An LDS Guide to Mesoamerica: May 2022

Sharing the previous post generated a lot of pushback, surprisingly from a Facebook group on the Book of Mormon and archaeology. The suggestion that this particular figure of the geoglyphs in the southern California desert known today as the Blythe Intaglios could possibly be a horse was met primarily with criticism. The common answer was that it was a mountain lion and could not be a horse. Why would an animal design like this be identified with a predator like a puma or cougar and not some prey animal more closely resembling its actual shape?

the other Blythe Intaglios Quadruped

The prevailing interpretation is that the humanoid figure is Mastamho, the creator of life. He had a companion and helper known as Hatakulya, a mountain lion. Some legends say that Hatakulya could also transform into a man. Other legends state that there were two mountain lions: Hatakulya and Numeta. Hatakulya has a tail that hangs down and Numeta has one that goes up over his back. If this interpretation is correct, then both quadrupeds would have to represent Hatakulya. These creation stories come from the Mohave and Quechan tribes that live in the region today.

This is the most common interpretation of these giant images, but in searching websites that explain or describe the Blythe Intaglios, most appear to have copied their text from the same source, as they all say the same thing. The quadrupeds are often described in scientific literature as 'mountain lion-like.' This is odd, because even if they do represent such an animal, they certainly do not look like mountain lions. This connection relies considerably on ethnographer Boma Johnson's work (1985, 2003). We can find no additional support for this idea; all later interpretations appear to be using Johnson's work as their reference. The human and animal figures are closely grouped together as though they had a symbolic connection. Each human/animal pair is traditionally identified as Mastamho and Hatakulya respectively, but since Hatakulya is a mountain lion that can transform into a man, perhaps each set represents both aspects of one being. Based on the accepted iconography, neither of the animals can be Numeta. A third humanoid is nearby, but without an accompanying animal.

LegendsofAmerica.com has a page on the Blythe Intaglios and repeats the same story as all the rest do, but also suggests that the figures instead may represent powerful individuals in a clan interacting with their surroundings. It also includes the observation that "Part of the dating problem is that the animal figures appear to be horses. If so, they must have been carved either before American horses went extinct some 10,000 years ago or more recently after the Spaniards arrived in California in 1540.

"Another theory holds that some modern horses did exist in North America before the Spaniards, but were regarded as food sources rather than bests [sic] of burden."

Our point is that it really is not clear what these figures were originally created to represent. Since no Native American group in the region claims to have made them, it is reasonable to look at alternative interpretations. We have seen several possibilities. The problem is, as LegendsofAmerica states, the animal figures (particularly one of them) appear to be horses. The two quadrupeds are not identical; they have some differing details, such as head shape, neck length, and suggestion of paws (or hooves) at the feet, one looking more horse-like than the other. We aren't stating definitively that they are horses, just that this idea is something to consider. We aren't the first to suggest this. They may be the mountain lion(s) that assisted in the creation, but if they are, we must ask why the people who made them did not make them look more like predators instead of prey animals, since ancient cultures in this region (and even worldwide) were certainly adept at doing that. Regardless of what the giant figures may represent or the role they played in their original culture, without the pre-conceived idea that they are mountain lions in a specific creation story, any untrained observer would classify them as some sort of large prey animal, likely an ungulate.

Read about the Blythe Intaglios on legendsofamerica.com.

We always find items like this interesting. Many may not know about what are now called the Blythe Intaglios, discovered in 1932 by a pilot flying from Nevada to California. They are geoglyphs, large works of art created in the earth that are mainly discernible from the air, quite similar to the Nazca Lines in Peru, even in their construction. Their current name comes from their location near Blythe, CA in the Colorado Desert.

Blythe Intaglio Quadruped

In addition to some spiral and geometric designs, the five main figures are humanoid and animal; two of them are officially known as 'quadrupeds,' the most interesting of which is shown here. Two questions should immediately come to mind: what animal is being represented and what is the age of this and the other large figures? Thinking of large American fauna, this image could easily be seen as a horse to the untrained eye. How likely is that?

Daniel has long researched the topic of ancient American horses, as recorded in the Book of Mormon. This is obviously a controversial topic that goes against the current line of thinking, both common and scientific, but that is slowly changing. There is actually a good bit of information about these geoglyphs, but none of it suggests that this could be a pre-Columbian depiction of an ancient horse; that would be going too far. Attempts have been made to connect this and the other nearby figures to Yuman oral history and cosmology, however, it is not known who created them, although later native nations knew about and attached significance to them.

Is there any danger in seeing a horse in this figure? The assertion can be made that imagery from other cultures must be interpreted using the understanding of that culture. This is definitely true and quite often pseudoscientific claims are made by taking artifacts out of context and interpreting them with a modern understanding. We should be careful to guard against this, but it must be pointed out that from prehistoric cave paintings to zoomorphic representations from ancient cultures all over the world, animals in ancient art can usually be readily identified. Ancient people knew what animals familiar to them looked like and were quite skilled at representing them through painting, sculpture, and other means. While we may not know much about the culture that created the aforementioned Nazca Lines, we can easily recognize the spider, monkey, hummingbird, and other representational art they made, even if we do not understand their meaning.

Blue Mesa, AZ

Oddly enough, this figure is most often identified as a mountain lion, companion to the Creator in an ancient creation myth. Other safe and more visually likely candidates would be a deer, elk, or another common North American ungulate. Our first reaction to the mountain lion label is that it could only be true if the creators of this figure had never seen such an animal, but are there culturally similar examples known to represent cougars or pumas for comparison? While it is not known exactly who created the Blythe Intaglios or even when, there is a plethora of ancient and even prehistoric rock art examples from this region of the United States. Shown here is a well-known petroglyph, which is easily recognizable as a feline. Notice salient features such as the ears and claws. Interestingly enough, a common feature of indigenous images in the Southwest of mountain lions is the long tail going over the back.

Coso Mountains, CA

Other examples of non-controversial animals are quite common. As can be seen in these petroglyphs from the Mohave Desert, animal forms are surprisingly recognizable, even cross culturally. It is not hard at all to make out horned sheep/goats, a lizard, and some sort of canine, probably a coyote or dog. More specific identification may not be possible, but the overall general type of animal is easy to see.

Bluff, UT

In this prehistoric example, large horned animals are depicted. What are obviously antlers are shown on what is likely a deer. Also identifiable are a bird and the human hunting with a bow and arrow. Countless such petroglyphs and pictographs are known all across the United States, but these are all chosen from the American Southwest in an attempt to be as culturally relevant as possible to the Blythe Intaglios. However, it should be noted that even in ancient rock art worldwide, the modern viewer can almost always tell at least the general type of animal depicted. Humans have a way of successfully representing animals, even across wide ranges of time and distance.

Indian Creek State Park, UT

As a contrast, there is North American rock art that obviously shows horses, even being ridden. Newspaper Rock in Utah is a well-known example. We are not suggesting that this is a pre-conquest depiction of an Ancient American horse. It was most likely created long after horses had been re-introduced to the Americas and plains tribes had adopted them into their culture. When non-native scientists see horses depicted, they assume a historical date without further investigation. It should be noted that some First Nations people have oral histories and traditions that they have always had horses, long before the white man arrived.

Rock art can be dated using a variety of techniques, including the growth of lichens and weathering or varnish on the rocks, but as we have often seen if the image is undeniably a horse, no effort is taken to determine a date because its age can automatically be assumed. This is safe enough and scientifically sound, but notice the circular reasoning involved: If it is a horse, then it must be post-conquest and only if it is post conquest, then can it reasonably be a horse. This approach is used by Michael J. Harner in his study of the Blythe Intaglios. In "GRAVEL PICTOGRAPHS OF THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER REGION," he states '...if one considers the quadrupeds to be horses, then all five figures can be considered to be historic...' He also suggests they may be a coyote, wolf, or dog. A safe and non-controversial assumption, but again, it begs the question (since we know there were no horses in the Americas before they were introduced by Europeans, any ancient horse-like depiction must be something else) instead of researching it out fully with an open mind. However, even in this study, we see that interpreting the quadruped as a horse is not unreasonable.

This brings us to the real question, can these geoglyphs be dated? They have been, with some interesting results. Jay von Werlhof and Harry Casey authored a study on these and other rock art in the region. On the Blythe Intaglios quadruped in particular, the AMS C-14 age is 1145 +/_ 65 with a Total Error of 203. The Calibrated Age (1 sigma) is AD 668 (892) 1152. This may be a bit hard to decipher, but later in the study, they conclude that the minimum ages of these geoglyphs, referred to as the 'Blythe Giants,' are in the time range of AD 550-1150 and according to the table in the study, the quadruped has a highest probabilistic date of AD 892. This is important, as Harner states that, 'The uniformity of style of the anthropomorphic and quadruped representations suggests that they were constructed contemporaneously.'

Based on the results of these studies, the Blythe Intaglios quadruped was created at least 400-500 years before the traditional timeline of the re-introduction of horses to the region, and probably much earlier. Comparing it to other rock art examples in the American Southwest, it does not easily resemble a mountain lion, deer, bighorn sheep, elk, or other animal commonly known to Native Americans, although it could represent a mythical creature. As stated in scientific studies, it has at times been interpreted as a horse. The only point of contention is its age if indeed it actually is a horse. We realize that we are swimming against the current here, but all things considered, suggesting that this Blythe Intaglios quadruped might be a pre-conquest horse is not all that outrageous.