Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Most Cave Paintings Were Painted By Women, Says Penn State Researcher

Posted by timothy on from the having-ruled-out-sandusky dept.

barlevg writes "Analyzing hand-prints found in cave sites, an archaeologist from Penn State University has concluded that roughly 75% of all ancient cave art was painted by women. Previously it was thought that neolithic cave paintings were made mostly by men, perhaps to chronicle their kills. But an analysis of the relative lengths of fingers in hand stencils found on cave walls suggests that it was mostly prehistoric women--not men--who created these works."

7 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. In other news by marcello_dl · · Score: 5, Funny

    In related news, primitive hand stencils in caves are now likely considered as the first crude attempts at nail painting.

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  2. What interested me by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What interested me about his research was the evidence that sexual dimorphism in humans was substantially stronger in the paleolithic than today.

    To me that adds credence to the notion that society has removed a lot of the need for distinguishing between genders. Which was neat.

    1. Re:What interested me by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought it was alcohol that removed the need to distinguish between genders.

    2. Re:What interested me by FlopEJoe · · Score: 5, Funny

      To me that adds credence to the notion that society has removed a lot of the need for distinguishing between genders.

      I rather enjoy the distinguishing features between genders.

    3. Re:What interested me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While the full study may have done a better job at establishing this than the article, I'm less than convinced that the dimorphism was actually sexual dimorphism. The article made it sound like the scientists built a contemporary database of hand dimensions, which showed a slight sexual dimorphism. They then compared this database with the hand prints from cave paintings, and found a much more dramatic split between the different morphologies (the archeologist stated that "they fall at the extreme ends, and even beyond the extreme ends"). I am not an anthropologist, but when I read that, I read that the scale is broken, not that we can say that "men were men and women were women". It seems equally (maybe more) likely that the major differences were more the result of tribal isolation, since there was no information suggesting that they had compared actual neolithic remains against their scale.

      If there are biologists out there who can tell me why my skepticism is stupid, I'd love to hear about it. At the moment, though, I'm in the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" state of skepticism.

    4. Re:What interested me by Jappus · · Score: 5, Informative

      The 10% includes those who have bisexual urges, but identify as heterosexual.

      In that case, the number would be likely much higher. After all, if the Kinsey studies have shown one thing, it is that pure homosexuality is as rare as pure heterosexuality. Most people fall into the range where they "merely" strongly favour one gender over another, but not to the exclusion of the other.

      Furthermore, sexual attraction is not the same thing as actually wanting sexual intercourse. It ranges from simple and almost universal things like the benign interest in the aesthetics of human bodies -- no matter the gender --, over gendered group bonding (best example: sports clubs) up until bonding with a specific individuals (best example here: soldiers in war).

      And then remember that your mind is also capable of empathy on all levels. For example, if you see someone cut themselves, you most likely feel a mirror of their pain. That's why horror movies are so effective.
      The same is true for sexuality. After all, if that were not the case, porn would not be as effective and desired (by any culture, any gender, really).

      For example, if you see a movie in which two people kiss, do you totally ignore one partner? No, you perceive and are affected by them both. You might like some combinations of genders better than others, but you can not deny that the kiss will affect you either way and that something in your brain will mirror the feelings (physical as well as emotional) conveyed by the kiss.

      Additionally, sexuality is the result of a developmental process and like any such feature (height, skin color, etc.) it has as much a genetic "pre-set" component as well as a environmental component that can divert the development. If you flood a male embryo with androgen-blockers, the embryo will turn physically female, along with an increased chance to be attracted to men. Same if you flood a female embryo with the right cocktail of male hormones.

      And like your final body height is influenced by the supply of nutrients during development, sexual orientation is influenced by a myriad of environmental factors. And like height, the result is a sliding scale. In many ways, your genes only supply the starting point for that first cell, but not where you will end up.

      As such, if you don't limit "bisexual urges" to people who actively strive to have physical sex with either gender, you will see that your 10% is an estimate on the lowest conservative threshold.

  3. In other news by foma84 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anthropologists debung male-centric myths, tech site breeds tens of sexist-joke comments.
    Stay classy.