Talk:Cueva de las Manos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Gender and sources[edit]

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)
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

External link proposal[edit]

I propose this external link about the Cueva de las Manos

http://www.jordibusque.com/Index/Stories/CuevaManos/CuevaManos_01.html

Please, let me know what do you think. Panex 17:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The pictures already in the article cove pretty much most of the ones you can find in this site. Missing things in the wikipedia article are the guanacos' pictures. The pictures are nevertheless quite good, and the comments are also in English, and the information in coherent with that of the Wikipedia. I will include it. --Mariano(t/c) 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

add some more to this