Talk:Lascaux

Star Map

This isn't mentioned? I don't know enough about it to write myself Chopper Dave 22:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. I saw that mentioned in the Cro-Magnon article. Might be interesting to add it here. It's along the lines of the work by Alexander Marshack. But I wonder if it was published. Maybe a brief mention. I'll maybe add it, if you don't. I really need to get back to this article and do the refs properly. Soon, I hope. TimidGuy 16:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The star map/constellation information appears to be highly speculative. The only references are popular science mags and a few websites. There are no archaeological or historical scientific references noted, which I regard as problematic. Aglnl (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

DETAILed article and 27 fotos discussing careful measurements and correlation with modern constellation software walked back in time to the time of the cave drawings to prove the use of the cave paintings e.g. at time of summer solstice as the sun light walks across the images essentially telling a story: work by chantal jogues-wolkiewiez see http://www.astronomy2009.org/

what is jmissing is here in these caves and 7,000 years later at gobekli tepi is the careful depiction of a fully developed what some would argue religion , but in fact, it includes religion but is a depiction of the engine of creation ... ard ri sr lil AO 47.18.43.166 (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It really seems like this should at least be mentioned as an existing issue, seems credible and seems weird to have it covered by major orgs like the BBC but intentionally left out here. 2601:249:601:97F1:812B:FE95:16DB:4B7F (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Chantal Jegues Wolkiewitz has research too, but there isnt much references.Beyond silence 14:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

There are numerous publications on the subject (e.g. see https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4614-6141-8_116 and references in this article). I don't know if the suggestions have any credibility in mainstream academia. To me, there are some very obvious flaws to the ideas:

• Orion's Belt has 3 stars, not 4. And in every culture, the 3-ness is part of the asterism (e.g. The Three Kings, the Three Sisters, the Three Pearls, the Hapj (made of the deer, pronghorn, and sheep). No culture I know of has ever considered there to be 4 stars in this asterism.
• Whilst the "Pleiades" dots look similar to other drawings thought to be of Pleiades from other cultures (i.e. shows the main > mag 5 stars), in Lascaux they are in the wrong orientation with regard to Orion's Belt and to the bull, if assuming it is really Taurus.
• Not all cultures consider the asterism we now called Taurus, the bull, to be a bull. There is a large assumption being made that the painters did - there isn't really any evidence of that from the painting itself, if you discount the dubious Orion's Belt and Pleiades assumptions. The argument is circular - it must be Orion's Belt and Pleiades because there is a bull in between, and it must be Taurus in-between because there's Orion's Belt and Pleiades.
• There are plenty of other dot formations elsewhere in the paintings, which clearly DON'T show asterisms, e.g. below the megaloceros. It's quite a leap to assume most formations of black dots throughout the cave don't represent stars, except for these two.

I know this isn't the place to settle those views, but the above is to say I agree with not including these dubious and speculative claims. 175.100.60.201 (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this topic should be treated seriously, given that there are academic peer-reviewed papers out there discussing it (e.g. Rappenglueck, sweatman & coombs). So the claims may be speculative but they are not at the level of "lunatic fringe". The article can, of course, express the fact that these claims are controversial, but not to mention them at all seems contrary to the goals of wikipedia. I'm happy to insert a couple of lines giving references and expressing doubts over the claims unless someone strongly objects. RayNorris (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Rappenglück's claims about Lascaux are not, and should not be included because they are fringe claims that have no credibility in the relevant fields, i.e. paleolithic archaeology and anthropology. Rappenglück is not an expert in either but an astronomer; he has an astronomy doctorate, works at an observatory and has published a bit, but to scarce notice. Sweatman is a materials engineering researcher, Coombs is a divinity scholar, and their paper citing Rappenglück contains this entertaining passage:

Our statistical result is so strong that, unless a significant flaw in our methodology is found, it would be irrational to doubt our hypothesis. It follows that any proposition about these artworks that is inconsistent with our hypothesis can automatically be rejected – it is almost certainly wrong, since our hypothesis is almost certainly correct.

This is not to say that people who work outside of anthropology cannot contribute to it, but a little respect for and collaboration with people who have made a career of it would help. 2601:642:4F84:1590:447C:3100:37B0:8664 (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it works in archaeology & anthropology, but in the physical sciences, if someone publishes a refereed article that you disagree with, the normal procedure is to publish your counter-arguments. Just ignoring it undermines your own credibility, and is bad scholarship. So too, in a wikipedia article, I don't think we should ignore things that we disagree with. We should refer to them, and give the two sides of the argument. To ignore it is not in the spirit of wikipedia. And, btw, you cant call it "fringe" - it has been published as a peer review article in a reputable journal. Calling it names like "fringe" doesnt help your case!RayNorris (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

"Fringe" has a particular meaning on Wikipedia: a view that is believed by a tiny minority of adherents. There is no obligation, and indeed a policy of discouragement, for including such material. This is how Wikipedia maintains some degree of trustworthiness. As for "publication", where was Rappenglück's claim published? A journal named Migration & Diffusion that, as far as I can tell, is the online project of a single editor who is an Atlantis-hunter. 2601:642:4F84:1590:D52:FF51:2714:6C4E (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lascaux plan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Lascaux and copyright?

Under 'Pottery and Prints' the article contains the statement "the [Lascaux cave] images have been copyrighted." This seems strange to me and after some light googling I can't find any non-parody source for the Lascaux images being under copyright. Can someone shed more light on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.100.233 (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• I've removed the section. It seems like nonsense to me, and the claim is unreferenced. It can be added back, if someone can find a proper reference. Langcliffe (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)