Someday round 43,000 years in the past, a Neanderthal man in what’s now central Spain got here throughout a big granite pebble whose pleasing contours and indentations snagged his eye.
One thing within the form of that quartz-rich stone – maybe its odd resemblance to an elongated face – might have compelled him to choose it up, examine it and, ultimately, to dip certainly one of his fingers in purple pigment and press it towards the pebble’s edge, precisely the place the nostril on that face would have been.
In doing so, he left behind what’s regarded as the world’s oldest full human fingerprint, on what would seem like the oldest piece of European moveable artwork.
The invention, which might enrich our understanding of how Neanderthals noticed and interpreted the world, has come to gentle after nearly three years of analysis by a workforce of Spanish archaeologists, geologists and police forensic consultants.
The dig workforce seen there was one thing odd concerning the stone – which is simply over 20cm in size – as quickly as they discovered it whereas excavating the San Lázaro rock shelter on the outskirts of Segovia in July 2022. It didn’t seem like one thing that had been used as a hammer or an anvil; it didn’t seem like a software in any respect.
“The stone was oddly shaped and had a red ochre dot, which really caught our eye,” mentioned David Álvarez Alonso, an archaeologist at Complutense College in Madrid.
“We were all thinking the same thing and looking at each other because of its shape: we were all thinking, ‘This looks like a face’. But obviously that wasn’t enough. As we carried on our research, we knew we needed information to be able to advance the hypothesis that there was some purposefulness here, this was a symbolic object and that one possible explanation – although we’ll never know for sure – is that this was the symbolisation of a face.”
Decided to check their conviction that the purple mark was a human fingerprint positioned intentionally between the indentations that might have been the eyes and mouth of a face, the workforce enlisted the assistance of different consultants. Additional investigations confirmed that the pigment, which contained iron oxides and clay minerals, was not discovered elsewhere in or across the cave.
“We then got in touch with the scientific police to determine whether we were right that the dot had been applied using a fingertip,” mentioned Álvarez Alonso. “They confirmed that it had.” The print, they concluded, was human and may very well be that of an grownup male.
“Once we had that and all the other pieces, context and information, we advanced the theory that this could be a pareidolia [catching sight of a face in an ordinary, inanimate object] which then led to a human intervention in the form of the red dot,” mentioned the archaeologist. “Without that red dot, you can’t make any claims about the object.”
Álvarez Alonso argues that the dot’s existence raises questions that each one level in the identical course.
“It couldn’t have been a coincidence that the dot is where it is – and there are no markings to indicate any other use,” he mentioned. “So why did they bring this pebble from the river to the inside of the cave? And, what’s more, there’s no ochre inside the cave or outside it. So they must have had to bring pigment from elsewhere.”
The workforce’s findings, reported within the journal Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, reinforce the concept that Neanderthals – who died out some 40,000 years in the past – have been able to acts of creative and symbolic creation, which means fashionable people weren’t the primary to make use of artwork as a method of expression.
after e-newsletter promotion
“The fact that the pebble was selected because of its appearance and then marked with ochre shows that there was a human mind capable of symbolising, imagining, idealising and projecting his or her thoughts on an object,” the authors write.
“Furthermore, in this case, we can propose that three fundamental cognitive processes are involved in creating art: the mental conception of an image, deliberate communication, and the attribution of meaning. These are the basic elements characterising symbolism and, also prehistoric – non-figurative – art. Furthermore, this pebble could thus represent one of the oldest known abstractions of a human face in the prehistoric record.”
Álvarez Alonso and his colleagues are wanting ahead to the talk that their discovery will reignite over whether or not fashionable people have been the primary artists.
“We’ve set out our interpretation in the article, but the debate goes on,” he mentioned. “And anything to do with Neanderthals always prompts a massive debate. If we had a pebble with a red dot on it that was done 5,000 years ago by Homo sapiens, no one would hesitate to call it portable art. But associating Neanderthals with art generates a lot of debate. I think there’s sometimes an unintentional prejudice.”
Nonetheless, mentioned the archaeologist, he and the remainder of the workforce believed essentially the most logical rationalization was that somebody, a really very long time in the past, “saw something special in this pebble”, picked it up and set about imbuing it with which means.
“Why would a Neanderthal have seen it differently from the way we see it today?” he requested. “They were human, too. The thing here is that we’re dealing with an unparalleled object; there’s nothing similar. It’s not like art where, if you discover a cave painting, there are hundreds more you can use for context. But our assertion is that the Neanderthals had a similar capacity for symbolic thought to Homo sapiens – and we think this object reinforces that notion.”
