3 ms·
It might still be too early to know the age of the drawings (the article estimates "at least 24,000 years old"), but I couldn't help noticing that these drawing
by java-man 3y ago
It might still be too early to know the age of the drawings (the article estimates "at least 24,000 years old"), but I couldn't help noticing that these drawings are much simpler than much older art in the Chauvet cave (dated to around 30-35 thousand years old) [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvet_Cave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvet_Cave
- empath-nirvana 3y agoSeems like there's very little of the drawings left, it might have lost some detail over time.
- kadoban 3y agoI wonder if anything can be done to sense what they used to look like, maybe by scanning for places where residue of clay fell off or was covered over like they mentioned.
- civilitty 3y agoThere is a huge overlap between the later Paleolithic stone industries on the order of tens of thousands of years so it’s safe to assume there was also a significant variation in artistic ability between tribes.
- EatingWithForks 3y agoIt makes sense to me because the article says that they used fingers and clay to make the drawings. The Chauvet cave is regarded as fairly unique in that outlines were scratched out and the cave wall itself was cleared out before starting the artwork.
- java-man 3y agoNot always - many paintings were probably made with fingers using a very advanced technique (shading), see for example, the bear [0]. [0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/fate-of-the-cave-bear-69538895/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/fate-of-the-cave-bear...
- koliber 3y agoIf I were to draw animals in a cave wall today, they would be even more crude. These paintings were made by individual people and each had different artistic ability. How long ago they were painted may not correlate directly with how intricate they are.