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."

22 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. 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: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
  3. 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 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

    3. 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!
    4. 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.

  4. 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.

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

    And yet they can.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  6. 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".

  7. 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."
  8. 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.

  9. 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)
  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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
  13. Re:mdash by JustOK · · Score: 3, Informative

    And yet, you're wrong.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  14. 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.
  15. 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)