A Bermeya goat from the Principality of Asturias, Spain, one of the modern breeds showing the closest genetic affinity to the Neolithic goat from Cueva de los Murciélagos.
MUTERMUR Project in collaboration with ACRIBER, CC-BY 4.0
More than a thousand years before the traditional biblical date of creation, people in southern Spain were already using domestic goats to make leather. They belonged to an agricultural world with established skills in animal husbandry and the processing of animal products. A surviving piece of their handiwork now provides another awkward encounter between the physical evidence of human history and the compressed chronology of young-Earth creationism.
In a paper published in PLOS One, Jolijn A. M. Erven and colleagues report the recovery of ancient DNA from worked leather found in Cueva de los Murciélagos, near Albuñol in southern Spain. Radiocarbon dating places the specimen at approximately 5300–5060 BCE. Its manufacture therefore predates the familiar creation date of 4004 BCE by well over a millennium. This was already an artefact of human culture when, according to that chronology, there should have been neither humans nor goats — nor even an Earth on which they could live.
The genetic evidence identifies the hide as domestic goat rather than wild Iberian ibex, and links it with European goat populations, including the modern Bermeya breed of northern Spain. That does not mean that Bermeya goats existed as a distinct breed in the Neolithic. It indicates shared ancestry connecting ancient livestock with animals alive today. The leather thus preserves evidence both of prehistoric craftsmanship and of the population history of a domesticated species.
There are sensible limits to what can be inferred. One object cannot establish the history of goat husbandry throughout Iberia, and the surviving DNA is fragmented. Nevertheless, those limitations do not diminish the central finding: a manufactured object can retain genetic information that helps identify its animal source and place it within a much longer biological history.
The contrast with creationist reasoning is instructive. Here, researchers combine an archaeological object, radiocarbon measurements and genetic comparisons to reconstruct part of the past, while acknowledging what remains uncertain. There is no requirement that the evidence fit a predetermined sacred chronology. The resulting history is constrained by what survives and what can be tested — even when an unassuming piece of leather turns out to be older than the entire universe is supposed to be.









































