Dating Flint Artifacts with Patina

Dating Flint Artifacts with Patina: A Practical Guide

(Thickness–Time Chart)

Summary: Patina on flint forms mainly through hydration and related chemical weathering. Water and dissolved ions slowly penetrate micro-fractures and silica matrices, creating a surface layer that increases in thickness over time. Under suitable, stable conditions this layer can serve as a relative or bounded estimator of age for flint artifacts. Below, I share my compiled thickness–time chart so researchers and collectors can estimate lower/upper limits by measuring patina in micrometres (µm). A full paper with methods and datasets is in preparation.

In Practical use this chart demonstrates a very likely age range in millions of years for some of my artifacts, this aligns with artifact type and geology at the site.

How to use the chart

1. Prepare a clean cross-section: Use a naturally broken edge or carefully create a tiny micro-flake from an already damaged area. Avoid fresh grinding that could alter the surface.
2. Measure patina thickness (µm): Use a digital microscope (≥200–400×) or a measuring eyepiece. Take multiple measurements along the section and record the mean ± range.
3. Compare to the chart: Locate the measured thickness on the Y-axis and read the corresponding time band (lower/upper bounds) on the X-axis.
4. Record context: Note sediment, drainage, pH, burial depth, temperature regime, and any heat exposure—these factors shift growth rates.
   

Figure 1. Patina/varnish thickness on flint vs. age with diffusion-law intervals.—Measured alteration-layer thickness $x$ (µm) is plotted against age $t$ (years BP) for artefacts with quantified rinds and secure chronology; overlaid are three rate intervals derived from the empirical distribution of $k_i=x_i^2\mathrm{/}{t}_i$: lower (0.20 quantile), median (0.50), and upper (0.80), assuming $x(t)=\sqrt{kt}$. Axes: $t$ spans ${10}^0\text{\hspace{0.17em}⁣}-\text{\hspace{0.17em}⁣}{10}^7$ years (rendered linearly in the data file, readily interpretable on log-$t$); $x$ is expressed in microns. The coefficient $k$ is reported in $\mu {\mathrm{m}}^2\mathrm{/}\mathrm{k}\mathrm{a}$ for convenience. Observations plotting outside the intervals indicate comparatively inhibited or accelerated alteration; accompanying colour and geology fields enable a priori stratification without modifying the $\sqrt{t}$kinetics.

Patina thickness vs time in flint Use as a practical lower/upper-bound guide.

What patina on flint is (in brief)

• Hydration front: Water ingress and ion exchange produce a chemically altered rind (often opaque/whitened or coloured) along micro-cracks and flake scars.
• Surface chemistry: Leaching, carbonate/silicate precipitation, iron/manganese staining, and micro-pitting contribute to the layer’s appearance and measurable thickness.
• Why it helps: In stable environments, rind thickness tends to increase with time, offering a usable, if bounded, age proxy.

Important limitations

• Environment matters: Moisture availability, temperature, soil chemistry (pH, carbonates, iron), and burial history strongly affect rates.
• Heating resets: Fire exposure can thin/alter the rind. Post-depositional damage can expose fresh surfaces with young patina.
• Calibration is local: The chart provides bounds, not single-year precision. Best practice is to calibrate with regional comparanda (e.g., stratified sites, known-age artifacts).

Method notes

My chart aggregates measurements from multiple assemblages and contexts, focusing on clearly stratified finds and surfaces with diagnostic stability markers (e.g., continuous patina across adjacent flake scars, consistent iron staining, no thermal spalling). For contested pieces, combine the thickness estimate with typology, refitting, patina continuity across scars, and site context.

---

FAQ

Can patina thickness date flint precisely?
No—use it for relative dating and bounded ranges. Precision depends on local calibration and environmental stability.

What’s the best way to measure the rind?
High-magnification imaging with a calibrated scale. Take several measurements; report mean and range. Avoid altered/sooted/heat-affected zones.

How is this different from obsidian hydration dating?
Similar principle (hydration front growth) but different material behavior. Flint/chert require local calibration and careful taphonomic screening.

Does thick patina always mean older?
Usually, but not always. High humidity, alkaline soils, or iron-rich environments can accelerate formation; arid, acidic, or disturbed contexts slow or reset it.

---

Related reading:

• Eoliths—Ancient Flint Tools from Tertiary Layers
• Figure Stones: Portable Rock Art & Flint Tools
• Portable Rock Art: Ancient Carvings & Symbolic Stones

Eoliths and Flint Tools | Revelation in Stone Ep.2 Part 3

Large tools/eolith assemblages, recognisable typologies, figurative motifs, and a clear walkthrough of the historical eolith controversy—with new material from a South Downs site lying directly over 66-MYO Cretaceous chalk.

Watch the video:

Open on YouTube

---

Assemblage & Typologies

As shown in the video, this set focuses on larger implements—hand axes, ovates, bifaces—arranged into typologies. The variety is clear: Acheulean-style ovates and hand axes, unifacially worked pieces, plate-flint artifacts, and Oldowan-like choppers and flakes. What appears here is only a small sample; the full assemblage is substantially larger.

---

Geological Context: Thin Soil Over 66-MYO Chalk

The tools are consistently recovered at the interface between a very thin soil horizon and the Cretaceous chalk beneath—chalk deposited ~66 million years ago. Across the ridge, the soil can be less than 30 cm; in uprooted trees and animal burrows the flints often lie directly on the chalk surface. A few pieces were pulled from apparently undisturbed chalk faces, likely sealed by subsidence or slope movement. Evidence of historic chalk extraction on the ridge may also have re-exposed artifacts.

In other words: the geology plus the thick white patina on many pieces point to great antiquity—not thousands, but millions of years in age.

The thin soil layer containing the artifacts, and the 66 MYA chalk layer can be seen beneath it.

---

Historical Eoliths: Sites & Researchers

These forms echo classic reports of eoliths in Europe:

• Thenay, France — Abbé Louis Bourgeois: flaked flints sealed under Lower Miocene horizons; bulbs, platforms, and single-edge retouch reported.
• Aurillac (Puy Courny), France — Charles Tardy: Upper Miocene river sands with flakes showing dorsal-only retouch and classic flake morphology.
• Boncelles, Belgium — Aimé Rutot: hundreds of Oligocene flints; many with unifacial retouch, notches, borers; bulbs/platforms frequent.
• Belle-Assise (Clermont), France — Henri Breuil: Paleocene pebble beds with tool-like flints; even critics conceded the pieces looked like artifacts.
• Kent Plateau, England — Benjamin Harrison: high-level gravels with unifacially retouched flints; the “eolith” label first took hold here.

“They were dismissed not because they looked unworked, but because their ages seemed impossible. The conflict was with the timeline, not the technology.”

---

Motifs & Plate Flint

Several plate-flint pieces combine tool function with striking visual motifs. In some cases, controlled percussive blows align conchoidal ripple-marks to produce texture—e.g., a flowing mane in a horse-head profile. On reverses, eyes are picked out by dark mineral deposits common at the site. This demonstrates forethought in blow direction, force, and platform angles, using fracture dynamics as a graphic medium.

Plate-flint “horse head” — ripple alignment as deliberate texture.

Context: at Boxgrove (MIS 13, ~480–500 ka), faunal remains with cut-marks show horse butchery, making equine motifs culturally plausible in this landscape.

This Is an assemblage of likely mined and partially worked flint plate or Tabular Flint from my site on the South Downs.  Most of these work perfectly as hand axes.

---

Related Hubs

Eoliths: Ancient Flint Tools from Tertiary Layers
Figure Stones: Portable Rock Art & Prehistoric Faces
Portable Rock Art: Ancient Carvings & Symbolic Stones

---

FAQ

Do “eoliths” automatically mean extreme antiquity?
No single feature proves age. Here the case combines context (soil–chalk interface over 66-MYO chalk), patina (thick white patina on many pieces), and technology (bulbs, platforms, unifacial retouch) to argue deep time.

Did Oldowan toolmakers use anvils?
Yes. Oldowan sites document passive anvils with hammerstones (including bipolar percussion), a deep-time precedent for flat working surfaces and slab/plate reduction strategies.

Isn’t the eolith literature controversial?
Historically, yes. Many 19th–20th-century finds were dismissed as geofacts because their ages conflicted with accepted timelines. The technological features, however, remain worth re-examining alongside newer evidence.

---

Support & Subscribe

If you found this useful, please watch on YouTube, like, comment and subscribe — your support enables further fieldwork, imaging, and analysis.

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

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.

Eoliths: Ancient Flint Tools from Tertiary Layers

 

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.

Eoliths in Europe : Controversy, Critique, and New Evidence

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.

Further reading:

• Eoliths: Ancient Flint Tools from Tertiary Layers
• Figure Stones: Portable Rock Art & Prehistoric Faces
• Portable Rock Art: Ancient Carvings & Symbolic Stones

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

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.

Further reading:

• Eoliths: Ancient Flint Tools from Tertiary Layers
• Figure Stones: Portable Rock Art & Prehistoric Faces
• Portable Rock Art: Ancient Carvings & Symbolic Stones

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

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.

Further reading:

• Eoliths: Ancient Flint Tools from Tertiary Layers
• Figure Stones: Portable Rock Art & Prehistoric Faces
• Portable Rock Art: Ancient Carvings & Symbolic Stones

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.

Further reading:

• Eoliths: Ancient Flint Tools from Tertiary Layers
• Figure Stones: Portable Rock Art & Prehistoric Faces
• Portable Rock Art: Ancient Carvings & Symbolic Stones

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.