I was reading about this earlier today and it is pretty amazing. I love the old cave art, it seems alive somehow. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, we will also discover a preserved mix of what they were chewing to make such funky pictures!

I cannot believe how long some crushed cobbled together paints can survive in a cave. Here I am having to repaint my deck and lawn furniture every year!

If they were really to be dated at 100k ybp they wouldn't be homo sapiens' tho.
At least not according to the out of africa theory.
Right?

Just a short comment

The line at which we say man is no longer archaic but now HSS is an academic one. There wouldn't be a sharp line between the two populations. Even if modern man came from a series of successful mutants that mutation would take a long time to spread through the entire population.

The age of this, if correct, is truly amazing! I think most of us are in agreement that tribes, groups, and possibly civilizations of the ancient world are much much older than science traditionally teaches. Not only older, but more advanced than we give them credit for.

It would not surprise me if at some point archaeologists unearth a written language on some ancient skins or something, lol. That would actually surprise me.

Whats sad about this story/thread is that they have an expert from Rome examine and comment on the art, yet they dont even venture to speak to the local tribal leaders who's ancestors were responsible for the paintings. Instead we look at the findings of a white chap from another continent and all nod in agreement that we now know every thing we need to. PS OP; I would advise you to read Indaby My Children by Credo Mutwa. I doesnt have anything to do with cave paintings nor is it a factual history book. Instead these are the African tales that have been passed down the centuries. The Egyptians had papyrus, the Inka stones. The black African are the only ones who kept their history alive by telling stories to the younger generation around a fire. Throughout the generations not a word is added or a sentance removed. Its an amazing book, like Lord of the Rings, Twilight, Harry Potter, Diskworld but with an African twist. I read it every 3 years just for fun. Its epic!

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

also the australian aborigine

Very interesting stuff. Was wondering... They found this mixture on the cave walls and determined mankind stirred it up and painted it on. I couldn't find pics, and only skimmed the article, I confess. Were there designs painted on the cave walls? Paintings of animals, etc? Or was is 'a coat of paint' painted as a layer on the interior cave wall? If the latter, I just wonder how they can say for sure that these elements of nature didn't somehow 'merge' naturally into this paint-like compound (like due to temperature, degradation of certain matter, etc.)

I guess I'm asking, how do they KNOW that mankind stirred the mixture and painted it on?

It's certainly plausible to me, and I would like to believe it.

Originally posted by new_here
Very interesting stuff. Was wondering... They found this mixture on the cave walls and determined mankind stirred it up and painted it on. I couldn't find pics, and only skimmed the article, I confess. Were there designs painted on the cave walls? Paintings of animals, etc? Or was is 'a coat of paint' painted as a layer on the interior cave wall? If the latter, I just wonder how they can say for sure that these elements of nature didn't somehow 'merge' naturally into this paint-like compound (like due to temperature, degradation of certain matter, etc.)

I guess I'm asking, how do they KNOW that mankind stirred the mixture and painted it on?

It's certainly plausible to me, and I would like to believe it.

Not to be curlish but - you could read the article, lol but nonetheless here is the germane parts:

A hundred thousand years ago, not long after Homo sapiens emerged as a species, a craftsman — or woman — sat in a cave overlooking the Indian Ocean, crushed a soft rusty red rock, mixed it inside a shell with charcoal and animal marrow, and dabbed it on something — maybe a face, maybe a wall.

Before the person left, he or she stacked the shell and grindstones in a neat pile, where they lay undisturbed for a hundred millennia.

these paint “tool kits,” researchers say, push deeper into human history the evidence for artistic impulses and complex, planned behavior. Previously, the oldest evidence of ochre paint was found at another site in South Africa dated to about 60,000 years ago.

Traces of paint on the tools show that the cave-dwellers mixed ochre — red or yellow minerals that contain metal oxides — with bone marrow, charcoal, flecks of quartz, and a liquid, probably water. Paint experts at the Louvre in Paris performed the analysis.

With ground ochre as the base, the marrow and charcoal acted as binders. The quartz could have made the compound sticky, with water — in the right amount — providing the proper consistency.

edit on 15/10/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Monkeygod333
Whats sad about this story/thread is that they have an expert from Rome examine and comment on the art, yet they dont even venture to speak to the local tribal leaders who's ancestors were responsible for the paintings. Instead we look at the findings of a white chap from another continent and all nod in agreement that we now know every thing we need to.

Paris actually, unless you are referring to another article and not the two in the first post?

The cave walls show no paintings, but quickly accreting limestone would have obscured any obvious signs, Henshilwood said.

The expert you disapprove of analyized the following:

Traces of paint on the tools show that the cave-dwellers mixed ochre — red or yellow minerals that contain metal oxides — with bone marrow, charcoal, flecks of quartz, and a liquid, probably water. Paint experts at the Louvre in Paris performed the analysis.

Originally posted by AurelioMaghe
If they were really to be dated at 100k ybp they wouldn't be homo sapiens' tho.
At least not according to the out of africa theory.
Right?

Then we are wrong.

next.