I used to roll my eyes at cave art dating claims, but a dig in France changed my mind

For years I thought those radiocarbon dates on cave paintings were just educated guesses. Then I spent two weeks last summer at a site near the Ardèche River where they found a burned bone right next to a red ochre drawing of a horse. They carbon dated that bone to 32,000 years old, and the mineral crust over the paint matched the same timeframe. That kind of direct physical link shut me up fast. Now I see how careful teams cross-check with uranium-series dating on the calcite layers too. It's not perfect, but it's way more solid than I believed. Has anyone else had a moment where a single site visit changed how they judge a whole method?

3 comments

3 Comments

jessica_robinson2319d ago

Wait, isn't that the whole point of science though? Seeing stuff in person changes everything.

joseph_ellis8519d ago

Honestly @jessica_robinson23, I get what you're saying but isn't that a bit dramatic? People have been doing science from behind a screen for ages and we're still here. Seeing stuff up close is cool and all, but it's not like the facts change because you're in the same room.

shanem377d ago

Technically @jessica_robinson23, a site visit just gives you a better gut feeling, not better data. The numbers from radiocarbon labs in Ohio are the same numbers you'd get standing in a French cave. I remember reading about a famous site where the team swore the stratigraphy looked perfect in person, then later dna analysis showed a whole different age for the bones. Your eyes can fool you way easier than a mass spectrometer can. That burned bone next to the horse drawing could have been dragged there by an animal or a flood long after the paint dried. Without lab controls, the physical link is just a story you tell yourself.