Archaeologica.org

This at least explains the apparent lack of sites which has always puzzled me

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.j ... art105.xml

Roy.

This supports the current prevailing view that art and architecture created during Upper Palaeo and Neolithic rituals were living and ongoing. They didn't have the same ideas about preservation as we do, as their sacred art was a process within their ceremonies rather than a done deal.

The San constantly retouch their paintings too, making them impossible to date.

There is also this "problem" in India with cave paintings at sacred sites like Ellora and Elephanta. The local people see the cave art their own, and want to continue to add to it as part of their rituals. This frustrates the archaeos and such like who want to cordon the whole lot off, and preserve these caves as sites of special interest.

It's a clash of the Western view of the objective, detached observer who is used to cathedral altars being cordoned off versus the Eastern view of the subjective, involved participant in sacred ritual, who takes ownership of the paintings.

Personally, I think we should clear all the archaeos and carbon daters out of there, and respect these people's rights by leaving them alone.


.

Ishtar wrote:Personally, I think we should clear all the archaeos and carbon daters out of there, and respect these people's rights by leaving them alone.
.

And inevitably end up in a war of cultures because we didn't make an effort to understand theirs...?
Naah, that don't sound like a good plan to me, Ish.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

Ishtar wrote:Personally, I think we should clear all the archaeos and carbon daters out of there, and respect these people's rights by leaving them alone.
.

And inevitably end up in a war of cultures because we didn't make an effort to understand theirs...?
Naah, that don't sound like a good plan to me, Ish.

You've missed my point, RS.

There already is a war of cultures, because the archaeos and the carbon daters are not making the effort to understand the indigenous culture, and are applying their own values to the situation. But they are the outsiders, and mainly Westerners. So my suggestion is about making an effort to respect and understand the values of the indigenous people, by leaving them alone to continue with their rituals as they have done for tens of thousands of years.

Digit wrote:This at least explains the apparent lack of sites which has always puzzled me

How does it do this?

I think he may mean that instead going and finding a new site they just kept updating an old one.
Look at my posting of what seems to be the same practice in Australia.
All the way to showing a bi-plane!

That doesn't explain "the apparent lack of sites" - unless you have some idea of how many there ought to be. It kind of begs the question doesn't it?

I will let him answer.

Sorry about the delay in replying.
The convention that I learned suggested that the paintings were done over a short period and then the creators stopped/died out/moved.
The number of sites exploited is quite small, which leads to the conclusion that if the known ones were completed over a short time scale, cave painting was a short lived event.
Had it been longer more sites would have been used.
Now that is clarified and explains the small number of sites and expands the time scale as well.
Sorry for any confusion.
Roy.

The "apparent" lack of sites has far more to do with taphonomy. The sites found primarily in the Franco-Cantabrian set should be regarded as exceptionally preserved.

However, that many of these "sites" are in focal points where activity may have continued intermittenly throughout the past demonstrates the need to be cautious about dates derived from the same. Further, dating issues are compounded by poor site management, lack of knowledge, etc..

Ishtars call for the protection of indigenous people and their art is surprisingly astute despite being marred by the inference that cave art has something to do with shamanism (by referring to the San) - a point which has been thoroughly refuted (here and elsewhere) ever since it was first raised back in the '60's and well before Lewis-Williams tried (unsuccessfully) to ressurrect it.

Manystones

I am happy to concede that there are two schools of thought about the motivation for cave paintings (the shamanic versus the others) and that both are just a matter of opinion. However, I think it's misleading of you - or perhaps wishful thinking - to claim that one school of thought has thoroughly refuted and thus superceded the other - either on this forum or anywhere.

But thank you for calling me astute ... I don't often get a compliment from you!



.

Interesting MS. I had assumed that most, if not all, of the sites had been uncovered by now, or at least evidence that other sites had been used even if the art had vanished.
Any further insights on this?

Roy.

I seem to remember that some real good sites have been found in caves that have their entrances underwater.
The painting themselves are above sea level but you cannot get to them without diving.
I will try and find the sites.

Thanks kb.

Roy.

Here we go.
It is called Cosquer Cave in France
It is called the “only one” but you have to believe that means the only one we have found so far.

http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arch ... cosqu2.htm

http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arch ... cosqu1.htm

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/cosquer/