Talk:Cueva de las Manos/Archive 1

Archive 1

Way too much detail for location

I don't see what purpose this much detail serves, if anything it's harmful as it will lead to more people going and possibly damaging the caves. This is an encyclopedia, not a map or a tourist guidebook. I'm deleting the specific road directions as they're unnecessary.--104.247.247.238 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Gender and sources

The article describes these hands as being of either boys or men. What identifies them as specifically male? Durova 03:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's the conservator's idea that the hand prints were part of a 'reaching manhood' ritual, and it is only a theory. Perhaps it's not clear from the article. I'm affraid I have no sources other than what the guides told us when we where there. Mariano(t/c) 07:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I definitely remember reading something like this in an academic journal, although I can't remember which one. More reaserch needs to be done to verify this one way or the other, even if it's just a certain cross-section of scholars that think this. It's probably worth a mention in the article for the sake of presenting multiple perspectives of academic thought. Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

And even more specifically, they give us the age! [sic] "They resemble the hands of a 13 year old boy." Why 13? Why not 12 or 14? -- the GREAT Gavini 06:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The conservator didn't even consider that it might be a coming-of-age ceremony for girls undergoing menarche, or some kind of ceremony for adults? Nice assumption there. --Charlene 04:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION: There is a glaring CONTRADICTION in the main description! viz: The article opens by telling us that the hand paintings were "made by the indigenous inhabitants (possibly forefathers of the Tehuelches) some 9,000 years ago." This assertion requires some correction or clarification - BECAUSE the final sentence of the 4th paragraph claims: "The negative hand impressions are calculated to be dated around 550 BC, the positive impressions from 180 BC, and the hunting drawings to be older than 10,000 years." --User:looperville2000@yahoo.co.uk 17:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC) (82.3.245.31 (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC))

Fixed. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Added in More to the Article

I've done a lot of research and added a lot more content to the article. Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm planning on adding in stylistic groups A, B, B1, and C. Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Groups added. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've added a Purpose subsection. Tyrone Madera (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography

I've added a bibliography to the article in order to increase the text-source fidelity for book citations, particularly ones cited for a variety of page numbers.

The to worst offenders: Patagonia: natural history, prehistory, and ethnography at the uttermost end of the earth and The Ancient Americans: a reference guide to the art, culture, and history of pre-Columbian North and South America are the only ones in the bibliography so far, and still need the page numbers cleared up.

By that, I mean that the pages I intended to cite for each particular instance of the book are all lumped together and need to be separated out so that each unique cited instance is paired with exactly the right page numbers. I hope to have this done someday, but if you can help with the process that would be great, too. Thank you for your time. Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If the bibliography gets even longer, I would like to propose arranging it alphabetically instead of chronologically to help readers find material faster from short citations. Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)