you're probably thinking of that thing that looks like a fat lady in a beaded hat - which is actually fairly recent, as these things are considered. As a religious icon (so says concensus, anyhow) it cannot be considered art - and certainly not jewelry. Also, no prehumans are known to have created jewelry or art of any kind; only actual humans(members of the genus Homo, and only the later ones) have managed this. No prehumans whatsoever. The oldest known prehuman artifact is, in fact, a haphazardly-bashed rock.

If tattoos are piercings were entirely natural, you'd have seen them consistently across the board, throughout history and across the globe - it wouldn't be tied to specific groups, times, and places.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Wed 15 Sep 2010, 17:45, 1 reply)

Ah...
Does that mean humans are unnatural then ?
( DukeEuphoria Comes highly reccomended, Wed 15 Sep 2010, 18:01, closed)

No. Well, sort of. Our advanced brains and developed societies allow them to create things that are not otherwise seen in nature, and can therefore not be considered natural(/ly occurring).

Much of what has allowed modern humans to become everything they are today cannot be considered natural, any more than any other learned behaviour passed down and modified by social groups. Various apes are capable of learning sign language - and then teaching it to other apes. Although this behaviour could feasibly take hold, and feasibly alter the species, given enough time - it is not a natural behaviour. It is an exaptation made possible by their comparatively large brains - which were developed for an entirely different purpose.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Wed 15 Sep 2010, 18:03, closed)

Memetic evolution.
Don't you just love it? Chances are the great apes have similarly sophisticated communication systems anyhow, but we just can't understand them. Same goes for dolphins actually.
( jim_bob can herd cats., Wed 15 Sep 2010, 19:14, closed)