Talk:Rock art

Neologism?

• Mobiliary rock art - smaller, portable examples of either of the above types.

I moved this here from the article page. Neologism? I can find no references for it. Thanks! Mattisse 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Cave painting vs Rock art

The article on Cave painting also covers rock art, overlapping with this article. I'd like to suggest that we move the rock art material to this article and omit it from the cave painting article. TimidGuy (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed I think your observation and suggestion are valid and the distinctions should be made, rather than conduct a merger. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Will try to work on it this weekend. TimidGuy (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

@TimidGuy and Shiftchange: I see that although the intro says something about usually excluding rock art, the background section contradicts this and the article has a number of links to cave sites. Have you revised your opinion? I agree with the comments you made above. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

8 years later I feel the same way, however I haven't spent a great deal of time on either articles. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. I do wish the Cave painting article would focus exclusively on cave art, and mostly the figurative art from the period 40,000 -10,000 BC. I'd like to see this article focus on rock art, and to keep the two separate. TimidGuy (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Scope of article

Someone just added Mayan hieroglyphics. Is that within the scope of this article? TimidGuy (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is no. Inclusion of "hieroglyphics" could open the article to Chinese, Egyptian, Etrsucan, all forms of middle-eastern communicative forms on clay tablets, etc etc. I don't think of rock art as written "script" that tells a linear story, but more as decorative and ceremonial ... but I admit that almost any human application of figures, shapes, forms etc in any medium brings with it some symbolic or ceremonial content. Moreover, some of the Mayan shapes/forms etc do appear in Southwestern US rock art, apparently "imported" along trade routes. Other thoughts? Bill Wvbailey (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Bill. I'm inclined to agree with you. Let's maybe exclude notation systems, especially since they would typically have their own article. Seems like this article serves to recognize the rich history of ancient imagery that has survived. TimidGuy (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Added section covering United Kingdom as a location with links to external sites only pending more detailed text that I don't feel capable of providing at the moment. Also added Beckensall Archive site to list of external links. Checking out some written references for inclusion also.Ian (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)™

double picture

Why is the Bhimbetka rock painting picture featured twice in the article? let's remove one (I don;t know how though...) :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.254.24.142 (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. I also removed the photo gallery. There are links to the locations in the article, and those linked articles have images there. Clubmarx (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted sites - someone might turn these into articles

Clonfinlough Rock Art

• Lower Pecos region, southwestern Texas

• Oregon, Washington, Idaho

• Petroglyph National Monument, New Mexico

• Utah

Sundargarh, Orissa locations with rock art include: Barikupa, Manikmoda, Gastimoda, Imlimoda, Lekhamoda, Rajbahal, Manikmoda, Tongo, Ushakothi, and Ushakupa 'Great King' pictographs of Malipo, Yunnan, China

• Jubbah Rock Petroglyphs and Inscriptions

• Ghauta Rock Petroglyphs and inscriptions

Shuwaymas Rock Petroglyphs and Inscriptions Doug Weller talk 10:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Why rock art is "found" where it doesn't exist

See Robert Bednarik's article Rock Art And Pareidolia[1] where thousands of petroglyphs that in reality didn't exist were innocently identified as rock art. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Rock art in Iran

I removed information that mixed between petroglyphs and pictographs from the petroglyph article to create Rock art in Iran. It needs further clean up, since the original author was not a fluent English-speaker. Ahalenia (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Ahalenia

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rock art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201180016/http://www.usq.edu.au/news-events/News/2012/06/oldestart to http://www.usq.edu.au/news-events/News/2012/06/oldestart
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060422083316/http://rockartuk.fotopic.net/ to http://rockartuk.fotopic.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 22 December 2017 (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:

• Rock paintings in Ghisha-Laghouat.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Parietal art here

Rock art and Parietal art are essentially the same (with Cave art and Rock relief covering sub-groups). Rock art is the normal term in English, with "Parietal art" essentially an import from French & other languages, sometimes used by professionals but not understood by large numbers of English-speakers. That "rock art" is the WP:COMMONNAME is shown by their views per day: 257 long-term views for Rock art, versus 42 for Parietal art. This is also a much longer article. Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Revised proposal in section below

• Support as proposer. Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support because they're essentially synonyms and because of WP:PLAINENGLISH. While we're at it, do we need a separate article on petroglyphs? – Joe (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Just about, I think. It's pretty long, unlike Parietal art, & other sub-types like Rock relief have their own. I think better interlinking is needed. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not Supported because the type of art is parietal and it may be found on many surfaces, such as rock, cliff, cave, etc. -- parietal is a type of art -- the other articles we have are about the material or locations on which it is found, or about a particular technique, style, or motif used, all reasonable examinations. The techniques found in parietal art vary: painting, drawing, etching, carving, sculpting, etc. French was the language early anthropologists were required to study and use for consistent descriptions. It is the language used for a great deal of scholarly anthropological works. Similar to the 'imported words' from Latin, I would not suggest abandoning them, they are found consistently in research and define well-recognized characteristics for uniform understanding. For example, take away the names and 'imported words' professional use and appendicitis becomes bellyache in plain English. I'd rather not dumb down WP to such levels. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

parietal is a type of art, yes, the same type as "rock art". Try doing n-grams on the common term, & see how far you get. Or proposing a merge in the other direction. Neither article defines its subject very well - in both cases the first lines already have problems - but if you think there is a difference between them, please say what you think it is. Otherwise there should only be one article. Obviously Parietal art would remain as a redirect. Johnbod (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Correction: Following your advice, I looked it up and parietal entered English directly from Latin and it means a wall inside a cavity

Fifteenth-century scientists first used "parietal" (from Latin paries, meaning "wall of a cavity or hollow organ") to describe a pair of bones of the roof of the skull between the frontal and posterior bone. Later, "parietal" was also applied to structures connected to or found in the same general area as these bones; the parietal lobe, for example, is the middle division of each hemisphere of the brain. In the nineteenth century, botanists adopted "parietal" as a word for ovules and placentas attached to the walls of plant ovaries. It was also in the nineteenth century that "parietal" began to be heard on college campuses, outside of the classroom; in 1837, Harvard College established the Parietal Committee to be in charge of "all offences against good order and decorum within the walls." -- Merriam Webster Dictionary

So its use for art in caves and grottoes is scientifically-relevant, on rocks, boulders, cliffs, and such -- not so much. I noted that the articles you want to merge have served well in WP for a very long time and even have been edited frequently by you. It therefore would be interesting to know what suddenly prompted an intention to launch into a new merged project for them. Can you give us an outline of the article you propose to write? Perhaps after examining it, we also could consult with more of the editors who are familiar with the topics before making such a drastic change on the whim of one editor. Breaking up articles seems to be more of a typical initiative in WP than merging several vaguely-related ones. I envision encountering difficulty with the redirects you mentioned, for parietal into an almost unrelated section of what you are proposing -- entitled, Rock Art -- and thereby consider Rock Art better left alone. Combining cave art (with caves and grottoes noted as types) into parietal art seems more logical. Perhaps that would be more advisable, leaving the others alone. I certainly advise a cautious and thorough planning process for such a task before commencing with it. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The idea is to move it on the whim of several editors. Perfectly happy to merge PA into what we've been calling Cave art, but what I see is actually called Cave painting, which is indeed all that it covers. PA also seems only to mention painting also, although much work in other techniques is embraced by the term. RA is at least better in that respect. How enclosed does a rock-shelter under a cliff have to be to count as "parietal", I wonder? Obviously what "suddenly prompted" was your rather problemmatic CE to PA (WP:ERA etc). User:Joe Roe, thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Obviously some content from parietal art may fit better in cave art than rock art – the point is we don't need three articles covering such closely related topics. It is a straightforward merge and, if there is consensus here, I cannot see what more "cautious and thorough planning" one could do. – Joe (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think the best thing might to be move Parietal art to Palaeolithic cave paintings in France and Spain, since that is really all it covers. Then PA itself can redirect here (RA), with a description of what the term covers. PA is a poor article, that even within that restricted scope, fails to link to the three main "group" articles: Art of the Upper Paleolithic, Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley, Cave of Altamira and Paleolithic Cave Art of Northern Spain. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, amending this suggestion, if only to avoid creating yet more articles. Most of the currect PA content would slot in nicely to Rock art in Europe, but the PA title comes here, with a new section on the term, which I can do. How about that? Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem with Parietal art is its extensiveness. In concept it is simple. It almost can be defined as image-making on concave surfaces. The Later parietal art section depicts an instance of contemporary parietal art. The reader is being required to read too much material to peruse a topic. We can improve this situation for a reader by excising parts of parietal art and/or creating good linkage between related articles. Sorry I can't be more specific. And it is a Herculean task. But I understand the need for tightening up our coverage of related subject areas. Bus stop (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Since parietal art is defined as artwork (painting as well as drawing, etching, scraping, etc.) within caves or overhanging cliffs and may be found around the world, moving it to an article on French and Spanish examples, does not make sense to me. Parietal art is tied to the land formations where it is found and is not limited to scraping styles. Such a shift would require ones such art found in South Africa (possibly the oldest), South America, North America, Asia, etc.? Since this type of art occurs worldwide, it makes more sense to me to make parietal art an article by itself and perhaps enlarge it to include the two types as sections, cave and cliff shelter and to shift all examples found worldwide into a well-subdivided and cross-referenced group of associated pages. That could reduce the number of articles and follow more logical organization. Rock Art makes more sense as separate from the parietal, as well, being found in many types of terrain worldwide as well. Early artwork has so many distinct differences, that it needs to be differentiated by type. How would the earth-moving and pavement designs fit? All are art forms -- along with many others. Our organization should contain them as well. Breaking it down to types seems best to me. I agree that it is a Herculean task, being the reason a well thought out plan would be essential for proper execution. Better cross referencing and fixing what we have might be easier and take much less time and focus -- :) unless the team tackling it is prepared to spend the duration of the Covid-19 confinements engaged in it! _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This is really what is proposed. RA already does a reasonable job of this - or makes a start anyway, while all PA covers is French and Spanish paintings. We should move the title to where the content already exists. Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'd be agreeable to paring down the parietal art page to general discussion of it as prehistoric art in a cave and a cliff shelter, some discussion of the range from painting to carving, a few examples, and providing links to the pages that hone in on the particular sites. Then all of the cross references to it will continue to work and it would make sense to readers looking up the term, even about paintings and drawings. I just do not see limiting parietal art to being a subsection of rock art -- which I believe is too simplistic a title and should at least include prehistoric in its title so Banksy can't logically be used as an example. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If the title redirects all links to it will follow it to its new home. As I understand it, if Banksy did a work in a cave, that would count as "parietal" - the term is not limited to prehistoric art. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Noting that Rock art in Europe is another possible home for the relevant stuff at PA, or for merger. Very incomplete/unfinished. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Revised proposal

The issue: Parietal art (PA) effectively means Cave art, which currently redirects to Cave painting. PA can be in any medium/technique, and is found all over the world. The current PA article just covers the famous Upper Palaeolithic paintings in France & Spain.

The proposal: PA should redirect to here (Rock art), a slightly wider category, with a much bigger and more global article, with something like the current PA lead added as a section. The French/Spanish content now at PA will usefully fill gaps in Rock art in Europe. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Where does Petroglyph fit? GPinkerton (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, fancy meeting you here! See top of the section. I'm not proposing to change it. Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

To expand on that a bit: the three main groupings of rock art by technique are petrogylph, rock relief and cave painting. All have fairly long articles with reasonable global coverage. I think this basic arrangement is correct. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• This has been running a while, and if no objections are posted in the next days, I'll go ahead with the revised proposal. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Ok, now done. I hope to improve both articles before too long. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Serranía La Lindosa, Guaviare Department, Colombia

Just created a blind wiki link to the above. The site has not been named yet, though it looks like it is significant, and will deserve its own page. For now I have put a paragraph on the History_of_Colombia page. 31.53.61.168 (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)