Tan-Tan or not?

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Without giving any details – apologies for that, I brought this topic up on May 10 (Bookyard – My post on African Acheulean Art and the Dating of the EUP in Northern Spain). I am referring, here, to:

Bednarik, Robert G. 2003. A Figurine from the African Acheulian. Current Anthropology 44(3).

It has taken about two weeks for the media to pick it up, apparently in an attempt to initiate the “vociferous debate” Mr. Ricon is talking about or hoping for. I have not heard much in terms of negative or positive reactions to R. Bednarik’s statement on the part of the “specialists”, but, so far, it seems that (according to this BBC piece) Professor Stanley Ambrose disagrees with the former’s conclusions. According to Ambrose, who, apparently has seen the object, the Tan-Tan “figurine” is nothing more than an accident of mother nature, Perhaps we will soon get a bit more information than what the BBC has to offer.

Jacques Cinq-Mars

BBC NEWS
Last Updated: Friday, 23 May, 2003, 12:32 GMT 13:32 UK

'Oldest sculpture' found in Morocco'
By Paul Rincon BBC Science

A 400,000-year-old stone object unearthed in Morocco could be the world's oldest attempt at sculpture.

Rock figurine
The figurine was found 15 metres below ground
That is the claim of a prehistoric art specialist who says the ancient rock bears clear signs of modification by humans.

The object, which is around six centimetres in length, is shaped like a human figure, with grooves that suggest a neck, arms and legs. On its surface are flakes of a red substance that could be remnants of paint.

The object was found 15 metres below the eroded surface of a terrace on the north bank of the river Draa near the town of Tan-Tan. It was reportedly lying just a few centimetres away from stone handaxes in ground layers dating to the Middle Acheulian period, which lasted from 500,000 to 300,000 years ago.

Cultural controversy

The find is likely to further fuel a vociferous debate over the timing of humanity's discovery of symbolism. Hominids such as Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus, that were alive during the Acheulian period, are not thought to have been capable of the symbolic thought needed to create art.

Writing in the journal Current Anthropology, Robert Bednarik, president of the International Federation of Rock Art Organisations (IFRAO), suggests that the overall shape of the Tan-Tan object was fashioned by natural processes.

But he argues that conspicuous grooves on the surface of the stone, which appear to emphasise its humanlike appearance, are partially man-made. Mr Bednarik claims that some of these grooves were made by repeated battering with a stone tool to connect up natural depressions in the rock.

.

For the full article, CLICK HERE.

[Dale Hoogeveen]

Since everybody else seems to have lockjaw, here's my 2 cents worth:

Looks like a bit of a reach to say that this is anything more than, at most, a couple of added scratches which may or may not even have been manmade.

Whether or not it is an artifact, it says nothing about cultural abiity but would only have a statement to make about a possible level of cultural development, which is a quite different thing.   Mostly we see ancient humans in what seem to be very small groups with little or no indication of population densities large enough to allow the kinds of specialization that produces complex artifacts and their background concepts.  

Too often the line of reasoning goes didn't-couldn't-genetically unable.  That is flawed.

It is entirely possible that the people were able to do a lot more than their population densities enabled their cultures to develop.  Ancient Homo may simply have been too few in any local population to support enough organization to produce increased cultural complexity.

Dutch.

[lagarvelho]

<<Too often the line of reasoning goes didn't-couldn't-genetically unable.  That is flawed.

It is entirely possible that the people were able to do a lot more than their population densities enabled their cultures to develop.  Ancient Homo may simply have been too few in any local population to support enough organization to produce increased cultural complexity.>>

I don't know if the figurine or whatever it is, is a natural or human-modified object, either.  But your argument(which I tend to agree with to at least some extent), is very similar to that of RGB, who apparently examined the object.  Furthermore, *if* the flakes of ochre were found on it, that *might* mean something.  Also, apparently handaxes were found there too, which also might mean something.

Just my 2 cents worth on a cooling-off Seattle Friday night,
Anne G

[colin]

Yes, Dutch is spot on.
Whether this particular find is anything significant, I couldn't comment. But it certainly wouldn't surprise me if art of some sort were produced at that time depth. When one thinks of the craftsmanship of the Schoningen spears 400kya, preserved by something of a freak, it is evident that in this field we habitually underate the capabilities of ancestral humans. As I've mentioned before, the old, old story conditions us to expect so little of people before the magical 40 - 50kyp that we are always surprised, as we were by those spears.....and then we lay them quietly on one side anyway and go back to the old old story.
Cheers
Colin