Palaeoart, visual ambiguity and falsification

[Manystones]

Please see my website www.palaeoart.co.uk

where I attempt to present this assemblage in a falsifiable format and here for discussion.

Note especially the following pages;

Falsification

Mask 02 Falsification

Gorilla 01 Falsification

Face 01 Falsification

Stratigraphy and Geography

I welcome comments.

Richard

[trehinp]

Interesting pictures, Richard.

From your study of these objects, it seems that there was human intervention to enhance the features already present on the stones. This art is in my opinion quite compatible with a gradual evolution of art. It is in line with some of the natural attractiveness we find in some stones or driftwood, even when we don't have the skills to create an object from scratch. We use natural shapes, eventually modifying them to enhance the resemblance to an animal or a human body.
 
But most people artistic skills don't go further than that. Later on people acquired the necessary technical skills to sculpt or even project on a 2 D surface an image of a 3 D object.

Elen Dyssanayake has studied in depth the evolutionary aspect of Aesthetical preferences. Researching "beautiful" objects was probably providing an evolutionary advantage. Exemples of attravtiveness are provided by stone tools that were carved in beautiful minerals. One cans also suppose that animals or human being shaped objects may have been considered "beautiful".

In my "gradualist" view, the second level of skills, 2 D drawing, only happened during the Neolithic, with "stickmen" representations. Yet that lives a whole chunk of prehistoric art unexplained... What can we do to explain the apparent "Upper Palaeolithic art explosion"?

Like you, I am rather more favourable to the gradualist theory of art evolution. This position is based upon the works of researchers like Michel Lorblanchet, Paul Bahn or Robert Bednarik. There is an excelent article addressing this controversy between those who believe in an evolutionary theory of art origines and those in favour of a cognitive revolution in art around 40K BP: T. Appenzeller, “Evolution or Revolution?”, Science, 1998 282: 1451.   

However either explanation theories fail to explain the extraordinary difference ine technique that seems to have appeared around 30 K BP. I note also that the Shamanistic theory of Denis Lewis-William and Jean Clottes don't explain it either in my opinion and that of severals other researchers. 

I have proposed a theory that could satisfy the idea of a gradual evolution of art and at the same time explain the exceptional art of the upper Palaeolithic.

In that explanation there might have been some extremely gifted individuals, capable of drawing in 2 D objects seen in 3D, and that through innate abilities such as those observes today in the case of people with "Savant Syndrome". These people are extremely rare even today, so with the population size during the Palaeolithic there may have been very few of them, perhaps one ine several hundreds of years. This would explain why before a sufficient population was gathered, the chances to have one such individual was minimal, hence the very likely absence of art before that time.

I won't develop any more this analysis, but several other points in my theory are consistant with what we know of the upper Palaeolithic art through to the late Magdalenian.

Paul

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Dear Richard,

A belated welcome to the Palanth Forum, and thanks for presenting us with a very elegant website. However, I should say that the good quality of your photographs forces me to agree with Paul Pettitt’s assessment – and I quote:

It is my opinion that all of the pieces illustrated to very high quality on your website are of natural shaping. Look at those in which the natural cortext (outer 'shell' of the nodules) forms a critical part of the form (e.g. 'bird', 'primate'). These are natural cortical surfaces which reflect part of the morphology of the fossil sponge that formed the flint. They cannot have been humanly modified.

Best regards,

Jacques

[Manystones]

Jacques,

Thank you for your welcome.

You are of the opinion that ALL of the pieces are not humanly modified?

This is not a credible stance without providing your reasoning for this conclusion. Firstly some items HAVE been confirmed by respected geologists to have been humanly modified for instance, Tool 04 and Tool 05. Further I demonstrate that Paul Pettitt uses different standards to assess Palaeoart, one minute he's taking into account natural features the next he is not. Why can't there be consistency amongst professionals. And as I also point out the statement is contradictory since he admits that some objects "natural cortex forms a critical part of the form".

Please be more specific, pick an item and explain WHY you believe it is not humanly modified. I will then proceed to demonstrate how it can be concluded to be artificial.

Or provide explanations for the arguments raised on the Mask 02 falsification link. I raise specific observations that demand considered responses, summary dismissals - which I consider your response to be - leave much to be desired and lack the detail necessary for proper discussion.

Kind regards
Richard.

[Manystones]

Examining this quote in detail.

It is my opinion that all of the pieces illustrated to very high quality on your website are of natural shaping.

Stating that the pieces are illustrated to a very high quality leaves the impression that there was sufficient information available to safely conclude that the items were not humanly worked. I am not sure that there are many lithic experts out there that would be willing to state conclusively from photos alone that any potential lithic was or was not the result of human agency. Indeed, it is only an opinion, and not an expert opinion from the careful study first hand of this assemblage.

As remarked earlier several items have been independently verified to be NOT the result of natural process, i.e. human agency.   

Tool05

Tool04

It takes only a brief scan of my website - by even a novice interested in lithics - to see that there are many more items that are clearly worked.

Bird01 for example is plainly an impression of a bird and demonstrably worked whilst also illustrative of the knapping sequence used.

Look at those in which the natural cortext (outer 'shell' of the nodules) forms a critical part of the form (e.g. 'bird', 'primate').

The two items referred to here are Bird03 and Primate01 respectively. I am genuinely interested to hear any suggestions as to how given the size of these two, either could be used for anything other than a non utilitarian purpose, i.e. they are both iconographic.

At Church Hole there was a recognition by Paul and his team that natural features were incorporated into the design of parietal art by the "Ice Age artists". In fact Dr. Sergio Ripoll goes as far as to say that it was this realisation that lead to the discovery of many of the representations found. For some so far inexplicable reason this appreciation for the subtle use of natural features ought not to be applicable to earlier "proto" iconography? Why so? Indeed, we could logically also expect to see this technique being used earlier as a natural development of the simplest visual ambiguity, e.g. the Makapansgat pebble., Mask02, etc., etc.

These are natural cortical surfaces which reflect part of the morphology of the fossil sponge that formed the flint. They cannot have been humanly modified.

I am not so stupid to believe for a moment that the cortical surfaces are anything other than reflective of the processes by which they were formed. To imply that I should believe otherwise crosses into the realms of the ridiculous and such comments have no place in the discipline and I like to believe are not representative of the whole. Of course these are not humanly modified, what I propose is that the cobbles have been demonstrably knapped to create or enhance natural features whose combined properties purposely exhibit visual ambiguity.

Furthermore, quite incredibly what we can observe are, as anticipated, images of dangerous animals such as Panthero Leo, Smilodon and even Gorilla gorilla gorilla.

What does this mean? Simply, that there are a few notable people out there with careers and reputations staked firmly in the "short range" theory feeling uncomfortable enough with Bednarik's expose of the "club" who are now going to have start thinking about how they modify their stance further still with regard to the development of "cognitive indicators" without losing face or appearing to have changed tune.

[pierfig]

RICHARD
       I think the gorille you show on your site is not a gorille but rather a gigantopithequs lost in ENGLAND. What think  PAUL PETITT of the masck with "an human embryo ground( ??) from one of the face."This revolutionize the ideas we had  of homo erectus.
    best regards         CHARLES

[Manystones]

RICHARD
       I think the gorille you show on your site is not a gorille but rather a gigantopithequs lost in ENGLAND. What think  PAUL PETITT of the masck with "an human embryo ground( ??) from one of the face."This revolutionize the ideas we had  of homo erectus.
    best regards         CHARLES

Charles,

I would not rule out your suggestion that the item catalogued as "Gorilla 01" may indeed be gigantopithequs.

Paul Pettitt felt that the item "Face 01" was the result of natural processes, however he has not provided sufficient information or evidence of a scenario that would produce high energy impact in this particular geographic location. I have demonstrated on my website that this core was made by bipolar reduction. Additionally, there is ample evidence of secondary retouch - which again cannot reasonably be associated with natural processes considering for instance that the patina is non-differentiated and removals can be demonstrated to be sequential - a feature rarely seen in combination in nature. With reference to the potential representation of an embryo on one of the faces this does require further work to verify if this feature was produced by human agency. Indeed it would require many people to rethink their assumptions about the capabilities of Homo erectus. I am currently working not only on verifying the validity of this collection, but also scientifically testing my proposition that the assemblage represents an example of very early iconography.  I will of course publish the results for all to see and respond to at the earliest opportunity.

Paul,

I would be very interested to learn what the "extraordinary difference in technique that seems to have appeared 30K BP" was exactly, since I submit this is largely a matter of perception and interpretation - little of which has any basis in fact. Additionally your hypothesis with regard to the development of 2D and 3D images appears to require the exclusion of any evidence to the contrary, arguably including such items as the Tan-Tan or Berekhat Ram figurines. I believe it is quite logical and adequate to assume that mapping a 3D image onto a 3D object would require greater dexterity than mapping a 3D image onto a 2D plane.

Regards
Richard.

[trehinp]

Paul,

I would be very interested to learn what the "extraordinary difference in technique that seems to have appeared 30K BP" was exactly, since I submit this is largely a matter of perception and interpretation - little of which has any basis in fact.

I'm speaking here of the fact that small 3D figurines and 2D drawings of an exceptional fidelity to the model were found aroung 30K BP. Previous art was either not figurative or done with extremely crude technique such as used items on the Tan-Tan or Berekhat Ram figurines or in non representative drawings with the exception of symbols interpreted as female vulvaes.

There is no evidence (at least known so far )of a soft transition producing intermediate art style bridging the gap between this earlier art form and the completely achieved Aurignacian art such as discovered in Vogelhart or in Chauvet Cave. In a purely logical development the art of the Neolithic with "stickmen" representations should have come before the art of the Aurignacian and the Magdalenian...

Note that outside art, there is also an accelleration in technology. Here is a short quote from my paper on "Prehistoric Art: Radical or progressive evolution? The case of 'Savant syndrome' ":
<<A quick and rough analysis of stone industries over time shows that each new technique lasted much less than the previous one before being put in competition with a more effective one : Oldovian about 2 million years, Acheulean, about 700 thousand years, Mousterian about 50,000 years, etc. Please excuse the approximations here. Note that stones industries overlap : older technology persists even after a new one appears..>>      
                                                                                         

Additionally your hypothesis with regard to the development of 2D and 3D images appears to require the exclusion of any evidence to the contrary, arguably including such items as the Tan-Tan or Berekhat Ram figurines. I believe it is quite logical and adequate to assume that mapping a 3D image onto a 3D object would require greater dexterity than mapping a 3D image onto a 2D plane.

Indeed sculpture is requiring a high level of dexterity as examplified in the Aurignacian figurines, made with absolutely remarkable techniques which wsn't the case of the Tan-Tan or Berekhat Ram figurines. But from a cognitive point of view, projecting an image perceived in 3D is far more complex than making a 3D representation of a 3D object. It requires, in addition to dexterity, a level of abstraction that is really astonishing.

As far as I know, Neanderthal, even with his more voluminous brain than Homo Sapiens Sapiens, never managed to produce 2 D images.

In my analysis I see the continuity of art development primarily on Homo Sapiens Sapiens, starting more than 100K years BP. I think that artistic capabilities of Homo Sapiens Sapiens were part of their adaptive value which made them survive where Neanderthal didn't.

For the adaptive value of art in a more general framework, see : E. Dissanayake, "Homo Aestheticus; Where Art comes from and why", University of Washington Press, 1995.

What remains interesting in yuur research is the fact that it is probable the human being started to have an interest in objects resembling animals or even human beings very early in prehistory. It is also possible that they may have done some intervention on these nucleus which had already some resemblance with existing living beings. The human intervention remains rather crude, as opposed to that in the Aurignacian figurines and drawings where the technique is absolutely remarkable. I think it was Picasso who said  something like : "Nothing has been invented in art since Lascaux."

Yours sincerely.

Paul

[Manystones]

Paul,

I would be very interested to learn what the "extraordinary difference in technique that seems to have appeared 30K BP" was exactly, since I submit this is largely a matter of perception and interpretation - little of which has any basis in fact.

I'm speaking here of the fact that small 3D figurines and 2D drawings of an exceptional fidelity to the model were found aroung 30K BP. Previous art was either not figurative or done with extremely crude technique such as used items on the Tan-Tan or Berekhat Ram figurines or in non representative drawings with the exception of symbols interpreted as female vulvaes.

Unfortunately Paul you make the classic mistake of assuming that the remanants preserved are indicative of the actuality thousands of years ago. I ought not to have to remind you that taphonomic logic dictates that the spatial distribution and occurence are affected by factors not representative of the culture in question. For instance, figurines that have been recovered are generally from high PH environments. Items made of wood would be very unlikely to survive a lengthy period of time - so should we draw a conclusion that they simply were not made?

We need also to ensure that we compare "apples with apples". The techniques used to enhance or create items such as the Tan-Tan or Berekhat Ram figurines (both stone/rock) were in all likeliness dissimilar to those used to create the ivory figurines you refer to - an entirely different medium to work with.

There is no evidence (at least known so far )of a soft transition producing intermediate art style bridging the gap between this earlier art form and the completely achieved Aurignacian art such as discovered in Vogelhart or in Chauvet Cave. In a purely logical development the art of the Neolithic with "stickmen" representations should have come before the art of the Aurignacian and the Magdalenian...

Stylistic determination and dating has been fraught with issues with many paintings previously assigned to various "periods" only to be found to date from the Holocene and even the Neolithic. Attempting to fit paintings into categories determined by stone tool technologies has contributed and compounded this problem.

Here also, we see the common mistake of only considering the Franco-Cantabrian set. Australian rock art dating from the Middle Palaeolithic shows numerous examples that do not support your statement regarding the "logical development" of art and "stickmen".

Note that outside art, there is also an accelleration in technology. Here is a short quote from my paper on "Prehistoric Art: Radical or progressive evolution? The case of 'Savant syndrome' ":
<<A quick and rough analysis of stone industries over time shows that each new technique lasted much less than the previous one before being put in competition with a more effective one : Oldovian about 2 million years, Acheulean, about 700 thousand years, Mousterian about 50,000 years, etc. Please excuse the approximations here. Note that stones industries overlap : older technology persists even after a new one appears..>>

Again, another assumption based on an inductive framework.                   
                                                                                         

Additionally your hypothesis with regard to the development of 2D and 3D images appears to require the exclusion of any evidence to the contrary, arguably including such items as the Tan-Tan or Berekhat Ram figurines. I believe it is quite logical and adequate to assume that mapping a 3D image onto a 3D object would require greater dexterity than mapping a 3D image onto a 2D plane.

Indeed sculpture is requiring a high level of dexterity as examplified in the Aurignacian figurines, made with absolutely remarkable techniques which wsn't the case of the Tan-Tan or Berekhat Ram figurines. But from a cognitive point of view, projecting an image perceived in 3D is far more complex than making a 3D representation of a 3D object. It requires, in addition to dexterity, a level of abstraction that is really astonishing.

Can you please provide a reference that supports your assertion that mapping a 3d image onto a 2d plane requires a greater level of abstraction than mapping a 3d image onto a 3d object.

As far as I know, Neanderthal, even with his more voluminous brain than Homo Sapiens Sapiens, never managed to produce 2 D images.

Well, there’s the collection of flints clearly shaped as 2D representations of animals from Fontmaure, so at the least we would have to revise up to 80,000 BP.

In my analysis I see the continuity of art development primarily on Homo Sapiens Sapiens, starting more than 100K years BP. I think that artistic capabilities of Homo Sapiens Sapiens were part of their adaptive value which made them survive where Neanderthal didn't.

For the adaptive value of art in a more general framework, see : E. Dissanayake, "Homo Aestheticus; Where Art comes from and why", University of Washington Press, 1995.

What remains interesting in yuur research is the fact that it is probable the human being started to have an interest in objects resembling animals or even human beings very early in prehistory. It is also possible that they may have done some intervention on these nucleus which had already some resemblance with existing living beings. The human intervention remains rather crude, as opposed to that in the Aurignacian figurines and drawings where the technique is absolutely remarkable. I think it was Picasso who said  something like : "Nothing has been invented in art since Lascaux."

I beg to differ with regard to crudeness, sculpting stone by knapping is no mean feat. And of course there’s evidence that actually Neanderthals may have been responsible for producing some of that coveted cave art which was “automatically” assigned to Homo sapien sapien. Lascaux as you will probably be aware dates to around 16,000.

Kind regards
Richard.

[trehinp]

Richard,

I am very well aware of the taphonomic limits of our understanding of prehistoric art. I know that the absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. But the absence of evidence cannot be either used to prove that something could have existed.

With regard to the Franco Cantabrian centrism in prehistoric analysis, I aggree that it has been too much of a problem for decades, almost ever since first scientific research was made in the prehistoric field. Recent  publications (if not discovery) of some palaeolithic rock art in the Nile Valley shows that such art existed far away from the Franco Cantabrian region. And I would not be surprised if some other far away site were to be discovered.

In my own research, I mentionned the fact that Australian art was quite a challenge to my theory.

With regard to dating of art, there are indeed big fights among experts. Paul Bahn and Paul Pettitt challenged the dating of Chauvet Cave paintings agains other scientific dating methods. Their argument was in my opinion more emotional than rational... It was primariliy based upon a style which they thought to be too advanced to be dated so far back...

With regard to the duration of stone technologies the evidence tends to confirm the acceleration of stone knapping technology changes. However, I would aggree that even though there was an accelleration it may have been a steady one rather than a revolutionary one. And I would also agree that there is no direct link between stone knapping techniques and the production of art.

On the mapping 2D images from 3D vision, there are two levels of abstractions to be achieved one is going from a living being to an innert representation, the second one is to further the abstraction with providing a flat view of the living being. This is a complex cognitive process which has been vastly documented in another domain: computer representation of 3D objects in 2 D images. We can see this difficulty also in  children with developmental disorders who have difficulties with space and time for them we use visual support. The most severely impaired have difficulties with understanding 2D representations and still need 3D objects to recognise situations. If one finds more difficult to recognise a 2 D representation it seems logical that the idea of producing such a representation is also a more difficult feat.

Could you provide some references about Fontmaure  "flints clearly shaped as 2D representations of animals". On my search on the internet art forms in Fontmaure are dated from the Aurignacian and the Magdalenian.

With regard to crudeness of earlier art, it is quite observable while it is understandable that knapping techniques were more "brutal" . As more refined tools came to be developped (finer blades, sharper points, etc.), sculpture became finer in its finished product.

I come back to my own view of art evolution, I still believe that art didn't go through a revolution during the Aurignacian, leading t the magnificient art that we all know. I disagreas with the analisys of Steven Mithen and other advocates of a cognitive revolution which they hypthecise around 50-40K BP.

I think that we should distinguish a steady art evolution, probably dating from as early as hominides existed, from the exceptional representations of the upper palaeolithic. I say exceptional in the strong sense of the word: for me they were exceptional artists, just as much as Michel Angelo or Leonardo da Vinci were in their times. The rest of the polulation had its own level of art which, as nice as we may find it, did not have the exceptional value of the artistic production left by exceptional masters.

Whether there were such exceptional artists earlier than in the Upper Palaeolithic remains a mistery. I personally don't think that such exceptional artists could happen before the apparition of Hommo Sapiens Sapiens... But I could be proved wrong. Being a fan of Karl Popper, I accept the challenge of refutability.

Best regards.

Paul

[pierfig]

RICHARD
  stone shapped or not is only a question of probability. For Yours , the probability is almost wortheless . I understand very well the reluctances of Mr PETITT.
   How can you prove your stones are shaped, this is not possible statistically . There is only some flakes and 1 handaxe well shaped.
        I give my ideas on the questions of the évolution of the art on my sites http://site.voila.fr/shopings   and    http://site.voila.fr/paleoart   
       unfortunately in french, i am not able to translate .I show tools and stranges cores statistically shaped.
    best regards          CHARLES
         
     

[Manystones]

RICHARD
  stone shapped or not is only a question of probability. For Yours , the probability is almost wortheless . I understand very well the reluctances of Mr PETITT.
   How can you prove your stones are shaped, this is not possible statistically . There is only some flakes and 1 handaxe well shaped.
        I give my ideas on the questions of the évolution of the art on my sites http://site.voila.fr/shopings   and    http://site.voila.fr/paleoart   
       unfortunately in french, i am not able to translate .I show tools and stranges cores statistically shaped.
    best regards          CHARLES

Charles,

Please pick an object you believe to be not worked from my site. I will happily provide technical illustrations and explanations to demonstrate that it is the result of human agency.

Statistically? Please see the paper "Distinguishing between naturally and culturally flaked cobbles", Gillespie, J.D., 2004, Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, Vol 19.7:615-633. I am parsing 50 randomly selected cores through exactly the same attributes (16) and will happily post the results here for all to see.

I am disappointed that you do not have the confidence to trust my judgement with regards to identifying human agency, but  I appreciate you are not alone in your conclusions. However, please let me assure you that I am not working with probablities but certainties.

Regards
Richard

[Manystones]

Hi Paul,

On the mapping 2D images from 3D vision, there are two levels of abstractions to be achieved one is going from a living being to an innert representation, the second one is to further the abstraction with providing a flat view of the living being. This is a complex cognitive process which has been vastly documented in another domain: computer representation of 3D objects in 2 D images. We can see this difficulty also in  children with developmental disorders who have difficulties with space and time for them we use visual support. The most severely impaired have difficulties with understanding 2D representations and still need 3D objects to recognise situations. If one finds more difficult to recognise a 2 D representation it seems logical that the idea of producing such a representation is also a more difficult feat.

A complex cognitive process is not satisfactorily explained by computer representation of 3d objects. I remain to be convinced that children with developmental disorders could arguably be considered to be an adequate model either, especially in the instance provided as an example. My issue is that it seems illogical to assume that it is more difficult to construct a 2d representation than a 3d representation simply on the basis that there is a further dimension to construct within in the latter case.

Indeed this position does not take into account the abstraction required from the mental image to the actual construct, but again, I state that it is logical to assume that 3d to 3d is no less complex than 3d to 2d where one degree of freedom is lost.

I hestitate using the example of the "normal" development of drawing observed in children, where 3 dimensional representations are usually a much later development than 2 dimensional representations. For an example, I grabbed the 2nd to top link from a quick google search on drawing development in children. http://www.learningdesign.com/Portfolio/DrawDev/kiddrawing.html However, I shouldn't need to cite a reference in this case since the onus is not on me to disprove your conclusion, but for you to provide a satisfactory reference to back up your claim.

That being said, I think you have probably demonstrated my claim for Fontmaure being up to 80,000 BP was probably a little generous, when most of the literature I can find places the date as being "at least 40,000 years old" (e.g. http://www.originsnet.org/mpfontloireguettar/pages/a)%20fontmasideview.htm). A number of articles do mention the figure of between 40,000 and 80,000 years however this is in all likeliness based on the categorisation into Mousterien of Acheulian Tradition. However, the date is not too important. That this site is believed to be Neanderthal is.

The two-dimensional representations were in the collection of Ted Totte and are widely held to be the work of Neanderthal as is most of the evidence for human agency at this site. From the same website as the previous link (Originsnet):

Tedde Toet, a Dutch fossil and artefact collector from The Hague, decided to explore the area with a few friends. Besides the typical kind of tools they found, there were also items of a different nature, that of human and animal figures. Furthermore they came across so-called symbolic stones, such as triangular stones, round discs and stone balls, so-called ‘bolas’. At the beginning of this year the ‘Museon’, the education museum in The Hague held a small exhibition Tolerated Past’ using the sub-title 'Neanderthal tools and art from Fontmaure, France’" (http://www.neanderthalerart.com/about.html).

The link referred to within the quote is regrettably gone, but I saved pictures of the items I specifically refer to prior to this (a fish and a quadruped). I will happily provide them to you, if you so wish, however they are currently on my now dead computer and there may be a delay whilst I retrieve them.

Finally, I agree there may well have been exceptional artists (and most likely many mediocre artists too), but is there any reason to assume that this could not also have been the case before Homo sapien sapien or am I missing some piece of information? In fact, in order to support this assertion it is necessary to deny the exsistence of iconographic material that has already been documented and not associated directly to HSS, including the material referred to above from Fontmaure.

Kind regards
Richard.

[E.P. Grondine]

Speaking as a veteran space journalist with a little background study and entirely no experience in either knapping, tool identification, or microscopic edge examination:

My guess would be that the only undeniable sign of  human manufacture would be a tool discovered a long distance from its source quarry.

I'll beg off any comment on brain development, art, and speciation, other than to note that China was in chaos during the last century, and as a result newly excavated finds are just starting to be reported from there (i.e. Homo wushan).

[pierfig]

 MR TOO MANY STONES
       I thank you for your paper "Distinguishing between naturally and culturally flaked cobbles", Gillespie, J.D., 2004, Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, Vol 19.7:615-633. I am parsing 50 randomly selected cores through exactly the same attributes (16) and will happily post the results here for all to see.""
  If my brain serve me correctely, i understand that i can choice any stone broken anywhere anyhow ,without bulb scars ,without waves of repplies etc.....If  i believe your paper the half of theses stones are shaped by man.With some statistic i coud collect the half of the beach.....and there is artifacts on the moon..
     the basic fact in this question for me , and the common sence, is that we can not   assert that one flake alone is the work of an human ,  nor 2 or3. I think it is necessary to see 5 or6   arranged with some logic. For me  we can not assert that the mask of ROCHECHOUART , makapansat pebble, the old tools found in cantal (FRANCE) are shaped.
   
     I stop here.It is difficult for me to traduct my own ideas, it is less difficult for somebody to repeat the ideas of others. This is my last post on the subject, i  have not the use to speak  of the sex of angels.
      best regards