Controversial rock art may depict extinct giants of the ice age

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
(Article)
220307082103-01-rock-art-colombia-scn-exlarge-169.jpg

More than 12,000 years ago, South America was teeming with an astonishing array of ice age beasts -- giant ground sloths the size of a car, elephantine herbivores and a deerlike animal with an elongated snout.

These extinct giants are among many animals immortalized in an 8-mile-long (13-kilometer-long) frieze of rock paintings at Serranía de la Lindosa in the Colombian Amazon rainforest -- art created by some of the earliest humans to live in the region, according to a new study.

"(The paintings) have the whole diversity of Amazonia. Turtles and fishes to jaguars, monkeys and porcupines," said study author Jose Iriarte, a professor in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom.

Iriate calls the frieze, which likely would have been painted over centuries, if not millennia, "the last journey," as he said it represents the arrival of humans in South America -- the last region to be colonized by Homo sapiens as they spread around the world from Africa, their place of origin. These pioneers from the north would have faced unknown animals in an unfamiliar landscape.

"They encountered these large-bodied mammals and they likely painted them. And while we don't have the last word, these paintings are very naturalistic and we're able to see morphological features of the animals," he said.

But the discovery of what scientists term "extinct megafauna" among the dazzlingly detailed paintings is controversial and contested.

Other archaeologists say the exceptional preservation of the paintings suggest a much more recent origin and that there are other plausible candidates for the creatures depicted. For example, the giant ground sloth identified by Iriarte and his colleagues could in fact be a capybara -- a giant rodent common today across the region.

Final word?​

While Iriarte concedes the new study is not the final word in this debate, he is confident that they have found evidence of early human encounters with some of the vanished giants of the past.

The team identified five such animals in the paper: a giant ground sloth with massive claws, a gomphothere (an elephantlike creature with a domed head, flared ears and a trunk), an extinct lineage of horse with a thick neck, a camelid like a camel or llama, and a three-toed ungulate, or hoofed mammal, with a trunk.

The hope is to directly date the red pigment used to paint the miles of rock, but dating rock art and cave paintings is notoriously tricky. Ocher, an inorganic mineral pigment that contains no carbon, can't be dated using radiocarbon dating techniques. The archaeologists are hoping the ancient artists mixed the ocher with some kind of binding agent that will allow them to get an accurate date. The results of this investigation are expected possibly later this year.

Further study of the paintings could shed light on why these giant animals went extinct. Iriarte said no bones of the extinct creatures were found during archaeological digs in the immediate area -- suggesting perhaps they weren't a source of food for the people who created the art.
 
You bring up a good point, and to expand on that, i'll also point out how medieval and renaissance artists would frequently depict people in artistic representations of ancient greece and rome wearing medieval and renaissance era clothing. If you knew little of the ancient world you might think thats how they actually dressed. By the same token most people today hear the phrase 'roman legion' and immediately think of a soldier in lorica segmentata, not realizing that it was a fairly short period in roman history that they actually looked like that. Really just the late republic era. If you showed the average person a roman soldier of 100 or 200AD, or later they likely wouldn't even recognize him as a roman soldier

The point is, people should be very careful about reading too much into artistic depictions of anything
If I remember my admittedly fuzzy Art History class, didn't medieval artists sometimes also draw the size of the figure based on their importance? So a saint might be depicted very large among the commoners?
 
If I remember my admittedly fuzzy Art History class, didn't medieval artists sometimes also draw the size of the figure based on their importance? So a saint might be depicted very large among the commoners?
Yes. Hieratic scale is an effective means of showing the relative significance of different subjects in a work of art. You could think of it as a schematic rather than a purely representational image.
 
Some ancient cave paintings are still very impressive in the sense that humans have always had the ability to create expressive works of art.

View attachment 3061106
Rather see stuff like this than what's hanging in museums.
It's really cool looking into the past here and seeing the wild ancestors to our horses and cows (called aurochs) that someone actually saw. True (not escaped) wild horses have been extinct for quite some time now, and the last auroch died in Poland in 1627.
 
This is the equivalent of people from the future finding a doll or drawing of The Simpsons and thinking that people were yellow in the past.
 
I mean, its not that crazy, Wooly Mammoths died out around 2,000 BC, its not that impossible that someone saw Megafauna and drew it on a rock.
Can you imagine being one of those cavemen? "Fuck! That was a weird animal, I better go home and drew it on the rock!"
 
It's really cool looking into the past here and seeing the wild ancestors to our horses and cows (called aurochs) that someone actually saw. True (not escaped) wild horses have been extinct for quite some time now, and the last auroch died in Poland in 1627.
Aren’t Przewalski's horse considered wild (aka neither domesticated nor feral)? The ancestors of the modern domestic horse are extinct.
 
In 5000 years an archaeologist will dig up an old harddrive full of furry porn and will write up an article about how there may have been 100 foot tall purple wolves destroying cities and eating people with its giant horse cock.
 
In 5000 years an archaeologist will dig up an old harddrive full of furry porn and will write up an article about how there may have been 100 foot tall purple wolves destroying cities and eating people with its giant horse cock.
Not any more than we believe Greek furfag shit like the minotaur was real. They'll just think we have some retarded religion, like the Greeks did.
 
Not any more than we believe Greek furfag shit like the minotaur was real. They'll just think we have some retarded religion, like the Greeks did.
In the year 3024-

“Current archaeologists are unsure whether the phrase ‘Yiff in hell’ was considered a curse, a blessing, or a common oath among the peoples of 2022”
 
I misread the title and thought there was ice age artwork depicting actual giants and I was preparing a Wendigoon clip for that.

But no sense of scale or not, humans were there for the giant sloth, and giant sloths had to have lived among megafauna to support themselves. It's South America, there was a lush rainforest that was home to millions of species at one point before humans sheared it down. That painting is lucky to have survived long enough for modern paleontologists to find it and shit themselves over it because "Oh nooooo humans couldn't have been around to see these majestic wonders of nature!" when you'd think they'd be more than thrilled to use that knowledge to go, "See, see?! Humans are awful monsters because we kill species without a second thought! If it wasn't for us, these species of megafauna and giant animals wouldn't have died out!"

Our knowledge of history gets challenged every day because so much of history is lost to time. Historians should be overjoyed to find things that challenge how we see the world, but they act like pissbabies at the slightest suggestion that ancient humans might not have been so different from modern humans after all and that there may have been various extinct creatures that were still alive alongside humans. Even something as cool as "What if humans and dinosaurs met each other for a brief period of time?" makes them flip out instead of just entertaining the notion for a bit of fun "what if" anecdotes before moving on to something else.
 
Aliens aside, I'd really like to time travel just to see how ancient peoples were able to achieve some of their really spectacular architech. The Giza pyramids are aboslutely breathtaking to see in person. No photo or movie can do them justice.

I feel like we've lost some really valuable tools and techniques (and general sense of ourselves) along the way to the technological singularity.
We have the techniques - especially the stonework stuff, we just have easier ways to do the stuff. It just means the really expert people a much rarer or do other things and don't push their skills to the same degree. Anyone can rent a small crane and start piling up cut stone.

It would be trivial to build another pyramid in Giza these days, even more precise. The fact that they exist isn't what makes then special, it's that it was the first time people developed tools to do it on such a scale. You can follow along as it happened, Sudan is littered with little pyramids, then you move into Egypt where there's a lot of obvious trial and error leading to Giza.

Seeing them in their full glory with their covering of polished white stone must have been something else since nothing else like it existed. The pride of doing something like that for their god-kings must have been incredible.
 
It may, or it may depict how early artists didn't have a sense of scale. They didn't in the medieval era.
They also fucking hated snails

 
the last region to be colonized by Homo sapiens as they spread around the world from Africa, their place of origin
Australia was not settled with Homo Sapiens till the brits discovered it...

The Dakota still have stories about a waterfall in MN in their histories from 10,000 years ago when Lake Agassiz burst its banks at the end of the last ice age where the river that was formed made it to the Mississippi. It was 300' high and miles wide. The stories match up with what the erosion tells us, even though all that's left are the 10' wide, 20'-ish high Minnehaha Falls that are part of a creek, and St. Anthony falls, which is just a 3' high weir now.
that maybe never happened. the Icedyke theory has massive flaws and we have much better evidence for a cosmic impact into the ice.

Some human (or non yet human) who didn't know how to write, perhaps not even speak, who had no idea of the concept of physics, anatomy, medicine, chemistry, anything... did this.
Those were Humans. but even less evoled forms did paint on rocks, Australia has a couple of places where pre-humans still paint on rocks.

i also have the thread theme...

 
that maybe never happened. the Icedyke theory has massive flaws and we have much better evidence for a cosmic impact into the ice.
Considering you can go to the exact spot the lakes banks and follow the path of the water from where they gave way I don't know what you're talking about. It's an extremely abnormal path for water to flow on that part of the continent. You can also follow the path of the erosion from the falls there. It's all glacied sand and very young sandstone, it's not exactly a challenge.
 
Considering you can go to the exact spot the lakes banks and follow the path of the water from where they gave way I don't know what you're talking about. It's an extremely abnormal path for water to flow on that part of the continent. You can also follow the path of the erosion from the falls there. It's all glacied sand and very young sandstone, it's not exactly a challenge.
the Theory is that a giant ice dyke broke and flooded the land, there are some major problem with that theory, there is another theory to explain those marks. a cosmic impact on the ice and they have alot of real evidence for it...
 
the Theory is that a giant ice dyke broke and flooded the land, there are some major problem with that theory, there is another theory to explain those marks. a cosmic impact on the ice and they have alot of real evidence for it...
What meteor impact leaves a 5km wide, 100m deep, 300km long gash in the land that is pretty unmistakingly a river bed? It's only 10,000 years old, it hasn't even had a chance to really have and serious erosion. There's a park near the end of it with a visitor center right by the spot Abe Lincoln put the concentration camp where he put all the Dakota elders during the war with them that has a 3d topological map of the whole thing from satellite scans and no sign of any impact craters from the time. A lot of the lake's beaches still exist and are pretty easy to find still. There were other, smaller outlets, too, where the Vermillion River is now and some other Canadian river.
 
Back
Top Bottom