The Perplexing Puzzle Of A 'Horned Serpent' Cave Painting

[maximus otter]

Somewhere in the Koesberg Mountains of South Africa, located deep in the arid Karoo region north-east of Cape Town, there’s an exquisite cave painting of a curious creature. The creature, known as the “Horned Serpent,” bears no resemblance to any animal that lives in the region today; if anything, the creature’s distinctive downturned tusks call to mind a walrus, but the South African desert is a long, long way from the Arctic regions that walruses call home.

The Horned Serpent does, however, bear a striking resemblance to an animal that once did call the Karoo home–a dicynodont, a prehistoric creature that inhabited the region some 200 million years ago.

A new paper published September 18 in PLOS One argues that the painting, which dates to between 1821 and 1835 and was created by the now-extinct /Xan-speaking San people of the region, does indeed depict a dicynodont–and that it’s based on the plentiful dicynodont fossils that can be found in the region.

Benoit says, “there is no chance that the San met a living dicynodont.” However, given that fossils are relatively common in the Main Karoo Basin, where the cave is located, there is every chance that the San found dicynodont fossils and recognized them for what they were: the preserved remains of long-dead animals. Benoit says, “This is also supported by the San myth that ‘large brutes’ roamed the land a long time ago.”

Benoit concedes that skeptics might question whether the Horned Serpent is simply the product of a fertile imagination, rather than a relatively accurate depiction of an ancient creature. However, he notes that “pure imagination may be safely ruled out as the San did not paint things that were completely imaginary. Their art was based on real-life elements, mostly animals. The new contribution adds fossils into the mix.”

Nevertheless, there are tantalizing hints of the extent of palaeontological knowledge these cultures may once have possessed. One such piece of evidence is the Mokhali Cave, located in Lesotho. It houses another piece of San rock art, created around 1810, which depicts what are unmistakably dinosaurs: “We know these are dinosaurs,” explains Benoit, “because they are depicted next to the painting of a dinosaur footprint, made in an area were fossil dinosaur footprints are commonplace.”

https://www.popsci.com/science/horned-serpent-cave-painting/

maximus otter

 

[kesavaross]

So many if, buts and maybe's.

 

[hunck]

Somewhere in the Koesberg Mountains of South Africa, located deep in the arid Karoo region north-east of Cape Town, there’s an exquisite cave painting of a curious creature. The creature, known as the “Horned Serpent,” bears no resemblance to any animal that lives in the region today; if anything, the creature’s distinctive downturned tusks call to mind a walrus, but the South African desert is a long, long way from the Arctic regions that walruses call home.

The Horned Serpent does, however, bear a striking resemblance to an animal that once did call the Karoo home–a dicynodont, a prehistoric creature that inhabited the region some 200 million years ago.

A new paper published September 18 in PLOS One argues that the painting, which dates to between 1821 and 1835 and was created by the now-extinct /Xan-speaking San people of the region, does indeed depict a dicynodont–and that it’s based on the plentiful dicynodont fossils that can be found in the region.

Benoit says, “there is no chance that the San met a living dicynodont.” However, given that fossils are relatively common in the Main Karoo Basin, where the cave is located, there is every chance that the San found dicynodont fossils and recognized them for what they were: the preserved remains of long-dead animals. Benoit says, “This is also supported by the San myth that ‘large brutes’ roamed the land a long time ago.”

Benoit concedes that skeptics might question whether the Horned Serpent is simply the product of a fertile imagination, rather than a relatively accurate depiction of an ancient creature. However, he notes that “pure imagination may be safely ruled out as the San did not paint things that were completely imaginary. Their art was based on real-life elements, mostly animals. The new contribution adds fossils into the mix.”

Nevertheless, there are tantalizing hints of the extent of palaeontological knowledge these cultures may once have possessed. One such piece of evidence is the Mokhali Cave, located in Lesotho. It houses another piece of San rock art, created around 1810, which depicts what are unmistakably dinosaurs: “We know these are dinosaurs,” explains Benoit, “because they are depicted next to the painting of a dinosaur footprint, made in an area were fossil dinosaur footprints are commonplace.”

https://www.popsci.com/science/horned-serpent-cave-painting/

maximus otter

Hmmm…… I can see something that could be a deer or a calf. I’m not seeing a horned serpent. Where is it?

 

[lordmongrove]

I think it is some kind of animal holding an eel or snake in it's mouth.

 

[Sharon Hill]

I downloaded the paper. But, honestly, I'm a bit over the claims that ancient people used fossils to imagine depictions of animals - the griffin, the cyclops, and now the dicynodont. It's speculative. Fossils, particularly skulls, don't often appear intact on the ground. They fall apart, or they need to be carefully excavated. No doubt people were influenced by bones that turned up but this is really reaching. Let me go look at the paper but I approach it highly skeptically. And, I don't think you can ever know for sure. The provenance is lost.

 

[Mikefule]

I downloaded the paper. But, honestly, I'm a bit over the claims that ancient people used fossils to imagine depictions of animals - the griffin, the cyclops, and now the dicynodont. It's speculative. Fossils, particularly skulls, don't often appear intact on the ground. They fall apart, or they need to be carefully excavated. No doubt people were influenced by bones that turned up but this is really reaching. Let me go look at the paper but I approach it highly skeptically. And, I don't think you can ever know for sure. The provenance is lost.

I agree.

I look at that picture and see neither a serpent nor horns.

Whatever palaeontologists, archaeologists, and historians say to each other behind closed doors, the message that reaches the outside world via TV, books, and other media, is usually far too certain. "This shows X." "This must have been for X purpose." "Primitive man believed X"

I look at a picture like that and read that it is a "horned serpent" and think to myself, "Fair enough. I don't see it, but they're the experts. Perhaps they've seen more evidence: electronic scans, computer enhanced resolution, chemical trace analysis, or whatever."

However, it is at least possible that once one eminent palaeontologist has argued that it was a horned serpent, groupthink took over, because no one was confident they had a better idea.

As for the idea that "dragons and griffins were inspired by fossil bones and skulls": that is a real stretch of the imagination. It is right up there with the mythical cyclops being inspired by misinterpretation of elephant skulls.

Most of imagination is either combination of ideas or exaggeration of ideas. If there are big snakes in your area, then imagine an even bigger one. If there are horned animals in your area, add horns to the big snake.

We find this imagination by exaggeration in modern fiction. Examples include the shark in Jaws, or in Meg (the film about the megalodon) as well as King Kong.

We find this imagination by combination of existing ideas in modern science fiction. So many alien races are depicted as lizard men, or feline men, or as combining features of ancient Earth civilisations. It is rare for someone to come up with a completely novel idea for an alien. Indeed, the exaggeration aspect is also there: one slavering mouth is frightening, so let's give the alien two slavering mouths, one inside the other.

The other strand to imagination is reversal of ideas. Think of an ant (tiny) but imagine it the size of an elephant. Know that all people die, but imagine the one person who is immortal. We see this imagination by reversal of an existing idea in modern TV fiction where we sometimes get likeable well-meaning vampires and werewolves.

 

[hunck]

So where is the horned serpent - is it this?

or this

 

[Frideswide]

So where is the horned serpent - is it this?

View attachment 82047

or this

View attachment 82048

The yellow think looks like a deer of some sort to me. No idea what the red thing is. Can't see a horned serpent!

 

[brownmane]

The only thing I can see as a possible horn (shape) is the red curved lines. Though maybe they are the animal in total?

I looked up dicynodont images, and this is the only one that I would think has "tusks" similar to what is described:
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/placerias-triassic-dicynodont-corey-ford.html

But even that image does not have downturned tusks.

 

[kamalktk]

We know that Egyptians would carve over existing heiroglyphs, why not paint over existing paint?

 

[Frideswide]

But even that image does not have downturned tusks.

ok... so...(do not quote me professionally!)... there is

* a boat with a red keel, a red spotted blue upper or inner.

* a deer is on the deck, yellow, prancing and with dramatic white mascara on its visible eye.

* a deer is in the water or at least under the boat, mixed up with the red keel which may have run over it.

* there is a triangularish red section to the right, ?attached to the boat. If so maybe a steering oar?

or

* the bottom deer is much bigger than the top deer. The head is red, either on purpose or the boat colour has run down over it.

* there is a possible ?carved ?head at thr peak of the prow.

or

* there is no boat.

* there are two deer.

* a walrus or seal type thingy (don't let me lose you with technical details here) is between the two deer. Red on the bottom and blue with red spots on the top.

* the thing in the middle has a red, triangular flipper or fin towards the front and on the bottom half.

* the thing in the middle has a sleek head with ?droopy whiskers

 

[SimonBurchell]

In the linked article there is a better illustration further down, in an arrangement with other photos. The "horned serpent" is apparently the boat-shaped thingy. Looking at the wider view on the other photo, to me it looks like a banana. I haven't read the article, but the idea of the painting representing an extinct animal seems pure fantasy.

 

[Min Bannister]

I see the dicyncodont! Though it could be a giant White Grub..

The animals are quite stylised. I assume that is an elephant painted in red above?

 

[SimonBurchell]

I see the dicyncodont!

Riiiiiight...

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Looks like a deer or antelope to me.

 

[Min Bannister]

Riiiiiight...

The shape of the head and the visible leg are reminiscent. You do have to use your imagination a bit, as if you are depicting an animal you have never actually seen before. Think of how whales used to be depicted by people who had never seen a whole whale due to them being so large.

Looks like a deer or antelope to me.

Don't look at the deer, look at the red and blue thing between the deer.

 

[Xanatic*]

I would see it as a creature where the blue is the upper side and the red the lower side and a leg. It sort of tapers at the end like a head, a snake would probably have a thicker head than body.

 

[hunck]

I’m not seeing anything that looks like this..

..Which is also not at all serpent-like, more hippo-like.

 

[Min Bannister]

I’m not seeing anything that looks like this..

View attachment 82069

..Which is also not at all serpent-like, more hippo-like.

But remember that the theory is that the painter has seen fossils of the unspellable creature, not a digitally rendered recreation of one.

 

[Min Bannister]

Here is an excerpt from the paper describing how the fossils tend to be posed.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0309908

Moreover, the tusked animal assumes a pose with its back curved as a wide U ( Fig 3A), which is unusual in San rock art (except for fish [13 ]). This is evocative of the opisthotonic “death pose” often displayed by fossilised skeletons in the area ( Fig 3D) [47 ]. The skin of the tusked animal is dottedFiFig 3A and 3B ), which is not unusual in San rock art, but is also consistent with the warty mummified skin preserved in some dicynodont fossils in the area (Fig 3E) [5]. The depiction of short limbs on the panel (Fig 3A) may be because, in the Karoo Basin, the limbs are often buried deeper than the rest of the body (if the animal sunk into the mud) or are the first to disarticulate from the rest of the body before fossilisation

 

[Austin Popper]

I'm sorry, but all I can extract from this "theory" is gibbering lunacy. I was going to say it's quite a stretch to find something serpent-like in there, horns, tusks, or whatever aside, but that didn't quite get it. I would also like to know why horns and tusks are being conflated by the, erm, theorists?

 

[Sid]

I would see it as a creature where the blue is the upper side and the red the lower side and a leg. It sort of tapers at the end like a head, a snake would probably have a thicker head than body.

View attachment 82067

Also the fact that it is depicted as having a spotted surface!

 

[Frideswide]

I would also like to know why horns and tusks are being conflated

1 horns and teeth and tusks and talons etc are easy to mix up in different languages.

2 I'm not finding this as far fetched as some of you!

3 Pretty far-fetched, mind you, but the original repays careful reading I think, not just skimming.

 

[Sid]

Also the fact that it is depicted as having a spotted surface!

*And why does it have a much darker underside, with what appears to be two flippers.

Nessie perhaps?

 

[Min Bannister]

Also the fact that it is depicted as having a spotted surface!
View attachment 82076

The paper explains that the fossils often have spotted skin and shows an example.

 

[brownmane]

Nessie perhaps?
View attachment 82080

This is how I managed to see it once I filtered out all of the extraneous details. Like @Frideswide, I had trouble just focusing on one image.

There are two fine lines (grey/blue) hanging from the front that I think may be the tusks. Of course I am working with the assumption that the right side is the front of the creature.

 

[Sid]

This is how I managed to see it once I filtered out all of the extraneous details. Like @Frideswide, I had trouble just focusing on one image.

There are two fine lines (grey/blue) hanging from the front that I think may be the tusks. Of course I am working with the assumption that the right side is the front of the creature.

I believe you could just put that down to the normal link into the workings of pareidolia. I think the grey/blue lines as you suggest are left-overs from another worn-away underlying image that would have been done in that powder blue colour.

 

[LadyDunmail]

This reminds me of those orb pictures, commonly found in magazines and social media, where someone states with extreme confidence that they can see their late granny's face in the orb. In one case it was their late mum on an ultrasound scan.

This one is no more obvious. It's clearly a deliberate application of paint, but what more can you say about it with any confidence? The deer / antelope are much more identifiable and even then, we don't know for sure that was what the San artist was painting. The whole thing has faded and worn away.

Agree with Sid, it's a pareidolia that tells us less about the original artist than it does the scientists who interpreted it.

 

[catseye]

So many problems come from the fact that we can't imagine the thought processes of people who lived so long ago - their religious practices and their world view. Everything comes filtered through our own perceptions of how they 'must have' thought.

Maybe someone wanted to symbolise a Great Beast (famine, all the food animals moving elsewhere) which hung perpetually over the population, so instructed the artist to draw 'something scary, a big bugger that might devour all the food'. And this is what they came up with. Straight out of last night's cheese-inspired nightmare. Or not cheese, because they might not have had cheese. Mushrooms, possibly. Anyway. We can theorise until we are blue in the face but we can only come up with best guesses.

 

[Min Bannister]

This is a bit frustrating. The authors have considered all of the possibilities mentioned by posters above - of course they have. Their peers would have chucked the paper out long before it got to the publication stage otherwise. The tusks compare to depictions of other tusked animals in San art. They have looked at San legends of large extinct animals that once roamed the Earth, at how fossils look when discovered and at many other examples of San rock art. No-one is claiming that this is definitely a dicynodont. Even the title of the paper describes the depiction of the animal as "possible". It's just an idea and they have provided examples to support this idea.

I don't really see the point of "discussing" this paper based on simply looking at the photo and coming up with completely out of context assertions that is it all paradolia and ignorant researchers. Even the modern digital recreations are just assumption as no-one has ever seen a living one.

Pretty far-fetched, mind you, but the original repays careful reading I think, not just skimming.

It definitely repays reading on any sort of level.