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.

Portable Rock Art

 Portable Rock Art - What is it?

Portable rock art, also known as mobility rock art describes a wide class of artistically worked rock or stone objects including Figure Stones.  The term is usually applied to applicably sized ancient stone artefacts, or other rock finds believed to hold significance to ancient people.

Portable Rock Art and Figure Stones - The secret of the worlds oldest prehistoric artworks

 Portable Rock Art and Figure Stones - The secret of the worlds oldest prehistoric artworks.

This article will help you to understand figure stones, recognize them and even find your own ancient works of art, here I reveal the secrets. When you find a good quality figure stone, and I have every confidence that you can, you will know and understand how wrong many common theories of the distant past are, the truth will set you free.

 "Symbolism is the language of the Mysteries; in fact it is the language not only of mysticism and philosophy but of all Nature, for every law and power active in universal procedure is manifested to the limited sense perceptions of man through the medium of symbol.... By symbols men have ever sought to communicate to each other those thoughts which transcend the limitations of language. Rejecting man-conceived dialects as inadequate and unworthy to perpetuate divine ideas, the Mysteries thus chose symbolism as a far more ingenious and ideal method of preserving their transcendental knowledge. In a single figure a symbol may both reveal and conceal, for to the wise the subject of the symbol is obvious, while to the ignorant the figure remains inscrutable. Hence, he who seeks to unveil the secret doctrine of antiquity must search for that doctrine not upon the open pages of books which might fall into the hands of the unworthy but in the place where it was originally concealed."
The Secret Teachings of All Ages, Manly Palmer Hall.

Figure stones, stones which have been modified to show figurative descriptions, are often dismissed as being a product of fanciful interpretation and imagination. Many factors suggest otherwise.

 To the uneducated the ancient Chinese characters above appear as grouped random squiggles and brush strokes of ink.  

Are you seeing things?, Understanding figure stones, how do figure stones work?
First, an arbitrary assertion that an image perceived in a find is purely a product of imagination is not evidence-based, also if someone is unable to see something, perhaps their mind is unable to process the information given. An example of this could be the 'magic eye' pictures that were popular in the 90's.

To appreciate art of any kind requires an, often complex, knowledge of the period and capabilities of the culture that produced it.  An uneducated man, may, for example, naively interpret much of the output of the Cubist movement as the product of mere childish attempts at representation through unskilled use of color mediums.  To appreciate the full meaning latent in these works, however, requires an education including an understanding of the intellectual development of the artists participating in this school as well as the materials they had available and what could be achieved with them.

In the same way, to appreciate the art in many figure stones we first must learn how to view them. Common topology of figures and certain tricks of the mind are often apparent. Viewing a potential eye feature in a find as an 'eye' allows the mind to unlock the figure in some cases, and the rest of the figure forms around it, other subtle markings in the find then form other features such as mouths and ears (see fig 2). I call such features 'triggers'. You're not imagining these features, they are there, but somehow the mind is able to make sense of otherwise ambiguous markings and flake removals. No doubt our ancient predecessors had this cognitive ability too, it would aid in recognizing potential threats from partially obscured predatory creatures. Having a visual memory of finer cleaner examples aids in recognizing the subtle and less obvious.

In stone above  a face can be seen. Science is predictive, this is a predictable face description to find.

Figure stones can have multiple eye shapes, and combined figurative expressions of differing head, front half, part- or full-bodied profile shapes that make ambiguous optical illusions.  So many they can hold many figures seemingly for efficiency, and to carry as many figurative descriptions as necessary for practicality, one stone ten descriptions is more practical than carrying ten stones for ten animal descriptions.

(fig 2)An example of a modern ambiguous optical illusion. Can you see the seal and the donkey head?

Figure stones frequently hold multiple images of different creatures that can be seen when holding the stones in different orientations: sometimes of just the head, sometimes the front half of a creature, sometimes part- or full-body profiles.  As above, a key to these multiple interpretations can often be found in the different workings that form eye-depictions.  Identifying the different eyes leads to recognition of each complete figure.  These multi-image figure stones would save the user from having to carry so many different stones in order to convey the multitude of different images they would need, on say, a hunt. Figure stones often also employ ambiguous optical illusions.

Above: An image of a bird on a nest facing left? or the image of a baby crocodile head emerging form the water facing right? 

In the same way that a strong familiarity with letters of an alphabet and the words of a language makes it a 'no-brainer' that there is writing on a piece of paper, familiarity with the figures, conventions and triggers ubiquitous in figure stones can be a great aid in identifying genuine figure stones.

When you have insight into the common conventions and topology, figure stones become easier to recognize and read. Not all figuration has to be highly detailed and accurate, shapes can be ambiguous and have few details, or triggers but still satisfy recognition. An example of how this works is demonstrated in the representation of a mud splattered parking sign below.

If you were looking to park a car, you could easily recognize the sign above, even though much of the detail has been obscured.

In this way symbols can be simple flint nodules and have few modifications to practically convey various figures, a simple 'P' shape can convey numerous figurative expressions, figuration being condensed. However the broken nodule here, below, has some tiny cortex carving, some minimal embellishment, having many figurative abilities by simply turning it around, and even animating it in the hand for clarity of meaning. Fortunately not all figure stones are so subtle, I have built on the common depictions, topology and conventions from some highly detailed examples.

Suggested figurative possibilities for the above modified partial nodule are pointing hand, small long tailed bird, plesiosaurs half, elephant head, flying long necked water bird, strutting gorilla half,  bear head, bovine front half, and likely much more.

If your new to figure stones and you've got this far into this article you may find the above very hard to accept, this is probably because you have some preconceived ideas about the past, man and dinosaurs never having met for example, or that you find the likenesses very subtle compared to the figuration I have suggested. Now if you were more familiar with figure stone common depictions and convention you would no doubt be much more accepting of the above, before you could read, letters were no more than odd shapes on a piece of paper. 

 'Another problem is raised by the so-called 'figure stones', which are nodules with very little trimming or adaptation, but with fanciful resemblance to various animals, birds, reptiles, and even human beings. The flake which generally forms the 'eye' is often minute and in the right place, but the identification of the figure is largely a matter of conjecture, though some examples are almost convincing. Weather figure stones are due to man or to nature, it may be urged that the earliest sculptures known are in the round (as opposed to engraving or low relief), and it is not unreasonable to suppose that man's first attempts at art consisted in giving the finishing touches to a nodule in order to create or improve a likeness to some real or imaginary animal. One of the earliest instincts of children is to mold figures in clay, and this in itself might be used as an argument for the great antiquity of sculptures in the round' Reginald Smith, 1932, British Museum from 1927-1938.

It's all in the details.
Interpretation of the creatures displayed in figure stones is subjective conjecture.  Iteration and highly detailed specimens gives us the best hope of understanding them and identifying any species, topology and convention pay a big part here also.  The design complexity and skill involved does not reflect an expected level of cognition for ancient man, in many pieces. Images can be anamorphic, contain animations and optical illusions, the artists also used light and shadow as paint, with carefully considered chips, or pecks.

Topology and Repeating Conventions.
The only 'naturally worked' shape topology to be found in unmodified flints is the rounded oval shapes of pebbles. Flint tools and figure stones show their own man made topology, this topology is proof of design, modification, selection and intent. 

1. Throughout art history a repeating topology of technique is shown, that of side profiles of the subjects to be depicted, in most cases this is exactly what figure stones show, side on profiles, and not just one side on profile in each example, but many. Figurative descriptions are most often shown in head profile and front half profile.

2. Figure stones often have numerous eye shapes, these are produced by a sequence of agency effects, multiple actions in a small area to produce an eye shape, and almost always as part of a more detailed figurative description. Naturally occurring eye shapes are a rare phenomenon in stones, let alone the fact that they are often accompanied by detailed ear shapes, nose shapes mouth shapes and repeating subject profiles in genuine figure stones. Eye shapes are not always flaked, in many finds a tar like pigment and ochre are used rather like paint, these are both known to have been used ubiquitously by prehistoric peoples.

3. Many figure stones stand upright, and when in an upright position the figurative descriptions are also upright, this is clearly by design. Many figure stones that don't stand have upright descriptions when the stones longest dimension is vertical. Rotating the stone around  its longest dimension in its vertical position often displays a series of upright figurative descriptions.

4. Many figure stones show numerous creature descriptions, each having numerous facial or bodily feature representations. These can often be recognized as being of known creatures, probability validates authenticity. Can you find a stone showing numerous random vehicle descriptions? No?, unbelievers should look for vehicle shapes in stones, then look for known figures.

5. The same repeating subjects and popular motifs can be found across numerous individual samples, we have common theme's and this again is statistically unlikely to have anything to do with random chance. 

6. Repeating combinations can be found, for example the elephant head figure can easily be combined with the swan figure, this blog has many examples of a repeating pattern of combined creature motifs across numerous samples. This is another set of unlikely probabilities that have an observable topology.

7. Over all basic outline and shape topologies are present, just some very close shape matches can be seen.  These can also contain sub sets of topologies, for example the thumb nail shape and elephant eye shape being present and correctly aligned and located.

8. Creature figures are most often framed by the outside edge of the stone, this is very significant in knowing they are deliberate depictions, the figures are not appearing out of a mess and jumble of features, like the faces in random squiggly patterns do.

9. The aforementioned topologies and conventions can be found in recognized stone tools.

10. Individual figures can be tested for in large assemblages of shapes of stones, for example if you collected large numbers of roughly 'P' shaped stones, you could check for eye shapes in the correct locations for that of an elephants head.

The chart above shows many of the common glyphs to be found in stone tools and worked stones.  This can be used to recognize Eoglyphs all over the world.