REVISITING DICYNODONTS - WAS A SOUTH AFRICAN ROCK ART PANEL INSPIRED BY A DICYNODONT FOSSIL?

On 2 November 2024 I published a column on RockArtBlog titled ‘Was a South African Rock Art Panel Inspired By a Dicynodont Fossil?,’ in which I expressed skepticism at the claims of the proponents of this theory.

The original pictograph. Internet image, public domain (its head with tusks is in upper right corner).

In a paper for PLoS ONE (19(9)) Julian Benoit wrote that “The Horned Serpent panel at La Belle France (Free State Province, South Africa) was painted by the San at least two hundred years ago. It pictures, among many other elements, a tusked animal with a head that resembles that of a dicynodont, the fossils of which are abundant and conspicuous in the Karoo Basin. This picture also seemingly relates to a local San myth about large animals that once roamed southern Africa and are now extinct. This suggests the existence of a San geomyth about dicynodonts. Here, the La Belle France site has been visited, the existence of the painted tusked animal is confirmed, and the presence of tetrapod fossils in its immediate vicinity is supported. Altogether, they suggest a case of indigenous paleontology. The painting is dated between 1821 and 1835, or older, making it at least ten years older than the formal scientific description of the first dicynodont, Dicynodon lacerticeps, in 1845. The painting of a dicynodont by the San would also suggest that they integrated (at least some) fossils into their belief system.” (Benoit 2024) With the appearance of this paper a number of other authors also jumped on the Dicynodont bandwagon.

The full panel view. Photograph by Julien Benoit, Figure 2C, page 4.

RockArtBlog, however, was officially skeptical of this claim. I could not deny it completely, as I have argued in the past the some rock art was inspired by fossils, but I did not feel that this claim was justified based on the facts as we knew them. “Is a South African rock art panel a dicynodont? This is a claim made by South African archeologist Julien Benoit (2024). The dicynodonia lived before the age of the dinosaurs so it is not possible that the artist who created the panel had ever seen one. Benoit believes that the San painter who created this image was influenced by fossils in the area. I have argued, in the past, that some rock art was created under the inspiration of fossils, but I fear I am a touch skeptical in this instance.” (Faris 2024)

And I concluded this article by repeating this uneasiness. “Now, as I stated above, I have argued, in the past, that some rock art was created under the inspiration of fossils, but I fear I am a touch skeptical in this instance. Admittedly, the strange creature has two lines pendant from the end of the snout area, and the dicynodont has two tusks, and, according to Benoit, this region also has samples of dicynodont fossils that the painters could have seen. So, I have to accept the possibility that there is truth to the theory, but it seems to me to be a stretch, mostly because of the age of the fossils and the poor condition they would be in because of that. So, it is surely possible, but I am not completely convinced.” (Faris 2024)

Dicynodont fossil skull and fingertip. Photograph by Julien Benoit, Figure 1, page 2.

One problem, to me at least, is that Benoit is supposedly telling us that dicynodont fossil skulls inspired the San to connect them with “large animals that once roamed the area.” (Benoit 2024) However, if we look closely at the photograph of the fossil dicynodont skull that he illustrated his article with we can see at the bottom the tip of a finger which, when compared to the size of the fossil, suggests that the fossil was in the neighborhood of three inches wide, hardly a great beast or large animal.

Now in the publication South African Humanities, Vol. 39, 2026, a reply to this position published by David M. Witelson of Oxford University takes the original claim apart with ethnographical research and logic. Quoted by Sandee Oster writing for Phys.org (2026), Witelson said "I happened to be on a field trip when the most recent claims were published and was able to go visit the original painting," Witelson rephotographed and digitally enhanced enhanced the image. (Oster 2026)

Under Witelson's close study the panel began to show discrepancies to what had been originally described. "Close scrutiny revealed that the pair of grayish tusks was a smear of black paint, possibly added at a different time. They looked nothing like tusks at all, being in the wrong spot and shape for actual tusks of a dicynodont or otherwise. And the light gray the 2024 study claimed was typical for tusks was the result of weathering that had stripped away the oily film still coating the black paint eslewherre on the panel." (Oster 2026)

Additionally Witelson claims that there is no known mythology about a great tusked beast in San beliefs. "A myth from one culture is sometimes like a window that allows someone from outside that culture to see things from that culture's perspective...," Witelson said. "In this cased there  is no geomyth about fossils or extinct creatures. There is no window that shows us how San people actually thought about fossils." (Oster 2026) Now a lot of this, on both sides of the argument is based on assemptions that we can peobably never prove either way.

So who is right about this, Benoit in his original article, or Witelson in his recent rebuttal of it? As I said back in 2024, and again above, I am a skeptic of Benoit’s original claims so I have to side with Witelson on this, but somewhat sadly – I wish it were true.

NOTE 1: Some images in this posting were retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs. If any of these images are not intended to be public domain, I apologize, and will happily provide the picture credits if the owner will contact me with them. For further information on these reports you should read the original reports at the sites listed below.

NOTE 2: I could not get an actual copy of Witelson’s paper without cost so all my comments about him are from reports by others about his position and conclusions, not directly from Witelson.

REFERENCES:

Benoit, Julien, 2024, A possible later stone age painting of a dicynodont (Synapsida) from the South African Karoo. PLoS ONE 19(9):e0309908. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309908.  Accessed online 19 September 2024.

Faris, Peter, 2024, Was a South African Rock Art Panel Inspired By a Dicynodont Fossil?, 2 November 2024,  https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/7760124847746733855/8966520957934398911

Oster, Sandee, 2026, The Monsters that Weren't: Dinosaur and tusked-beast claims in San rock art unravel, 19 September 2026, Phys.org (online), hhttps://phys.org/news/2026-09-monsters-weren't-dinosaur-tusked-beast.html. Accessed online 19 September 2026.

SECONDARY REFERENCE:

Witelson, David, 2026, Arguments and evidence in rock art research: an assessment of two geomythological cases, South African Humanities, Vol. 39, 24 July 2026.

CARVED STONE MODEL LANDSCAPES – PART 2:

This is the second part of my column on Carved Stone Model Landscapes.

Jemez mountains, New Mexico. Internet image, public domain. (Image sharpened with chatGPT)

There are examples of boulders carved to resemble landscapes much closer to home as well. In 2017 Rory P. Gauthier and Emily J. Brown published a paper about carved landscapes on the Pajarito Plateau in New Mexico. These were carved into volcanic tuff boulders. The first one described was on the Tsankawi Unit of Bandelier National Monument.  “LA 65742 is known as Doll House, an apt name.  It is situated at the base of an unnamed mesa separating Los Alamos Canyon from Pueblo Canyon in the Tsankawi Unit of Bandelier National Monument.  It consists of three carved tuff boulders.  The most elaborate is the Doll House—a boulder .8 x 1 m in size carved with two ascending roads leading to a house with five or six stories that is 50 x 50 cm square.  Two staircases have been carved into the northeast and southwest ends of the house; of all the carved boulders we documented, this is the only one that exhibited stairs. They lend credence to the interpretation that it represents a miniature pueblo, and it is somewhat reminiscent of North House at Taos Pueblo.” (Gauthier and Brown 2017:93-94)

The Doll House, Gauthier and Brown, 2017, Figure 8, Feature 12, page 95, Hannaford Site, New Mexico. (Image sharpened with chatGPT)

The next two examples are found in a large site that Gauthier and Brown refer to as the Hannaford Site. “Named for archaeologist Charles Hannaford (who, as a small boy, played around this cluster of carved boulders on the rim of Pueblo Canyon) and situated on the south rim of Pueblo Canyon, the Hannaford Site has two loci separated by a residential street.” (Gauthier and Brown 2017:95)

Gauthier and Brown, 2017, Figure 7, Feature 5, page 97, Hannaford Site, New Mexico. drawing Jeff Brown. (Image sharpened with chatGPT)

The one they identify as feature 5 resembles a stereotypical pueblo. “Two features in particular are remarkable for the extent of the carving and their representational qualities.  Feature 5, titled Home Sweet Home, is a large bedrock boulder with an extensive complex of roads, courtyards or plazas, and houses, some of which are multistory. The buildings vary in shape and are rectangular, triangular, D-shaped, L-shaped, or simply irregular.  A small hole on the north side of the rock may be a purposefully carved cavate; it is 8 cm in diameter.  The boulder would appear to represent an entire village or pueblo.” (Gauthier and Brown 2017:95)

The Inca House, Gauthier and Brown, 2017, Figure 8, Feature 12, page 98, Hannaford Site, New Mexico. drawing Jeff Brown. (Image sharpened with chatGPT)

Then Gauthier and Brown’s feature 12 was named for its resemblanc e to the Inca carved boulders showing agricultural terraces. “We called Feature 12 Inca House for its resemblance to extensively terraced Inca agricultural sites.  Made up of three tuff bedrock boulders, the feature lacks the road and house creations carved into so many of the other boulders at the site.  Instead, the large boulder was carved with ten levels of terraces over an area 3.5 x 1.8 m in size. They generally follow the contours of the rock, but employ straight lines and angled corners rather than curves to do so.  The much smaller ancillary boulder to the southeast has three incised pits.  On the west side, another smaller boulder exhibits a deeply carved road or cleft that angles directly toward a small cavity in the main boulder that may represent a cavate.”  (Gauthier and Brown 2017:95) Gauthier and Brown’s ‘Inca House’ very much resembles the examples found in the Sondondo Valley of Peru.

They note a number of other examples of worked boulders and bedrock at this Hannaford Site but their descriptions of these sound much more like traditional rock art with carved faces, lines, and pathways. Based upon lichen growth on the carvings and dendochronological dating of a fir tree growing out of a crack in a boulder with signs of carving on it Gauthier and Brown assign a tentative date of between 1910 and 1940 to the carved models. (Gauthier and Brown 2017:103)

Trail and steps worn into volcanic tuff by foot traffic. Internet photograph, public domain.

So, who made these? They appear to be fairly young and show tool marks that imply metal tools. “Manufacturing techniques: Some of the features at the Tsankawi sites and those located on the rim of Los Alamos Canyon exhibit manufacturing scars indicative of metal tool use.  Many of the features are sufficiently eroded to give no indication of manufacture techniques, but given the soft nature of tuff, the stone can even be shaped with a sharp stick. Obviously the marks left by metal tools (possibly a hatchet or chisel and the claw of a hammer or crowbar) indicate a historic date of manufacture.” (Gauthier and Brown 2017:103)

There was a private school that might have been implicated in the creation of the carved stones. “We believe the most likely suspects were students from the Los Alamos Ranch School.  The school catered to young men from east coast, well to-do families, and endorsed outdoor activities— favoring horseback riding, camping, and hiking— as well as academics. The school was established in 1917 and closed in 1943 when it was taken over by the United States Army for the Manhattan project.  This is the same timeframe in which our research suggests the model villages were created. In addition to matching the timeframe, there are other lines of evidence that point to the students at the Ranch School.  The horseback riding and hiking that were part of the school’s curriculum utilized a number of local trails and roads for these activities, including a trail that entered Pueblo Canyon near the location of the Hannaford site, the Breakneck Trail that entered Los Alamos Canyon, and the original road to Los Alamos, all of which gave access to the Tsankawi area.”  (Gauthier and Brown 2017:105). This school, dedicated to healthy outdoor activities and college preparation was where Los Alamos is today. “The students lived near the Hannaford Site, had easy access to it, and probably used the area as a place to get away from the daily regimentation of the school. They would also have had the time to create the many boulder sculptures. During their outdoor activities, the students would have had access to the Tsankawi Unit as well. In addition, the students would have traveled in the northern Rio Grande region and would have been familiar with nearby Native American and Hispanic settlements as well as the Ancestral Pueblo site of Puye and those located at Frijoles Canyon, Tsankawi and Otowi. They therefore would have had the knowledge of the local architecture and could have recreated these details in their sculptures.” (Gauthier and Brown 2017:106)

I would be very interested to find more material on these carved stones. If any of my readers have images or knowledge of them please contact RockArtBlog. Thank you.

NOTE: Some images in this column were retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs. If any of these images are not intended to be public domain, I apologize, and will happily provide the picture credits if the owner will contact me with them. For further information on these reports you should read the original reports at the sites listed below. Additionally, some of the quotations I have included have had citations removed from their text. These can also be acquired from the original texts.

REFERENCES:

Christie, Jessica Joyce, 2012, A New Look at Q’enqo as a Model of Inka Visual Representation, Reproduction, and Spatial Structure, Ethnohistory 59:3 (Summer 2012). DOI 10.1215/00141801-1587478.

Cmielewski, Bartlomiej et al., 2020, Digital close-range photogrammetry of El Fuerte de Samaipata, Architectus, Vol. 2, No. 62, pp. 35-42. DOI:10.37190/arc200206. Accessed online 30 September 2026.

Gauthier, Rory P., and Emily J. Brown, 2017, Does Size Really Matter? Carved Boulders on the Pajarito Plateau, pp. 91-107, from Parallel Passions, A Life Together in Archaeology, Papers in Honor of Karl W. Laumbach and Toni S. Laumbach, Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Volume 43, Edited by Emily J. Brown, Carol J. Condie, and Helen K. Crotty.                                 

Nina, Freddy Leon, and Antonio Pizarro Ñahui, 2025, Petroglyphs and Pictographs: Interpretation of rock art linked to water sources, terraces and astronomy, Kazakhstan Archeology 2 (28), https://doi.org/10.52967/akz2025.2.28.159.180. Accessed online 24 September 2026.

Pazstory, Esther, 1998, Pre-Columbian Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Powell, Eric A., 2026, Cultivating Fields of Stone, Archaeology, Vol. 79, No. 5, pp. 36-41.

Wikipedia, El Fuerte de Samaipata, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Fuerte_de_Samaipata

CARVED STONE MODEL LANDSCAPES – PART 1:

This subject began as a comparison of features at only a couple of sites, but it grew out of hand as I dug deeper. This will be part one with part two to come next week. This still represents a selection. There will be many sites I have not addressed, but you cannot include everything.

The Sayhuite carved stone, Peru. Internet image, public domain.

The phenomenon of stones that have been carved to represent landscapes is a fascinating one. If it is a somewhat faithful representation of a known landscape then it could be classified as a map, but maps are usually thought of as fairly low relief carvings, representing the features with lines, not in three dimensions. A high relief carving of a landscape probably needs its own category, although where the line is between high and low relief carving is certainly not definite. These can be found in a number of places, but one of the most impressive is the Sayhuite Stone in Peru.

Esther Pazstory (1998) described the Incan Sayhuite stone in her book on Pre-Columbian art. "The lower half is plain, but on the top, among all the miniature courts and steps, crouch felines and other animals. Channels flow from the top to the edge of the stone. Although no sixteenth-century account exists to explain this stone, it sums up many of the features of Andean art. There is a strong respect for the form of the natural boulder from which it is carved, the architectural forms provide the honorific manmade aspect, while the animal figures refer directly to the powers of the cosmos. Man creates the network, the system, the idea, and works through the organization and essence of things rather than through his own theatrical appearance in images." (Pasztory 1998:163) While this is a very flowery description, the Sayhuite Stone perhaps deserves such enthusiasm.

The Sayhuite carved stone, Peru. Internet image, public domain.

Most of the analyses of the Sayhuite Stone assume that the channels carved into the top of the stone are there for hydraulic purposes of one form or another (although one fringie I read said they were to pour liquid mercury into). This is assumed to be in conjunction with some form of ritual. There are a few students of the subject who assume it is for educational demonstrations, to teach budding Inca hydraulic engineers how water flows. This interpretation does not work for me. I imagine that they had ceremonial importance.

Agricultural terraces carved on boulders, Sondondo Valley, Peru, Powell, page 36.

But the Sayhuite Stone is far from the only carved landscape in the Inca Empire. Eric Powell (2026) wrote in Archaeology Magazine of a number of carved stone landscapes in southern Peru’s Sondondo Valley. “In centuries past, the valley’s residents created stone monuments near the ancient road that commemorated their deep connection to the landscape and their claim to the densely packed terraces that they, and their ancestors created throughout the valley. Called piedras maquetas, or ‘stone models,’ these rock sculptures are maps of the Sondondo Valley’s agricultural terraces carved by ancient farmers on boulders and rock outcroppings more than 500 years ago.” (Powell 2026:37) Powell goes on to mention that “dozens of such maps, known as piedras maquetas” have been found in three Andean valleys.

Agricultural terraces, Sondondo Valley, Peru, Powell, page 40. (for scale notice the human figure in the center)

One location Powell illustrated overlooking the Sondondo Valley has a grouping of boulders that have representations of agricultural terraces on them, each boulder presumable representing a different mountain which has terraced slopes.

Freddy Leon Nina and Antonio Pizarro Ñahui described the Sondondo Valley in their 2025 study. “This area is characterized by its impressive Andean landscape and its archeological richness. Located at an altitude ranging from 2,500 to 4,000 meters above sea level, the valley is surrounded by rugged mountains and deep valleys. Its precise location allows access to a variety of microclimates, which has favored the presence of various forms of agriculture and ancestral hydraulic systems. The Sondondo Valley is also known for its terraces, irrigation models and rock art.” (Nina and Ñahui 2025:162) The irrigation models that Nina and Ñahui mention are the terraced boulders that we are looking at herein.

Agricultural terraces carved on a boulder, Sondondo Valley, Peru, Powell, page 39.

In the Sondondo Valley itself is found a boulder or rock outcropping carved with agricultural terraces near the ancient Qhapaq Ñan, Royal Road of the Incas. (Powell 2026:39)

Yuraq Qaqa, Colca Valley, Peru, Powell, page 39.

Another site, in the Colca Valley of Peru has a 35 foot tall boulder that is thought to have been carved to represent a map of the entire region. It is known as Yuraq Qaqa with translates to ‘white rock.’ (Powell 2026:38)

Powell concludes that it is possible that once ancient heads of important families in nearby villages held annual ceremonies, pouring liquid over these maquetas “in the hopes that watering these fields of stone would ensure bountiful harvests in the year ahead.” (Powell 2026:41) Apparently something ensured their harvests because the valley has been inhabited and farmed for a very long time.

Q'enqo stone near Cusco, Peru. Internet image, public domain.

Another impressive carved stone landscape is found at the Q’enqo Archaeological Complex near Cusco, Peru. Q’enqo originally included carved stone tunnels and passages as well as buildings which the conquering Spanish destroyed as much of it as they could. But, remaining elements include a massive stone outcrop with a carved top. This one consists of what looks like carved seats and stairways, with basins, channels and enclosures resembling an urban scene. One feature of this carved stone actually gave Q’enqo its name. “The (zigzag) channel has given Q’enqo its name. The Quechua word to describe such a zigzag is q’enqo, but the zigzag channel functioned as a paccha, which is a tool used for channeling liquids during divination rituals. An authoritative study of pacchas was conducted by Rebecca Carrion Cachet (1955) in which she illustrates several portable wooden pouring devices with zigzag channels. At Q’enqo Grande, a liquid would have flowed down the zigzag, which makes a slight turn and eventually splits in two ends. It may have been important which direction and which arm of the zigzag this fluid would take.” (Christie 2012:604) The channels for liquid seems to be a necessary feature for most of these Inca carved landscapes

Closeup of the Q'enqo stone near Cusco, Peru. Internet image, public domain.

Christie’s analysis relates the carved boulder to rituals and ceremonies. “I think that a similar process of replication took place in Inca rock art: the carved step patterns came to embody agricultural terraces and mountain slopes; cut channels became miniature rivers. In Quechua understanding, the carvings are the camasca, or vitalized manifestations infused by the generative camac of the actual terraces and rivers. The rock art sites - were activated by means of ritual events. Ceremonial performances would have focused on fertility-related offerings and the renewal of the cycle between life and death in which ancestors played an active role.” (Christie 2012:618) In such a case we need to remember the important role ancestors played in Inca culture. The bodies of past emperors were mummified and played a part in rituals.

El Fuerte de Samaipata, Bolivia. Internet image, public domain.

El Fuerte de Samaipata from above, Bolivia. Internet image, public domain.

A site with a very large and impressive carved stone landscape is El Fuerte de Samaipata in the eastern foothills of the Bolivian Andes. “The ceremonial sector is in the northern part of the site. It is about 220 metres (720 ft) by 60 metres (200 ft) and consists mostly of a large rock saddle almost completely covered with carvings of both Inca and pre-Inca origin. The carvings include a variety of geometric and animal figures, walls, niches, and long canal-like carvings called "the spine of the serpent" or "el cascabel" (the rattlesnake). Although not the most visually spectacular, the most important part of the ceremonial sector is the "coro de los sacerdotes" (choir of the priests) at the highest point of the rock. This consists of 18 niches, probably used as seats for individuals, carved into the rock. At the bottom of the rock are 21 carved rectangular niches which may have served as residences for priests or for the storage of ceremonial items. Other niches and alcoves are scattered around the ruin.”  (Wikipedia) Other descriptions of this carved stone include water channels, and representations of planting terraces can be seen in the illustration. With forms such as niches, canals, and pumas and jaguars (Cmielewski et al., 2020:35), this sounds very much like the Sayhuite Stone.

This article will be completed in Part 2.

NOTE: Some images in this column were retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs. If any of these images are not intended to be public domain, I apologize, and will happily provide the picture credits if the owner will contact me with them. For further information on these reports you should read the original reports at the sites listed below. Additionally, some of the quotations I have included have had citations removed from their text. These can also be acquired from the original texts which will be listed in Part 2 of this column.