Archaeologica.org

Well Bednarik is known for his expertise on this subject of course, and the methods he has developed for dating don't seem to have been seriously challenged.

Roy.

Quaere Verum wrote:By the way our next session with the aforementioned professor will be some 15 hours later (I live in Middle East) so that I would really appreciate any accurate answers by that time.

You will have to dig very fast then, Quaere...
If that art has been waiting for our discovery for hundreds of thousands of years it may be a couple weeks, or months, or even years before a more exact dating has been carried out...

But if you are looking at those petroglyphs from an artistic/design viewpoint what does it matter which is the oldest?

Welcome to the board, BTW.
And please say hello to your professor from us.

This question had best be asked in the Old World section.

Giriraj Kumar supervised the excavation at Daraki -Chattan cave and confirmed that the the petroglyphs and hammerstones were from the Lower Paleolithic .The Bhimbetka petroglyphs are considered to be even earlier . If the Makapansgat cobble is a genuine man made object it will be much older than than anything else but it is contentious .

George

Hello, QV and yes, welcome to the board.

The point is an important one. "Art" used as symbolic representation implies that the "artist" had the cognitive power to see and express those symbols. Until very recently this was thought to be the sole preserve of "anatomically modern humans" along with javelins and boats.

Berekhat Ram was dated by tephrochronology to 230,000 years ago in the Middle East which puts it into the realm of homo erectus or possibly neanderthal....if those designation still have any useful purpose.

Minimalist wrote:Until very recently [art] was thought to be the sole preserve of "anatomically modern humans" along with javelins and boats.

Simply the fact that that would mean there would have been a 2.3 million year gap between the 'invention' of fire and the inventions of javelins and boats makes that assumption very unlikely. And all the evidence that has come to light, like those cave paintings, and many stone tools, reinforce that.

Fans of early hominids, especially HE (but why not HE's contemporary hominids like HA and HHe as well?), boating, put that 'invention', I'd rather call it a development, at around 800 KYA. Many of those who also maintain there was a deep sea channel separating Java from the other islands and the Malacca peninsula have an obvious problem explaining Meganthropus paleojavanicus' presence on Java 1,57 MYA...

On a different note: weren't there handfuls of beads associated with some 2.5 million year old hominid craniums or mandibles at Sterkfontein? The details escape me right now, but to me beads are also art. As is the application of our old friend red ochre of course.
So it looks like 'art' as a human/hominid expression form is at least 8 times older than those rock art paintings, QV.

Beads signify symbolling and have been found in Lower Paleolithic contexts ,due to their perishability taphonomic logic suggests that we have only found the most deterioration resistant examples and therefore an even earlier date of their use might be expected .
George

makes that assumption very unlikely.

Yeah, R/S but as we both know unlikelihood never stopped anyone from making an assumption....and believing it as dogma.

Minimalist wrote:

makes that assumption very unlikely.

Yeah, R/S but as we both know unlikelihood never stopped anyone from making an assumption....and believing it as dogma.

Absolutely. But other peeps' dogmas have never stopped us from theorizing, arguing, or creating our own dogmas, has it? In fact those other peeps' dogmas are the very reason we theorize and argue about them, isn't it? Without those other peeps' dogmas – the more ridiculous the better – we wouldn't have this board. So we must actually be grateful for those other peeps' dogmas...

If beads are to be recognised as art, and I see no problems with that, then it would seem reasonable that body decoration was an accepted act at that time, thus 'make up' and possibly tattooing may well pre date even the beads.

Roy.

Digit wrote:If beads are to be recognised as art, and I see no problems with that, then it would seem reasonable that body decoration was an accepted act at that time, thus 'make up' and possibly tattooing may well pre date even the beads.

That's what I meant with red ochre.

What is salient in the use of beads and ochre is not the "artistry" but the fact they signify the use of shared symbolic meaning , implying sophisticated language capabilities .
George

Tiompan wrote:What is salient in the use of beads and ochre is not the "artistry" but the fact they signify the use of shared symbolic meaning , implying sophisticated language capabilities.

That is salient to you (and to me too, BTW), but the OP's question pertained to human/hominid artistic expressions. And beads and (body) make-up are artistic expressions as well as modes of communication (yet another case of and/and, instead of either/or). Exactly like they can be today. But to assume that beads and (body) make-up also "imply sophisticated language capabilities" is a bridge too far for me. After all thousands of different animals' territorial and mating behaviors ooze with "symbolic meaning", but they cannot really be accused of "sophisticated language capabilities", can they? (Let alone of art! ).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1zmfTr2d4c

I think we all see the matter that way George, as RS pointed out with the Ochre.
But body paint and tattoos would probably be less effective as decoration/status in cool climates, whereas beads, decorated clothing etc could be varied, traded even.
I once read an article on the cave paintings in France etc described as evidence of a sudden awaking of the artistic mind, and complained on this forum that such probably represented the end of generations of less permanent expressions.

Roy.

So we must actually be grateful for those other peeps' dogmas...

That is, indeed, a small favor to be grateful for!

Tiompan wrote:What is salient in the use of beads and ochre is not the "artistry" but the fact they signify the use of shared symbolic meaning , implying sophisticated language capabilities .
George

I agree. The "thing" is irrelevant. It is the symbolic usage that matters. As my wife jokingly says "what separates us from the animals is our ability to accessorize."