Firstly consider that probably almost all prehistoric painting degraded to the point of obliteration. What we see is the tiny fraction that has not.
Secondly, caves can be notoriously low energy stable environments. Those are the caves where prehistoric cave painting has survived – simply because they are places without processes that might degrade the paintings.
The painting from ancient civilisations you are thinking of is on the surface exposed to rain, wind, temperature changes, UV light, physical erosion, attack by insects etc.
Aboriginal “cave” paintings were repainted each year. Or at the very least every two years. As soon as this practice stopped, they began to degrade rapidly. These were near surface paintings.
For deep cave paintings more than a km underground, such as in the Pyrenees, a thin surface layer would sometimes form over the paintings, protecting them from degradation. Or they were just in a very constant cool environment for a long time.
Prehistoric cave painting do degrade, which is why so few are remaining. Those that do remain are largely protected and maintained in a climate controlled state to reduce their degradation over time. Several well known cave paintings were once open to the public like a museum and have since been closed off as the increased airflow and CO2 from people was causing visible degradation in just a few years of exposure.
There’s a cave in France that is underwater. The thing is, when humans first made the cave paintings inside the water, it was at least 100 m below the entrance of the cave. But due to the ending of the Ice Age and the glaciers melting, sea levels rose over 30 m above the cave entrance. In this cave is extremely deep at 174 m long. It is believed that most of the cave paintings have been destroyed by the elements. It’ll be the paintings that happened to be above the water line are able to survive.
cave paintings often used “unprocessed” substances like ochre, which is iron oxide and obviously not very reactive
the Romans however had access to trade networks and different crops and dyes in their search for more vibrant colors, thus they used substances that deviated from their natural long term state
People have made good points already, but since no one has mentioned it yet, Ancient Greek paintings were mostly done on wood panels (unlike the Romans and the earlier Minoans, who did a lot of fresco–painting into wet plaster layered on brick and stone walls). Wood panels do have the unfortunate tendency to biodegrade over thousands of years. We have a good number of surviving Roman Fresco paintings. Most of them are from Pompeii, of course, but there are also some that didn’t get preserved by Vesuvius’ eruption, like those from the Villa of Livia. A lot of paintings from Nero’s Golden House were also preserved because the rulers who overthrew him filled in a lot of the rooms with soil rather than knocking it down or continuing to use it (and thus redecorating, etc.).
Confirmation bias. Cave paintings are so incredibly old that those that could degrade, did degrade into nothingness. The very few we see are the ones that had just the right circumstances to stay preserved for such a long time. Caves can be pretty stagnant, isolated systems, which helps the paintings to stay intact.
but of course only those paintings have been preserved that are found in special conditions allowing for preservation, e.g. not being exposed to wather
fun fact: they had to copy the lascaux cave because the original prehistoric painting did deteriorate from visitors’ breath
As others have said, the fundamental answer here is “survivorship bias”. The ancient paintings that existed in conditions that preserves the paintings are extremely noteworthy and have papers written about them. The many, many others that have faded away to nothingness do not.
Cave paintings were basically made in nature’s own art gallery. Super stable caves, deep underground, no sunlight, barely any wind or rain, and super chill temps all year round. Basically, perfect storage conditions. Nature’s version of a climate-controlled museum. Now, ancient Greek and Roman is a whole different vibe. That stuff was usually out in the open, on walls of temples, houses, statues, you name it. And you know how that goes. Sunlight, rain, crazy weather, people touching stuff, wars, pollution, earthquakes, everything just slowly chips away at it.
Most answers already covered the basic gist, but damned if I don’t answer the rare /r/askscience question I actually have relevant academic credentials for!!
As for cave paintings, the clue is in the name. All paintings of the European Palaeolithic, which is the only time and place I’m really qualified to talk about, are inside caves, and most are deep inside caves. Those are incredibly stable environments, temperature and humidity may remain essentially unchanged for centuries. There’s also no wind, no rain, no UV radiation, and so on. And yet, most paintings are kinda faint and difficult to see. What you’re usually thinking of when thinking of cave paintings are “Cathedral caves”, like Lascaux, Chauvet, Altamira, or maybe Pech Merle. But those are unusual outliers. I’ve been fortunate enough to visit some of the caves in the Dordogne region, and many of the less famous “paintings” are mere hues of color on a vast wall.
We can also infer that there must have been “open air” paintings that are now just lost to us. For one, there are some open air carvings, such as the amazing salmon at the Abri du Paisson or the horse at Cap Blanc, and if the parietal (fancy word for “on the wall”) art in caves is anything to go by, those were probably painted, too, but with the pigments now lost to us. Furthermore, it’s noteworthy how most of the paintings inside caves are of very high quality. Whoever made them must have practiced somewhere, not just the individual artists, but even the entire cultures. We have no primitive precursors to the majesty of Lascaux or Chauvet. They just appear, in all their splendor. Well, the scribbles and sketches that led up to them were probably drawn on flat stones around camp fires or on rock shelter walls and only lasted until the next thunderstorm.
tldr1: Paleolithic cave paintings survived inside caves, and most of them probably didn’t survive. And even among those who did, those that still show brilliant, well-visible colors are a rarity.
And there are also counter-examples to your second assumption. Most buildings, statues, etc from Antiquity were “whitewashed” over the centuries because they were exposed to the elements. But if they got covered somehow, by, say, volcanic ash, their colorswerepreserved.
tldr2: Most paintings from Antiquity didn’t survive because they weren’t painted deep inside caves but, like, in people’s living rooms. But there are surviving examples.
Cave art is usually in dark environments with very stable climatic conditions whereas art visible to the public is exposed to hugely variable of temperature, humidity and, quite often, harsh lighting. Those will all cause the inks and paint to degrade over time.
Comments
Firstly consider that probably almost all prehistoric painting degraded to the point of obliteration. What we see is the tiny fraction that has not.
Secondly, caves can be notoriously low energy stable environments. Those are the caves where prehistoric cave painting has survived – simply because they are places without processes that might degrade the paintings.
The painting from ancient civilisations you are thinking of is on the surface exposed to rain, wind, temperature changes, UV light, physical erosion, attack by insects etc.
Aboriginal “cave” paintings were repainted each year. Or at the very least every two years. As soon as this practice stopped, they began to degrade rapidly. These were near surface paintings.
For deep cave paintings more than a km underground, such as in the Pyrenees, a thin surface layer would sometimes form over the paintings, protecting them from degradation. Or they were just in a very constant cool environment for a long time.
Prehistoric cave painting do degrade, which is why so few are remaining. Those that do remain are largely protected and maintained in a climate controlled state to reduce their degradation over time. Several well known cave paintings were once open to the public like a museum and have since been closed off as the increased airflow and CO2 from people was causing visible degradation in just a few years of exposure.
[removed]
There’s a cave in France that is underwater. The thing is, when humans first made the cave paintings inside the water, it was at least 100 m below the entrance of the cave. But due to the ending of the Ice Age and the glaciers melting, sea levels rose over 30 m above the cave entrance. In this cave is extremely deep at 174 m long. It is believed that most of the cave paintings have been destroyed by the elements. It’ll be the paintings that happened to be above the water line are able to survive.
cave paintings often used “unprocessed” substances like ochre, which is iron oxide and obviously not very reactive
the Romans however had access to trade networks and different crops and dyes in their search for more vibrant colors, thus they used substances that deviated from their natural long term state
People have made good points already, but since no one has mentioned it yet, Ancient Greek paintings were mostly done on wood panels (unlike the Romans and the earlier Minoans, who did a lot of fresco–painting into wet plaster layered on brick and stone walls). Wood panels do have the unfortunate tendency to biodegrade over thousands of years. We have a good number of surviving Roman Fresco paintings. Most of them are from Pompeii, of course, but there are also some that didn’t get preserved by Vesuvius’ eruption, like those from the Villa of Livia. A lot of paintings from Nero’s Golden House were also preserved because the rulers who overthrew him filled in a lot of the rooms with soil rather than knocking it down or continuing to use it (and thus redecorating, etc.).
Confirmation bias. Cave paintings are so incredibly old that those that could degrade, did degrade into nothingness. The very few we see are the ones that had just the right circumstances to stay preserved for such a long time. Caves can be pretty stagnant, isolated systems, which helps the paintings to stay intact.
Why does prehistoric cave painting not degrade
well it does
but of course only those paintings have been preserved that are found in special conditions allowing for preservation, e.g. not being exposed to wather
fun fact: they had to copy the lascaux cave because the original prehistoric painting did deteriorate from visitors’ breath
As others have said, the fundamental answer here is “survivorship bias”. The ancient paintings that existed in conditions that preserves the paintings are extremely noteworthy and have papers written about them. The many, many others that have faded away to nothingness do not.
Cave paintings were basically made in nature’s own art gallery. Super stable caves, deep underground, no sunlight, barely any wind or rain, and super chill temps all year round. Basically, perfect storage conditions. Nature’s version of a climate-controlled museum. Now, ancient Greek and Roman is a whole different vibe. That stuff was usually out in the open, on walls of temples, houses, statues, you name it. And you know how that goes. Sunlight, rain, crazy weather, people touching stuff, wars, pollution, earthquakes, everything just slowly chips away at it.
Most answers already covered the basic gist, but damned if I don’t answer the rare /r/askscience question I actually have relevant academic credentials for!!
As for cave paintings, the clue is in the name. All paintings of the European Palaeolithic, which is the only time and place I’m really qualified to talk about, are inside caves, and most are deep inside caves. Those are incredibly stable environments, temperature and humidity may remain essentially unchanged for centuries. There’s also no wind, no rain, no UV radiation, and so on. And yet, most paintings are kinda faint and difficult to see. What you’re usually thinking of when thinking of cave paintings are “Cathedral caves”, like Lascaux, Chauvet, Altamira, or maybe Pech Merle. But those are unusual outliers. I’ve been fortunate enough to visit some of the caves in the Dordogne region, and many of the less famous “paintings” are mere hues of color on a vast wall.
We can also infer that there must have been “open air” paintings that are now just lost to us. For one, there are some open air carvings, such as the amazing salmon at the Abri du Paisson or the horse at Cap Blanc, and if the parietal (fancy word for “on the wall”) art in caves is anything to go by, those were probably painted, too, but with the pigments now lost to us. Furthermore, it’s noteworthy how most of the paintings inside caves are of very high quality. Whoever made them must have practiced somewhere, not just the individual artists, but even the entire cultures. We have no primitive precursors to the majesty of Lascaux or Chauvet. They just appear, in all their splendor. Well, the scribbles and sketches that led up to them were probably drawn on flat stones around camp fires or on rock shelter walls and only lasted until the next thunderstorm.
tldr1: Paleolithic cave paintings survived inside caves, and most of them probably didn’t survive. And even among those who did, those that still show brilliant, well-visible colors are a rarity.
And there are also counter-examples to your second assumption. Most buildings, statues, etc from Antiquity were “whitewashed” over the centuries because they were exposed to the elements. But if they got covered somehow, by, say, volcanic ash, their colors were preserved.
tldr2: Most paintings from Antiquity didn’t survive because they weren’t painted deep inside caves but, like, in people’s living rooms. But there are surviving examples.
Cave art is usually in dark environments with very stable climatic conditions whereas art visible to the public is exposed to hugely variable of temperature, humidity and, quite often, harsh lighting. Those will all cause the inks and paint to degrade over time.