Sections

'Faces'

'Masks'

'Mammals'

'Birds'

Frequency of iconography in sample (i.e. excavated pit)

The ability of early hominids (e.g. preceeding 0.5 Mya) to perceive the iconographic characteristics of a natural form is, based on the neuro-archaeological evidence, entirely plausible if not conspicuous by the absence of evidence presented in the "archaeological record". However, it is prudent to approach this question by putting aside this idea momentarily and hypothesizing that hominids were not able to see as significant the resemblance between a naturally formed stone object and another object that it resembles in form (for example a cat) and then testing this hypothesis. One approach, is to ask how likely it is that an zoomorphic or anthropomorphous stone object such as those examined below may occur naturally in association with a significant number of stone tools.

Although numerous such objects occur in nature the probability that one of them may occur in the tiny volume excavated here (less than 1.5 m x 1.5 m x 1.5 m) in association with a Mode 1 lithic industry is very small indeed.

The probability that one would be found is even smaller, and of course it follows that the probability of finding many would be statistically unlikely to occur.

In response to claims from critics that “iconographic” qualities in stones are common, the author conducted a series of expeditions on a beach site in the Isle of Wight over the course of six days. Well-known for the occurrence of Palaeolithic material (decaying from the cliffs), and despite finding a good example of an Acheulian biface (albeit broken), I could find surprisingly few examples of stones that could “reasonably” be interpreted to resemble the shape of a recognisable animal (or a ‘face’) and not a single “good” example (not even by stretching the imagination). This was over an area much wider than the sample site, and with comparable and abundant sources of rock.

To suggest that the visual ambiguity of each of the artefacts shown throughout this website was in each instance over-looked is simply not credible since each item would have been studied in the course of working. The idea that the items analysed in detail here (which are a sub-sample of the wider group) are part of a natural deposition is most unlikely since significant “sorting” must have occurred to enable the detection of so many visually ambiguous stones. The question now becomes one of accounting for human intervention and common sense tells us that features that mimicked or resembled those seen in their immediate environment were "valued" or at least sought-after.

'Faces'

Archaeologists often claim that Palaeolithic art rarely included depictions of hominids or that they are more often figurative rather and rarely realistic. This is merely an assumption on their part based on taphonomic remnants which cannot be considered to be representative of the extent of palaeoart or on which the chronological development of palaeoart may be reliably determined.

Face 01 - Click link to download illustration accompanying text

Split by bipolar reduction and almost certainly by human agency, this blue beach pebble was recovered deep within the strata in close association with a "blade" like flint almost definitely the result of anthropic activity*. The 'face' like images are often caricature or cartoon-like, and indeed this is consistently true throughout the collection - another indication of human intervention being the cause.

The illustration shows that there is a battering mark caused by the maul on the proximal end and the layering of step fractures from contact with an anvil on the distal end - as would be expected with bipolar reduction by an anthropod.

The photo below shows what is tentatively identified as an 'eye' flaked from the edge. Note the central small flake removal to create a 'pupil' and flaking either side of the iris to create a 'relief'.

In all, there are six distinct possible depictions of a 'face' which provides a degree of confidence to conclude that one or more of these "visual ambiguities" may have been detected by the person(s) responsible for a) reducing the pebble initially, and b) post bipolar reduction - flaking and retouch. Congruence of iconic subject matter appears to confirm identification and render any charge of pareidolia alone a barely credible refutation. In the main illustration the mark on the blue cortex of the beach pebble that may be construed as an 'eye', is a small flake scar from the rind of the flint.

Characteristic features noted to support a hypothetical production of an early iconograph based on assumed features (from skulls of robust hominid) are;

A receding chin.

A long sloping nose.

A protruding jaw.

Perhaps one of the most hauntingly realistic images in the entire collection (below).

A close up reveals the overlapping flake removals or "retouch" around the 'chin' area and numerous flakes scars from the 'cheek'. All flake scar patination is consistent with being created within a small "geological" window of time, i.e. not differing and associated with geological processes such as "rolling" or fluvial action. N.B. the well defined arrisses. These flake scars appear to offer no conceivable utilitarian benefit, and are of uniform size and angle of removal, demonstrating "deliberated" flaking.

* Tool 04 shown in the next series of four photographs was one of two items observed independently by two professional geologists - both of considerable experience in their field - as "definitely not the result of natural processes". In contrast, several lithic experts have claimed this to be the result of natural processes. Based upon the same empirical evidence both parties cannot be correct - either the item has been "worked" by a human (to a degree to be determined) or it has not. Scientific methodologies surpass appeals to authority in this regard although more often than not the latter prevails - especially within a closed circle of academics.

Dimensions 23 x 76 x 10 mm. Recovered from within 10 cm of Face 01.

Face 07

Face 07 has a small low angled flake removal from the older fracture plane; which is in position to create an 'eye' - relative to the protruding 'nose' and recess of the 'mouth' (created by a now absent fossil inclusion). There are two palpable 'face' images which could hardly have been missed by a hominid quite capable of detecting visually ambiguous images. Indeed the 'eye' described next appears to demonstrate direct evidence that the visual ambiguity was not only noted, but enhanced. The bifacial edge appears to have been the working end of a heavy duty functional tool.

Figure 1 shows how the impression of an 'eye' is caused by the pitted circular depression or non-conformity below the plane of the flake removal. Superficial examination may lead one to assume that "rolling" may have caused both the damage to the arrises and potentially the area of interest. Macroscopic examination however (Figure 2) reveals that the circle is pitted and worn in a manner quite unlike the adjacent arrisses which have an entirely different pattern of damage (Figure 3).

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Whilst the area appears under microscopic examination (x100) comparable to the (ongoing) development of the rind (or cortex) - it also appears less "aged". However, of some difference are the steep, and more angular crushing fractures of the cryptocrystalline matrix with small speckles of flint still visible, possibly indicating repeated and persistent direct percussion. In other words, the manufacture of the 'eye' - by whatever means - was secondary to the manufacture creating the plane of the conchodial flake scar upon which it sits.

Face 06

Face 06 is identified as a three dimensional cartoon-like depiction of a hominid 'head', with a least one other 'face' and possibly two further unidentified 'animal heads'.

Concluded by one independent respected lithic expert to be "definitely the result of human agency" on the basis of the flake scars (and from which the method of production was subsequently deduced), Face 06 is arguably a strong case for iconographic production in lithic artefacts. Primarily there are many features which conclusively point to an anthropic origin being the causautory agent for the majority of flake removals. Secondarily, Face 06 bears a good example of a natural feature on one side being intentionally "mirrored" on the other (the 'eyes'). And thirdly there are eight further key features or visual cues that enable the objective identification of a 'hominid' iconograph.

The visual recognition system has a propensity for recognising exaggerated key visual cues. Caricature type representations facilitate recognition by conveying significantly more neurologically important information than those based purely on topographic information. Each section numbered from 1-9 in the photo above and in the corresponding text and table below is a distinct aspect of the contour representing a stereotypical exaggeration of at least one primary visual cue or salient feature.

1. (a) Distance from the bottom of the 'occipital bone' to the top of the 'parietal bone' is short. (b) The lower section corresponding to the 'neck' indicating an upright posture.
2. (a) Sloping forehead to a (b) prominent 'brow ridge'.
3. The nose is long, curved and non prominent to the 'face'.
4. Long and angled philtrum suggesting a projecting mid 'face'.
5. Thick top 'lip' of 'mouth' indent.
6. A receding 'chin'.
7. 'Neck' placement suggesting a long and protruding lower jaw.
8. Incorporation of the spiral-like indentation as an 'eye'.
9. Incorporation of the pronounced mound in the cortex as a 'cheek'.

The last two (8 and 9) visual cues seem likely to have served as a reference point for all seven primary features, the respective modifications and the observed characteristics. However these are not based on the outline and therefore in this instance are referred to as secondary cues although they could just as well be termed orientating cues.

Table 1.

The spatial arrangement of the individual features expressed through each sub component demonstrates persistence beyond that to be expected in random material and it is proposed that in this instance there was an intentional strategy to produce a cartoon-like and therefore easily recognisable representation of a hominid.

The photo above shows the sequence of the overlapping and parallel flake removals creating the 'nose'. Since each of these removals would require the edge to have been repeatedly struck with closely comparable force and from the same angle onto the striking platform it is very unlikely that the cause was natural in origin. Confidence is derived from the organised characteristics of both force and angle.

Since the iconographic representation appears to be three dimensional - i.e. it carries over and is "mirrored" (as far as appears to have been possible) on the other side, this identification - whilst subjective - appears to be based on a fairly firm basis.

'Masks'

Labeled "masks" by some, these items can be demonstrated to have been artificially or anthropically modified. Their visual ambiguity is often clearly delineated and non ambiguous.

Mask 01

Mask 01 was a surface find, found in 2006. The context of the find - in close association with Palaeolithic flake tools, cores and possibly more iconic material - provides the imperative to analyse this item further. Mask 01 invokes contemporary interpretations ranging from a skull to a face. The left hand 'eye' (for want of a better description) has a second hole extending further into the stone. "Like a pupil" exclaimed my daughter who had found it. I replied, brainwashed suitably - "they didn't make things like that back then". Below and between the 'eyes' is a dark, almost triangular depression with a 'visual ambiguity' or likeness to the nasal socket of a hominid skull. Slightly offset and thereby indicating a natural origin it is feasible that this characteristic in association with other sub-components may have acted as the impetus or visual cue to the neural system prompting modification to further enhance the object and create a visually recognisable iconograph.

Figure 1a (left) and 1b (right).

Mask 01 has two depressions both of which are placed relative to the 'eyes' in the anatomically "correct" position to be identified here as 'nostrils'. These concavities are fairly uniform as demonstrated by the white circle in Figure 1a which is a close measure for both. Either their contextual arrangement (as sub-components in a 'face' image) and uniformity is pure chance or there was some curation involved.

Figure 2 taken perpendicular to the aperture, illustrates the regularity of the right 'eye' of Mask 01 demonstrating a tolerance within 1 mm around the entire circumference. This two dimensional image does not indicate well how the concavity falls away from the white line shown, with some areas of cortex appearing to extend beyond this line but in actual fact comprising the depression itself (see main illustration).

In figure 1b (earlier), the depth and internal shape are illustrated to scale. This shape is a fair approximation of any subsequent cross sections forgoing the height of the walls which are inevitably determined by the morphology of the stone itself. However, there is a slight deviation to the regularity of the circumference - mostly on the left hand side - horizontal displacement can in part be explained by the overall shape of the item with the middle of the item raised higher and hypothetically, a tendency to veer toward holding it flat in the hand would cause any rotary action to move off-centre. The morphology of the concavity is dissimilar to the cortex of the stone which indicates that this area has undergone a different taphonomic process from the rest of the item. The potential for human agency being a cause is explored later by the experimental reproduction of a similar concavity. There are no macroscopic traces of striations which may be readily interpreted as indications of anthropic agency; however, this is unsurprising considering the potential antiquity and consequent deterioration of the item expected over time.

The main illustration clearly shows two flake removals and the arrise between them. Their patination is not dissimilar to each other or from the removal at the distal end indicating that they were removed at around about the same time (in geological terms). The distal scar is hinged, a trait generally considered indicative of human agency. More fundamentally perhaps, the overlapping flake removals have reduced the proximal left lateral edge (see dotted line). If this flaking was intentional, as suggested by the patination, it could be consistent with reduction to more closely approximate the shape of a head or skull (i.e. removing an edge) and thereby increasing the "visual ambiguity value" of the item.

Mask 02

Mask 02 is unmistakable. The two opposing colours of stones as the 'eyes' could possibly indicate intentional pairing of marking motifs having oppositional characteristics.

Intentionality is inferred directly from the removals creating the bottom row of 'teeth' (below) which alternate in direction - a pattern not at all consistent with random percussion.

Close up of one of the insert 'eyes' in Mask 02 reveals an unusual "cement" holding it in place. In the context of a palpable 'face' image - comparable to the Makapansgat pebble - the uniqueness of this feature alone demands further investigation outwith my resources.

'Mammals'

Much Palaeolithic art, or palaeoart, appears to follow a strategy of depicting key visual cues and therefore aiding visual recognition (see D., Hodgson, 2006, 2003, etc.,). These key visual cues, or "artificial stimuli", can be consistently identified with ease in this particular collection of lithics.

Sabretooth 01

Superimposing a Homotherium skeleton over Sabretooth 01 (roll over the image below) demonstrates not only a close match for the 'tooth', position of 'eye' and position of 'ear', but also for the dorsal contour - a key "salient feature". The removals show traits indicative of human agency. On a particularly dense flint nodule, the few removals that have occurred - five in total - are confined to a limited area and originate from diverse and opposing directions with differing force or effect. These observations in the context of being potentially iconographic and in association with "worked" material, appear to confirm a "deliberate" or more precisely, anthropic origin for Sabretooth 01.

The reverse (below) may depict a 'bird', and we might venture a guess that this might be a carrion bird on the basis of the possible association with the remains from Homotherium kills, but this type of conjecture is pure speculation. Interpretation of ancient iconography is subjective and fraught with issue, not least because it is fundamentally untestable. It is therefore imperative that we determine the distinction between subjective and objective interpretations of ancient iconography. This instance provides an example of how we can at least compare the surety of interpretations or "identifications" by the number of reference points. In the 'sabretooth' example, there are minimally four points of reference, the 'dorsal contour' (or form - i.e. aside from the 'head'), the 'eye', 'ear', and 'tooth', whereas, in the 'bird' example there are arguably only two "key" points of reference (or cues), the 'eye' and 'beak'. It bears spelling out that there is a higher degree of confidence in the 'sabretooth' example when compared with the 'bird', although both are superficially "reasonable" assumptions providing some degree of agency can be proven.

The apparently "precise" placement and character of the 'eye' and 'ear' removals (below in detail) indicates not only comprehension of fracture mechanics, but also suggests a deliberated strategy to create an iconograph. Pliestocene Homotherium remains have been found in Europe, including at a site in Great Britain and more recently there has been a very large specimen dredged from the North channel. If this is an iconograph of Homotherium, then by inference we can confirm an environment shared with a very dangerous animal (see also Arribas and Palmqvist). Such a subject matter for early iconography should come as little surprise considering the impact or impression that a Homotherium may have had upon early hominids and has been predicted by Bednarik, Donald, Hodgson and Helvensten among others.

Lion 01 - another possible Homotherium depiction

Well patinated, this large 'chopping tool' has evidently been used repeatedly (which can be ascertained from the detailed series of photographs in the main illustration of use-wear in the form of multiple pits). There should be no doubt whatsoever whether this is anthropically modified - and if there is question then the author politely suggests we must re-examine all lithic finds to date that have been proclaimed to be the result of human agency.

The comparison with a line representation of a painting from the Chauvet cave of what is "confidently" (i.e. by the self appointed experts) determined as a 'lion' demonstrates then that the V-shaped 'eye' and 'cheek' outline are both diagnostic for felids, as is the overall form. Indeed the older (stone) version has an additional detail with a flake removal possibly either representing a hanging 'jowl' or sabretooth. James Harrod notes with particular attention to detail;

"[doesn't] the further forward bump of the 'forehead' match the skull of Homotherium better than a lion?"

(Personal communication 2008)

I am happy to stand corrected. We will never know; but, in this instance there are at least six points of reference with a felid; 'forehead', 'eye', 'cheek', 'nose', 'mouth', 'chin'. When we also consider that the reverse may depict a felid, then what at first may have appeared to be an imaginative interpretation now seems fundamentally a robust conclusion. The question of whether or not such visual ambiguity would have been missed seems more appropriate to ask.

The V-shaped 'eye' is shown at a magnification of X 20 (below microphotomontage) - adequate to see that the marking is not of the type that may be expected to occur naturally on the flat plane of flint. It has the distinct appearance of having been made by direct percussion with an irregular edge and even over-shoots at either end. The small remnant, or island, of flint in the left hand section suggests that the V-shape is not the result of an inclusion in the flint but rather that there has been a process of reduction.

The only question possibly remaining is the age of this item - which of course can no longer be successfully determined, such is the palpable effect resulting from the practice of archaeology to eschew the "excavation" method! Typologically, this chipped stone artefact is fairly large and crude from which we may determine it to be archaic. Indeed the state of patination relative to other material also determined to be anthropic in the same vicinity indicates that it is either older or discarded where it has foregone further degradation (e.g. closer to the surface and the effects of changing temperatures). The extent of the use-wear should also be taken into consideration apparently indicating prolonged or sustained and fairly consistently focused use (i.e. evident from the use-wear damage being confined to a relatively small area). Although "well rolled" around the intersection between cortex and exposed flint, this is not the case on all arrisses, indicating that this wear is not in fact the result of later disposition but more likely a deliberate strategy of "softening" the edges to minimise discomfort when in use.

In the main illustration a distinct removal may be construed to be indicative of an 'ear' in the context of another (subjective) interpretation of a 'felid' profile to the right. The photomicrographs show the pitted surface of this stone artefact, distinctive use-wear occurring at the centre point of the "working edge".

Unknown 02

Originally, what caught the authors attention about this find was a similarity with a smaller item (also somewhat triangular in shape and with a circular "inset"). Other than this, there were suggestions from others that it may be a phallic icon or simply an oddly shaped flint nodule. I happened to review it sometime later where upon I was immediately struck by the close consistency with features seen in Lion 01, Feline 01 and Sabretooth 01. However, as with all identifications of "alien" iconography, caution must be exercised; as much as it may represent a felid of some type, it could conceivably be a bear, even perhaps a polar bear. This strand of thought occurs from the subsequent consideration of the other side, but is speculative, and should be read as such.

Much less "obvious" than the prior identifications and largely consisting of natural features (i.e. the 'nostril' and the suggestion of a 'mouth' - possibly extended by the addition of a small hinged fracture. There is also suggestion of a 'cheek' and even 'eye' despite being very feint. What is possibly more "telling" of anthropic agency are the removals just underneath the 'ear' (see detail further below). These are minor, but overlapping, almost constituting a "marking" of what is in the main a fortuitous visual ambiguity. This "suggestive" use of natural features is often considered to be a hallmark of Palaeolithic activity, but is written off when identified in lithic material with pomposity and double standards.

Again, a substantial sized flint nodule, which is for the most part undamaged. This point is worthy of note since there are those that may argue that any "apparent" workmanship is the result of glacial activity. If this were so, one might reasonably expect items such as this, thinner and longer than they are wide to be prime candidates for snapping across fault lines or lines of least resistance. Instead of which what we observe is chipping to one side in a very small area, and again, not across the end as we might expect from deposition or even redeposition, and then further flaking on the opposite side and end around the edges of successive circular recesses.

The reverse is more ambiguous, and has been tentatively interpretated, again by James Harrod (personal communication 2008) as a 'seal'. Certainly the fairly featureless and smooth look appears to invoke a likeness to a seal or sealion. If it is, then it also lends weight to the validity for another identification that shall be examined later on.

'Birds'

Another category that is purportedly rarely observed in palaeoart but is logically perhaps unsurprising to see, given for instance, the fairly exclusive ability amongst the animal kingdom to fly and the prevalance of birds.

Bird 01

An early find and the initial window to the iconographic aspect of this assemblage. Examining Bird 01 one evening I happened to notice the small mark visible as an 'eye' in the illustration and it suddenly dawned on me that it looked exactly like a bird and more profoundly that I was not the first to have recognised this similarity. Turning the piece over I observed that indeed a correspondingly positioned fracture had occurred to the other side too. In other words, both marks were deliberate and infer how the item should be orientated for perception and successful communication of the intended referrent.

Bird 01 is like many of the items in this assemblage well patinated and has only two remaining areas of cortex representing less than ten percent of the surface area. Perhaps unsurprisingly these two areas are positioned approximately where one would expect the feet of a bird.

Note how, the 'tail' flattens out and how the major facture planes "twist" around the item ending in a 'beak' that is perpendicular in orientation to the 'tail'. The small angular chip from the flint representing an 'eye' can be easily determined.

Bird 02

At first sight one might dismiss Bird 02 on the basis of being iconographic due soley to the natural shape and especially because the fracturing appears superficially to be largely random. But this conclusion fails to take into account the fact that items may well have been collected precisely because of their resemblance to some form or other. As Alan Day noted, selecting a rock that already resembles any intended form is a no-brainer (personal communication 2007). What provides good grounds for believing that this visual ambiguity has not gone unnoticed is the find context (with other possibly iconographic material and 'tool' type artefacts) and especially the overlapping flaking to the 'chin' area in the second photograph.

The 'nose', 'nostrils' and 'eye' all appear to be natural in origin; however the flaking - possibly reducing the stone to more closely resemble a 'chin' - consisting of at least three quite major flake removals can be readily interpreted to be anthropic in origin. This can be deduced from the striking platform angle required in all three instances to attain the subsequent flake scars to feather out at closely comparable lengths more than suggesting an element of control that could only have been attained by a hominid. Further confirmation can be provided in that the patination for all three scars is consistent confirming that they occurred within a short time frame, i.e. that they were not the result of a geological process.

A detail (below) of the pitted area shown in the main illustration. This area is full of cavities, often circular that could indicate thermal exposure of some type, the detail is provided in the hope that suggestions may be proffered for processes that may have caused the resulting appearance.

Bird 04

Once again, at first sight one might dismiss Bird 04 on the basis of being iconographic due soley to the natural shape with a "fortuitous" fracture (though one might reasonably wonder how many "fortuitous" features one might reasonably expect to have to discount in a single collection before coming to the conclusion that they were not fortuitous). However, in the illustration provided the platform preparation can be clearly ascertained. The flake removal creating a sole 'eye' was a deliberate act of human agency. Use-wear can be observed on the 'beak' of Bird 04.