Archaeologists Discover 200,000-Year-Old Hand & Footprints That Could Be the World’s Earliest Cave Art

Wet cement trig­gers a pri­mal impulse, par­tic­u­lar­ly in chil­dren.

It’s so tempt­ing to inscribe a pris­tine patch of side­walk with a last­ing impres­sion of one’s exis­tence.

Is the coast clear? Yes? Quick, grab a stick and write your name!

No stick?

Sink a hand or foot in, like a movie star…

…or, even more thrilling­ly, a child hominin on the High Tibetan Plateau, 169,000 to 226,000 years ago!

Per­haps one day your sur­face-mar­ring ges­ture will be con­ceived of as a great gift to sci­ence, and pos­si­bly art. (Try this line of rea­son­ing with the angry home­own­er or shop­keep­er who’s intent on mea­sur­ing your hand against the one now per­ma­nent­ly set into their new cement walk­way.)

Tell them how in 2018, pro­fes­sion­al ich­nol­o­gists doing field­work in Que­sang Hot Spring, some 80 km north­west of Lhasa, were over the moon to find five hand­prints and five foot­prints dat­ing to the Mid­dle Pleis­tocene near the base of a rocky promon­to­ry.

Researchers led by David Zhang of Guangzhou Uni­ver­si­ty attribute the hand­prints to a 12-year-old, and the foot­prints to a 7‑year-old.

In a recent arti­cle in Sci­ence Bul­letin, Zhang and his team con­clude that the children’s hand­i­work is not only delib­er­ate (as opposed to “imprint­ed dur­ing nor­mal loco­mo­tion or by the use of hands to sta­bi­lize motion”) but also “an ear­ly act of pari­etal art.”

The Ura­ni­um dat­ing of the traver­tine which received the kids’ hands and feet while still soft is grounds for excite­ment, mov­ing the dial on the ear­li­est known occu­pa­tion (or vis­i­ta­tion) of the Tibetan Plateau much fur­ther back than pre­vi­ous­ly believed — from 90,000–120,000 years ago to 169,000–226,000 years ago.

That’s a lot of food for thought, evo­lu­tion­ar­i­ly speak­ing. As Zhang told TIME mag­a­zine, “you’re simul­ta­ne­ous­ly deal­ing with a harsh envi­ron­ment, less oxy­gen, and at the same time, cre­at­ing this.”

Zhang is stead­fast that “this” is the world’s old­est pari­etal art — out­pac­ing a Nean­derthal artist’s red-pig­ment­ed hand sten­cil in Spain’s Cave of Mal­travieso by more than 100,000 years.

Oth­er sci­en­tists are not so sure.

Anthro­pol­o­gist Paul Taçon, direc­tor of Grif­fith University’s Place, Evo­lu­tion and Rock Art Her­itage Unit, thinks it’s too big of “a stretch” to describe the impres­sions as art, sug­gest­ing that they could be chalked up to a range of activ­i­ties.

Nick Bar­ton, Pro­fes­sor of Pale­olith­ic Arche­ol­o­gy at Oxford won­ders if the traces, inten­tion­al­ly placed though they may be, are less art than child’s play. (Team Wet Cement!)

Zhang coun­ters that such argu­ments are pred­i­cat­ed on mod­ern notions of what con­sti­tutes art, dri­ving his point home with an appro­pri­ate­ly stone-aged metaphor:

When you use stone tools to dig some­thing in the present day, we can­not say that that is tech­nol­o­gy. But if ancient peo­ple use that, that’s tech­nol­o­gy.

Cor­nell University’s Thomas Urban, who co-authored the Sci­ence Bul­letin arti­cle with Zhang and a host of oth­er researchers shares his col­leagues aver­sion’ to def­i­n­i­tions shaped by a mod­ern lens:

Dif­fer­ent camps have spe­cif­ic def­i­n­i­tions of art that pri­or­i­tize var­i­ous cri­te­ria, but I would like to tran­scend that and say there can be lim­i­ta­tions imposed by these strict cat­e­gories that might inhib­it us from think­ing more broad­ly about cre­ative behav­ior. I think we can make a sol­id case that this is not util­i­tar­i­an behav­ior. There’s some­thing play­ful, cre­ative, pos­si­bly sym­bol­ic about this. This gets at a very fun­da­men­tal ques­tion of what it actu­al­ly means to be human.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

1,700 Free Online Cours­es from Top Uni­ver­si­ties

Was a 32,000-Year-Old Cave Paint­ing the Ear­li­est Form of Cin­e­ma?

Hear a Pre­his­toric Conch Shell Musi­cal Instru­ment Played for the First Time in 18,000 Years

40,000-Year-Old Sym­bols Found in Caves World­wide May Be the Ear­li­est Writ­ten Lan­guage

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is the Chief Pri­maol­o­gist of the East Vil­lage Inky zine and author, most recent­ly, of Cre­ative, Not Famous: The Small Pota­to Man­i­festo.  Fol­low her @AyunHalliday.


by | Permalink | Comments (37) |

Sup­port Open Cul­ture

We’re hop­ing to rely on our loy­al read­ers rather than errat­ic ads. To sup­port Open Cul­ture’s edu­ca­tion­al mis­sion, please con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion. We accept Pay­Pal, Ven­mo (@openculture), Patre­on and Cryp­to! Please find all options here. We thank you!


Comments (37)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • Mark de la Rey says:

    Just bril­liant, and I would call it art! Stuck up ‘sci­en­tists’. 🤔😁

  • Jeff L Wright says:

    So let’s just call it “impres­sion­is­tic sym­bol­o­gy” and move on. It obvi­ous­ly invokes abstract think­ing whether kids play­ing with mud today or 200,000 years ago.…

  • Jenni Pragnell says:

    Hi. Won­der­ful but not sur­pris­ing. I’m sure even old­er exam­ples exist but t have yet to be found. What is sur­pris­ing is that some of the prints appear to have only 4 dig­its. Is that actu­al­ly the case. If so it opens up many more ques­tions.

  • Jennifer Murphy says:

    You also have to take in to account age of par­tic­i­pants (not just the cur­rent tech of the day). Are kids with fin­ger paints mak­ing art? It’s not Picas­so but it’s the best they can do and proud par­ents put it on the fridge. Like the pre­vi­ous com­ment says — abstract think­ing — cre­ativ­i­ty, play, some­thing beyond the strict­ly util­i­tar­i­an. In the same vein, is graf­fi­ti art? This may be exact­ly that, “tag­ging” an area with a per­son­al mark. Can’t buy spray paint? Use a sharpie. No sharpie? Use some­thing to etch a mark. No alpha­bet to spell your name? Sign with your fin­ger print (or hand in this case).

  • Tony says:

    We have our facts that are for 27 thou­sand years old with greater ero­sion we have the pyra­mids the Sphinx the Baal­bek at show greater wear from Sand when rain major mud­flat you want me to believe this is still soft and pli­able in 200,000 years old once again Acad­e­mia writ­ing their own his­to­ry to their own ben­e­fit this is total­ly unbe­liev­able

  • Eugene Barufkin says:

    Plain and sim­ple. Describe em as they are.
    “Kids hand prints while play­ing.”

  • EAGLE HUNTER says:

    I am a human being from mt.i dis­cov­ed some­thing’s in north East­ern mt.i believe it to be a bur­ial mound but need you to help it would give our peo­ple 15 yr of work because it’s racial here thank you
    EAGLE HUNTER

  • Ralph W Rastaetter says:

    It’s not soft any­more, it was soft when they made their hand, and foot prints in it.🙂

  • PNUT says:

    You just killed my wife. She was an Eng­lish pro­fes­sor. I loved her very much. My chil­dren are now moth­er­less.

  • Walt Thompson says:

    How did that kill your wife and how are your chil­dren moth­er­less now what brings that to be

  • Mansellyn Ellis says:

    Thou­sands of refrig­er­a­tors across the World would agree that this is an ear­ly form of Art.

  • Kimberly M Pittman says:

    When my chil­dren made fin­ger paint hand prints in preschool and brought them home I hung them on the fridge doors, they were my lit­tle Picas­so’s, and those tiny blue and red smears on con­struc­tion paper are my prized pro­ces­sions! When did mankind stop believ­ing that art like beau­ty is in the eye of the behold­er? My old­est son is 6’2 and his hands are as big as a small new born baby now! 💞

  • Kimberly M Pittman says:

    I agree, so far more intel­li­gent than us sen­ti­men­tal types, they believe that if they con­vinced them­selves they are decod­ing civ­i­liza­tion what they the­o­rize has to be fact because their PhD’s
    and bach­e­lor’s degree’s gives them supe­ri­or­i­ty and author­i­ty to decide what human beings were think­ing, doing and feel­ing 200 thou­sand years ago? Their smug­ness is delib­er­ate and bor­ing! 😴

  • Sheryl Foote says:

    The art vs not art debate seems a waste of time since the truth prob­a­bly lies in whether or not the peo­ple that left the prints did so with artis­tic inten­tion.
    I’m more inter­est­ed in know­ing what method­ol­o­gy was used to esti­mate the ages of the print leavers as 7 and 12 years. How do they know that they were even chil­dren as opposed to mem­bers of a pre­vi­ous­ly unknown race of small peo­ple?

  • Phillip bryant says:

    are they real­ly that stu­pid them are coon and pos­sem tracks lol and they ain’t old at all

  • Phillip bryant says:

    let me change that to rac­coon and opos­sum. I can’t believe how dumb peo­ple are and they say cli­mate change lol

  • Timothy Feldt says:

    It’s more like­ly they’re refer­ring to WHEN the mate­r­i­al was still pli­able. It caught my eye too. The process should have been described dif­fer­ent­ly. Or what you said is true and suits your opin­ion of the source. Either way link clicked 😂

  • Mike Cantelmo says:

    What oth­er ani­mals have the urge to leave their last­ing impres­sions on objects on the earth? Besides dogs on mail­box poles and cats on trees?

  • Bill says:

    He was refer­ring to the ear­li­er post and the numer­ous gram­mat­i­cal and spelling mis­takes. I’m sure it did­n’t real­ly kill his wife.

  • OC says:

    Just curi­ous, how are peo­ple find­ing this post? Seems like we’re get­ting a lot of traf­fic all of a sud­den.

    Thanks for let­ting us know.
    OC

  • A G Patten says:

    I got this from google, who appatent­ly thought I might enjot it more than what “gogeous gown” some actress I’ve nev­er heard of was wear­ing in Jamaica…they ete cor­rect. My guess is. hav­ing watched my grand­kids play­ing in mud, it was 2 kids hav­ing fun in a mud pud­dle. 150–200,000 years ago there prob­a­bly weren’t too many oth­er diver­sions…

  • Sik says:

    Up that High in Tibet. Airs real­ly thin the stone prob­a­bly would sur­vive anoth­er 200k

  • Js says:

    Nope, I’m going to take the side that when the humanoid some­how fell or leaned into the clay, they most like­ly weren’t intend­ing to pro­duce an ice-age-era Dou­ble Elvis. I mean they would have at least have had some­one sign their name to estab­lish prove­nance.

  • Js says:

    I would lean towards “curat­ed arti­fact”

  • Esebamen Kelly Rapheal says:

    Kind­ly send me updates.

  • John Ray says:

    IMO this is art the same way graf­fi­ti is art today. At its base it is leav­ing one’s mark. It is chil­dren behav­ing as chil­dren, explor­ing, test­ing their sur­round­ings, dar­ing each oth­er “I will if you do” I think it tran­scends art as we know it which can be fraught with pol­i­tics, reli­gion, and oth­er mod­ern garbage. It is pure.

  • Mark says:

    Four toes mean they weren’t human…God made man in his imagine..Five toes Five fin­gers..

  • Aaron says:

    Def­i­nite­ly aliens kids made these prints.

  • Thomas says:

    The impres­sions appear to be all right. With that and your log­ic you must be correct/right.

  • Thomas says:

    You are the first to know what God looks like. Hal­lelu­jah, who wrote the bible?

  • J says:

    The lit­tle fin­ger is too long to be a hand­print. It could be an enhanced hand­print which is Art is my hum­ble opin­ion. And the mes­sage is “hi! I was here!” And that mes­sage can­not be denied.

  • Mirza says:

    This is Tru­ly amaz­ing and the more we dis­cov­er the more we learn about our­selves and the impor­tance of know­ing who we were as a peo­ple not just now but 200,000 years ago and fur­ther the more we strive to greater under­stand­ing the bet­ter we will be for it. Keep it up I cant wait to learn more.

  • Melvin scott says:

    Nei­ther ani­mal is native to the coun­try

  • Keith B. PhD. says:

    169,000 to 226,000-year-old kid Art or just juve­nile Fool­ing Around?? That seems to be the bone of con­tention (dis­pute) between West­ern Anthro­pol­o­gists and Archae­ol­o­gists, and Chi­nese ones look­ing to exag­ger­ate a Paleo His­to­ry dis­cov­ery. The Dis­cov­ery is won­der­ful, how­ev­er what it rep­re­sents in its cre­ation is too spec­u­la­tive. Remem­ber, these were cre­at­ed by “Hominins”, NOT “Humans”. 200,000 years ago in South Asia, the Hominins that exist­ed were Homo hei­del­ber­gen­sis and Homo Erec­tus, pri­mar­i­ly in S Asia. These very prim­i­tive Hominins lead to Nean­derthals (Mid East and Europe) and Deniso­vans (N Asia) that we col­or­ful­ly think of as “Cave Men”. Hard­ly “artis­tic” and these Homo hei­del­ber­gen­sis had NO CLUE of “art”, only instead mak­ing very prim­i­tive stone and bone (antler) tools. My train­ing and research in Anthro­pol­o­gy tells me this Chi­nese Archae­ol­o­gist is just look­ing for pub­lic­i­ty, claim­ing it’s ear­ly “Art”.
    [cit. BSc Biol­o­gy, MSc Zool­o­gy, PhD. Ver­te­brate Pale­on­tol­ogy and PhD. Evo­lu­tion­ary Anthro­pol­o­gy — Uni­ver­si­ty of Chica­go and Univ of Cal­i­for­nia at Berke­ley]

  • Bjae says:

    To my roam­ing mind of what makes sense as a reg­u­lar per­son. MY first thought is.….children, or adults did this togeth­er to leave signs of their beings. Not see­ing faces, is a blur of their whole per­dona. But this is very human like. Won­der­ing if you have or still is look­ing in that area to find more his­to­ry. Is it that much inter­est. Msybe faces mashed into that same mate­r­i­al. Inter­est­ing if real his­tor­i­cal humans fid this. Thanks to you for pub­li­ciz­ing this
    Seems as though our human exis­tence is still in ques­tion from the Bible to now. How we look/looked,and why we look dif­fer­ent from so called races, which I tru­ly believe one race, var­i­ous eth­nic­i­ties. And why. Who took the priv­i­leges to sep­a­rate looks of a human to cause harm to cer­tain eth­nic­i­ties. YET it is taught ALL STARTED IN AFRICA. WHICH MEANS ALL HUMANS SHOULD BE CALLED AFRO AMERICANS, ETC PERSONALLY. I HATE THESE DISTURBING LABELS WE ACCEPT.MYSELF I AM HUMSN, FEMALE, PERSON

    ..

  • Bjae says:

    To my roam­ing mind of what makes sense as a reg­u­lar per­son. MY first thought is.….children, or adults did this togeth­er to leave signs of their beings. Not see­ing faces, is a blur of their whole per­dona. But this is very human like. Won­der­ing if you have or still is look­ing in that area to find more his­to­ry. Is it that much inter­est. Msybe faces mashed into that same mate­r­i­al. Inter­est­ing if real his­tor­i­cal humans fid this. Thanks to you for pub­li­ciz­ing this
    Seems as though our human exis­tence is still in ques­tion from the Bible to now. How we look/looked,and why we look dif­fer­ent from so called races, which I tru­ly believe one race, var­i­ous eth­nic­i­ties. And why. Who took the priv­i­leges to sep­a­rate looks of a human to cause harm to cer­tain eth­nic­i­ties. YET it is taught ALL STARTED IN AFRICA. WHICH MEANS ALL HUMANS SHOULD BE CALLED AFRO AMERICANS, ETC PERSONALLY. I HATE THESE DISTURBING LABELS WE ACCEPT.MYSELF I AM HUMAN, FEMALE, PERSON I have not said this before. Since you are going to restrict me.

    ..

  • B Jae says:

    Not .any I’ve heard say we don’t know how God looked. About image of God
    This is true. But in Rev­e­la­tions it describes 2 sword tongue & more
    So maybe in Jesus, peo­ple ŕefer to God. I don’t wor­ship peo­ple stat­ues, pho­tos. I say greater is he that’s in me, than he who is in the world. Mean­ing Hol­ly Spir­it. Some things of cen­turies back we might nev­er know. We don’t real­ly know 100%, maybe not at all how the begin­ning was cre­at­ed. Just accept us now. Stop the divi­sion. Race is one. Eth­nic­i­ty, cul­tures , on& on.

Leave a Reply

Quantcast