Palaeoart.com

It is often remarked that the supposed "explosion" of art began around 40,000 years ago and is synonymous with the arrival of Modern Archaic hominins in Europe. But this model has repeatedly been shown to be false and misleading. In fact, the earliest palaeoart is in evidence from the Lower Palaeolithic era onward and there is no valid reason to suppose that the production of iconicity was a domain unique to Homo sapiens sapien. The search for detectable traces of palaeoart should be systematic and unless this search includes lithic material it cannot be considered to be thorough.

Pierre-Figures...
Jacques Boucher de Crèvecœur de Perthes not only argued for the existence of stone tools but also stone sculptures which he termed Pierre-Figures. He was dismissed on both accounts until many years later when the stone tools of the Acheulian type-site were begrudgingly accepted. He may yet be vindicated with respect to his claim for iconography made over 150 years ago.

Things haven't changed much since...
Unfortunately and perhaps surprisingly, many archaeologists the world over continue to systematically ignore suggestions of iconography identified in lithic material for reasons which have their roots in the arguments used against Boucher de Perthes. Such a tendency toward bias fails to test the already distorted 'archaeological record' and in turn simply supports the preferred (and falsified) paradigm that they often continue to subscribe to - in other words the now refuted "short-term" theory.

About the problems...
A brief search of the worldwide web quickly reveals the variance in examples of purported iconography identified from lithics which ranges from appallingly bad to, in rare instances, compelling. Herein lies the rub, the bandwagon effect has exasperated the tendency for archaeologists to summarily dismiss potential palaeoart incorporated into lithics, often quoting the tendency for pareidolia. But it is exactly the same processes involved in pareidolia which were arguably at play when hominins began to appreciate visual-ambiguity, the earliest record of which is the Makapansgat pebble between 2 and 3 million years ago.

Certainly there are many examples (found on the internet and elsewhere) which are plainly only a product of a very vivid imagination. However, there are also examples which have a sound provenience and are palpably visually-ambiguous enough to be of more than a little interest to the casual enquirer. These can be categorised further; into those that show no evidence of anthropic intervention whatsoever, and those that do exhibit characteristics which collectively allow us to conclude that they constitute evidence of artefactuality.

About this web site...
Since 2006 the Palaeoart.com/co.uk web site has been developed through analysing and responding to feedback generated from my research, this web site and in addition to statistics generated with the use of Google analytics. This latest incarnation is a work in progress and will be updated intermittently - so please call back at a later date to see what has been added (updated last on 17/02/2011).

The majority of material illustrated herein (and unless noted otherwise) derives from a site in the Colne Valley. The artefacts* were excavated from superficial Pleistocene deposits which most likely date to between MIS 22 and 23 (approximately 860,000 to 900,000 years ago). This would make them at least as old, if not older, than the stone tools from Happisburgh which were recently proclaimed to be the oldest discovered to date in the United Kingdom. Indeed, it is worthy of note that some of the archaeologists who have proposed this collection is not the result of human agency - claiming them to be "too old" - were also involved from 2006 in the discovery of the Happisburgh artefacts which lays on the same pre-historic river path, the proto-Thames.

* Their status as true artefacts is hotly disputed by several leading archaeologists including lithic experts, however just as many geologists have concluded the exact opposite i.e. that they were not the result of geological processes!

About the Colne valley collection...
From the pattern and manner of flaking noted and the characteristics consistently observed across the assemblage it can be readily determined that the primary method of manufacture of these artefacts was bipolar reduction. Objective tests to date have clearly concluded that the assemblage is not comparable with a geofact sample despite subjective and emotional claims to the contrary. For instance, in the small flake illustrated below features such as fissures and overlaying flake scars creating "peacock eye" patterning are indicative not only of human agency, but also of the bipolar technique.

About the frequency of "visually ambiguous" stones...
Good, strong 'iconicity' of nature/geofacts (mimetoliths) is very rare as repeated experiments and experience has demonstrated. The high frequency of visually ambiguous material in the Colne valley assemblage excavated from only a very small area (approximately 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 m) is therefore unusual. Frequent incidences of such material found amongst an ostensibly Lower Palaeolithic bipolar assemblage and in close proximity with one another indicates that sorting has occurred. In this instance, it seems likely that it was by the same hominins that created the stone tools of a comparable nature and appearance. Indeed much of the iconography identified in this assemblage occurs, or is incorporated on stone tools. These 'tools' have been used repeatedly - confirmed by the use-wear evidence repeatedly seen.

The stone tool pictured above is made of a large blue beach pebble sliced using the bipolar technique. It appears to show multiple images of a 'hominin face'. Upon close and careful examination several fractures can be seen which are concluded to be deliberate and identified as critical sub-components of an iconographic nature. For example (above right), the lone flake scar on the cortex concurs with the position of an 'eye' in a rather cartoon-like 'profile'. Other features, including flaking creating the appearance of 'nostrils' (above left) have enhanced the visual-ambiguity beyond that which might be expected to have occurred randomly from the shattering of the distal end when it was initially reduced on an anvil. The close up photograph below demonstrates the illusion of a small 'eye' identified from the intentional flaking concentrated along one edge.

The photo below (left) when overlayed with an illustration of a Homo erectus skull shows a close comparability with the subjectively identified 'hominin profile' observed from yet another angle. The same view rotated could conceivably be interpreted as suggestive of a 'face' although clearly less naturalistic than the latter two identifications.

In this one specimen it is possible to identify three or perhaps four recognisable images with fairly limited use of imagination. The tendency to dismiss identifications of iconography in lithics with the suggestion that it is simply a result of pareidolia on the part of the observer may be credible in some instances, however, when the images are unmistakably iconographic in nature then it is prudent to approach this conclusion with care. The processes involved in pareidolia are the very same processes that allowed for visual ambiguity to be recognised and valued in the Makapansgat pebble over 2 million years ago. Approximately 1 million years later it is inconceivable that the hominins flaking this material would not have recognised the visual ambiguity of this stone in the course of using it as a tool. Indeed, in this instance there is ample evidence that they deliberately and intentionally enhanced it further.

The next image shows a functionally similar stone tool, this time bearing a resemblance to a 'fish'. Note that the small circular flake scar concurs with the often large and round 'eye' typical for a fish but offers no functional advantage. In other words, it's existence can be understood in the context of iconography but not in the sense of functionality.

The following three images of the same stone tool shows further palpably 'zoomorphic' images making use of the naturally occurring holes.

The single occurrence of an item such as the above could be readily considered to be fortuitous, but when many items have this feature in common (strongly visually ambiguous) such a position is simply not tenable.

The two examples below exemplify the problem further since neither are conceivably stone tools but both demonstrate universally recognisable 'faces' and human agency. The stone on the right has been flaked on the left lateral edge apparently in an effort to more closely appropriate the shape of a hominin head. The pebble on the left has much smaller pebbles inserted in either 'eye' hole. Alternating flaking occurring in the 'mouth' of the same object (and again utilising a natural feature) creates the suggestion of 'teeth'.

A unifacially flaked chopper (below) bears several easily identifiable iconographic images. It is possible to identify two 'faces' from the cortex side.

Flaking around the 'mouth' and 'nose' (preserving some cortex) on another rather battered tool (below) appears to coincide conclusively with the natural crack creating another easily identifiable 'face' image.

The occurrence of a circular unconformity on a fracture plane surface coincides with the 'eye' of another 'face' image (below right) identified on the this cleaver type tool. Under a microscope it is apparent from the many small hertzian cone fractures that this unconformity has been created deliberately by repeated percussion.

The 'face profile' (above left) makes use of a natural recess created by a now absent fossil inclusion. There is a small flake scar occurring which also coincides with the placement of an eye in the context of the profile image identified.

Time and again 'face-like' images can be readily identified from the flaked cores that comprise the Colne valley collection (in the illustration above there are two). The stone tool shown below - a 'perforator' - provides an example of a 'face' image that rotated also resembles another quite different 'face'.

Another possible identification of iconography from the specimen shown above is that of a 'bird' (bottom right). This might seem like wishful thinking until further examples are seen in stone tools such as that shown below in this 'burin type' tool. Not only is a complete profile of a 'bird' identifiable (bottom right), but also a 'face' incorporating two 'nostrils' and 'eye' both of which appear to be natural features.

The occurrence of bird-like imagery does not end there. In the illustration below this nodule of flint looks superficially as though any damage seen is simply that randomly caused by nature - despite the positioning of an 'eye' in an anatomically correct position (to the right and the effect would not have been as convincing and to the left likely to result in damage to the tip or 'beak'). It is only upon observing the creation of a platform on the edge that one can confidently conclude that the subsequent flaking observed is anthropogenic in origin. Note the thinning of the cortex on the tip of this stone tool testifying to it's use as a 'perforator' of sorts as are many other of the stone tools that make up this assemblage.

This much larger nodule of flint shown below has limited flake scars that appear to have preserved a resemblance with a 'bird'. The majority of the flake scars are unmistakeably anthropic in origin.

Perhaps the best example of a 'bird' iconograph in the collection is that shown below which has been claimed to be the both "the result of natural processes" and "not the result of natural processes". This illustrates the variance of subjective opinions based on the same empirical evidence and how archaeology masquerades as a branch of science when it is so often no such thing at all.

Only two small patches of cortex remain on this stone - incidentally where 'feet' would occur. The 'eye' markings are in almost identical locations on each side - again anatomically correctly positioned.

The depiction of a 'feline' in the stone tool shown above appears to be confirmed when cross referencing with known and much later Upper Palaeolithic cave art (from Lascaux). The much earlier stone version is marked with percussion strikes on the opposite side but in the same position as the v-shaped 'eye'. A small flake removal (see bottom right) from the back corresponds comfortably with the suggestion of an 'ear'. But there is a difference in that the stone representation appears also to give detail of a 'jowl' or possibly even represent a 'sabretooth'.

Homotherium was in Europe around this time, and it has been predicted that the earliest iconography might include some of the largest and most dangerous animals in the shared environment of early hominins. The next illustration shows a specimen which has been minimally flaked. Two images are identified, the first a 'homotherium' and the latter a 'bird'.

The complete stone (see top middle above) corresponds remarkably closely to the attack position that a Homotherium is thought to have used; where the back legs are compressed underneath like powerful springs ready to leap and strike. Although the 'bird' image is composed of only a single flake scar in conjunction with a natural indentation appropriating an 'eye', it is hard not to note that the bird image identified could readily be interpreted as a carrion-type bird and this seems especially persuasive by the symbiosis that can be assumed to have occurred between the two species.