Abstract:
The origins of visual representation have been debated primarily in
terms of human activity and psychology. This paper proposes that
man-made representation was preceded by a natural, already quite
perfected representational system, the products of which were observed
and collected by early humans. The author suggests the following new
hypotheses: (1) Fossils were a means by which human beings came to
understand the concepts of 'imagery' and 'substitution' prior to the
creation of man-made images. (2) Humans evolved their own forms
of iconic visual representation (especially those in the medium of
rock), having first been made aware of various possibilities via
fossils. (3) Many unexplained prehistoric artworks may be structurally
and proportionally accurate depictions of fossils. Because fossils are
known throughout the world, the hypotheses have cross-cultural
validity. Clinical studies offer the potential of analogical
testability.
Keywords: Iconic recognition,
Depiction, Prehistoric art, Rock art sign, Fossil collecting
A ROUGH ROAD FOR THE IMPACT OF
FOSSILS
The Impact of
Fossils was
begun in 1993. 
It
was submitted for publication in 1995 and twice again in
1997. Unfortunately, its new ideas and approaches were contrary to the
agenda of a predisposed anthropology community determined to prevent
its being published. The positive reviews
from anonymous reviewers who chose to make their identities
known were
not enough to prevent it's being blocked from publication. It
was during this time the author learned from leaders in the field that
what is published in anthropology has little to do with quality science
and more to do with fads or the programs of other researchers. This
was also during a time when many researchers were jumping on an
aggressively-promoted neurological bandwagon to which The Impact of Fossils offered an
unanticipated "evidence-based" alternative. The Impact of Fossils was later
submitted to a different
journal and finally published in
1998, though with accompanying efforts by those promoting other
theories or by those with vested interests to which Fossils offered a challenge.
Within one year of publication,
The Impact of Fossils was used
as a
page-by-page template for a competitor's paper submitted for publication in the very
same journal and without proper citation - an experience which the
author has had to endure on many other occasions as well.
UPDATE:
The
Impact of Fossils is
an idea which has come of age. It has endured every preventative tactic that the academic community could muster
and remains one of the only explanations
for such as the origins of depiction in rock art which
is supported by actual physical evidence observable in the
archaeological
record.
(Coming soon: What scholars "really think" about
The Impact of Fossils.
Secret, behind-the-scenes, and buried-away accolades for an influential
paper which, for political reasons, has effectively been blocked from
public awareness for
nearly 20 years.)
|
“Feliks' use of
fossils offers a superb bridging argument... fossils appear to be the
only external phenomena that happen to be referrer and referent rolled
into one... This would solve one of the major
problems in the development of human cognition.”
- Robert G. Bednarik, The Earliest Evidence of Palaeoart, Rock Art Research 2003: 126
|
|
Here are a few central ideas that were first presented in The Impact of Fossils and/or Sojournus Antiquitus:
1.)
The 'natural representations theory' and
'self-contained referent/icons.'
The case is presented that early peoples 250,000 years ago understood
fossils as
"
representations" of living forms in stone. Prior
to
The Impact of Fossils, the
highest ability scientists adhering to the traditional ape-man paradigm had been
willing to attribute to early peoples such as
Homo erectus or
Neanderthals
was that these people could only conceive of fossils as mere interesting
patterns. This view, as naive as it may sound in light of the new evidence,
is essential to the long-promoted idea that early peoples were less
intelligent than us.
The 'natural
representations theory' has strong implications not only for
understanding the artistic and language capabilities of early peoples
but also for ideas regarding their philosophical abilities.
Supported by archaeological evidence spanning 250,000 years, this theory provides a
means by which early people could have learned,
in no uncertain terms, the idea that
images of living things can exist in non-living materials. It also provides a means of understanding that
one object can represent another.
These ideas are at the very core of human analogy and metaphor.
Fig. 1
(above left): Living fern, fossil fern, and fern shadow: thesis version
of the "natural representations theory" (figure by J. Feliks with
graphic assistance from Shekinah Errington and Gerry Hermann).
Fig. 2
(right): Demonstrating the central positioning of a fossil scallop
shell ('natural representation' of a scallop) in a 250,000-year old
handaxe.
2.)
The earliest iconic image "framed" by a human being.
The famous West Tofts handaxe from Norfolk, England had long been
known to feature a fossil scallop shell in its center (
Fig. 2,
above
right). It was in
The Impact of Fossils, however, that the fossil was first proposed to have been understood as the "image" of a shell. It was also in this paper
that the actual degree of the fossil shell's centering was
first demonstrated in exacting detail as measured in two step-by-step
geometric
studies (
click here for the West Tofts handaxe "step-by-step" geometric studies).
Prior to these studies, it had long been debated whether or not the maker of the
West Tofts handaxe even cared about the fossil let alone
whether or not he/she might have recognized the fossil as the image of a shell. Scientists dedicated to the cognitive evolution paradigm (which
depends on the assumption that early people were less intelligent than
us) had
never considered the possibility that fossils may have been understood
as images or representations of living shells. In the case of the West
Tofts handaxe,
living scallop shells like that of the fossil in its center have always
been abundant along the not-too-distant coastline. With the abundance
of living scallop shells in
mind, it is difficult to imagine that the person who created the
handaxe would not have been intelligent enough to recognize that the
fossil highlighted in its center was a scallop shell.
|
“The only scientific hypothesis of which I am aware concerning the West
Tofts object, or indeed the entire issue [handaxes as palaeoart
objects], is that presented by Feliks...He tested the centrality and
symmetry of the West Tofts specimens's Spondylus spinosus
cast [fossil scallop shell] by geometric means that lend themselves to
refutation. His finding that the positioning is indeed significant and
intentional is based on transparent data open to testing, and until
someone presents falsifying data or proposes a more parsimonious
hypothesis to account for Feliks' data, his hypotheses stands as the
most likely explanation. Those wishing to promote the non-utilitarian
aspects of other stone artefacts might profit from examining how Feliks
approached the issue―not necessarily to copy his methodology, but to
copy his philosophical basis...This may sound a little over-rigorous,
but in view of our predilection for detecting evidence of
intentionality it is fully warranted.”
- Robert G. Bednarik, The Earliest Evidence of Palaeoart, Rock Art Research 2003: 122-3
|
|
3.)
'Race cryptomnesia' and
'fossil depictions theory.' I coined the term 'race cryptomnesia' to refer to
the idea that an entire race of people, even an entire species, can forget the original sources of their inspirations
be they mechanical,
artistic, or philosophical and believe instead that
their innovations are entirely self-originated. (
Cryptomnesia: forgetting the source of one's inspiration and attributing innovation
to one's own self instead.) Rock art is irrevocably linked to
pre-existing natural
rock imagery - fossils - because it is contained in the same identical
medium of expression. If other identically-shared traits are recognized between fossils
and rock art, then it is important and logical to consider that the original earlier manisfestation
was likely at one time or another both inspirational and influential.
In a
section
called "The medium of rock as image field," the physical traits of rock
art are compared with those of the natural pre-existing fossil
imagery. Both rock art and the earlier-established fossil imagery share
the following virtually identical traits (from p. 116 of
The Impact of Fossils):
• the medium of rock
•
a tangible quality (in contrast to other natural imagery such as shadows,
reflections, etc.)
• the representation of
three-dimensional objects free of surrounding matrix
• the representation of
three-dimensional objects in bas relief
• images resulting from
indentations in the medium
• the representation of
three-dimensional objects in two dimensions
• two-dimensional representations
of a filmic nature in a range of colors
• images in colors which are
different from the “background” medium
• easily identifiable images
• images which are not easily
identified
• an unorganized or randomly
scattered appearance as concerns multiple images
• palimpsest effects [layering or overlapping] in the case
of multiple images
• multiple images in a variety of
shapes and sizes
There
are many other similarities between rock art and fossils. They are
discussed in the full text of the paper which I hope to have posted soon.
AMBIGUOUS ROCK ART IMAGES: Of particular interest in
The Impact of Fossils are
the many unique images in prehistoric rock
art that have long been difficult to understand because they do not
immediately appear to represent animals or human beings or any other
well-known objects. These are geometric patterns and shapes such
as
zig-zags, spirals, circles, radiating patterns, etc., or
combinations of these shapes. They are
often referred to as
“abstract signs” or
“non-representational” markings. However, use of the terms
"abstract" or "non-representational" presumes that prehistoric persons
could not
have
seen these very patterns somewhere else and duplicate these patterns.
In such a case, these duplicated patterns would be "representational" images or "likenesses"
of other things rather than abstractions or non-representational
markings.
The Impact of Fossils proposes that many of
these images painted or engraved on rock were made to be likenesses of
other images already present on rock, fossils.
POPULAR NEUROLOGICAL THEORIES AND THE FOSSILS ALTERNATIVE: Over the past 100 years many theories have been put
forth in an attempt to explain these special images. The most popular explanations in recent years have involved
various
neurological theories. These theories have often been promoted in
overly-confident terms as though they account for most if not all
abstract images in rock art.
The rock art images according to these neurological theories represent unconsciously experienced
entoptic phenomena (visual sensations involving physical structures within the human eye) and especially
phosphene patterns
(visual sensations similar to hallucinations). One popular
variant of the idea has proclaimed with equal confidence that shamans
created the
geometric images after going into altered states of consciousness.
While these ideas are reasonable and may account for some
instances of rock art, they cannot, of course, explain all occurrances
as is commonly claimed by proponents of the theory. Further,
as
scientific as such theories might sound due to an often verbose use of neurological terminology, they are all based on the idea
that there is nothing in the natural world that these geometric rock
art images resemble.
However,
readily apparent on
rock surfaces is already every basic "entoptic"
form imaginable. In
Fig. 4 (above
right),
I demonstrate this with only three out of perhaps a hundred similar comparisons of
prehistoric rock art images which have been confidently
interpreted by neurological proponents as entoptic phenomena but which are more readily compared to
fossils which have long been abundant in rock from
the very regions in which the artworks were created.
Neurological ideas in and of themselves are important to consider. However,
adhering to such ideas at all costs has caused many researchers to attribute
images such as those discussed on this page to what
amounts to little more than a form of "
automatic writing"
where the artistic creators are assumed to have had no idea as to what
they were actually doing. While it is possible that many
abstract images may have been inspired by entoptic phenomena,
The Impact of Fossils
proposes that it is more reasonable to consider that inspirations
for rock art came from physical images such as fossils readily-observed
by everyone before considering the fleeting and esoteric nature of
entoptic phenomena as a primary source.
THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE: The Impact of Fossils is not just another speculation about
what ambiguous rock art images could be because the idea is supported by the fact that
prehistoric people have collected fossils for hundreds of thousands of years.
Therefore, we know without any scientific doubt that prehistoric people
were already familiar with the geometric shapes and patterns inherent
in the rocks before they started painting or engraving such images in
the rocks themselves. With this information in mind, it is readily seen
that the creators
of rock art were not only aware of fossils but also valued
fossils highly enough to collect them. In many cases, in fact, fossils
were worn
as personal ornaments.
The fossils that prehistoric people are known for certain to have
collected include scallop shells, snails, and brachiopod shells;
corals;
sea urchins; crinoids; shark teeth; sponges; ammonites; and even
trilobites. Here is a partial list of specific and precisely-identified fossils
collected by
prehistoric people (from
The Impact of Fossils, page 112):
|
Fossils collected by ACHEULIANS [Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis] include, from England, Spondylus pelecypod and Conulus echinoid—central “ornaments” in
two carefully-worked handaxes, Micraster
echinoid—reworked into a scraper, two humanly-flaked sections of Isastraea colonial coral carried from a
distant source, and a shark tooth (Oakley 1971, 1973, 1975, 1978, 1981, 1985);
crinoid columnals possibly collected and worn as beads, Israel (Goren-Inbar et
al. 1991); and Coscinopora (Porosphaera) sponges possibly worn as
beads, England (Marshack 1991b). Fossils collected by MOUSTERIANS [Neanderthal people] include a large, turreted gastropod, Chemnitzia,
and a spherical colonial coral, France (Leroi-Gourhan 1964); a Dentalium shell possibly worn as a
personal ornament, France (Rigaud 1988; Marshack 1991a:380); reworked shark teeth, Belgium (Van Neer 1979; Huyge 1990),
and another example from Afghanistan (Dupree 1972; White 1992); belemnites
possibly reworked, Hungary (Vértes 1964; Oakley 1978) and a reworked Nummulites (large foraminifer), Hungary
(Vértes 1964; Marshack 1990; Bednarik 1995). Fossils collected by CHATELPERRONIANS [Neanderthal people] include a Rhynchonella
brachiopod reworked as a personal ornament, a perforated belemnite, and crinoid
columnals presumably worn as beads (Leroi-Gourhan 1961, 1964; Movius 1969;
d’Errico et al. 1998), Glycymeris
pelecypod, Ancillaria, Athleta, Bayana,
Clavillithes, Crommium, Sycum, Turritella, and Tympanotonos (Potomides)
gastropods, France (Taborin 1993a). Fossils collected by AURIGNACIANS [Homo sapiens, Neanderthal people] and other early Upper Paleolithic people since about
38,000 BP include belemnites and corals reworked for suspension as
personal ornaments, Russia
(White 1992; 1993a, 1993b). From the Aurignacian onward,
examples of fossil collecting are far too numerous to list here. Suffice it to
say that ammonites; belemnites; scaphopods; gastropods; pelecypods;
brachiopods; crinoids, echinoids, and other echinoderms; corals; sponges;
foraminifera; wood; shark teeth; and even a trilobite were all collected—many
reworked and presumably worn as personal ornaments (See the works of Oakley, Taborin, Soffer, White,
Lejeune, David, Dance, Marshack, Leroi-Gourhan, and others). |
|
ARTISTIC SENSIBILITY: Although they may seem scientific,
theories that diminish the artistic ability and
volition of early peoples often result in strained beliefs which are
far from the reality of what prehistoric people, especially prehistoric
artists, were
actually like. Attempting
to force all
purportedly 'abstract'
images into the realm of entoptic phenomena and unconscious creation
ignores entirely the artist's freedom to create from imagination or to
create deliberate
representations of whatsoever he or she might choose. Scientific
attempts in general to break down the nature of artistic sensibility and achievement
into the most basic and meaningless components of any given scientific
specialty then
claiming to understand the art in the process are
scientifically and artistically naive and are ususally associated with over-specialization or a pre-committment to the
idea that
early peoples were less intelligent than modern people. The idea that
humans
gradually become more and more intelligent over time (the standard
central premise in palaeoanthropology) necessitates a belief that early
peoples
must have also been less artistically-capable
which belief is a primary motivation for entoptic theories of early art. This idea is proved false with
Fossils as well as the other anthropology papers on this website.
When evidence such as
The Impact of Fossils
challenges the cognitive evolution paradigm the data is often held back
from public scrutiny. There are many instances of this and not regarding the publication of
Fossils only. This usually occurs first by means of the "
peer review system"
where
an unaccountable anonymous review board can successfully block from
publication not only papers but any data which is problematic to a comfortable paradigm. The
public is taught that anonymous peer review is the method of science.
However, behind-the-scenes data hinderence such as occurred with
The Impact of Fossils creates a false impression in the public mind
that
there is no evidence against the standard paradigm they are constantly
inundated with and it also creates
a false impression that the prehistoric mind is
well-understood by the scientific community and that it is agreed-upon
to be much less capable, that is, "simpler," than that of modern
Homo
sapiens. Again, this kind of naivety in science is due almost entirely to
specialization and a general lack of
artistic training or sensibility as balancing agents.
When the public is
not permitted to know about challenging data it is quite easy to
convince them that certain ideas such as the above-mentioned neurological theories
are "obviously" correct
only because they are not even aware that conflicting data exists.
If you, as a reader, pride yourself in an ability to think objectively,
then consider whether all evidence should be available for perusal or
only chosen evidence for the sake of promoting a particular paradigm.
In
other words, being unaware of challenging evidence, the public has been
convinced by the efforts of a pre-committed scientific community that
early people were less
intelligent than us, an impression caused by a forced inability to use
the right of free and objective thinking.
This type of problem does not occur in other sciences but
is quite common in anthropology where, since the subject relates to
human origins, the stakes are 'politically' high. In this field,
reviewers and editors are
willing to do whatever it takes to make sure that only certain ideas
are disseminated.
It is not true science. Rather, it is an agenda-based philosophical system promoted by
large institutions with the advantage of being able to withhold
evidence from the public in order to make a chosen paradigm appear
unchallenged.
In many cases, the unusual images created by prehistoric people and suggested here to have been inspired by fossils
have been painted on
rock surfaces in areas that already contain
natural rock images - fossils.
The
prehistoric images resemble these fossils to a high degree. In other
words, the rock art images can be directly compared
with fossils of the very regions in which the rock art images were
created. See, for instance, the rock paintings compared with trilobites
in
Fig. 5, above left. The detailed and measured close-up studies of three of these trilobite comparisons in
Fig. 6,
above right (fully detailed geographically in the text), and the map of
locations in Spain where both trilobite fossils and trilobite-like
prehistoric rock paintings are found (above right,
Fig. 7)
make the 'fossil depictions theory' accessible to anyone who has not
been pre-programmed to believe in a single simplistic view and who is
able to critically evaluate empirical data on their own. At the
very least, the critical thinker should be able to see that a
scientific community which blocks empirical data from the public likely
does so not for reasons of science or academic quality but for reasons
of defending old or personal paradigms.
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
Feliks, J. 2012. Five
constants from an Acheulian compound line.
Aplimat - Journal of Applied Mathematics 5 (1): 69-74.
Feliks, J. 2012. The
graphics of Bilzingsleben series: Scientific misconduct over ancient
artifact studies and why you should care: Part 7: Who were the people of Bilzingsleben. Pleistocene Coalition News Vol. 4 (Issue 4): 12-14.
PDF version
HTML version
Feliks, J. 2012. The
graphics of Bilzingsleben series: Scientific misconduct over ancient
artifact studies and why you should care: Part 6: The Lower Paleolithic origins of advanced mathematics. Pleistocene Coalition News Vol. 4 (Issue 3): 12-13.
PDF version
HTML version
Feliks, J. 2012. 12 Angry Men, starring Henry Fonda: A superb classic film for teaching critical thinking attitude and skills. Pleistocene Coalition News Vol. 4 (Issue 2): 17.
PDF version
HTML version
Feliks, J. 2012. The
graphics of Bilzingsleben series: Scientific misconduct over ancient
artifact studies and why you should care: Part 5: Gestalten. Pleistocene Coalition News Vol. 4 (Issue 2): 11-13.
PDF version
HTML version
Feliks, J. 2012. The
graphics of Bilzingsleben series: Scientific misconduct over ancient
artifact studies and why you should care: Part 4: 350,000 years before Bach. Pleistocene Coalition News Vol. 4 (Issue 1): 10-12.
PDF version
HTML version
Feliks, J. 2011. The
graphics of Bilzingsleben series: Scientific misconduct over ancient
artifact studies and why you should care: Part 3: Base grids of a suppressed Homo erectus knowledge system. Pleistocene Coalition News Vol. 3 (Issue 6): 12-14.
PDF version
HTML version
Feliks, J. 2011. The
golden flute of Geissenklosterle: Mathematical evidence for a
continuity of human intelligence as opposed to evolutionary change
through time. Aplimat - Journal of Applied Mathematics 4 (4): 157-62.
Feliks, J. 2011. The
graphics of Bilzingsleben series: Scientific misconduct over ancient
artifact studies and why you should care: Part 2: Censoring the world's oldest human language. Pleistocene Coalition News Vol. 3 (Issue 5): 12-14.
PDF version
HTML version
Feliks, J. 2011. The
graphics of Bilzingsleben series: Scientific misconduct over ancient
artifact studies and why you should care: Part 1: Proof of straight
edge use by Homo erectus. Pleistocene Coalition News Vol. 3 (Issue 4): 14-16.
PDF version
HTML version
Feliks, J. 2010. The golden flute of Geissenklosterle: Preview of APLIMAT 2011 paper. Pleistocene Coalition News Vol. 2 (Issue 6): 10.
PDF version
HTML version
Feliks, J. 2010. Phi-based conceptual units: Pushing math origins back to the Acheulian age.
[Internet].
Available on SCIENAR at:
http:/www.scienar.eu/network/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=170:phi-based-conceptual-units-pushing-math-origins
-back-to-the-acheulian-age&catid=4:general-contents&Itemid=62.
Feliks, J. 2010. Ardi: How to create a science myth. Pleistocene Coalition News Vol. 2 (Issue 1): 1-3.
PDF version
HTML version
Feliks, J. 2010 (in press). The graphics of Bilzingsleben: Sophistication and subtlety in the mind of Homo erectus. Proceedings of the XV UISPP World Congress (Lisbon, 4-9 September 2006), BAR International Series, Oxford.
Feliks, J. 2009. A Lot of Gold in the Mix: Review of Fragment from a Nonfiction Reader. Pre-publication review of the debut science thriller by Warren Fahy (see quotation on the author's review page under FRAGMENT: Reviews).
Feliks, J. 2009. The handaxe shape in microliths. Comment on "Is a hand ax really a hand ax,"
by Michael Balter. Origins: a history of beginnings [Internet].
Available at:
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/origins/2009/02/is-a-handax-really-a-handax.html.
Feliks,
J. 2008. Phi in the
Acheulian: Lower Palaeolithic intuition and the natural origins of
analogy. In Bednarik, R. G. and D. Hodgson (eds), Pleistocene palaeoart
of
the world, pp. 11-31. Proceedings of the XV UISPP World Congress
(Lisbon, 4-9 September 2006), BAR International Series 1804, Oxford.*
Feliks, J. 2006. Musings on
the Palaeolithic fan motif. In P. Chenna Reddy (ed.), Exploring the mind of ancient man: Festschrift to Robert G. Bednarik, 249-66. Research India
Press, New Delhi.
*(BAR is British Archaeological Reports.)
ABOUT THE AUTHOR AND THE WEBSITE'S PREMISE
John Feliks is an interdisciplinary scholar and theorist
researching early human cognition for the past 15 years. Along with the
science, he offers an inside perspective based on an extensive background in the arts. Feliks's
recent work involves language and mathematics capability in Homo erectus
and other early peoples which he demonstrates empirically through
openly-testable geometric analyses of engraved
artifacts, artifact distributions, and stone tools. In all,
the
results of Feliks's research greatly contrast the long-accepted
standard model of
gradually-evolving
intelligence in the genus Homo. They suggest instead that early peoples such as Homo erectus, ergaster, Neanderthals, and heidelbergensis were just as capable as anyone living in today's modern world.
ABOUT THE WEBSITES
This Fossils-only page is new and in the process of tweaking, so
please be patient as it goes through changes in wording or layout.
I am hoping to get
the main site up and running soon. The site will offer several hundred
systematic geometric studies produced over a fifteen-year period which demonstrate that early peoples such as Homo erectus and Neanderthals had artistic and intellectual
capabilities equal to our own. It will also offer original color slides
from the two programs
presented
at the XVth UISPP Congress in Lisbon, September 7, 2006.
E-mail: feliks (at) umich.edu
Last updated November 24, 2014. © John Feliks 2009
