Back to Don's Maps


walls of china Back to Archaeological Sites



Recent additions, changes and updates to Don's Maps


Navigation

Java Shells


La Madeleine gisement

Entrance of l'abri Raymonden, 45°12′39.4″ N, 0°40′24.5″ E

Photo: Père Igor
Permission: GNU Free Documentation License

New Scientist article 6th Dec 2014 photo is in images32: javashelltimelinenewscientist.psd Shell 'art' made 300,000 years before humans evolved 03 December 2014 by Catherine Brahic Magazine issue 2998. Subscribe and save For similar stories, visit the Books and Art and Human Evolution Topic Guides A shell etched by Homo erectus is by far the oldest engraving ever found, challenging what we know about the origin of art and complex human thought THE artist – if she or he can be called that – was right-handed and used a shark's tooth. They had a remarkably steady hand and a strong arm. Half a million years ago, on the banks of a calm river in central Java, they scored a deep zigzag into a clam shell. We will never know what was going on inside its maker's head, but the tidy, purposeful line (pictured above right) has opened a new window into the origins of our modern creative mind. It was found etched into the shell of a fossilised freshwater clam, and is around half a million years old – making the line by far the oldest engraving ever found. The date also means it was made two to three hundred thousand years before our own species evolved, by a more ancient hominin, Homo erectus. "It is a fascinating discovery," says Colin Renfrew, an archaeologist at the University of Cambridge. "The earliest abstract decoration in the world is really big news." The shell was dug up in Trinil, Indonesia, in the 1890s by Dutch geologist Eugene Dubois, and was one of many fossil finds in the area, including bones of Homo erectus and several animals. The shell collection sat in a museum in Leiden, the Netherlands, for over a century. Seven years ago, PhD student Stephen Munro, now at the Australian National University in Canberra, was in the country for a few days and stayed with archaeologist Josephine Joordens of the University of Leiden. She was re-exploring the Dubois collection at the time, and as Munro was also studying ancient molluscs, Joordens encouraged him to take a look. Pressed for time, he photographed each one before heading back to Australia. "A week later I received an email," Joordens recalls. "He wrote that there was something strange on one of the shells and did I know what it was?" Ever since then, Joordens and her team have been meticulously documenting all the Dubois clams. Sediment inside them and tiny grains pulled from cracks were dated, to reveal that they had been buried between 430,000 and 540,000 years ago (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature13962). One turned out to be a tool, its sharpened edge probably used for scraping. Many were pierced where the clam's muscle attaches to the shell. When the team made similar holes in live clams, the damage to the muscle forced them open. "It must have been a fairly quiet riverine environment with lots of shells," says Joordens. "Probably hominins living in the area exploited it." She says the entire site was buried suddenly, possibly the result of a volcanic eruption or a flash flood. Meanwhile, Francesco d'Errico, a palaeoanthropologist at the University of Bordeaux in France, known for his work on early hominin engravings, tried to replicate the etch, down to its microstructure. He tested three pointed tools: a flint, a shark's tooth and a steel scalpel. The shark's tooth – many of which were also found at the Java site – offered the closest match. The experiments showed that the line is too deep and straight to have been made by an idle hand. Fresh Pseudodon clam shells have a dark brown coat, so the etch would have made a striking white line. All this suggests that it was made deliberately, and yet, unlike tools, the mark has no obvious function. It may have been a decoration, or a practice run for a decoration on another object. That's important because Homo sapiens was thought to be the first species to produce abstract, non-functional designs. No other animal, not even a chimpanzee, has ever been known to make non-functional markings. "It's very carefully done," says Andrew Whiten, a psychologist and primatologist at the University of St Andrews in the UK. "There is a wonderfully straight section and the [etch] turns in one continuous line. That's not just intentional but careful in what strikes as a very modern way. Apes aren't doing that. It would be staggering if they did." So did the etching have some kind of meaning for its maker? And what can it tell us about the origins of complex human thought and artistic expression? "We cannot look into the mind of the person who made it," says Joordens. But we can speculate. One thing the marks suggest is that half a million years ago, these distant ancestors already had some sense of aesthetics. "So far," says Renfrew, "we haven't had much indication that H. erectus was doing much other than making beautiful tools and hand axes." Some see a sense of aesthetics in the tools – perhaps even making their owners more attractive to potential mates. But that is controversial and, besides, tools are undeniably useful. Still, d'Errico suggests the lines might have been a sort of signature, indicating ownership. That would mean they had a function of sorts, but takes nothing away from their abstract nature. "Whether the zigzag pattern had a specific meaning or was merely a sort of doodle seems irrelevant," says David Edelman, a neuroscientist who was most recently at Bennington College in Vermont. What is significant is that the shape is not immediately linked to anything concrete or to survival. "Regardless of intent, the very process of rendering a geometric form would seem to indicate the workings of a mind no longer tethered solely to the here and now, but capable of a uniquely abstract form of conscious 'wandering'," Edelman says. The etch also suggests H. erectus was integrating different domains of knowledge – thought to be a key stage in the evolution of our creative minds. "Our results indicate that these shells were seen at the same time as a source of food, a raw material to make tools, and a canvas on which to produce engravings," says d'Errico. With only a few lines on a single shell, it is impossible to say how unusual the Trinil aesthete was at the time. It's possible – likely, according to some – that many more etchings were made on materials that did not survive or remain to be found. Or the zigzag could have been the work of a rare early creative mind. Either way, the Trinil shell offers a compelling insight. Bones tell us about how our ancestors looked and moved. They say very little about thoughts. So in the end, perhaps the most striking aspect is the etching's familiarity. "In a way," says Joordens, "it is emotionally touching, seeing something so old that looks like something you could have made yourself." http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/oldest-art-was-carved-onto-shell-540000-years-ago-141203.htm ************ 1--closeup-of-the-engraving.jpg This is a close up of lines from the engraving. WIM LUSTENHOUWER, VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDA The world's oldest engraving was made approximately 540,000 years ago by Homo erectus living at Java, Indonesia. The engraving featured a geometric pattern on a mollusk shell. Here you can see a close up of lines from the engraving. WIM LUSTENHOUWER, VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM ***************** 2--engraved-shell.jpg Scientists determined the ancient ancestor of modern humans made the engraving with a shark tooth. The ancient art was found at a site in Java, Indonesia in the 1890s and was then stored in the Dubois collection of the Naturalis museum in Leiden, The Netherlands. Sediment within the shells enabled modern researchers to date the piece using both isotopic and luminescence methods. Shown is the fossil shell with the engraving. WIM LUSTENHOUWER, VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM ***************** closupofengravingsm.jpg The age of the engraving is astounding, as the earliest previously known indisputable engravings are at least 300,000 years younger than the recently identified item. Here, an engraved line is magnified. JOORDENS ET AL. ***************** 4--reverse-side-of-the-engraved-shellsm.jpg The inside of the fossil shell, which shows that the hole made by Homo erectus is at the exact spot where the mollusk's muscle is attached to the shell. Humans today remove mussel flesh from shells in a similar manner, only with tools other than shark teeth. HENK CASPERS, NATURALIS, LEIDEN, THE NETHERLANDS ***************** 5--shell-tool.jpg A shell tool was also found among the shells that included the engraving. The shell tool is shown here with a close-up of the sharp edge that was likely used for cutting or scraping. FRANCESCO D'ERRICO, BORDEAUX UNIVERSITY ***************** Text below from: http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/oldest-art-was-carved-onto-shell-540000-years-ago-141203.htm Some 540,000 years ago, an ancient ancestor of modern humans took a shark tooth and carefully carved a geometric engraving on a mollusk shell. The engraving -- the oldest piece of art ever found by at least 300,000 years -- as well as a shell tool were found at a site in what is now Java, Indonesia. The work strongly suggests that Homo erectus, aka "Upright Man," was far more sophisticated than previously thought, being capable of cognition and behavior only attributed before to our species. Photos: See the Ancient Engraving Up Close PLAY VIDEO Could Neanderthals Talk Like Us? Could Neanderthals, long thought to be unable to vocalize, actually talk to each other? The findings are published in the current issue of the journal Nature. The age of the engraving is astounding, as no other art, even cave and rock paintings, are as old. The international team of researchers analyzed the imprint of the engraving to determine that Homo erectus made the engraving with a shark tooth. "It was probably through the opening of shells with a shark tooth for food that at least one individual made a 'next step' by putting the tool to the shell for scratching lines, instead of, or in addition to, drilling a hole for opening the shell," lead author Josephine Joordens told Discovery News. "With already a shell in one hand and a sharp tool in the other hand, it is not such a big step to take, but in our eyes now it was a giant leap for mankind, so to speak!" added Joordens, who is a post-doctoral researcher at Leiden University. She and her colleagues made the determination after studying a fossil freshwater mussel shell assemblage from a site called Trinil in Java. The mussel shells originally were excavated by Eugène Dubois in the 1890s, but have been stored in the Dubois collection of the Naturalis museum in Leiden, The Netherlands. Sediment within the shells enabled them to be dated using both isotopic and luminescence methods. The shell tool found within the assemblage was probably used as a knife for cutting or scraping, the researchers believe. The prehistoric artist also put effort into the early engraving. "When we tried to reproduce such a pattern by engraving a fresh shell with a shark tooth, we found it required a lot of strength and skill, especially to make such neat angles where the lines are exactly joined together," Joordens said. "The maker certainly must have put a lot of effort in it. Also, it is important to appreciate that originally the lines must have been white on a black-brown background: visually very striking." Early Humans Brought to Life in Exhibit: Photos The meaning of the design remains a mystery. The pattern could have held some symbolic significance, or the creator simply could have liked the linear design. As for the shark teeth that the engraver used, only two sharks are known from the region at the time: the Ganges shark and the sand tiger shark. It's possible that Homo erectus hunted sharks for their meat, but the early humans might have also just found the teeth, as sharks tend to shed them a lot. The teeth could have washed up on a river shore, or on a nearby sea coast. Life for Homo erectus at Java appears not to have been too miserable. "The good thing about these aquatic resources (shellfish) is that they are abundantly present and easy to collect, and very nutritious, so this would imply that life was not too tough for Homo erectus there," Joordens explained. Stephen Munro, a curator at the National Museum of Australia and a researcher at Australian National University, told Discovery News that the archaeological finds, as well as the stocky build of Homo erectus, suggest that the population was specialized for foraging in relatively shallow waters for slow-moving foods, such as shellfish. "They no doubt spent much of their time on land gathering food, and we know they butchered large mammals, but their very heavy bones suggest they never moved far from water, and apparently regularly foraged in the water," he said. The possibilities concerning what happened to Homo erectus later are profound. "It may have evolved into Homo sapiens and perhaps into multiple species," Joordens said. "All modern humans today may be distantly related to Homo erectus." Another possibility is that people of Asian and European ancestry "may have, in addition to Neanderthal and Denisovan genes, also some Homo erectus in our genomes," she said. Joordens and her colleagues are already planning a follow-up study on Homo erectus, to determine what other "modern" behaviors it was capable of performing. *********************************** Scientists determined the ancient ancestor of modern humans made the engraving with a shark tooth. The ancient art was found at a site in Java, Indonesia in the 1890s and was then stored in the Dubois collection of the Naturalis museum in Leiden, The Netherlands. Sediment within the shells enabled modern researchers to date the piece using both isotopic and luminescence methods. Shown is the fossil shell with the engraving. WIM LUSTENHOUWER, VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM (main photo of shell engraved) The age of the engraving is astounding, as the earliest previously known indisputable engravings are at least 300,000 years younger than the recently identified item. Here, an engraved line is magnified. The inside of the fossil shell, which shows that the hole made by Homo erectus is at the exact spot where the mollusk's muscle is attached to the shell. Humans today remove mussel flesh from shells in a similar manner, only with tools other than shark teeth. HENK CASPERS, NATURALIS, LEIDEN, THE NETHERLANDS A shell tool was also found among the shells that included the engraving. The shell tool is shown here with a close-up of the sharp edge that was likely used for cutting or scraping. FRANCESCO D'ERRICO, BORDEAUX UNIVERSITY http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/oldest-art-was-carved-onto-shell-540000-years-ago-141203.htm EVOLUTION Oldest Art Was Carved Onto Shell 540,000 Years Ago DEC 3, 2014 01:00 PM ET // BY JENNIFER VIEGAS Some 540,000 years ago, an ancient ancestor of modern humans took a shark tooth and carefully carved a geometric engraving on a mollusk shell. The engraving -- the oldest piece of art ever found by at least 300,000 years -- as well as a shell tool were found at a site in what is now Java, Indonesia. The work strongly suggests that Homo erectus, aka "Upright Man," was far more sophisticated than previously thought, being capable of cognition and behavior only attributed before to our species. Photos: See the Ancient Engraving Up Close PLAY VIDEO Could Neanderthals Talk Like Us? Could Neanderthals, long thought to be unable to vocalize, actually talk to each other? The findings are published in the current issue of the journal Nature. The age of the engraving is astounding, as no other art, even cave and rock paintings, are as old. The international team of researchers analyzed the imprint of the engraving to determine that Homo erectus made the engraving with a shark tooth. "It was probably through the opening of shells with a shark tooth for food that at least one individual made a 'next step' by putting the tool to the shell for scratching lines, instead of, or in addition to, drilling a hole for opening the shell," lead author Josephine Joordens told Discovery News. "With already a shell in one hand and a sharp tool in the other hand, it is not such a big step to take, but in our eyes now it was a giant leap for mankind, so to speak!" added Joordens, who is a post-doctoral researcher at Leiden University. She and her colleagues made the determination after studying a fossil freshwater mussel shell assemblage from a site called Trinil in Java. The mussel shells originally were excavated by Eugène Dubois in the 1890s, but have been stored in the Dubois collection of the Naturalis museum in Leiden, The Netherlands. Sediment within the shells enabled them to be dated using both isotopic and luminescence methods. The shell tool found within the assemblage was probably used as a knife for cutting or scraping, the researchers believe. The prehistoric artist also put effort into the early engraving. "When we tried to reproduce such a pattern by engraving a fresh shell with a shark tooth, we found it required a lot of strength and skill, especially to make such neat angles where the lines are exactly joined together," Joordens said. "The maker certainly must have put a lot of effort in it. Also, it is important to appreciate that originally the lines must have been white on a black-brown background: visually very striking." Early Humans Brought to Life in Exhibit: Photos The meaning of the design remains a mystery. The pattern could have held some symbolic significance, or the creator simply could have liked the linear design. As for the shark teeth that the engraver used, only two sharks are known from the region at the time: the Ganges shark and the sand tiger shark. It's possible that Homo erectus hunted sharks for their meat, but the early humans might have also just found the teeth, as sharks tend to shed them a lot. The teeth could have washed up on a river shore, or on a nearby sea coast. Life for Homo erectus at Java appears not to have been too miserable. "The good thing about these aquatic resources (shellfish) is that they are abundantly present and easy to collect, and very nutritious, so this would imply that life was not too tough for Homo erectus there," Joordens explained. Stephen Munro, a curator at the National Museum of Australia and a researcher at Australian National University, told Discovery News that the archaeological finds, as well as the stocky build of Homo erectus, suggest that the population was specialized for foraging in relatively shallow waters for slow-moving foods, such as shellfish. "They no doubt spent much of their time on land gathering food, and we know they butchered large mammals, but their very heavy bones suggest they never moved far from water, and apparently regularly foraged in the water," he said. The possibilities concerning what happened to Homo erectus later are profound. "It may have evolved into Homo sapiens and perhaps into multiple species," Joordens said. "All modern humans today may be distantly related to Homo erectus." Another possibility is that people of Asian and European ancestry "may have, in addition to Neanderthal and Denisovan genes, also some Homo erectus in our genomes," she said. Joordens and her colleagues are already planning a follow-up study on Homo erectus, to determine what other "modern" behaviors it was capable of performing. **************************************** Note that there is no text available for the nature photos, such as nature9.jpg Abstract: The manufacture of geometric engravings is generally interpreted as indicative of modern cognition and behaviour1. Key questions in the debate on the origin of such behaviour are whether this innovation is restricted to Homo sapiens, and whether it has a uniquely African origin1. Here we report on a fossil freshwater shell assemblage from the Hauptknochenschicht (‘main bone layer’) of Trinil (Java, Indonesia), the type locality of Homo erectus discovered by Eugène Dubois in 1891 (refs 2 and 3). In the Dubois collection (in the Naturalis museum, Leiden, The Netherlands) we found evidence for freshwater shellfish consumption by hominins, one unambiguous shell tool, and a shell with a geometric engraving. We dated sediment contained in the shells with 40Ar/39Ar and luminescence dating methods, obtaining a maximum age of 0.54 ± 0.10 million years and a minimum age of 0.43 ± 0.05 million years. This implies that the Trinil Hauptknochenschicht is younger than previously estimated. Together, our data indicate that the engraving was made by Homo erectus, and that it is considerably older than the oldest geometric engravings described so far4, 5. Although it is at present not possible to assess the function or meaning of the engraved shell, this discovery suggests that engraving abstract patterns was in the realm of Asian Homo erectus cognition and neuromotor control. Figure1: (See Supplementary Information sections 1-2 and 4). a, Map of Central Java with major hominin sites and volcanic uplands. b, Stratigraphy of Trinil. A = Marine breccia (“Marine Breccie”). B = Mudstone (“Thonstein”). C = Conglomerate (“Conglomerat”). D = Trinil Hauptknochenschicht (“Lapilli Schicht”) containing H. erectus fossils. E = Soft sandstone (“Weicher Sandstein”). F = unnamed level. G = soil. c–j, Scans of thin sections of fossil Pseudodon infilled shell DUB 9717-b (c–f) and of infill DUB 9735 (g–j). The numbers refer to the numbered descriptions in Supplementary Information section 2. Images c, d, g and h are made by reflective scanning; images e, f, i, j are made by transmissive scanning. Scale bar, 4 cm. k, Pseudodon shell length–height data. Black dots show the fossil Pseudodon vondembuschianus trinilensis assemblage from Trinil. Coloured dots show recent Pseudodon vondembuschianus assemblages collected on Java in the 1930s. Figure2: (See Supplementary Information section 3 and Supplementary Table 2.) a, Fossil Femur I from Trinil undergoing XRF analysis. Dorsomedially, just below mid-shaft is a small white circle representing the filled hole where K. P. Oakley drilled a bone sample. b, Scatter plot of CaO versus P2O5. All values measured with hand-held XRF on hominin and non-hominin bones are included. The line represents the CaO/P2O5 ratio in fresh bone. c, CaO/P2O5 ratios of hominin bones from Trinil. The values were measured with hand-held XRF at four to seven locations on the bones. ‘Calotte’ indicates the skull cap named Trinil 2. d, Scatterplot of sulphur (S) versus Fe2O3 content of fossil bones. Data points represent all measurements performed on hominin fossils from Trinil, plus non-hominin fossil fauna from Trinil and Kedung Brubus. In pyrite, the Fe2O3/S ratio is 1.126. The arrows highlight the measurement locations on Femur II where elevated contents of S and Fe2O3 were measured, which explains the two high CaO/P2O5 values (4 and 4.5) in c. e, Scatterplot of Ba versus Y (calcium-corrected) content of fossil bones. Data points represent all measurements done on hominin fossils from Trinil, plus non-hominin fauna from Trinil and Kedung Brubus. f, Detail of the Ba–Y scatterplot in e. Figure3: (See Supplementary Information sections 5–7.) a, Fossil Pseudodon shell DUB9718-a (detail in b); c, DUB5234-aR (detail in d); e, DUB9714-bR (detail in f). Scale bar, 1 cm. g, Recent Lobatus gigas (“Strombus”) shell with a hole at the location of the columellar muscle attachment, made by pre-Hispanic modern humans (photograph provided by C. L. Hofman). Scale bar, 1 cm. h, Detailed view of g. i, Similar hole in another Lobatus gigas specimen (photograph provided by A. Antczak). Scale bar, 1 cm. j, Experimentally drilling a hole in a living Potamida littoralis specimen, using a fossil shark tooth. k, Hole drilled, damaging the adductor muscle. l, The shell starts to gape. m, The valves can be easily opened. n, Example of undamaged fossil teeth of the shark species Glyphis sp. from Trinil. o, Glyphis teeth with side damage, on the serrated edge. p, Glyphis sp. teeth with tip damage. q, Glyphis sp. teeth with tip and side damage. Scale bar, in q, 1 cm, also applies to n–p. r, Fossil teeth of the shark species Carcharius taurus from Trinil. Scale bar, 1cm. s, Detail of a fossil Carcharius taurus tooth. Figure4: (See Supplementary Information section 8.) a, Interior of the shell valve. b, Ventral margin with contiguous flake scars. c, Shallow striations parallel to the retouched edge. d, Micropits made by pecking with a sharp agent. e–g, Magnifications of the retouched edge, showing step fractures associated with rounding and smoothing of the edge. h, Traces of damage by roots or fungi inside and across the striations. Scale bars: 1 cm in a and b and f, 1.25 mm in c, 1.5 mm in d, 0.5 mm in e and h, and 1 mm in g. Figure5: (See Supplementary Information section 9.) a, Tracing of the engraved lines, with numbers indicating the sequence of engraving. b, White rectangles refer to the locations of the images shown in the panels of Extended Data Figs 5 and 6, featuring portions of grooves and intersections. The white dots indicate the location of the areas where three-dimensional roughness parameters were measured (Supplementary Table 4). Scale bar, 1 cm. c, Composite of four SEM images made of a portion of groove number 3–4; numbered locations of the grooves on the shell are shown in panels a and b. d, Intersection number 2. e, Portion of groove number 6–7. f, Portion of groove number 1–2. g, Infinite Focus image of a portion of groove number 3–4; see b for location on the shell (same as the location of c). Scale bar, 1 mm. figure6: (See Supplementary Information section 9.) a, Portion of groove in DUB1006-fL (see Extended Data Fig. 5b for location on the shell). b, Experimental groove made with shark tooth tip. c, Experimental groove made with flint point. d, Experimental groove made with steel scalpel. e–h, Higher magnification (200× instead of 60×) of Extended Data Fig. 5a–d. i, Infinite Focus image of groove in DUB1006-fL (see Extended Data Fig. 5b for location on the shell). j, Infinite Focus image of experimental groove made with shark tooth tip. k, Infinite Focus image of experimental groove made with flint point. l, Infinite Focus image of experimental groove made with steel scalpel. m, Infinite Focus image of groove number 6–7 in DUB1006-fL (see Extended Data Fig. 5b for location on the shell). Scale bar, 1 mm. Figure7: (See Supplementary Information section 10.) a, b, Pseudodon shells DUB9721-bR (Trinil-2) and DUB9714-bR (Trinil-3) with detrital infilling used for 40Ar/39Ar analysis. The other side of hominin-modified valve DUB9714-bR is featured in Extended Data Fig. 3e. Scale bar, 1 cm. c, 40Ar/39Ar analysis results on multiple-grain hornblende obtained from three samples. They constitute three populations (age groups) of ‘young’, ‘middle’ and ‘old’ age respectively. Note that three individual analyses (indicated in italics) belong to both the ‘young’ and ‘middle’ populations on statistical grounds. figure8: (See Supplementary Information section 10.) a, Total population of hornblende data, showing probability density curve, individual analyses with 1σ analytical uncertainties, and percentage enrichment in radiogenic 40Ar and estimates of the K/Ca ratios calculated from 39Ar/37Ar ratios. b, Three populations (age groups) as identified in the Trinil sample. Note that three individual analyses belong both to the ‘young’ (blue) and ‘middle’ (green) populations on statistical grounds. The error bars represent the 1σ analytical uncertainties. c, Inverse isochron representation of all three data sets showing overlap of the respective non-radiogenic intercepts with atmospheric 40Ar/36Ar ratios, and the isochron regression of the three subsets in blue (young), green (middle) and red (old) populations. The outliers are in grey. The 1σ error ellipses are in most cases smaller than the symbol size. MSWD, mean squared weighted deviate. Figure9: (See Supplementary Information section 11.) a, Outside of the left valve of Pseudodon DUB1006-fL with engraving. b, Outside of the right valve. c, Inside of the right valve with infill, before sampling for luminescence dating. d, Inside of the right valve with infill, after sampling. e, pIRIR decay curves and dose–response behaviour for two representative individual aliquots of samples DUB1006-f(I) (left) and (II) (right) obtained from the engraved shell. The upper panels of e show the pIRIR signals for the natural dose (Ln), test dose (Tx) and regenerative dose (Lx). Indicated on the graphs are the integration intervals used for analysis. The lower panels of e show sensitivity-corrected dose–response curves showing the saturation behaviour, and the natural signal intercept that is above 2D0 for both aliquots. Figure10 (See Supplementary Information section 12.) The upper panel shows dating results from this study compared with previous age estimates, against the background of the marine isotope record. The lower panel shows a selection of engraved objects of Middle and Late Pleistocene age, with the chronological position of each indicated. a, Trinil, b, Quneitra, c, Klasies River Cave 1, d, Blombos Cave (~100 kyr), e, Qafzeh, f, Blombos Cave (~75 kyr), g, Diepkloof. Scale bar, 1 cm. ****************************************

skeleton chancelade man


Photo:




References

  1. Leroi-Gourhan A., 1973: Prähistorische Kunst: d. Ursprünge d. Kunst in Europa, Herder, 1973 - 601 pages
  2. Lorblanchet M., 1995: Les grottes ornees de la prehistoire: Nouveaux regards, Editions Errance (1995)
  3. Marshack, A., 1972: The Roots of Civilization: the Cognitive Beginning of Man’s First Art, Symbol and Notation New York, McGraw-Hill


Back to Don's Maps


walls of china Back to Archaeological Sites