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 insights into prehistoric cognition, symbolism, and communication.

Definition

Portable Rock Art includes:

• Unmodified or minimally modified stones selected for meaningful natural forms or surface markings.
• Flint tools or nodules bearing carved/retouched images, pigments, or engraved lines.
• Composite pieces combining multiple motifs—animals, faces, hand/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 shows prehistoric peoples were not only toolmakers but also symbol-makers. Motifs could serve ritual, communicative, mnemonic, or teaching roles; their portability suggests personal use and exchange.

Key Characteristics

• Found worldwide, from river gravels to cave deposits.
• Motifs repeat across regions, indicating shared conventions.
• Patina continuity on worked and unworked surfaces suggests great age.
• Frequent use of optical illusion and anamorphic composition.

Why It Matters

Portable pieces bridge utilitarian tools and immovable art, showing symbolic thinking evolving alongside toolmaking and extending timelines for complex cognition and culture.

---

FAQ

Is portable rock art real?
Yes—though often dismissed as pareidolia, repeated motifs, tool marks, and patina across assemblages show deliberate shaping. Authentic finds are typically associated with matching flint tools.

How old is portable rock art?
It spans the Palaeolithic (tens of thousands of years) and may be far older; famous examples like the Makapansgat pebble are ~3 million years old, depending on context and patina depth.

How can you tell if a stone is real portable rock art?
Look for repeated motifs (faces, animals, hands), flake removals to create features, engraved lines, pigments, typological matches with local tools, and—crucially—assemblages of similar artifacts.

What materials were used?
Flint and chert are most common, but sandstone, quartzite, and other durable stones were also shaped, engraved, or selected.

What subjects appear?
Human faces/figures; animals (mammoths, elephants, horses, apes, whales/seals); hand and foot motifs; and geometric or symbolic shapes.

What’s the difference between a figure stone and portable rock art?
A figure stone is chosen or shaped to resemble a creature or form, while portable rock art can also include engraved or painted surfaces. The categories overlap.

How do archaeologists date portable rock art?
By stratigraphy, patina thickness, nearby tool horizons, and sometimes pigment analysis. Dating is challenging but more reliable when applied to full assemblages.

Is portable rock art valuable?
Scientifically, highly valuable; financially, rarely traded—provenance and authenticity matter more than price. Avoid websites peddling portable rock art by claiming your rock is “valuable,” then pushing you to share it on social media.

Where is it found?
Worldwide—Europe, Africa, the Americas, and Asia—with particularly rich finds reported in the UK, France, and Spain.

Why isn’t it more widely accepted?
Ambiguous finds are often judged natural, and scholars are wary of subjectivity. Without large assemblages and testing, many claims remain controversial.

Is it just pareidolia?
Some is—but genuine examples show intentional flaking or engraving added to natural forms. Prehistoric makers often refined natural shapes to produce recognizable figures.

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 5.3–2.58 MYA).
• Often show bulbs of percussion, striking platforms, and patterned removals.
• Exhibit patina depth consistent with extreme age.
• Can have figurative content—head/animal profiles and faces (see 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 and 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.

FAQ

• Are eoliths real?
  Yes. Assemblages show repeated flaking patterns, typology, and patina that strongly indicate human workmanship. Recent finds in Europe point toward dates extending into the Tertiary layers, making it unscientific to dismiss them as “geofacts” without proof.

• How old are eoliths?
  They are often associated with the Pliocene and Miocene epochs—millions of years before mainstream models allow for tool-making humans. Some appear alongside Tertiary fossils, suggesting deep antiquity beyond the Lower Palaeolithic.

• How can eoliths be distinguished from geofacts?
  Unlike natural fractures, eoliths display repeated flake removals, consistent striking angles, and edge wear. Repeating tool types (hatchets, scrapers, handaxes) across large assemblages strengthen their authenticity.

• Where have eoliths been found?
  Across Europe (notably the UK, France, Belgium, Spain) as well as Africa and Asia—often in river gravels, chalk layers, and terraces dating back several million years.

• Why are eoliths controversial?
  They challenge mainstream timelines by suggesting tool-making occurred millions of years earlier than accepted. Many archaeologists dismiss them as broken stones rather than address the evidence of deliberate workmanship.

• What do eoliths tell us about human origins?
  If genuine tools, eoliths imply cognition and technology arose far earlier than currently believed, forcing a rethink of human evolution and suggesting tool-making in the Tertiary.

• Are eoliths crude?
  Not necessarily. While some crude examples exist, many are finely worked and indistinguishable from accepted Palaeolithic tools, showing deliberate shaping and skill.

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

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