This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Doesn't contain a single word about the history of any of these caves' discovery. That's odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.147.139.206 (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
A new dating method just found the Spanish cave paintings to be over 40 000 years old - ten thousand years older than the French cave paintings: http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/spanish-cave-paintings-shown-1458067.html Can someone edit the article to reflect this?76.110.169.129 (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the Coa Valley should be included in the European section. It is featured in the UNESCO World Heritage site (http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/866)
Ruimiguelvieira (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
just saw this in the news sky news bbc with video lots of other hits on a google news search for cave painting at the moment. EdwardLane (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Prehistoric paint manufacture NY times report here and a google search with a tack more articles here. EdwardLane (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Expanding on this thought, shouldn't there be a brief overview in its own section of their manufacture? Currently most of it is under the section entitled "1.2 Subjects, themes and patterns". A new section would focus on the materials used to make the art (charcoal, pigment sources as mentioned, grinding, mixing and any heating of pigments, what colors they had to work with, etc.), where they get them from (nearby rocks, animals, etc.), and different methods of painting (finger fluting, brushes, any drying period needed, etc. -- this would include integrating both mentions on hand stencils in this page here) I realize finger fluting for instance has its own page, but a simple line about it seems in order. Skingski (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:20,000 Year Old Cave Paintings Hyena.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:20,000 Year Old Cave Paintings Hyena.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC) |
The result was Keep EdwardLane (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Requested verification for the following statement: "He hypothesizes that the main themes in the paintings and other artifacts (powerful beasts, risky hunting scenes and the representation of women in the Venus figurines) are the fantasies of adolescent males, who constituted a large part of the human population at the time."
Review of the excerpt in the link provided does not support the statement as is. Specifically, Guthrie states: "My main conclusion is that preserved Paleolithic art, unlike most 'tribal art,' is a graphic expression whose articulation we can largely comprehend, and that the perspective of natural history offers an essential dimension to that appreciation; it is the 'code-breaker.'"
This is quite different from blankly attributing the art to "the fantasies of adolescent males", although that's part of it. If the work elsewhere supports the claim in the article, a page number is needed. Else, the article should be reworded. Richigi (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This article claims (under the Themes and patterns section) that the Venus figurine has no equivalent in cave paintings. The Chauvet article, however, describes a partial Venus. While the occurrence admittedly seems rare, can it be discarded? Or is the Chauvet article stretching a point? There's no inline citation for either claim. Richigi (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the Gobustan National Park should be included in this article. It was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site considered to be of "outstanding universal value" for the quality and density of its rock art engravings in 2007. [1][2]Shahin44 (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
My preference would be to identify Chauvet as the earliest cave paintings in the lead. Maybe we could specify "earliest figurative cave paintings." I understand that the El Castillo paintings are earlier, but when most people think of paintings, they think of the figurative art as at Chauvet, Lascaux, and Altamira. It seems like the "paintings" at El Castillo are more like scribbles. TimidGuy (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Any support for a separate section or article for primitive hand stencils? Kortoso (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
So the Spanish red disk is still ahead by a nose, but Sulawesi has the oldest animal. Note these datings change all the time - both refs are from the last 2 years. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I removed a statement from the lead placing these paintings among the earliest, along with Chauvet, because my understanding is that they haven't yet been dated. The only dating I could find in Google Scholar was a speculative statement by Clottes. And even that was very general. TimidGuy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cave painting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cave painting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cave painting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Based on these new important events ( http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6378/912 ) someone updated the article in the "Age" section, but the intro is still the old one. I think it needs a complete overhaul with the new info. 92.56.37.129 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
This has more implications for Neanderthal behavior than for cave painting. The fact that we may have found a hand stencil made by Neanderthals does not change the bulk of information to be discussed under "cave art", as the article topic is not "which is the oldest dated cave art", but "give an overview of all notable traditions of cave art worldwide, from the Paleolithic to recent times". --dab (𒁳) 06:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)