More on the Roche-Cotard "face".

[Manystones]

Anne,

I beg to differ, finding more such items will not prove that the Roche-Cotard object represents anything but merely add to the evidence that iconography was not something unique to Hss as the "short-range" theorists would have us believe. Speculation about the "meaning" or "purpose" of this item is merely speculation. Equally I find it surprising to learn that d'Errico suggests it may have been used as weight without some sort of microscopic evidence to support this claim.

Indeed there are clear examples of Neanderthal art formerly in the collection of T. Toet but now I understand with the Hague museum. These include a face/mask, bird, fish and quadruped from the Fontmaure site which if my memory serves me correctly dates to between 80 and 40K. There used to be a website showing some of these but it has since disappeared - if anyone is interested I have kept copies of the pictures.

Other items such as the Tan-Tan or Berekhat Ram objects have been said to be "running ahead of their time" however taphonomic logic dictates that this cannot be the case and that they likely and conversely illustrate well the effect of lag.

Many will also be aware of the Makapansgat pebble, but possibly less of the pecked-cobble from Olduvai identified by Mary Leakey as a possible primate head. Fewer still may be aware of the identifications of iconography first by Boucher de Perthes (1840) later by Walter Matthes (1960) and more recently by collectors such as U. Benekendorff, J. E. Musch, R. Williams and J.C. van Es to name but a few. (N.B. this is not an endorsement of each and every identification, many of which I personally disagree with).

For those interested in further reading I recommend www.originsnet.org as a good starting point for the wealth of information regarding Palaeoart.

What does frustrate me is the willingness by some archaeologists to accept that natural features were incorporated into UP art such as the use of contours frequently seen in cave art but stubborn refusal to apply the same methodology when evaluating lithic art. More often than not such material is summarily dismissed as "coincidental", "natural" or "fortuitous" without more than a cursory examination (if any at all - in fact the usual response is a wall of silence).

I was interested to learn that the splint had been held in place with the addition of small flint inserts since this is a technique I have also observed - an example of which can be seen in a "pebble mask" on my own website www.palaeolithicart.co.uk (temporary link). I am currently working on the final touches before publishing the full details but briefly these items were found in association with Palaeolithic implements recovered from Pleistocene gravels in the valley of the Colne (formerly Proto-Thames).

Personally I feel the interpretation of a cat like image could have some merit, but I recognise that unfortunately we will never know for sure.

Regards
Richard.

[lagarvelho]

Richard:

Thank you very much for your reply.  I was unaware that these other images even existed.  I had never seen these photos, so I did not know about them.  I only knew about the Roche-Cotard image and Berekhat Ram and Tan Tan.  Tan Tan is a lot older than Neandertals, and it is unknown who might have made the Berekhat Ram figurine. 

Part of the way I answered was dictated by the fact that just about *everything* Neandertals did or appear to have done, that was similar to what "moderns" are known to have done in paleolithic times, has been disputed and "disproven" by somebody.  IOW, just about everything "premodern" has been contested.

This feeds into an idea that *all* humans before "moderns" were "inferior" in some way, and any counter evidence must therefore be disproven.  But what your sites suggest is, that symbolic imagery of *some kind* goes back a lot farther than "modern" humans. . . .and much of this body of material is not yet widely available.  Which, I think, is too bad.  But that's another story. 

Of course there is no way of knowing what the Roche-Cotard object is "for".  And I do agree with you  about the imagery and possible symbolism, though much speculation is obviously involved.
Anne G

[trehinp]

Thanks a lot Richard,

The Originsnet website and yours are fascinating. Here are a few other proto figures discovered by a French specialist of early paleo art, an amateur like me, but his hypothesis about some flints shaps fond on the Wimereu site in Northern France is quite interesting. Click here for more

I will send him a note to mention those two websites addresses that you provided.

Some of the images are quite astonishing and convincing. On some of the images the dating of the art is not clear, at least I wasn't sure of the meaning of the comments, some images of animals found  in  Bhimbetka are presented under a header saying "Bhimbetka Rock Shelters, Madhya Pradesh: Rock Art Petroglyph Site, c. 200,000 - 500,000 BP", shown here but I couldn't determine if the painting were also attibuted such an early date.

On another picture showing a human head, the resemblance is stricking. One small thing that may be a chalenge is that it looks too much like a "modern man" (AMM) and given the dating estimates (500,000 BP) it was not resembling a proto Neanderthal head(see the image here). So one wanders why would human beings chosen to collect and perhaps slightly modify such a piece?

It is quite a fantastic research avenue that is opened by all those much older art expression of the Middle Palaeolithic...

Thanks again for having pointed the readers of this forum to these fabulous websites.

Paul

[pierfig]

 Thank you very much PAUL
     I am the french amateur who found tools and cores CLACTONIANS in WIMEREUX. I want specify that my artifacts are manufactured by man, this is agree by scientifics who saw them.What they can be ( the cores) that is an another story...
        there is not enough objects no doubfull ( that is the problem!!) like the Roche-cotard "face" to prove something. It will be very difficult to prove  the existence of a "paleo art"......
   Charles. B

[Manystones]

It will be very difficult to prove  the existence of a "paleo art"......

Of course Charles, we shouldn't be trying to "prove" anything. I am in the process of re-working my website to try to present some material in a falsifiable format. But for instance, where there can be no clear utilitarian use for a particular item ought we not at least look at the possibility that there was some "other" use?

For example in context with tool types the pebble resembling a simple face (similar to the Makapansgat pebble) seen on my website has no clear use. The iconography is of course striking - but how are we to know or suppose that early hominids would also have recognised this image besides finding it alongside other items? I would propose that with the lag effect of taphonomy the Makapansgat pebble marks the latest point at which the record shows cognition capable of recognising a basic "face" template. There should be no reason to suppose that this was not also the case for many hundreds of thousands of years onward. Indeed that we should not see more images should perhaps be more surprising.

Where there are features that can be shown to be artifical and intentional which are sub-components of a "face-like" object we need to look for satisfactory explanations. I believe you show on your site that some items have removals which serve apparently no purpose. Equally we may see evidence of the incorporation of natural features into a design. Where removals do not follow an apparent logic - especially with regard to the centre of mass - but do work with the natural form to create an apparent image then we should not discount the possibility that there was some intentional use of iconocity.... or....... if we belong to the "short-range" camp, then we can bury our heads in the sand and pretend it never happened.

[goldilocks]

For example in context with tool types the pebble resembling a simple face (similar to the Makapansgat pebble) seen on my website has no clear use. The iconography is of course striking - but how are we to know or suppose that early hominids would also have recognised this image besides finding it alongside other items? I would propose that with the lag effect of taphonomy the Makapansgat pebble marks the latest point at which the record shows cognition capable of recognising a basic "face" template. There should be no reason to suppose that this was not also the case for many hundreds of thousands of years onward. Indeed that we should not see more images should perhaps be more surprising.


 The "eye" symbol found on some butterflies and caterpillars is a defense against predators..  Frontal eyes, broad head + pointed ears  (even in sillhouette) - see owls, cats, etc.--  serve as instant warning signals to small prey and birds.   Pigeons have been shown to differentiate among individual human faces.  So there's no surprise hominids would be fascinated, indeed imprinted, by such iconography (the first image recognized shortly after birth is the mother's face) and replicate it to the best of their ability or needs.  What if any "use" it served may be found somewhere among the various motivations that drive man to engage in creative endeavor - whether "for its own sake" or otherwise.

[trehinp]

We are here at the center of a fundamental question. As homo sapiens sapiens, we are able to associate some shapes found outside the animal world (Stones, trees, plants, etc.) to some living animals or human beings just by the power of imagination.

Were our ancestors Ergaster or older able to do the same? Were our cousins Neanderthals also capable of such abstract association betweeen inanimate shapes and live ones?   

This will be one of the questions that will be discussed in a workshop that I preannounced on a different PALANTH thread.

The provisional title of this workshop will be: t“IMAGES and UNDERSTANDING”. We are hopeful to organise it in 2008 if we get the financial resources…

One of the questions that will be addressed during that workshop will specifically address this subject:

   Did people discover likenesses - e.g. faces in the clouds or in pebbles  - shadows on the ground or on walls - long before they developed the skill to make them?

Elen Dissanayake developped quite elegantly and convincingly the idea that aesthetical capabilities were probably adaptive in human evolution. But as far as I can remember, she didn't address the capability to discover "likeness" between inanimate objects and living animals or human beings. ("Homo Aestheticus; Where Art comes from and why", University of Washington Press, 1995)

We have evidence that Homo Sapiens Sapiens did have that capability. In many places the artists of the upper palaeolithic were using natural features on cave walls to complement their drawings. In some cases it even looks like this natural feature on the cave wall may have been the trigger for the production of the drawing or the painting.

We are lacking similar evidence in earlier findings of objects resembling living animals or human beings.

This would be indeed a fascinating inter disciplinary research domain...

Paul

[Manystones]

Hi Paul,

I look forward to the workshop and thank you for drawing this to my attention and also for your earlier post - I have had some constructive communication with Charles prior to posting here.

We are indeed at the centre of a fundamental question. What fun it would be if we could generate more input here on this very interesting and pertinent of topics central to the evolution of humans.

Being an amateur myself, I am perhaps hardly “qualified” to comment, but I thought I would least add a few comments to your preceding post if I may. I apologise if I repeat myself for the sake of clarification.

Whilst the well documented evidence for early (Lower and Middle) palaeoart is sparse it is not entirely lacking. The “standard” reference is of course ‘The earliest evidence of palaeoart’, Bednarik R. G., 2003, Rock Art Research, 20:2 89-135.

Beyond this I would argue that there is also the work of Boucher de Perthes, Walter Matthes and many others (see first post of mine) showing abundant material worthy of inclusion if only there was a willingness to re-examine such assemblages. Given the currently, quite wrongly placed  - and what can only be described as a “belief” - in an explosion of art around 40,000 years ago, it would require for many a massive paradigm shift. It is happening in some academic areas but these are limited, and especially here in England I believe not well represented.

You ask whether our ancestors were able to associate some shapes from the outside world to living beings.

Although tentative the association of the Makapansgat pebble with australopithecines or some other early hominids indicates this specific cognitive capability was present between 2.5 and 3 million years ago. Since we see increasing enchepalization of the brain throughout later development I would suggest it not unreasonable to conclude that this ability would be at least latent in Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, etc.

Maria (Goldilocks) rightly draws attention to the processing of the face image in a newborn. There is no credible reason to suppose that this would not also have been the case for morphologically similar hominids with comparable early maternal contact.

Then of course there are the well documented and discussed cases of the Berekhat Ram and Tan-Tan object both of which indicate an early appreciation of “visual ambiguity” with specific regard to the human body.

In the earlier post and with regard to the item illustrated from Ursel Benekendorff you note that there is little likeness to a Neanderthal and I agree. However I understand that this particular item is more likely contemporaneous with Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis. Further, personally I would caution against paying too much heed to stereotyped facial images of any lineage, since we already know that there is massive variation in our own species – if indeed it represents one homogenous “species” (hoping I get my use of nomenclature right here).

It bears reiterating that the identification of palaeoart incorporating natural features is and historically has been inconsistently applied. A reluctance to examine possible material from the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic with the same methodology effectively reduces the capacity to identify early palaeoart incorporating natural features. Combined with a similar reluctance to assess lithic material with reference to palaeoart the chances of identifying anything are remote at best. Ironically the most abundantly preserved material from pre-history, i.e. knapped/worked flint and stone - that is the least affected by taphonomy - is being consistently and often systematically ignored.

To conclude then, rather than a absence of evidence for the “pro-active” early use of visual ambiguity particularly with regard to the human and animal forms there is some peer reviewed evidence. Additionally there are possibly more early examples which require little more than recognition of their existence in the first instance, evaluation and authentication where appropriate.

OSL and/or TL dating would go some way to this end in my own case…. but I can’t afford either at the moment even if I could find someone willing to actually do the work.

Kind regards
Richard.

[pierfig]

  RICHARD
 I believe there was a paleo art.All my web site try to demonstrate , to help to  prove(if possible!) this possibility. Why not, if i have some documents( objects) well shapped , about twenty , that can interest  researchers .Some objects are rather rares (uncommons ?) . Or what is the interest to collect some stones?
 “  Did people discover likenesses - e.g. faces in the clouds or in pebbles  - shadows on the ground or on walls - long before they developed the skill to make them? “
 That is the question,  of course PAUL, but serious artifacts artistics items, indubitables,unquestionables ,like the tools, does not exist in the ancient  paleolithique. Before the  absolute mobiliary art at the VOGELHERD CAVE , and in DONI VESTONICE , MALTA , etc.... there is almost nothing sure. This art is not born at one go , in first time, but there is not evidence of these first attempts. These questions are imbricated , overlaped and i do not see the way to find the solution.
  “”  We are lacking similar evidence in earlier findings of objects resembling living animals or human beings.

This would be indeed a fascinating inter disciplinary research domain “”
        I THINK THE SAME      PAUL
   CHARLES

[trehinp]

Dear Richard and Charles,

Thank you for your comments. Collecting objects just for their aesthetical shapes or colors may have been a very early step in human culture. Actually such objects were chosen to make beautiful handaxes, often using a symetry far more elaborated than the simple efficiency of the tool would have required. (see  M. Lorblanchet, “La naissance de l’art, Genèse de l’art préhistorique ”, Editions Errance 1999)

Observing that some inanimate objects had similar shapes as some living beings is already, in my view a more complex cognitive achievement. It means establishing a comparison between a stone or a piece of drift wood, naturaly carved by erosion (or growth, in case of wood,) and a completely different living object. This is a first step in the process of abstraction. (Note that unfortunately we don't have remains of such wooden objects, but some artists still use  natural shapes as a starter for their art).

Then starting to enhance the shapes of such objects to make them ressemble even more to the living models that they suggested to the "artist", is a big step forward in the real creation of artistic objects. At this level of abstraction, the "artist" was able to foresee that taking away some parts of a stone, or a piece of drift wood, would be enough to make the ressemblance more strickiing.

Further on, starting from a raw piece of stone or ivory, without specific shape in the begining, and transforming it into a figurine represents a leap forward in artistic endeavour. There, the model is only in the imagination of the artist. This is a tremendous feat of abstraction. Seeing the potential to extract a living model figurine in a piece of inanimate matter requires a long cognitive process and a series of well planned interventions on the material.

As far as we know, this was only achieved during the Aurignacian, and as far as we can tell, was only achieved by Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

An even more complex abstraction process is to project on a two D surface the image of a three D model. From a cognitive point of view this is quite an achievement... There, the mechanisms that enable the brain to make abstraction of one of the three dimensions of the model to represent it on a two D support is extremely complex.

The Néolithic art represents a further level of abstraction as it only needs to use very schematical two D representations of living creatures to tell us stories. So in the process of abstraction, a fourth dimension is provided: time...

These are the types of cognitive mechanisms that are, so far, very litle known. We may well never get to know them...

But that shouldn't stop research to try to find clues in the evidence that came to us through time...

Yours.

Paul

[lagarvelho]

Paul:

What do you think the difference between the Berekhat Ram figurine and "Aurignacian" figurines actually is?  Bear in mind, I have no "technical" background in artistic objects?  I would just like your input here.
Anne G

[trehinp]

Paul:

What do you think the difference between the Berekhat Ram figurine and "Aurignacian" figurines actually is? 
Anne G

Anne,

I the case of the Berekhat Ram figurine there is still a debate on the level of human intervention in the production of the figurine. Likewise with the Tan-Tan figurine dated approximatively (400 000 years) In the Aurignacian figurines, the probability that they might have been carved by chance (erosion or natural shapes) becomes very slim... Seing them justs sort of rules out such an hypothesis...

See for example these two Aurignacian figurines of Fels Cave, Germany (30000 BP) and the Vogelherd Horse (30000 BP)

This was somewhat discussed in another thread of Palanth Click here for more. The Aurignacian dating of these objects seems to be in question, in particular that of a . beautiful Mamoth

But the level of carving mastery shown in these latest figurines is far superior to the rough carving seen on the Berekhat Ram figurine for example. It is however possible that erosion might have damaged this figurine, making it look less "well finished" than the other more recent ones...

I hope this helps.

Paul