So - we had visited the “replica” Chauvet Cave but had we really “visited” the WHS?  Now, each of us will have their own “rules” for deciding when to “count” a site as visited and I wouldn’t criticise anyone who “ticks” for the replica visit alone. But it did seem a bit unsatisfactory just to leave it at that since the replica is situated outside both the core and buffer zones of the inscribed site. Indeed it could have been situated anywhere – imagine a “Chauvet franchise” which could create additional replicas a la Disneyworld. The cost of the original was c $59 million – no doubt a further “Chauvet Asia” in China could be done far more cheaply. Would one have seen any less of the “WHS” if one had seen a replica in a location beyond France? (Some would argue - “Yes”, because the nearby “Pont d’Arc” could be considered significant for the site in terms of contributing to whatever “spiritual value” caused the Aurignacians to use the cave for paintings. But this wasn’t argued in the Nomination). And where would counting such distant replicas lead to in terms of what constitutes a WHS “visit”? We could have “World Heritage Parks” with replicas of numerous WHS and “holodecks” running virtual reality visits to others!

The creation of this replica as a “visitor attraction” hasn’t passed without criticism.   . The article provides “food for thought” but I don’t “buy” the arguments used and would recommend visiting the replica. It might be worth mentioning however, that it isn’t an exact representation – the real cave’s, largely linear, 1000m has been compressed and folded into a sinuous path inside a circular building with the stretches lacking paintings left out. Many of the painted panels have been reproduced faithfully whilst the “transitions” between them are “fictional”. Floor features such as bear scrapes and skulls/bones are also shown and the “atmosphere” in terms of temperature and humidity is said to replicate that of the real cave. The lighting isn’t “authentic” of course, even if subdued, though attempts are made on occasions to simulate flickering torches. Despite the multiple groups passing through at the same time a surprising quietness was achieved. It was all as “well done” as one could hope for.

The Replica tour and documentation doesn’t specify where the “real” cave is (merely stating that it is a “few kms away”) but you pass close to it along the road on the Western side of the Pont d’Arc (actually 9.2 kms from the replica by road and somewhat less as the crow flies). There you can see the cliff face which is a part of the core zone, but not the entrance to the cave itself as this is hidden in a copse high up on the cliff side. That view might satisfy the desire of some “WH Travellers” to have at least “seen” the core zone from a distance! However, whilst it may not be entirely “logical”, I prefer not to “count” a WHS as “visited” if I haven’t reached at least the core zone boundary - where feasible. Beyond that of course one has to accept the limits of practicality and legal restrictions. But, if it can be achieved, then actually reaching it seems essential for a “visit” rather than merely having been to a replica 9 (or 9000!!) kms away. However, whilst achieving the closest possible/practical proximity to the core zone could be regarded as “necessary”, it is of course not “sufficient” for a full “visit”. Undoubtedly, in this case, that requires seeing the replica as being the nearest one is going to achieve in terms of “entering” the cave.

And even that is just the “start” of properly “visiting” the site. There remain plenty of other opportunities for adding “understanding” via further research into its OUV which will benefit from having been both “on site” and into the replica. These definitely include viewing the 2010 Herzog documentary recommended by Joel Baldwin and The Guardian. Unfortunately none of the versions I could find on YouTube were wonderful, possibly as it was actually produced for 3D viewing (It was also rather too “mystical” for my tastes, but it is the only movie of the interior which you are going to see!). WH travellers might also find the movie’s visits to the Swabian Ice Age Art caves of interest – we certainly did as, coincidentally, we had taken that WHS in on the same trip! Note that Herzog refers to the “Theme Park” then under plan for building away from the cave. Despite having commissioned the movie, I am not sure that the French government would have been very happy to have had that phrase used. Indeed, there are such aspects e.g the shop full of woolly mammoth and bear toys, but the overall offering aspires to and achieves much more.

Thus, after the seeing the replica, we added a visit to the actual cave entrance. The path to it goes north in front of the Auberge du Pont d’Arc at 44.383605, 4.412515 (next to a large free parking area). You will recognise the locations if you have seen the Herzog movie. Follow the edge of the vineyard for c 150m and then find a track on the left up into the forest. This climbs around 100m, emerging first onto an open path cut into the face of the cliff, with fine views of the Combe d’Arc, before going back into the trees. I should perhaps mention that, along the path up to the cave, you will pass a number of notice boards onto which have been pinned a copy of an “Extrait du Registre des Arretes du Maire”. A full page of legalese French describes the “Interdiction provisoire d’access au chemin de randonee du Cirque d’Estre”. Dated March 2016, they appeared to have been widely ignored and scattered! At this point my French “conveniently failed” me. If they really want to stop people you might think they would install a gate and an internationally understood “No entry” sign!

After around 30mins you will arrive at a cave entrance fronted by a metal grill and a table with some seats. Behind the grill is a professionally produced notice board stating “Vous entrez sur la site de la Grotte Chauvet-Pont-d’Arc” together with a warning that you are under video surveillance! It also contains descriptive sections, plans of the cave etc and was obviously produced to inform “legally welcome” visitors! But, none of these boards at the site itself possess a UNESCO logo - whereas the waiting area at the replica has an enormous plaque!

However, this first grotto is simply an area for monitoring etc equipment and R+R for the scientists rather than the original entrance - “Le trou de Baba”. This was where, some months before the official “discovery” by Chauvet et al, another local caver, Michel Rosa (a.k.a “Baba”), had noticed air seeping from a small chamber which he was unable to get fully into. The information was exchanged among cavers and Chauvet and companions had returned to investigate further…. the “rest is history”! The only way to reach it is along a walkway suspended out from the cliff face and protected from rock falls by wire net “roofing”. At the end is a solid steel (and airtight!) door and another notice stating “La decouverte d’une grotte dans la Combe d’Arc denomee Grotte Chauvet a ete effectuee le 18 decembre 1994 par trois speleologues Mme BRUNEL, M CHAUVET et M HILLAIRE a l’occasion d’une exploration enterprise par eux dans la cadre de leurs activites speleologiques privees” (Photo).

The wording of this notice highlights one aspect of the many legal controversies which arose after the site’s discovery - who was entitled to a share of the vast amounts of money which have been, and are still to be, made from its discovery? In the first 2 years of opening, the replica received over 1 million visitors, resulted in 700k hotel nights and generated 24 million euros of revenue in Ardeche p.a! This matter has been a source of legal dispute and dubious actions since the very moment of discovery. Some have questioned the exclusion of “Baba Rosa” by the 3 main discoverers, they in turn have questioned the role of the state in muscling in without offering recompense, whilst a number of the local landowners who had to sell at basic land values have felt cheated. The court case dragged on from 1995. The local department of Cultural Affairs even forged a document by backdating it to “show” that Chauvet had been doing his “professional” job when discovering the cave – and was thus entitled to nothing!! Chauvet successfully proved the forgery however and this explains the very precise indication on the notice board that they were involved in “activites speleologiques privees”!  This article gives one version of the case up to 2014 . It rolled on until April 2018 when the 3 “discoverers” gained some share of ongoing revenues to add to their earlier payments for the original find and use of photos.

Along the way, Chauvet had gained the right to have the cave named after him, which explains the rather strange history of the official title of this WHS. It was placed on the French T List in 2007 under the title of “La Grotte ornee Chauvet-Pont d’Arc” and was eventually inscribed in 2015 as “Grotte ornée du Pont-d’Arc, dite Grotte Chauvet-Pont-d’Arc, Ardèche” (i.e “known as”). The AB evaluation indicates that ICOMOS wasn’t happy with the original title and asked France to “consider” a change. The result accepted by ICOMOS seems rather unsatisfactory – much longer and the name of “Chauvet” remains, even if slightly “downgraded”, because legally it has to - “Les trois inventeurs déposent deux marques (« grotte Chauvet » et « grotte Chauvet-Pont d’Arc ») le 8 juin 1998 mais oublient de les renouveler, ce qui entraîne une nouvelle bataille judiciaire lorsque le syndicat mixte chargé de construire la réplique de la grotte dépose ces deux noms le 9 février 2009 et le 22 juillet 2012.”  Thus the Replica Cave always uses an “official” name mentioning Chauvet when describing the “real” cave but has itself adopted the simple title of “Caverne du Pont d’Arc”. It was originally to be called “Caverne Chauvet-Pont d’Arc” but the litigation was continuing at the time of opening in 2015 and Chauvet and companions weren’t even invited to the ceremony

Following the “final” settlement he is no longer “persona non grata” however and, in the waiting area for the separate “Aurignacian Gallery” at the replica, you will see a movie of him describing the discovery. He didn’t appear in the Herzog movie of 2010 either, but, perhaps surprisingly, Herzog did “dedicate” the movie to the 3 discoverers.

Of course Chauvet himself isn’t an archaeologist and really has nothing much to say beyond the discovery – it was Jean Clottes, appearing alongside Herzog, who became the “guru” and publisher of several (expensive) books on the cave. He has made a career out the cave but even getting that job involved a dispute! In so doing he has largely set the agenda on the interpretation of the Cave and its art – particularly its shamanistic and fertility aspects etc.  (The “Venus” and vulva were NOT pointed out to us during the replica tour by the way!!!). But as always with this cave, views vary and there are academic disputes as well as legal ones!!    

Finally. (!) Visiting the actual cave entrance and seeing in the movie the extent to which the Cave was already being protected, makes the French attempt to “railroad” the site’s inscription through on an “emergency basis” in 2012 seem even more specious. “Chapeau” to ICOMOS for resisting the attempt!! (“the excellent and pristine condition of the cave did not face any serious or specific danger”). One wonders whether perhaps France gets too aggressive in pursuing its WHS objectives! Recently there was also the behaviour of its delegation at the 2018 WHS in trying to intervene on the floor to influence the WHC secret ballot on Nimes and the repeated refusal to accept IUCN’s principled objection to the Puys nomination - “power playing” it through the WHC instead.