Lower Palaeolithic Art in Britain?

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 5:40 pm

On the mammoth note here's some illustrations from Archeologische Berichten.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... phants.JPG

And a quick photo of a one from close to my site..

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wi ... mmoth1.jpg

The problem - as I see it - is that objects like the Tan-Tan figure and the Berekhat Ram are portrayed as "exceptional" whereas they are only exceptionally mediocre and with this insight a quick scan of most site material reveals that the practice was widespread and consistent throughout pre-history.

We _can_ build on and learn from the substantial research by Boucher de Perthes in the 1800's later Leakey, Walther Matthes, more recently Jan Evert Musch, Max Herder and many others (some previously mentioned in this thread) in this field. The profile of animal types will vary depending on site location, use, etc.

Charlie, on your own site have you tried sorting them into animal types to determine the ratios? I'd be interested in what it might reveal about the activity there. You will undoubtedly have many face images too - often self portraits.

Hey Richard.

I haven't performed any formal statistical analyses, but, I can say roughly, that bird figures are most dominant:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2012.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2011.jpg

____________________________________________________________

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2097.jpg

____________________________________________________________

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2058.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2059.jpg

___________________________________________________________

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20193.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20194.jpg

___________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2072.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2073.jpg

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

Followed by human effigies:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2028.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... t%2029.jpg

__________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:06 pm

Hmmm... yes, I saw the face myself, but this forum has that effect on you (especially with bird heads Laughing ). I guess once again it's down to 'has this rock been worked by human hand' and I'd bet some of the stuff we're seeing around here has.
I don't know about America, but I think the UK mental health act requires a lot more than mammoths-seen-in-stones before they bin you up. I wouldn't worry too much. though if you start seeing animal heads in clouds, wallpaper, food, innocent bystanders bending down to tie a shoelace, I'd take a holiday. You must be getting to the point where you see hand axes as soon as you close your eyes at night! Laughing

Yeah, what you say is true. It can get to the point that everything starts looking like something . That's when you know it's time for a break... regroup, and come back as your own worst critic...

As for the hand axes, their a bit more objective...you've got the definite channels flakes to keep you in check...no channel flakes, then the piece doesn't make the cut. Art seem's to be, often, intentionally smoothed...so it's hard to be completely objective. As Min said in a previous post on another thread, you've got your hard sciences and soft sciences. Archeological Art, by nature, is a soft science, because of the subjectivity. Not that it makes the science any less important, but just less objective, and harder to prove absolutely.

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:02 am

We could have a contest - is there anything that anyone can not find in rock art?

How do you get past the subjectivity?

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:47 am

We could have a contest - is there anything that anyone can not find in rock art?

How do you get past the subjectivity?

Right!

But somewhere between this:

and this:

lies the truth.

Talk about a soft science...

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:36 am

How do you get past the subjectivity?

I'll volunteer to do it. I can't see any of this stuff.

They all look like rocks to me.

Starflower · Post by **Starflower** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:51 am

Minimalist wrote:
How do you get past the subjectivity?

I'll volunteer to do it. I can't see any of this stuff.

They all look like rocks to me.

HUH?????? Hey now Min, even I can see that those are dogs.

Manystones · Post by **Manystones** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:04 pm

DougWeller wrote:We could have a contest - is there anything that anyone can not find in rock art?

How do you get past the subjectivity?

Don't go looking for it...

It should be so clear that it jumps out at you..

Manystones · Post by **Manystones** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:00 pm

Charlie Hatchett wrote:
Talk about a soft science...

I am going to have to disagree. What we are looking at is physical evidence.

Take that bird shape thing from the shell mold, it shows intent. Someone purposefully set out to make it.

Or the piece I have just shown, probably part nature or geo-fact, but definitely worked further to create a face image.

Yes some of the stuff is ambiguous (image / imagined image) - but even if we discount this part I bet at least 10% of your material is not (and still shows a clear bird theme). Certainly this is the case for my collection.

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:30 pm

I am going to have to disagree. What we are looking at is physical evidence.

Take that bird shape thing from the shell mold, it shows intent. Someone purposefully set out to make it.

Or the piece I have just shown, probably part nature or geo-fact, but definitely worked further to create a face image.

Yes some of the stuff is ambiguous (image / imagined image) - but even if we discount this part I bet at least 10% of your material is not (and still shows a clear bird theme). Certainly this is the case for my collection.

Yeah, Richard, I agree on the no brainer stuff...that part is harder. But, when we venture toward the limit, the science, necessarily, becomes softer and softer. I don't say this in a derogatory way, but, I'm afraid, it's the nature of the beast. I feel the interpretation of ancient art is very important, and is definitely worth pursuing. It reveals more about the "who" these people were. I feel, as time passes, and more experts, with longer periods of experience, devise ways to quantatize or authenticate certain types of art, the field will become a harder science. Kinda like arrowhead authenticators: They can detect very small nuances that differentiate cultures and sub-cultures, and usually agree with one another. I have piles, of what I think is, art that I haven't shown, because, I've yet to devise a way to substantiate my claims.

I agree with your comment, "it shows intent. Someone purposefully set out to make it.". I look for signs of intelligent design, or non-natural features.

Peace

AD · Post by AD » Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:37 pm

Hi Doug...

How do you get past the subjectivity?

This certainly is a problem with two-dimensional photos of representations not intended as naturalistic in the first place - it does get to be somewhat of a lithic Rorschach test. In this posting, I'll make one suggestion, the simplest, then in a later posting describe the approach I prefer and am actually taking, despite its being time-consuming and often expensive.

I guess the quickest solution is to seek the advice of a rare genius like one archaeologist at an agency of the State of Ohio to whom I made the observation in an e-mail that, even at best, we all see the remote past through a fog. His reply: "Sorry Alan, once again I disagree. I see things differently from most people... I do not see things through archaeological fog, but rather through logical contexts." So, if you want to know with absolute certainty what an object is, maybe this is the guy to ask. One quite revealing display of his insight relates to the object shown below:

This is a sandstone 15 cm (6") long and varying from about 2 mm to 11 mm in thickness. It looks essentially the same from the other side. The hole is nearly perfectly round, and at the balance point of the stone because of the distribution of weight resulting from the varying thickness. Those of us lacking the gift for seeing at once the objective reality of an entity might naively perceive this as likely a manmade pendant, perhaps in the form of a round-faced bird. But there is a problem here. A few years ago, when I presented a large number of photos of rocks in this general form (without the hole), the aforementioned agency declared that they must be of entirely natural origin - not because they do not look artificial, but because there are too many of these, and Indians would not have spent their time making them (and further, they were not accompanied by arrowheads). So, this has been their firm policy. When I pressed for an explanation of the natural processes creating this stone (believe me, they don't like your doing this), He Who Is Without Fog did speak, saying that the stone had acquired its overall form by being tossed about in a stream, and that at a later time, as it lay flat, its hollow circle of nearly flawless roundness was created by water dripping from above.

It came as no surprise when two professional geologists, in a state of considerable amusement, found this revelation unconvincing, saying the stone had every appearance of being ground by human hands. But no matter - the archaeologist stated in reply that he had been looking at artifacts for many years, and did not believe this stone to be of human manufacture - end of discussion.

There are other approaches to this line of inquiry. More later...

Alan

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:37 pm

the archaeologist stated in reply that he had been looking at artifacts for many years, and did not believe this stone to be of human manufacture - end of discussion.

Member in good standing of The Club, I see.

AD · Post by AD » Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:42 am

Member in good standing of The Club, I see.

Most assuredly. In fairness, though, he is an intelligent fellow and more willing than most to communicate with us ordinary mortals. He does, however, have a family to feed, etc., and probably is not ready for the abrupt career change involved in recognizing the artificiality of many simple bird stones. (It's interesting that he actually sees the apparent imagery; he just says it can't be of human origin - must be a strange coincidence of geological processes that leaves rocks of widely varying lithologies with similar artifact-like appearances.)

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:54 am

In fairness, though, he is an intelligent fellow

Ooh, wait. I never suggested that they weren't. My complaint with The Club is that they do not use their intelligence. They are far too ready to dismiss anomalies (let's not even call it "evidence" at this point) which might challenge their existing theory. They also apply an arbitrary and impossibly high standard of evidence to finds which appear to contradict existing theories on the grounds that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." However, in a number of cases the evidence to sustain orthodox claims would not meet that standard in the first place. Hence we get to such statements as "Khafre built the sphinx because his pyramid is nearby and they found a statue of him in a hole" and "there are no hand axes in North America."

Manystones · Post by **Manystones** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:55 pm

Charlie Hatchett wrote:As for the hand axes, their a bit more objective...you've got the definite channels flakes to keep you in check...no channel flakes, then the piece doesn't make the cut. Art seem's to be, often, intentionally smoothed...so it's hard to be completely objective. As Min said in a previous post on another thread, you've got your hard sciences and soft sciences. Archeological Art, by nature, is a soft science, because of the subjectivity. Not that it makes the science any less important, but just less objective, and harder to prove absolutely.

Sorry Charlie,

Re-reading your comments I realised that a lot of the material in your neck of the woods is like limestone(?) and I guess harder to read than flint especially when as you say it has often been intentionally smoothed too. Mostly I am dealing with flint and therefore the confidence level is greater. So I guess I am not really disagreeing - when it starts getting soft my interest wanes.

But with a piece like this (if it is accepted that it is man-made) I feel there is no subjectivity involved.

Palaeo art is a "rock" _hard_ science!

Peace

AD · Post by AD » Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:46 am

Refocusing for a moment on a topic discussed earlier, the question of whether or not one should summarily dismiss as natural an apparent zoomorphic or anthropomorphic figure because it is not entirely lifelike, consider this quote from Dr. Marija Gimbutas' "The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe" with regard to simple Neolithic sculpture:

"The artist's reality is not a physical reality, though he endows the concept with a physical form, which is two-dimensional, constrained and repetitive. Supernatural powers were conceived as an explanatory device to induce an ordered experience of nature's irregularities. These powers were given form as masks, hybrid figures and animals, producing a symbolic, conceptual art not given to physical naturalism."

Of course in speaking of the Neolithic, she describes "art" that is more refined than what we are considering, but would someone like to make the case that the impetus to and capacity for symbolic representation somehow occurred suddenly and spontaneously at the end of the Mesolithic?

And, by the way, her book has many photos of small Neolithic hybrid bird-human sculptures. Here is one of them:

Alan
http://www.daysknob.com