Slashdot Mirror


Did Neandertals Paint Early Cave Art?

sciencehabit writes "Dating experts working in Spain, using a technique relatively new to archaeology, have pushed dates for the earliest cave art back some 4000 years to at least 41,000 years ago, raising the possibility that the artists were Neandertals rather than modern humans. And a few researchers say that the study argues for the slow development of artistic skill over tens of thousands of years — not a swift acquisition of talent, as some had argued."

126 comments

  1. No, it must be Adam and Eve ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I swear it must be them !!

  2. mdash by jamesh · · Score: 2, Funny

    And a few researchers say that the study argues for the slow development of artistic skill over tens of thousands of years mdash; not a swift acquisition of talent, as some had argued.

    It may now be considered proper to spell and pronounce Neandertal with a 't' not a 'th' sound, but 'mdash' is still normally written as '—'.

    1. Re:mdash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ellipsis that apostrophe s some editing comma slash dot period

    2. Re:mdash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sentences aren't supposed to begin with 'and' either.

    3. Re:mdash by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Funny

      It may now be considered proper to spell and pronounce Neandertal with a 't' not a 'th' sound, but 'mdash' is still normally written as 'â"'.

      Us Neandertal autor is are offended by your racial oppression of our linguistic atred of the 8t letter of the alpabet.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:mdash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Us Neandertal autor is are offended by your racial oppression of our linguistic atred of the 8t letter of t h e alpabet.

      Alphabet Humour Fail !!

    5. Re:mdash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sentences aren't supposed to begin with 'and' either.

      And nobody cares.

    6. Re:mdash by tsa · · Score: 1

      That's just a spelling error you insensitive clod! :)

      --

      -- Cheers!

    7. Re:mdash by JustOK · · Score: 3, Informative

      And yet they can.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    8. Re:mdash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Neandertal is a valley close to Düsseldorf, Germany. In 1901, an orthographic reform changed the name from Neanderthal to Neandertal ("Tal" is German for "valley"). The Neanderthal man however had been discovered long before and keeps his original name with the "th".

    9. Re:mdash by jd · · Score: 2

      Mdash may be the name of the artist.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    10. Re:mdash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Neandertal is and has always been the correct spelling. It's nothing new. It's from the German, from the place where they were first discovered, the Neander Valley, or Neander "Tal" ('Tal' means valley in German). However, in German it is common and appropriate to combine words to form compound nouns, as Fahrrad, (from 'fahrt', a trip, and 'rad', wheel) or Schadenfreude (from 'Schade', sadness, and 'Freude', joy). Hence, the words are combined to form the place-name of Neandertal. The spelling with the 'h' is anglicized, technically Neandertal is correct, inasmuch as it is the original name, from the original language.

      Why not educate yourself before correcting other people's spelling, smart-ass...

    11. Re:mdash by jamesh · · Score: 2

      Neandertal is and has always been the correct spelling. It's nothing new. It's from the German, from the place where they were first discovered, the Neander Valley, or Neander "Tal" ('Tal' means valley in German). However, in German it is common and appropriate to combine words to form compound nouns, as Fahrrad, (from 'fahrt', a trip, and 'rad', wheel) or Schadenfreude (from 'Schade', sadness, and 'Freude', joy). Hence, the words are combined to form the place-name of Neandertal. The spelling with the 'h' is anglicized, technically Neandertal is correct, inasmuch as it is the original name, from the original language.

      Why not educate yourself before correcting other people's spelling, smart-ass...

      Ouch. Fortunately my education is on my side on this one. The Germans can spell and pronounce the name of their valley however they want, but the scientific name of the Neanderthals is "Homo Neanderthalensis", and when using the name outside of the scientific community either way is acceptable, although the hard 't' sound and spelling has only entered popular usage relatively recently. You can look it up on wikipedia if you want - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal. If it makes you feel better you can go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neandertal, then click the link to take you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal.

    12. Re:mdash by zephvark · · Score: 5, Informative

      It may be appropriate to note that Germans typically don't pronounce "th" as Americans do. It's like "we" versus "whee", the "h" part is an aspiration mark. A common spelling error, for English-speaking Germans, is to put a "th" in where a "t" sound belongs. Neanderthal has always been pronounced Neandertal, they just changed the spelling.

    13. Re:mdash by schroedingers_hat · · Score: 1, Informative

      TWENTY DASH SEVEN DASH CHARACTERS OUGHT TO BE ENOUGH FOR ANYONE STOP

      Now to avoid the lameness filter comma I apostrophe m going to have to say something productive mdash or at least make a more extended version of the parent apostrophe s joke stop carriage return Nope nothing productive comes to mind stop

    14. Re:mdash by Grayhand · · Score: 1

      And a few researchers say that the study argues for the slow development of artistic skill over tens of thousands of years mdash; not a swift acquisition of talent, as some had argued.

      It may now be considered proper to spell and pronounce Neandertal with a 't' not a 'th' sound, but 'mdash' is still normally written as '—'.

      They may be able to paint but they can't spell for shit.

    15. Re:mdash by tqk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And yet they can.

      Yet they can.

      FTFY. Just because they can, doesn't mean they should. What does that spurious "And" add to the meaning of that sentence? Nothing.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    16. Re:mdash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grammer Nazi's are off-topic. And annoying. It's a living language, get used to it.

    17. Re:mdash by blutfink · · Score: 2

      Schadenfreude (from 'Schade', sadness, and 'Freude', joy).

      Not accurate. "Schaden" just means "harm" or "damage". And in this context, a better translation for "Freude" would be "pleasure".

      Neandertal is and has always been the correct spelling. [...] The spelling with the 'h' is anglicized, technically Neandertal is correct, inasmuch as it is the original name, from the original language.

      Not correct. It used to be 'Neanderthal' in German before the spelling reform of 1901. This spelling has been kept in some places, e.g. for the local train station. The English speaking world has just kept the old spelling, which is consistent with the scientific name.

    18. Re:mdash by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      "And" should never be used to start a sentence?

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    19. Re:mdash by JustOK · · Score: 3, Informative

      And yet, you're wrong.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    20. Re:mdash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing isn't a sentence. Al least practice your religion correctly.

      CAPTCHA = hornet, ow! What a stinger~

    21. Re:mdash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's a nice echo of "And yet it moves" attributed to Galileo, albeit fictitiously.

      Nothing wrong an "And" at the start of a sentence, or even a whole work, e.g. Blake's Jerusalem ("And did those feet ...")

      P.S. Captcha: writable

    22. Re:mdash by expatriot · · Score: 1

      "Living language" is not an excuse to be sloppy and inaccurate. Some things don't matter, some do. Typos are OK though.

    23. Re:mdash by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."

      --James D. Nicoll

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    24. Re:mdash by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2

      And now I get the feeling that linguistic prescriptivists are even more wrong than biblical literalists and climate denialists put together.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    25. Re:mdash by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ehem, sorry, as a native German speaker I feel the need to add that the h in "th" is not an aspiration marker. Phonetically, there is no difference between"t" and "th" in German. It's just a relic of orthography. Both are pronounced as unvoiced alveolar plosive /t/.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    26. Re:mdash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spelling is trivial, like yourself.

    27. Re:mdash by redneckmother · · Score: 1

      A preposition is the wrong kind of word to end a sentence with.

    28. Re:mdash by retchdog · · Score: 1

      slashdot can't display a proper ellipsis, just try using … in a comment.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    29. Re:mdash by tqk · · Score: 0

      Now I get the feeling that linguistic prescriptivists are even more wrong than biblical literalists and climate denialists put together.

      FTFY.

      Would you tell a compiler:

      there's irrelevant crap at the beginning of this statement but this's the important part: if( x > y ) { ...

      No? Then why do it to human beings? If you feel the need to use "And" at the beginning of a sentence, perhaps you haven't actually finished the sentence prior to it. That's what it says to me.

      Do you wish to communicate, or just make your writing look "pretty" in your eyes?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    30. Re:mdash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spelling doesn't have to be perfect... JustOK.

    31. Re:mdash by JustOK · · Score: 1

      It's obvious that the idea of connecting two thoughts is too complex for you.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    32. Re:mdash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And now I want to chime in that posting incorrect claims about English doesn't make some random retarded smartass slashdotter a "linguistic prescriptivist".

    33. Re:mdash by psmears · · Score: 1

      Would you tell a compiler:

      there's irrelevant crap at the beginning of this statement but this's the important part: if( x > y ) { ...

      Yes. I call it "indentation" ;-)

    34. Re:mdash by pmikell · · Score: 1

      That's pedantry of a kind up with which I refuse to put.

    35. Re:mdash by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Nice reference to an awesome piece of music to sing. It gives me chills just remembering how it felt to belt it out.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    36. Re:mdash by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      While I like the Nicoll quote, it does beg the question of WTF is a

      cribhouse whore

      ; it implies a novel (to me) usage of 'crib', 'house' or 'whore'. Or is this specifically an Americanism that didn't make it's way out of the place under Hayes Rules?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. Difficult to say by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

    Possibly somewhat impossible to determine, but it should precipitate further inquiry into potential points of cultural exchange between species.

    Perhaps neanderthals are the key to making Linux the most popular desktop... now we'll never know.

    --
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
  4. Of course ... by mister2au · · Score: 3, Funny

    There have been vandals as long as there have been things to vandalise ...

    Neanderthals lived in social groups so there were Neanderthal kids being dragged around by Neanderthal parents and this was before the internet and even before TV ... you work it out - bored kids + pristine cave walls !

    1. Re:Of course ... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 5, Informative

      Vandals didn't enter Spain until 409 AD.

      This article is about art dated to roughly forty millennia before they arrived.

    2. Re:Of course ... by mister2au · · Score: 1

      well played, sir, well played !

  5. Over hyped by micheas · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The artwork dates to when neanderthals were in Europe, but not before the earliest evidence of homo sapiens in Europe.

    It seems unlikely that the art was done by neanderthals, and if it was it was probably done by neanderthals imitating homo sapiens. (there is a reason that "to ape' means to copy.

    I make this assumption based on the fact that cave art seems to show up with other evince of homo sapiens, but there have been no finds of cave art that are dated earlier than any evidence of humans.

    Also, the theory of complexity of art is obviously pulled out of said scientists arses . Scientists that claim that an drawing of a circle as art predates recognizable drawings of the physical world are obviously more recent need to take a look at the verifiable date of the Mona Lisa, and any single geometric shape at a MOMA and explain why their hypothosis that directly contradicts verifiable data about artwork should be viewed as anything other than B.S.

    1. Re:Over hyped by arth1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The artwork dates to when neanderthals were in Europe, but not before the earliest evidence of homo sapiens in Europe.

      It seems unlikely that the art was done by neanderthals, and if it was it was probably done by neanderthals imitating homo sapiens. (there is a reason that "to ape' means to copy.

      I make this assumption based on the fact that cave art seems to show up with other evince of homo sapiens, but there have been no finds of cave art that are dated earlier than any evidence of humans.

      You come across as very prejudiced and biased - and also wrong.
      TFA states that this happened at least 41,000 years ago, and the oldest human (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) remains found in Europe is no more than 36,000 years old.

      Another issue is that you can't apply a dualistic "either/or" - humans of European heritage have from 1-4% Neanderthal DNA. While this isn't a significant portion, it does show that interbreeding was possible and happened, and there must have been fertile individuals who were 50% of each.
      But based solely on the age, the evidence points more towards Neanderthals than modern man.

    2. Re:Over hyped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny what tortured lengths racists will go to in order to foster their narrative.

      When did you have to give up on the Aldebaran idea?

    3. Re:Over hyped by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Disregarding the Ancient Egyptians, Axum, et al.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    4. Re:Over hyped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Egyptians weren't black. Axum was founded by semites (read: middle easterners).

    5. Re:Over hyped by lanswitch · · Score: 4, Informative

      The oldest evidence of modern humans in Europe is over 43.000, not 36.000 years old. There is no evidence that the Neandertal was responsible for the Aurigniac, but a lot of evidence that connects the Aurigniac with modern humans.

      http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/05/43000-year-old-aurignacian-in-swabian.html

    6. Re:Over hyped by l00sr · · Score: 2

      If Neanderthals and humans could mate and have fertile offspring, then why aren't they considered the same species?

    7. Re:Over hyped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If Neanderthals and humans could mate and have fertile offspring, then why aren't they considered the same species?

      Because nobody other than high school biology teachers uses that definition of species since the discovery of ring species.

    8. Re:Over hyped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also remember, most humans learn language and other skills by "merely imitating" their parents and other people they see.
      So what's the shame in "aping" again? That's what all of us apes do ;)

    9. Re:Over hyped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is full of 100% facts. Very good.

    10. Re:Over hyped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree with everything you say, and I'm a "liberal"... please don't tar us all with the same brush.

    11. Re:Over hyped by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      If Neanderthals and humans could mate and have fertile offspring, then why aren't they considered the same species?

      Because 'species' is a loaded word.

      The species problem

      tl;dr - Complicated natural phenomena are hard to reduce to a single word.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:Over hyped by the+phantom · · Score: 3

      By many, they are considered the same species. That is why you will see some people refer to modern humans as Homo sapiens sapiens, and Neanderthals as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

    13. Re:Over hyped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow you conveniently forgot all the cultures of Africa and somehow you think gene exchange with the neanderthals have more influence on cultures than the environment. Though I agree about the usage of "aped" word which clearly comes from the interactions with chimpanzees.

    14. Re:Over hyped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've never heard of Aldebaran?

      Some informed scientist you are, not even keeping track of stars in the sky.

      There's no point in refuting you, you're cherry-picking your facts to suit your conclusions, and are impervious to reasoning. It's an obvious and recognized pattern. Even your response complaining about the ad hominem is part of that pattern.

      Poor you, a victim of insults when you've got the truth behind you, if only those evil liberal apologists weren't around, the world would be so much better as everybody would listen to your profound insights!

      Which lack one thing...actual substance.

    15. Re:Over hyped by arth1 · · Score: 2

      What evidence? What I see in that article is speculation and begging the question by presuming that a set of infant teeth is from h. s. sapiens and then using that as evidence for h. s. sapiens were present at that time.

      Wikipedia has this (I know better than to take Wikipedia as gospel, but they have some references too):

      "There is no longer certainty regarding the identity of the humans who produced the Aurignacian culture, even though the presumed westward spread of anatomically modern humans (AMHs) across Europe is still based on the controversial first dates of the Aurignacian. Currently, the oldest European anatomically modern Homo sapiens is represented by a robust modern-human mandible discovered at PeÅYtera cu Oase (southwest Romania), dated to 34,000â"36,000 years ago. Human skeletal remains from the German site of Vogelherd, so far regarded as the best association between anatomically modern Homo sapiens and Aurignacian culture, were revealed to represent intrusive Neolithic burials into the Aurignacian levels and subsequently all the key Vogelherd fossils are now dated to 3,900â"5,000 years ago instead."

      All in all I don't think we have enough information to draw any bastant conclusions. And that we should be very careful not to - consciously or not - fall into chauvinism and a bias towards paining homo sapiens sapiens in a better light because it's us and not them.
      Wait for more data before drawing conclusions that may in part be collective narcissism.

    16. Re:Over hyped by arth1 · · Score: 1

      By many, they are considered the same species. That is why you will see some people refer to modern humans as Homo sapiens sapiens, and Neanderthals as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

      When we can consider Chihuahuas, Old English Sheepdogs and Irish Wolfhounds the same species, I certainly don't see why we can't consider Neanderthals human too.

    17. Re:Over hyped by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Yes, the art for the most part is perfect and done in such a way as to make the animals appear animated when moving through the cave with a torch. There are no mess-ups, such as an image that is started and then erased. The pictures were created in one go by someone who knew exactly what they were doing. It is no more primitive than a comic book drawing.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    18. Re:Over hyped by davidbofinger · · Score: 1

      we can consider Chihuahuas, Old English Sheepdogs and Irish Wolfhounds the same species

      All dogs and wolves are, by some definitions at least, considered the same species because they can collaborate in producing a fertile descendant. Chihuahas can't mate with Great Danes, but the Chihuaha can mate with a smallish dog, which mates with a medium-sized dog, which mates with a largish dog, which mates with a Great Dane, and that's enough to make them the same species.

      If we killed all the dogs in the world except the Chihuaha and the Great Dane, the survivors would be two separate species. In other words an act that reduces diversity can increase the number of species. This is one problem with using species number as a proxy for diversity. So when we say Neanderthals and humans are the same or different species, we're not really making a statement about whether they are similar or different. At least not entirely.

    19. Re:Over hyped by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Again, nothing from you. FYI: You're not winning the debate.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    20. Re:Over hyped by flirno · · Score: 1

      Not entirely true about the dogs.

      There is an obvious awkward/physical problem with having a Chihuaha having Great Dane puppies but not the other way around. A Great Dane could have Chihuaha puppies without issue after fertilization.

      Natural selection would have it sort out one way or the other in the wild.

    21. Re:Over hyped by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      That is why you will see some people refer to modern humans as Homo sapiens sapiens, and Neanderthals as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

      From the other end of the same (zoom) telescope, the term "Anatomically Modern Human" is used a lot, particularly in areas where the "modern/ Neanderthal" dichotomy is not established. As a descriptive term, it's much less loaded than implying species membership, breeding isolation and a whole host of other criteria. And if your AMH skeleton is later found to have (say) 40% Neanderthal DNA in it, then your description of it as "AMH" is still correct. It's down to the geneticists to decide where, if anywhere, to draw an intra-specific distinction.

      What was that? Denisovans. Oh, we don't do Denisovans here, they're just another race, like "nerd", or "jock", or "Asian" or "European" or "Middle-Easterner". ("Americans" are, of course, "Asians", though there are a lot of "European" and other immigrants.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  6. Well, if neanderthals DID paint those cave walls.. by SlithyMagister · · Score: 3, Funny

    Then get them back there RIGHT NOW and make them clean it up.

  7. Re:Answer: by arth1 · · Score: 2

    No, but they did form the Tea Party ;-)

    Why do you malign Neanderthals thus?
    I think the evidence points to them having very high political ideals - for one thing, they did not have lawyers.

  8. Probably not by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 0

    Neanderthals were in Europe by themselves for hundreds of thousands of years without making caving paintings. We're to suppose that they happened to pick up the habit just when modern humans moved into the area. That would be a massive coincidence. It's possible, but unlikely.

    1. Re:Probably not by Alan+R+Light · · Score: 2

      Um, it looks like they may have started making cave paintings about 5000 years before modern humans moved into the area.

      I know that at a distance 5000 years may not seem like much, but in fact a lot can happen in 5000 years.

    2. Re:Probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neanderthals were in Europe by themselves for hundreds of thousands of years without making caving paintings. We're to suppose that they happened to pick up the habit just when modern humans moved into the area. That would be a massive coincidence. It's possible, but unlikely.

      Maybe the Neanderthals couldn't verbalize their ideas very well so they learned to draw them? Sorry, no reference, but I remember reading something about possibly Neanderthal not having developed the physical voice box that we have?

    3. Re:Probably not by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe the Neanderthals couldn't verbalize their ideas very well so they learned to draw them?

      Ug sees bear advancing towards Og.
      Ug pulls out a piece of ochre and starts scribbling frantically.
      Og looks puzzled.
      Bear eats Og.
      Ug sighs and walks away.

      Now we know why they're extinct.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Probably not by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is also very little in common between the earliest cave art attributed to Homo Sapiens and any of the cave art attributed to Neanderthals - very different styles, very different formats, very different in nature all round.

      The paintings in France also include proto-writing next to the paintings, but no such symbols exist here.

      Most important of all, the paintings attributed to Neanderthals include fish that Neanderthals ate at the time and Homo Sapiens did not.

      So if Neanderthals are present and Homo Sapiens are not, we've opportunity taken care of.
      Neanderthals had been mucking around with ochre at the time, Homo Sapiens didn't utilize it for a long time after, so that's means.
      The pictures show Neanderthal food not Homo Sapien food, which gives motive.
      No proto-writing and no utilization of the 3D nature of the rock surface means no continuity with the French cave paintings, so Homo Sapiens are sans continuity.

      I'd say that nails it.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:Probably not by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      Where did you get the 5,000 year figure? The article itself cites clear evidence of human habitation in Europe 41,600 years ago, which is before the earliest painting's date of 40,800 years ago. There are sites even earlier than that. Plus, there is a fundamental problem in that preservation events are rare, so humans were no doubt in the area long before we'd ever find evidence of them.

      Meanwhile, Neanderthals had been around in Europe for 300,000 years. Even if your number were right, for 98.3% of their existence, Neanderthals didn't bother making cave paintings.

  9. We’re not alone by kstahmer · · Score: 1

    In the mid-1950s abstract expressionism was the rage. Congo was a successful artist. Here are some of his paintings. Some sold for about $30,000. Most impressive, given Congo was a chimpanzee. It’s not surprising if Neanderthals did early cave art, cave art surpassing its contemporary human art. After all Congo has already established, artistic talent isn’t restricted to Homo sapiens sapiens.

    --
    HRH The Duke of Windsor
    1. Re:We’re not alone by Osgeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

      theres a bit of difference tween a chimp ploping paint strokes in a semi random fashion to make modern "art" and the cave paintings clearly depicting characters doing specific actions. When Congo starts drawing his family actively hunting a beast and roasting it over a fire then I will concede your argument.

    2. Re:We’re not alone by kstahmer · · Score: 1

      Congo’s plopped semi random fashioned paint stokes sold for $30,000 in the mid-1950s. That’s indubitable financial success. As to whether Congo’s art constitutes ‘genuine’ art, that’s a matter of idiosyncrasy, usually left to art critics, not /. posters. Human hubris is seductive. We overestimate our own talents, while underestimating the talents of other species.

      --
      HRH The Duke of Windsor
    3. Re:We’re not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congo’s plopped semi random fashioned paint stokes sold for $30,000 in the mid-1950s. That’s indubitable financial success.

      Humans also paid money for pet rocks. The financial success of something is an excellent measure of its financial success and nothing else.

      As to whether Congo’s art constitutes ‘genuine’ art...

      That isn't the point. I tend to believe everything is art as long as any one person believes it is. Arguing something isn't art isn't left to critics, it's left to idiots who don't understand what art is. If it means something to someone, it's art.

      The point is whether Congo understood that paint strokes could be made to mean something, or whether it merely liked the pretty colors and made semi-random strokes. The former implies intelligence at a relatively high level, the latter is absolutely nothing special. It might be art, but it doesn't imply anything about chimps that is particularly impressive.

      If you do want to hear about truly impressive things, look up some of the economic experiments done with chimps, and how they share some of the same reasoning bugs as humans do. For example, if you give a chimp a choice of playing two different games, one in which the chimp is given a grape, plus a 50% chance of winning a second grape vs a game in which the chimp is given two grapes, plus a 50% chance of losing a grape, they will tend to greatly prefer the first game, even those the chances of ending up with 2 grapes is the same. Humans share the same risk-aversion behavior associated with "loss" of a grape, with a general inability to instinctively grasp the true probabilities.

    4. Re:We’re not alone by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that Congo's favorite foods included bamboo stands and the raw fruits and vegetables at lunchtime. I'd advise you to take another look at those paintings. "Bold circular loop" perhaps would be better named Ripe banana and green Pepper Still Life.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    5. Re:We’re not alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arguing something isn't art isn't left to critics, it's left to idiots who don't understand what art is. If it means something to someone, it's art.

      So the term 'art' is meaningless, then. Good to know.

    6. Re:We’re not alone by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Goes to show the power of markets when it comes to putting a value on things. Laughable.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    7. Re:We’re not alone by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      Arguing something isn't art isn't left to critics, it's left to idiots who don't understand what art is. If it means something to someone, it's art.

      So the term 'art' is meaningless, then. Good to know.

      "Art" is a term that is far too generic to have the meaning you want it to have, yes. You want to be able to objectively define something as being significant, but this is not possible. Not everyone agrees with you on what is beauty, on the importance of different subjects, or on what is crass. It is, by definition, subjective.

      For example, If I've had a particularly emotional experience sometime in my life, certain visuals could be associated with the event. Years later, I might see a painting that sharply reminds me of it. That painting would mean a lot to me. It wouldn't mean the same thing to me as it meant to the painter. It wouldn't mean the same to others around me who saw the same painting. Maybe what everyone else sees is a rather amateurish, cliched painting of a sunset, of the type millions of painters paint when they're first starting out. However, to me, there's something about that sunset, the position of the clouds, the shade of a color, something that makes it special as a result of my personal experience. To me, it's very meaningful.

      "Art" is defined by the person experiencing the art, not the artist. The artist and the viewer can be the same person, but it's not the act of creating it that makes it art, it's the act of experiencing it. That doesn't mean you can't have artists that are better than others. When an artist has the skill to cause others to see meaning in his work, to persuade them of his point of view, to think about something they would not otherwise consider, or even just to evoke an emotion, such as making people laugh...that makes him a good artist. The quality of the work itself isn't judged by how many people it touched, though. It's individually judged by every person who sees it, and as a result, it only takes one person to make it "art", even if it's just the artist himself.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    8. Re:We’re not alone by Grudge2012 · · Score: 0

      Goes to show the power of markets when it comes to putting a value on things. Laughable.

      Yeah, especially the market of "media pirates posting to Slashdot".

  10. not swift by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    well, IMO that makes since, trying to eat while not being eaten kind of trumps cave art in my book of priorities in the ages before cultivation. Of course that all depends on the definition of swift ... thats a bit open ended considering the time scales involved. IE a handful of generations, or a handful of centuries?

  11. Re:Answer: by jd · · Score: 1

    They also invented (or co-invented) music, were willing to explore the possibilities Europe had to offer, and ate grains with their meat.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  12. Stop asking questions in the title. Its anoying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Either you have something to say or you don't. "Could it be?" articles instantly give the impression that your on the same ground as "Did aliens build the pyramids?" which will be followed (after an hour of time wasting) with "we may never know."

  13. No. by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    but they did do some cave hentai tentacle drawings

  14. Dating experts, eh? by CaptainOfSpray · · Score: 2

    Can they fix us up with some cute Neandert(h)al girls? If not, they ain't no experts.

    --
    "Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
  15. Irrelevant by toriver · · Score: 4, Funny

    The cave paintings are long out of copyright, and as we all know, only works under copyright hold any value.

    Yours,
    The entertainment industry organizations.

    1. Re:Irrelevant by chichilalescu · · Score: 3, Funny

      obviously, we need to make copyright longer, to keep people from making changes to our heritage!

      --
      new sig
    2. Re:Irrelevant by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Bono Extension of Neanderthal copyright Terms (BENT) would increase copyright to 50 millennia to foster the creativity of extinct species.

  16. Windows 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For sure they did! Microsoft used a time machine to get a neanderthal for designing metro!
    Finally NT=Neanderthal Technology becomes true!

  17. The cave art is fake anyway by GoodnaGuy · · Score: 1

    This supposed stone age art work is a fake, made by local land owners to make some tourist euros ;) Not sure how they date this but am guessing its unreliable.

    1. Re:The cave art is fake anyway by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      First, you draw a conclusion, then you deride any evidence that contradicts your conclusion. You sound like a young-Earth creationist.

  18. Re:No! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Dating experts working in Spain"

    I haven't figured out what dating experts know about neanderthals. Yeah, sure, some early "modern humans" may have dated some neanderthals. In fact, there have been a few reports that we all have neanderthal genes in our makeup. But, today's dating experts? What do they know about neanderthals? Maybe - just maybe - those dating experts know something about Spaniards, but forget the neanderthals.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  19. Get some confirmation. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Look there is no other evidence of Neanderthals doing such paintings elsewhere, there is no record of the development of such techniques in Neanderthal artefacts. Their tool kit had not changed for hundreds of thousands of years. Under these circumstances, we need to independently confirm the dating techniques are good and reliable. Otherwise it would end up as an egg in their faces like the claim of faster than light travel reported last year. It turned out to be clock calibration issue. Go through the dating procedure and the assumptions, and data more carefully first before engaging in colorful speculations.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Get some confirmation. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Ah, the appeal to authority.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Get some confirmation. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      The dating technique (uranium series dating) is good. Very solid ; very appropriate for the age range under consideration (where carbon-14 dating is getting towards it's inherent limits).

      As always with real-world samples, the bigger question is whether you've got an appropriate sample. In this case, some of the paintings have a partial overgrowth of calcium carbonate (which will pick up some uranium during deposition, then hopefully "close" as a system). This is the material that you sample, and it gives you a minimum date for the deposition of the overgrowth. The overgrowth that you sample is (your choice) one which encloses and seals-off the pigments of one of the drawings/ paintings, and therefore the minimum age of the overgrowth is also the minimum age of your painting.

      Which is nice and simple. Until you get to actually taking the samples. Firstly, these are materials of inestimable value, so your samples are going to be as small as possible, and you're going to spend months or years negotiating over where you're going to sample (witness the palaver over getting bits of the Turin shroud ; but unlike the shroud, this is important). Now, you collect your sample. Is it a coherent film, or a crumbly powder? Have you collected just the overgrowth, or have you got any of the pigment. Is the overgrowth contaminated with a recent, still growing biofilm of bacteria (that's more relevant for carbon dating), or is there still mineral being deposited on one face or the other of the overgrowth by flowing water? That wouldn't invalidate the procedure, but it would increase the size of the error bars on the date calculated.

      But these are standard issues to consider. Which is what peer review is for. So, if you have access to the actual paper ($15 for me ; not worth it, because I've got no concerns about the paper), you'll be able to read the details. I note that there are concerns raised about whether the authors made appropriate checks for uranium dissolution from the overgrowths : could be an issue, or it could be something detectable and correctable (I don't have the paper to check), or it could be something that you declare as a problem and live with. I note that the same series of results produces 4 or 5 different dates for different pieces of "artwork", so I'd assume that there is sufficient error analysis in the paper to justify these. Never having had to actually do radiometric dating myself, I'll let the reviewers have their head on it and take the figures at face value. Science's (the journal) journalists are normally careful to say what is in the paper, and to not say what is not in the paper.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  20. Also, that isn't artwork by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    The cave paintings in France clearly showed artistic ability, even genius. These Neanderthal artifacts, though, obviously involve nothing more than picking up a spray can and spraying it around his hand. If you doubt me when I say that isn't art, just try selling something like that at Southeby's. ... Never mind.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    1. Re:Also, that isn't artwork by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      These Neanderthal artifacts, though, obviously involve nothing more than picking up a spray can and spraying it around his hand.

      And who made the spray can? Mr. Homo Sapiens? They didn't even have bronze yet - no way they're going to make a steel can.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Also, that isn't artwork by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      That is part of the joke, but at that, it really may have been applied by a DeWalt airbrush. I also wanted to add in a different joke about early attempts at fingerprinting, and more successful examples at the Hoover building in DC. Maybe that would have been better.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    3. Re:Also, that isn't artwork by jd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The handprints, perhaps, but the pictures of fish were somewhat more stylized and were definitely not stencil-based. I'd consider those abstractions and therefore art at its most simplistic. Much more crucially, though, it's stuff with a totally different intent.

      If you're saying the Neanderthal pictures were extremely simplistic and lacked any obvious "thought"* - they were depictions at a very mechanical level - then I'd totally agree. If you're saying the French pictures showed enormous thought and mindfulness - even in the kiddy training area (there was a section set aside to train kids on painting) - then again I'd totally agree. There was an incredible level of sentience involved.

      If we go apples-to-apples, there were sections of the French caves that had hand paintings. But they showed awareness and no small amount of ingenuity. Several would have required platforms to be set up, for example. Not easy in such a confined space.

      And, yes, if IQ is generalized as the ration of what a person can think/know vs what you'd expect of them, we can get a feel for their IQ. I'd consider proto-flipbook animation, haziness to depict motion, and relief to convey stereoscopic images to be well above the 48% above the average person of the time, and an IQ of 148 is all MENSA requires. So if you want to call the French painters geniuses I'd have to agree.

      *Given that Neanderthals diverged from homo sapiens so far back, it is possible that their thought processes are too alien for modern humans to comprehend, that we're looking for the wrong signals, the wrong visual cues. It is possible. Unlikely, though, but possible. Doesn't really alter the conclusion, though, which is that it wasn't a Homo Sapien mindset. Whatever it was or wasn't, it wasn't that. This raises an intriguing side-question, though - how WOULD we recognize art from an alien mind?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  21. dear moderators: if you cant detect blatant racist by decora · · Score: 1

    idiocy and pseudoscience, then i have to wonder if the slashdot system itself has some kind of inherent internal flaw.

  22. or we haven't discovered them yet. by decora · · Score: 1

    just pause for a moment and consider the possibilities.

  23. Wouldn't be the first examples of art by Grayhand · · Score: 2

    Neanderthals were known for shaping stone artwork, the neanderthal Venus are quite well known, so there's no reason to think they lacked the ability to paint. Developmentally Neanderthals were very close to modern humans. There is debate about some problem solving and complex tool making but in many ways they were hard to separate from humans. They even developed music and the flute.

  24. Autistic Cavemen... by libtek · · Score: 1

    So who's to say that the only preserved drawings we discovered were from a Master Artist of the time? What if it's the random scribblings of a child or not-to-artistic adult even (If you looked at my wall scrawlings, absent carbon dating, you would also think they were created by a less-evolved species)

    --
    Unequivocally the realest of the realz...
  25. Another fun fact: Women were the artists by quixote9 · · Score: 2

    The morphometrics of the hand prints shows those first artists were women, Neandertal (or -thal), but not Vandal (or -dhal).

  26. Motivation by PPH · · Score: 1

    Until homo sapiens moved in, there was nobody willing to buy their art. Who knows? Given enough time, they might have realized that the stupid humans will even pay good money for 'art' painted by chips. Or Adam Sandler movies.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  27. Re:No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dating experts working in Spain! using a technique relatively new to archaeology! have pushed dates for the earliest cave art back some 4000 years to at least 41,000 years ago!

    When you replace the semicolons with exclamation points you get a better idea what they're really after: date hot (choose your favorite gender) experts who are probably doctors as well and work in Spain, use nice new gadgets and push some dates back while at it.

  28. Re:dear moderators: if you cant detect blatant rac by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    It is "racism" to notice that at a certain period in history one race made achievements in civilization that another did not? But one thing is for sure, we can always count on psuedo-intellectuals like yourself raising the "racism" smokescreen in lieu of intellegent discussion of the topic.

  29. Re:dear moderators: if you cant detect blatant rac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I notice you don't address any points, you just name call and then blame the system in order to spread propaganda.

  30. Re:No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact, there have been a few reports that we all have neanderthal genes in our makeup.

    OMG, which makeup? the foundation? blusher? eyeliner?

  31. Re:No! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    I haven't figured out what dating experts know about Neanderthals.

    I think the question "How many Neanderthals have you successfully dated to this day?" should settle that.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  32. "Dating" experts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disappointed.

    I thought these were from OKCupid.

  33. Re:No, Neandertals were stupid by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    nonsense, crackers are manmade.
    I've yet to see any crackers made with assburgers attached, yet.

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  34. Don't know much about Art... by GerryHattrick · · Score: 1

    Who says it's 'Art'? - might be an image of 'the hand that has killed', and the blobs might be notches on the club, all there for the cave-goblins to approve.

  35. Re:No! by flirno · · Score: 1

    Rouge

  36. Re:No, Neandertals were stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bzzzzz, wrong fucktarded cracker. Crackers are the lowest members of society. They are what remains of the neandertals millenia ago. Which is why all white supremacists are dumb fucktarded asspies.

  37. knowldege doesnt die by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

    I find this unlikely. There is a clear history of all social intelligence and knowledge coming from Mesopotamia. Before that we knew nothing. Knowledge is never killed and we would never kill it on pupose. What's next? Someone will tell us the great pyramid is older then 4500 years and that math constants such as Phi and Pi are much older then our history records. Ludicrous. Humans have never been more intelligent then we are today and that process is clearly linear. Most of our knownledge stems from around the birth of our current faiths... that is the way our maker intended it and that is the way it is.

  38. Re:No! by Occams · · Score: 1

    Australian Aboriginals, "modern humans" go back 40,000 years of living in Australia, and they had cave art. Some were still living in the same old way until only about 100 years ago. Spaniards, neaderthals? What's the difference?

    --
    Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.