3 ms·

I've looked at the picture but well, I can't see anything. IANAArcheologist :-(

by wiz21c 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hobs 3y ago
It takes a bit of an eye to see them, you have to look for major features first. 1. Look for a triangluar shape that is slightly darker and redder than the rest of the background, in the middle of the frame, the right hand side is not drawn. Congrats, you found the muzzle. 2. Follow the outlines of the darker areas with your eyes. 3. Or just use this https://imgur.com/a/dDpVtDa https://imgur.com/a/dDpVtDa
- aleign 3y ago
  I skimmed the article and I'm definitely not well-versed in archaeological techniques, so I may just be uneducated here, but I'm wondering: how do they know that is a painting? And not just pareidolia? Maybe the pictures in the article are just poor quality, but I can't really see what they are claiming to see. Even with the outline you gave. It just looks like a few lines that could kind of possibly sort of look like a deer head.
  - hobs 3y ago
    Its a real problem, and often practitioners do see many examples of false faces etc, but the art is usually emblematic and repeated for tens of thousands of years and so dating some of the pieces can even be (hand wavingly) done by including it in a certain time period. Honestly, as soon as I saw the picture (having been to a few of the caves that are dated 30k+) it really is just immediately obvious that it would be included, there's a ton of examples that look almost exactly like it.
  - AlotOfReading 3y ago
    It's usually easier in person where you can move your head and see the natural color variation of the rock. Plus they'll have sketched this out, looking closely at different areas, and some will be more obvious than others. But yes, it's sometimes difficult and you have to have an eye for it.
    - gus_massa 3y ago
      I'm not sure what they used for painting this, but a few years ago there was a project in the university where high school students came to work in simple projects for a while. One of the projects was to make reproductions of the crayolas used for cave painting. They mixed fat of ñandú (rhea, a local bird similar to ostrich) and iron oxide. The project was to use a spectrometer to measure how different fat, impurities and treatments changed the spectrum, probably to try to discover the original recipe and locals variations. (I don't have more details. Someone told me about this in a hallway conversation.)
- wiz21c 3y ago
  Oh thanks, now I see it (and was miles away of guessing it myself :-))
- eep_social 3y ago
  Thank you for ‘this’. My first reaction was, wow, look at that vivid red! I wonder what kind of material they found to make that — so I’m off to get some more coffee.

I've looked at the picture but well, I can't see anything. IANAArcheologist :-(

by wiz21c 3y ago

I've looked at the picture but well, I can't see anything. IANAArcheologist :-(

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

hobs 3y ago

It takes a bit of an eye to see them, you have to look for major features first. 1. Look for a triangluar shape that is slightly darker and redder than the rest of the background, in the middle of the frame, the right hand side is not drawn. Congrats, you found the muzzle. 2. Follow the outlines of the darker areas with your eyes. 3. Or just use this https://imgur.com/a/dDpVtDa https://imgur.com/a/dDpVtDa

aleign 3y ago
I skimmed the article and I'm definitely not well-versed in archaeological techniques, so I may just be uneducated here, but I'm wondering: how do they know that is a painting? And not just pareidolia? Maybe the pictures in the article are just poor quality, but I can't really see what they are claiming to see. Even with the outline you gave. It just looks like a few lines that could kind of possibly sort of look like a deer head.
- hobs 3y ago
  Its a real problem, and often practitioners do see many examples of false faces etc, but the art is usually emblematic and repeated for tens of thousands of years and so dating some of the pieces can even be (hand wavingly) done by including it in a certain time period. Honestly, as soon as I saw the picture (having been to a few of the caves that are dated 30k+) it really is just immediately obvious that it would be included, there's a ton of examples that look almost exactly like it.
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  It's usually easier in person where you can move your head and see the natural color variation of the rock. Plus they'll have sketched this out, looking closely at different areas, and some will be more obvious than others. But yes, it's sometimes difficult and you have to have an eye for it.
  - gus_massa 3y ago
    I'm not sure what they used for painting this, but a few years ago there was a project in the university where high school students came to work in simple projects for a while. One of the projects was to make reproductions of the crayolas used for cave painting. They mixed fat of ñandú (rhea, a local bird similar to ostrich) and iron oxide. The project was to use a spectrometer to measure how different fat, impurities and treatments changed the spectrum, probably to try to discover the original recipe and locals variations. (I don't have more details. Someone told me about this in a hallway conversation.)
wiz21c 3y ago
Oh thanks, now I see it (and was miles away of guessing it myself :-))
eep_social 3y ago
Thank you for ‘this’. My first reaction was, wow, look at that vivid red! I wonder what kind of material they found to make that — so I’m off to get some more coffee.