I finally took a second look at that cave painting claim near Lascaux

I always figured the older dating studies were just hype, so I brushed off the Chauvet 2 replica talk for years. Then last spring I went to the actual site in France and saw the hand stencils up close, the way the ochre layered on the rock made it feel alive. I checked the radiocarbon numbers afterward, 36,000 years old, and suddenly the whole timeline of human art made sense to me. What convinced you to trust a controversial dating method or excavation claim before? Has anyone else been won over by seeing something in person rather than reading the papers?

1 comments

1 Comment

diana15526d ago

...and honestly that's kind of how it went for me too, but I gotta gently push back on the Chauvet 2 thing being a replica. I mean, the original cave is closed to the public, yeah, but the replica is so exact it's basically a 1:1 copy, so seeing that still counts in my book. What really got me was the aurochs in the main chamber, those big horned beasts not looking like any modern cow I've seen, that made me trust the dating more than any graph. The radiocarbon numbers are solid, but there's something about the way the artists used the rock's natural curves to make the animals look like they're moving that just hits you in the gut. I think people get too hung up on "replica" and miss that the technique and pigment are the real proof, not just the label on the door.