|
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
(supposedly sometime in the Archaic Period) it was somehow, without
more rudimentary precedent, instantly so
naturalistic and of such artistic virtuosity that we in the twenty-first century
A.D. would
immediately see it as "art". This is illogical and inconsistent with long-recognized artifact
evidence in other areas of the world, and just wrong.
Simple zoomorphic and/or anthropomorphic imagery, usually just cursorily
and apparently routinely
incorporated into lithic artifacts, has long been recognized by
amateur archaeologists and others just casually looking at oddly
shaped stones both in North America and elsewhere.
Possibly the best known of those recognizing such iconography 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 Palaeolithic.
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 many years 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
appearance 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, shortly after
recognizing such rudimentary image-bearing artifact material here at
33GU218 in Ohio, likely Archaic to Early/Middle Woodland in age.)
As he
attempted to present this aspect of his research to the public he was thwarted by the
archaeological Wise Ones, already resentful of their embarrassment 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
archaeologists into the present
day. Today, when someone shows a stone with even a clear zoomorphic or
anthropomorphic appearance 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" (pareidolia), 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 should not be ignored - it is part of the
archaeological record. But when one is outvoted by purported experts claiming they do not
recognize patterns reaily 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 qualification and
quantification, identifying image patterns that are pretty much
instinctively and spontaneously recognized by most humans, even
when these images are not very distinct.
After numerous Kafkaesque experiences presenting to state and
academic archae- ologists clearly iconistic and verifiably artifactual figure stones from my
collection of these, in 2007 I seized upon an opportunity to
call their bluff by testing one of them, a particularly compelling limestone piece 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 petrologist
and professor of geology had earlier assessed this piece as
having at least a 90% probability of being artificially modified.)
By way of background, laboratory studies
using functional MRI show that
certain images elicit identifiable responses in the human brain 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"
and "emojis" so widely
employed in text-based communication to fill in for deficient verbal skills.)
A human infant exhibits this response from the time it is first able to
focus its eyes.
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
about 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
algorithm is based on a study of subjects with
normal pattern recognition skills looking at face images presented at varying degrees of resolution
and degradation, thus providing the statistically important
"interrater reliability" factor.
In a fit of hubris I submitted to the MIT laboratory
the photo shown below
of the aforementioned
hard limestone piece declared by archaeologists to be amorphous.
(Ohio's Senior Archaeologist Bradley Lepper: "This suggests nothing in particular
to me.") I asked 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 and anthropology, 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
conformity
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
("neurotypical") brain responds to it as a face. (This aberration occurs
most commonly among persons suffering from a cognitive disability within
the autism spectrum, 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 not the case. Most seem outwardly to be of at least average
intelligence and well attuned to social cues, indicating against this syndrome.
2. Initiation into the archaeological cognoscenti entails surgical removal of a portion of the
the brain's 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 rigidly orthodox 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 have a vested interest in old paradigms
and 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
often leads to awkwardly trying to
explain away physical evidence of artificiality that is clearly present
and verifiable. 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
rejection and
subsequent embarrassment involved this anthropomorphic/polyiconic
Figure Stone from the 33GU218 site:
 |
|
Click Image to
Expand. |
A description of this quartz sandstone
initially dismissed by Ohio state archaeologists as a product of
purely natural geological processes, and its assessment by a
professional
geologist/petrologist, are presented at Human Figure in
Quartz Sandstone. A shorter version of this dealing only with
the stone's petrological/artifactual aspects was published in the Winter 2007 edition of
Ohio Archaeologist magazine, a very mainstream
journal.
Please, no "conspiracy
theory" is implied here! Along with preconceptual
thinking, to which every one of us is subject, it seems that
simple peer pressure and fear of job loss are among the main obstacles to objectively assessing the
available archaeological
evidence.
------------------------------
CAVEAT:
This particular web page (here since 2007) has been widely read and cited as a compelling counterpoint to the usually reflexive and facile "pareidolia" argument, as well it
should be, and I'm happy with this since I have a strong aversion to pretentious bullshit whether from (some) professional archaeologists or from the
more vocal proponents of the recent simpleminded "portable rock art" cult also variously named "PRA", "artyfacts", "artfacts", "story stones", etc.
(refer to my RANT on the homepage).
Please do not interpret any of this as disparaging the profession of archaeology itself, which is far from my intention or desire.
Over the years I have known many capable archaeologists and anthropologists (aspiring and studying to be one myself before coming to my senses), but, as in any profession, some people are very good at what they do while most are not.
As shown above, all too many archaeologists are (willfully?) unable to recognize even the obvious (to neurotypical humans) appearance of even simple imagery in a rock, and this conveniently short-curcuits any objective discussion of whether or not someone had intentionally modified it.
BUT this does NOT mean that whenever one of us looks at a rock and perceives a slight resemblance to a human face some person in the distant past must have created the
image. Sometimes this is the case (more often than the archaeological "establishment" would have us believe) but much more often it is not, and one really should make an honest effort to assess the physical/forensic evidence, not just see what appeals to one's imagination.
And it's really much less a matter of certainty than of estimating a level of probability somewhere along the spectrum of almost-certainly-entirely-natural (1%) to almost-certainly-human-modified (99%).
Being more or less aware of my limitations, in doing this with suspected artifacts of particular interest or importance I often seek the opinions of actual physical scientists in the relevant disciplines, including geology and petrology.
Click on the image below for an example of this, a bifacially edged side
scraper in the form of a bird:
|
