Hacker News Reader

Comment by gus_massa | Hacker News Reader

I think the first is quite clear. I mande a version in https://imgur.com/a/y1i3Tzv IANAA [1] I'm not sure if the nose is painted or is just a dark spot in the rock that I'm over interpreting.

[1] You can interpret is as "I am not an Archeologist" or "I am not an Artist". Both are correct.

View on HN

I have never seen a more cute deer.

I wish all ancient drawings had such a version so we can easily interpret what they are talking about in the article. Early cave drawings are very hard to decipher.

It's an auroch, not a deer (actually the correct term seems to be "aurochs", but it's not what the article uses): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs

I saw a few of examples in biology. Here I got a random image from Google https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-... It shows a fossil of an insect in a stone, A and B are photos, C and D are hand drawings that show the important features. I'm not sure if it's common to superimpose the drawings, but in my case I thought it was better.

clearly a cow, yep. You missed the posterior ear

Thank you for making this. It was hard to see anything before.

After seeing your drawing, I see another way of interpreting this image. What if the bull is facing right and not left. The dark spot is his upper back. Can you see it that way too?

I can "see" a full bull facing right, the front legs are the neck in my drawing, but the rear legs are missing. Is that what you see? Anyway, the caption of the image says

> The painted head of an auroch, an extinct wild bull, was the first painting archaeologists discovered in the cave.

so I think it's only the head.

The other drawings are also only the head, so it may be a local style/preference (???).

It’s exactly how you describe it. I also see it both ways. The gazelle is more visible, but the bull seems more like the auroch.

Thank You.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com