Analysis of Brutish You Have to Hand It to the Neanderthals after All - Research Paper Example

?Analysis of “Brutish? You have to hand it to the Neanderthals after all” Introduction The article discusses about recent studies that have proved that the Palaeolithic Stone age cave paintings of images of hands and red discs located in El Castillo cave (part of Iberian art) close to Santander in Northern Spain, that were previously thought to be not more than 25,000 years are about 41,000 years old. The article encompassing the findings of the research by Dr. Alistair Pike of the University of Bristol was initially published in the current issue of science. These findings are important since the paintings are now Europe’s oldest dated paintings. Another aspect that the research has changed is the perception that the painting could have been made by the Homo sapiens. On the contrary, the findings make it more probable that the Neanderthals made the paintings. The article also posits that the wrong dating resulted because scientists dated the paintings using the calcium carbonate layer, which is now believed to have accumulated on the artistic paintings years after the paintings had been made. This paper is an analysis of the article “Brutish? You have to hand it to the Neanderthals after all” authored by David Keys and featured in The Independent. The paper will also scrutinize additional research related to the articles content as well as dating of Palaeolithic cave painting in Europe. The paper will also try to establish the credibility of Keys' article and application of the research findings. Making use of a process referred to as uranium-series disequilibrium, the group that was led by Pike measured the radioactive decomposition of uranium and dated hand stencils and disks in El Castillo cave in Northern Spain. The paintings had been made by using the mouth to blow paint on the wall. The artistic paintings were found to be least 40,800 years old making them the oldest form of art in Europe. These results have ignited the debate on who is responsible for the cave paintings found in Spain and France. Previously, the paintings were attributed to modern humans but research acknowledges that modern man had not invaded Europe 41,000 years ago. At this period, Neanderthals inhabited Europe, which suggests that they could be responsible for these artistic paintings (Keys, 2012). Chauvet Cave paintings in central France were previously recognized as the world's oldest cave art paintings. The Chauvet cave paintings were dated 39,000 years old. However, the Chauvet cave dating is still controversial since it relies on radiocarbon dating making use of charcoal pigments. Archaeologists have put forward that dating based on charcoal pigments is unreliable since the pigments are susceptible to contamination by other forms of carbon, which would affect dating results. Additionally, using charcoal pigments could be erroneous in that the period when the fire was lit might not coincide with the time the painting was made (Keys, 2012; Pettitt and Pike, 2007). I selected this article due to its relevance to our understanding of the past and human history particularly the interactions between the Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. Primordial cave paintings lend a hand in connecting the modern man to the past species. Understanding the activities of the Neanderthal is crucial since he was the immediate ancestor of Homo sapiens, the modern man. Understanding Neanderthal would thus enhance a better understanding of the development of the art of painting. Additionally the findings suggest that the Neanderthals could have been the inventors of cave painting but passed the art to Homo sapiens. Evidence shows that modern humans first appeared in Northern Spain about 41,500 years ago, as successors of the Neanderthals. These findings are contrary to current perceptions that the Homo sapiens instigated artistic painting and that Neanderthals did not practice cave painting (Zilh?ao, 2007; Keys, 2012). Another important aspect roused by these findings is that the interaction between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals could have been more complex than it has been previously perceived. If the speculation that the Neanderthals passed the art of cave painting to the Homo sapiens is true, then the interactions between Neanderthals and modern man were more profound than previous studies had suggested (Keys, 2012). The discovery suggests that the art of cave painting could have resulted from social interactions such as competition between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals. The research was led by Dr. Alistair Pike of the University of Bristol and financed by the United Kingdom’s Natural Environment Research Council. The study entailed evaluation of Uranium and thorium elements in the calcium carbonate layers on the paintings. Direct dating was used because some paintings lacked organic pigment thus could not be dated using radiocarbon dating (Keys, 2012). Other Studies on Palaeolithic Cave Art Previous researches by Pettitt and Pike (2007) had criticized direct dating of European Upper Palaeolithic art arguing that it was often problematic and lacked precision. They also argued that a lot of cave art remained undated thus, attempts to analyse cave art chronologically was premature. Pettit and Pike suggested four methods to be used in obtaining chronologies on cave art. The construction of the chronology should entail dating of actual artistic medium and the materials related to artistic paintings using the four dating methods that include direct dating, indirect associative dating, indirect architectural dating, as well as indirect stratigraphic dating (Pettitt and Pike, 2007). Additionally, Pettitt and Pike argued that we are still in a “frontiers” stage of dating methodology, which entails testing of novel techniques and applications. The article by Pettitt and Pike listed a number of issues that required to be addressed to enhance construction of archeological chronologies (Pettitt and Pike, 2007). The issues include improvement in the dating methods particularly direct dating. The article also argued that the dating of cave art had been minimal and primeval thus publishing of results should entail gathering of enough data to support any claims. Pettit and Pike also argued that use of charcoal pigments as sample material for dating cave art was not efficient enough and there was need to develop better chronologic connection between the charcoal and the time the art was created since the individual who lit the fire might differ from the cave painter. They also dejected dating of cave art by direct comparison of the ages of the caves from place to place, and termed this as a major source of dating errors. They pointed out the need for development of comprehensive methodological dating of sites such as Chauvet, whose dating had resulted into controversies (Pettitt and Pike, 2007). Another example of additional research on upper Palaeolithic dating of cave art was done by Gonzalez (2007) and published in the article “Dating Magdalenian art in North Spain: the current situation.” The study focused on the current treatment of the chronology cave art, particularly the Magdalenian cave art. The article argued that cave art from Cantabrian Spain caves such as La Garma Lower Passage, La Pena del Candamo, El Castillo, La Pasiega, Tito Bustillo,and Llonin, Altamira tend to be different from the other cave art sites. The differences are mainly on the lack of clear depictions and homology on the styles as well as techniques used in the artistic designs in these sites. Different samples taken from the same cave have produced different laboratory results indicating difference in the time the artistic paintings were made, suggesting that different individuals might have used the same cave at different times. According to Gonzalez (2007), the errors could be attributed to the fact that the traditional techniques inclusive of radiocarbon dating are useless especially when organic pigments are lacking. According to brief communications (2001) the chronological order of European prehistoric artistic paintings, particularly those found in the cave, is mainly based on style of fauna dated using the cave remains as well as radiocarbon dating of charcoal pigments within the caves. Another method used in the dating was accelerator mass spectrometry, which involves partition as well as counting of carbon isotopes and is more accurate that the conventional 14C-dating methodologies. The dating process entails dating of the charcoal used in the painting and organic residues related to the paintings. The dating of cave arts has also utilized deposits deposited adjacent to the paintings (Brief communications, 2001). The prolonged chronological existence of Paleolithic art paintings particularly in Mediterranean Spain is striking, though there are a few numbers of sites. Archeologists have thus been unable obtain enough representation of the cave engravings to establish an accurate chronological outline for most of Europe’s parietal art (Brief communications, 2001). According to Bicho et al. (2007), Paleolithic art paintings in Iberia have been studied significantly over the last two decades particularly on aspects pertaining to dating, distribution of the caves and art paintings , documentation, as well as diversity. Additionally, the study of the cave art has been expanded greatly to include the study of the entire Paleolithic rock art. (Bicho et al, 2007). In a study published in the article “The Upper Paleolithic Rock Art of Iberia” (Bicho et al, 2007), there is minimal recorded and detailed information on Iberian rock art, which could be attributed to the excessive dedication of Iberian art archeologists in documenting, dating and analyzing of the field work findings. Another aspect is the fact that Iberian art involves a vast range of ages, is widely distributed, and thus it entails numerous techniques (Bicho et al, 2007). Before the invention and adoption of direct dating, archeologist archeologists used own devised evolutionally schemes to classify the caves as well as the cave paintings in south western France and Spain, the classification was base on the complexity of the cave paintings. The charcoal animal drawings were considered primitive hence oldest while multicolor animals drawings showed apparent complexity hence considered more recent (Sinclair, 2003). Credibility of the Article From the above literature, it is clear that most errors that lead to erroneous dating result due to use of wrong dating methods such as carbon 14 dating as well as indirect comparison of paintings from different cave. Another source of inaccuracy is the use of charcoal remains in dating paintings within a cave, which are often contaminated with other forms of carbon. This study was credible since it made use of direct dating methods, whereby the calcium carbonate lying adjacent to the paintings was used. After reading and reflecting on additional literature materials on the El Castillo art paintings, I believe that the findings by Pike are believable and straightforward since there are no findings that contradict the dating period associated with the arrival of modern humans in Europe, particularly in Spanish and France, where most of the cave paintings are located. The fact that Homo sapiens had not inhabited Europe 41,000 years ago suggests that the Neanderthals might have done the art paintings, which indicates that the article is believable. This finding adds to the vitality of pikes study since it disapproves several previous suggestions regarding the relationship between Homo sapiens and the Neanderthals as well as the reasonableness of the later. Like many people, I previously considered Neanderthals to be brutish and somewhat animalistic cave dwellers. However, these archaeological findings by Pettitt and Pike (2012) suggest Neanderthals were rational beings and very closely related to the modern man such that archaeologists are confused on whether the Neanderthal man or Homo sapiens made the Palaeolithic paintings. However, Pike’s studies as well as the history of evolution of man makes it more probable that the Neanderthals are responsible. The claims in the news article are scientific since they illustrate the findings of a scientific research, which entailed use of scientific methodologies such as experiments using uranium-thorium dating. The experiments can be repeated to prove or disapprove Spike’s findings. However, controversies exist on the issue of whether to attribute the artistic paintings to modern man or the Neanderthal. However, the research has credibly indicated that the paintings were made 41,000 years ago. This is because the cave art are in an era characterized by overlap between modern humans and Neanderthals particularly in Europe. With further research, the actual artists behind the paintings can now be easily established. In Britain, fossils and artifacts of modern man date back to as early as 41,000 years in the past. This means that cave art might be accredited to pre-human era and also makes modern human likely candidates for the art. It is thus important that the scientific process of fossil be repeated using direct dating to ascertain that the dating process was accurate as well as clearly find out the actual time that Homo sapiens inhabited Europe. Conclusion Keys article showed the results of a study done by a group of archaeologists led by Dr. Alistair Pike, which shows that there is a probability that the art paintings in El Castillo cave are the oldest forms of art and not those from Chauvet cafe as previous research had suggested. According to the research, the Neanderthal man, who was previously stereotyped as brutish, unsophisticated, and archaic, may be the one behind these artistic streaks. The article posits that the modern humans probably adopted the art of painting from the Neanderthals, who were their predecessors or they developed the art shortly after, conceivably in reaction to rivalry with the Neanderthals. Previous studies show that Homo sapiens inhabited Europe about 41,000 year ago and were successors of Neanderthals, which suggest that Neanderthal modern man most probably did the El Castillo cave paintings. The actual El Castillo cave painter is unclear since Spikes study results show the painting were done at a period when Neanderthals were in existence and the modern man was emerging in Europe. There is thus need for further research to establish the actual El Castillo cave painter. According to the recent study by Pike, the Spanish artwork at El Castillo turned out to be older than earlier estimations which had been done using the indirect carbon 14 dating as well comparisons of some painting with those from better-dated sites. Carbon dating entailed use of charcoal pigments in the caves with art paintings to date the artwork. This was erroneous since the period when the fire was lit might not coincide with the time the painting was made. Spike’s findings are more believable since the study entailed evaluation of Uranium and thorium elements in the calcium carbonate layers on the paintings, which is a better dating method. The findings of this research were vital since they demonstrated that the Neanderthal was not primitive as previously thought. It also speculated that Neanderthals had close interactions with the Homo sapiens since the study results showed that the Homo sapiens might have learnt the art of cave painting from the Neanderthals. Other studies have shown that a lot of dating requires to be done so as to develop a proper chronology of art paintings in Europe to ensure previous dating errors are resolved. The construction of the chronology should entail dating of actual artistic medium and the materials related to artistic paintings using direct dating, indirect associative dating, indirect architectural dating, as well as indirect stratigraphic dating. References Bicho, N. et al. (2007). The Upper Paleolithic Rock Art of Iberia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 14, No. 1 , DOI: 10.1007/s10816-007-9025-5. Brief communications, (2001, Ocrtober 4). Palaeolithic paintings; Evolution of prehistoric. NATURE, VOL 413 . Macmillan Magazines Ltd. Gonzalez, C. (2007). Dating Magdalenian art in North Spain: the current situation. Retrieved June 30, 2012, from http://creap.fr/pdfs/CGS-Dating-Magdalenian-art-07.pdf Keys, D. (2012, June 15). Brutish? You have to hand it to the Neanderthals after all. The Independent , pp. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/news/brutish-you-have-to-hand-it-to-the-neanderthals-after-all-7851865.htm. Pettitt, P., & Pike, A. (2007). Dating European Palaeolithic Cave Art:. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 14, No. 1 , DOI: 10.1007/s10816-007-9026-4. Sinclair, A. (2003). Art of the ancients. NATURE VOL 426, 18/25 , 774-775. Zilh?ao, J. (2007). The Emergence of Ornaments and Art: An Archaeological Perspective on theOrigins of “Behavioral Modernity”. J Archaeol Res , DOI 10.1007/s10814-006-9008-1. Read More