I talk about archeology with my SO and she has a high degree of skepticism to many of the things said about artifacts and finds. I think she's "wrong" but it goes to the quality of conjecture in things found, and what they can say to us.
The fingerprint seems the most strongly defined element of this. It's a pigment not associated with the location and it's hard to see how that pattern of whorls can emerge without a hand, in times before technology. So there would be little dissent its a print. And, that is TOTALLY FANTASTIC and should be celebrated all by itself.
"it's a face" is where the conjecture starts. It may be, it certainly looks like one to me, but to project that back in time, begs many questions.
"what this tells us about the subjective art values of Neanderthals" is the conjecture leading to conjecture.
"Oh shit, I have some red ochre on my thumb: where's a handy surface to rub it off on: oh hey, it kinda looks like a face - throws rock away, gets on with life"
One of the diggers on "Time Team" once said: "two rocks one on top of each other? Thats a WALL" and I think there's a lot of that. My ecology/biology lectures in the 1980s discussed holotypes, and when you only have one of something in deep time you have to make some statement to populations, from very little evidence. But given enough time and more digs, you get to a better place. Some holotypes probably get ret-conned into some sensible place: I beleive a lot of finds subsequently get "its a juvenile not a new species" marks.
In that sense, when more face-like rocks turn up with a red oche thumbprint, we can talk about art and culture.
The fingerprint seems the most strongly defined element of this. It's a pigment not associated with the location and it's hard to see how that pattern of whorls can emerge without a hand, in times before technology. So there would be little dissent its a print. And, that is TOTALLY FANTASTIC and should be celebrated all by itself.
"it's a face" is where the conjecture starts. It may be, it certainly looks like one to me, but to project that back in time, begs many questions.
"what this tells us about the subjective art values of Neanderthals" is the conjecture leading to conjecture.
"Oh shit, I have some red ochre on my thumb: where's a handy surface to rub it off on: oh hey, it kinda looks like a face - throws rock away, gets on with life"
One of the diggers on "Time Team" once said: "two rocks one on top of each other? Thats a WALL" and I think there's a lot of that. My ecology/biology lectures in the 1980s discussed holotypes, and when you only have one of something in deep time you have to make some statement to populations, from very little evidence. But given enough time and more digs, you get to a better place. Some holotypes probably get ret-conned into some sensible place: I beleive a lot of finds subsequently get "its a juvenile not a new species" marks.
In that sense, when more face-like rocks turn up with a red oche thumbprint, we can talk about art and culture.