Science Shows Cave Art Developed Early

BBC ^ | 10-3-2001

[blam]

Wednesday, 3 October, 2001, 18:00 GMT 19:00 UK

Science shows cave art developed early

Chauvet cave paintings depict horses and other animals

By BBC News Online science editor Dr David Whitehouse A new dating of spectacular prehistoric cave paintings reveals them to be much older than previously thought.

Carbon isotope analysis of charcoal used in pictures of horses at Chauvet, south-central France, show that they are 30,000 years old, a discovery that should prompt a rethink about the development of art.

The remarkable Chauvet drawings were discovered in 1994 when potholers stumbled upon a narrow entrance to several underground chambers in a rocky escarpment in the Ardeche region.

Because the paintings are just as artistic and complex as the later Lascaux paintings, it may indicate that art developed much earlier than had been realised.

'Discovered nothing'

The analysis was performed by Helene Valladas and colleagues at the Laboratory for Climate and Environment Studies at France's CEA-CNRS research centre at Gif-sur-Yvette.

The prehistoric cave art found in France and Spain shows ancient man to be a remarkable artist.

When Pablo Picasso visited the newly-discovered Lascaux caves, in the Dordogne, in 1940, he emerged from them saying of modern art, "We have discovered nothing".

They are obviously very old, but dating them has been difficult because of the small quantities of carbon found on the walls or in the caves. The element is needed, in the form of charcoal or bones, for the standard technique of carbon dating.

To overcome these problems the French researchers have used a newer technique called accelerator mass spectrometry. This separates and counts carbon isotopes found in dead animal and vegetal matter.

'Reconsider theories'

It found the Chauvet drawings to be between 29,700 and 32,400 years old. This is about 10,000 years older than comparable cave art found in the Lascaux caves that are around 17,000 years old.

Art may have progressed in leaps and bounds

According to Helene Valladas the research shows that ancient man was just as skilled at art as the humans who followed 13,000 years later.

"Prehistorians, who have traditionally interpreted the evolution of prehistoric art as a steady progression from simple to more complex representations, may have to reconsider existing theories of the origins of art," she says.

The research is reported in the scientific journal Nature.

[blam]

This time frame puts these paintings in the range of the Neanderthals.

[blam]

FYI. Notice how everything that is 're-evaluated' turns out to always be older than previously stated.

[Darth Reagan]

But didn't Neaderthals coexist with Homo Sapiens? Could be by either of them.

[SGCOS]

I heard they found a picture of ol' Strom in there.

[Wm Bach]

Even then, the froggish cro-mangons were surrender monkeys, but they did know how to paint! I wonder if they left any wine laying around aging in the cave....

[Paradox]

FYI. Notice how everything that is 're-evaluated' turns out to always be older than previously stated.

I dont understand, what exactly was re-evaluated, according to this article?

[Wm Bach]

magnons...fillet cro magnons.

[Junior]

Bump.

[Wm Bach]

One of the really nifty tricks the artist(s) of Lasceaux employed was the use of simulcra in the rock to paint upon, bringing out even more the the natural formation's similarities to a horse, etc. and giving it a slightly 3-D effect, whose dancing shadows must have been quite startling when viewed in the flickering light of a hand held torch.

[RightWhale]

The older you and I get, the less long ago 30,000 years seems. 300 people who each lived to 110 could represent the entire period. Only 300 lives. If each were 105 and each taught a 5 year old everything, names, dates, places, and the 5 year old did the same in his turn, we could have an oral tradition going all the way back. 300 isn't many. 30,000 years isn't much.

[no-s]

Or even 500-1000 generations. I wonder if we are really retelling some of those stories anyway.

[blam]

"But didn't Neaderthals coexist with Homo Sapiens? Could be by either of them."

The youngest Neanderthal skeleton found is 27,500 years old. I believe we are the Neanderthal.

[blam]

"300 people who each lived to 110 could represent the entire period."

Yup. I like the way you think.

[RightWhale]

I wonder if we are really retelling some of those stories anyway.

Can anyone doubt that at least some of what we call ancient myth has some foundation in actual events? What will the story of WTC911 sound like in 30,000 years?

[ChemistCat]

You know, not many generations of humankind could fathom a calculation based on people living more than 35-40 years.

[blam]

"What will the story of WTC911 sound like in 30,000 years? "

Good point. If you come up with a good story, email me. It could be a guide to solve some of the riddles/myths from our own past.

[Ada Coddington]

The youngest Neanderthal skeleton found is 27,500 years old. I believe we are the Neanderthal.

Who is "we"?

[blam]

"Who is "we"?"

All of us alive today. I believe they bred with the moderns and we are the consequence.

[going hot]

But didn't Neaderthals coexist with Homo Sapiens? Could be by either of them.

(neanderthals)...At times,when at the beach,one can see people,heavy set,somewhat longer at the arm than the others, very hairy,smaller forehead, thick brows...(sarcasm?)

[razorback-bert]

Making to read and calling too.