Ovate Handaxe and the Symbolism of the Egg

Ovate Handaxes and the Symbolism of the Egg

I’ve spent years turning over white-patinated flint tools from my Southdowns site, tear-drops, ovals, perfect balances of curve and taper. Archaeologists call these “ovate” tools, meaning simply egg-shaped. The term’s meant to be neutral, but when you hold one, the connection to the egg is immediate. It’s not coincidence; it’s deliberate.

Many of these tools hold figurative content, hands, faces, animal profiles, even clear zoomorphic detail. They carry memory, symbol, intention. So it isn’t far-fetched to ask whether the ovate form itself was symbolic, a nod to something familiar and valued in the makers’ world.

A selection of Boxgrove Acheulean Ovate Handaxes (
© The British Museum) note the thin patina of only 500 kbp, compared to my highly patinated white flint finds

The Egg in Stone

In archaeological texts, “ovate” describes geometry, not meaning. Handaxes are praised for symmetry and balance, qualities that, not coincidentally, define an egg.

When a form repeats across vast time, we should ask why. Many Acheulean bifaces could have been less rounded and still functional; they didn’t need symmetry like the egg, yet they have it. Again and again, the same near-egg outline appears, knapped into flint with sculptural care.

And if we accept that some of these pieces already contain figuration (they do, you numb nuts)  hands, animals, even faces, then an egg-shaped outline holding meaning isn’t far-fetched; it’s logical, bloody obvious. The egg was a familiar thing: observed, gathered, carried, protected, stored, and eaten. Protein and calcium, simple sustenance that couldn’t possibly go unnoticed.

A Different Kind of Symbolism

In 2012, Portable Rock Art ran a post quoting Jan van Es, who described the egg as a primordial symbol the “cosmic egg”, he called it, containing the germ of creation itself. He even proposed a conceptual journey “from face to Venus,” tracing prehistoric art from self-image to fertility goddess, from person to planet, a kind of prehistoric Big Bang omelette. Give it a few more paragraphs and we’re hatching galaxies, feathered gods floating in the void, and Venus herself stepping daintily out of some celestial yolk, born of a gigantic intergalactic mutant alien space chicken.

Now, I’ve no quarrel with poetry, but I don’t buy into cosmic poultry. I’ve never met a “space chicken,” and I doubt the Acheulean knappers had either. An egg, to them (and to me), is an egg. It’s breakfast, protein, calcium, sustenance, a full belly, and an easy prize if you’re quick with a stick and know where the nests are.

So while van Es saw the egg as a symbol of the universe, I see it as the shape of breakfast. If there’s symbolism here, it’s the sort born of appetite and observation, not cosmology. These flint eggs speak of survival, not of space; they speak of omelettes, not goddesses. They’re reminders of what was gathered, shared, and eaten, the humble miracle that kept life going, not the cosmic one that invented it.

Hidden Figuration and Daily Awareness

Across my assemblage, ovate flints merge the practical and the figurative. Some show clear imagery, a face or a hand emerging from the curve, yet their outer contour remains that steady, rounded outline. I think of it as a fusion of tool and thought. The knapper shaped what worked, but also what felt right in the hand and in the imagination.

In this sense, an ovate handaxe could carry a quiet duality: a usable edge and a symbolic shell. Its form may have reminded its maker of something nourishing, something that sustained life. Repetition of that form, over thousands of years and countless horizons, suggests the association endured.

Mainstream archaeology still prefers to see this shape as a function of physics, efficient flaking and symmetry. But people capable of such precision were also capable of perceiving likeness, rhythm, and meaning. The egg’s form is rounded, whole, containing life, and would have been too present, too vital to ignore.

The Egg as an Egg, Not a Metaphor

My claim is simple: the ovate shape in flint echoes the egg not as a cosmic emblem but as a real and valued object. The prehistoric maker could have chosen many outlines; this one persisted because it resonated both practically and perceptually.

The result is that Acheulean and eolithic “ovates” may be among the earliest examples of symbolic figuration drawn from daily subsistence. They capture, in durable form, a memory of nourishment and renewal, a pattern of recognition running from hand to mind to stone and to belly.

These are not sacred space eggs of creation. They are remembered meals, ideas of gathering, life held in form, the everyday miracle rendered durable, the egg.

Addendum: The Geometry of the Egg and the Handaxe

The Simple Version

It turns out the resemblance between ovate handaxes and eggs isn’t just in the eye.
When you actually measure them  (the long axis against the wide) both sit in almost the same geometric range.
Most large bird eggs, the kind you could pick up for a meal, are about one and a half times longer than they are wide.
And most Acheulean handaxes, when you flatten them into their outline, fall into that same 1.3 to 1.6 ratio.

So the shape we keep calling “egg-like” isn’t a metaphor. It’s geometry.
These tools occupy the same mathematical territory as the eggs of ostrich, goose, emu, and rhea, the large, edible ones our ancestors would have known well.

The Numbers

Object	Typical Length (L)	Breadth (B)	L ÷ B (Elongation)
Goose egg	85 mm	60 mm	1.42
Duck egg	75 mm	55 mm	1.36
Ostrich egg	160 mm	125 mm	1.28
Emu egg	130 mm	90 mm	1.44
Rhea egg	130 mm	89 mm	1.46
Acheulean ovate handaxe (typical)	—	—	1.40–1.55
Acheulean elongated handaxe	—	—	1.55–1.65

Shared Geometric Zone:
The typical planar outline ratio of large edible eggs is quantitatively very similar to the typical elongation index of well-made ovate Acheulean handaxes.
This isn’t casual likeness; it’s a measurable, recurring morphometric pattern.

The Science Behind It

In biology, egg shape is described using elongation (length divided by breadth) and asymmetry (how far the widest point is from the middle).
Across almost every bird species, elongation values cluster around 1.3–1.5, except for cliff-nesting types that make deliberately pointed eggs.
That same range defines the “ovate” class of Acheulean handaxes, as measured by geometric morphometrics, the statistical comparison of outline shapes.

In 2021, biologists formalised the universal egg equation (the Hügelschäffer model), which mathematically defines the egg’s profile using four parameters: total length, maximum breadth, offset of breadth, and diameter at one-quarter length.
When archaeologists use morphometric models on handaxes, they use the same logic: measuring outline curvature, breadth position, and symmetry.
And when you place the two datasets together, they overlap.

Mathematically, that means the outline of a goose egg and a Boxgrove ovate handaxe occupy the same area of shape space, the coordinate system used to measure geometry independent of scale.

That’s not artful coincidence; it’s a physical correspondence between the geometry of sustenance and the geometry of manufacture.

You can hardly see the goose egg here, because the Boxgrove ovate follows it exactly.

The Takeaway

When I say these tools might represent eggs, I mean just that. The shape itself says egg, not as decoration, but as recognition. It’s the outline of something known, gathered, eaten. A message made of geometry.

They weren’t carving obscure cryptic symbols; they were repeating a form that already meant survival. The ovate axe doesn’t hint at the egg, it states it. The egg, made in stone. The meal, made permanent.

Portable Rock Art Database at Eoliths.org

 A New Way to Explore the Collection

I’ve added something new to the Eoliths site that I’m genuinely pleased with, a proper visual database for the artefacts.

You can find it here: https://eoliths.org/gallery.html

It’s a gallery in the simple sense, but it works much harder than that. Think of it as a living catalogue of my Southdowns assemblage, with room for finds from other locations and other people’s finds as well. It’s searchable, filterable, and easy to use. You can look up individual objects, compare examples, or narrow things down by subject and type. For example : Flint tools, Portable Rock Art, Ovates, Elephants, Bears, the lot......

The above find is a lucky 'golden-gravel' find, and goes straight to the core of what I have been banging on about since 2011. An obvious artistic impression of an elephant front half, with an ape like face frontal. This is a world wide combination, and is likely millions of years in age.

If you want to see only the elephant-like figurations, you can. Or maybe you’re interested just in the classic tool forms, choppers, scrapers, ovates, from the Southdowns site. The tag filters make that possible with a click. It’s designed for anyone who wants to dig deeper, from researchers to collectors who simply want to look closely. Click two tags, scraper and elephant for example, and only flint tool scrapers with suspected elephant iconography will be shown.

Many artefacts carry an ID number. If a stone is marked as “0001,” for instance, you can type that into the search box and the database will show every photograph of that piece: five or six views, different angles, different light. The aim is to let you study each object as if you were turning it in your hands.

The system also supports video and GIF formats. The clips are full quality, sharper and more detailed than what you’d normally see on the big video platforms. They show the fine texture, the flake edges, the way the patina catches the light. That sort of detail can be the difference between speculation and real understanding.

For me this is a research tool first and foremost, but it’s also a way to share the material more freely. The plan is to keep adding to it, steadily, until it represents not just my Southdowns work but a much wider record of portable rock art and ancient flint technology from wherever it may appear.

The database will grow with the project, piece by piece. My hope is that it becomes a reliable, searchable record, not just a gallery to browse, but something that helps map how these early forms, and the ideas behind them, are connected.

Take a look and see what you think: https://eoliths.org/gallery.html

Dating Flint Artifacts with Patina

New & updated research hubs:

• How old is my Portable Rock Art?
• Eoliths: Ancient Flint Tools from Tertiary Layers
• Figure Stones: Portable Rock Art
• Portable Rock Art: Ancient Carvings

Dating Flint Artifacts with Patina: A Practical Guide

(Thickness–Time Chart)

Dating Flint Artifacts with Patina: The Bounded Method for Estimating Age

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Further reading:

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

Flint Tools and Prehistoric Art - Video

 This video is very informative and demonstrates my discovery of prehistoric art in some Palaeolithic flint tools that were ascribed to Neanderthals. The three tools were all found on the Kent coast line in the 70's eroding from cliff faces. All have been professionally identified and classified according to the respecting modes and industries. The suspected ages of the finds is up to about 500,000 years old. Although they were thought to be made by Neanderthals, It could of been any artistically adept homo group.

Portable Rock Art

The images above are from the video, I'm comparing the animal faces in the flint tool shown in the bottom 3 pictures, with very similar animal faces shown above from another stone find. All are thought to be monkey or ape descriptions, but the one top right could be an image representing a archaic human. This is absolutely conclusive proof  of the validity of my research, to anyone who has even a remedial understanding of probability and statistics.

Further reading:

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

UK's Oldest handaxes contain Palaeolithic Communication Devices

 Some ancient flint tools held by the British Museum have recently been dated to be 560,000 years old, although labelled as the oldest I would be cautions in accepting that, other flint handaxes have been given older dates, but perhaps these are the oldest dates acquired by scientific testing. Source article.

What is more interesting is that at least one of them has a rotational face profile stack, this is something I discovered and have regularly mentioned on my forum, blog and other social media. The face stack has the ubiquitous gorilla face profile, combined with a partial human face, and at least one other ape face profile, a feature of figure stones. I will dig out a very similar communication device later to share here that replicates this example. The face stack can be seen in the raised area of the handaxe, left. To the right we also have another one of my figurative symbolic discoveries, the hand, the finger complete with finger nail feature can be seen along the top for the find pointing to the left, the thumb pointing downwards as in my chart, and previously documented by myself in my own finds, African handaxes, and various other world wide stone artefacts. I don't expect people who are unskilled in Palaeolithic art and symbology to accept what I can see, in the same way as I cannot speak or read Japanese.

Further reading:

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

Figure Stones: Prehistoric Portable Rock Art (Photos & Guide)

Ive mentioned and demonstrated numerous times hand symbology in my stone tool and prehistoric art finds. However it is not just my finds that show this symbology, it can be found in palaeolithic tools and hand axes found all over the world.  What I have demonstrated is genuine and some of the worlds oldest art, so don't be fooled by the naysayers that tell you your being fooled by your imagination because my work and research produces genuine results and observations thereof that can be independently repeated and verified.

So how is my work and research testable from a scientific point of view? Well it really is as simple as topology and convention. I have found topology not only in symbology, but materials, pigments and symbol combination. I have detailed and demonstrated these symbols and conventions not only in 'standard' stone tools, but also in finds that show no cutting or piercing properties, so that others can realize the truth for themselves. My research on pigments is also scientifically testable and results repeatable as the prehistoric people on my find site seemed to stick to the recipe they used.

My find site is very close to one of the most famous palaeolithic archaeological sites.

This small scraper shows hand symbology, which is common in flint tool finds, in this example it shows the whole hand holding a rock.

This find was recovered from a chalk cliff, notice the hand shape in relief at the bottom of the stone, thumb finger and finger nail. This item has no apparent standard tooling use.

The following pictures are all flint tools that are described as being from the paleolithic period, most were found in various places in Africa, the exact symbology shown has also been found in my own collection from here in the UK, but can also be found in stone tool finds from all over the world. Look carefully for hand shapes, partial hand shapes and thumb shapes, including nails.

 

Index finger on the right, thumb upper left, nails downwards.

                             Index finger on the right, thumb upper left, nails downwards.

 

Thumb upper left, nails downwards, possible damage on the right? leaving the index finger obscured.

Index finger on the right, thumb upper/middle left, nails upwards, as though holding the darker cortex patch upper center.

These three hand axes are all UK finds suspected paleolithic, probable thumb and nail symbology and possible cloaked figure symbology. Source: http://www.stoneagetools.co.uk/stone-age-tools-galleries.htm

These three are all from my find site here in the south of England, all show combination cloaked figure and clawed finger symbology.

The following hand axes/stone tools all show thumb and nail or claw symbology, diagnostic shaping, on some of them it is confined to the tip or is very subtle.

FAQ:

• What are figure stones?
  Stones bearing intentionally selected or modified forms that depict faces/animals; evidence includes patterned removals, edge work, and site-wide consistency.

• Artifact vs geofact—how to tell?
  Look for bulbs of percussion, platforms, repeated removals, retouch, symmetry, pigment traces and patina continuity.

• What counts as patina evidence?
  Depth/continuity across scars, iron staining alignment, and contrast with fresh damage.

Further reading:

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