Every so often, something turns up among my South Downs flints that really makes me look twice.
This is one of those finds.
I've recovered a remarkable piece of flint displaying an extraordinarily convincing primate face. My first impression is something rather baboon-like, although other primates also come to mind.
It is the sort of face that seems to stare straight back at you.
An ape face in flint: but what exactly are we looking at?
What interests me is the combination of features, rather than one accidental resemblance. The facial structure appears remarkably coherent, while parts of the surface have an almost fossil-like appearance.
And that introduces another question.
Could there be a genuine fossil structure within the flint? Could it conceivably be part of a fossilised primate? Or are we looking at a naturally suggestive stone that was recognised, selected and deliberately modified by prehistoric people?
I've found numerous ape-like faces across my assemblage, with what is clearly repeated evidence of deliberate modification. At some point, simply saying pareidolia stops being a satisfactory explanation for the entire collection, and will produce mockery of the entire field of archaeology for the ignorance.
If these are all chance resemblances, the South Downs must be home to a particularly industrious magic pareidolia fairy, working overtime to produce the best pareidolia anywhere in the world, because million to one chances happen 9 times out of 10 here.....
A fossil that shouldn't exist?
Flint can contain genuine fossils, including the remains and traces of ancient marine organisms. But what if this object really did contain part of a primate skull?
The conventional account places the evolution of baboons and other recognisable modern primates far more recently than the Cretaceous Period, approximately 145 to 66 million years ago.
But there is an important distinction here: the fossil record is not a complete record of life on Earth. It is a fragmentary collection of what happened to survive, what has been discovered and what researchers have been able to identify.
New discoveries can, and do, change our understanding of when organisms first appeared.
If a genuine primate fossil were ever convincingly demonstrated within securely dated Cretaceous flint, we would have to ask some difficult questions. Is the evolutionary history represented by the existing fossil record incomplete in a far more significant way than currently recognised? Is the geological context or dating correct? Or would aspects of both interpretations require reconsideration?
Those are legitimate questions to investigate, although a convincing facial resemblance on its own cannot establish such an extraordinary fossil identification.
My own position on geological dating is quite deliberate.
I tentatively accept the established geological timescale as a working framework because I need a consistent measuring stick against which to examine my finds.
I cannot sensibly attempt to correct archaeology, the conventional account of human evolution and geological chronology all at the same time. If I abandon the geological framework as well, I lose the very reference against which some of my archaeological arguments can be tested.
That doesn't mean geology is beyond question. It means I am choosing to work with its established chronology unless compelling evidence demonstrates that something needs revising.
There is also an important difference between the age of the Cretaceous chalk and the age of an artefact subsequently found on its surface. One does not automatically date the other.
So, no, I'm not announcing a 66-million-year-old baboon. That would give palaeontology a very difficult Monday morning.
But I am asking what this striking flint actually represents. Is there an ancient fossil structure contributing to the appearance? Was an unusual natural form recognised and enhanced by prehistoric people? Or is there another explanation we haven't yet identified?
Those possibilities deserve examination.
 |
| This find certainly has had an interesting history, with probable tar and ochre deposits all over it. |
What about the unusual markings?
Another interesting feature of my assemblage is the presence of iron-rich areas, dark patches and occasional sooty or tar-like surface deposits.
Comparable features occur on other finds from the site, including objects discussed on my Prehistoric Manuports page.
I've also commissioned FTIR spectroscopy on other specimens, and those results are 100% indicative of substance manufacture and application, to question whether all these deposits can simply be dismissed as ordinary mineral staining.
Of course, the composition of any particular marking needs to be established through examination and testing.
But the question becomes particularly interesting when contrasting patches coincide with recognisable anatomical features, as they often do in many of my other finds.
I am interested not merely in whether a stone resembles an animal or face, but whether its form, markings and identifiable modifications work together to produce a coherent image.
Another example of prehistoric visual communication?
This find does not stand alone.
For years, I have been documenting recurring animal heads, facial profiles, hand shapes and other figurative devices in my South Downs assemblage.
My interpretation is that some of these stones preserve a very early system of visual communication, involving the selection of naturally suggestive forms and, in many cases, deliberate enhancement.
The important evidence is the recurrence of comparable features across different specimens, especially where the details appear to have been constructed using recognisable stone-working techniques.
One convincing resemblance is interesting. A collection of recurring, deliberately constructed figures is something much more significant.
That is why I am documenting this ape-like face alongside the wider assemblage rather than treating it as an isolated curiosity.
See the face for yourself
I've included photographs and video so you can examine the object from different angles.
Look closely at the facial structure and the unusual surface details. Which features belong to the original shape of the flint? Which might be fossil-related? And which appear to have been deliberately enhanced?
Whatever its eventual explanation, I consider this one of the most striking primate-like forms recovered from my site.
And if you think it resembles a different primate, you're welcome to make the case. The stone has so far declined to identify itself.
For related examples, visit my Prehistoric Manuports and Portable Rock Art Identification pages.
Brett Martin - Eoliths.org