mammoth panel is
inherently lacking anthropomorphic figures.
In the San Juan variant, it was typical to dissect the body horizontally as well as vertically, to
grid the torso of the animal. Only one documented for this survey contained only vertical lines (see
figure one).
All sizable zoomorphic figures are gridded in GLCS. The mammoth panel has several large
zoomorphic forms lacking grids. Mammoth one is the only gridded subject on the panel.
Finally, GCLS zoomorphs have long, skinny legs. The mammoths and bison, in contrast, have
extraordinarily short to nearly non-existent legs.
Technique
Mammoth one, which is the figure believed by some to be GCLS, is incised rather than pecked.
None of the GCLS panels documented for this survey were incised.
Extinction
Whether it is believed that the zoomorphic figures in question are mammoths, little attention has
been paid to the Pleistocene-looking bison above it. By the Archaic period, Bison were extinct in the
region and were thus not depicted in any Glen Canyon Linear Style Panels. The bison alone, being preArchaic, suggests a Paleolithic time frame.
Perspectives
How we see and perceive our world is ultimately
how we depict it. Frequently, visibility is overwritten by
the knowledge of the artist. Ultimately, they would depict
limbs or other objects even if they were not immediately
Plains style panel depicting rider with two
visible legs.
visible to the viewer. However, the viewer, knowing that the item was extant, depicted it. A Plains style
rock art panel provides a great example. The artist was attempting to illustrate an anthropomorphic
figure atop an equine. The artist's perspective provided the visibility of a singular leg, yet both legs
were depicted as the said artist knew another was present (Hays-Gilpin, 2004). Likewise, the majority
of the panels in the Southwest depict zoomorphs with four legs even when the positioning of the animal
wouldn't permit visibility of the two legs on the opposite side of the body. It is suggested that
perspective is a cognitive construct and is not something that alters significantly within a specific time
frame.
Figure 2: Perspective only allows the visibility of two legs. Left image, Northern Spain. Right image,
Utah mammoth panel.
In European caves, a lifelike quality is applied to the perspective of the animal. If the
positioning of the animal permitted visibility of all four legs, all four legs were depicted. If the animal
was positioned in a way that only two legs were visible, only two legs were depicted. The mammoths,
much like many Pleistocene zoomorphs in Europe, are depicted with only two legs (figure 2) as the
position wouldn't permit it. The bison was depicted with four. This similarity suggests that the
cognitive structure of GCLS and Puebloan peoples were different than the creators of the mammoths,
who shared their perception of perspective with the European cave artists.
Is it a Mammoth?
To establish the likelihood of the zoomorphs being megafauna, a few comparisons and
statements are relevant.
Contemporary?
Some have suggested that the tusks of the mammoth could be the arms of a Ancestral Puebloan
anthropomorph overlaid on a zoomorph (Nez, Private conversation). Analogous patination and the
presence of several mammoths negate this claim (Ekkehart, Wallace, 2011). Also, the Pleistocene
bison removes this as a possibility.
Diagnostic Features
The mammoth panel in question, unlike fabrications, contains
diagnostic features (Ekkehart, Wallace, 2011). A few, from both the
mammoth and the bison, have been discussed and compared
below.
A bifurcated trunk (figure 3a) is notable in mammoth number one.
Figure 3a
Although it is not essential for an authentic mammoth depiction, it
is something that affirms the identification of the zoomorph.
A “topknot” (figure 3b), a dominant feature in the
skulls of the Pleistocene mammal (Hurst, 2011), is evident in the
petroglyphs. No other animal has a comparative skull shape. All
Figure 3b
completed mammoths have this feature.
The tusks and trunks are evident in the zoomorphs. These are typically the most noticable
feature. Many images, falsely identified as mammoths, do not contain both a trunk and the tusks or the
aforementioned features (see Thompson, 1993; Ekkehart, Wallace, 2011).
Although
mentioned in
passing in previous
reports, the bison
provides an
excellent source of
affirmation. As
previously mentioned, bison were extinct by the Archaic era and thus proves this panel to be
Pleistocene in age. The hunched back of the bison is also diagnostic of a Pleistocene bison. Any bison
later groups of people may have encountered, although not represented regionally, were structurally
similar to the bison we see today. The bison depicted on the panel us comparatively similar to the
Pleistocene bison.
Figure 4a: Mammoth Two, Digitally Enhanced
Figure 4b: Mammoth One, Digitally Enhanced.
To assist in the aforementioned characteristics as well as any prospective descriptions, a series
of enhancements and illustrations are provided below and above.
In figures 4a & b, the dodge tool was selected to follow the pecked marks. This digital
enhancement brightens the rock face of your selection to provide a visual guide to the eroded and
patinated glyphs.
In figure 5, a rough illustration has been overlaid above the mammoth and bison panel. Some of
Figure 5: Illustration and Mammoth Panel
the features were lost in this conversion process and what was thought to be two legs is now felt to be a
leg and a tail.
Oral History
Many researchers immediately ascribed the Pleistocene mammals to an Archaic artist stating
that it was, in fact, depicting Pleistocene mammals, however, they hypothesized that the description of
the mammals was carried down through oral history. One must ask if oral history is viable enough to
recreate an extinct animal with uncanny accuracy. It doesn’t seem to be. How does one compare an
extinct giant, hairy, elephant with the existing, North American, Archaic mammals? It is immediately
obvious that oral history is subject to perception – an individualistic impression. Within even the most
descriptive analysis of the mammals, the artist would be subject to how the original story teller saw and
perceived the elements of the animal. Anyone who has ever tried to create an image based upon
another’s description would soon realize that artistic accuracy on any level is unlikely based upon oral
tradition. Further, accuracy would dramatically reduce without a comparative structure or mammal. It
is also important to remember that oral history would recall the physical persona of the mammal and
not the artistic profile. Thus, profiles of existing animals wouldn’t be viable as comparative structures.
The Geology
Navajo Sandstone
In Gillam's survey, she suggested that Navajo Sandstone was too weak and fragile for
Pleistocene era petroglyphs (Gillam, Wakeley, 2013). Although these properties can be true on some
level, they have sustained many early Archaic panels and are capable as a Paleolithic canvas.
Barrier Canyon Style, some of Utah's greatest artwork, has been thought to begin at an early
Archaic time frame (Schaafsma, 1980; Cole, 2012). The BCS artists often sought sites within Navajo
sandstone alcoves (Firnhaber, 2008). Many of these alcoves are insufficient in protecting the images
from the elements, especially those occurring within water veins (Knighton, 2013). If any of these
painted images are believed to be 6,000 + years old (see Schaafsma, 1980; Cole, 2012) petroglyphs
could easily withstand 12,000 years. Further, Navajo Sandstone is known to support rock art well
(Firnhaber, 2008). Finally, researcher Joe Pachak reports a lack of moisture on the panel itself during a
rainstorm (Gulliford, 2012). Thus, these petroglyphs are subject to less weathering than several,
painted, BCS sites.
Navajo Sandstone was likely preferable for Paleolithic peoples. Greater precipitation and colder
summers in lower elevations provided bountiful perennial springs in aquifers such as Navajo Sandstone
(Davis, 1994). Moreover, stream sides such as the San Juan river would have supported riparian
elements that could have sustained a populace of mammoths (Davis, 1994).
Patination
Gillam also reported that the minimal patination suggested that the panel didn't belong to a
Pleistocene era (Gillam, Wakeley, 2013).
Patination has long proved to be nonviable as a source of dating and is thus an
unlikely source of affirmation to either
theories. That being said, the patination is
visibly darker than rock faces containing
Figure 6: Patination on cliff face containing BCS (left). Patination
on cliff face containing mammoths (right).
Barrier Canyon Style pictographs (figure
6).
Conclusion
A significant body of evidence suggests that the panel in question was depicted by artists who
had seen and experienced megafauna. The panel in question is located in a prime habitat for Paleolithic
travelers and thus the Navajo Sandstone wall would be prone to Paleolithic art. Due to the fragility of
the rock, many of these panels have eroded away and no longer exist as is the case with all prehistoric
rock art worldwide. However, it is rational to assume that some have survived.
The panel in question shows an abnormal amount of wear and is of a style not recognized by the
current classifications. That being said, it is also suggested that oral tradition is not viable as a source of
artistic integrity.
The panel provides portrayals of several mammoths as well as a singular bison that have
diagnostic characteristics verified by Paleontologists as well as Paleolithic art experts (Hurst, 2011).
The geological viewpoint is one that interjects probability based upon a singular example, when
that example was likely a part of a complex of panels. Ultimately, the surface containing the
petroglyphs cannot be dated and thus any results are questionable and prone to error.
This survey concludes that, in light of new evidence, the petroglyphs in question are
undoubtedly authentic portrayals of megafauna.
Bibliography
- Malotki, Ekkehart; Wallace, Henry. 2011. Columbian Mammoth Petroglyphs from the San
Juan River Near Bluff, Utah.
- Gillam, Mary; Wakeley, Lillian. 2013. Are Utah’s Sand Island ‘Mammoths’ Late Pleistocene?
A Geologic View.
- Davis, William .1994. The First Americans in San Juan County.
- Hurst, Winston. 2011. Ice Age Rock Art on the San Juan River?
- Turner, Christie. 1971. Petrographs of the Glen Canyon Region.
- Firnhaber, Michael. 2007. Experiencing Rock Art: A Phenomenological Investigation of
Barrier Canyon Tradition.
- Cole, Sally. 1990. Legacy on Stone: Rock Art of the Colorado Plateau and Four Corners
Region.
- Labak, Laurie. 2013. Sand Island Mammoths.
- Gulliford, Andrew. 2012. Making a Mammoth Discovery.
- Clottes, Jean. 2010. Cave Art
- Clottes, Jean; Williams, David-Lewis. 1998. Shamans of Prehistory
- Shepard, Paul. 2004. Coming Home to the Pleistocene.
- Berenguer, Magin. Prehistoric Cave Art in Northern Spain Asturias.
- Schaafsma, Polly. 1971. The Rock Art of Utah: Papers of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology.
- Schaafsma, Polly. 1980. Indian Rock Art of the Southwest.
- Knighton, Jose. 2013. Rain-Magic Rock Art of the Canyonlands Ancestors.