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.
