Photograph courtesy Dean Snow
Published October 8, 2013
Women made most of the oldest-known cave art paintings, suggests a new analysis of ancient handprints. Most scholars had assumed these ancient artists were predominantly men, so the finding overturns decades of archaeological dogma.
Archaeologist Dean Snow of Pennsylvania State University analyzed hand stencils found in eight cave sites in France and Spain. By comparing the relative lengths of certain fingers, Snow determined that three-quarters of the handprints were female.
"There has been a male bias in the literature for a long time," said Snow, whose research was supported by the National Geographic Society's Committee for Research and Exploration. "People have made a lot of unwarranted assumptions about who made these things, and why."
Archaeologists have found hundreds of hand stencils on cave walls across the world. Because many of these early paintings also showcase game animals—bison, reindeer, horses, woolly mammoths—many researchers have proposed that they were made by male hunters, perhaps to chronicle their kills or as some kind of "hunting magic" to improve success of an upcoming hunt. The new study suggests otherwise.
"In most hunter-gatherer societies, it's men that do the killing. But it's often the women who haul the meat back to camp, and women are as concerned with the productivity of the hunt as the men are," Snow said. "It wasn't just a bunch of guys out there chasing bison around."
Experts expressed a wide range of opinions about how to interpret Snow's new data, attesting to the many mysteries still surrounding this early art.
"Hand stencils are a truly ironic category of cave art because they appear to be such a clear and obvious connection between us and the people of the Paleolithic," said archaeologist Paul Pettitt of Durham University in England. "We think we understand them, yet the more you dig into them you realize how superficial our understanding is."
Snow's study began more than a decade ago when he came across the work of John Manning, a British biologist who had found that men and women differ in the relative lengths of their fingers: Women tend to have ring and index fingers of about the same length, whereas men's ring fingers tend to be longer than their index fingers.
Photographs by Roberto Ontanon Peredo, courtesy Dean Snow
One day after reading about Manning's studies, Snow pulled a 40-year-old book about cave paintings off his bookshelf. The inside front cover of the book showed a colorful hand stencil from the famous Pech Merle cave in southern France. "I looked at that thing and I thought, man, if Manning knows what he's talking about, then this is almost certainly a female hand," Snow recalled.
Hand stencils and handprints have been found in caves in Argentina, Africa, Borneo, and Australia. But the most famous examples are from the 12,000- to 40,000-year-old cave paintings in southern France and northern Spain. (See "Pictures: Hand Stencils Through Time.")
For the new study, out this week in the journal American Antiquity, Snow examined hundreds of stencils in European caves, but most were too faint or smudged to use in the analysis. The study includes measurements from 32 stencils, including 16 from the cave of El Castillo in Spain, 6 from the caves of Gargas in France, and 5 from Pech Merle.
Snow ran the numbers through an algorithm that he had created based on a reference set of hands from people of European descent who lived near his university. Using several measurements—such as the length of the fingers, the length of the hand, the ratio of ring to index finger, and the ratio of index finger to little finger—the algorithm could predict whether a given handprint was male or female. Because there is a lot of overlap between men and women, however, the algorithm wasn't especially precise: It predicted the sex of Snow's modern sample with about 60 percent accuracy.
Luckily for Snow, that wasn't a problem for the analysis of the prehistoric handprints. As it turned out—much to his surprise—the hands in the caves were much more sexually dimorphic than modern hands, meaning that there was little overlap in the various hand measurements.
"They fall at the extreme ends, and even beyond the extreme ends," Snow said. "Twenty thousand years ago, men were men and women were women."
Woman, Boy, Shaman?
Snow's analysis determined that 24 of the 32 hands—75 percent—were female. (See "Pictures: Prehistoric European Cave Artists Were Female.")
Some experts are skeptical. Several years ago, evolutionary biologist R. Dale Guthrie performed a similar analysis of Paleolithic handprints. His work—based mostly on differences in the width of the palm and the thumb—found that the vast majority of handprints came from adolescent boys.
For adults, caves would have been dangerous and uninteresting, but young boys would have explored them for adventure, said Guthrie, an emeritus professor at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. "They drew what was on their mind, which is mainly two things: naked women and large, frightening mammals."
Other researchers are more convinced by the new data.
"I think the article is a landmark contribution," said archaeologist Dave Whitley of ASM Affiliates, an archaeological consulting firm in Tehachapi, California. Despite these handprints being discussed for half a decade, "this is the first time anyone's synthesized a good body of evidence."
Whitley rejects Guthrie's idea that this art was made for purely practical reasons related to hunting. His view is that most of the art was made by shamans who went into trances to try to connect with the spirit world. "If you go into one of these caves alone, you start to suffer from sensory deprivation very, very quickly, in 5 to 10 minutes," Whitley said. "It can spin you into an altered state of consciousness."
The new study doesn't discount the shaman theory, Whitley added, because in some hunter-gatherer societies shamans are female or even transgendered.
The new work raises many more questions than it answers. Why would women be the primary artists? Were they creating only the handprints, or the rest of the art as well? Would the hand analysis hold up if the artists weren't human, but Neanderthal?
The question Snow gets most often, though, is why these ancient artists, whoever they were, left handprints at all.
"I have no idea, but a pretty good hypothesis is that this is somebody saying, 'This is mine, I did this,'" he said.
Follow Virginia Hughes on Twitter.
you believe that the paintings are about fecundity and producing humans
to match the vast herds of horses, aurochs, mammoths, etc, then it
makes sense that women painted them. Also, it was very likely the women who did the butchering,
and so would have understood the animals' anatomies. What a lot of people seem to miss is that these paintings were done over thousands of years in a pretty consistent STYLE. It must have required training to use these materials so skillfully and within a set of conventions, yet with a lot of sensitivity to how the animals actually moved. You don't create the Hall of the Bulls first time out.
good, I hypothesize that the women were taught this by the men and were relegated to mere hand-printing while the men executed the more complex drawings. lol
Besides what I wrote below my more poetic response to the research about hands that I conversed with myself about, about 35 minutes ago is simply that I know that my artist wife and I often went into our cave together with our ever ready flashlight and improvised, painted sacred animals and put our hand prints on them that they multiply in great numbers and that the Gods feeling the vibration of our wishes through our hands into the wall of the cave, hearing our thumping on stalagmites, shouting and screaming secret word, spinning and leaping, creating a collaborative ritual to inspire the Gods to bring the animals in great numbers to our valley on the day of the mother of abundance and the hunt, the day of the full moon ...
Once we accept the research there are all kinds of questions to ask... Was it an initiation a passing on or connecting of some kind with the animals??? Were the animals female or male??? But if the Zebras are female and are pregnant thats an important fact in the context of the entrancing cave and the transfer of spirit from hands to the Pregnant Zebras and from the pregnant Zebras to those being initiated??? Does it matter if the Zebras were painted by others by mature artists sanctified priestess and priests, shawomyn and shamen other than those they initiated? Were the initiated young womyn and young men linked to the animal spirits by touching near or on the animals linked forever by hand-print??? Does it matter if the animal paintings and hand prints are of different generations? Why are the techniques of representation different, why blow the mineral dust without water or for that matter spray the mineral pigment dust mixed in water... Certainly there is not enough saliva to blow spray the mineral pigment directly from the mouth with or without the tube free of clumps... If the intention were not more than adventurous youths doing graffiti at a ritual site, it's a stupid find... If the sites where the hand prints are found is to have any value it is that both the hand prints and animals are ritual events with sacred meaning that as they link speak to reaching out to life in its primacy of procreation within which fecund womyn have primacy a primacy realized in the Venus of Willendorf...
After reading all the comments I must reflect. I recently returned from the Grotte de Niaux in France. Whether created by man,woman, or child, the paintings I experienced were not just the etchings of clumsy hack artists. These were graceful, well proportioned figures. What does that tell us? Many of us if given pencil and paper couldn't come close to creating a drawing that would be recognizable. There were no practice pictures. Whoever made these drawings were extremely motivated to reach remote areas without light.
Seeing them was a life changing moment. I am grateful to have had the opportunity. Many of the caves are now closed to the public.
After reading all the comments I must reflect. I recently returned from the Grotte de Niaux in France. Whether created by man,woman, or child, the paintings I experienced were not just the etchings of a clumsy hack artists. These were graceful, well proportioned figures. What does that tell us? Many of us if given pencil and paper couldn't come close to creating a drawing that would be recognizable. There were no practice pictures. Whoever made these drawings were extremely motivated to reach remote areas without light.
Seeing them was a life changing moment. I am grateful to have had the opportunity. Many of the caves are now closed to the public.
Of course they were female. If male, you'd see one or two hand prints and then the rest of the wall would be filled with stencils of male genitalia.
By a show of hands: 75% female!?.. probably the last vestiges of a peaceful cave art party, everything since then is definitely plagiarized.
It doesn't really counts if the handprints are female or not. What counts is the new way of thinging history!
There's no evidence to suggest that the handprints were those of the Artists. Handprints exist in many places where there are no paintings at all, rather like "Killroy wuz here" graffitti.
I have thought for some time, since seeing the first hand print art, that those were women's hands. Good to know I am not alone in that theory.
Loved the article, and much more about women and their contributions to civilization is in our book called:
"STONE AGE DIVAS" by Gloria Bertonis and Carol Miranda
www.stoneagedivas.com and available on Amazon.com
FWIW, a very good article on cave art / red ochre: http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/9.2/forum_kimball.html
Origins of Beauty [From Eduardo Galleano’s _Mirrors:Stories of Almost Everyone_ (Nation Books, 2009) page 3]
There they are, painted on the walls and ceilings of caves.
Bison, elk, bears, horses, eagles, women, men, these figures are ageless.They were born thousands upon thousands of years ago, but they are born anew every time someone looks at them.
How could our ancestor of long ago paint so delicately?How could a brute who fought wild beasts with his bare hands create images so filled with grace?How did he manage to draw those flying lines that break free of the stone and take to the air?How could he? …
Or was it she?
It should be noted that all they did was measure finger lengths of hand prints and determined that the hand prints might be female. This says nothing about the paintings and who painted them, only the hand prints.
I don't understand the notion that it should be controversial that earlier belief systems or that society in general during these time periods would have been matriarchal. We find Gaia figurines all over early human society. If they believed in a Mother Goddess, would it not make sense that by and large women would also have been spiritual and cultural leaders?
We always get a lot of inspirations from what have been found out. But we have more joys and tons of creation from what have still not been unveiled during those explorations. And different histories and myths dug out in the ancient traces are loomed together or covered by each other, evolving into those modern stories to enrich our lives. Thanks to those archaeologists, their efforts to discovery of the former lives provide us so much different and fantastic ways to rethink and imagine the meanings of human being.
Instead of basing things pertaining to sexuality, we should rather look at them as art form from the past that early men used to do in order to maybe pass the time or to record things that they wanted.
We can't say whether they were patriarchal, which would be a reason why the men would do the paintings. I don't think their reason to paint was to tell the future generations about themselves but for their own unknown reasons. Secondly, what does it matter if the painting were done by a man or a woman? It might have been that anyone could do the paintings, or just the female coz the men might have been busy or just the males, coz maybe the women may have been busy or by the children because they and nothing to do and painting formed as a wonderful way to spend some time.
My English is not A-Level but I do hope I have got my point across.
“After Altamira, all is decadence.”
Pablo Picasso after seeing the prehistoric paintings in the Altamira Caves.
I love reading about this sort of stuff. Cave art really excites me! Such a direct link to the past. I hope I can see some cave art for myself one day!
U.S. scientists have confirmed my conclusion about the female authorship of cave art::
may be they just want to paint, you know, there's no papers or anything likewise in the past unfortunately. Obviously they can't do that on the ground, because it could have been treaded. Therefore, the only feasible way is to inscribe the paintings onto the wall especially in the caves, because most caves would not be corroded.
maybe they left them as a kind of family portrait, or growth chart, or a way to say hi to the future. i don't think we've changed very much since then; it's possible they did this just for fun.
This is startling but revealing news. Do you remember that motto of the Ladies Home Journal: Never underestimate the power of a woman"? C'est vrai. Le plus change le plus le meme chose.
EXACT! I THINK THAT THEY WERE YOUNG BOYS AND WOMEN!!!
IN WINTER TIME LONG DAYS INSIDE MAYBE,THEY HAD NO LIGHT!THEY ,I SUPOSE,THEY ,PROBLABY THINKIT ABOUT IT, AND IN THE SUMMER THE MALE ADULTS WENT'ON HUNTING...I THANK THEY FOR TOO LET US THEY ART!.
Standing deep in the caves at Niaux with three other people, we all gasped aloud as our guide switched on a torch in the darkness to illumine the drawings in the cavern. I have visited many of the world's great museums and galleries before and since that revelatory moment, and nothing has taken my breath away like these drawings did. I was stunned the direct communication between the artist(s) and me over a 15,000 year span. I thought of our human connection and the desire to illustrate. But not once did I think - is this a male or female display. After reading the comments here, I wonder why folks get so distressed or annoyed to think it might have been women. Incidentally, I haven't read too many people's responses who think this is a positive assertion. Do we have to assume, always, it is male? It is simply a superb example of the desire or need to express thought through incisive, elegant line.
There is a theory by Gourhan that states that the paintings found in the caves were symbolism; and the people of that time are believed to have worshipped a Goddess; goddess of fertility, mother nature etc. So if the hand prints are women's hand prints, wouldn't it make these paintings some sort of fertility ritual? The hand print being a symbol of "the one who gives life", like if a woman's hand validated the painting/the ritual.
I think most of us have made hand prints when we were kids. We did it on the beach and on paper with watercolors. We also made traces of our hands with pencils or ballpoint pens. We made hand prints simply because they are there.
When I was an active caver, I would turn out my light and relax when I had to wait for another caver to explore a lead and return. I did it to save my carbide, which powered my light source, but I also enjoyed this because I found the darkness restful. The statement that ten minutes of darkness would result in altered consciousness sounds ludicrous. I may have acclimated to darkness as a result of the amount of caving I used to do, but it is hard to imagine that simple exposure to darkness would have that effect. If the shaman went in for that purpose, I suppose he/she could use the darkness to help. I wouldn't think it would be a universal response.
It's a big leap from a hand print to ownership of the expression in art. One does not claim the other. If I had to guess, as a young boy I would have wanted a model..both body and hand. Just like young men want today. Anyone who has ever tried to accomplish one of these hand prints, knows it is much easier to use someone else's hand. My choice would have been a woman's hand.
Hmm lets see, we're women sitting around in safety in caves, engaging in nonproductive, frivolous hobbies while the MEN risked life and limb every day hunting animals to bring back delicious meat to feed them with? Most likely.
Are you serious!?!?
"We think we understand them, yet the more you dig into them you realize how superficial our understanding is."
This item seems to be about how for decades we have generalised an opinion & then after finding that the truth is different, you still generalise about not knowing them??
My first thought on reading the title of this piece, was, 'well that makes sense, it's just a woman being proud of her man', because we haven't changed that much in any way in the way we think. DOH!
I am a woman and an artist and my ring finger far exceeds my index finger??? While full figured women and hunting animals MAY have been on adolescent boy's mind, you fail to understand their religion of earth mother goddess, as well as the zodiac form of astronomy of their time I those caves, such as Taurus the bull with the star formation of Pleiades over the bulls shoulder, and other zodiac symbols seen at Lascaux France, and in caves in Spain.
Why not be open to the possibility that women painted too? As for this theory not crossing the minds of many scientists before, as women have a role of keeping house and children in toe.....any logical thinker would come to the conclusion that the past hundred of years of this stereotypical role playing for males and females in family life owes much to christianity and this is evident when we look at humans before christianity, as in with the early British/Celtic and the Classical period of Greece and Rome.
It had never been uncommon for women to heal, be herbalists, or be feel some kind of connection with nature. These are instinctual to women, as is the connection to nature with men, but each had its own definitions. It is apparent that both sexes had always had an appreciation of life. The notion that women could have hunted is not out of the question, modern society has shown us that women can and will provide for their families if need be, and in that case the idea that women and men may not have mated for life is another possibility, ancient amazons raised their girls while male tribes raised the sons, and the priests/druids and priestesses of pagan cultures did the same.
Another explanation for the paintings I have been pondering has much to do with human anatomy and physiology, as we can admit that the human body is that of a "vegetarian" due to our absence of gnashing teeth or K9s and our organs intolerance to meat and dairy as is with our infants. Based on the idea that or dietary requirements were met before the climate cooled, hunting for food and not just protection may have been a fairly recent occurrence to humans at the time, so the paintings may have been some kind of offerings or grace if you will. It is known that some tribal people are superstitious of their picture being taken because they believe this has some kind of effect on their soul, and so it could be that these paintings represent the animals life.
In my opinion it is more absurd for scientists to have never thought that both sexes painted from the time they discovered the paintings than the possibility that women have always painted.
Who knows, paintings could've been a form of interior design, which is very much an enjoyment of most women to this date!!!
They were only able to use 32 handprints, and they have no way of knowing how many individuals those handprints represent. That doesn't seem like a large enough or defined enough sample to make a definitive statement about the percentages of female or male artists. How many handprints are there total? The article said there were hundreds that were too faint or smudged to use in the study. It's possible that the ones that were clear enough were made by a select few artists who perhaps used a different method that allowed their prints to stay preserved better than the others. I'm not saying that the hypothesis is wrong, just that there needs to be more data to draw a conclusion.
@Nati Barquero Thats a good thought. And we do see a lot of earth mother worship in early agrarian societies. But just from my limited knowledge, I think these hunter gatherer societies predate that.
@John Doe Your comments seem bitter. I'm sure had they concluded that the paintings were done by men, they would be brilliant manifestations of the art. So I guess all the artwork done by men since is just "frivolous" and "nonproductive?" The reality is that you are threatened by women, and anything that challenges the male biases and perspectives of history. Most men aren't, and would think this is cool. And by the way, women worked just as hard if not harder than men. It was the women, first of all, who perpetuated the human race. If not for that, YOU would not be here. The men hunted, and the women gathered, but it was the food that women gathered that accounted for 80% of the intake. So perhaps it was the men who were lazy and unproductive. Also, the women raised the children all while doing this. Get over your resentment.
@John Doe You seem to have missed the part of the article that points out how dumb and misogynistic you sound in this statement, so I'll leave it right here for you: " 'In most hunter-gatherer societies, it's men that do the killing. But
it's often the women who haul the meat back to camp, and women are as
concerned with the productivity of the hunt as the men are,' Snow said. 'It wasn't just a bunch of guys out there chasing bison around.' " Unless, you know, hauling the meat back to camp is a non-productive, frivolous hobby.
@Fred Duncan III There's proof that the Paleolithic and Neolithic societies were matriarchal ones, so yes the way we think has changed quite a LOT; I suggest you stop impersonating a dumb character from "The simpsons" and actually study a bit before you speak.
@Caroline FergusonPeople who are lactose intolerant, most probably have very short history of cattle herding(most of Africa does have this extra special lactose intolerance - especially bantu people). I have always wondered and thought that this was made up complaint(about lactose intolerance), because I come from society that do not have any problems with dairy products(well sometimes it is not good to mix milk with meat, because people can get diarea but that have not stopped me - in fact we have some dishes, that involve boiling meat in milk, so... ) - do not put all of the humans under one hood and don't assume anything...
As for vegetarian nature - humans have fangs and primates sometimes occasionaly hunt - also monkeys have similar descendant to that of cat, so humans have plenty of non-vegetarian history - we still need to use meat for some proteins, that we need to function properly. And for this vegetarian movement - there are still enough of vegetarians, that can't even get pregnant(!) because of their diet...
We also have located eyes in front(and no in sides) - just like all nonvegetarian species have them there.
And don't take it that this is some chauvinistic view - in our culture women have most knowledge about ornaments(though nobody knows their actual meaning anymore), because of weaving - though, there are some stories, that knitting in some ancient times was done only by men and not women, just like playing on some musical instruments, that we associate nowadays with women - we know for sure - were played only by men. Last carvings we had in sandstone about 1500+ years ago with these ornaments that portrayed creation of some new land, definitelly were not made by women, because 1) place was hard to access 2) from history we know, that men were law makers, who decided to created new lands(that was accompanied with real colonization and settlement program) 3) our society at that time was patriarhal
I feel a bit dissapointed by this article - I thought, that were found some DNA in these fingerprints or even paintings(this really would be revolutionary), that would help to determine sex of artist, but it is all about size of fingers(maybe even not very precise copies of actual fingers), that even can not count for other paintings and caption in this article is so misleading.
Many of these cave paintings with animal pictures bear marks of damage from weapons, as if they were hunted - that wa the main reason why it was thought, that they were painted by men. Also very many of these pictures were located in inaccessible places, that required some athletic abilities to reach them - that is not a task for a woman with children who looks after them(think wider about society). And women in those times matured very fast, so they did not had the time to reach and explore inaccessible places. As for fingermarks - the idea, that they were made by young people is still very interersting.
@Nati Barquero @Fred Duncan III Actually there's little proof of matriarchy. Because all the members of the family clan were equal. They all helped with survival, they all helped with moving, and they all helped make decisions. Any leaders were chosen by the clan and based on respect and integrity, not sex or physical or material power.
@Yani EYou sound like a person that knows a lot, but then you get to the part where it says "1) place was hard to access 2) from history we know, that men
were law makers, who decided to created new lands(that was accompanied
with real colonization and settlement program) 3) our society at that
time was patriarhal" [SIC] and then you throw ALL your "knowledge" away. So in the same order as you did: 1) What the f***? 2) You are obviously not very familiar with history 3) There is a LOT of proof that the societies of that time were matriarchal ones. And last but not least, women can't be athletic according to your petty brain? Since when does having children is synonymous of not having athletic abilities?
Explore With Nat Geo
Anders Angerbjörn learns little foxes have big attitudes.
Special Ad Section
Save on gifts from our store. Proceeds help us protect species, habitats, and cultures.