Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
Here is a 5 yr. old article on cave art, but the actual art is much older still.What could be the oldest lifelike drawings of human faces have been uncovered in a cave in southern France.
The images were first recognised over 50 years ago, but were then lost after doubts were cast on their authenticity
Interesting, but no pics. From the News Section.LAS CRUCES, N.M. - A collection of 12 petroglyph sites in the Dona Ana Mountains of southern New Mexico has been named to the National Register of Historic Places, giving the sites the highest level of national significance.
The sites are part of what the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division calls the Summerford Mountain Archaeological District. There are four other rock art districts, all in the northern half of the state.
"Music"...?Beagle wrote:http://www.theorionzone.com/grapevine_canyon.htm
Scroll down for some cool rock art. Petroglyphs in Nevada.
I don't have a liking for flute music, so I recommend turning your volume down/off.
From TDG.
Like a decrease in sophistication over time.There's not one mention of age there.
Comparing them with Chauvet (32,000 BC!) the difference in sophistication is striking. Where the Chauvet images seem done by carefully observing adults, the petroglyphs look decidely childish. And considering that the habitation of the Americas sofar cannot be tracked back further than 12,500 BP, lends weight to the theory the petroglyphs are really not much more than children's scribblings. Grafitti if you will.
Most pros would disagree with the statement above, especially since Monte Verde.And considering that the habitation of the Americas sofar cannot be tracked back further than 12,500 BP
Interestingly, imo, nothing compares with European art. From ancient, middle ages, to modern. Why that is I don't know.Comparing them with Chauvet (32,000 BC!) the difference in sophistication is striking. Where the Chauvet images seem done by carefully observing adults, the petroglyphs look decidely childish.
Monte Verde is what I was referring to, Charlie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde.Charlie Hatchett wrote:Most pros would disagree with the statement above, especially since Monte Verde.And considering that the habitation of the Americas sofar cannot be tracked back further than 12,500 BP
http://www.ele.net/art_folsom/pre-clovi ... pendix.htmRokcet Scientist wrote:Monte Verde is what I was referring to, Charlie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde.Charlie Hatchett wrote:Most pros would disagree with the statement above, especially since Monte Verde.And considering that the habitation of the Americas sofar cannot be tracked back further than 12,500 BP
To be sure, I disagree with that, but it is the current supportable scientific consensus, afaik.
We're just that bit more cultured, Beags!Beagle wrote:Interestingly, imo, nothing compares with European art. From ancient, middle ages, to modern. Why that is I don't know.Comparing them with Chauvet (32,000 BC!) the difference in sophistication is striking. Where the Chauvet images seem done by carefully observing adults, the petroglyphs look decidely childish.
I've looked at ancient rock art from all over the planet and, as you say, they look childish. The cave art in France and elsewhere in Europe looks like Da Vinci could have done it. Strange.
