(DIR) Home
A remarkable assemblage of petroglyphs and dinosaur footprints in
Northeast Brazil
(HTM) Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The petroglyphs represent a unique and significant record, given their
direct association with dinosaur fossil tracks. This ensemble of
archaeological and paleontological evidence unequivocally indicates
that human populations during the pre-colonial period interacted with
and likely assimilated the fossil record, incorporating such record
into their graphical expression, a cultural one, and consequently
integrating it into its collective identity. Particularly noteworthy
is the evident intentionality in creating petroglyphs near the
footprints, revealing active engagement with the fossil material,
suggesting that these traces not only caught the attention of the
native community but were meaningful and became integrated into their
knowledge repertoire. In the context of the social authorship of these
petroglyphs, they are to be attributed to a human group that once
occupied the territory corresponding to the present-day states of
Paraíba and Rio Grande do Norte during the pre-colonial period.
Substantial evidence for this, especially similar petroglyphs, is
abundant in archaeological sites located in the region (See Almeida8,
Santos Júnior12 and De Queirós13). Namely, some examples are the
municipalities of Antônio Martins (Fig. 11), Timbaúba dos Batistas,
Serra Negra do Norte, Caicó, and Jucurutu in the state of Rio Grande
do Norte, as well as in Catolé do Rocha, Taperoá, São José das
Espinharas, Belém do Brejo do Cruz, São José do Brejo do Cruz, and São
Mamede in Paraíba (Fig. 12). This enumeration is merely
representative, as the actual number of sites of this typology is
considerably larger12.
**Figure 11**
Junco archaeological site, Antônio Martins, Rio Grande do Norte State.
The site contains similar and at times identical motifs to the ones
found at Serrote do Letreiro, with the same execution techniques.
Scale bar = 10 cm. After Santos Júnior12.
**Figure 12**
Map indicating cities where archaeological sites with similar or
identical petroglyphs to the ones found at Serrote do Letreiro are
present. The map covers the states of Ceará, Paraíba, and Rio Grande
do Norte, northeast Brazil: ( **A** ) Alto Santo; ( **B** ) Antônio
Martins; ( **C** ) Jucurutu; ( **D** ) Timbaúba; ( **E** ) Caicó; (
**F** ) Serra Negra; ( **G** ) Belém do Brejo Cruz; ( **H** ) São José
do Brejo do Cruz; ( **I** ) Catolé do Rocha; ( **J** ) São José de
Espinhares; ( **K** ) São Memede; ( **L** ) Taperoá. The star
represents the Serrote do Letreiro site. The dashed line represents a
tentative and hypothetical territory occupied by the native population
that could be responsible for the graphic set of petroglyphs in
question, based on the distribution of the sites.
This compilation suggests that indeed, the primary area of occupation
of this social group encompasses the central region of the states of
Rio Grande do Norte and Paraíba (also known in Brazil as Seridó)
although sites with notable similarities can be found at more
significant distances, such as in the states of Ceará13 and
Pernambuco, to the west and south, respectively. In this context, the
Serrote do Letreiro Site is identified as situated on the southwest
periphery of the territory occupied by this population in the past
(Fig. 12). This group left abundant petroglyphs characterized by a
distinctive visual language now interpreted as "geometric forms" and
an inclination towards _horror vacui_. Throughout this territory, this
social group expressed itself graphically in a rather cohesive manner,
employing a unique approach to producing petroglyphs and demonstrating
a strong preference for specific rock surfaces near water sources for
their execution. It is crucial to highlight that the variations
observed in the execution techniques and stylistic aspects among the
petroglyphs identified at Serrote do Letreiro should not be
interpreted as evidence of distinct social authorship, that is,
different human cultures. On the contrary, we argue that these
variations are better understood as manifestations of individual
differences among authors belonging to the same social group. These
individuals, while sharing a common graphic or visual identity,
express themselves through distinct personal styles.
Establishing a date for the creation of these petroglyphs poses a
significant challenge, not unlike the dating difficulty encountered
throughout this territory at other sites, given that there have been
very few attempts at dating sites in this region. Human burials of
approximately 10,000 years BP were found at Mirador de Parelhas and
Pedra do Alexandre, inside what the authors consider the sphere of
occupation of the population that crafted the archaeological record
found at Serrote do Letreiro and other sites. In Pedra do Alexandre
specifically, twenty-eight burials have been dated using radiocarbon,
spanning a period from 9400 to 2620 years BP14,15. Further research
utilizing new methods of direct dating of petroglyphs, such as X-ray
fluorescence spectrometry16, will certainly shed light on the
chronology issue. In the absence of applying absolute dating methods
to the petroglyphs, the proposed datings here remain restricted to
iconographic inferences, as well as extrapolation from the temporal
horizons identified in the few dated sites in the region. Observing
such intentionality in the creation of the petroglyphs raises the
question of recognition and interpretation of the footprints by the
creators of the symbols. The hypothesis that the makers recognized the
footprints as such persists even considering that the contemporary
understanding of fossils and their association with dinosaurs was
likely unknown to the people who first encountered these footprints.
It is plausible to argue that, despite the absence of knowledge
regarding dinosaurs as we understand them today, the footprints were
most likely identified as such due to their formal similarity to rhea
footprints ( _Rhea americana_ —Palaeognathae) (Fig. 13), the largest
bird in Brazil, modern theropod dinosaurs, which currently inhabit the
Paraíba region. This is supported by the fact that in the same context
of the Dinosaur Valley (Sousa, Paraíba), the most renowned fossil
trackway is popularly known as the "Rhea's Trail," even though the
current population knows of the existence and morphology of dinosaurs.
**Figure 13**
Comparison between tridactyl tracks and tridigit petroglyph. ( **A** )
Theropod fossil track from Serrote do Letreiro site; ( **B** ) Recent
Palaeognathae track (by Steve Slocomb available on Flickr under CC BY
2.0 Deed); ( **C** ) Tridigit petroglyph from Serrote do Letreiro
site. Scale bar = 5 cm.
Regarding the petroglyphs associated with sauropod footprints, their
intentionality remains perplexing, given the absence of animals in
modern Brazilian fauna whose footprints resemble sauropod footprints.
New research, however, may shed light on this. In the municipality of
Sousa, a specimen of the proboscidean _Notiomastodon platensis_ was
dated using radiocarbon in bioapatite corrected to collagen to
approximately 24,000 years BP17. In the Ceará State, another specimen
of _Notiomastodon platensis_ was dated using radiocarbon in bioapatite
to 7836 years BP18. Like sauropods, proboscideans display column-like
legs, a result of adaptive convergence related to their large size,
which optimizes weight distribution and allows for more efficient
locomotion. This results in similar footprints, typically round. A
possible mastodon presence in the region during the Pleistocene-
Holocene would represent coexistence between these animals and humans.
This might indicate that engravers would have recognized the large,
round footprints as such, explaining the conspicuity with which
petroglyphs are placed near sauropod tracks. Nevertheless, the still
precarious amount of evidence for such a hypothesis should point to a
cautious identification of petroglyph placement near sauropod tracks
as deliberate, unlike the petroglyphs in evident association with the
theropod footprints in the northern outcrop, whose deliberate
execution is easily explainable. Still concerning the intentionality
in the execution of petroglyphs and the appropriation of this
materiality by the culture of the group in question, what appears to
be a notable reproduction of theropod footprints in the form of
tridigit-type engravings can be observed in one petroglyph (Figs. 7G
and 13). The identification of these engravings as tridigits that
iconically replicate dinosaur footprints provides additional evidence
of the possible cultural assimilation of the fossil record. Other
tridigit representations have been described as interpretations or
reproductions of dinosaur tracks, especially in cave sites near
paleontological sites7.
Overall, the systematic examination of interactions between humans and
the fossil record, such as fossil discoveries in the pre-Columbian
era, is a relatively recent scholarly endeavor. Adrienne Mayor played
an important role in highlighting the evolution of this research in
two significant publications: "The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology
in Greek and Roman Times" (2000)19 and "Fossil Legends of the First
Americans" (2013)20. As early as 1935, there was recognition that the
discipline of paleontology is indebted to Native Americans,
considering their relevant discoveries, as described by Edward M.
Kindle in his notes in the Journal of Paleontology21. Despite this,
some prominent paleontologists, such as G. Gaylord Simpson, held the
opposite view, exemplifying the paradigm that prevailed for most of
that time. According to him, pre-Columbian fossil findings were
occasional events and are not to be considered in the history of
paleontology. Furthermore, he claimed that Native American reports
were untrustworthy, being of little ethnological and no
paleontological value (see Simpson22, 132). This hegemonic conception
disregarded native contributions, arguing that fossil discoveries made
by indigenous people were the mere result of chance finds, devoid of
any scientific continuity (see page 26 in Mayor)20. Nonetheless,
today, it is indisputable that Native American thought represents a
distinct and valuable form of scientific reflection and inquiry. This
knowledge, developed over generations, is often referred to as "Native
Science"23. It is important to highlight that, despite the differences
between the Western Scientific Method and Native Science or
Traditional Knowledge, both represent equally valid efforts to grasp,
describe, and understand the reality that surrounds humans. The
integration of Native science knowledge provides a valuable
opportunity for academic exchange while at the same time contributing
to the empowerment and inclusion of Native American voices in this
sphere.
The site in question not only has relevance for historical correction
regarding indigenous knowledge concerning the fossil record but also
has considerable potential to contribute to the growing discussion
regarding fossils as cultural heritage, globally. In recent years, the
debate around paleontological heritage and its interface with cultural
heritage has grown significantly. Through large-scale mobilizations
with high social engagement, such as the restitution of the _Ubirajara
jubatus_ fossil (See Cisneros et al., p. 15), there emerges an
increasingly popular perception of fossils being culturally
significant. Concomitantly, more and more paleontological objects
arouse the interest of the general public and the market sees these
objects as high-priced commodities24. Often, these objects are sourced
from countries that were once exploration and exploitation colonies.
This relates to the fact that former colonial countries typically have
legislation that reinforces the prohibition on the removal and
departure from national territory of paleontological objects and other
cultural property. Such legal frameworks aim to halt the transit of
such objects, many of which were taken to Europe during colonial
times25. Sites such as Serrote do Letreiro, where the profound
relationship between native communities and the fossil record is
evident, point to the cultural relevance of these objects. This and
other instances hold the potential to provide subsidy for the
discussion on the importance of these assets and the need to consider
them under the same protection, preservation, and promotion measures
that other typologies of heritage currently enjoy.
In the Brazilian context, fossils are recognized by the Federal
Constitution of 1988, as stipulated in Article 216, as cultural
property belonging to the Union. They ought to be protected through
all lawful forms of safeguarding and heritage preservation. Although
Brazilian legislation recognizes the significance of fossils as
cultural objects, Brazilian paleontology and fossils lack specific and
comprehensive legislation that would ensure de facto the protection of
these elements, which are simultaneously vulnerable and of great
interest. The absence of specific regulations for paleontology and
fossils in Brazil contributes to inadequate protection for these
valuable records26. Likewise, it is noteworthy that even elements such
as petroglyphs and footprints firmly embedded in the rock face ongoing
threats due to bad weather and precarious preservation conditions.
Further, there is the risk of theft of rock art and fossilized
footprints, which can be removed in rock blocks, supplying an
alternative collectors market. Scenarios of theft and illicit
trafficking of cultural property highlight the pressing need for more
comprehensive and specific legislation, capable of addressing the
particularities and demands related to the protection and preservation
of fossils and petroglyphs present at the Serrote do Letreiro or other
similar sites. The relationship observed at the site between
archaeological and paleontological records is evidence of a symbolic
and meaningful adoption of the fossil record by human cultures,
forming values referring to the identity and memory of pre-colonial
groups in Brazil. This leads to the comprehension that the fossil
record of that territory must be subject to special protection and
precautionary measures aimed at archaeological, historical, and
artistic national heritage, as determined in Ordinance nº 375, 2018,
chapter V (On paleontological heritage), which establishes the
Tangible Cultural Policy of the National Institute of Historic and
Artistic Heritage (IPHAN) in Brazil27.
Through this preliminary assessment, critical safeguarding measures
stand out, such as the need to implement appropriate signs for
visitors, highlighting the location of the site, and instructing
tourists on fundamental visitation procedures. Similarly, the
feasibility of creating 3D replicas of both footprints and petroglyphs
is raised, as a form of recording and safeguarding both records.
Furthermore, handrails for movement containment could protect fossils
and petroglyphs from trampling by humans and animals, as well as from
intentional depredation. In consideration of the topographic
characteristics of the site, it is proposed that a structure that
allows the drainage or redirection of rainwater that accumulates
during the rainy season and runs down the slope be designed, thus
mitigating the dragging of debris across the surface of the outcrop.
______________________________________________________________________
Served by Flask-Gopher/2.2.1