# Homo Erectus - an artist?



## Brian G Turner (Oct 20, 2003)

Here's something very interesting - and extremely controversial - idea: that _Homo Erectus_ made stone carvings.

This is an important debate, because this takes the root of human consciousness by way of conceptual thought much further back than had previously been postulated.

And, of course, with the idea of _Homo Erectus_ making stone carvings, comes the possibility of spiritual belief.

A debate to watch out for:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3197402.stm

*Ancient carved 'faces' found*

A keen-eyed archaeologist claims to have found some of the oldest artwork ever - carved faces 200,000 years old. 

The human images were found in 2001 by Pietro Gaietto on an expedition through the Borzonasca district of Italy. 

He claims the rock has been sculpted into faces that look in opposite directions; one is bearded with what Gaietto calls an "expressive face".

If this is genuine, the artist would have been an extinct human species that died out about 150,000 years ago. 

*Cliff face* 

Local inhabitants say that prehistoric human faces are nothing new to the region and point to a rock cliff that they believe has been sculpted. They call it the Face of Borzone. 

In 2001, in a pile of rubble collected for use as building material, Pietro Gaietto, from the Museum of the Origins of Man, saw something unusual in one particular head-sized rock. 

"If I had not spotted it, it would have been covered in concrete and put into a wall," he told BBC News Online. 

Pietro Gaietto says it shows two heads, facing outwards and joined at the neck. One of the faces is bearded; the other is beardless. 

*Conceptual thought* 

"It has a very expressive face," he says. "The beardless face has two eyes, a mouth and a wide nose." 

He says close inspection of the rock reveals that it has been carved and knocked into shape. 

Gaietto believes the sculpture is 200,000 years old, and would have been used in rituals. 

He says it would have been made by an extinct species of human called _Homo erectus_, of which there is evidence in the region. 

*Older still* 

Gaietto's claims are controversial because hominids such as _Homo erectus_ are not thought to have been capable of the symbolic thought needed to create art. 

The earliest examples of human artwork that scientists feel confident to describe as such are all less than 100,000 years old. 

The most notable items are probably the 70,000-year-old engraved ochre pieces found in the Blombos Cave of South Africa. 

But there are items some researchers have claimed to be art that are even older than the faces of Borzonasca. 

The so-called Tan-Tan object unearthed in Morocco in 1999 is said to be a 400,000-year-old sculpted figurine.

Mainstream science, however, believes these items are not man-made at all. It argues the distinctive features have very probably been moulded by geological processes.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Oct 20, 2003)

This is quite interesting.  The problem I see, however, is that it will be very difficult to prove one way or the other, as are many questions that speak to cognitive issues - such as possessing the consciousness, and self-consciousness to make art.  The article is quite right in pointing out that mainstream science will have a great deal of trouble with these findings.  However, I have to say that mainstream science is sometimes a bit to stodgy and conservative for its own good - my own personal opinion.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I _would_ like to see photos of some of the items in question.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 21, 2003)

Ah, yes - I forgot to post a photo! There are some on the article link, but here's one coming anyway.

As for the claims - I'll file them under "interesting but unproven and possible just over-zealously made, but mainstream science is old and stodgy anyway".


----------



## littlemissattitude (Oct 21, 2003)

I said:
			
		

> Ah, yes - I forgot to post a photo! There are some on the article link, but here's one coming anyway.
> 
> As for the claims - I'll file them under "interesting but unproven and possible just over-zealously made, but mainstream science is old and stodgy anyway".


I got so involved in reading the article as posted that I didn't even think to click on the link.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Now that I have...Honestly, it looks to me like one of those situations where the human mind has organized a natural formation into something more than that.  Sort of like seeing ships and rabbits and such in the clouds.  But that's just my own impression on seeing just the two photos that accompany the article.  Certainly, I'd like to believe that human cognition was that advanced that early.  However, I agree with you that for the foreseeable future, this must rest in the "interesting but unproven" box.


----------

