<link rel="stylesheet" id="wp-block-library-css" href="https://c0.wp.com/c/5.8.2/wp-includes/css/dist/block-library/style.min.css" type="text/css" media="all">
loader image
Some of the early Israeli beads

Some of the early Israeli beads

Arguably the earliest example of art produced by humans is a necklace made of shell beads, dating to around 100,000 years ago. These beads were found in Israel (Vanhaeren et al., 2006) and are over twice the age of the more famous European cave art! Although this is the most ancient piece of human art, many examples of imagery and art have been found that predate the emergence of our species. Art, it would seem, is not uniquely human.

The earliest of these pre-human examples of imagery is the Berekhat-Ram figurine, also recovered from Israel. It dates to between 200 – 470,000 years ago (Marshack, 1997); making it double the age of the shell beads at a minimum. If the figurine turns out to be the maximum age of 470,000 years that could make it even older than Neanderthals (who emerged 400 – 600,000 years ago) (Boyd and Silk, 2009).

The Berekhat-Ram figurine

The Berekhat-Ram figurine

The figurine itself takes the form of a rather plump and mishapen humanoid. The oddness of the figurine is because our ancestors didn’t make it from scratch. Rather, some ancient hominin found a rock that already looked a bit like a person and refined and developed this image further, producing a figurine that looked more human (but still pretty weird) (Marshack, 1997). Whether this qualifies as art depends on how you want to define it. Personally I think “exploiting an existing similarity to create an image” counts.

However, despite the fact this figurine is very old even it may not be the first instance of art made by our ancestors. An even earlier example may be Acheulean handaxes, first produced 1.8 million years ago! These handaxes are one of the earliest forms of stone technology discovered and certainly have a rather aesthetically pleasing symmetrical shape.

An Acheulean handaxe in a hand

The argument that these handaxes are art is that many of the features of a handaxe – in particular the symmetry – serve no practical purpose. They made these tools that shape because it was pretty, not because it helped them slice and dice things. Again, whether “making a tool aesthetically pleasing” counts as art will depend on your view of it, but I think it counts.

Experimental archaeologists recreated 60 handaxes of varying degrees of symmetry and butchered deer with them, investigating whether or not symmetry had an effect on their effectiveness. Their results showed that only symmetry of the tip increased the effectiveness of a handaxe. Making the rest of it symmetrical confers no advantage, yet is still something our ancestors often did (Machin et al., 2007).

Some handaxes have also been found centred around fossils. Although this is circumstantial – having only been found a couple of times – it hints at the possibility that these tools were manufactured with an eye towards aesthetics, rather than pure practicality.

A rare handaxe with a shell embedded in the middle

A rare handaxe with a shell embedded in the middle. It’s from Norfolk and is at least 200,000 years old

One interesting offshoot of all this is the “sexy handaxe hypothesis.” It argues that the reason aesthetics was an important consideration when making a handaxe was because making a symmetrical tool was sexually attractive. It demonstrated that the creator had skills above and beyond most people (very symmetrical handaxes are rare). Further, symmetry is something that is often very attractive to humans (Kohn and Mithen, 1999). Despite these interesting ideas, the sexy handaxe hypothesis remains highly speculative and as a result, highly controversial (Nowell and Shack, 2009).

The notion of handaxes as art is also controversial. Some researchers have argued that symmetry would be beneficial in some settings, not tested by the deer butchery experiment. For example, if your arm is deep inside a carcass having a tool that can cut in any direction will make the whole process much easier. Still, no large scale experiments have tested whether or not symmetry would be useful in these circumstances.

So, whilst we have to take the idea with a pinch of salt it does seem that our ancestors were making tools with an eye towards aesthetics 1.8 million years ago. This would’ve been the time of Homo erectusDespite being tall and bipedal like us, they had a brain roughly 2/3 the size of ours (Boyd and Silk, 2009).

Clearly an appreciation (and drive to create) beautiful things is a deep, ancient urge in humanity. Even today, in a world where we are surrounded by technology beyond the dreams of Homo erectus we go out of our way to make our tools look good. Our sleek smartphones and curved cars are part of a tradition that stretches back 1.8 million years, before Homo sapiens even existed.


Boyd, R., & Silk, J. B. (2009). How humans evolved.

Kohn, M., & Mithen, S. (1999). Handaxes: products of sexual selection?.ANTIQUITY-OXFORD-73, 518-526.

Machin, A. J., Hosfield, R. T., & Mithen, S. J. (2007). Why are some handaxes symmetrical? Testing the influence of handaxe morphology on butchery effectiveness. Journal of Archaeological Science34(6), 883-893.

Marshack, A. (1997). The Berekhat Ram figurine: a late Acheulian carving from the Middle East. Antiquity71(272), 327-337.

Nowell, A., & Chang, M. L. (2009). The case against sexual selection as an explanation of handaxe morphology. Paleoanthropology2009, 77-88.

Vanhaeren, M., d’Errico, F., Stringer, C., James, S. L., Todd, J. A., & Mienis, H. K. (2006). Middle Paleolithic shell beads in Israel and Algeria. Science,312(5781), 1785-1788.

Related posts


mgm75 · 17th September 2013 at 9:21 pm

necklace made of shell beads, dating to around 100,000 years ago.

Some suggest it was made by a lovestruck teenager to impress a young lady 😀

The argument that these handaxes are art is that many of the features of a handaxe – in particular the symmetry – serve no practical purpose.

I felt that one of the most fascinating aspects of post-processualism is the discussion of where function ended and art began – and sometimes, if indeed they did end. I never studied it in depth enough to ever form a strong opinion either way. Thanks for this summary, fascinating as always!

    mgm75 · 17th September 2013 at 9:22 pm

    eugh – blond moment. Feel free to correct my tags – was just on another forum that use that type of tag

      Adam Benton · 17th September 2013 at 9:27 pm

      I didn’t even know you could put quotes in a comment. Fun fact: you can!

    Adam Benton · 17th September 2013 at 9:30 pm

    One of my favourite things about archaeology is the discussion and speculation. You really get to exercise your imagination, and the results can often be quite satisfying and revealing. Sadly speculation gets confused with evidence all too frequently.

      mgm75 · 17th September 2013 at 9:33 pm

      … Especially when the more fanciful ideas of post-processualism kicks in. I’m sure you know the sort of academics I mean.

        Adam Benton · 17th September 2013 at 9:34 pm

        Totally. There’s a reason I’ve avoided post-processualism on this blog.

Jonathan Caswell · 17th September 2013 at 10:04 pm

Reblogged this on By the Mighty Mumford and commented:

Jonathan Caswell · 17th September 2013 at 10:07 pm

So it all comes down to beauty…to get the girl. 🙂

    Adam Benton · 17th September 2013 at 10:10 pm

    It might have been the other way round. Women making sexy handaxes to lure the best men over to them

      Jonathan Caswell · 17th September 2013 at 10:43 pm

      TALK ABOUT TURNING THE TABLES! That’s right—women WOULD be staying in camp, keep the flint sharp!

agentofchaos68 · 27th September 2013 at 5:30 am

In my undergraduate degree I did a semester on art and archaeology, in which we learned about the Berekhat-Ram figurine. This was quite a few years ago, so what I say might be out of date. I recall our lecturer was rather sceptical about whether this object was actually a representational figure. In particular he joked about how the figure was supposed to represent a woman, but it had only one breast! One of the key pieces of evidence was that the figure has a number of markings that appear to be deliberate, which some scholars thought were representational symbols, e.g. grooves to indicate “arms”. Other scholars pointed out that the markings could have been made during repetitive actions such as grinding ochre or even “fiddling” of some sort. Anyway, at the time the claim that the figurine was a work of art was considered rather controversial. I don’t know if there is any new consensus about this object though.

    Adam Benton · 4th October 2013 at 6:21 pm

    The main controversy surrounding the figurine nowadays is whether it should be considered symbolic. Personally I think the fact only one example exists is strong evidence it is not. There’s no language with just one word after all. However, microwear analyses have show that the marks were fairly deliberate, so it seems they wanted to make something that looks like a person.

bleach · 11th October 2013 at 1:32 pm

But all of these objects were made by humans. They just weren’t made by anatomically modern humans of our species.

    Adam Benton · 11th October 2013 at 2:03 pm

    The common name for the genus Homo is “human”, but I think that’s a fairly useless label. The species ubiquitously associated with “human” (us) in no way represents the diversity within our genus so doesn’t serve as a good name for it.

    If you want to be pedantic, replace my use of the word “human” with “anatomically modern human” but if it were up to me I’d happily label neanderthals, H. erectus and the hobbit “non-human”.

Greg Sharpe · 13th April 2014 at 9:31 pm

I think a big part of the controversy about whether something is “art” is about our western culture, and the way we divide things up. This is especially true in academia. If you see imagery, decoration and technical innovation all as products of the creative impulse, then there’s no reason they can’t be interwoven.

    Adam Benton · 14th April 2014 at 12:52 am

    Our cultural baggage can be a big problem when looking at this sort of thing. For example, when studying the religions of hunter-gatherer groups people take a stance of scientific atheism. They don’t believe the religions they’re examining are real. Its much harder to take a stance of aesthetic atheism, given how much these views are intertwined with how we view art. But it is probably a necessary step for studying it.

Leave your filthy monkey comments here.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.