Prehistoric Art: Difference between revisions
From WikiDemocracy
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
[https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2025/07/28/unesco-new-world-heritage-sites-prehistoric-art by Elena Goukassian 28/7/25 THE ART NEWSPAPER] | [https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2025/07/28/unesco-new-world-heritage-sites-prehistoric-art by Elena Goukassian 28/7/25 THE ART NEWSPAPER] | ||
During Unesco’s annual World Heritage Committee meeting earlier this month in Paris, the international body voted to inscribe 26 new sites onto its list (21 cultural, four natural and one mixed). Four of these are in Africa, while about a third of the total represent prehistoric sites. Unesco also removed three sites from its World Heritage in Danger list during the session, which came to a close on 16 July. | During Unesco’s annual World Heritage Committee meeting earlier this month in Paris, the international body voted to inscribe 26 new sites onto its list (21 cultural, four natural and one mixed). Four of these are in Africa, while about a third of the total represent prehistoric sites. Unesco also removed three sites from its World Heritage in Danger list during the session, which came to a close on 16 July. | ||
=====Palaeolithic paintings. Evolution of prehistoric cave art===== | |||
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11586348/ by H Valladas 10/01 NIH] | |||
Sophisticated examples of European palaeolithic parietal art can be seen in the caves of Altamira, Lascaux and Niaux near the Pyrenees, which date to the Magdalenian period (12,000-17,000 years ago), but paintings of comparable skill and complexity were created much earlier, some possibly more than 30,000 years ago. We have derived new radiocarbon dates for the drawings that decorate the Chauvet cave in Vallon-Pont-d'Arc, Ardèche, France, which confirm that even 30,000 years ago Aurignacian artists, already known as accomplished carvers, could create masterpieces comparable to the best Magdalenian art. Prehistorians, who have traditionally interpreted the evolution of prehistoric art as a steady progression from simple to more complex representations, may have to reconsider existing theories of the origins of art. | |||
