Today, I was reading an article on early image of Jesus found in an Egyptian tomb. Along with it, one tomb of a scriber was found buried together with writing tools consisting of a metallic inkpot so full of ink and two new pens. One question propped up in my mind whether archaeologists record fingerprints that might be present on the inkpot, before touching and opening the pot to see the full ink inside or whether fingerprints are rendered unusable due to dust gathering over time. Fingerprint technology has become an indispensable part of forensic analysis. Do ancient fingerprints reveal any significant information, considering the fact that they are of ancient people like a new info on human evolution by comparison with the present ones?
A Google search for "fingerprints on ancient artifacts" is actually pretty fruitful. The study of ancient fingerprints appears to be called "paleodermatoglyphics." (This article introduces the topic a bit.)
There is at least one issue of a journal related to this available for free online: The Journal of Ancient Fingerprints. It says:
When you say "Do ancient fingerprints reveal any significant information, considering the fact that they are of ancient people like a new info on human evolution by comparison with the present ones?" I'm not 100% certain what you're asking, but note that even Neanderthal fingerprints have been found:
There's quite a bit more in the journal about methods, examples, etc. Fingerprints on ancient artifacts have told archaeologists how items were made ("A fingerprint close to the base of a Cypriotic Bronze Age bowl from Enkomi showed the archaeologist that the potter held the bowl with his hands when it was dipped in paint" (p. 19)) or who made them ("This [ridge breadth measurement] method has been used on the world’s oldest ceramics, ca 25,000–35,000 BP, from Dolní Věstonice. Measurements on 56 fingerprints from 29 sherds showed that the imprints had been made by 12 year old children" (p.20)).