Origins of Prehistoric Art – Comprehensive Study Notes

Discovery of the Sulawesi Pig Paintings (2017 – 2021)

• Late-2017 WhatsApp message from Adam Brumm’s Indonesian field team => photo of three leaping pigs on the limestone wall of Leang Tedongnge, Sulawesi.
• Brumm’s immediate reaction (3:58 pm): “Holy hell!!!!! Amazing pig paintings!!!”
• Physical context
  • Large limestone cave set in a remote valley
  • Pigs appear to be involved in social interaction (mating? fighting?)
• Scientific importance
  • Uranium–thorium ($^{238}\text{U} \rightarrow {}^{230}\text{Th}$) dating of over-growing calcite “popcorn” ⇒ minimum age $\ge 45{,}500$ years BP (Before Present).
  • Currently the oldest convincingly dated figurative (representational) art known.
  • Predates Europe’s oldest figurative scenes (Chauvet, France; $\approx 30{,}000$ BP) by $\ge 15{,}000$ years.

Figurative vs. Non-figurative Expression

• Figurative / representational art
  • Depicts recognisable real-world entities; any neutral observer should say “That is a pig.”
  • Examples across history: Hellenistic statues, First Nations masks.
• Non-figurative / abstract art
  • No direct real-world referent; value lies in form, colour, pattern.
  • Modern analogues: Mark Rothko colour-field canvases, Anne Truitt minimalist columns.
• Archaeological record
  • Earliest abstract marks: parallel lines, grids, circles on shell/bone $\sim 500{,}000$ BP (Homo erectus shell, Java).
  • Some archaeologists question whether such engravings are “art” or utilitarian doodles.

The “Creative Revolution” Myth & Its Demise

• 19th- & early-20th-century view (post-Altamira 1880)
  • Art appeared suddenly in Europe $\approx 40{,}000$ BP ⇒ implied cognitive leap (language, religion, symbolic thought).
• Problems with the model
  • Homo sapiens brain volume stable for $\sim 500{,}000$ years.
  • Migration can simulate a “sudden” record (newer groups arrive already possessing skills).
  • Today’s global cultures mix figurative + abstract art; no fixed link to cognition.
  • Brumm: Euro-centric dataset created an illusion of revolution; worldwide evidence shows gradual, diverse emergence.

Chronological Highlights & Dating Methods

• $\mathbf{\ge 500{,}000}$ BP Homo erectus zig-zag on freshwater shell (Trinil, Java).
• $\sim 100{,}000$ BP Blombos Cave (S. Africa) engraved ochre blocks.
• $\sim 65{,}000$ BP First human migration into northern Australia (sets an upper bound for potential art east of Sulawesi).
• $51{,}000$ BP Neanderthal engraved giant-deer bone (triple-L motif), Einhornhöhle cave, Germany.
  • Radiocarbon dating of bone collagen confirms age pre-Homo sapiens arrival.
• $45{,}500$ BP Sulawesi pigs (calcite U/Th dating).
• $43{,}900$ BP Sulawesi hunting scene (four humans + warty pigs/anoas).
• $40{,}000$ BP Hand-stencil rock art, Sulawesi (same U/Th approach).
• $\approx 30{,}000$ BP Chauvet & other European cave art previously thought to mark art’s origin.
• Dating technique recap
  • Measure $R = \frac{^{230}\text{Th}}{^{238}\text{U}}$ in precipitated calcite layers ⇒ convert to absolute age via known half-lives.

Ochre, Beads & Use-Value Debates

• Ochre
  • Possible face/body paint (aesthetic) vs. hide-processing additive (utilitarian).
• Beads
  • Decorative and/or markers of group identity; challenge: proving purely aesthetic intent.
• Archaeological criterion (widely used): behaviour seemingly without practical function = probable art.

Abstract Marks, Symbolism & Other Hominins

• Homo erectus & Neanderthals likely produced deliberate, visually engaging engravings long before Homo sapiens diaspora.
• Leder’s conclusions (Einhornhöhle bone)
  • Precise, angled cuts ⇒ intentional patterning.
  • Supports Neanderthal capacity for symbolic or aesthetic behaviour.
• Implication: push origin of artistic behaviour “much longer timeframe,” not just $\le 45{,}000$ BP.

Cognitive & Neuroarchaeological Experiments

• Kristian Tylen et al. (2020)
  • Dataset: abstract engravings $\le 100{,}000$ BP (Blombos & elsewhere).
  • Tests with modern participants
  • Memorability: flash image, redraw ⇒ younger engravings easier to recall.
  • Discriminability: speed-matching identical patterns ⇒ no time-trend difference.
  • Interpretation: early marks = “proto-art” aimed at pleasing visual system, not conveying fixed meanings.
• Derek Hodgson (2019 review)
  • Visual-cortex bias: neurons prefer horizontal/vertical ⇒ explains global recurrence of grids & crosses.
  • Argues limited cultural variation implies aesthetics > symbolism.
• Francesco d’Errico rebuttal (2019)
  • fMRI on modern participants
  • Scrambled stimuli activate only primary visual cortex (V1).
  • Real engravings activate higher-order object-processing areas ⇒ perceived as organized representations.
  • Suggests potential symbolic load.
  • Acknowledges limitation: modern literacy may over-activate symbolism circuits.
• Ongoing/future work
  • Compare archaeologists vs. non-experts viewing genuine vs. pseudo-engravings.
  • Hypothesis: experts’ motor cortex lights up (mental simulation of carving gestures).

Competing Definitions of “Art”

• Behavioural-non-utilitarian criterion (most common).
• Symbolism criterion (art must encode meaning).
• Social-role criterion (d’Errico)
  • Art begins when society recognises a specialised “artist” role with unique training/skill.
• Result: “When did art begin?” answers differ by chosen definition.

Converging Insights & Open Questions

• Figurative and abstract traditions may have independent origins rather than a single linear progression.
• European Palaeolithic figurines decorated with abstract engravings ⇒ simultaneous dual modes (aesthetic-abstract & symbolic-figurative).
• Expectation of older art
  • Brumm plans surveys east of Sulawesi toward Papua & N. Australia; potential $\ge 65{,}000$ BP paintings.
  • Could double the accepted duration of human artistic activity.
• Overarching research questions
  • At what point on the continuum from utilitarian mark to symbolic sign to aesthetic object do we apply the label “art”?
  • Why did different hominins begin making marks that serve no clear survival function?

Ethical, Philosophical & Practical Implications

• Challenges to Euro-centric narratives reshape understanding of global human creativity.
• Recognition of Neanderthal & late-Homo erectus capacities narrows cognitive gap assumptions.
• Conservation stakes: tropical cave art degrades rapidly; urgency for documentation.
• Public perception: discoveries force re-evaluation of what it means to be “modern” and “human.”

Key Numerical / Statistical Facts & Equations

• Uranium–thorium dating ratio $R = \frac{^{230}\text{Th}}{^{238}\text{U}}$ used to derive absolute age $t = \frac{1}{\lambda<em>{238} - \lambda</em>{230}} \ln!\bigl(1 + R(\lambda<em>{238} - \lambda</em>{230})\bigr)$ (simplified form).
• Age milestones (approximate)
  • $500{,}000$ BP––H. erectus shell engraving.
  • $100{,}000$ BP––Blombos abstract ochres.
  • $65{,}000$ BP––human arrival Australia.
  • $51{,}000$ BP––Neanderthal bone engraving.
  • $45{,}500$ BP––Sulawesi pigs.
  • $43{,}900$ BP––Sulawesi hunting scene.
  • $40{,}000$ BP––hand stencils, Sulawesi.
  • $30{,}000$ BP––Chauvet figurative cave art.
• Brain size stability: no significant change in Homo sapiens cranial capacity for $\sim 500{,}000$ years.