EDITORIAL ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN ROCK ART ANALYSIS:

Newly discovered Nazca geoglyph identified by Artificial Intelligence. Internet image, public domain.

Now I must begin this with the confession that I have used Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the past. I have even written for RockArtBlog with the aid of AI. My tongue in cheek posting of 10 December 2022 “Have We Ever Found A Cave Painting Of A Salad?” was accompanied by illustrations generated by the AI program ChatGPT. I have also written about the use of AI in discovering new Nazca geoglyphs. My column for 29 February 2020 covered a team of Japanese researchers who used AI to scan aerial photographs of the Nazca plain for undiscovered imagery.

This column, however, will be a somewhat different approach to the question of AI, and its use in rock art. This is a warning, a cautionary tale of how AI can lie to its user very plausibly and convincingly. This is a subject that has been much in the news lately and so, came easily to mind when the following occurred.

 

Desert 'Kite', Mafraq, Jordan. Photo Yann Arthus-Bertrand.

While researching a column for RockArtBlog on the so-called “Desert Kites” in Jordan I found myself wondering how they got that name, where it came from? There has been a great deal of recent news about using AI for research and so I asked my goto program ChatGPT “why are the ancient stone hunting traps in Jordan named kites?” It came back with a short, but very detailed answer. “The ancient stone hunting traps in Jordan are named "kites" due to their resemblance to the shape of a kite, the flying object. These structures, found predominantly in the arid regions of Jordan, were used for hunting purposes thousands of years ago. The term "kite" was coined by the British Royal Air Force pilot and archaeologist, Sir Tony Killick, who first identified and studied these structures in the 1920s.” (ChatGPT) 

While this answer seems plausible I decided to try to check on it online. With some detailed searching I failed to find a Sir Tony Killick in the RAF in Jordan in the 1920s. I also failed to find a British archaeologist named Tony Killick (this is not to say he does not exist – but I found no records). I even searched in the UK National Archives of Royal Air Force Personal but came up empty handed. 

So I went back to Chat GPT and asked the same question but with a slightly changed wording – “why are stone hunting traps in Jordan named kites?” This time the answer came back as “The term "kite" is believed to have originated from the early aerial photographs taken by British Royal Air Force pilots in the early 20th century. When these pilots flew over the arid landscapes of Jordan and other regions in the Middle East, they noticed these distinctive stone structures, which resembled the shape of kites when seen from above.” An answer equally (if not more) plausible, but one that I have also failed to confirm. 

My point is this – there were two different answers for essentially the same question – where did Sir Tony Killick go? And while these answers had much in common they differed in important details. One (or both) of them may be right, but I have no way to confirm that. In 2020, Heather Roff wrote “The first step towards preparing for our coming AI future is to recognize that such systems already do deceive, and are likely to continue to deceive. How that deception occurs, whether it is a desirable trait (such as with our adaptive swarms), and whether we can actually detect when it is occurring are going to be ongoing challenges.

A recent headline on a science news website I visit regularly stated “Archaeologists Use AI To Identify New Archaeological Sites in Mesopotamia.”  I would imagine that using AI like this is reasonably safe, but after my recent inquiries I would not recommend using AI for seining for data online. Admittedly, it is much easier to ask ChatGPT to search for your answer than it is to go through it yourself, but, you may not be able to trust the answers.

REFERENCES:

Faris, Peter, 2020, New Nazca Geoglyphs Discovered, 29 February 2020, https://rockartblog.blogspot.com/2020/02/new-nazca-geoglyphs-discoverred.html. 

Faris, Peter, 2022, Have We Ever Found A Cave Painting Of A Salad?, 10 December 2022, https://rockartblog.blogspot.com/search/label/salad. 

https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/

Roff, Heather, 2020,  AI Deception: When Your Artificial Intelligence Learns To Lie, 24 February 2020, https://spectrum.ieee.org/ai-deception-when-your-ai-learns-to-lie. Accessed online 10 June 2023. 

UK National Archives, Royal Air Force Personnel – National Archives, https://nationalarchives.gov.uk. Accessed online 9 June 2023.

A SELF PORTRAIT OF SIR WALTER RALEIGH DISCOVERED IN THE TOWER OF LONDON:

 

The Tower of London. Internet image from rove.me, public domain.

“A mysterious painting hidden for centuries at the Tower of London may be a self-portrait of the famous adventurer Sir Walter Raleigh. The crude etching, which was found beneath layers of paint in the Fortress’ Bloody Tower, could offer a fascinating glimpse into the aristocrat’s final years. Raleigh was incarcerated in the Bloody Tower before his execution for conspiracy in 1618.” (Rogers)

Portrail of Sir Walter Raleigh. Internet image, public domain.

The portrait was painted on the base or original layer of the wall which was installed during a remodelling while Raleigh was there, said a spokeswoman for Historic Royal Palaces. (Rogers)

“Raleigh was born to a landed gentry family of Protestant faith in Devon, the son of Walter Raleigh and Catherine Champernowne. He was the younger half-brother of Sir Humphry Gilbert and a cousin of Sir Richard Grenville. Little is known of his early life, though in his late teens he spent some time in France taking part in the religious civil wars. In his 20s he took part in the suppression of rebellion in the colonization of Ireland, he also participated in the siege of Smerwick. Later, he became of landlord of property in Ireland and mayor of Youghal in East Munster, where his house still stands in Myrtle Grove. He rose rapidly in the favor of Queen Elizabeth I and was knighted in 1585. He was granted a royal patent to explore Virginia, paving the way for future English settlements. In 1591, he secretly married Elizabeth Throckmorton, one of the Queen’s ladies-in-waiting, without the Queen’s permission, for which he and his wife were sent to the Tower of London. After his release, they retired to his estate at Sherborne, Dorset.” (Wikipedia)

Drawing believed to be Sir Walter Raleigh's self-portrait. Internet image, public domain.

Poor Raleigh actually spent three different terms imprisoned in the Tower. “The first time was in 1592 when he incurred the wrath of Queen Elizabeth after marrying one of her ladies-in-waiting without the monarch’s permission. He was later imprisoned for conspiring against Queen Elizabeth’s successor, King James I, from 1603 until 1616, when he was released to lead another expedition to South America. However, one of Raleigh’s commanders attacked a Spanish outpost during the failed mission, violating the terms of Raleigh’s pardon. Imprisoned again on his return to England, Raleigh remained in the Tower of London until his execution. He was beheaded in the Palace of Westminster on Oct. 29, 1618.” (Rogers)

Side-by-side comparison. Internet image, public domain.

While Raleigh was imprisoned in the Tower of London his rooms were refurbished by plastering. This image was found under the top layer of plaster establishing that its date of origin is older than the refurbishment, and suggesting the possibility that this could, in fact, be Sir Walter Raleigh’s self portrait.

NOTE: 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.

REFERENCES:

Miller, Shari, 2023, Historians hail ‘amazing’ find of Sir Walter Raleigh ‘portrait’ believed to have been painted by the explorer while he was locked up in the Tower of London, 28 April 2023, https://www.dailymail.co.uk. Accessed online 28 April 2023.

Rogers, James, Sir Walter Raleigh’s Self-Portrait May Have Been Discovered In The Tower Of London, https://www.foxnews.com. Accessed online 7 April 2023.

Wikipedia, Walter Raleigh, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter-Raleigh. Accessed online 7 April 2023.

ARE SHADOWS PORTRAYED IN ROCK ART? THEY ARE CERTAINLY IMPLIED IN CAVE ART:

The philosophical search for shadows and the question of their existence in rock art:

Aurochs, horse and deer, Lascaux Cave, France. Internet image, public domain.

The idea for this began with an article from the online site JSTOR Daily dated 1 December 2021, by Roy Sorensen titled "Do We Actually See Shadows?"

Sorensen approached this as a philosophical question beginning with Fridugisus of Tours in the 8th century who wrote "a short treatise which deals with the nature of nothing and darkness. The epistle was written probably during the author's residence at Tours. It is addressed "to all the faithful and to those who dwell in the Sacred Palace of the most serene prince Charles (Charlemagne). It dealt with the question, are nothing and darkness real things? (Some suggest that this was inspired by the Biblical use of the words in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis). If the Bible uses the words 'nothing' and 'darkness', it seemed that there must be things corresponding to those words. Fridugisus accepts this answer and defends it both by arguments from authority and by arguments from reason." (Wikipedia)  Is nothing or nothingness a real thing, and is darkness a real thing in and of itself"

Sorensen, in effect, was asking that if a shadow is composed of the absence of light, how can we see the presence of the absence of something? In other words, we see because of the light illuminating the things around us. How can we see something it is not illuminating? He goes to considerable historical detail referencing, among others, Plato's "Allegory of the Cave." He brings in the Metaphysical with the question if you spin a ball does the shadow of the ball spin?" Some say "yes." but can you see the shadow spinning?

Sorensen gets deeper with this but what drew my attention was his reference to Medieval artists who did not paint shadows. He stated "Shadows were fringe phenomena in the Dark Ages. They are rarely depicted in the era's paintings. Perhaps the artists portrayed only what they believed to be visible." (Sorensen 2021)  This can be checked and I did so, searching online for public domain medieval paintings.

The Trinity (detail) in Saint Augustine’s City of God”, about 1440–50, Master of the Oxford Hours. Tempera colors, gold and silver paint, and ink on parchment, 14 ¼ x 10 ¾ in. (36.2 x 27.3 cm). The J. Paul Getty Museum.

A few, very faint traces of shadows beneath the figures. Shading on the figures, yes, but they cast no shadows in their environment.

“Saint Martin Dividing His Cloak” in the Prayer Book of Charles the Bold, 1469, Lieven van Lathem, made in Ghent and Antwerp. The J. Paul Getty Museum.

Likewise, shading within the elements of the painting, but no cast shadows.

Medieval women hunting. Internet image, public domain.

And again, no shadows cast by the women and their dogs in the environment.

Now since I warp everything toward the question of how it applies to rock art I began looking for examples of rock art that somehow portrayed shadows. I looked at examples from literally all over the world (my photos, books, online) but could find no instances of what can be identified as a shadow. Then I remembered that I had done a column on counter-shading on the images of horses in European Cave Art back in January 2022, so I went back to my own notes.

Torch illuminating a cave. Image from Medina-Alcaide et al., 16 June 2021.

In looking at my file for that article I found the paper by a team of Spanish researchers on cave lighting. This simple, but clever, experiment used a variety of sources of fire to illuminate a cave, one of which was a hand-held torch. Others were things like small fires on the floor of the cave and animal fat lamps. To my way of thinking the hand-held torch would give the most dramatic effect.

I started looking at the Paleolithic paintings of animals in European Caves, such at Lascaux, Chauvette, Les Trois-Freres, and Tito Bustillo and found shadows under the animals, but not shadows painted by the cave artists. Now the nature of torch light is that it acts much like a point source and, depending on how high you hold it, the irregularities of the stone wall in a cave will have shadows of their own underneath any change of contour in the surface.

Horses and Aurochs, Lascaux Cave, France. Early Magdanenian period (17,000 BCE). Internet image, public domain.

The first image I noticed this effect on is this one from Lascaux. The small horse on the left and the Aurochs have their hooves approximately on the upper edge of the shadow on the cave wall. And once I saw this, examples started jumping out at me all over the place. It must be remembered, these are not shadows created by the artist or image maker, they are shadows on the cave wall created by the angle the light of the torch is falling from, but the image maker has used them cleverly to create the desired effect. Other effects that visually approximate shadows under animals painted on cave walls can be color change in the stone wall, and/or other sources of discoloration. And not all are done this way, indeed most panels also have animals that are not standing on shadows, but it turned out a surprising number are.

Aurochs, Horses, and Deer, Lascaux Cave, France. Internet image, public domain.

There were a great number of examples from Lascaux Cave in France. In this one we see horses, aurochs, and a deer with their feet on the top edge of the shadow on the cave wall.

Aurochs, Lascaux Cave, France. Internet image, public domain.

Horse, Lascaux Cave, France. Internet image, public domain.

In some examples the shadow seems to be the result of a color change in the stone surface. Also, we need to keep in mind that these modern photographs were made in lighting that is as even as possible to show up the images, not to accentuate shadows underneath them.

 

Horse and two superimposed mammoths, Chauvet Cave, France. Illustration from Jean-Marie Chauvet, et al., 1996, “Dawn of Art: The Chauvet Cave.

Although this is not a strong example we can see the break in the cave wall underneath thehorse and mammoths and it would be shadow under the right lighting conditions.

Mammoth, Chauvet Cave, France. Illustration from Jean-Marie Chauvet, et al., 1996, “Dawn of Art: The Chauvet Cave, p. 58.

Owl, Les Trois Freres Cave, France. 15k BP. Illustration from Paul Bahn and Jean Vertut, “Journey Through the Ice Age,” fig. 10.24, p. 155.

Horse, Tito Bustillo Cave, Spain. Ca. 25k BP. Bahn, Paul, and Jean Vertut, 1997, “Journey Through The Ice Age,” University of California Press, Berkley, California.

From these various illustrations, and from various ages and locations, we see that this design factor was used across a large geographic area and for a very long time. The fact that it is associated with a large number of different animals also is a strong suggestion that it is not just associated stylistically with aurochs, or horses, etc., but that it may indeed have been the simulation of the creature's shadow that was the goal.

So, is this a real phenomenon? Well yes, it is real in that we have seen it exists. But was the placement of animals so that they are standing on a shadow, or an area of color change in the stone intentional, or a coincidence? That is to be decided in the future, probably with a whole lot of arguing involved. But, I will end with this, the cave artists were certainly intelligent and sophisticated enough to have done this intentionally.

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: This paper was presented at the 2023 IFRAO (International Federation of Rock Art Organizations) Rock Art Symposium, Valcamonica, Italy, by the author on 27 May 2023.

REFERENCES:

Medina-Alcaide et al., 16 June 2021, “The conquest of the dark spaces: An experimental approach to lighting systems in Paleolithic caves”, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250497 (Public Library of Science)

Sorenson, Roy, 1 December 2021, “Do We Actually See Shadows?”, https://daily.jstor.org/ (short for Journal Storage).

Illustration credits:

Illustrations 1 – 9 are Public Domain images from online.

Illustrations 10 – 11: Jean-Marie Chauvet, et al., 1996, “Dawn of Art: The Chauvet Cave (The Oldest Known Paintings in the World)”, H. N. Abrams, New York.  

Illustrations 12 - 13: Bahn, Paul, and Jean Vertut, 1997, “Journey Through The Ice Age,” University of California Press, Berkley, California.

HARAKBUT STONE FACE IN PERU:

The Harakbut stone face as it is approached in its river gorge. Online image, public domain.

Is it? Or is it not? This large rock formation which seems to resemble a crude sculpture of a human face is the subject of the debate – is it natural or man-made? These large, natural manifestations have always fascinated humans – how can geology resemble life so closely?

“The Harakbut Face, known by the native Harakbut tribesmen as the Rostro, which means face, is located in Peru’s Amarakaeri Communal Reserve. This vast area is situated in the southern Amazon region of Peru, and encompasses a region of 402,335.62 hectares (994,192 ac.). Located in the Madre des Dios region, the reserve takes up a great part of the homeland of the Harakbut tribe.” (Vuckovic 2020) This great stone face is a wonderful example of the phenomenon. Not only does it closely resemble a gigantic human visage from some angles, it is a stern visage.

The Harakbut stone face closeup. Online image, public domain.

“It is estimated that this native tribe lived in the basins of the Colorado and Madre des Dios rivers for several thousand years, and numerous complex myths and legends have survived to this day. One mentions the Harakbut as the ‘Warrior People,’ destined to protect the ancient forests of the Amarakaeri. Today the Amarakaeri Communal Reserve is home to ten indigenous communities and is hailed as Peru’s most pristine environment in the Amazon rainforest.” (Vuckovic 2020)

Humans seem to have an inborn tendency to accord phenomena such as this a spiritual significance. Although we now know about Pareidolia, in the eras before the modern science of psychology such resemblances seemed miraculous.

The Harakbut stone face closeup. Online image, public domain.

“Among the Harakbut, this location is utterly sacred. Agreed that it represents their most distant ancestor, these rock faces are said to be created by Toto, a powerful primordial spirit. However, whether or not this face is a man-made object remains debatable. Important research that was conducted on site can imply that this is in fact a lithological structure, a clear result of geomorphological processes. This again points us towards the widespread phenomena of pareidolia, through which the human eye often spots familiar symbols and shapes from natural objects and things. If this is in fact a fully natural creation, it is unmistakably lifelike and nature really outdid itself. But some staunch believers can still adhere to the claim that the Harakbut face is made by ancient man.” (Vuckovic 2020) And when approached from the one side it is amazingly convincing, although some missing elements like nostrils, ears and lips are apparent. Even seen from almost directly to the front it is still human face-like. It is only when the other side is seen that it becomes obvious that the so-called ‘Hakabut Face’ is the result of natural geomorphic processes, and is not manmade.

“Allegedly there are several of these big heads spread over the vast Harakbut territory, but El Rostro remains the iconic one. Located in a remote area of the rainforest, it is difficult to reach, requiring a challenging trek. But the sight of this incredible structure is a reward in itself. Perched over a wild and rapid flowing Amazonian river, emerging from the dense foliage, is an oddly realistic human face, its sharp lines jutting from the cliff face.” (Amazing Nature Blog 2023)

The Harakbut stone face. Note how the illusion falls apart on the right side view. Online image, public domain.

“This sacred location is made from sedimentary rock, aged and covered by a thin layer of bright green moss. One glance – both from profile and front – is enough to let you know that it is, without mistake, a human face peering towards the jungle. A sharp, aquiline nose with oddly straight and precise lines, combined with the jutting brow and prominent under bite lower jaw, all portray a serious and powerful male figure, akin to a great god, a tribal chieftain, or a venerated ancestor.” (Amazing Nature Blog 2023) While we do not have the right to demean the Harakbut for their beliefs, as modern, 21^st century Westerners, we should recognize a duty to take such an example for what it really is – a superstition, but, also an amazing freak of nature.

NOTE: 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.

REFERENCES:

Amazing Nature Blog, 2023, The Mystery of the Harakbut Face: Man-Made Monument or Natural Phenomenon?, 25 April 2023, https://wildwingsnaturez.vercel.app/the-mystery-of-the-harakbut-face-man-made-monument-or-natural-phenomenon. Accessed online 29 April 2023.

Vuckovic, Aleksa, 2020, The Harakbut Face: Man-Made Monument or Natural Phenomenon?, 8 November 2020, https://www.ancient-origins.net. Accessed online 29 April 2023.

WE MAY FINALLY HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF DENISOVAN ART- A LION CARVED OUT OF MAMMOTH IVORY IS ATTRIBUTED TO A DENISOVAN ARTIST:

Denisova Cave, Russia. Internet photograph, public domain.

While science still has a lot to learn about the mysterious hominids known as Denisovan after the cave in the Altai Mountains, Siberia, Russia, where they were first discovered, we now have a work of art and a number of artifacts that have been attributed to them. A small, carved piece of mammoth tusk that has been interpreted as the remaining piece of a broken carving of a cave lion (panthera spelea).

European cave lion. Image from dinotopia.com.

“This is the first such sculptural representation known in Siberia, throughout North and Central Asia, and the first zoomorphic sculpture of such antiquity. Zoomorphic figurines are known in the history of the Siberian Paleolithic, but they are usually no older than 23-21 thousand years. The age of this one is not yet established, but it is located in a stratigraphic context, which, according to the radiocarbon analysis performed at Oxford University and optically stimulated luminescence, is about 45 thousand years old. The chronology will still be specified, but the image is, in any case, not less than 30 thousand years old. This means, it is the most ancient artifact of this kind,’ says Head of the Department of Archeology of the Stone Age IAE SB RAS, Corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Mikhail Shunkov.” (Russian Geographical Society) When the above stated “first such sculptural representation” it did not mean the first one ever discovered, many others have been previously discovered. It meant that as far as we know it may have been the first one created in that region.

Partial figurine identified as a cave lion. Image from Siberiantimes.com.

Carved figurine superimposed over a cave lion silhouette. Online image, public domain.

The figurine is carved out of mammoth ivory. The scientists believe that this means that the material had been carried to the site from 100 – 120 km away from Denisova from the Northern foothills of the Altai mountains. (Russian Academy of Sciences) Apparently there has been no evidence of mammoths within that distance of Denisova Cave to this point. This may, however, be a case of “your lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.”

Hematite crayon from Denisova Cave. Internet photograph, public domain.

“There have been other intriguing objects found within the cave. Some 30 pieces of mammoth ivory have been recovered from the cave. Among the most unique objects are fragments of a glistening green chlorite stone bracelet, beads made of ostrich eggs – and an ancient reddish-brown processed hematite ‘crayon.’” (Seidel 2019)

While the Cave Lion carving is tentatively dated to 45,000 BP by optically stimulated luminescence dating of the stratigraphic layer it was found in, many of the other recovered artifacts cannot share that age with it. One that very possibly does is the hematite ‘crayon,’ but I do not believe that the green stone bracelet can be anywhere near that age. Also carved of mammoth ivory are an eyed needle and what the discoverers are calling a tiara, a mammoth ivory piece that they interpret as a headband that tied around the forehead to keep long hair out of the wearer’s eyes. These may also be attributable to Denisovans, or may not. The reported dates are still not generally accepted, indeed, some believe that these mammoth ivory carvings are attributable to Neanderthals who lived in the Denisova Cave at a later date.

Mammoth ivory headband from Denisova Cave. Image from siberiantimes.com.

“In 2018, a simple tiara made from wooly mammoth ivory was found buried in its depths. It had a hole ground into its rounded end, where a cord was used to tie it at the back of the head. It’s been dated as having been made some 45,000 to 50,000 years ago. It was made to keep hair out of its wearer’s eyes. And it was discarded once it was broken. Was it made by the Denosivans? Or Neanderthals?” (Siedel 2019)

“Here we likely deal with another, more ancient culture, because there was not a single piece of bone belonging to a Homo Sapiens found in the cave’ Novosibirsk Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography researcher Alexander Fedorchenko told the Siberian Times. It’s a pressing question. And one not easily answered.” (Siedel 2019)

So, while at this time we cannot be certain who actually created these artifacts, the possibility that one or more of them may have been Denisovan is certainly exciting.

NOTE: 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.

REFERENCES:

Liesowska, Anna and Svetlana Skarbo, 2019, Cave Lion Figurine Made of Woolly Mammoth Tusk Found at Denisova Cave, 20 November 2019, Siberian Times, https://siberiantimes.com. Accessed online 28 March 2023.

Russian Academy of Sciences, 20 November 2019, An ancient figure of a cave lion was discovered in the Denise Cave, Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences, https://www.sbras.info. Accessed online 29 April 2023.

Russian Geographical Society, 2019, An Ancient Cave Lion Figurine Discovered in Denisova Cave, 24 November 2019, https://www.rgo.ru/en/ariticle/ancient-cave-lion-figurine-discovered-denisova-cave. Accessed online 28 March 2023.

Seidel, Jamie, 2019, Denisovan discoveries: Siberian cave studies reveal secrets of our mysterious lost ancestors, 31 January 2019, https://www.adelaidenow.com. Accessed online 8 May 2023.

 

UNICORNS IN ROCK ART AND MYTHOLOGY:

Lascaux "Unicorn", Lascaux Cave, France. Online internet image, public domain.

Extinct Elasmotherium. Online internet image, public domain.

Drawing of Elasmotherium, Rouffignac Cave, France. Online internet image, public domain.

On 28 July 2018, I posted a column titled The Paleolithic Unicorn – Found At Last, about the enigmatic painting of an animal in Lascaux Cave in France that has straight horns coming straight forward out of his head and who is sometimes called the Lascaux Unicorn. I likened it to the extinct Elasmotherium, a relative of the rhinoceros with a single horn, sometimes called the Paleolithic unicorn. While I was in no way expressing the opinion that the animal pictured in Lascaux was meant to represent an Elasmotherium, I was making the point that there had been a single-horned animal back millennia ago, and the curious coincidence of the naming of that Lascaux beast’s image. (Faris 2018)

European unicorn, painting by Maerten de Vos, 1532-1603. Online internet image, public domain.

In this column, however, I am going to look at rock art of single-horned animals from South Africa, originating in San mythology. It has often been assumed that the image of a single-horned quadruped may have originated with something like an oryx seen from the side with its horns perfectly aligned. This may be part of the story, and there are San representations of antelope-like animals seen from the side with only one horn represented. It also needs to be pointed out that these San examples have the horn projecting backwards from its natural head location, not forward from the forehead as in the European belief in unicorns. It may be, however, that European visitors to such rock art sites might interpret them as portraying some version of the unicorn they believed in so fervently.

From a panel near Indwe, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Photographs by Witelson, 2023, Fig. 7. 

“Europeans sought unicorns and rock paintings of them almost as soon as they set foot on the shores of southern Africa. Their interest stemmed from their cultural beliefs, which they transposed onto the African continent and its people. Against this Western backdrop, many early travelers searched for rock paintings of unicorns, which some considered evidence of the creature’s existence. – Rock paintings have thus played a significant role in South Africa’s unicorn lore. - Ultimately, however, the images were dismissed as depicting figments of the imagination. For centuries, colonial beliefs about unicorns silently mixed with indigenous ones. But, whereas physical proof became Holy Grail, indigenous beliefs were regarded skeptically as rumor or hearsay. Without realizing this distinction, European colonists sought after the unicorn, assuming, at least initially, that it was the creature they knew.” (Witelson 2023:2) The hubris of the colonials inevitably looked to European ‘scientific knowledge’ as more true and real than indigenous knowledge about their own territory.

“Perhaps the most famous South African search for unicorns was reported by John Barrow, ‘Late Secretary to the Earl of Macartney, and Auditor-General of Public Accounts, at the Cape of Good Hope.’ He sought evidence for real rather than fanciful unicorns, which he considered of potentially biblical importance to Natural History. Any biological specimen would therefore have had a place in the nascent world of European science. Barrow thought the ‘living original’ might yet be found north and east of the Bamboesberg mountain range in what is today the Eastern Cape Province. There, ‘the people [Bosjemans or Bushmen] who make them [the paintings] live.’ Although he managed to arouse some enthusiasm for an expedition to go in search of it, he never ventured east outside the Colony.” (Witelson 2023:3) In this case the fact that unicorns were mentioned in the bible became a colonial ‘scientific truth’ where the beliefs of locals were essentially eventually discounted as superstition.

“Locals must have noticed something interesting about the British when they first arrived. They wore symbols on their uniforms of familiar animals, the lion and the unicorn. The British were likely amazed that the locals were aware of unicorns, and could even describe them in detail. Then the discovery by colonists of ancient rock art – depictions of unicorns as commonplace animals – caused imaginations to race. What followed were concerted search efforts fueled by a desire to capture a creature of both biblical importance and interest to natural history scientists. It was biblical passages that led to the unicorn being adopted as a royal symbol, and any question of the creature’s reality was, especially in light of new evidence, necessarily so.” (Jackson 2023)

Illustration from Witelson, 2023, Fig 8, originally from Stow and Bleek, 1930.

Barrow did manage to visit several rock shelters eventually, and produced a sketch of a very Western-looking unicorn, the original for which has never been found, and is widely considered to have been either a hoax or overactive imagination in interpreting a very damaged rock art image. (Witelson 2023) “The cynical views of Barrow’s and other unicorn images are partly rooted in a perspectival argument: because the animal is depicted side-on, one horn obscures the second. It is one of three explanations that arose when, unsurprisingly, the ‘real’ unicorn was not found. One claimed, as we have seen, that the rhinoceros had been the unicorn all along. A second, which we have also encountered, suggests that the gemsbok was the inspiration behind the unicorn because one straight horn covers the other when viewed from a lateral perspective, and males often lose a horn in the rutting season. A third claimed that the unicorn had never existed outside imagination. Though this third explanation resembles the contemporary understanding of unicorns, all three explanations are based entirely on the European search for a European idea.” (Witelson 2023:6)

“Importantly, the perspectival argument was refuted over a century-and-a-half ago. The English traveler and artist Thomas Baines noted (correctly) that San images of two-horned animals invariably have two horns. Baines thus recognized that San images faithfully represent whatever the image-makers wanted to depict. Whatever perspectival ‘errors’ may be perceived, the painters ‘never fail to give each animal its proper complement of members.” (Witelson 2023:6) And, although many San animal portrayals might be thought to be cases of what Witelson calls ‘perspectival error’, he then presents us with some examples of this art that are decidedly one-horned.

Southeast of Molteno, South Africa. photograph by Stephen Townley Bassett.

One panel of lovely antelopes from a site southeast of Molteno has the necks and heads of two of the animals turned so that a second horn would be seen, and they are not.

Drawing of panel from rockshelter south of Flaauwkraal, Eastern Cape province, South Africa. Illustration from Witelson, 2023, Fig. 5.

Closeup of upper left figure from rockshelter south of Flaauwkraal, Eastern Cape province, South Africa.photograph by Witelson, 2023.

And from a rock shelter south of Flaauwkraal in the Eastern Cape comes another panel of antelopes with their heads turned showing that they only possess one horn. These portrayals illustrate the San belief in unicorns as well as their artistic ability.

NOTE: 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. Other photographic credits are as listed. For further information on these reports you should read the original reports at the sites listed below.

PRIMARY REFERENCES:

Faris, Peter, 2018, The Paleolithic Unicorn – Found At Last?, 28 July 2018, Published online by https://rockartblog.blogspot.com.

Jackson, Justin, 2023, Chance cross-cultural unicorn concepts lost in translation, 16 March 2023, Phys.org News online. Accessed online 16 March 2023.

Witelson, David M., 2023, Revisiting the South African Unicorn: Rock Art, Natural History and Colonial Misunderstandings of Indigenous Realities, Published online by Cambridge University Press, 13 March 2023. Accessed online 16 March 2023.

SECONDARY REFERENCES:

Barrow, J., 1801, Travels into the Interior of Southern Africa in the Years 1797 and 1798, Volume 1, Cadell & Davies, London.

Stow, G.W. & Bleek, D., 1930. Rock Paintings in South Africa. London

REPLY TO A COMMENT ON 25 APRIL 2015 COLUMN "DINOSAURS IN ROCK ART - PERU'S ICA STONES":

Photograph of Ica Stone illustrating a Triceratops with back fins - a fabrication. Internet photograph, public domain.

On May 1, 2023, I receibed a new comment from Anonymous to my posting of 25 April 2015 about the Ica Stones hoax in Peru. I am sorry I cannot credit you with this query, but comments come to me Anonymously with no return address.  

Photograph of an Ica Stone showing Stegosaurus in the upper right. Internet photograph, public domain.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post DINOSAURS IN ROCK ART - PERU'S ICA STONES: "My problem with this finding that we never existed at the same time is this, how did they know in the 1930s that this animal had fins on its back when we just found out in 2019 when we found a fossil of one? If it was a fake they would have never put fins on it, they would have gone with the excepted (accepted?) narrative of the time which said there was none." 

Well Anonymous, I thank you for your comment and the opportunity to address it. There were two so-called dinosaurs with plates or fins on their backs in the illustrations that accompanied my column, one appeared to be a Stegosaurus and the other an obvious Triceratops. Now the Triceratops never had fins on their backs so that one is an obvious fabrication (lie).

Skeleton of stegosaurus. Photograph by Susannah Maidment

 et al., Natural History Museum, London. 

As to Stegosaurus, I actually live just a few miles from where the first one was discovered by Arthur Lakes in the Morrison formation west of Denver in 1850.             

1891 drawing of stegosaurus skeleton by Othniel Charles Marsh. U.S. Geological Survey, 16th Annual Report. 

Although researchers originally thought the plates (fins) on the back lay flat like the scutes on a turtle, by 1891 Othniel Charles Marsh had published his drawing of a stegosaurus with the plates vertical. So, by 1891 we already knew the proper conformation of the stegosaurus' plates. 

I do not know where you got your date of 2019 for when the first fossil of a stegosaurus was discovered, but I submit that you have been misled. I refer you to Wikipedia for a detailed history of the knowledge of Stegosaurus skeletons, and thank you for your comment.