Wow, Journal of Human Evolution just published a total rant coauthored by more than 40 archaeologists against the idea that Neandertals ever painted in a cave. I certainly hope this is part of a dialogue with responses to come and not an editorial stance. doi.org/10.1016/j.jhev…
I agree that we must be vigilant about the possibility of systematic error in "old" uranium-thorium dates. Too many erroneous dates have been published, and we should always demand cross-correlation with multiple methods of geochronology.
But the idea that we can discard inconvenient data points because "the whole pattern of archaeology" is against it is a strikingly nonscientific attitude. We now know that Neandertals used a range of pigments, marked objects, engraved in caves.
We also know that the chronology of painted caves in the past was developed using stylistic assumptions that are no longer valid in light of broader evidence. A systematic approach to develop independent lines of evidence on chronology is badly needed.
I'm especially alarmed at demands for more intrusive sampling of the rock walls. These are world heritage, and once destroyed, we are not getting them back. We should enable authors to report data to enable better decisions about how the science should proceed.
So many misconceptions in this one statement from the conclusion of the piece: "So far, we have no proof that Neanderthal society needed a long-lasting means of communication to consolidate its values and beliefs."
Most modern human societies do not correspond to that statement. It's nuts. There's little evidence that the cave paintings of Upper Paleolithic people were intended as "long-lasting means fo communication". We should take an ethnographic perspective on art production.
