This is much more believable than the supposedly almost 12k year old ochre paintings that were found in pristine condition in the South American rain forest (https://poal.co/s/Archaeology/649163). Here, the manner of the art (engraving) is something that is likely to last quite a while (as the engraved rock weathers at roughly the same rate as the unengraved, but that weathering results in the engravings becoming "blurred" over time as they obviously are now.
I mean those were protected by overhanging cliff face supposedly
The problem with that is that those cliffs show clear signs of erosion from water flowing over the surface. And the supposed paintings are remarkably crisp and clear.
The description in the article also suggests that they were exposed to the weather:
The paintings are set over three different rock shelters, with the largest, known as Cerro Azul, home to 12 panels and thousands of individual pictographs.
They were not in the rock shelters, they were above them, which would explain the weathering. Looking at other photos of the site, it would appear that the cliff that the paintings are on is roughly vertical with significant exposure to the weather. One I saw had a group of people at the base, showing reasonably well the scale and orientation of the pictures, and the bright sunlight coming down from above (no overhang).
I'm still calling those pictures bullshit. No archeologists will dare to call them out though, because that would be racist, and now the local forest niggers can concoct whatever supposed back story they want to milk gullible White people of their money.
(post is archived)