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.