Sunday, 17 December 2023

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.

Sunday, 25 June 2023

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


Thursday, 27 April 2023

How old is my Portable Rock Art?

Patina depth vs time chart for dating flint artifacts
Patina depth vs time (indicative ranges only)

How to Date Portable Rock Art: Methods, Limits & Practical Tips

Portable rock art can be dated using a mix of physical, chemical, and contextual evidence. No single test “proves” an exact year; instead, we triangulate a timeframe from patina growth, stratigraphy, tool typology, and, where conditions allow, laboratory methods such as TL/OSL, U/Th, ESR, or radiocarbon of associated organics.

For background on object types and terminology, see: Portable Rock Art (overview), Figure Stones (guide), and Eoliths (deep antiquity).

First: Prove It’s Art, Then Date It

Before dating, establish human agency. Otherwise, you may end up dating weathering films, bird poo, or random fractures. Look for: repeated motifs (faces/animals/hands), deliberate removals and retouch, consistent striking angles, symmetry, pigment recipes, patina continuity across scars, and critically assemblage context with similar pieces and tools in the same material.

Example of analytical confirmation: FTIR (diamond ATR) showing intentional pigment recipe 

Dating Methods (What Works & Where It Struggles)

Patina Depth & Hydration Layers

Flint microstructures hydrate; patina thickens over time. Use measured thickness (µm) against reference curves for relative age brackets. Excellent for screening; ranges get broad with extreme antiquity. See: Dating Flint Artifacts with Patina (chart & notes).

Interpretive Dating via Iconography & Fossil Comparisons

Some researchers attempt to date portable rock art by interpreting the imagery itself, such as comparing animal depictions to species known from the fossil record. For example, a carving resembling a mammoth might suggest a Pleistocene context. However, this approach is highly subjective and open to bias; without corroborating stratigraphy, patina, or scientific testing, iconographic comparisons alone should be treated with caution.

Comparative Typology & Assemblage Correlation

Compare flaking strategy and forms to known industries (Oldowan, Acheulean, Mousterian, microlithic). Works best when finds sit in a coherent assemblage. Note: archaic techniques can persist or reappear later.

Luminescence (TL / OSL)

Thermoluminescence dates last heating; OSL dates last sunlight exposure under burial. Powerful but lab-based and context-sensitive. Dates the last event, not creation.

Radiocarbon (Indirect Organics)

Dates organics in pigments/binders or overgrowing crusts (if present). Useful <50k years; contamination risk; many flint pieces lack organics.

Uranium–Thorium (U/Th)

Dates calcite/mineral accretions formed after the art gives a minimum age. Requires suitable deposits and closed-system behaviour.

Electron Spin Resonance (ESR)

Measures trapped charges in quartz/silica; can reach deep time when conditions are right. Specialist method with dose-rate assumptions.

Stratigraphic / Contextual Dating

Layered geology (and co-occurring fossils) can bracket age if the find is truly in situ. Surface finds lose most of this power.

Rock Varnish / Manganese Accretion

More common in arid-zone petroglyph studies; thickness/chemistry can provide minimum ages. Variable growth in temperate settings.

Tar / Bitumen Encasing

Organic tar/asphalt can sometimes be radiocarbon or chemically dated, yielding strong minimum ages if the artifact is encased.

Spectroscopy (XRF / FTIR)

XRF profiles elemental residues (pigments, oxides); FTIR (diamond ATR) identifies binders and organics. These are not clocks but can link to specific environments or biogenic sources that support chronological interpretation.


Further Reading & Resources

FAQ

  • How can I tell how old my portable rock art is?
    Combine patina measurement, stratigraphy, typology, and if conditions allow lab methods (TL/OSL, U/Th, ESR, radiocarbon of organics). Cross-checking matters more than any single test.

  • Can I date a stone at home?
    You can measure patina and compare typology to known industries; absolute dates require labs and controlled sampling.

  • What’s most accurate?
    Luminescence, U/Th, ESR, or radiocarbon (for organics) are strongest in the right contexts; each measures a different process, so results can differ.

  • How old can portable rock art be?
    In some contexts, potentially millions of years (Tertiary); elsewhere, tens of thousands. Context, patina, and stratigraphy are key.

  • Does patina prove great age?
    Thick, continuous patina across scars is strong evidence of antiquity, but growth rates vary with environment; treat as relative dating.

Wednesday, 15 February 2023

Eoliths and Evidence of Cognition.

Full paper available here: Eoliths and Figure Stones — Evidence of Cognition in Prehistoric Flint Tools

 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


Eoliths

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.