Talk:Chauvet Cave

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyright status of photo[edit]

copy vio?

The photo of the Chauvet Cave lions is not in the public domain. The owner(s) are still alive and it was taken only 10 or so years ago. There may be some other category by which this photo can be shown, but it is definitely not public domain. Ande B. 02:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's not public? I think i saw it at the national geo site or something. --Dark Fennec 00:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, magazines like that have departments that seek permission for things like that, and pay the necessary fees. However, in a way, for the French government and people, one could say that the Chauvet images are a form of promotion or P.R., as they're (justifiably) proud to be the country with presumably the world's first painters! Badagnani 01:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have added a photo from the corresponding French wikipedia page. Ian mckenzie 02:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chauvet Cave Paintings: Dating Controversy[edit]

The article says: "Most of the artwork dates to the earlier, Aurignacian, era (30,000 to 32,000 years ago)." It should be mentioned that this is based on the radiocarbon dating method. Some researchers, notably Paul Pettitt, challenge the dates, arguing that the drawings are too advanced for that era, and that the existing radiocarbon samples may be unreliable and contaminated by the cave wall itself: P. Pettitt (2008). Art and the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe: Comments on the archaeological arguments for an early Upper Paleolithic antiquity of the Grotte Chauvet art. Journal of Human Evolution, 2008. Fleabox (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the new ref. ISTM the sentences on dating in the Features section are redundant with the Dating section and could be removed, except for the descriptive details about footprints, etc. --Jtir (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with this "BP" nonsense? Thoroughly discredited. If you don't want to use "BC" for politically correct reasons, use the "BCE" ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.90.2 (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Means "before present" and seems fairly conventional. TimidGuy (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Conventional" is nothing but confusing, as all the notes in fact are. Please give correct calibrations by OxCal or CalPal, or both, and we will have really comparable dates according to our common calendar, unambiguously understandable by everybody. Thank you. HJJHolm (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not clear what you're suggesting. TimidGuy (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No good to remove without moving to Discussion![edit]

Removed from article: "The researchers found that the cave had been untouched for 20,000-30,000 years." (needs source) Badagnani (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I didn't see anything so definite in the cited sources (Clottes, Chauvet), but I could have missed something. --Jtir (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cave had been undisturbed for a long time. Rather than removing the text and not noting that removal here, it's much better to locate sources explaining how long it had been undisturbed. We want to have the most encyclopedic article possible, with no lacunae. Badagnani (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, the sentence originated in this version. --Jtir (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And a second version was added here, which was accepted here. --Jtir (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who inserted what when; it matters that we locate the actual information about how long the cave had been undisturbed before being discovered in the 1990s. Badagnani (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed this section to Authentication, as that more closely describes the subject.
This page briefly describes the reasoning used to authenticate the cave. As I recall, Chauvet or Clottes has a longer discussion. The Dating section could be expanded to Dating and Authentication. --Jtir (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would include other issues. This section deals only with how long the cave had been undisturbed before being discovered in the 1990s. Badagnani (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source for the cave being untouched for 27,000 years: The Cave Painters by Gregory Curtis, pp. 215-216. Will that suffice? TimidGuy (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what it says, it would seem good to add. According to whom is this stated--the book's author, or some archaeologist(s)? Badagnani (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book's author, who is reporting the research of Clottes et al. TimidGuy (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when rhinos are predatory animals?![edit]

I mean that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.6.62.100 (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. So how about fixing it? TimidGuy (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chauvet cave, paintings.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Chauvet cave, paintings.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

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.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Chauvet cave, paintings.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chauvethorses.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Chauvethorses.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

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.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Chauvethorses.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New research[edit]

New battle for the dating of Chauvet Cave "Combiera and Jouve argue that the site must be examined in its natural, cultural and thematic framework within a wider region, believing that the images do not represent an isolated moment of artistic genius from the Aurignacian period...They conclude that although Chauvet cave displays some unique characteristics, it appears to belong to a far more evolved phase of parietal art that sits within a Franco-Cantabrian tradition around 26,000–18,000 years ago"

BUT: "The site of Altxerri B in Spain has been found to contain similar and even older dated artworks stretching back 40,000 years. Archaeological, geological and stylistic evidence, together with radiometric dates, suggest an Aurignacian chronology for this Spanish cave art." "Another piece of evidence that supports the earlier dating of the Chauvet images relies on the depiction of animals that would have been extinct by 29,000 years ago, such as the cave bear and rhinoceros" read the article, there's a lot more. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. Seems like we could mention this most recent debate. On a similar note, it's always sort of bothered me that the Cave painting article mentions El Castillo as being the first instance of cave paintings, since those "paintings" are basically doodling, if I remember correctly. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the Freench scientists refuse to submit their material to international radiocarbon laboratories for independent comparison, I believe NOTHING!HJJHolm (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minotaur[edit]

In the paintings section, I have tagged "Above the Venus, and in contact with it, is a bison head, which has led some to describe the composite drawing as a Minotaur" with "citation needed." Frankly I'm very skeptical about this. Chimeras of this kind, like the Harpies, the Sphinx, Scylla—where the head is human, the lower body that of an animal—do not appear in the archaeological record until the Neolithic period. The two elements—the bison head and vulva—do not seem to me to be in significant relation, or if they are, they are very oddly positioned. Plus, "taur" is from the Greek or Latin for bull, a male ox. The vulva is not part of the male anatomy, animal or human. Minos was the mythological (male) king of Knossos. The Minotaur is a male chimera.Prohairesius (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New review of dating puts controversy to rest[edit]

Here's a review that developed a model that included over 350 datings.[1] Seems like the dating is now definitive and that we could condense much of the material in this section. And then give prominence to this recent review. TimidGuy (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but if you're going to do it you should make the dates consistent throughout the article. Those in the blog are much earlier than the one listed in the second para. of this page, for instanceProhairesius (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chauvet Cave. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

introduction[edit]

Overall I think this is a good page but don't like the effusive tone of the opening. How can three decorated caves, hundred of miles apart, represent a single "Sistine Chapel"? This sentence is taken from a BBC article and is typical journalistic hype. My instinct is to omit the sentence altogether. Comments?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chauvet Cave. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Footprints of child + Date of origin of domestic dog[edit]

The following two sentences conclude the "Features" section. Both sentences are misleading:

"A set of foot prints of a young child and a wolf or dog walking side by side was found in this cave. This information suggests the origin of the domestic dog could date to before the last Ice Age."

Sentence 1: As I have understood the footprint evidence from my (admittedly somewhat spotty) reading, the "young child" was most likely male and about 8 years old; there is also evidence that the dog/woolf was in fact a dog. The footprints (approx. 20 of them) of the young person are found in the "Gallery of the Crosshatchings" (GoC), the innermost room of the North-West branch of the cave. They lead South, i.e. toward the cave's exit. No human tracks leading in the opposite direction or in other parts of the cave have yet been found. The midmost part of the trail in the GoC cannot be observed, since it is too distant from the walkway, and/or the surface is too hard. While it is true that there are dog/woolf footprints in the GoC, it is not clear whether the canine and the child are walking side by side, nor is it (as yet) possible to know if the two sets of tracks were laid down simultaneously. Thus, the story of the boy with the dog, though appealing, seems not to be based on firm evidence. (This information derives from: Garcia M., 1999: La piste de pas humains de la grotte Chauvet à Vallon-Pont-d'Arc, INORA (International Newsletter On Rock Art), 24, p. 1-4; and: Garcia M., 2005: Ichnologie générale de la grotte Chauvet, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 2005, tome 102, N. 1. pp. 103-108. - Both sources are translated and quoted on Don Hitchcock's site ("Don's Maps") at: http://donsmaps.com/chauvetcave.html - I do not read French well enough to consult the originals.)

Sentence 2: The boy's footprints were probably made about 26,000 years ago (Garcia 1999 see above). The last glaciation (not ice age!) lasted from about 120,000 BP to about 10-12,000 BP. Thus, even if it could be proven that the boy and the dog walked together, the footprints cannot possibly "suggest" that dogs were domesticated before the last glaciation, still less before the last (Quaternary) ice age, which commenced about 2.58 mill BP, long before the origin of homo sapiens. Filursiax (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

‘Historic’ agreement resolves dispute over Chauvet cave (and replica)[edit]

[2] - after a long legal battle "According to the financial settlement reached in January, the association of the Caverne du Pont-d’Arc will now pay the three speleologists €50,000 for the image rights and the Chauvet name, and they will receive 1.7% of the admission fees to the replica cave. They will also play an active role in cultural mediation at the site—“one way for us to relive the adventure and to tell [visitors] about it”, Chauvet told Le Figaro." I don't have time to add this ight now. Doug Weller talk 12:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit[edit]

I added content under the “in popular culture” heading, commenting that popular YouTube content creator Tom Scott had uploaded a video focusing on the cave and its replica. I had never heard of the caves before his video, I suspect many are in the same position - yet someone deleted my edit less than an hour later and for no apparent reason. A YouTube video about the caves is surely representation in popular culture. 2A02:C7E:1785:AF00:EC14:6212:311C:A183 (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chauvet_Cave&oldid=1211031477"