Archaeologica.org

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2012385.stm

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

Here is a 5 yr. old article on cave art, but the actual art is much older still.

I'm pretty skeptical of these. Mainly because
they have generally been disentangled from lots of
scribbled lines. You can see almost anything in the
scribbles.
But, hey, if they're real....
They would not just be the oldest...they would be virtually unique in tribal societies even until the present.
There's not much tradition of sitting around drawing each other. It there were, there's be lots more finds like this.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... 13-ON.html

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.

Interesting, but no pics. From the News Section.

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.

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.

"Music"...?

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grotte_Chauvet
http://images.google.com/images?q=Chauvet

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.

Like a decrease in sophistication over time.

A lost "art", no pun intended.

And considering that the habitation of the Americas sofar cannot be tracked back further than 12,500 BP

Most pros would disagree with the statement above, especially since Monte Verde.

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.

Interestingly, imo, nothing compares with European art. From ancient, middle ages, to modern. Why that is I don't know.

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.

Charlie Hatchett wrote:

And considering that the habitation of the Americas sofar cannot be tracked back further than 12,500 BP

Most pros would disagree with the statement above, especially since Monte Verde.

Monte Verde is what I was referring to, Charlie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde.

To be sure, I disagree with that, but it is the current supportable scientific consensus, afaik.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

Charlie Hatchett wrote:

And considering that the habitation of the Americas sofar cannot be tracked back further than 12,500 BP

Most pros would disagree with the statement above, especially since Monte Verde.

Monte Verde is what I was referring to, Charlie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde.

To be sure, I disagree with that, but it is the current supportable scientific consensus, afaik.

http://www.ele.net/art_folsom/pre-clovi ... pendix.htm

http://www.flickr.com/groups/rockart/pool/show

This is the most extensive collection of rock art photos that I've seen. If you want to view them all, be sure to pack a lunch.

Very good stuff!

Wow - It is a lot! Good stuff. Thanks, Beags.

Great Link Beags, now I have something else to waste time on!

That chart does not even include Meadowcroft or Topper, Charlie. Not to mention Valsequillo!

Beagle wrote:

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.

Interestingly, imo, nothing compares with European art. From ancient, middle ages, to modern. Why that is I don't know.

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.

We're just that bit more cultured, Beags!