Eoliths are Natural! Not on your nelly!

In the last post we looked into patinas on a suspected eolith and I went through some of my observations according to my study on Eoliths and Figure Stones. In this post we will be delving into probability, particularly in parallel features and practically apply the study to some flint finds.

This flint from my find site shows two sets of parallel lines.

Many people have found these rhomboid or diamond shaped stones in connection with figure stones and I have a few from my find site here in Southern England. But is this a natural formation? No, it is not! allow me to explain a little further.

The probability of two randomly placed lines on a flat plane being parallel is zero, that's right! according to mathematics, that popular sciencey thing, there is a zero chance that two randomly placed lines will be parallel, but not impossible. Here is a thread about the boring math equation from StackExchange.

Right so we have categorically established that the stone above is not a natural formation, we have a next to impossible appearance of parallel lines twice in the same find, here is my simple version of the math: 

A nearly impossible probability multiplied by another nearly impossible probability equals a very very very impossible probability. 

But can this be applied to other linear features or alignments in flint finds and eoliths? Yes it can. When face features are in an upright alignment to each other exactly the same math applies, although that does not account for the random creation of a face like feature in the first place, adding an even bigger statistical unlikelihood of it being a natural formation. Readers of my blog will already be aware of face and other features having linear alignments in my finds and most likely there own.

Applying probability and statistics to linear flake removal is another useful tool in debunking eoliths as natural formations, below is a picture featured on Adam Bentons web page Evoanth, quite what or even if he was thinking when writing this post, I do not know?

The eolith is left and accepted tool on the right.

The picture comes from this scientific paper about eoliths here.

I count four linear flake removals (not including retouch and sharpening flakes) in the eolith, one on the reverse (first drawing) and three on the front (second drawing). But these are not perfectly parallel? No, but they are as near as damn it, and we have a third factor to work into our equation, that of depth, our z coordinate, as our flakes (or lines) are not locked to a flat plane as they are in the equation, but we can ignore that as it would only add further improbability, and a probability of zero is already unbeatable. 

There are more things worth noting, firstly, creating a nice long linear flake removal is very difficult, and I am sure many a skilled flint knapper can tell you that, so that's unlikely to be caused by a falling rock or a trampling foot from the outset. Secondly the eolith looks to have been created using the levallois technique, a well known prehistoric process for creating flint tools, the shape created as part of the parent stone, and then removed  with one blow to produce the tool, ready for retouch and sharpening.

So what can we conclude? Many prehistoric flint tools have been ignored and labeled as natural formations most likely because they disprove much of the evolutionary theory of man.

Rutland Museums Eolith, Flint Tool?, Figure Stone? or Natural?

I recently came across this article on Rutland County Museums web page showing a picture of a suspected eolith, so I contacted Lorraine Cornwell the museums collection manager asking for more details. Lorraine kindly provided measurements, additional photographs and any other details she could find:

Part of the Oakham school collection.
Suspected bronze-age flint hammer stone.
Reassessed as a natural formation.
Dimensions, Length 140mm Width 90mm Depth 50mm (approx)

A subtle elephant motif can be seen facing left (possibly in half or seated configuration) and a partial thumb and nail motif to the right.

When I first saw the picture on the web page I instantly noticed some possible figuration, that of the seated elephant motif and the partial thumb and nail motif. Regular readers of my blog will already know that the combination of elephant and hominid motifs pretty much defines the figure stone phenomena, weather as whole or half elephant,  thumb or hominid face profile, an elephant front leg and hand combination can be seen here.

Thanks to the additional pictures provided I decided to examine this 'eolith' further, to see if it was either a flint tool, a figure stone or just a natural stone with some random flake removals.

I noticed four distinct patinas created by time and flake removal, this was a concern at first, however the patinas all seemed to fit into four separate chronologies, here is what can be observed:

The original cortex of the flint, created when the nodule was formed underground in chalk deposits. (Oldest, Very Ancient) Please note the ocher etching on this surface, inscribed at a later date.

The cortex on the flint eolith, a head profile shape can be seen on the right facing left, small chips to the cortex making the eye, nose, ear, mouth and chin features.

The 'thumb nail' area has a very thick patina on the surface. Created by one flake removal, and another surface below with matching patina from another flake removal. (Very old)

The thick patina can be seen to the left. A front facing head shape can be seen in the micro flaked surface bottom center, slightly left.

The majority of flake removal creating the objects defining shape is of another thinner patina. This surface also defines all of the suspected figuration and the patina matches the edge blade sharpening features. (Old)

 Sharpening flake removal can be seen all along the edge to the right, an ape like face profile can also be seen upper right facing right, and a 3/4 human like face profile top right facing right.

Many tiny flake removals in one localized area, having next to no discernible patina (through use as a bronze-age hammer stone?) (Relatively modern)

 Lower center we can see some more modern small localized flake removals.

The final area of note is that of tiny scaly flake removals, this to me looks very much like that on burned flint, often found in fields of known prehistoric activity and usually described as pot boilers. (Flints heated in a fire and then used by placing them in cooking vessel to heat or cook food, (ancient clay or wooden pots could not withstand direct placement on a fire))

Lower center area looks like it has been burned, very much like a pot boiler.

 

The post was written in order to practically demonstrate my use of flint analysis as described in the previous post Eoliths, Flint Tools and Figure Stones. So is it an artifact, a flint tool, a figure stone, or not? Tell me what you think.