Monday, 15 September 2025

Portable Rock Art: Ancient Carvings & Symbolic Stones

Portable Rock Art, Ancient Faces.
Portable Rock Art, Ancient Faces.

Portable Rock Art: Ancient Carvings & Symbolic Stones

Portable Rock Art is a broad term for stones and flint tools small enough to be carried and bearing symbolic or artistic modifications. Unlike fixed petroglyphs or cave paintings, portable rock art can be moved, collected, or traded—offering unique insights into prehistoric cognition, symbolism, and communication.

Definition

Portable Rock Art includes:

  • Unmodified or minimally modified stones whose natural shape or surface markings were selected for symbolic meaning.
  • Flint tools or nodules bearing carved or retouched images, pigment traces, or engraved lines.
  • Complex composite pieces combining multiple motifs—animals, faces, hand or foot outlines—into anamorphic illusions.

This category encompasses Figure Stones, Eoliths with symbolic markings, and other lithic artifacts showing artistic intent. It spans from the Lower Palaeolithic through the Mesolithic and later periods.

Symbolism and Function

Portable rock art demonstrates that prehistoric peoples were not only toolmakers but also symbol-makers. Motifs may have served ritual, communicative, mnemonic, or teaching functions, and their portability suggests roles in exchange networks or as personal talismans.

Key Characteristics of Portable Rock Art

  • Found across diverse sites worldwide, from river gravels to cave deposits.
  • Motifs repeated across regions, indicating shared symbolic conventions.
  • Patina continuity on worked and unworked surfaces, suggesting great age.
  • Use of optical illusion and anamorphic composition blending multiple figures.

Why Portable Rock Art Matters

It bridges the gap between utilitarian stone tools and immovable art. Portable pieces show how symbolic thinking evolved alongside toolmaking, extending our timeline for complex cognition and culture.

FAQ

  • What is Portable Rock Art?
    Stones and flint tools small enough to be carried, bearing carvings, pigments, or symbolic motifs—ranging from minimal modifications to complex anamorphic artworks.

  • How is Portable Rock Art different from Figure Stones?
    Figure Stones are a subset of portable rock art focused on recognizable figures (faces, animals), whereas portable rock art also includes abstract or symbolic markings, pigments, and engraved lines.

  • Can a flint tool be Portable Rock Art?
    Yes. Many handaxes, scrapers, and blades from the Palaeolithic and later periods carry carvings or retouched images, making them both tools and portable rock art.

  • Why is Portable Rock Art important?
    It demonstrates early symbolic behaviour, artistic convention, and possibly nonverbal communication systems, extending our understanding of prehistoric cognition.

Figure Stones: Portable Rock Art & Prehistoric Faces

A Collection of Figure Stones with Apes and Elephants
A Collection of Figure Stones with Apes and Elephants

Figure Stones: Portable Rock Art & Flint Tools

Figure Stones (also “Figure-Stones” or French Pierre’s figures) are a category of portable rock art—stones, flint nodules, and even functional tools intentionally chosen or subtly modified to depict animals, human faces, or symbolic forms. Many bear glyph-like motifs (sometimes called Eoglyphs, “dawn glyphs” found in Eoliths) that may represent one of the earliest known systems of nonverbal communication.

Definition

A Figure Stone can range from:

  • Barely modified flint nodules with only tiny flake removals or pigment traces;
  • Functional flint tools—handaxes, scrapers, blades—bearing carved or retouched images;
  • Highly complex artworks with multiple animals cleverly worked together into ambiguous or anamorphic illusions.

In all cases, the defining feature is an image or glyph perceived and emphasised by humans—faces, animals, hands, or abstract symbols—often repeated across a site and showing continuity from the Lower Palaeolithic and possibly into the Mesolithic periods.

Optical Illusions and Anamorphic Art

Many figure stones display complex ambiguous imagery: front halves of creatures, head profiles, entire side views, hands, feet, and finger motifs blended in a single piece. This indicates a shared artistic convention among prehistoric peoples and suggests these objects had functions beyond mere decoration—possibly ritual, communicative, or mnemonic, or as I've long suggested, a kind of hunting aid.

Key Characteristics of Figure Stones

  • Natural form enhanced by flake removals, grooves, pigment traces, or polishing.
  • Motifs repeated across a site (faces, animals, hybrid forms).
  • Patina continuity over worked and unworked surfaces indicating great age.
  • Use of ambiguous optical illusion and anamorphic composition.

Why Figure Stones Matter

They bridge the gap between utilitarian stone tools and symbolic artifacts, showing that early humans were capable of complex visual thinking and layered representation. They hint at cognitive and cultural sophistication long before cave paintings and may represent one of humanity’s first attempts at shared symbolic language.

FAQ

  • What are Figure Stones?
    Stones, flint nodules, or functional flint tools intentionally selected or subtly modified to depict animals, human faces, hands, or symbolic forms—ranging from minimal modifications to highly complex anamorphic artworks.

  • Can a flint tool be a Figure Stone?
    Yes. Many handaxes, scrapers, and blades from the Lower Palaeolithic and later periods carry carved or retouched images, making them both tools and portable rock art.

  • How can I identify a Figure Stone?
    Look for repeated motifs such as faces or animals, subtle retouching or grooves to emphasise features, and patina continuity across worked and unworked areas. Complex pieces may blend multiple animals into ambiguous optical illusions.

  • Why are Figure Stones important?
    They demonstrate early symbolic behaviour, artistic convention, and possibly nonverbal communication systems, extending our understanding of prehistoric cognition.

Sunday, 14 September 2025

Eoliths: Ancient Flint Tools from Tertiary Layers

 

Eolith Collection, Flint Tools, Ancient Artifacts
Eolith Collection, Flint Tools, Ancient Artifacts

Eoliths: Ancient Flint Tools from Tertiary Layers

Eoliths are flint or stone artifacts found in very ancient (Tertiary) geological layers. Originally accepted as flint tools but nowadays often wrongfully dismissed as “geofacts” or naturally broken stones, many exhibit clear signs of deliberate flaking. This page explains what eoliths are, why the term itself is problematic, and how new evidence challenges old assumptions.

Definition

The term “Eolith” combines the Greek “Eos” (dawn) and “Lithos” (stone). In the late 19th century, it described crude tools found in layers far older than accepted human presence. They were labelled “geofacts” without proof, largely because their age seemed impossible, not because they lacked workmanship.

Key Characteristics

  • Found in Tertiary strata (Miocene (23.03 - 5.3 MYA), Pliocene (5.3 to 2.58 MYA)).
  • Often show bulbs of percussion, striking platforms, and patterned removals.
  • Exhibit patina depth consistent with extreme age.
  • Can have figurative content, head and animal shape profiles and faces, (figure stones).

Eoliths vs Geofacts

Geofact: An unworked stone resembling a tool but formed naturally.
Eolith: A stone found in very old layers, often labelled “unworked” due to its age—yet many show human workmanship, evidence of cognition. This label mismatch leads to dismissal of potential early human activity.

Why This Matters

Recognizing eoliths as deliberate tools reshapes our understanding of human antiquity, cognitive development, and migration timelines. Scientific dating, patina analysis, and lithic comparison are crucial to revisiting these finds objectively.

Thursday, 26 June 2025

Eoliths in Europe : Controversy, Critique, and New Evidence

Portable Rock Art

Eoliths vs. Ignorance – Dawn Stones Vindicated by New Finds

For over a century, mainstream archaeology has scoffed at the existence of eoliths – literally "dawn stones," purported crude tools from the dawn of prehistory (many are actually highly sophisticated works of art). A prime example is the Museum of Stone Tools website run by Professor Mark Moore. There, eoliths are flatly dismissed as nothing more than naturally fractured flints, with Moore insisting these objects "are now known to be examples of natural fracture"—a claim that, in my view, is factually incorrect. According to him (and conventional wisdom), early finds of flint chips in very old geological layers—well before any accepted human presence—must all be accidents of nature. But is that really so? Mounting evidence says no, revealing that this dismissal is rooted less in hard science and more in entrenched dogma, as he has not shown evidence that all eoliths lack workmanship.

First, what are eoliths? The term comes from eos (dawn) + lithos (stone). It was coined in the 19th century to label flints found in ancient strata (some Miocene or Pliocene in age) resembling stone tools in shape and flaking. Early archaeologists like Benjamin Harrison and Abbé Louis Bourgeois described these pieces, arguing they were intentionally worked by prehistoric humans—the earliest tools. These "dawn stone" collections showed forms similar to later Palaeolithic tools (scrapers, borers, etc.), just often cruder. However, because they implied humans (or at least tool-making hominins) existed millions of years earlier than orthodox timelines allowed, most scholars refused to even consider them genuine. Famous prehistorian Gabriel de Mortillet admitted the main reason for rejecting Bourgeois’s Miocene tools was simply their unimaginable age. Over time, a dismissive consensus formed: eoliths were written off as products of natural processes—landslides, frost cracking, rolling in rivers, etc. Officially, eoliths became a "mistake" of naïve early researchers.

Mark Moore follows this tired formula precisely. On his Museum of Stone Tools site, he parrots that eoliths were "once thought" to be tools but are now known to be naturally broken stones. He even illustrates the page with a few tiny photographs—images so small and low-resolution one wonders if he doesn’t want you to inspect them too closely. Why? Because at least one image is indistinguishable from a genuine Palaeolithic flint tool assemblage, showing similar flake scars and retouched edges. The evidence of craftsmanship is clear if one looks closely. By keeping pictures tiny and discussions minimal, Moore avoids grappling with the obvious: many eoliths bear clear hallmarks of deliberate flintknapping.

What hallmarks? Bulbs of percussion (tell-tale bulge from a hard strike), striking platforms, éraillure scars, ripple lines on flake surfaces, and systematic patterns of flake removals often in sequences. These are produced when a human shapes a core deliberately. Natural forces rarely create textbook flake scars oriented for purpose. A human knapper typically removes multiple flakes in layers, whereas nature’s flakes tend to be random, often cortex-covered. Many eoliths precisely show patterned flake removals, edge retouching, and symmetry you'd expect from intentional tools—indistinguishable from later Stone Age tools, except for their geological age. Moore conveniently ignores this, implying any resemblance to a tool must be coincidental due to the assumed absence of early toolmakers. This is circular reasoning at its worst.

Not only does Moore ignore the lithic evidence, he engages in guilt-by-association. He attempts to discredit legitimate eolith research simply because some of it has appeared in creationist publications. For example, Michael Brandt’s comprehensive paper on European eoliths—published in Answers Research Journal—is dismissed by Moore on the basis of its venue, rather than its content. Yet Brandt’s work meticulously documents European eolith assemblages and concludes that their flaking patterns cannot be explained by natural processes. Moore addresses none of this evidence. Instead, he lumps eoliths together with “creationist” ideas in the hope that serious thinkers will reject them without reading further.

It’s a textbook case of poisoning the well—attacking the label to avoid confronting the data. By the same logic, one might dismiss the entire body of Isaac Newton’s work because of his Christian beliefs. Scientific evidence should be evaluated on its merits, not on where it was published or the personal beliefs of the author.

At this point, why is Moore so adamantly denying eoliths? It’s perplexing that an archaeologist avoids investigating deeper human antiquity evidence, appearing instead to reinforce old orthodoxy. Considering his approach, he may be:

  • Woefully uninformed, dismissing eoliths without proper examination.

  • Wilfully obtuse, aware but refusing acknowledgment.

  • Out of his depth, writing about a subject he can't objectively analyse.

  • Agenda-driven, a shill for the status quo determined to hide or discredit findings validating independent researchers like Brandt or myself.

Whatever Moore’s motivation, none reflects well on an authority on stone tools. His stance is a disservice to open scientific inquiry. As an independent researcher with numerous eolithic tool and figure stone finds in the UK, I emphasize that eoliths haven't been scientifically disproved—only dismissed and labelled "geofacts" without proof. Establishment archaeologists decided eoliths can't be real, then treated that assumption as fact—sweeping inconvenient evidence under the rug. Science should follow evidence, not dictate what's allowable based on a theory.

Now, rigid mindsets face new challenges. Recent discoveries vindicate eolith proponents, notably from Romania where researchers found evidence that hominins occupied Europe far earlier than previously believed—precisely the timeframe of once-derided eoliths. At Valea lui Grăunceanu, Romania, stone-tool cut marks on animal bones dated ~1.95 million years ago provide the oldest evidence of hominin activity in Europe, pushing back human presence by roughly 200,000 years.

This evidence directly undermines Moore’s blanket scepticism. His insistence no tools existed in older layers looks increasingly untenable, even arrogant. New findings suggest Europe might have had hominin presence even earlier. The Romanian discovery reveals evidence hidden in plain sight, missed due to preconceived notions. Likewise, genuine eolith artifacts may have been misclassified or ignored. We must avoid repeating past mistakes due to outdated assumptions.

In light of these findings, Moore’s stubborn denial of dawn stones appears indefensible. Extraordinary claims require proof, but blanket-dismissal without examination is equally unscientific. The correct approach is rigorous analysis. Independent researchers applying such analysis have consistently found evidence supporting eolith authenticity.

Human prehistory is deeper than textbooks admit. The dismissal of eoliths resulted from failures of imagination and observation perpetuated by Moore’s site. The new Romanian discoveries affirm our ancestors' presence at the dawn of the Ice Ages as fact. It’s high time the archaeological community reconsider eolith collections openly. When facts challenge reigning theories, science adapts theories accordingly. The eolith debate now aligns with mounting evidence—our prehistoric past is richer and deeper than previously accepted.

Friday, 18 April 2025

Revelation in Stone: Prehistoric Discoveries Ep1 | Introduction to The Site and Flint Artifacts

Revelation in Stone — Episode 1 introduces a significant archaeological discovery near the famed Boxgrove site in Southern England. This opening episode sets the stage for a series exploring eoliths, figure stones, and portable rock art — including flint tools and nodules bearing faces, animals, and symbolic motifs. We outline methods for identifying workmanship and patina continuity, and preview how ambiguous, anamorphic compositions encode multiple creatures (front halves, head profiles, full side views, hands and feet). The site’s material challenges assumptions about timeline, cognition, and the emergence of symbolic behaviour, bridging utilitarian technology and early art. Watch to see why these finds matter and how the series will unfold with detailed analyses of tools, motifs, and dating context.

  • Site context near Boxgrove (Britain’s oldest human remains) and methods overview
  • Figure stones & portable rock art: faces, animals, and symbolic glyphs (Eoglyphs)
  • Eoliths: workmanship indicators, patina evidence, and geological context
  • Anamorphic illusions: multiple animals integrated in single compositions
  • What’s next in Episodes 2–3: flintknapping analysis and imagery deep-dives

Episode Guide

Episode 2 (Part 1): Lithic analysis & flintknapping — watch on YouTube
Episode 2 (Part 2): Prehistoric faces & tools — watch on YouTube


Learn more: Eoliths · Figure Stones · Portable Rock Art

Sunday, 17 December 2023

Eolith Discovery in Southern England Reveals Australopithecus Sculpture

Introduction: In the heart of Southern England, a groundbreaking eolith discovery is challenging the mainstream understanding of prehistoric art and human history. This extraordinary find features a striking frontal sculpture that uncannily resembles an Australopithecus, offering a new perspective on early human creativity. 


A Glimpse into the Past:
Unearthed from a site rich in historical artefacts, this eolith stands out for its remarkable symmetry and detailed craftsmanship. The sculpture presents a face with deep-set eyes, possibly depicting a winking expression or even a hooded figure. This interpretation is further enhanced by the head shape, which aligns closely with our knowledge of Australopithecus anatomy.  

Artistic Mastery in Stone: The craftsmanship of this eolith is nothing short of stunning. Its symmetrical design and the intricate detailing of the facial features suggest a level of artistic skill not commonly attributed to early human artists. The deep holes for eyes, in particular, add a level of depth and realism that is rarely seen in prehistoric artefacts. 


A Tapestry of Faces and Symbols:
Beyond the prominent Australopithecus representation, this eolith is a treasure trove of other faces and symbols commonly found in flint tools and art objects from the region. Each marking and figure on the stone tells a story, offering insights into the cultural and artistic expressions of our ancestors and as my study suggests a kind of world wide prehistoric proto-language, or just a silent hunting aid. 

Implications for Prehistoric Art Studies: This discovery is not just a testament to the artistic abilities of early humans but also a potential paradigm shift in how we understand prehistoric art. The sophistication and clarity of the sculpture challenge the notion that early human art was rudimentary or purely functional.  

 The above photo taken from another angle of the prehistoric sculpture is reminiscent of a bear face description, although it is in fact a complex mash-up of ancient symbolism. Those more familiar with my research may notice the ambiguous optical illusion of a left and downward facing hominid head profile and a right facing bear front half. 

 

Conclusion: The discovery of this eolith in Southern England is a remarkable addition to the world of archaeology and prehistoric art studies. It compels us to reconsider our perceptions of early human artistry and opens up new avenues for research and exploration in human history. 

Call to Action: Stay tuned for more updates on this extraordinary find and join us in exploring the depths of human history and creativity. Share this post to spread awareness of this incredible discovery!

Another face in the sculpture displays a rather simple chimp impression.

Sunday, 25 June 2023

Ancient face mask - Figure Stone

This is quite a stunning piece of portable rock art found in North Carolina, United States by Brandon McDonald. It appears as a face mask, but I would suggest its a lot more than that as it clearly displays the convention and common content by my definition of a figure stone.

Looking carefully at the find many figurative interpretations can be made, and many are credible due to the fact that I've predefined these and described and demonstrated them numerously on this blog and put them in my 'Figure Stone Key' of this global ancient art phenomena. 

I think that what is most important here is the modern human like face description,  it displays no apparent archaic features, the nose is very well defined and the brow ridge looks normal for a human and does not look as thick set as expected if this was a depiction of Neanderthal or Homo-Neanderthal. This fits with my theory that Humans are responsible for the world wide figurative art topology, even though in many cases art finds appear to be in the multi-million year age range (well before dubious theory concerning human chronology).

The find also displays proboscidean descriptions in the expected front half convention, both left and right facing, and possibly on both sides of the mask. Looking at these carefully mammoth, mastodon and even large eared African elephant can be interpreted here, this I feel is by design, deliberate ambiguities worked into the find so it covers multiple species. (Previous African Elephant like interpretation form North Carolina Artifact:- American Paleoart )

There is also a good ape like face in the fairly common frontal convention, and it also appears defined by a diamond kite shape, as is also on my key (commonly interpreted as an Australopithecus) This however is not bordered by the edges of the find as I usually require, to rule out pareidolia, but we definitively have a genuine polymorphic artifact here so this is a fare interpretation.

There is also plenty more fairly certain interpretations here that meet the standard figure stones common lexicon and convention: Lion half, hand holding a rock,  grazing horse half, and no doubt more through careful examination in person. Something to be aware of is a Galapagos like tortoise and/or dinosaur like impression in this find.

So how old is this find? Standard archaeological narrative would tell us this is at maximum 13 thousand years old (Clovis first), but human habitation has already been put back much further for north America, although not directly attributed to Modern Humans as far back as around 100 Thousand years, and even further still for artistic people of Hueyatlaco, 260 thousand years, and if we accept the ape like face description is of an ape and we accept the (extremely dubious narrative) fossil record, then 20 million years old, but I suspect its only a few hundred thousand years at most.

 

Portable Rock Art Face Mask



Portable Rock Art Double Elephants


Thursday, 27 April 2023

How old is my Portable Rock Art?

I've just put together a new and very useful reference guide to help people to age there Portable Rock Art finds.

Have you ever wondered what life was like for prehistoric humans, mammoths, or alligators? Or wanted to identify the possible age of a portable rock art figure? Look no further than my Ultimate Reference Guide!

This comprehensive guide provides a wealth of information on a wide range of prehistoric species, from hominids and felines to bears and crocodiles. With detailed charts that include approximate heights, dates of existence, and fossil locations, the guide offers valuable insights into the evolution and distribution of these magnificent creatures.

Whether you're a seasoned archaeologist or a curious enthusiast, the Reference Guide can help you to better understand and appreciate the wonders of prehistoric life. By using this guide as a starting point, you can unlock the secrets of the past and gain a deeper appreciation for the incredible diversity and complexity of the natural world.

So why wait? Start exploring the world of prehistoric life today with the Ultimate Reference Guide! Whether you're researching for a project, writing a paper, or simply satisfying your curiosity, this guide is an invaluable tool for anyone interested in the fascinating world of prehistory.

The Guide can be found under the Research section of my academia page here: Brett Martin (academia.edu)

Wednesday, 15 February 2023

Eoliths and Evidence of Cognition.

 There are many ways in which we can look at an object and recognize that an intelligence was used to modify it, this I have termed 'Evidence of Cognition'. Eoliths and many other finds have been dismissed as the product of natural factors, tide wave action, falls, trampling etc, but with no actual evidence at all! or even a real scientific explanation. So some archaeologists are literally telling you the 'moon is made of cheese', and not even giving you any evidence for their 'giant imaginary space cow'.

 Let's think about this for flints and recognizing evidence of cognition in them, when flints are formed they are covered in cortex, finding a flint without cortex would suggest the cortex was removed somehow, to remove all of the cortex would require a lot of action, rather like peeling the skin from a potato, although obviously percussion with respect to flints. Symmetry and parallel features in flint finds also hint at mathematics in use, hence evidence of cognition again. Also repeating patterns on the surface of the flint would indicate the same strengths and techniques and precision were used to remove flakes. Long flake removals that produce linear parallel scaring are absolute proof of agency and evidence of cognition, the probability when examining the forces involved is so close to impossible just for two parallel flake removals. Also the patinas in flint can give an indication that the flakes removed from the flint could have happened in proximal time periods, and none since, as it's possible to see the difference in old chips and new chips. Repeating topologies in finds, the shapes found also give an indication of design, so again evidence of cognition.

Evidence of Cognition in Flint Finds: Identifying Agency in Archaeological Artifacts

Introduction: The identification of flint artifacts as products of human agency and cognition has long been a topic of debate in the field of palaeoanthropology and archaeology. Identifying human agency and cognition is important for understanding the evolution of human behaviour and technology.  While some researchers have dismissed certain flint finds as natural formations, many studies have shown that the evidence of cognition in flint artifacts is significant and cannot be ignored. In this paper, we examine the various factors that contribute to the identification of flint artifacts as products of human agency and cognition, including symmetry, parallel features, patina, flake removal, and repeating patterns, and topologies in shape and form, figuration (creature and other depictions). 

 While the identification of some flint artifacts as tools is straightforward, the recognition of more subtle features requires careful analysis. In this paper, we examine the role of evidence of cognition in identifying flint artifacts, focusing on the factors that indicate that flint artifacts are the result of human agency and cognition.

 Flint is a common material used by early humans for tool-making, and as such, flint finds can provide valuable insights into the cognitive abilities of our prehistoric ancestors. Identifying evidence of cognition in flint finds can be a challenging task, but there are several key characteristics to look for that can indicate the use of intelligence and agency in the creation of these artifacts.

 One way to recognize the use of intelligence in modifying an object is to look for evidence of precision or purposeful design. If an object has been modified in a way that seems to serve a specific purpose, it is more likely that an intelligent being was involved in the modification process.

 Another way to recognize evidence of cognition is to look for patterns or repetitions. If an object has been modified in a consistent and repetitive manner, it is more likely that an intelligent being was involved in the modification process.

 Additionally, examining the use of raw materials and tools can also provide evidence of cognition. If an object has been made from a material that is not readily available in the surrounding environment, or if it has been shaped using a tool that is not found in the area, it suggests that an intelligent being had to bring these materials or tools to the site in order to create the object. An example of this could be the use of manufactured pigments, or ochre line etching done by a sustained and applied force from iron pyrites.

 One of the most obvious signs of agency in flint finds is the presence of flake removal scars. When flint is initially formed, it is covered in a layer of cortex that must be removed to access the usable material inside. This removal of cortex requires considerable physical action, such as percussion or pressure flaking, indicating the deliberate use of force to shape the flint. Remailing cortex is often used as a comfort or grip feature in flint tools, simply found on side surfaces opposite the cutting blade, there are many examples of this in indisputable flint tool finds. 

Shape topologies: The identified shapes in flint tool assemblages, such as hand axes and arrowheads, are clear evidence of design and cognition. The precision and symmetry involved in creating these tools is undeniable, and the fact that we find them in large numbers and in a variety of contexts is further proof that they were created intentionally by ancient humans. The design elements and topologies in these tools show an incredible level of skill and craftsmanship, and suggest that the creators of these tools were not only able to conceive of and plan their designs, but were also able to execute them with a high level of precision.

Similarly, the figurative depictions found in figure stones are not just random patterns, but show a clear repetition of subjects such as elephants, apes, bears, and hand shapes. The fact that these subjects are framed by the edges of the flint find is further evidence that they were created intentionally by ancient humans, rather than being a product of pareidolia or random chance, there is also common convention and even common repeating combinations that prove design, skill and forethought.  The level of detail and complexity in these depictions is also remarkable, and suggests that the creators of these figure stones were skilled artists who were able to create incredibly detailed and lifelike representations of the creatures they saw around them.

In summary, the identification of specific shapes and designs in flint tool assemblages and figure stones is clear evidence of design and cognition in ancient humans. The repetition of these shapes and designs across different tools and stones suggests that they were created intentionally, rather than being a product of random chance or natural formation. The skill and precision involved in creating these tools and stones is remarkable, and serves as a testament to the ingenuity and creativity of our ancient ancestors.

Evidence of Cognition in Flint Artifacts: The evidence of cognition in flint artifacts can be seen in a number of different ways. One of the most important factors is symmetry. Many flint artifacts, including tools and figurative depictions, show a high degree of symmetry, indicating that the maker was intentionally creating a balanced design. This level of symmetry is highly unlikely to occur by natural processes. Symmetry and parallel features in flint finds also suggest the use of mathematical reasoning and planning. Humans are known to have an innate sense of symmetry, and the presence of symmetrical features in flint finds suggests a deliberate attempt to create balance and order in the design. 

Parallel features, such as parallel flake removal scars or linear patterns, also suggest a deliberate and planned approach to flint working. Blade sharpening, and repeating patterns are all strong indicators of human agency and cognition. The probability of two or more parallel features occurring in natural formations is extremely low, making it highly unlikely that parallel features in flint artifacts are the result of natural processes. Even two similar flake removals proximal to each other are also very good evidence for cognition, lightning has struck twice in the same locale, comparable forces have made a pair of like flake removals in a substance that is harder than steel, To do this requires cognition, find a third similar flake removal and we need something like a trillion to one chance for those three to be a natural occurrence. We could throw a flint off a cliff a billion times and never get one of those long slender flake removals found in something like a flint core, let alone a similar set of parallel flake removals.

In addition, repeating patterns on the surface of flint artifacts indicate that the same strength and techniques were used to remove flakes. These patterns are unlikely to occur in natural formations and provide further evidence of human agency and cognition. A line of flake removals, commonly seen in flint finds, is another piece of evidence pointing to agency and cognition. This type of flake removal is often seen in blade sharpening, a process where a series of small features are created at the edge to create a sharp edge for use in cutting. Flint pecking, a process where a small piece of flint or possibly even iron pyrites or diamonds are used to remove tiny flakes to create a specific feature, in a line of flake removals, commonly seen in flint finds, is another piece of evidence pointing to agency and cognition. The pattern and direction of flake removals, the size and shape of the resulting tool or figure, and the presence of patina all contribute to the overall picture of evidence of cognition in flint finds. It is therefore nonsensical to dismiss such finds as products of natural factors, without any evidence to suggest that such natural processes could even produce the observed features. Occam's Razor, a principle in science that states that the simplest explanation is often the best one, would suggest that the most likely explanation for these finds is that they were created by intelligent beings. 

The probability of natural events producing the same pattern of chips consistently around the edges of a flint find is extremely low. This is because the forces involved in natural events such as weathering and erosion are random and chaotic, and they do not typically produce consistent patterns. On the other hand, deliberate flake removal produces consistent patterns of chips that are indicative of a systematic and controlled process.

In summary, identifying evidence of cognition in flint finds involves looking for signs of agency, such as deliberate flake removal scars, symmetry, parallel features, repeating patterns, and long flake removals. Additionally, the age and patina of the flint can provide valuable information on the likelihood of intentional shaping by early humans. By using these key characteristics, archaeologists can identify and better understand the cognitive abilities of our prehistoric ancestors.

Conclusion: The evidence of cognition in flint artifacts is significant and cannot be ignored. The factors of symmetry, parallel features, patina, flake removal, and repeating patterns are all strong indicators of human agency and cognition. Dismissing certain flint finds as natural formations without any evidence to suggest that this could even happen goes against the principle of Occam's razor. The scientific community must acknowledge the significance of evidence of cognition in flint artifacts and the importance of identifying flint artifacts as products of human agency and cognition.

Its a pity we cannot find any evidence of cognition in the archaeologists who dismiss such eolith finds as natural


Eoliths

The above finds are labelled as Eoliths found in England, France and Belgium. Clear evidence of cognition is visible here and nothing else, no natural process can produce the flake removal scars seen here and no scientist can prove or produce evidence that that is the case.

Friday, 16 September 2022

Flint Tools and Prehistoric Art - Video

 This video is very informative and demonstrates my discovery of prehistoric art in some Palaeolithic flint tools that were ascribed to Neanderthals. The three tools were all found on the Kent coast line in the 70's eroding from cliff faces. All have been professionally identified and classified according to the respecting modes and industries. The suspected ages of the finds is up to about 500,000 years old. Although they were thought to be made by Neanderthals, It could of been any artistically adept homo group.


Portable Rock Art

The images above are from the video, I'm comparing the animal faces in the flint tool shown in the bottom 3 pictures, with very similar animal faces shown above from another stone find. All are thought to be monkey or ape descriptions, but the one top right could be an image representing a archaic human. This is absolutely conclusive proof  of the validity of my research, to anyone who has even a remedial understanding of probability and statistics.

Thursday, 21 July 2022

Oldest Conch shell horn instrument holds Palaeolithic Language?

This conch shell was found in the French Pyrenees in 1931 and is thought to possibly be as old as 46,000 year old. I can see a few very weak figurative possibilities here from my paleo language lexicon, and one very clear thumb shape (top right) I feel by manipulating the viewing angles I could easily get it to demonstrate the swan motif preening feathers, and possibly an elephant and even a chimp face, but without having the item in my hands, this is just supposition. 



You can hear the haunting sound of the worlds oldest wind instrument below.

Friday, 24 June 2022

UK's Oldest handaxes contain Palaeolithic Communication Devices

 Some ancient flint tools held by the British Museum have recently been dated to be 560,000 years old, although labelled as the oldest I would be cautions in accepting that, other flint handaxes have been given older dates, but perhaps these are the oldest dates acquired by scientific testing. Source article.

What is more interesting is that at least one of them has a rotational face profile stack, this is something I discovered and have regularly mentioned on my forum, blog and other social media. The face stack has the ubiquitous gorilla face profile, combined with a partial human face, and at least one other ape face profile, a feature of figure stones. I will dig out a very similar communication device later to share here that replicates this example. The face stack can be seen in the raised area of the handaxe, left. To the right we also have another one of my figurative symbolic discoveries, the hand, the finger complete with finger nail feature can be seen along the top for the find pointing to the left, the thumb pointing downwards as in my chart, and previously documented by myself in my own finds, African handaxes, and various other world wide stone artefacts. I don't expect people who are unskilled in Palaeolithic art and symbology to accept what I can see, in the same way as I cannot speak or read Japanese.

Tuesday, 11 January 2022

Eoliths - Pygmy Rocks

All over the world there is folklore of small stature peoples, gnomes, brownies, and leprechauns are just some of the many examples, but is there any evidence that these ever existed?

Indonesia 
Many of you would of likely heard of the so called hobbit (Homo floresiensis) bone finds from the Island of Flores in Indonesia. It was approximately 3 1/2 feet tall, but did you know the Island of Flores had folklore of small stature people who lived in caves and kidnapped the villagers children?

But Flores boasts another legendary group, the Ebu Gogo, whose name in one of the languages of Flores means "grandmother who eats everything." The Ebu Gogo are reported to be bipedal creatures around 60" tall who speak their own language and can mimic human speech. Legends about the Ebu Gogo go back to early western exploration of the island by the Portuguese, who heard that the creatures stole food and kidnapped children. Another story holds that the Ebu Gogo were killed by modern humans who arrived on the island from elsewhere in Indonesia -- except for one pair that retreated into the forests, whose descendants still live there.

When the "hobbit" remains were thought to date to as recently as 12,000 years ago, these legends about Ebu Gogo started sounding like they could refer to H. floresiensis. The new Nature paper, however, uses cutting-edge analysis of geology to push the date of disappearance of the "hobbits" back to 50,000 years ago. Or, at least, this is the date that the "hobbits" left the cave at Liang Bua. Research authors Thomas Sutikna and colleagues write that, "Whether H. floresiensis survived after 50 kyr ago -- potentially encountering modern humans on Flores or other hominins dispersing through southeast Asia, such as Denisovans -- is an open question."

Any that know folklore see it as eye witness accounts passed down the generations, this is different to modern day tales in my view, as other factors often sway people to claim such things (money/fame), and likely many witnesses went into making something 'folklore'. With that in mind, and considering the claim that the 'hobbits' disappeared from the island of Flores some 50KYA, how could there possibly be Human eyewitnesses?

According to this article the stone tools in the picture date to between 700KYA and 840KYA, and its assumed belonged to Homo floresiensis (hobbit).

Mass Grave of Ancient Race of Dwarfs Discovered 41586_10

With just a very quick scout over these stone tools I see quite a few possible Palaeolithic symbols, most notably I see a good likeness to a thumb (circled above, the thumb shape is along the right side of the stone with the nail at the bottom.), 

The presence of thumb, finger and hand shapes in stone tools and other finds has been repeatedly demonstrated on this blog, to see more check the the following article or look closely for a gripping hand shape in the flint tool below: Figure Stones - The Hidden Art of Palaeolithic Stone Tools - Hands


The above Palaeolithic stone tool was found in France, this side of it quite clearly shows a whole hand shape reaching downwards as though gripping something. (Thumb to the left, fingers to the right, it even has flesh like coloration.)



The above video is of a fossil mastodon bone carving from the Island of Java in Indonesia. The carved face has some resemblance to classic gnome imagery, with its pointed hat. The item is made of fossilised mastodon bone from the Pliocene period, 5.2 million to 2.5 million years ago. Its Providence is from an old Bristol palaeontological collection. Although believed to be carved when the mastodon bone was already fossilized, examining the object I cannot possibly see how this can be the case, as its as hard as any flint, but does not have the usual signs of knapping that a flint would show.


Despite the obvious face carving the find appears to show other common figuration found in flint tools and figure stones, 

India.
These microliths, (small flint tools)are from recent excavations in a cave in India and are dated to 52000 years ago. Just because they are small it does not mean the makers/users of these blade tools were 'hobbits' In fact they are simply ascribed to humans and the cave could have been a creche?, 

I've detected traces of possible prehistoric language symbols in these finds also, I call these Eoglyphs. The tool circled in purple top middle in the picture below,  shows a common 3/4 face profile, the red circled items is where I have detected thumb/digit/claw/nail symbology as in my chart, and the blue circled items are where I have detected the likely presence of a cloaked figure, of coarse this is not absolute proof, but I repeatedly demonstrate the presence of these shape likenesses in professionally documented prehistoric tool assemblage's as well as my own poly-iconic finds. source article: https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/other/former-ncp-legislator-narendra-patil-joins-shiv-sena/articleshow/68526395.cms

England.
The largest set of possible evidence for small stature artistic people I believe are the tiny Figure Stones, I call these pygmy rocks, often about an inch in there longest dimensions, These appear intricately carved and show common symbology, convention and topology, exactly the same as the finds documented above and in other places on this blog. These can be found in gravel beds, sometimes with ascribed dates in the tens of millions of years, although I would suggest caution here with these Eoliths, as they are out of any archaeological context, being washed into these gravel deposits. Although its not proof of tiny people carving these items, its a logical assumption that they belonged to tiny people or that they were carved for the children of smaller stature people, calculations based on thumb to forefinger usage would give an estimated height of below 2 feet tall. Pareidolia has not been completely ruled out for such finds, although having repeating topologies and a key of the common symbols goes a long way to discounting such ideas. a large sample size in archaeological context would prove this one way or another. 




I would suggest that topology, figuration and features defined by flake removals are often enough to almost certainly give credence to human agency being involved in the creation of such items, some would disagree. For those I suggest that mathematics and probability prove that some items have been modified by humans. Check out the two finds below, also from gravel deposits that are likely in the multi million age range according to popular geology theory.


Topology and topology of features is a powerful tool for recognizing genuine artworks from the chaos of random stones in ancient gravel. If you look at the selection of finds below (foot shapes from my chart) you may notice the possibility of toe, and big toe descriptions in the features of these stones. This could be used as a powerful tool to prove figuration in a random sample of gravel finds. Search the entire selection of random gravel for anything that resembles foot glyph shape, then check for toe features or if the foot arch is on the correct side (same as big toe) if a large enough bias is found it would almost certainly suggest human agency is involved, and not random chance.


Friday, 3 December 2021

Eoliths

 In 1882 amateur archaeologist Benjamin Harrison discovered the first eoliths, these were chipped flint objects that were believed to be worked and modified by man, although sometimes crudely. The term eolith (dawn stone) was later coined by J. Allen to describe such finds. Sir Joseph Prestwich later published an article including some of Benjamin Harrison's discoveries and it became widely accepted that eoliths were stone tools from the Pliocene era (5.4 to 2.4 million years ago). 

The article by Sir Joseph Prestwich:  On the primitive characters of the flint implements of the chalk plateau of Kent

I wont go into to much detail about what happened next, but lets just say it was a serious disservice to our understanding of our distant past. The failure to accept eoliths as worked finds from the Pliocene has put back archaeology understanding by over 100 years, leaving most modern archaeologists completely in the dark about the huge antiquity of highly cognitive and artistic prehistoric peoples. Eoliths have not been disproved in any way by scientific evidence, but have simply been dismissed, and labelled as 'believed to be geofacts' with no actual proof, and a scientific analysis of the patinas of such finds would disclose in all likelihood that the vast majority of chips and flake removals took place in one time period, almost certain proof of them being artefacts rather than geofacts.

Now, wouldn't it be amazing if we could recognise Palaeolithic art in some of Benjamin Harrison's finds that he believed were modified?, but later dismissed as being geofacts. It would surely be more amazing if the recognised artistic impressions fitted perfectly in with my chart as common recognised subjects of Palaeolithic figure stones?, with the same topologies and conventions? But firstly it should be noted that Benjamin Harrison made no claims that his finds were anything more than ancient worked flints, he made no comparisons to creature likenesses in his finds, and did not claim they contained any artistic figurative representations of any kind. (as far as I am aware)

Eolith
Palaeolithic readers will instantly recognise possible artistic representations in this old postcard of Eoliths. These items were only recognised as worked flints at the time. 

A human hand holding a flint scraper could easily be interpreted from the eolith find above, although some may suggest this is a fanciful interpretation, many of the finer details are present and hand, hand holding a rock, fingers and thumbs are a common glyph to find in portable rock art, figure stones, and even standard flint scrapers and hand axes, as previously demonstrated and on my chart.

Two bear head profile shapes can be easily interpreted from the eolith above, which has just been rotated to demonstrate this. Could it be that the reason there are two bear like images in this find was to silently communicate that a bear is heading either left or right? Bears are also a very well documented Palaeolithic glyph and subject found in figure stones and cave paintings, also on my chart in head profile format.

Suggested interpretations are as follows:-
Left: duck head facing left but also the simple gorilla glyph head profile facing right, Middle: hare head profile facing right, Right: horse head profile facing right. Other possibilities are also present including alligator or crocodile head profile, also previously documented and on my chart. The combination of hare head and duck head forming an ambiguous optical illusion comes as no surprise as this is also a classic modern ambiguous optical illusion combination.

Interpretation of a australopithecus head profile left facing. A predictable face profile to find in figure stones, because science is predictable.  

Another find showing an Ambiguous Optical Illusion.