I haven't reviewed every post in detail here, so sorry if this is repetitive but...
Even though there are some vary good arguments here for non-armadillo interpretations, it seems to me that the head of the drawing—the snout and the ears/horns—is the hardest part to square with those alternatives. And not simply because they look like an armadillo's or because don't look like some other proposal.
When someone draws a particular animal (or clearly intends one), they usually don’t botch the very features that make that animal recognizable and that distinguish it from other creatures. Even a crude or childlike giraffe will have a long neck; an elephant won’t be given a beak instead of a trunk. The most distinctive traits are the ones artists tend to preserve, not reinvent.
So a key question is: what are the distinguishing features of an armadillo (or any proposed animal -- a pangolin, a sheep, an aquatic animal, or even a mythical creature)? Whatever those “signal” features are, they’re the ones an artist is least likely to take major license with. Even if the targeted animal is a mythical chimera, then the hybridization of two creatures becomes the distinguishing feature and so the combination itself --displaying the joining of two clearly different animals --tends to be a prominent feature in the drawing. There doesn't seem to be any emphasis in this drawing of "this body" is joined to "that head" and how the two are suggesting different source creatures .
For an armadillo (and I’m not arguing for that reading in particular), the tail isn’t especially diagnostic, so a “wrong” tail doesn’t tell us much. (Many adults would probably not even recall just what an armadillo's tail should look like.) The more defining traits of an armadillo are the scaly/segmented armor, the rounded “ball-ish” body, and especially the head—most notably the pointed snout. If you asked any child to draw an armadillo, those are the features you’d expect to see in their drawing, assuming they had any concept of one.
I can imagine the scales being misread; they could very plausibly be intended as wool or some other texture given all the other examples of that. But the combination of a pointed snout with those sharp, upright ears doesn’t feel like a generic animal "default". That head appears to be part of the distinguishing elements chosen by the artist. That’s why it’s harder for me to believe the artist would choose that specific set of features to partner with the body texture (whether that be scales or wool) if they were really aiming at most of the other non-armadillo options.
Even though there are some vary good arguments here for non-armadillo interpretations, it seems to me that the head of the drawing—the snout and the ears/horns—is the hardest part to square with those alternatives. And not simply because they look like an armadillo's or because don't look like some other proposal.
When someone draws a particular animal (or clearly intends one), they usually don’t botch the very features that make that animal recognizable and that distinguish it from other creatures. Even a crude or childlike giraffe will have a long neck; an elephant won’t be given a beak instead of a trunk. The most distinctive traits are the ones artists tend to preserve, not reinvent.
So a key question is: what are the distinguishing features of an armadillo (or any proposed animal -- a pangolin, a sheep, an aquatic animal, or even a mythical creature)? Whatever those “signal” features are, they’re the ones an artist is least likely to take major license with. Even if the targeted animal is a mythical chimera, then the hybridization of two creatures becomes the distinguishing feature and so the combination itself --displaying the joining of two clearly different animals --tends to be a prominent feature in the drawing. There doesn't seem to be any emphasis in this drawing of "this body" is joined to "that head" and how the two are suggesting different source creatures .
For an armadillo (and I’m not arguing for that reading in particular), the tail isn’t especially diagnostic, so a “wrong” tail doesn’t tell us much. (Many adults would probably not even recall just what an armadillo's tail should look like.) The more defining traits of an armadillo are the scaly/segmented armor, the rounded “ball-ish” body, and especially the head—most notably the pointed snout. If you asked any child to draw an armadillo, those are the features you’d expect to see in their drawing, assuming they had any concept of one.
I can imagine the scales being misread; they could very plausibly be intended as wool or some other texture given all the other examples of that. But the combination of a pointed snout with those sharp, upright ears doesn’t feel like a generic animal "default". That head appears to be part of the distinguishing elements chosen by the artist. That’s why it’s harder for me to believe the artist would choose that specific set of features to partner with the body texture (whether that be scales or wool) if they were really aiming at most of the other non-armadillo options.