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.

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 stone 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

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)

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

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.

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.

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. 

Source Article

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

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. 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.

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).

From: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04618

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.

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)

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.

Prehistoric Art News

 Here are some recent and fairly recent news stories that have some connection to my own finds and research. First up this headline from the Daily Mail:

Unknown ancient humans made elephant bone tools to carve meat 400,000 years ago in a way not thought to be possible until 100,000 years later, archaeologists say

• Researchers analysed elephant remains found near Rome between 1979 and 91 
• They found nearly 100 ancient hominid made tools created 400,000 years ago
• Among the bones they found a smoother, once used in the treatment of leather
• However, it was made using a technique not seen until about 300,000 years ago 
• Other earlier than expected techniques included the processing of long bones 
• They don't know for certain which human species created the unusual bone tools but the team behind the study suspect it would have been Neanderthals 

The link is here. The tools made of elephant bone (no surprises there, elephant images are so common in my U.K finds) and quite a few can easily be interpreted as holding the basic thumb or finger glyph from my chart. I also notice a close shape match with a find from my site in Sothern England (very close to the famous Boxgrove man 500,000 year old find site)  So many science teams wrongly claim a particular human species group with little to no hard evidence, a breath of fresh air in credibility for the team behind this study.

Finds B,C,D and E can easily be interpreted as holding thumb or finger figuration to the few of us who understand Palaeolithic symbology. Finds A,G and H appear more like the clawed nail variation. H also looks like a cloaked figure with face details. 

A close shape match is apparent with the above find from Italy and the below find from my site here in the U.K. Interesting a slight patch of cortex remains on my find in exactly the polished area shown at the tip of the Italian find.

This next study in Science Alert is about the predominance of Horse depictions in cave paintings across Europe from 10,000 to 30,000 years ago:

Stone Age Artists Were Inexplicably Mesmerised by Horses, Millennia Before Domestication

The link is here. Although I have made sculptured horse head finds from my site, (often combined with elephant half) before reading this article I was unaware that a predominately right facing orientation was also apparent, or even a thing, I don't have thousands of samples of horse depictions as in the study in the article, but a possible trend is evident in my own finds.

Look carefully for common Palaeolithic figuration in the stone tool above.

This is an article in Swaddle, although I would be cautious about accepting the headline. 

World’s Oldest Cave Art Was Made by Children, Study Shows

The link is here. The claim that children made this art is in my opinion completely unsupported. Very small stature people were known to exist in prehistoric times did they rule out these? No they used modern day data from the WHO of all people.

Figure Stones - Palaeolithic Language

 As many of you will know, since very early in my prehistoric artwork discoveries I have put forward the view that my finds are a form of prehistoric communication, Palaeolithic visual language to be more precise. I have repeatedly demonstrated my glyph set, in worked stone and more conventional stone tool finds, not only in my collection, but in the finds of others, both amateur stone finds and professionally recognised finds and ancient tool assemblages from all over the world. 

Due to mainstream resistance to such ideas I have repeatedly re-demonstrated, re-checked, and concentrated my efforts into scientific proof by demonstrating things that are re-observable, re-testable both in and outside my own evidence. Many of my followers have demonstrated the validity of my work by sharing there own finds that  clearly fit my descriptions, topology, convention, glyph set, and world view, thank you.

I've not only put up with resistance in the mainstream, but also envy and deceitful behaviour from the very people who should be hailing my success,  because they utterly failed to prove much of anything themselves really, so they attack.

So is the landscape about to change? well it looks like it with this article in Science Advances, as it could be seen to again support my own research in my Palaeolithic language discoveries as many of my glyphs and the concept 'ambiguous optical illusions' or the melding and conglomerating glyphs together seem present.

“We don’t know what they meant, but they’re clearly symbolic objects that were deployed in a way that other people could see them,”  Said Professor Kuhn form this Article in Heritage Daily. This is where I can offer clarity if the modifications and markings on the shells are consistent with attempts to produce likenesses to my own well established common lexicon of symbols. Just look below for the front half's of elephants.

My followers will instantly see some plausible glyphs from my common set in the photo of the modified shells above. Simply these could easily work just like my definition of figure stones as visual communication tools and would take a lot less effort to modify and make, besides other advantages.

It's easy to conceive three of the most ubiquitous of the figure stone symbols in the shell on the left, elephant head and front leg (facing left), hand grip (thumb and finger joined at the bottom), Long necked water bird head reaching backward cleaning feathers (rotate  180 degrees CW). The shell on the right easily conveys the thumb motif, both clawed and nailed, also penis, and possible bear-half right facing.

Both could easily convey the water bird glyph also, beside others in the common set. These two both seem to have 'eye' modifications in the correct place to indicate that's a distinct possibility.

I've already contacted Professor Kuhn, the likeness to my glyphs and the ubiquity in world wide Palaeolithic tool assemblages from around the world to these shell is undeniable, and proving it would only require detailed analysis of the shells modifications, both removals and any additions of pigments.

Clovis - Portable Rock Art

Portable Rock Art finds have huge resistance in some online communities, just pop along to a forum of native American artefacts, post a picture of a worked stone showing some resemblance to a creature, sit back and watch the fireworks. Its not just people on arrowhead forums that are in denial here, there is professional resistance to the idea, and even suppression of the evidence and attempts to block mainstream acceptance. 

 Well perhaps its just avocational archaeologists with overwhelming evidence such as myself that are met with such ignorance? No, here is an excerpt from a recent article from PCN magazine, the article sheds light on a professionally authenticated bear effigy found in a Clovis cache, publication of which has been 'held up for 12 years.' but the excerpt is about the highly regarded Dr. Virginia Steen-McIntyre, and ignorance of any facts that shed serious doubt on the mainstream narrative.

'For Dr. Steen-McIntyre resistance to her evidence of pre-Clovis artistic people (confirmed by eminent USGS geologists and chemists and even the designer of NASA’s Apollo missions moon core samplers and instructor of the astronauts, not to mention discoverer of one of the oldest human fossils in the Western Hemisphere) has persisted well past ‘50 years.’ It is unfortunate a low-integrity field whose dogmatic resistance to evidence that could change our picture of prehistory led to the eventual destruction of the 250,000-year old Hueyatlaco early man site in Mexico. Such—among many other documented examples—is why we periodically remind readers the field cannot be trusted as a ‘science.’' 

You can download the full issue of, including the article here, but I highly recommend that you subscribe to the PCN Magazine free mailing list as well. I am very grateful to have Dr. Steen-McIntyre work on my article to make it fit for publication in PCN. My PCN article, and the full version on this blog)

Above: This is the bear effigy found by Dr. Mark Corbitt amongst a confirmed Clovis cache. 

Diatom dating was used to confirm the age of the cache as Clovis, but that does not mean the find is a Clovis artwork, its entirely possible that the find is from a much earlier date, bore an interesting bear likeness and so was added to the Clovis cache. Obviously I would agree this is a piece of portable rock art, but is it a figure stone by my definition? (Figure stones are possibly much older and I suggest often have a purpose and a common topology) The find does have some similarities with my own finds here in the UK:

1. The flake removal is precise and minimal.

2. A natural flint nodule with some desired visual features has been selected as the medium.

3. Cortex carving has been used to add finer details. (cortex is the outer casing of flint nodules)

4. The subject is that of a bear, in profile, commonly found in my own finds, and recognized by many as a common subject of figures stones.

I am not 100% convinced this is an ancient figure stone (I would love to see more pictures), although I can see a possible partial glyph of a long necked water bird  (upper middle). I would like to see a convincing Proboscidean front half and the head profile of an ape or monkey like depiction to be 100% on this, or the signature thumb or hand holding a rock glyph so often found in Palaeolithic flint tools, but completely ignored by the mainstream........

Eoglyphs

 Eoglyphs, what are they?

What are Eoglyphs? Eoglyphs (Dawn Glyphs) encompasses the landscape of symbols or glyphs commonly found in ancient Figure Stones, palaeolithic flint tools and handaxes. The same symbols are found repeatedly in this type of Portable Rock Art from across the world and have a common set of observable loose rules and conventions. Eoglyphs most often depict the cranial profiles of known creatures, (Apes, Bears, Lions) thumb and hand shapes but commonly also creature front half or whole profile shapes. It is common to find such symbols combined with some visual ambiguity, so that, for example, a slight rotation of the Figure Stones will trigger the recognition of a different glyph and/or creature.

Above an Eoglyph chart specific to common thumb, hand, and finger shapes found in figure stones.

Figure Stones

 Figure Stones, (also, Figure-Stones, Pierre's figures) what are they?

What are Figure Stones? (French: Pierre's figures) are a type of Portable Rock Art. A figure stone may depict one or more glyphs or symbols (Eoglyphs, q.v.), possibly used as a mode of voiceless communication or primitive writing.  Symbols portrayed are thought to stem from the palaeolithic era but can also be recognised in more modern finds.  Many authenticated palaeolithic flint tools and hand axes are decorated with similar glyphs so can be considered also to be Figure Stones carrying much of the known eoglyph symbology.