BRIN archaeologists respond to French researchers' doubts over world's oldest cave paintings: 'standard criticism'
Researchers from Indonesia’s National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) have responded to French archaeologist Georges Sauvet’s rejection of the dating of what is claimed to be the world’s oldest cave paintings on Muna Island, Sulawesi.
According to Dr Adhi Agus Oktaviana, a researcher and archaeologist at the Leang Metanduno site on Muna Island, Sauvet’s criticism is normal in the scientific community. The paper published in Nature on 22 January detailing the handprint cave paintings — considered the world’s oldest — already included the methodological details criticised by Sauvet.
“Research criticisms published in journals are normal and expected. It’s a healthy scientific debate,” Adhi told Republika on Saturday, 30 May 2026. He added that such discussions are beneficial for the future of archaeology: “Good discussions happen through peer-reviewed journal articles, not just opinions.”
When asked how researchers should respond to sharp criticism of their methodology, Adhi said scientists must address it empirically with clear data and methods. He noted that even before Sauvet’s critique, his team had already detailed their uranium-thorium (U/Th) dating methodology.
Previously, French archaeologist Georges Sauvet caused a stir in the research world by rejecting the claim that the world’s oldest cave paintings originated in Indonesia. The paintings in question, handprints at Leang Metanduno on Muna Island, are dated between 71,000 and 67,000 years old. Sauvet questioned the dating methodology, arguing it was biased and prone to error, and had not been verified by alternative methods.
This was detailed in Sauvet’s academic paper titled ‘Uranium-thorium dating: the race towards the earliest rock art’, published in Aplomb Publication’s AOJ of Historarchaeology & Anthropological Exploration, Volume 2, Issue 1, 2026, on 20 May.
Sauvet accused the U/Th method of bias, stemming from two main issues: theoretical closed and open models in analysing uranium-thorium decay in calcite layers over the cave paintings, and the researchers’ reluctance to use alternative dating methods after U/Th analysis.
Closed-system models assume perfect uranium-thorium decay within calcite without isotope leakage from environmental factors, while open-system models account for chemical exchange with the surrounding environment. The latter suggests calcite changes due to open cave conditions.
Sauvet argued: “This is the core issue. Research shows that in some cases, the system is not fully closed or open. When water seeps through calcite layers, uranium dissolves and leaves the sample, altering the mineral composition and potentially causing inaccurate age estimates based on thorium-uranium ratios.”
Adhi acknowledged Sauvet’s critique as valid but insisted the LA-A-U Series closed system remains the best method for Indonesian cave paintings. He cited the credibility of GRAG Southern Cross University’s laboratory, which has analysed not only cave paintings but also fossils and teeth from renowned global sites, with results published in prestigious journals.
“Mr Sauvet’s critique is possible,” he said.
Regarding Sauvet’s main argument about water leakage causing dating errors, Adhi said this has been addressed through detailed sediment analysis, allowing mapping of coralline growth above the paint pigments. This, he argued, makes the dating method more precise.