Rock art images of Bighorn Sheep are ubiquitous in the west of North America. They have been manufactured almost invariably in profile, yet in many guises. This study describes an – in my opinion – unique example of a Bighorn recorded by my wife Elles and me at Cedar Point; a petroglyph site in the extreme south of Utah. The Bighorn is intentionally large, yet fainty executed, resulting in a “ghostly” appearance, hence my (subjective) name of the image: “the Bighorn Ghost”.
By Maarten van Hoek
*
*
The Bighorn Ghost Image
Cedar Point, Utah
Maarten van Hoek
*
*
*
*
Introduction
Utah is one of the many areas in North America with an enormous amount of rock art sites and rock art images. All sorts of images have been painted as pictographs onto the rock surfaces in Utah, or have been carved out as petroglyphs. Discussing Utah rock art, Kenneth Castleton describes and illustrates numerous rock art images that he published in two extensive and informative volumes. Yet, no doubt many more sites have since then been added to the long list of rock art sites in (not only) Utah. One of the rock art sites that Castleton describes is Muley Point – Site 2 (1987: 346), but this name is misleading, as it suggests that this site is at or near Muley Point – John’s Canyon (Castleton 1987: 238 – 239). However, the actual name of the site is Cedar Point. Cedar Point is also referred to by Christine Oravec (2014: Fig. 26) as “Cedar Mesa”; which is in fact a very large area NW of Cedar Point (Figure 1). It is uncertain however, whether Oravec is correct in this matter, because she also makes a mistake regarding her Fig. 27, said by her to be at Butler Wash, but in fact involving a petroglyph on a panel at the Sand Dune site further east (which is called “Tank Mesa” by Oravec [2014: 52; Fig. 41]).
Figure 1. The location of Cedar Point, southern Utah. The site is also very approximately marked by a yellow dot in the inset-map of North America. Maps © by Maarten van Hoek, based on Google Earth and (inset) on the map © by OpenStreetMap – Contributors.
Cedar Point is a rock art complex about 3.8 km ESE of Muley Point. The map (Figure 1) shows that Cedar Point comprises at least four groups of petroglyph boulders. The area that my wife Elles and I surveyed at Cedar Point in 2005 is roughly indicated by the yellow oval frame in Figure 1. In that area – littered by numerous small and very large boulders – we recorded about twenty boulders with petroglyphs, of which two Boulders (marked 1 and 2 in Figure 1) are most dramatically positioned in this impressive, red-coloured sandstone landscape. We did not take measurements, nor did I label each individual boulder or panel (except for Boulder 1).
In the following paragraphs I will discuss a selection of rock art images that have been executed on the boulders at Cedar Point by the ancient Anasazi peoples, focussing however on Panel B of Boulder 1. Most of the decorated panels that we inspected, can be seen in my video at YouTube (Van Hoek 2013). Both the video and this study only offer – of course – an incomplete impression, because we certainly did not see every decorated panel. Especially the petroglyphs that were in the shade (and thus harder to notice) may have escaped us.
*
The Imagery at Cedar Point
Although Cedar Point imagery is definitely related to the San Juan Anthropomorphic Style, there are (compared with for instance the plethora of such figures at the Mouth of Butler Wash site) only a few (perhaps three of four) large, outlined anthropomorphic figures of that style, which are often depicted with drooping limbs and large, drooping hands and feet (as if dead). One example is positioned next to a ghost-like figure, possibly of the earlier Glen Canyon Style (Figure 2A). Other figures of the San Juan Anthropomorphic Style are often smaller, often fully pecked and several seem to be topped by a bird or have the head replaced by a bird; often said to represent a duck (Figure 2B; on Boulder 2, see also the green arrow in Figure 4).
Figure 2. Petroglyphs at Cedar Point, Utah. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.
The site has also a number of Lobed Circle Symbols (see Figures 2B and 10) that are characteristic for the area. Lobed Circles have also been recorded at for instance Butler Wash, Sand Island and the Sand Dune site (Van Hoek 2026a: Figs 4 and 6) all located further east along the San Juan River. Possibly typical for the imagery at Cedar Point are the at least three examples of motifs shaped like a +, but with a dot at the end of each arm (Figure 3). Also special are the two comet-like petroglyphs in front of the quadruped in Figure 9. A more or less comparable petroglyph has been recorded by us at “nearby” Sand Island, 30 km to the east along the San Juan River.
Figure 3. Two of the three motifs depicting the Dotted Cross Symbol. Cedar Point, Utah. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.
There also are a few human footprints (one seen in Figure 9A), several handprints (one with seven fingers and part of the wrist [a ritually severed hand?]). A similar hand petroglyph (with five fingers, though) has been seen by us at Butler Wash. Some hand petroglyphs differ from the “standard” hand-shape and look more like the painted variant, recorded by us at the Peekaboo site in the Needles District of central Utah (Van Hoek 2026b: Fig. 5 – top row). Typical for the rock art in the San Juan drainage are the often large, vertically arranged phytomorphs – plant-shapes – often accompanied by small anthropomorphic figures, like in the two examples in the left-hand photo of Figure 3. At Cedar Point there are also (rows of) animal tracks, for instance of birds and quadrupeds. Boulder 2 also has the rather rare petroglyph of a feline track, which brings me to briefly discuss Boulder 2.
*
Boulder 2
Boulder 2 is huge. It is no less than about 6 or 7 meters high and has one of the most interesting collections of petroglyphs in the SE of Utah. One of the most remarkable groups of petroglyphs is found on the right-hand side of an enormous vertical, NW-facing panel (Figure 4), where several anthropomorphic figures are arranged in a most unusual horizontal position (Castleton also mentions the presence of a horizontal panel on Boulder 2, which – in my opinion – does not exist, except for the inaccessible top surface [not inspected by us]). Castleton claims that those horizontally arranged figures were executed when the boulder was still part of the outcrop cliff, when he remarks (1987: 346) that “the original site of the rock is easily seen high on a nearby cliff”. Although also Malotki and Weaver (2000: 34) claim that those figures “were undoubtedly aligned vertically when originally created”, I do not want to discard the possibility that those horizontal figures were originally manufactured (on purpose) in the horizontal position and that the boulder fell down long before any petroglyph was added to the rock surface. Tellingly, Malotki and Weaver also remark that due to heavy erosion the original location of the boulder high upon the cliff can no longer be pinpointed.
What is most likely correct, is that Malotki and Weaver assign the atypical, horizontally arranged anthropomorphs to the Gen Canyon Linear Style (said by them to roughly date between 6000 and 1000 B.C.), while the majority of the anthropomorphic petroglyphs (and several other images; but not all) at Cedar Point belong to the Basketmaker II Style or the Pueblo Style (1000 B.C. to A.D. 800). This also goes for most of the images on several other boulders at Cedar Point; also for those on Boulder 1.
Figure 4. Part of Boulder 2 at Cedar Point, Utah. The green arrow indicates the current slope of the panel and the vertical arranged figures (see Figure 2B); the yellow arrows point to the three anthropomorphic figures (now?) in a horizontal position. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek. In the original photo the decorated panel was almost black and the images were hardly visible. Therefore I digitally enhanced the picture to reveal the petroglyphs, without changing the cliff in the background too much. Of course I also did not change the imagery.
*
Boulder 1 – Panel A
Boulder 1 is also huge and has two main panels (Figure 5). The boulder measures roughly 4 meters wide across south-facing Panel A and is about 3 meters high across west-facing Panel B (which is the main subject of this paper). Panel A has among other, often fainter petroglyphs animal tracks; the fully pecked, ill-formed hand with seven fingers; lines of dots; a spiral-snake; an up-side down figure; a simple female anthropomorphic figure with a natural vulva-hole from which vertical lines emerge; a petroglyph that most likely depicts a sort of (medicine?) bag, and (only) one small, fully pecked, simple image of a Bighorn (see my video: Van Hoek 2013).
*
Boulder 1 – Panel B
Panel B was in the shade during our survey at Cedar Point (Figure 5), which hindered taking a photo of the whole panel. Photos of details were more successful, but still had to be enhanced to show the images more clearly. Most conspicuous and noticeable are the two very long, horizontally arranged zigzagging lines of dots; one with two lines, the upper one having three lines of dots (Figure 6). In my opinion those lines of dots have been superimposed upon earlier images at a later stage. Similar dotted lines occur on Boulder 2 (see Figure 4) and elsewhere in the Four Corners area (see for instance Slifer 2000: Fig. 197). There are more, shorter (single) lines of dots on Panel B (and on many other panels; see for instance Figure 3-right).
Figure 5. Boulder 1 at Cedar Point, Utah. Panel A also involves all (undecorated ?) parts to the right of the (much smaller) decorated panel. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.
Figure 6. Part of Panel B of Boulder 1 at Cedar Point. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek. In the original photo the decorated panel was almost black and the images were hardly visible. Therefore I digitally enhanced the picture to reveal most of the petroglyphs, without changing the petroglyphs, nor the cliff in the background. The framed area is shown in Figure 7.
Other images include anthropomorphic figures, sometimes with a complex ornament on the head, or a bird instead of a head (both seen in Figure 7); one outlined duck-headed anthropomorph carrying an object in each hand (weapons, pointing to a very small, fully pecked quadruped [superimposed by other petroglyphs]?); isolated birds; a vertical row of seven animal tracks; possibly only one, very small, outlined quadruped (yellow arrow in Figure 7), and possibly a few equally small, roughly pecked quadrupeds (blue arrow in Figure 7); a faint plant-shape; a bell-shaped anthropomorph (?) and a “ballerina-shaped” image (both visible near the Bighorn Ghost image in Figure 8), and many more, often hardly visible petroglyphs.
Figure 7. Details of Panel B (framed in Figure 6), showing the small, crudely pecked quadruped (blue arrow) and the (so far only) outlined quadruped (yellow arrow), as well as a duck-headed anthropomorph. The outlined quadruped (superimposed by zigzagging lines of dots) might be of the earlier Glen Canyon Linear Style. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.
*
The Bighorn Ghost
When scanning Panel B in the shade, we noticed – at some point – a large, yet rather faint image of a quadruped. A closer inspection revealed that it was a Bighorn. But it definitely was not a “standard” image of a Bighorn. The image was not immediately noticed by us because the light was unfavourable and – compared with the other images on the panel – it was mainly lightly stippled (not fully pecked). Moreover, it is partially superimposed by one group of the long, zigzagging lines of better visible dots (Figure 6). For us the Bighorn was almost ethereal in appearance. Therefore I nicknamed this quadruped the “Bighorn Ghost” in this study.
Why is the Bighorn Ghost so special? First of all it is its size that is remarkable. Unfortunately we did not take any measurements, but the Bighorn Ghost is about seven or eight times bigger than the (only?) small outlined quadruped on Panel B (yellow arrow in Figure 7) and all the other fully pecked petroglyphs of equally small quadrupeds on this panel (one indicated by the blue arrow in Figure 7). Also the few petroglyphs of quadrupeds on the other boulders in the surveyed area are all (much) smaller than the Bighorn Ghost.
Secondly, the Bighorn Ghost is unique (as far as I know) in the whole of the Cedar Point rock art complex because of its stippled nature (Figure 8). The Bighorn Ghost is depicted fully laterally. It has two massive, curved horns. The head shows two single, parallel lines that depict the ears and an open mouth. The eye may have flaked off (or it never existed, which is rather common in Bighorn petroglyphs). It has an extremely short tail (a single line). Its four legs are straight, single lines ending in small pecked areas that might represent its feet (notice that no cloven hoofs are shown). Importantly, the head, the horns and the neck are (intentionally) more densely stippled than the sparsely stippled, faintly outlined rectangular body. This property will briefly be explained in the Final Observations.
Figure 8. Detail of Panel B showing the Bighorn Ghost petroglyph (as well as the bell-shaped anthropomorph [in front of the chest], the “ballerina-shaped” petroglyph [below the belly-line] and five of the hoof-prints). Photograph (much enhanced) © by Maarten van Hoek.
It is remarkable that the Cedar Point area has so few other petroglyphs of quadrupeds. As far as I could check they all are of a dissimilar shape and they all are fully pecked. One boulder near the north end of the surveyed area bears a distinct Bighorn petroglyph, faintly of the same layout as the Bighorn Ghost, but smaller and clearly fully pecked, not stippled (Figure 9A). Next to this quadruped are two fully pecked (matching) handprints, one fully pecked footprint and two “comet”-like motifs. Boulder 2 has at least one fully pecked Bighorn image (Figure 9B) and a boulder at Site 4 (see Figure 1) has at least five petroglyphs of quadrupeds (Figure 10).
Finally, other petroglyph sites in the San Juan basin (especially Sand Island) have (often many) more petroglyphs of quadrupeds. It must also be noticed that the Cedar Point area seems to have more images of birds than of quadrupeds (whether isolated birds, or intimately associated with anthropomorphic figures (see Figure 7B), especially on Boulder 2, Panel A [not illustrated]).
Figure 9. A: Part of a profusely decorated boulder at Cedar Point showing a fully pecked Bighorn petroglyph. B: Detail of a Bighorn petroglyph – on Boulder 2 at Cedar Point – clearly showing hoofs. Photographs © by Maarten van Hoek.
Figure 10. Large boulder at Site 4 at Cedar Point (for location see Figure 1) showing at least five quadrupeds (one clearly a Bighorn with cloven hoofs), a Lobed Circle and two rows of small anthropomorphic figures (possibly of, or influenced by the later Chinle Representational Style [see Schaafsma 1980: Figs 84 and 85]). No scale provided. The long row of figures is also illustrated by Carol Patterson, without scale and without site name (2018: Fig. 31-centre). Drawing © by Maarten van Hoek, based on a photograph by Rex at gjhikes.com (2026).
*
Parallels in Andean Rock Art
In global rock art images of stippled biomorphic figures are not uncommon, but at most sites stippled figures are either absent or an exception. This is also the case in the Desert Andes rock art region; the extremely dry area west of the High Andes in South America. In an earlier paper I distinguished three categories of biomorphic rock art images using dots when being manufactured. The first group consists of biomorphic rock art images that are completely made up of only dots and no outlines (although in some instances an intended contour line was omitted for some reason). A fine example is the scene in a cave at Achahui, Peru, where a large petroglyph panel features at least seven mammals that have been composed of only small dots (Van Hoek 2016: Fig. 1). It seems to depict a complex hunting scene and the possible target is most likely a feline of no less than 275 cm long. At Toro Muerto in southern Peru, a few zoomorphs have been manufactured with only dots or small cupules (Van Hoek 2016).
The second category comprises images that are almost entirely made up of dots. Only specific body parts are fully pecked or outlined, and in most instances it concerns the head. This confirms my theory that in rock art the main focus is often on the head (as most likely is also the case in the Bighorn Ghost). Examples are for instance found at Huancor, Peru (Van Hoek 2016: Figs 8 and 9) and at Chiuchiu, Chile (Figure 11). The third group encompasses images that are made up of dots, but that are partially outlined. Most likely the (otherwise rare) examples of this group represent abandoned attempts to manufacture a completely outlined, but still dotted, image, like the examples from Toro Muerto (Van Hoek 2016: Figs 15 and 16).
Figure 11. Two dotted zoomorphs of the second category (most likely felines) at Chiuchiu, Río Loa, northern Chile. Note the two anthropomorphs. Photograph © by Maarten van Hoek.
*
Final Observations
Within the array of petroglyphs of quadrupeds at Cedar Point the Bighorn Ghost is unique, as it combines an oversized size and a specific shape (especially its large and massive horns [most likely pointing to male gender]) with the stippling technique, which makes the image “obscure” or “ghostly” (especially in the shade). Because we did not take measurements (and could not find any scale in the publications that I have available), the actual size of the Bighorn Ghost cannot be stated (although it might be almost life-size) and thus it cannot now – size-wise – be compared with other images of Bighorns. But it is certain that there are petroglyphs of Bighorn sheep in the SW of North America that are as large as or perhaps larger than the Bighorn Ghost.
The same is true for its body-shape. There are definitely more petroglyphs of Bighorns with a (large) rectangular body in the SW, but they may lack one or two of the other defining properties. Also, it will be very difficult to find a petroglyph in SW rock art of a Bighorn with equally massif horns, except for the several examples recorded in the Mogollon rock art of New Mexico (not New America), like some instances at Three Rivers (Van Hoek 2015: Fig. 6).
However, the property that defines the Bighorn Ghost and its “ghostly” appearance the most, is the stippling technique. Importantly, this technique has not been applied uniformly across the Bighorn Ghost. Its head, neck, horns and the outline of the rectangular body are more densely stippled (not fully pecked, though), while the interior of the body is (intentionally) only very lightly stippled. In my opinion this difference in density was used to emphasise the symbolic and religious importance of the head and – especially perhaps in this case – the horns.
This intentional variation in stippling density is seen in other petroglyphs of Bighorns in the SW. An example is the Bighorn petroglyph recorded by Kenneth Castleton at the Valentine Bottom site in the Island in the Sky District of Canyonlands National Park in Utah (1987: Fig. 8.56). We recorded another instance at the rock art site of Potash Road, a rock art complex that directly overlooks the Colorado River, SW of Moab (Utah). In this case the head, horns, neck, legs and chest are fully pecked, the rest is stippled; the belly area somewhat heavier (Figure 12). There are some more examples of petroglyphs of Bighorns showing (variation in) stippling, some of which are being discussed and illustrated in Van Hoek 2015, but none of them looks like the Bighorn Ghost, which may therefore be unique for SW rock art after all.
Figure 12. Petroglyph of a Bighorn sheep at Potash Road, Site 3, Panel 2; Moab, Utah (size unknown to me). Photograph and drawing (colour differentiation – indicating variations in density of stippling – added by the author) © by Maarten van Hoek.
*
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Vaughn Hadenfelt from Bluff for expertly guiding us to the rock art sites at Cedar Point and Monument Valley. Last, but certainly not least, I thank my wife Elles who assisted me during our surveys at Cedar Point and Monument Valley in Utah and at Chiuchiu in Chile (and at many other sites in Utah [and elsewhere worldwide]), while she continues to support me at home.
*
References
Castleton, K. B. 1987. Petroglyphs and Pictographs of Utah. Volume Two: The South, Central, West and Northwest. Utah Museum of Natural History, Salt Lake City.
Malotki, E. and D. E. Weaver Jr. 2002. Stone chisel and yuca brush. Colorado Plateau rock art. Walnut, CA.
Oravec, C. 2014. Yuccas, butterflies, and flute players: the significance of San Juan Basketmaker rock art in the flower image complex. Utah Rock Art. Vol. XXXIII; pp 15 – 71.
Patterson, C. B. 2018. Cultural Affiliations of the Western Basketmaker II Style Petroglyphs. Myths that Define a Culture. Dominguez Archaeological Research Group. Montrose, Colorado.
Schaafsma, P. 1980. Indian Rock Art of the Southwest. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Slifer, D. 2000. Guide to Rock Art of the Utah Region. Sites with Public Access. Ancient City Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Van Hoek, M. 2013: Petroglyphs of Cedar Point, Utah. YouTube.
Van Hoek, M. 2015. The Potash Sheep Shifters. Bighorn Petroglyphs of the Southwest. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. Fully illustrated PDF available at Academia, and as PDF-na-5 in DropBox.
Van Hoek, M. 2016. Dotted Zoomorphs in Andean Rock Art. In: Rupestreweb. Available as PDF-97 in DropBox.
Van Hoek, M. 2026a. The Female Exposing Breasts. Sand Dune Petroglyph Site, Utah. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin. Italy. PDF available at Academia.
Van Hoek, M. 2026b. Peekaboo, a Female-Male Rock Art Site, Salt Creek Canyon, Utah, USA. In: TRACCE – Online Rock Art Bulletin, Italy. PDF available at Academia.
