Some historical background on this artifact typology: In the nineteenth century Jacques Boucher de Crèvecœur de Perthes, an avocational archaeologist in France, conclusively demonstrated with the help of professional geologists (to the dismay and anger of the archaeological establishment) that stone tools in that part of the world dated from the Ice Age, a fact now universally accepted in the archaeological community. Subsequent to this author’s recognition of the iconographic artifacts at this Ohio site, he became aware that Boucher de Perthes had also noted that many of the French artifacts in direct context with the tools incorporated simple anthropomorphic and zoomorphic imagery, calling these „Pierres Figures“, or „Figure Stones“. This latter observation has since been almost completely ignored, and it remains pretty much de rigueur among modern archaeologists to summarily dismiss the many discoveries of these by competent avocational archaeologists despite the often clear imagery and accompanying unequivocal physical evidence of human workmanship.
In recent years the advent of the internet has allowed a worldwide exchange of images and data that clearly validate the presence of such artifact material and the consistency of its essential iconographic components and subcomponents. This author has adopted and applied Boucher de Perthes‘ term „Figure Stones“ in presenting his own and others‘ finds for over twenty years now, and along with „Portable Rock Art“ this seems to have become more or less the standard designation among those now pursuing this line of inquiry.
Strange
Boucher de Perthes, mentioned in the quote from Alan Day, is considered the founder of the still relatively young branch of science Paleolithics. Curiously, the figural stones that he found next to tool stones were not also recognized by the researchers of prehistoric sciences.
…. Cave-paintings, some worked ivory, bone and horn sculptures, portraits etc. mostly have been estimated at not older than 30.000 BP and coupled with modern mankind. But all those hundreds of thousands of years before seem to be a great empty gap, while the established archaeologists worldwide and repeatedly were and still are exposing stone-age tools -already known and accepted by the public- with even the most fantastic names.
In 1971 at last I thought to have found some confirmation with the find of a neolithic leaf-point: frontal (ventral) I saw a male portrait (with pointed cap) and at the backside (dorsal) a bearded man. I wondered: were these images worked out deliberately? Were they caused by accident? Perhaps the creator didn’t see it at all? Anyway this piece has been the instigator to the intensification of my research, concerning this phenomenon. I wanted to find out whether this was of frequent occurrence, or this artifact would turn out to be an isolated case. In course of time my collection increased rapidly, and it was very astonishing to find out that this phenomenon turned up more often. The more surprised I was because of the fact, that the professionals never mentioned anything like it. They keep on showing their tools in similar typologies as if it is a merely technical matter. All the same I recognized ever-recurring themes of portraits and animal images in several tools (called „pseudo tools“ by the profs), which made me wonder what to call such stones: „tools“, „sculptures“ or even a combination of these? As I put it to several profs, I was called a „pseudo“-collector, fantast (cloud-watcher). Later on, several amateurs, still wanting the verification of professionals (and still working with the standards of those profs), turned their backs upon this matter. To me the opinion of the profs had not that great importance to chuck up! No! On the contrary, it was even more reason to go against it and to look for supporters and like-mindeds and to find them (which I did). While enlarging my collection I noticed that the older the tools and sculptures, the clearer the images…
I was called a „pseudo“-collector, fantast (cloud-watcher)
Resistance to the new
In truth, every striving for knowledge – understood by Aristotle above all as the primary pleasure of the eye – reaches its limits as soon as something new emerges that one does not want to see. As a rule, these are sights that are not compatible with the imperative of identity preservation.
Man’s much-praised thirst for knowledge is then transformed in an instant into the art of having heard and seen nothing.
From the book ‚Du mußt dein Leben ändern‘ of Peter Sloterdijk, Suhrkamp, 2009
It borders on tragedy that basically human weakness also blocks potentially very valuable things.
It borders on tragedy that basically human weakness also blocks potentially very valuable things.
Gregor Mendel
For example, the amateur researcher Gregor Mendel, 1822-1884, on the subject of the rules of heredity, had this rejection. He published it in 1866. In 1900, but 16 years after his death, his discoveries were scientifically recognized.
Gilileo Galilei
Another example is Galileo Galilei, 1584-1642. In 1610 he published his discoveries and thus confirmed the heliocentric view of the world. In 1633 he was therefore placed under house arrest by the Catholic Church. It was only after 359 years, in 1992, that he was rehabilitated by the Catholic Church.
Socrates, an misunderstood genius
Socrates, 469 BC – 399 BC, the protagonist of Greek philosophy, was accused by his contemporaries of atheism and incitement of youth for his lectures at the Athens Forum and sentenced to death by drinking the hemlock cup containing a lethal dose of coniin. The death scene and dialogues are described by his pupil Plato. By his writings he was rehabilitated and became the progenitor of Greek philosophy.
Remedy against bias
Prejudices are very persistent. However, for people who tackle a matter without rejection and purposeful destructiveness, there are ways to overcome it. This can happen if they follow the arguments of capable thinkers. In the following two quotations, thoughts are shown that allow the art of figural stones to be judged objectively and not tied to a historical point in time.
Man – a symbolic being
Here is a quote from a world-famous German philosopher: Hans Jonas (1903-1993), the Jewish-German philosopher born in Mönchengladbach, who died in American exile in New York, writes in his treatise„Zwischen Nichts und Ewigkeit“(Between Nothing and Eternity“):
Our researchers enter a cave and notice lines or other configurations on its walls that must be of artificial origin, have no structural function and have a visual similarity to one or other of the life forms found outside. From their lips breaks the exclamation: This has been done by „man“! Why? The evidence does not require the perfection of the Altamira frescoes for its validity. The crudest, most childish drawing would be as conclusive as the art of Michelangelo. Proof of what? For the more-than-animal nature of their progenitor; and for the fact that
he is a potentially speaking, thinking, inventing, in short a „symbolic“ being.
Jonas, Hans (1963:27): Zwischen Nichts und Ewigkeit, 2. Aufsatz
DIE FREIHEIT DES BILDENS. Homo pictor und die differentia des Menschen. Göttingen: VANDENHOECK & RUPPRECHT.
Art – truth put into work
Here is a quote from another world-famous German philosopher; Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)
It is not the N.N. fecit [H.G.: on a work of art] that is to be announced, but the simple „factum est“ is to be kept open in the work: this that unconcealment [H.G.: from Gr. αλήθεια = truth] of the existing has taken place here …
Where the artist and the process of the creation of the work remain unknown, this shock, this „that“ of being created, emerges most purely from the work.
It is true that every available and used stuff also includes „that“ it is made. But this „that“ does not come out in the stuff, it disappears in the servicibility. In the work, on the other hand, the fact that it is as such is the unusual.
The more essentially the work opens up, the more luminous becomes the uniqueness of the fact that it is.
Heidegger (1960).
Heidegger explains here the difference between a normal tool, (e.g. a quartzite of the Mousterian carved into a hand axe, which he calls stuff and whose only purpose is to serve – its service,) and a work of art. He presents the (art) work as truth put into workpiece. This is explained in detail in the rest of the text of Heidegger’s lecture, from which quoted above. It is not intended to serve as stuff, although it can sometimes be used as such, but it is intended to represent truth (e.g., the essence of a rodent, a monkey, a bear). The artist and the origin of its creation are unknown in Stone Age art and therefore touch us directly and unclouded by art historians and the art world.