It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Pennsylvania State University Archaeologist Dean Snow is reporting to National Geographic that studies he's undertaken of cave art dating back to the Paleolithic indicate much of it was done by women, not men as is commonly believed.
after reading about work done by geologist John Manning—he'd found that average finger lengths in people vary by gender. Men tend to have longer ring fingers than index fingers for example, while the opposite is true for women. Some time later, he reports, he was looking at pictures of cave art and noticed that the fingers on the hands appeared to conform to Manning's description of female hands.
originally posted by: FraternitasSaturni
Aliensun... I see what you did there.
But besides your obvious distorted agenda, who cares if the drawings were made by males or females, or who was holding the "torch"... lol
A - for effort tho... but others may follow your apparently innocent thread.
originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Aliensun
Interesting thought they might be able to determine that by examining the outlined hands closely as a greater proportion of men have shorter index fingers than ring fingers than do women. However, it is not known if this is a recent trait or one that goes back x number of years.
...the one million pound elephant in the room within many of these caves is… where the hell is all the soot from all the burning fires?
....the way shadows dance right behind the light. Which demands we are all being asked to believe… the person who created those paintings had an incredible amount of painting skills, could build some of kind of supporting device strong enough to hold his/her weight… and then this same person had to either build massive fires extremely close to where those paintings were being painted or used some other kind of advanced lighting system to cut down on all the shadows created by artificial light, (ie… fire or electricity.) If you want to test just how difficult a task that so called primitive cave person had to solved… go into the biggest room in your house and with no other lighting… put a flashlight anywhere behind you and then try to draw something that covers thirty percent of your wall. Just doing that simple exercise will show you how many times you have to move your flashlight just to create one simple painting just so you can stay within the margins of coherency. Or if you have a whole bunch of flashlights how many do you need to help defend against your own shadow casting darkness… let alone how many more flashlights do you need to prevent phantom line chasing? You see when you add it all together, the cave paintings inside that one cave proves either the academic world is either horrifically lost in their own stupidity, or they think you are not smart enough to see that the visual evidence destroys their horrifically ridiculous explanations. The evidence is overwhelming, no modern teaching of what equals a caveman could’ve created those paintings, period! Which means either carbon dating is horrifically flawed, or our truly ancient ancestors are a hell’va lot smarter and more advanced than what we’ve been tricked into believing.
originally posted by: Kester
This is what fascinates me. What was used as lighting? I've read that soot from lamps began to obscure some paintings as soon as recent explorers began visiting the caves. So what did the original painters use for lighting? Bioluminescence?
But subsequent technology has made it possible to date the paintings by sampling the pigment itself and the torch marks on the walls.
Most of the artwork dates to the earlier, Aurignacian, era (30,000 to 32,000 years ago). The later Gravettian occupation, which occurred 25,000 to 27,000 years ago, left little but a child's footprints, the charred remains of ancient hearths, and carbon smoke stains from torches that lit the caves.