Indonesian Cave Art May Be World's Oldest

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Indonesian Cave Art May Be World's Oldest

Posted by timothy on Thursday October 9, 2014 @04:15AM from the oh-please-those-are-just-doodles dept.

sciencehabit writes The world's oldest cave art may not lie in Europe but rather halfway around the globe in Indonesia, according to a new study. The images date to around 40,000 years ago, making them a similar age to cave paintings from Western Europe that represent the world's oldest known cave art. The findings suggest that humans were producing figurative art by around 40,000 years ago at opposite ends of the Pleistocene Eurasian world. Further research is needed to investigate whether rock art was an integral part of the cultural repertoire of the first modern human populations to reach Southeast Asia from Africa, or whether these practices developed independently in different regions.

77 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

You mean... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 04:20 · Score: 2, Funny

6000 years ago, right?
1. Re:You mean... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  6000 years ago, right?
  Prove that it isn't only 6,000 years old. You can't, the best that can be said is that it is consistent with what we would expect from something 40k old.
2. Re:You mean... by Thanshin · 2014-10-09 04:27 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Well. If it was painted by a dog, it would be just 5714.28571429 years old.
3. Re:You mean... by Thanshin · 2014-10-09 04:29 · Score: 0
  
  Prove that it isn't only 6,000 years old. You can't, the best that can be said is that it is consistent with what we would expect from something 40k old.
  Indeed. Just as you using arguments consistent with what we'd expect from someone who is retarded, does not mean you are one.
  It's just very probable.
4. Re: You mean... by frikken+lazerz · 2014-10-09 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Radioactive dating.
5. Re:You mean... by mythosaz · 2014-10-09 04:54 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Well, I've got a bible right here, so there's all the proof a lot of people need...
  ...sadly.
6. Re:You mean... by Empiric · 2014-10-09 04:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Congratulations, you've made Bishop Ussher feel bad for the 10000'th time on Slashdot.
  If you were under the impression you were making a point about theism in general, though, you aren't.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
7. Re:You mean... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  Prove that it isn't only 6,000 years old.
  Now, prove that there is any basis to believe it's only 6,000 years, old other than you're a gibbering idiot who lacks the education and critical thinking to understand the stupidity of what you say and you have a book in which someone claims your imaginary friend created the world 6,000 years ago.
  You start with a stupid premise that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. And in the face of evidence showing the contrary, you ask us to prove our evidence in the face of your non-evidence.
  We don't take the existence of your fairy tale as evidence of anything.
  Fucking drooling idiots, go the fuck away.
8. Re:You mean... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  You miss the point and assume I am a fundamentalist christian. The point was to show the difference between history and science not to say that he world is 6,000 years old (which I do not believe)
9. Re:You mean... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  Didn't take very long for the Edgy Fedora Posse to make an appearance...
10. Re:You mean... by Oligonicella · 2014-10-09 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  No it wasn't. Otherwise you'd know about rock glazing and other age detecting techniques.
11. Re:You mean... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  Edgy Fedora Pussy is the name of your mom's va gee jay. And a well deserved name it is.
12. Re:You mean... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  You said "You start with a stupid premise that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. And in the face of evidence showing the contrary, you ask us to prove our evidence in the face of your non-evidence."
  I say the earth is Not 6,000 years old. So how were you right again? I asked for no evidence that is obtainable instead ask people to understand the difference between history and science.
13. Re:You mean... by jfengel · 2014-10-09 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect the AC doesn't care much about Bishop Ussher, nor about theism in general, but according to a recent Gallup poll 42% of Americans agree with Ussher's conclusion.
  That's a lot of people. People who deserve to have their feelings hurt, because they believe something stupid. Ussher was merely wrong; they are being stupid.
  Not everybody proceeds to generalize that to every religious believer. That would be similarly stupid, an obvious fallacy. But the young-earth creationists are nearly a majority of Americans, and a prominently pushy bunch attempting to have their long-disproven dogma treated as fact. They deserve to have their feelings hurt 10,000 times, and more, until they stop doing it.
14. Re:You mean... by mark-t · 2014-10-09 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  prove that there is any basis to believe it's only 6,000 years
  Such a small age for earth is typically accomplished by biblical reckoning... and it is achieved by adding up all of the time that elapses over the acocunted generations, plus the time it says that certain things took, it appears, by biblical reckoning only, that the world could not have been created any longer ago than in the vicinity of 6,000 to 7,000 years. This reckoning, however, assumes very important things, which one may or may not accept as definitively true. One, it assumes that the bible is valid as a historical document with regards to events of antiquity that are greater than written history itself, and two... and this one is probably even more important, even if one were to accept that the Bible were true, it assumes that the biblical accounting of events of that time is actually exhaustive, and that the chronicle could not possibly have been compressed from what actually happened for the purpose of writing it all down, and since such minutia was not considred important for purposes of conveying the message that the chronicle was intended to tell.
  Note, you see... you asked for proof that there is any basis to believe that it only 6,000 years old, not proof that it actually *IS* 6,000 years old, nor proof that the biblical account is necessarily even accurate. If one already believes the Bible to be true, then the accounting in the bible is, in fact, a not wholly unreasonable basis to come to the conclusion that the earth is that old (even if that conclusion is not indisputable).
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
15. Re:You mean... by Empiric · 2014-10-09 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting. How many other questions of scientific fact are there for which you feel having an incorrect opinion, or no opinion at all, is worthy of personal attack?
  Don't special-plead "creationism" here, tell me what's special about this, among all questions of science of which the general public is commonly incorrect about, -drawing only from science and the priorities of it-. Maybe you could mention some other scientific topics you commonly apply this necessity of derision toward when you encounter them.
  We have enough theologians of anti-theology already, I think.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
16. Re:You mean... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, we anti-theology is really behind. We need to start to kill people for their beliefs too. The communists had it going for a while, but that's was clearly not enough to remove our surplus of theologians.
17. Re:You mean... by Empiric · 2014-10-09 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Noted. For the record.
  No, not that one.
  As for your objectives, given all I need to do is wait, and I win, even according to -you-, you might want to reconsider your strategic plan here.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
18. Re:You mean... by kilodelta · 2014-10-10 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  Great takedown. And here's the thing - humanity as we know it has been around at a minimum of a couple hundred thousand years.
19. Re:You mean... by parkinglot777 · 2014-10-10 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  6000 years ago, right?
  Prove that it isn't only 6,000 years old. You can't, the best that can be said is that it is consistent with what we would expect from something 40k old.
  I thought the GP (AC) is making a joke, but the parent post (another AC) takes it a serious way...
Wait, which is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 04:20 · Score: 1

Oldest or same age?
1. Re:Wait, which is it? by i+kan+reed · 2014-10-09 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Alright, so say you and I are both in the same graduating class of high school. For all intents and purposes we're the same age, but one of us is technically older.
  The implications of one being the technically older find aren't important as far as anthropological inferences are concerned, but might matter for bragging rights of the countries and researchers involved.
2. Re:Wait, which is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  Bragging rights? So it's a matter of pride to have older rock art? All vestiges of language and culture of those ancient people are extinct, and chances are their genes are too.
3. Re:Wait, which is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  Alright, so say you and I are both in the same graduating class of high school. For all intents and purposes we're the same age, but one of us is technically older.
  The implications of one being the technically older find aren't important as far as anthropological inferences are concerned, but might matter for bragging rights of the countries and researchers involved.
  Thats nice, but the headline is simple click bait.
4. Re:Wait, which is it? by i+kan+reed · 2014-10-09 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and the great pyramids are just really big, really old, tombstones. People just tend to like old things, even if it's irrational.
5. Re:Wait, which is it? by i+kan+reed · 2014-10-09 04:42 · Score: 2
  
  Nah, it's actually pretty important in that it's busting the chops of some really old Eurocentricism, that was still somehow moderately popular in Academia, namely that a lot of the things we associate with culture entirely originated with humans that migrated to Europe(frequently called Indo-Europeans). And this find basically asserts that art, at least, was more widespread and human that anthropologists were giving it credit for.
6. Re:Wait, which is it? by MightyMartian · 2014-10-09 06:28 · Score: 2
  
  Well, actually there is some significance here, in that it suggests that the neurological innovations that lead to modern human behaviors like art and symbolism arose among the ancestral populations to both the first modern humans in Europe and in Asia. If nothing else, it falsifies the few remaining wingnuts who believe Europeans are somehow unique.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
7. Re:Wait, which is it? by MightyMartian · 2014-10-09 06:31 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, the Indo-European peoples arose somewhere around 5000 to 6000 years ago. The first cave art in Europe predates Indo-Europeans by tens of thousands of years. If you buy into Nostratic, maybe the people that made the European cave art spoke some language ancestral to that group, but the Indo-European language group, indeed likely any of the language families spoken in the last 10,000 years, had not evolved yet.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
8. Re:Wait, which is it? by i+kan+reed · 2014-10-09 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  You're right. I was wrong there.
9. Re:Wait, which is it? by SpankiMonki · 2014-10-09 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  You're right. I was wrong there.
  You obviously have no business posting on /.
10. Re:Wait, which is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 10:32 · Score: 0
  
  Before colonizing Europe and Asia, the modern human spent some quality time in the middle east and near-by areas. Perhaps the art of cave painting was perfected there. A combination of lots of accessible canvases and people who tell stories about previous settlements and ancestors likely equals lots of art.
11. Re:Wait, which is it? by MightyMartian · 2014-10-09 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  As I wrote in another post, the evidence all points to art and other forms of symbolism evolving among modern human populations prior to their departure from Africa. The Blombos Cave site suggests the first use of pigments at least as far back as 70,000 years, and perhaps as earlier as a 100,000 years ago. The cognitive rewiring seems to have been completed in Africa.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Aew we sure by rossdee · 2014-10-09 04:28 · Score: 3, Funny

Aew we sure that it was art by Homo Sapiens?
Wasn't there an island in Indonesia that had Hobbits?
1. Re:Aew we sure by Empiric · 2014-10-09 04:49 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "Homo Sapiens" is an arbitrary construct, as is the rest of Linnaean Taxonomy.
  Adding the use of Latin to make it sound extra-authoritative doesn't change this. Using the names of Sonic the Hedgehog characters for species names, as one biologist did, is equally scientific and more entertaining, though.
  Cladistics might find something resembling an objective differentiator, but I'm betting against it.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
2. Re:Aew we sure by olsmeister · 2014-10-09 05:27 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, you're thinking of Homo Floresiensis. They've probably ruled them out here because of the lack of hobbit-holes.
3. Re:Aew we sure by timeOday · 2014-10-09 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Either way there either are, or are not, descendants of these particular cave artists alive today, I think that is the question.
4. Re:Aew we sure by Empiric · 2014-10-09 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  ...and if that gets solved, it will be solved via cladistics, not arbitrary opinions of inclusion or exclusion within made-up names of made-up categories, such as "Homo Sapiens".
  It's that assumption of the original question I was responding to.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
5. Re:Aew we sure by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  ALL names/categories are "made-up", you pedantic ass WHOLE. And guess what? Names and categories are USEFUL! That's WHY WE MADE THEM UP!!!
  Now go back to staring at your navel, and imagining it to be a vagina. That's what you're best at, isn't it?
6. Re:Aew we sure by Empiric · 2014-10-09 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  They are useful for a great many purposes, yes. For the actual purpose of the actual question asked in particular, this particular naming convention isn't useful at all.
  But, some are under the misunderstanding that this naming convention represents "the way things really are" (apparently, such as the person asking) rather than "a grouping of names of categories formed based on largely-arbitrary criteria".
  You seem inordinately upset by this. Sorry if I disturbed your unthinking acceptance of your preferred convention. We'll have to discuss this at length someday.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
7. Re:Aew we sure by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  But, some are under the misunderstanding that this naming convention represents "the way things really are" (apparently, such as the person asking) rather than "a grouping of names of categories formed based on largely-arbitrary criteria".
  >
  
  Spare us any further mental masturbation. Concentrate on physically masturbating to your imaginary (navel) vagina. Or butthole. Or whatever.
  
  You seem inordinately upset by this. Sorry if I disturbed your unthinking acceptance of your preferred convention. We'll have to discuss this at length someday.
  You really can't help it, can you?
8. Re:Aew we sure by Empiric · 2014-10-09 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly, you need a time out.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
9. Re:Aew we sure by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  So, you offer some random music video as a response? Don't you realize that you're only burying yourself? Maybe it's time you responded as AC.
10. Re:Aew we sure by Empiric · 2014-10-09 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Pfft.
  Are you done trolling me? There was nothing of substance you have to respond to, claiming I'm "burying myself" is nonsensical, and your perceptions of "random" are really poor.
  Seems like a non-optimal use of your limited time, really.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
11. Re:Aew we sure by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 21:10 · Score: 0
  
  HAHAHA! YOU are the one that is being trolled by AC, and you can't help but respond! What was that you said about non-optimal use of limited time?
  Pathetic you are, really.
Art? by jmichaelg · 2014-10-09 04:42 · Score: 1

These new images look more like what kids would make when they first discover what happens if you toss pigment on your hand. Not a lot of art going on but it's fun.
The cave paintings in France are definitely art and were created around the same time.
1. Re:Art? by Charliemopps · 2014-10-09 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Can your dog do that? Even a Chimp? No? Then they are important and a sign that something interesting was going on.
2. Re:Art? by war4peace · 2014-10-09 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Chimps can, elephants can, even dogs can. Draw, that is. Sometimes their drawings make sense because our brains force otherwise random lines into known shapes.
  Or they actually do draw... better than me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
3. Re:Art? by gstoddart · 2014-10-09 05:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I don't think the issue here is the artistic merit of it.
  But for humans(*) to have the abstract concepts of representing things in the world around them, the dyes needed to do this, and the desire to actually put this kind of thing on a wall ... well, that's indicating that humans(*) were far more advanced than everybody thinks they were.
  If the ability to do the art spread with humans(*), then we learn a little more about how we got here and what we knew.
  At a minimum you have to conclude there was some form of culture, shared understanding of concepts, and a desire to communicate and have things a little more durable.
  As opposed to the previous notions of cavemen sitting around poking themselves in the eye with sticks and looking all furry and stuff. This might actually suggest that humans were more advanced, and more widespread, than we initially thought.
  (*)humans, proto humans, early humans ... whatever, don't care.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
4. Re:Art? by mythosaz · 2014-10-09 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  It's just my opinion, but I'm not sure that any of those exercises show that a chimp, elephant or dog can draw or paint, if you define paint as something more ephemeral.
  I mean, they can be trained to put a brush in ink and put the inky brush on canvas - perhaps even amuse themselves with the process - but I'm not sure it qualifies as anything beyond repeating a mechanical process that obviously pleases the trainer and nets the animal bananas, peanuts, or kibble. Drawing or painting only transcends the mechanical when it's meant to convey something more than mechanical.
  Chimps have been observed to, as I understand it, use sticks in sand to communicate actions to other chips, but I can't find a good source.
  I suppose it's all semantics, since I don't deny that chips could have easily splattered a wall for amusement.
5. Re:Art? by istartedi · 2014-10-09 05:09 · Score: 2
  
  I think I see an animal in there. It's heavily obscured by fungus, bat guano or something. Look to the left and you see a couple of skinny legs or tree like things. Look to the upper right and you see a head. It might be depicting a flightless bird or something. Needless to say, it needs serious conservation since it's just been discovered. I don't know what if any cleaning was done in France.
  
  --
  For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
6. Re:Art? by war4peace · 2014-10-09 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  The GP question was whether they can do it, not whether they could do it by themselves. My response wasn't denying the importance of the discovery, merly was pointing out that a broad statement (can an animal draw?) can be easily proved wrong.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
7. Re:Art? by Oligonicella · 2014-10-09 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  The "dye" is ochre, dirt. The other two I'll concede readily.
8. Re:Art? by Oligonicella · 2014-10-09 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're avoid the "that". "That" being the putting of the images on a wall *by themselves*, not being shown what to do and simply mimicking. How I interpreted his first sentence anyway.
9. Re:Art? by crunchygranola · 2014-10-09 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  These new images look more like what kids would make when they first discover what happens if you toss pigment on your hand. Not a lot of art going on but it's fun.
  The cave paintings in France are definitely art and were created around the same time.
  The Sulawesi art is very definitely representational art not just "tossing pigments" around. The cave paintings in France have those same hand print patterns you try to dismiss as "not art". Your bias against this artwork seem unsupported by facts.
  
  --
  Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
10. Re:Art? by drkim · 2014-10-09 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  I think I see an animal in there...
  You're right. It's a (now nearly extinct) Babirusa or ‘pig-deer’:
  http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-6...
  ...and it's actually a very accurate representation:
  http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GScX...
  They do a good job of cleaning it up in this video:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
11. Re:Art? by painandgreed · 2014-10-10 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  The "dye" is ochre, dirt. The other two I'll concede readily.
  And natural copper is just a rock. That they mined it, probably modified it into powder, and used it for a specific purpose pretty much makes it in the same space as taking natural copper and pounding it into jewelry or an axe head.
Rock art by war4peace · 2014-10-09 04:55 · Score: 3, Funny

Fuck yeah, headbangers!

--
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Sea levels were so low by Spy+Handler · 2014-10-09 04:56 · Score: 2

at that time, Indonesia was connected to Malaysia/Singapore and thus the Asian continent. Map
Not sure what this proves, but is interesting...
Re:Bollocks by UnknowingFool · 2014-10-09 05:30 · Score: 3, Informative

That' 6,000 years you infidel. :)

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Shocking by StrangeBrew · 2014-10-09 05:42 · Score: 3, Funny

The Shocking part isn't the age of the art, but that images depicting an impending climate change and extinction of large mammals was consistently modded down. The downward pointing thumbs on the hand prints were quite clear.
Travel by Oligonicella · 2014-10-09 06:23 · Score: 1

I'm amazed that all the archeologists make presumptions that things were slow to spread. It only takes a few years, decades at most to walk from Europe to Asia. Humans are intelligent. Once shown a new and nifty idea I'm sure they thought "Pfft! I can do that!"
1. Re:Travel by wcrowe · 2014-10-09 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Or there may have been a tradition of this type of art dating back to a time before human populations migrated to different parts of the globe. We just haven't found anything older yet.
  
  --
  Proverbs 21:19
2. Re:Travel by neoritter · 2014-10-09 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  I would think you'd have to find older art in Africa or the Middle east that predated known findings of humans in other parts of the globe. Rough task.
The similarities are fascinating by wcrowe · 2014-10-09 06:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

For me, the most fascinating thing about this story are the similarities between the Indonesian paintings and the European paintings, and that they are about the same age. It would seem that this style of artwork would be much older, and from a time before humans had migrated to those opposite corners of the world.

--
Proverbs 21:19
1. Re:The similarities are fascinating by PPH · 2014-10-09 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright infringement. I say we call out the lawyers.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
2. Re:The similarities are fascinating by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  After several years of class action litigation, we'll find that almost everybody on the planet gets a settlement. Submit mitochondrial DNA for verification. Congratulations, after spending $100 for the test, you'll receive a coupon for 10% off your next flight on Indonesian airlines.
Not really the oldest!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 06:47 · Score: 0

The oldest cave art in the world is located in Spain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_El_Castillo
The indonesian one at least between 35.000 and 40.000, whereas El Castillo, is at least 40.800 years old!
1. Re:Not really the oldest!!!! by SpankiMonki · 2014-10-09 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  That sounds like a tie, so we'll have to look at the art's content to determine the winner. Which one depicts Jesus riding to work on a dinosaur? There's your winner.
2. Re:Not really the oldest!!!! by MightyMartian · 2014-10-09 09:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Neither is the oldest evidence of symbolism. The Blombos Cave site in South Africa, where the first evidence of the use of pigments (in this case ochre) are at least 70,000 years old.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Bollocks by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 09:03 · Score: 0

No, it's 6014!
Australian Aborigines by BlackHawk-666 · 2014-10-09 11:15 · Score: 3, Informative

It's funny how even scientists tend to forget about the Australian Aborigines. They actually would have migrated through Indonesia approximately 10,000 years before this painting was made. They have a well documented history of making paintings exactly like the ones shown in this cave.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
Aboriginal hand paintings:
https://www.google.com.au/sear...

--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
1. Re:Australian Aborigines by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 19:02 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly and the caves they stopped (and painted) in first are now under water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Australia
All the older art was in caves near the sea. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 19:00 · Score: 0

When the sea was many (+50) meters lower than now, so claiming that this cave or that is oldest is deceptive and at best they are just the oldest that survived.