Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Science Shows Cave Art Developed Early
BBC ^ | 10-3-2001

Posted on 10/03/2001 12:16:47 PM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: caveart; cavedrawings; cavepainting; cavepaintings; chauvet; godsgravesglyphs; macroetymology; neandertal; neandertals; neanderthal; neanderthals; paleosigns
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 next last
To: blam
That's currently the great debate. I personally come down of the side that they were just different enough from us that reproduction was impossible, no matter how hard some of the guys tried. If that's the case, then it would more or less be a final nail in the coffin in regards as to whether or not we are the same species.

I tend to agree with the line of thinking that just because species might look alike, reproduction might not be possible. I think if reproduction was possible, then it would surely be reflected in the current situation.

Unless the Neanderthals weren't that thick of the ground. Which is an interesting debate in and of itself. Just how many were they?

Another debate along these lines is the strength of the influence of the original human population in Southeast Asia. That human population resembled the aboriginal population of New Guinea and Australia. It was hunter gatherer, and replaced by farmers. Not that thick on the ground. The debate is how much genetic influence they have on the current population in Southeast Asia. Some say they were swamped, and so it's not much.....

61 posted on 10/04/2001 9:16:42 AM PDT by TKEman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

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

Precisely the conclusion I come to every time I watch C-SPAN.

62 posted on 10/04/2001 9:28:09 AM PDT by white rose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dubyagee
I'm operating on the notion that if evolution is an ongoing process, then changes should take place. We humans have changed since then, right?

We humans have NOT changed in 30K years. We are the cro-magnons. A bit taller, perhaps, but very much the same species. Why? Because nothing has wiped us out. We produce mutations all the time (webbed fingers, six fingers, dwarves, etc.) but there has been no reason for such mutants to survive while we go extinct, so we stay the same. The mutant genes remain as part of our gene pool, popping up from time to time, but the "standard" of our species predominates, and the appearance of a "typical" human remains more or less constant. Same with horses. The theory of evolution doesn't REQUIRE change. It EXPLAINS change.

63 posted on 10/04/2001 9:35:59 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: TKEman
Would require an incredible string of luck for people to live to be 105

Yes, was just trying to place a lower limit on the number of people that could make a word-of-mouth chain all the way back. If over the years life expectancy were something lower, say, 25, the number of people in the chain would have to be a larger number. With more retellings, the chance of getting more than one garbled version today of something that happened 30,000 years ago seems virtually certain.

Just like if 1200 people attended a memorable high school basketball game, each would notice different features of the game and 10 years later some story versions might not be recognizable even to others who were physically present in the bleachers at the time.

This is all pretty well obvious, but the small necessary size of the minimum human chain to prehistoric times was kind of interesting. I was actually thinking of eyewitnesses to the Crucifixion when I first started thinking this way. It's only 20 people. 20 could fit in an elevator, or be waiting for burgers at the local instameal.

Looked at this way, something that happened in Serbia 700 years ago, or in Arabia 1300 years ago, or that happened in America in 1776 could reasonably be viewed as nearly current events.

64 posted on 10/04/2001 9:51:22 AM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: TKEman
"You don't see hybrid horse and zebra offspring out and about, do you?"

Yes! There are horse and zebra off spring alive today, I've seen pictures of them. Regardless, I got your point when you used that as an analogy.

65 posted on 10/04/2001 11:14:43 AM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: TKEman
You don't see hybrid horse and zebra offspring out and about, do you?

A Zorse is a Zorse of course of course and no on can talk to a Zorse of course that is of course unless the Zorse is the famous Mr. Ed.


66 posted on 10/04/2001 11:58:04 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Nice post. Interestingly, the aboriginal Tasmanians lost a lot of technology that they originally had because of lack of "data transmission." Pretty interesting. Actually, fascinating stuff. Look into it. A couple of good books exist out there regarding what happens when small, isolated populations are kept apart from the rest of humanity, and have technology that they have to pass down from generation to generation.....
67 posted on 10/04/2001 1:23:59 PM PDT by TKEman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: blam
I read one theory that places homoerectus in Australia prior to the arrival of 'moderns' 60k years ago and that the Aboroginies(sp) of today are the result of that meeting. (Ansestors of a combination of the two)

The problem is that erectus would have had to be able to navigate at least 50 miles in the open ocean for them to get there, and I don't think our scientists are willing to accept that yet.

68 posted on 10/04/2001 3:25:49 PM PDT by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
The problem is that erectus would have had to be able to navigate at least 50 miles in the open ocean for them to get there, and I don't think our scientists are willing to accept that yet.

They were blown there as passengers on south sea palms, like Darwin's finches.

69 posted on 10/04/2001 3:40:44 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
They were blown there as passengers on south sea palms, like Darwin's finches.

I suppose that's just as possible as them walking over on the back of all the sharks that live in those waters.

70 posted on 10/04/2001 3:58:54 PM PDT by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
"The problem is that erectus would have had to be able to navigate at least 50 miles in the open ocean for them to get there, and I don't think our scientists are willing to accept that yet."

I have always read that myself. However, last week I saw a map of the region, during the ice age, that showed a connection between New Guennea(sp) and Australia. (The first one like that I'd ever seen, I'll see if I can locate it again)

71 posted on 10/04/2001 3:59:19 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: blam
Suppose humans and Neadertals produced offspring on occasion, but not FERTILE offspring. THis would be much like the situation of Mules today. It would explain an occasional hybrid skeleton as well as the lack of Neadertal DNA in extant genes.

By-the-way, a "Big Bang" in art is supportive of ID and undermines gradualistic human evolution. It is not the "final nail in the coffin", but it is one more bit of evidence that favors the ID side, eh?

72 posted on 10/04/2001 4:27:36 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: blam
I have always read that myself. However, last week I saw a map of the region, during the ice age, that showed a connection between New Guennea(sp) and Australia. (The first one like that I'd ever seen, I'll see if I can locate it again)If you find it again, see if you can find out which ice age.
73 posted on 10/04/2001 4:38:16 PM PDT by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
By-the-way, a "Big Bang" in art is supportive of ID and undermines gradualistic human evolution. It is not the "final nail in the coffin", but it is one more bit of evidence that favors the ID side, eh?

Every new thing could be claimed as a product of ID. Agriculture, fire, the wheel, use of metals, etc. ID is such a wonderful answer. But I prefer to give all the credit to Prometheus. (Why let man have any credit at all?)

74 posted on 10/04/2001 5:46:42 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Yes, I see the Zebra-Horse. A Zorse, huh? I didn't know such a beast existed! Does this happen often in nature? Are these animals sterile? I know that if you mix and horse and a donkey, you get a mule, which I think are always sterile. Please correct me if I'm wrong. ;-)
75 posted on 10/04/2001 6:32:24 PM PDT by TKEman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
The time depth of human occupation of Australia is estimated to be 60,000 years. Before that, there are no human remains on that continent. Our earlier ancestors couldn't make the water crossing.

On Java and Borneo you'll see human-like remains before that, simply because these islands were a part of the mainland during the ice ages. When Eurasia and North America were covered with ice, the ocean level was 150 meters (roughly) farther down.

Even with the water level that far down, land at the eastern end of the Indonesian Islands were still islands. That's the origin of the Wallace Line. Another very interesting subject.

76 posted on 10/04/2001 6:42:21 PM PDT by TKEman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Well, even if one or two were blown there on palms or whatever, you still need to establish a founder population. In order to establish a founder population, you've got to have an organized group make the crossing.

Genetic evidence indicates that for a successful founder population to be established, you've got to have a critical mass of around 400 people. You can do it with less, if you've got genetic mapping, but they didn't have that.....

77 posted on 10/04/2001 6:46:15 PM PDT by TKEman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Just saw this, Bump for you.
78 posted on 10/04/2001 6:49:14 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: blam
New Guinea, Australia and Tasmania have been repeatedly joined during the various ice ages in a continent I believe they call Saheul (spelling for sure wrong). I was surprised to learn that the water depth between these three areas is so shallow as to allow land connections during ice ages.
79 posted on 10/04/2001 6:50:16 PM PDT by TKEman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I personally think that the biggest advantage our immediate ancestors had vis-a-vis the other "human" lines was the development of language.
80 posted on 10/04/2001 6:59:06 PM PDT by TKEman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson