Scientific Controversy: Dating Challenges and Site Misidentification. Lawrence Robbins published a response paper in 2007 challenging Coulson's 70,000-year-old claims The site was previously documented by Robbins in 1995-1996 with published findings in 1998 The cave is properly called Rhino Cave due to a rhino painting inside, not Python Cave

Lawrence Robbins challenged Coulson's claims in 2007, noting the cave is properly called Rhino Cave due to a rhino painting inside. Radiocarbon dating of cave deposits returned only 15,000 years. Some indentations on the snake rock are fresh while others are covered by flowstoneā€”specific dating couldn't be confirmed. Excavations revealed normal habitation tools too. šŸ¦

Key Facts

  • Lawrence Robbins published a response paper in 2007 challenging Coulson's 70,000-year-old claims
  • The site was previously documented by Robbins in 1995-1996 with published findings in 1998
  • The cave is properly called Rhino Cave due to a rhino painting inside, not Python Cave
  • Coulson's identification of an elephant painting was disputed - experts say it is a rhino
  • Geometric paintings inside the cave went unmentioned by Coulson
  • Radiocarbon dating of organic material from cave deposits returned ages of only 15,000 years
  • Some indentations on the snake rock are fresh while others are covered by flowstone - dating to one specific period cannot be confirmed
  • Excavations revealed scrapers, hammerstones, grindstones, flakes, and cores consistent with normal habitation

Related site: Tsodilo Hills — view location, images, and history on the Ancient Nerds map.

Source: The 70,000-YEAR-OLD Carved Stone Snake & the ā€˜Mountain of the Godsā€™ by Ancient Architects