|
(To
skip most of the introductory material, click HERE.)
American archaeologists have long assumed that the lithic artifacts created by early inhabitants of
North America were strictly utilitarian in nature, nothing more than tools,
hunting implements, and weapons, and that
there was never any symbolic or icono- graphic component in these. Likewise, it has been assumed that when
iconographic material first began to be produced here (presumably
Late Archaic Period or there- abouts) it was somehow, without
more rudimentary precedent, suddenly so
naturalistic and of such artistic virtuosity that we in the twenty-first century would
immediately recognize it as
being "art" as we understand this. Aside from
being illogical and inconsistent with long-recognized artifact
evidence in other areas of the world, this is just wrong.
Very simple zoomorphic and/or anthropomorphic imagery, usually just cursorily
and apparently routinely
incorporated into lithic artifacts, has often been recognized in our time
and earlier by
amateur archaeologists and even others just casually looking at oddly
shaped stones, both in North America and elsewhere.
Probably the best known and most credible of those recognizing such iconography
(in Europe) is the Frenchman Boucher de
Perthes, who a century and a half ago played a decisive role in founding the study of lithic
artifacts left behind by humans of the Paleolithic.
It was he who, in the face of ridicule by the archaeological
"establishment", demonstrated, with the aid of geologists (i.e., actual physical
scientists) and almost a lifetime of work, that simple but clearly manmade lithic tools were much more than four thousand years old. While there is little discussion of this today, Boucher de Perthes also
observed that much of the lithic material in context with his finds had the
appear- ance of human
modification into simple animal and sometimes human-face forms, which he termed "pierres
figures", or "figure stones". (Much amazed, I became
aware of his work through internet searches in 2003, a few weeks after
recognizing such rudimentary image-bearing artifact material here at
33GU218 in Ohio, possibly of Middle Woodland age in its upper
artifact layer, judging from ceramic material in direct context.
I will later add here a
link to scanned pages of a short book by W. M. Newton from roughly 1900,
Light On Paleolithic Flint Figures and Boucher de Perthes,
kindly provided by Richard Wilson of Watford, England.) As Boucher de Perthes
attempted to present this aspect of his research to the public he was thwarted by the
archaeological Wise Ones, already resentful of their humiliation by his verified
demonstration
of great antiquity in the lithic tools. With their "imputed authority" they simply voted that his figure
stones had no merit, and this preconception and tactic prevail among
archaeol- ogists into the present
day. Today, when someone presents a stone with even a clear resemblance to a zoomorphic or
anthropomorphic figure to an archaeologist, he/she is, in almost all cases, told that the
archaeologist sees nothing but a rock, and that the presenter is just "seeing images in clouds", this being the
standard mantra offered as counterargument. Most people are intellectually intimidated by all this,
and that is where it ends. (In fairness, it has been my experience that in a very few cases an
archaeologist will acknowledge the resemblance, even pointing out on his/her own the
characteristic recurring features right down to subcomponents, but insisting that even when these
appear consistently within an assemblage of such objects from a single venue they must
somehow be a coincidence of unexplained geological processes.)
Whether or not it has a place
within the current archaeological paradigm, the presence of
readily identified simple zoomorphic and anthropomorphic imagery
in recurring and consistent patterns, especially when these
incorporate visible physical traces of workmanship, is an
important hallmark of human agency in lithic and other artifact
material, and this must not be ignored. But when one is
"outvoted" by purported experts claiming they do not
recognize patterns readily visible to most ordinary mortals, how
does one demonstrate that their claims are bogus? Recent
research in the field of neuroscience (described below) now
has much to offer by way of objective qualifi- cation and
quantification, identifying image patterns that are pretty much
instinctively and spontaneously recognized by most humans, even
when these images are not extremely distinct.
After many rather Kafkaesque experiences presenting to archaeologists the figure stones from my now very
large collection of these ("I don't see it. It's not there.
You're just imagining it.", etc.), in 2007 I seized upon an opportunity to
call their bluff by testing one of
these (a particularly compelling one consistently rejected by archaeologists as
"amorphous") against image-processing software developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences. (A doctorate- level
professor of geology and petrologist had earlier assessed this piece as
having a high level of probability of artificial modification.)
By way of background, laboratory studies
using functional MRI show that
certain images elicit responses that are innate and independent of experience, training, or cultural
influences. A very powerful one is a simple pattern corresponding in contrast ratios and
spatial
juxtaposition to the two eyes and a mouth on the human face. We are biologically hard-wired to quite
spontaneously respond to this with "Face!", without conscious thought, whether we want to or not.
(As a practical illustration of this, just consider the simple smiley-face-derived "emoticons" so widely
employed in text-based internet communication to fill in for deficient verbal skills.)
A human infant exhibits this response from the time it is first able to visually focus.
All this takes place within the fusiform
gyrus, a part of the brain in the temporal lobes.
Functional MRI shows a strong response to this pattern, much more intense than that to inanimate
objects. (Simple animal images also evoke a strong response, although in intensity fifty percent below that to the
basic human face template.) The MIT laboratory has developed software that determines whether or not a
given image is immediately recognizable as a human face. This is based on a study of subjects with
normal pattern recognition skills looking at face images presented at varying degrees of resolution
and degradation. The algorithm has proven to be highly reliable.
I submitted to the MIT lab the photo shown below (of the aforementioned
hard lime- stone piece declared by archaeologists to be amorphous), asking if they might have time to run it through their software.
A few days later I phoned Dr. Pawan Sinha,
the director of the lab, to inquire whether or not the photo had arrived in suitable format.
He said it had, and that there was hardly a need to run it since it would clearly register
as recognizable as a face by anyone with normal neural functionality.
Expressing an interest in the application of this technology in archaeology, he very generously agreed to run the image
anyway, despite the heavy demands on the laboratory. Not only that, he sent me the results in the
form of a PowerPoint presentation containing the following images confirming the stone's
con- formity
to the geometry and luminance inequalities of their face template:
Now one has to ask why a highly trained professional archaeologist would perceive (or at least claim
to perceive) the image as amorphous, given that a normally functioning brain responds to it as a face.
(The most common aberration occurs among persons suffering from a disability within
autism spectrum disorders, including Asperger's Syndrome at the mildest level.)
Four possibilities
immediately present themselves, at varying levels of probability:
1. Most archaeologists are
autistic. From my many interactions with archaeologists, I think
this is almost certainly not the case. Besides being of above
average intelligence, they are (usually) well attuned to social cues, strongly indicating against this syndrome.
2. Initiation into the archaeological cognoscenti entails surgical removal of a portion of the temporal
lobes. Given its complexity and the risk involved in such an operation,
and the odds against its being
kept from public knowledge, this seems highly improbable.
3. Prolonged exposure to classical American archaeological training causes
part of the fusiform
gyrus to be replaced by scar tissue and/or pus. While some conversations have led me to think this is
plausible, this explanation seems much less likely than possibility #4.
4. Being far from cognitively impaired, trained archaeologists probably do in fact spontaneously
recognize the face image, but having a large investment in old paradigms prefer not to deal with the
"establishment's" displeasure that would ensue from their acknowledging this.
Also, they may have learned from experience that saying they see the image sometimes leads to awkwardly trying to
explain away physical evidence of artificiality that is clearly
present. It is easier to just deny seeing the
image in the first place, knowing that their colleagues will support them in this, and that the presenter will probably be
intimidated and go away. But sometimes this does not work. A fun instance of denial and
subsequent embarrassment was associated with this polymorphic figure stone from the 33GU218 site:
A description of this quartz sandstone and its assessment by a professional
geologist/petrologist is presented at Human Figure in
Quartz Sandstone. A shorter version of this dealing only with
the stone's technical aspects was published in the winter 2007 edition of Ohio Archaeologist magazine, a very mainstream
journal.
Please, no "conspiracy
theory" is implied here! Aside from preconceptual
thinking, to which every one of us is subject, it seems that
simple peer pressure is what stands in the way of
objective/scientific assessment of so much of the archaeological
evidence.
"Know what you see - don't just see what you know."
|
