Talk:The Sorcerer (cave art)

I have studied the photograph on this blog. It seems to me that what is depicted is a pair of lions mating. Dirk BontesDirk Bontes (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoever added the uncited info about modern photographs not depicting anything around the head....

You really need to come up with a reliable source for this info or I say it should be removed. I did some searching myself and came up with this image:

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/63/4763-004-824529EB.jpg

from Britannica and I can clearly see some charcoal etching above the heard where the sketch claims horns. Granted, my statement would qualify as original research as what one sees in the photograph is up for interpretation. Someone needs to find a reliable source that discusses recent photographs of the image arguing either way. As currently there is an un-cited sentence in the article basically going against all the work I've heard about the image up to this point.

If your citation is supposed to be "Hutton, Ronald Witches, Druids, Arthur. p.34" please include the text that states the no horns theory here, and if in fact the no horns is a theory and not definite fact. From what I can gather from other internet sources about "Hutton, Ronald Witches, Druids, Arthur. p.34" (as I do not myself have the book and therfore why you posting the section here would be helpful) is that all Hutton says is that "the figure drawn by Breuil is not the same as the one actually painted on the cave wall." Not a specific claim against the horns. Additionally, I've found a few internet sources that discuss that section and mention Hutton only talks about the sketch of the image and not the engraving (which the horns are mostly found in) as engraving is known to be difficult to view in photography with flash or light being shined directly on an object. As I do not have the book I do not feel qualified to edit this until the exact quote is found.

Even so, since that is the only source making this claim in contrast to many more claiming otherwise, it should be stated as a theory and not a fact.24.190.34.219 (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. looking at that photo, I have to say that the Breuil sketch (which I've been familiar with for decades) resembles the actual image only in its broadest contours. I do see indications of marks above the shoulders in the photo, but they're nothing like the head and antlers Breuil drew. Either he was depicting a lot of very faint marks that don't show up in the photo (a distinct possibility--the photo isn't very high-resolution), or he was letting his imagination run away with him. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)