-
THE GRAPHICS OF BILZINGSLEBEN:SOPHISTICATION AND SUBTLETY IN THE
MIND OFHOMO ERECTUSJohn FeliksU.S.A. E-mail: feliks (at)
umich.edu
*This paper is the first half of a two-part program which the
author presented at the XVth UISPPCongress, September 7, 2006. The
second half was Program #C80-06, Phi in the Acheulian: Lower
Palaeolithic intuition and the natural origins of analogy.
Abstract: In 1988, Dietrich and Ursula Mania published images of
unmistakably deliberate engravings on bone artifacts dated between
320,000-412,000 years BP, found near the village of Bilzingsleben
in central Germany. Contrary to traditional notions of early
peoples, Mania and Manias preliminary interpretations suggested
that these markings implied the existence of advanced human traits,
which included abstract thinking, language, and a concept of the
world. In this presentation, I will demonstrate that the
Bilzingsleben markings go well beyond these already stunning
assertions, and document a very large number of graphic innovations
and highly advanced intellectual traits in Homo erectus,
innovations and traits that have long been regarded the exclusive
domain of Homo sapiens. In fact, the artifacts contain so much
information that, collectively, they constitute nothing less than a
detailed and expansive map directly into the extraordinary mind of
this early ancestor. I will demonstrate that the markings reflect
graphic skills far more advanced than those of the average modern
Homo sapiens. A new list of qualities, abilities, and innovations
which must now be credited to Homo erectus, and which are directly
indicated by the markings includes: abstract and numeric thinking;
rhythmic thinking; ability to duplicate not only complex, but also,
subtle motifs; iconic and abstract representation; exactly
duplicated subtle angles; exactly duplicated measured lines;
innovative artistic variation of motifs including compound
construction, doubling, diminution, and augmentation; understanding
of radial and fractal symmetries; impeccably referenced multiple
adjacent angles; and absolute graphic precision by high standard
and, practically, without error. Each of these will be demonstrated
visually. Hence, the following advanced cognitive qualities may be
quite easily assumed for the species Homo erectus by way of
geometric analogy: interrelationship sensitivity and complex
organizational skill; language; use of metaphor and hidden meaning;
philosophy; mysticism or other spiritual perspectives; and a
general ability to discern, appreciate, and create the most subtle
nuance within any area of intellectual endeavor.
Keywords: Cognitive Archaeology Bilzingsleben Bach Linguistics
Cartography
INTRODUCTION
It is a long-standing axiom of modern science that human
intelligence evolved slowly over time and that our own species,
Homo sapiens, is the obvious pinnacle of an evolutionary sequence.
In this paper, however, I will provide unambiguous geometric
evidence that the above-mentioned axiom may be wrong on both
counts. First, I propose that the engravings from Bilzingsleben, an
Acheulian age Homo erectus site in central Germany (dated
320,000-412,000 years before the present) offer more than enough
evidence to conclude that there has been no increase in the innate
intelligence of Homo sapiens individuals over Homo erectus
individuals despite a 200,000-300,000-
-
year time span in which Homo sapiens could have accomplished
this; and second, I propose that the real per capita pinnacle of
human culture in degree, and the crucial point in time at which the
modern intellectual condition was attained are each within the
purview of Homo erectus. In effect, what I am proposing is that all
individuals of the genus Homo use intelligence either to the degree
they choose or the degree to which they are constitutionally
capable; however, the intelligence of the genus as a whole never
changes.
It is almost unanimously accepted in the scientific community
that what is called cognitive evolution (a gradual increase in
human intelligence) is observable in the archaeological record not
only over millions of years time but also over smaller periods,
even tens of thousands of years time. This is simply not the case,
for unlike in the easy-to-confirm sciences (e.g., biology,
genetics, physics, etc.) which are characterized by a never-ending
supply of material or subjects for real-time observation or
testing, the study of early human cognition is characterized by an
incredibly small amount of evidence with whichto work and no
real-time access whatsoever. This clearly makes the task of
understanding early human cognition far more difficult a challenge
than virtually any other science. However, when one looks at the
evidence that is available from an interdisciplinary point of view
it is seen to be quite far from suggesting a cognitive evolution of
any kind. Although, it is still possible to move the continuously
changing sliding scale of modern human cognition attainment farther
and farther back in time, the evidence as it now stands doesnot
support Darwins 1859 proclamation that each mental capability will
be shown to have been necessarily acquired by gradation (Charles
Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859: 488).
When studying the cognition of early peoples, dedication to
preconceived artificial notions such as cognitive evolution can be
powerfully limiting. For example, the engravings from Bilzingsleben
have been available for 20 years now (since Mania and Mania 1988);
but since they were always considered in the predetermined context
of Homo erectus the ape-man, it was highly unlikely that they would
ever be seen as having been engraved with a straight edge despite
the exceptional straightness of the lines comprising them. If
anything should humble modern Homo sapiens and cause us to question
our presumed position as the pinnacle of evolution, it is the very
real possibility that these straight edge-engraved artifacts, which
are demonstrably profound, are neither a fluke nor even the work of
genius but rather are reflective of Homo erectus intelligence in
general. Based on the developed level of subtlety these artifacts
exhibit, it is likely that they were influenced by traditions or
ideas taught or passed down already for many generations. And
certainly, if weapply modern psychological or sociological
principles that all individuals are a product of their community in
one way or another, then at the very least, we must see the
engraved artifacts of Bilzingsleben as reflective of all Homo
erectus people living at that particular time and in that
particular region. It is only one step further, as explained in
Part V, to compare physical and cultural similarities between the
Homo erectus people of Bilzingsleben and their contemporaries
living in other parts of the world in making these principles
applicable to the species as a whole worldwide. In all, the real
evidence is quitecontrary to the preconceived notion of cognitive
evolution that has given us a view of these ancestors as ape-men
rather than as the remarkable innovators
-
they actually were.
It is my hope in this paper to demonstrate that the people of
Bilzingsleben, andother Lower Palaeolithic peoples dating as far
back as 2 million years, were highly advanced intellectually,
including mathematically and philosophically, long before we
stepped into the picture, and that this is provable by way of basic
geometry (Euclidean and fractal), trigonometry, representation, and
linguistics. From this perspective, I suggest that the question of
whether or not these peoples had language should no longer be
asked. In fact, the buffer-zone notion that early peoples must have
had some sort of rudimentary language should also be withdrawn
because the evidence from Bilzingsleben alone unambiguously
indicates cognition as highly developed as anything present in
todays modern world.
PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL
The thesis will proceed entirely by way of its figures which are
basically consolidations of the original slides and thumbnails
handout presented at the Congress. The entire program was conceived
as only a visual thesis rather thanthesis paper. The idea was
essentially to allow the Bilzingsleben engravings to speak for
themselves visually by merely drawing attention to their geometric
qualities. (The studies offered here represent only a portion of
those that were produced for the program.) Since the figures are
for the most part self-contained, from this point onward, one may
go directly to the figures (Figs. 7.1-7.16, in any order) or read
the following explanatory sections.
Overview: PARTS I, II, & III (STRAIGHT EDGE THEORY, THE
EARLIEST MOTIF DUPLICATEDON TWO SEPARATE ARTIFACTS, and 350,000
YEARS BEFORE BACH) involve methods of approaching Lower
Palaeolithic language. PART IV (TOWARD THE REALM OF IDEAS) relates
to geometric means of accessing Lower Palaeolithic
mathematics,philosophy and abstract thinking. The purpose of PART V
(WHO WERE THE PEOPLEOF BILZINGSLEBEN?) is to place all of this
extremely abstract material into the more accessible context of
real people who were not unlike us although this contrasts the
image promoted by popular science which discusses early peoples as
being lesser-developed than ourselves. Since the human remains from
Bilzingsleben are essentially the same as those of their 400,000
year-old contemporaries in Africa, China, and Indonesia (a fact
that tends to be avoided in scientific literature), the cultural
evidence of Bilzingsleben and elsewhere also supports a
consolidated image of our ancestors worldwide as one interrelated
group. Finally, PART VI (TWO SKETCHES FROM BILZINGSLEBEN) would
certainly seem absurd to readers of modern science were it
presented without first reassessing entirely the intelligence of
Homo erectus people toward whom I am hoping, by this point, readers
will have no difficulty whatsoever considering their capability for
cartography.
INFLUENCES AND POSITION IN A LARGER SYSTEM
The theoretical aspects of this paper were inspired by and owe a
great debt to the work of Mania and Mania, Bednarik, Gowlett,
Mikiten, Dissanayake, Chomsky, Sacks, White, Capra, and others. And
while its use in archaeology
-
may seem at first unwarranted, many ideas regarding the
Bilzingsleben graphics were drawn from knowledge regarding the
musical style of J.S. Bach, especially Bachs use of extra-musical
effects linked with his little-known mystical/philosophic interests
(Feliks 1992, 1993, 1994). Indebtedness to Plato will also be
readily apparent throughout.
The 3D map section requires additional explanation, as its
influences, apart from the fractal aspects, were quite different
from those of the other sections. They included studies of
Sumerian, Minoan, Medieval and Renaissance maps (primarily 3D
picture maps), and the geometries of megalithic sites. The earliest
maps are sometimes referred to in the literature as attempts at
cartography. However, what I am proposing as the Bilzingsleben map,
at 320,000-412,000 years old, is far from timid. In fact, it exudes
a seasoned confidence and style, with a quality and accuracy
uncommon even in many Discovery Age maps. It certainly equals the
precision and style of the famed Catal Huyuk town plan of 6200 B.C.
(created about 3000 years before the first cuneiform script). The
map section contains only a small portion of the authorssystematic
work on the layout of Bilzingsleben especially as it relates to
Bilzingsleben Artifact 6.
It is through conclusions reached by a 15-year study and
confidence in the work of the above-mentioned researchers, as well
as such as Oakley and Marshack, that I decided to approach the
matter of early human cognition fromthe top down rather than the
traditional bottom up. I worked from the principle that once any
single profoundly advanced capability is proven, no matter how
unlikely it may seem at first (e.g., use of a straight edge), that
we can safely assume every other modern cognitive ability to have
also been present. To my surprise, this approach required no
downward movement of any kind. This is part of what led to a system
of study based in large part on fractals. It is a system which I
regard as fully capable of translating the core ideas of Lower and
Middle Palaeolithic peoples. In this fractal system, individual
facts work as complete concepts rather than in the traditional way
like mere letters of an alphabet. This is a very economical use of
facts and enables access to complex Palaeolithic ideas which would
traditionally be deemed inaccessible without text or
representational images.
DISCLAIMERS AND NOMENCLATURE
Except for in the Bach section as noted below, all geometric
studies are of the utmost accuracy and exactly as stated. The
anglesmeasured with the protractor seen in Figures 7.5 and 7.9are
also exactly as stated and refer to the superimposed lines. Any
deviations, e.g., the rounding of angles, are usually within
one-half a degree. In all cases, the tolerances applied are clearly
visible. It should be noted, however, that Mania and Manias
original drawings were not made with such meticulous studies in
mind, so qualities of the actual artifacts may vary slightly.
Minor adjustments were made in the Bach section involving the
spacing of vertical lines. These were tempered so as to make for
easier viewing of the interpretations offered.
-
It is important to emphasize that the topic of this paper is
early human cognition and not biological evolution. However, the
more completely I studied the Bilzingsleben engravings the more I
realized that their cognitive implications did not at all align
with the standard picture of Homo erectus long-promoted by the
scientific community. Since it became increasingly clear that the
inhabitants of Bilzingsleben were not half-way-there
intellectually, it stood to reason that they may also not be
intellectually different from other Lower Palaeolithic peoples
living at the same time. Therefore, I will generalize by referring
to all Lower Palaeolithic peoples as a single group, namely Homo
erectus, rather than specify whether or not certain researchers
regard local populations as erectus, ergaster, heidelbergensis,
etc. I will explain this position further in Parts I and V. To be
clear, this paper is about Lower Palaeolithic cognition regardless
of the species involved.
Finally, I wish to say that my background is in the arts, not
mathematics, and that my approach to mathematics is by choice
artistic and poetic. And even though I am using mathematics as the
primary structure of this paper, it is not my intention to create
an impression of early peoples as being any more focused on
mathematics as anything else. Rather, I am attempting to prove by
way of testable mathematical and linguistic capabilities that early
peoples werejust as diverse as we are today and with as many
different abilities and interests.
PART ISTRAIGHT EDGE THEORY: BEGINNING ACCESS TO ALOWER
PALAEOLITHIC LANGUAGE (Figures 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4)
The groundwork for straight edge theory was laid out in a prior
publication (Feliks 2006). The visual data offered in the original
paper and this new paper isstraightforward, confirmable by direct
observation, and testable on the page byanyone. It clearly
indicates that the engravers of the Bilzingsleben artifacts used a
straight edge to facilitate creation of the many subtle radial
patterns and parallels featuring perfectly straight lines. The
proposal is demonstrated in this paper by direct comparison of the
Bilzingsleben engraved motifs with modern standard-increment
rulers, the proposed Bilzingsleben rib-bone ratio ruler, and by
superimpositions of duplicated radial motifs.
The idea that Homo erectus could have used a straight edge had
never been considered in science for one simple reason: the
necessity of retaining in the evolutionary paradigm an assumed
cognitive half-way-there zone between early ape-like creatures such
as Ardipithecus and modern Homo sapiens. Accepting this assumption
as a central axiom, the scientific community in general has long
been pre-convinced that Homo erectus was unable even to speak let
alone create engravings of a quality level suggesting the work of
modern draftspersons or technical designers. Prior to publication
of Mania and Manias 1988 paper, Deliberate engravings on bone
artifacts of Homo erectus, it was considered by most in archaeology
that markings on Lower and Middle Palaeolithic bone artifacts were
likely a by-product of nothing more intentional than scraping the
bones for meat. Not surprisingly, and due to universal acceptance
of the paradigm, publication of the images did not result in an
immediate reversal of opinion, either. In fact, so engrained has
the ape-man
-
perspective of Homo erectus been that the idea has budged very
little even two decades after Mania and Mania published the
engravings. The most profound effect seems to be that of a debated
name change for the Bilzingsleben hominids from Homo erectus to
Homo heidelbergensis. H. heidelbergensis serves as a mere
buffer-zone species between H. erectus and H. sapiens and is
regarded arbitrary by some researchers. Still, even if the name
heidelbergensis were adopted, the switch would be a moot choice of
association as the straight edge studies point to a level of
technology not even attributed to Homo sapiens until 350,000 years
later.
Significance of Straight edge theory: Employing a straight edge
to make either single straight lines or radial motifs is
unmistakably clear evidence not only for language but for
highly-evolved language and mathematical abilities. The link is the
concept of analogy at two levels. At the basic level, the straight
edge in and of itself is a profoundly simple analogical invention
easily associated with language because a line engraved with the
aid of a straight edge is directly symbolic of the straight edge
itself, being a representation of the edge. This clearly indicates
that Homo erectus understood the association between a physical
object and a graphic representation of a particular quality of that
object, i.e. its straightness. It is analogous in language to a
spoken wordor graphic symbol being used to represent an object, a
person, or an idea.
On a more complex and genuinely unlimited level both
philosophically and mathematically, a central thesis of this paper
is that multiple straight edge-engraved lines forming radial motifs
is a confirmation that the people of Bilzingsleben fully understood
the concept of analogy or that one idea can be compared with
another. Any analogy based on radial symmetry can be instantly
applied to philosophical or mathematical ideas; e.g., Fig. 7.4a
& b, The Realm of Ideas, where one portion of a radial motif
can be readily compared with another portion because angles remain
the same at any magnification or distance; Fig. 7.9, Fractal Angle
Symmetry, where duplicatedangles may branch off of base angles; and
Figs. 7.117.14, where small motifs can be used to imply association
with larger or even infinite motifs. Regardless of how unlikely
these claims may seem under the old paradigm view of Homo erectus,
use of a straight edge to create radial motifs demonstrates that
Homo erectus people not only fully understood what they were doing
but were also fully determined and committed to the process of
engraving similar motifs at a very high level of quality. The focus
is on analogy because attainment of analogy was crucial in the
development of modern human cognition as it is the means by which
any knowledge may be applied to any other knowledge. This
development was not a biological or evolutionary effect brought
about by simple expansion or reconfiguration of the physical brain
as is commonly taught in anthropology but was the result of what is
better described as a discovery or cognitive realization. (These
ideas are not the least bit esoteric because discovery and
realization are two ways the brain functions in all creatures that
possess a brain.).
-
Figure 1. Straight edge theory: Artifacts 13. Note: The
Artifacts 16 numbering system is fromMania and Mania 2005. Rulers
were superimposed by J. Feliks. (a & c) Detail, Artifact 1
engravings cropped from photograph by R. Bednarik 1997. Used with
permission. Artifact 1 is the tibia bone of a straight-tusked
elephant. (b) Artifact 1 after Mania and Mania 1988. (d) Artifact
2, the rib bone of a large mammal, after Mania and Mania 1988. (e)
Detail, Artifact 2 engravings showing duplicated 3-part compound
motifs, cropped from photograph by Mania and Mania 1988. Used with
permission. (f) Artifact 3 after Mania and Mania 1988. (g)
Close-up, double-engraved lines of Artifact 3.
-
Figure 2. Fig. 7.2. Straight edge theory, Artifacts 36. (a)
Detail, Artifact 3, highlighting an unambiguously straight engraved
angle tapered at less than 2 and comparable to modern standards of
quality. Photograph by Mania and Mania 1988. Used with permission.
(b) Artifact 4,a flat piece of bone, after Mania and Mania 1988.
(c) Detail, Artifact 4 photograph, Mania and Mania 1988. (d)
Extreme close-up, Artifact 4 photograph. Mania and Mania 1988. Used
with permission. (e) Artifact 5. Bednarik 1995. Certainly, straight
lines engraved on a slab of stone cannot be explained away as
survival behavior. Used with permission. (f) Artifact 6. This work
represents either simple musings by someone fascinated with
straight lines and trig angles or ahighly purposeful arrangement.
(g) Engravings from Artifact 6 isolatedhighlighting presence of the
special trig angles 30, 45, 60, 90; parallels, diagonals,
perpendiculars, and planesall within 3 deviation. Apart from a few
slight curves, the draftsmanship consists entirely of straight
lines likely drawn with an edge. Non-obvious parallel etchings were
bolded and color-coded.
-
Figure 3. Proposed early straight edge. (a) Artifact 2 compared
with a modern ruler. (b) Proposed early straight edge in use.
(Artifact 2 after Mania and Mania 1988, Artifact 1 drawing after
photograph by R. Bednarik 1997.).
Figure 4. Straight edge theory and the Realm of Ideas. (a)
Proportional line compression of two fan motifs as though from
different locations along the length of a single fan motif.
Referring to Platos realm of ideas or theory of forms, the two
motifs in Artifact 1 suggest an awareness of the fan shape or
radial image in a way that transcends simple observation of the
physical world or as writers such as Morris (1962) or Gowlett
(1984) might refer to as a mental template. (b)
Compression-expansion and one means by which radial measurement (or
ratio measurement as in the Part 2 paper) can be a geometric
equivalent of analogy (Artifact 1 drawing after photograph by
Bednarik 1997, Detail Artifact 1 cropped from photograph by R.
Bednarik 1997. Used with permission.).
-
Figure 5.The earliest motif duplicated on two separate
artifacts. Part 1. (a) The motifs in context with other syntactic
variables. (b) Photographs. (c) Observation 1: The motifs are the
same size. (d) Observation 2: The motifs share identical outer
angles. (e) Observation 3: The motifs share identical inner angles.
(f) Observation 4: The motifs share many other identical angles.
Beyond the angles detailed in this paper, there are at least 5 more
near identical angles and more than 10 other angles that are within
one degree of each other. The difference with these additional
angles is that they do not share the same radial points.
-
However we choose to understand its appearance in human history,
the evidence from Bilzingsleben overwhelmingly indicates that
analogy and allof its accompanying benefits were in full swing at
least 400,000 years ago.
Finally, apart from the obvious uses of a straight edge with
increments for standard measurement as demonstrated in Figure 7.3,
the Bilzingsleben engravings can also be used to measure ratios at
any distance, and then immediately translate these observations
into scaled reductions with radial accuracy in a manner similar to
how an architect or cartographer might use a triangular scale or
transit. This has already been tested in regards to the map theory
of Figure 7.16.
PART IITHE EARLIEST MOTIF DUPLICATED ON TWOSEPARATE
ARTIFACTS
As with straight edge theory, the groundwork for this section
was also laid out in a prior publication (Feliks 2006). The studies
which compare the twomotifs by precise geometric means are visually
self-explanatory; however, in the next two paragraphs I will relate
a few essential points from the earlier publication that are
equally important in understanding the motifs as
deliberately-duplicated complex symbols.
Of utmost importance is that the positional contexts of the two
motifs are quite different from each other, in fact, opposites.
Specifically, the motif on Artifact 3 radiates from the end corner
of the artifact, whereas the motif on Artifact 1 radiates from the
center. Since the motifs are otherwisealike, this indicates
deliberation of design independent from the medium, i.e. the motifs
were not mere responses to the shapes of their mediums.
The similarity between these two motifs is so great as to
suggest the possibility that one of them was being viewed as the
other was being engraved. This would make one of the motifs either
the earliest confirmed iconic representation or the earliest
variation on a complex theme. It is possible that the same
individual created both motifs. However, if different individuals
created the motifs, then the only reasonable conclusion is that
this represents communication occurring between two different
people by way of a graphic symbol 320,000-412,000 years ago.
Further, if different individuals created the motifs and if each
used a straight edge in the process, this would suggest that not
only the motifs but also the subtle skill of straight edge use
itself had cultural significance at Bilzingsleben. It would support
the idea explained in the Conclusion thatthe nature of the
Bilzingsleben graphics seems more in alignment with theintellectual
environment of larger societies where, for instance, straight edge
use is common than what would be expected in a more
survival-oriented setting such as a base camp for hunter/gatherers.
As distant as this comparison may seem from Homo erectus according
to the standard paradigm, I suggest that most people alive today
would not be able to
-
reproduce either motif by memory including accuracy of line
length and angle (as exemplified in Figs. 7.5-7.7), especially if
attempting to do so with the same materials and tools originally
used by Homo erectus, namely, a few bones and a flint knife.
Significance of The Earliest Motif Duplicated on Two Separate
Artifacts: Duplicated motifs are the hallmark of language. Motifs
duplicated with as high a degree of precision and subtle variation
as thosefound at Bilzingsleben are likely indicative not only of
language itself but of a highly-developed language. These
observations are contrary not only to the idea of no language at
all for Homo erectus but even with the now popular buffer-zone
notion that Homo erectus may have had a form of rudimentary
language.
-
Figure 6. The earliest motif duplicated on two separate
artifacts, Part 2. In each of these studies, the two smallest lines
of Artifact 1 have been hidden so as to make the similarities
readily visible. The effects demonstrated here remain the same with
or without the two smaller lines. Even though graphics are usually
laid out in two dimensions, they reflect the internal world of
three-dimensional thinking. 3D studies offer access to the
three-dimensional mind of Palaeolithic peoples. (a) Although the
two motifs appear different on the surface, when they arecompared
via a Cartesian grid approach, they are each seen to account for
most of the same points, merely by different means. (The effect of
how things can appear quite different on the surface yet be quite
alike on a fundamental level is easy to grasp when one compares a
scallopshell, for instance, with an octopus. Although completely
different in external appearance they are closely related
internally, and are each classified as mollusks.) (b) Comparing and
interpreting two lines (each labeled EF) as positioned on separate
planes from the other lines in each set (collectively labeled ABCD
and interpreted as defining two planes).
-
Figure 7. The earliest motif duplicated on two separate
artifacts, Part 3. (a) The two motifs superimposed with the
Artifact 1 motif flipped in reverse. (b) The two motifs, with all
lines present, superimposed according to their standard
orientation. One way to test the veracity of the duplicated motif
theory is to find out if any modern persons could duplicate such
precision as indicated here. Computers aside, I propose that even
in modern times these two motifs could not be duplicated this
accurately without a straight edge or protractor and reference to
the other image or its outer angle and vertex.
-
PART III350,000 YEARS BEFORE BACH: PITCH, RHYTHM, AND SYNTAX
INHOMO ERECTUS LANGUAGE
The studies in this section were inspired by Mania and Manias
discovery of a mathematical ratio in Bilzingsleben Artifact 2.
Although the studies make use ofmusical measuring systems, for the
most part, they are not about music per se. Rather; they are a
brief introduction to how various rules and techniques of musical
composition may be applied to understanding the language abilities
and mentality of early peoples.
In their original observations, Mania and Mania noted that the
engraved lines on Artifact 2 were a measurable sequence (6020404060
mm) expressible in the ratio 3:1:2:2:3 (Mania and Mania 1988: 94).
As it turns out, this ratio is remarkably transparent and can be
readily compared with modern analogues. For instance, expressed in
the language of musical scale degrees, the ratio and its reverse
translate perfectly into two quite playable six-tone scales (Feliks
2006). The sequence of lines read according to this ratio and
translated into the musical terms known as universal key or
universal scale becomes 1, #2, 3, #4, #5, 7, and, in the key of C,
would be played as C D# E F# G# B. This is known as Augmented Scale
X (Kadman 1995: Fig. 46). Reading the sequence from the opposite
end of the artifact, the ratio would be 3:2:2:1:3 or 1, b3, 4, 5,
b6, 7, which, in classical Indian music is known as Raga Takka. In
C, that would be played as C Eb F G Ab B. Of course, knowledge such
as this does not equate to the sound of a human voice but it is a
starting point for understanding early spoken language.
Another comparison quantifies in musical terms Mania and Manias
observationthat the engravings are rhythmic (1988: 945). In point
of fact, the ratios translate into exact rhythmic units. Ratio
3:1:2:2:3, for instance, equates precisely to dotted quarter,
eighth, quarter, quarter, dotted quarter, eighth. Whether we
interpret these engravings literally only as per visual space or
audibly in time, the nature of Artifact 2 suggests that there
already existed well-developed ideas of rhythm by the time of
Bilzingsleben.
BACHS COMPOSITION TECHNIQUES AS INTERPRETATION AIDS FOR THE
BILZINGSLEBEN ENGRAVINGS: Most of the ideas for this approach to
Bilzingsleben are based on the authors earlier extensive research
into the musical style of J.S. Bach which included Bachs
non-musical influences and little-known non-musical techniques of
composition (Feliks 1992, 1993, 1994). These techniques, both
standard and non-standard, are applicable to he Bilzingsleben
engravings by means of geometric equivalents that are recognizable
in the engravings. Although neither time nor space permit
explaining each and every one or to point out where they may be
represented in the artifacts, suffice it to say that the traits are
visible in Figs. 7.2-7.14 & 7.16 of this paper and Figs. 8-11
and 16-18 of the Part 2 paper (Feliks 2008). The following
paragraphs detail several of the musical techniques of Bach which
are helpful in understanding the Bilzingsleben engravings.
Bachs primary composition style is characterized by what is
known as counterpoint. Briefly, counterpoint is a type of music in
which two or more melodies are carefully constructed so as to be
played simultaneously while
-
abiding by rules of composition that can take a lifetime to
master. A few examples of techniques used in counterpoint which
have geometric equivalentsin the Bilzingsleben engravings include:
duplication of motifs (i.e. duplicating a series of notes),
sequence (a pattern of notes repeating at higher or lower pitch),
stretto (an choed phrase beginning in overlap with another),
diminution (shortening phrase length), augmentation (extending
phrase length), retrograde (a phrase played backwards), inversion
& mirror (up notes down/down notes up), contrary motion
(melodies moving in different directions), and compound line (where
one melodic line may be interpreted as two). Such techniques of
counterpoint and other forms of musical composition as used by Bach
are clearly recognizable in the engraved artifacts of
Bilzingsleben.
In addition to standard techniques of musical composition, Bach
employed many non-musical techniques influenced by the mysticism of
the Pythagoreans, Plato, etc., as well as other ancient techniques
which may be regarded as artistic or poetic. As difficult to
believe as it may seem at first, many of these non-musical
techniques also have comparable geometric equivalents in the
Bilzingsleben engravings. Since it is beyond the scope of thispaper
to detail the geometric equivalents of each of these techniques,
suffice itto say that as far as Bach is concerned they included
such as number symbolism (turning words and names, etc., into
musical melodies through the use of numerology), acrostichon
(writing sentences, etc., in such a way as to convey a second
message if certain letters from each word are singled out and then
re-combined to form new words), chiasmatism (using the Greek letter
chi in various creative ways; in musical symbolism chi or X is
known as Platos cross), and Figurenlehre (using sequences of
musical notes to suggest specific human emotions, an idea inspired
by techniques of rhetoric developed by Greek philosophers).
Bach also wrote puzzle canons in which he presented one melody
to be sung as a round with up to six separate voices, but
withholding the critical information of exactly when the other
voices were to enter. The famous portraitof Bach in which he is
holding a readable musical score shows just such a puzzle canon
creating the impression of a challenge to contemporaries and future
generations. In fact, one of Bachs puzzle canons was not solved for
over100 years.
The point I am attempting to make with these comparisons is that
contrary to the traditional err-on-the-ape-side approach in
archaeology, approaching the Bilzingsleben material with the
expectation that there are deeper inherent meanings to be found
increases the chance that such things, if they exist, can be found.
It is the approach employed in this paper. For those who may
automatically question the value of such an approach, let me add
that except for being contrary to the paradigm of
gradually-evolving mental abilities it is noless scientific to
presuppose high intelligence in early peoples than it is to
presuppose low intelligence. Presupposition of low intelligence is
what has brought us the concept of ape-man, which has effectively
blocked our ability to understand these people on an intellectual
level. Presupposition of high intelligence, on the other hand,
opens up the entire world of Lower Palaeolithic mathematics and
philosophy.
-
THE MODAL SYSTEM AND HOW IT CAN SHED LIGHT ON BILZINGSLEBEN: The
modal system in music is like syntax in language where changing the
order of words changes the meaning, sometimes subtly, and sometimes
dramatically, as in the following three variations (see Chomsky
1972 for in-depth study of similar effects): You go there (1-2-3),
Go there, you (2-3-1), There you go (3-1-2). In the modal system of
music, completely different moods are created by shifting positions
of the half and whole steps in a scale sequence of notes. Inthe
standard C major scale or do-re-miC D E F G A B Cfor example, the
distance between any two consecutive notes in terms of whole steps
and half steps (C to D is a whole step, E to F is a half step) is
whole-whole-half-whole-whole-whole-half. This exact sequence may
also be thought of as Ionian mode. If we follow instead the
sequence from D to D, i.e. D E F G A B C D, the sequence of whole
and half steps becomes whole-half-whole-whole-whole-half-whole,
otherwise known as Dorian mode. Dorian mode has an entirely
different emotional feel and cognitive effect from that of Ionian
mode even though it contains essentially the same elements. In Fig.
7.8 showing Artifact 2,the Indian scale Raga Takka is represented
in the first mode, C Eb F G Ab B. If we were to duplicate the
artifact only change the order of engraved lines to thesecond mode,
Eb F G Ab B C, placing more emphasis on Eb than C, an entirely
different mood would be created visually. In other words, whether
or not the engravings are translated as audible sounds, a different
arrangement of lines on Artifact 2 would certainly create an
entirely different visual mood, and moodmay be just as important a
means of understanding our earliest ancestors as would be a few
lines of written script.
SYNESTHESIA AND FRACTALS: Scale-like ratios such as present in
Artifact 2 have the potential of visually communicating
Palaeolithic ideas and emotions in a way similar to hearing scales
after one learns the visual basics of music theory or notation.
Related to this are synesthesia, where experience of one sense
translates into the terms of another as exemplified by such as
Feynman who saw colors in his physics equations (Feynman 2001; see
also Sacks 1990, 2003), and what I have termed cross-dimensional
fractals (where a shape, pattern, or concept in one medium can be
related to similar in entirely differentmediums, such as a
landscape being represented by a map; see also Eglash 1999 and
Eglash et al. 2005 regarding scale models of African villages
present as religious altars within the villages). These are all
part of the normal analogical functioning of the human mind and are
very useful tools for studyingthe engravings of Bilzingsleben. (See
Harrod 2006 for a similar approach based in part on the work of
abstract painter Vassily Kandinsky.)
Significance of 350,000 years before Bach: Historically, the
complexities of a cultures language tend to be reflected in the
arts, including the musical arts. Therefore, it is reasonable to
suggest that a complex engraved motif such as that of Bilzingsleben
Artifact 2 which can be interpreted in terms of pitch, rhythm, and
syntax implies an equally complex and sophisticated spoken
language. As detailed in Part IV, Artifact 2 contains not only an
immediately visible surface ratio in the form of a fan motif but
also duplicated sub-motifs of an intricate fractal naturea
technique which is also found in the work of Bachmaking it a
composition capable of expressing on many levels (see also Chomsky
1972 regarding deep and surface structure in language). Special
Note: The double meaning title of Part III was inspired by the fact
that Bach himself lived within 20-30 kilometers of
Bilzingsleben.
-
Figure 8. 350,000 years before Bach. Reading the mathematical
ratios by way of universal keyand rhythm standards. These studies
were inspired by Mania and Manias 1988 discovery of a mathematical
ratio in the Artifact 2 engravings, namely, 3:1:2:2:3. As explained
in a prior paper(Feliks 2006), these ratios are applicable to the
concepts of pitch, rhythm, and syntax in Palaeothic language. (a)
Artifact 2 musical scales and rhythms, only a few examples. (b)
Artifact 1 side-fan motif line end ratios, measuring the ratios by
universal key and rhythm standards. Note: spacing of vertical lines
in these studies was tempered for easier viewing. The tolerances
applied are clearly visible and are used for this interpretation
only; they are not suggested as the only interpretation. The
deviations are within 2%, inconsequential by archaeological
standards. Side-fan motif redrawn after photograph by R. Bednarik
1997.
-
Figure 9. Fractal angle symmetry. (a) Definition of fractal,
with natural world example: living fern scan (Feliks 1998). (b) Two
views of Artifact 2 radial motif showing Level 1 angles (upper
image) consisting of sub-motif self-similar Level 2 angles (lower
image). Awareness of fractalsis a geometric equivalent to awareness
of analogy. (c) Magnification of sub-motifs showing Level 2 fractal
angles in Artifact 2. Very notable is the engraved 3 angle. As with
the 2 angle of Fig. 2a, a 3 angle is stunning by any standards. (d)
Level 1 and Level 2 fractal angles in Artifact 2. These
self-similar angles exhibit even more sophisticated variations than
detailed here such as diminution and augmentation (Feliks 2008:
Figures 8, 9, and 18). Most of the math regarding fractals has only
been developed during the past 25 years. However, roots in ancient
Africa are now known (e.g., Eglash 1999). Artifact 2 drawing after
Mania and Mania 1988.
-
PART IVTOWARD THE REALM OF IDEAS: RADIAL AND FRACTAL
SYMMETRIES,INVISIBLE SHAPES
By employing extensions of engraved lines and points cognitive
archaeology can access the geometric mind behind and beyond the
artifacts themselves. This is possible because geometric extensions
make accessible an invisible field of information outside of, but
within the vicinity of, any given artifact. The extent of this
field is more limited in some artifacts than in others, and the
further out we go from various artifacts the more speculative the
interpretations may be. However, depending on what specific
information we are seeking, and despite what may be presumed, this
is not necessarily the case, as suggested by Fig. 7.14, Proof of
association between an abstract pointand infinity. Depending on how
the lines are organized, many interpretations of a surrounding
field are perfectly safe.
Once the invisible geometric qualities are discovered and mapped
out one can then genuinely access the thoughts of individuals who
lived hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago but who
took the time to engrave a few lines. As difficult to believe as it
may seem a vast amount of information that extends well beyond
J. FELIKS: THE GRAPHICS OF BILZINGSLEBEN: SOPHISTICATION AND
SUBTLETY IN THE MIND OF HOMO ERECTUSPage 83
geometry and mathematical constructs is available that easily
extends into the realms of philosophy by means of geometric
equivalents or cross-dimensional fractals. This is possible because
all human cognition is based upon relationships between abstract
points.
Speaking only on the mathematical level, when the technique of
extension is applied to Bilzingsleben, it becomes clear that Homo
erectus had a developed awareness of geometry in both a standard
sense (Euclidean) and fractal sense. In fact, the Bilzingsleben
graphics are so advanced in regard to fractals (see also the Part 2
paper, Phi in the Acheulian, Feliks 2008) as to suggest a long
prior development. The repeated subtleties within the repeated
compositeline segments of Artifact 2, for instance (Figures 7.9
& 7.11), do not in any way give one a sense of spontaneity.
Rather, these particular motifs display such high refinement as to
suggest a long established Acheulian knowledge system. Consider
this reasoning: If the Acheulian is regarded as a million years of
static technology (the standard interpretation which has long been
equated with static intelligence), one could in no way expect
engravings at this level of complexity and subtlety to have simply
popped in out of nowhere. However, if
-
we pursue this line of thought further and try to account for
the engravings by proposing the possibility that they were all the
work of a single rare Lower Palaeolithic genius (in other words, a
fluke rather than representative of the general population), then a
case would necessarily have to be made that, with all things
considered and all things relative, this hypothetical individual
would have been far more intelligent than our own da Vinci and
Einstein combined. The reason I have taken this point to such an
extreme is to emphasize that the most likely explanation for the
advanced qualities in the Bilzingsleben engravings is that they
reflect the general level that Homo erectus intelligence and
culture had already attained long prior to Bilzingsleben, extending
perhaps another 1.5 million years into the past, i.e. to the
beginnings of the Acheulian (e.g., Gowlett 1984, 1993).
Significance of Toward the realm of ideas: As originally
suggested by Mania and Mania in 1988, the people of Bilzingsleben
clearly had a concept of the world. At the time Mania and Mania
suggested this, such a claim was about as far on the fringes as
anyone in traditional archaeology would dare to go. It is my hope
that these detailed and intricate studies of the Bilzingsleben
engravings will serve not only to confirm Mania and Manias claim
but to go much further and demonstrate that the inhabitants of
Bilzingsleben had a concept of the world that was not at all
limited in scope. The engravings of Bilzingsleben unmistakably
demonstrate that by 320,000-412,000 years ago, Lower Palaeolithic
peoples were already working with advanced ideas. They were not
only focused on their day-to-day survival needs as traditional
scientific portrayals tend to suggest.Only one reason for this
persistent de-emphasis. It is because what fire use actually says
about the cognition of early peoples (Neanderthals included, by the
way) is that they were as intelligent as modern humans. Our
longheld belief that learning how to create fire is a sign of some
transitional level of intelligence rather than completely modern
intelligence is a by-product of the idea that human cognitive
ability keeps evolving over time. And as Gowlett strongly hints at
but does not quite say; if we accept any evidence whatsoever of
higher intelligence during what are regarded as necessary-to-the
theory developmental periods then the whole idea of gradual
cognitive evolution collapses entirely. This is, essentially, how
Gowlett accounts for the hostility to evidence of early fire use by
some archaeologists (Gowlett 1993: 57).
In reality, fire use is a cultural trait linking all Homo
erectus populations from Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia
by way of a shared cognitive similarity. It also crosses all human
time boundaries as fire use is characteristic of Neanderthals and
modern Homo sapiens as well. Therefore, based on fire use alone, it
is difficult to see any cognitive evolution having taken place
since the earliest campfires likely created from scratch (e.g.,
Chesowanja, Kenya, 1.5
-
million years ago). Abandoning the idea of gradually-evolving
intelligence in the genus Homo (as the human culture traits of
long-term fire use and complexgraphics suggest we should) is the
key to understanding our ancestors intellectually as peers rather
than as subjects of observation.
To help drive home the idea that human intelligence does not
evolve, consider the following which I believe most objective
persons will intuitively grasp instantly as factual without
requiring any proof or testing, in other words, as a genuine axiom:
If any modern Homo sapiens who had no prior knowledge of how to
artificially create fire were dropped by parachute into a remote
area, he/she despite their modern status would not be able to
create fire even if it were necessary in order to survive. Under
real-world circumstances such as thisand without the aid of a
supportive culture bank to inform them, even the mostintelligent
modern Homo sapiens individual would prove no more intelligent than
the average Homo erectus. For Homo erectus and Neanderthals to have
devised how to create fire in more ways than one (safely assumed),
therefore, is a profound accomplishment which has been downplayed
far too long.
Significance of The people of Bilzingsleben: There are two
entirely unrelated schools of thought regarding early human
cognitive ability and what it means to be modern. One is based on
physical traits, and the other on symbolism or other aspects of
human culture such as the use of fire. Physical anthropology,
genetics, and neuroscience are telling us one story about what it
means to be modern, namely, this means to be Homo sapiens; while
evidence of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic symbolism is telling us a
dramatically differentstory. The story of symbolism is far more
convincing as it is based on human abilities recognizable by all
people regardless of whether or not they have beenspecially
trained. Knowledge of symbolism, fire use, etc., is what makes our
shared cultural heritage accessible to everyone.
-
Figure 10. Numbering system for the radial motif of Artifact 2.
Lines which do not participate in the radial motif are not focused
upon in this particular series. If the two small engraved lines at
the left side of Artifact 2 are needed, their points may be
referred to as 18a, 18b, and 21a, 21b.
-
Figure 11. Three-level, self-similarity fractal characterized by
parallels in thirds. Interpreting components of the central
double-motif as parallel rather than subtly radial, they are seen
to perfectly echo the structure and basic angles of the entire
artifactwhether rotated left or rotated right. Level 1 is the
doubled composite motif. Level 2 is the motif duplicated three
times in a row where it is seen to align perfectly with parallels
21-16, 3-8, 9-15 and 12-13. Level 3 is the double composite motif
enlarged to the length of the entire artifact, at which point it is
seen to still align with these very same parallels. While seeming
like an inexplicable puzzle, it is simply more evidence of fractal
mental structure in Homo erectus, the acceptance of which will be
indispensable in understanding their language capabilities. It is
notable that this interpretation works whether the motif is rotated
to the left or rotated to the right. In Bachs famous Art of
theFugue (his final work), Contrapunctus XII and XIII are known as
mirror fugues, working equally well played forward or backward.
Also, one of the mirrors is upside-down, while the other is a
syntax inversion (see Part III). This same level of mathematical
symmetry was also demonstrated by the radial motifs of
Bilzingsleben Artifacts 1 & 3 (Fig. 7), that matched each other
whether superimposed in standard positioning or as mirror images.
(a) left rotation. (b) right rotation.
-
Figure 12 . Invisible shapes. All angle measurements are based
on the original drawing by Mania and Mania 1988. (a) Radial motif
of Artifact 2 pointing to invisible vertex, and defining a
triangle. (b) Bottom edge of Artifact 2 divides the triangle into a
smaller fractal triangle and atrapezoid. (c) The earliest
completely abstract and measurable two-dimensional shape. (d)
Excerpt from symmetric asymmetry studies. This one shows fractal
extensions from the Artifact2 central doubled motif, the same motif
as in Fig. 11.
-
Figure 13. Proof of association between a complex graphic and an
abstract point. Explanation:First, the primary engravings of
Artifact 2 consist of repeating and varying composite fractal
elements (see Figures 9, 11, and 14) which form a larger radial
motif by way of self-similar fractal angles; this is what makes it
a complex graphic. Second, the radial motif is traced backwards to
an invisible point in space. This study suggests that the
abstraction abilities necessary for complex language in which an
arbitrary word stands for something which is not visually or
audibly similar was already fully developed by the time of
Bilzingsleben 400,000 years ago. Artifact 2 after Mania and Mania
1988.
-
Figure 14. Proof of association between an abstract point and
infinity. As in the complex worksof Bach, which have sometimes been
described as hinting at infinite structures, the 3-part composite
nature of the Artifact 2 engravings, likewise, suggest an infinite
structure. Put in other terms, the fractal location of the artifact
itself within the infinite radial motif is suggested by the middle
segments of each 3-part composite line, which appear to have been
conceived ofas breaks in continuous radial lines, clearly
in-between two directions of sight or thought. Conclusion: The
inhabitants of Bilzingsleben were easily capable of abstract
concepts at any level of complexity.
-
PART VWHO WERE THE PEOPLE OF BILZINGSLEBEN? WHAT FIRE USE AND
OTHER TRAITS SAYABOUT OUR LOWER PALAEOLITHIC ANCESTORS
The site of Bilzingsleben has been variously dated to between
320,000 and 412,000 years old (Mania and Mania 2005). The
inhabitants, therefore, were contemporaries of the Homo erectus
people that lived in Zhoukoudian, China, between 300,000 and
400,000 years ago. Zhoukoudian Homo erectus is also known as Peking
Man (Fig. 7.15). The inhabitants of Bilzingsleben were similar in
appearance to those at Zhoukoudian (Vlek 1978, 2002) so the skull
reproduction of Fig. 7.15 may be regarded as a reasonable likeness
of the people of Bilzingsleben. Not only do the Bilzingsleben and
Zhoukoudian Homo erectus share physical similarities with each
other but also with the Olduvai Hominid 9 Homo erectus, otherwise
known as Chellean Man, who lived in Tanzania, Africa about 1.4
million years ago; as well as the Sangiran 17 Homo erectus who
lived in Java, Indonesia about 1.7 million years ago (Vlek 1978,
2002). This similarity of appearance across such a wide geographic
range effectively covers all four corners of the Lower Palaeolithic
world.
Much more important, however, than physical and even genetic
traits is the accumulating evidence for unifying symbolic and
technological activities duringthe Lower Palaeolithic which
includes similar stone tools and the shared technology of fire.
Also, intricate bone engravings not unlike those from Bilzingsleben
are known from other Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites as well.
On the level of what it actually means to be human, therefore, the
presence of shared cultural traits must be considered far more
important than physical appearance or genetics when it comes to
either linking or distancing different human populations.
Most scholars agree that both Bilzingsleben and Zhoukoudian (not
to mention many other Lower Palaeolithic sites such as
Olorgesailie, Gadeb, Karari, Chesowanja, and Swartkrans, all in
Africa; Yuanmou in China; LEscale and TerraAmata in France; and
Vrtesszlls in Hungary; as per Gowlett 1993: 567) contain abundant
evidence of fire use. This is an extremely important observation
when assessing the cognitive abilities and possible cultural
affiliations of early peoples. The cognitive implications of the
ability to create fire have been severely understated in
palaeoanthropology which focuses on evolutionary distinctions and
which, subsequently, necessitates finding these distinctions.
Taking Gowletts lead, I suggest that there is only one reason for
this persistent de-emphasis. It is because what fire use actually
says about the cognition of early peoples (Neanderthals included,
by the way) is that they were as intelligent as modern humans. Our
longheld belief that learning how to create fire is a sign of some
transitional level of intelligence rather than completely modern
intelligence is a by-product of the idea that human cognitive
ability keeps evolving over time. And as Gowlett strongly hints at
but does not quite say; if we accept any evidence whatsoever of
higher intelligenceduring what are regarded as necessary-to-the
theory developmental periods then the whole idea of gradual
cognitive evolution collapses entirely. This is, essentially, how
Gowlett accounts for the hostility to evidence of early fire use by
some archaeologists (Gowlett 1993: 57).
-
In reality, fire use is a cultural trait linking all Homo
erectus populations from Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia
by way of a shared cognitive similarity. It also crosses all human
time boundaries as fire use is characteristic of Neanderthals and
modern Homo sapiens as well. Therefore, based on fire use alone, it
is difficult to see any cognitive evolution having taken place
since the earliest campfires likely created from scratch (e.g.,
Chesowanja, Kenya, 1.5 million years ago). Abandoning the idea of
gradually-evolving intelligence in the genus Homo (as the human
culture traits of long-term fire use and complexgraphics suggest we
should) is the key to understanding our ancestors intellectually as
peers rather than as subjects of observation.
To help drive home the idea that human intelligence does not
evolve, consider the following which I believe most objective
persons will intuitively grasp instantly as factual without
requiring any proof or testing, in other words, as a genuine axiom:
If any modern Homo sapiens who had no prior knowledge of how to
artificially create fire were dropped by parachute into a remote
area, he/she despite their modern status would not be able to
create fire even if it were necessary in order to survive. Under
real-world circumstances such as thisand without the aid of a
supportive culture bank to inform them, even the mostintelligent
modern Homo sapiens individual would prove no more intelligent than
the average Homo erectus. For Homo erectus and Neanderthals to have
devised how to create fire in more ways than one (safely assumed),
therefore, is a profound accomplishment which has been downplayed
far too long.
Significance of The people of Bilzingsleben: There are two
entirely unrelated schools of thought regarding early human
cognitive ability and what it means to be modern. One is based on
physical traits, and the other on symbolism or other aspects of
human culture such as the use of fire. Physical anthropology,
genetics, and neuroscience are telling us one story about what it
means to be modern, namely, this means to be Homo sapiens; while
evidence of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic symbolism is telling us a
dramatically differentstory. The story of symbolism is far more
convincing as it is based on human abilities recognizable by all
people regardless of whether or not they have beenspecially
trained. Knowledge of symbolism, fire use, etc., is what makes our
shared cultural heritage accessible to everyone.
-
Figure 15. Who were the people of Bilzingsleben? Putting a face
on the Lower Palaeolithic. In addition to their many shared
cultural traits, the inhabitants of Bilzingsleben were similar in
physical appearance to Homo erectus people living all over the
Lower Palaeolithic world in Africa, China, and Indonesia as far
back as 1.7 million years ago (Vlek 1978, 2002). This is Homo
erectus from Zhoukoudian, China, also known as Peking Man. Skull
reconstruction by I. Tattersall and G.J. Sawyer. Photograph
courtesy of David Brill.
-
Figure 16. When a map is a 3D fractal. (a) Non-iconic
interpretation of Artifact 6 demonstrates, at the very least,
presence of the special trig angles 30, 45, 60, 90; parallels;
diagonals; perpendiculars; and planesall within 3 deviation, and
all likely drawn with the aid of a straight edge. Trig skills are
important in surveying, mapmaking, navigation, and astronomy. (b)
Seeing the planes as two tiers of a 3D map. If Artifact 6 is a map,
it represents a remarkable solution by H. erectus to 3D problem.
Note that the eye-line horizontal is parallel to the ground plane
(as given by H. erectus in the lower horizontal registration notch
labeled 6 Slope in the lower right corner of the central square of
Fig. 16a; parallel registration for the upper plane is visible both
directly above the lower registration and to the upper left),
theoretically locating the artist-cartographer in an elevated
position, probably about 35 meters away from the northernmost huts.
Ground-plane to eye-line-plane, ground-plane to observer elevation,
and observer-to-huts, are measurable distances using techniques of
trigonometry and a few basic assumptions. Notice other aspects of
3D perspective style including hut, ground, and angle references,
depth increments (lower plane), occlusion (upper plane), and
cardinal directions. (c) Comparing Artifact 6 (UPPER LEFT, Bednarik
1995) with angular views ofthe entire site from the shoreline south
as in the original archaeological map by Mania and Mania 1988.
BELOW: Site map angled to match the lower plane in Artifact 6.
RIGHT: Site map angled to match the hut lines and demonstrate how
the entire site is accounted for (including unanticipated nonrelief
[unless the 6 Slope and implied position of cartographer are
considered] topographic features) in Artifact 6. (d) Comparing the
upper plane of Artifact 6 withthe two northernmost huts in the
archaeological map. The map has been angled to resemble the plane
suggested in the engraving. North orientation is preserved not only
in the map, but inthe artifact as well by way of its unambiguously
engraved 90 corner. (e) LEFT: Life-size reconstruction of
Bilzingsleben hut (after photo, Praehistoria Thuringica, September
2004). RIGHT: Detail from the Artifact 6 sketch perhaps by someone
actually involved in the original huts construction, 400,000 years
ago. (f) The two planes of Arfitact 6 brought to a single plane and
lined up via the parallel left-right oblique registration guides.
As a 2D map, the upper-left right angles of Artifact 6 are taken as
NSEW. In the 3D interpretation, the exactly parallel doubled
oblique registration guides are taken as NS. Remarkably, reading
the artifact in this way still matches NSEW of Mania and Manias
original archaeological map.
-
PART VITWO SKETCHES FROM BILZINGSLEBEN: WHEN A MAP ISA 3D
FRACTAL
Representational images are all but unknown from the Lower
Palaeolithic. It would therefore seem impossible that a map could
exist, let alone a fractal drawing (engraving) in 3D perspective.
However, such capabilities are well within range of peoples now
seen as capable navigators (Bednarik 1997), cooperative builders of
large free standing shelters (e.g., Terra Amata, Bilzingsleben),
and the makers of composite tools, necklaces and figurines (Thieme
1997, 1999, 2005; Marshack 1997). Supported by the level of
cognitive ability already demonstrated in the other 5 artifacts of
Bilzingsleben, Isuggest that the even more complex engraving of
Artifact 6 displays an image serving both as an accurate and
sophisticated 3D map and a 3D perspective drawing simultaneously,
each aspect done with style and a developed sense of visual impact.
The confidence-of-line demonstrated in this artifact suggests the
artistic flair of a confident professional graphic designer, i.e.
someone who has done this type of thing many times before. This is
an observation that few would question were the designer not
already known to be Homo erectus. Artifact 6 (the tarsal joint bone
of an extinct straight-tusked elephant) was found just 10 meters
orth of the Bilzingsleben campsite proper (Mania and Mania 2005), a
fact which brings its interpretation as a map of the very same site
into immediate accessibility. In fact, the location of where the
artifact was found at the site can even be plotted onto the central
upper tier of the artifacts proposed 3-dimensional representational
image.
As an objective courtesy, I include a plain angles study in two
dimensions (Figure 7.16a) to demonstrate where we are going if we
choose to interpret the engravings of Artifact 6 not as a map or
representational drawing but rather as mere two-dimensional
scribbling. From the perspective that Lower Palaeolithic peoples
would not have been capable of representational drawing, this is as
far backwards as I am willing to go in the nonrepresentational
direction. Even this allegedly simpler 2D interpretation, however,
still shows Artifact 6 to be one of the most sophisticated
Palaeolithic artifacts yet known. In fact, given its
320,000-412,000 year-old date, the limitations of a
supposedlyrudimentary language, the medium of expression (bone),
and the nature of available drafting implements (flint, bone,
wood), it is as advanced as anything a modern technical designer
would be capable of doing under similar circumstances.
If there is one thing that I am certain of in studying the
Bilzingsleben engravings it is that they consistently express
qualities analogous to the music of Bach, i.e. multiple levels of
meaning. This inclines me to think that Artifact 6 was
intentionally laid out to represent several perspectives
simultaneously: a 2D map reflecting the campsite layout in NSEW
orientation (mentally ignoring the 3D components), an accurate
two-tiered 3D map, and a 3D perspective drawing to give one a sense
of place, all making it a cross-dimensional fractal in a manner
similar to Artifact 2, e.g., Fig. 7.14.
There is no advantage whatsoever in interpreting the Artifact 6
engravings as only two-dimensional. This is because one would then
have to explain the engravings in overly complex two-dimensional
terms which irresistibly pull one
-
back into 3D anyway, at which point the mind naturally settles
into a relaxed state. This claim can be immediately tested simply
by looking at the engraving (Figure 7.16c) and forcing oneself to
see it as two-dimensional. I would compare the attempt to interpret
3D intentions as 2D to listening to a piece of music being played
in a particular well-defined key (i.e. replete with tonic,
sub-dominant, and dominant 7) while contrarily attempting to
imagine it as though it were in a different key. In other words,
certain chord combinations and progressions automatically pull the
listener to a particular key. Could someone succeed in actually
hearing the piece as though it were in a different key than what is
obvious to everyone else? Certainly, and this kind of exercise (or
technique, if one prefers) has many creative uses. However, for
this type of resistance against a readily-apparent proposition in
science, most traditionalists would quickly invoke Occams Razorthe
idea that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Since
it takes a great deal of persistent effort to even imagine this
drawing as two-dimensional, the most scientifically-sound response
is to simply acknowledge rather than resist its obviously
intentional three-dimensional nature.
Significance of When a map is a 3D fractal: If Artifact 6 is
what it appears to be then it is the least enigmatic of all the
Bilzingsleben engravings. As such, it can also quite reasonably
serve as a sort of Rosetta Stone between our preconceptions of what
intelligence in early peoples may have entailed on one extreme and
the obviously sophisticated yet highly enigmatic nature of the
other five engraved artifacts on the other. Also, if Artifact 6 is
indeed an accurate layout map of the site, then its two-tiered
system represents a remarkable solution by H. erectus to the
problem of three-dimensional representation in cartography
indicating extremely high intelligence. Most modern maps are
abstract two-dimensional fractals (scaled representations) of
object relationships in three-dimensional space (i.e. the height
dimension is usually excluded), thus allowing the mapmaker to focus
entirely upon only two dimensions. This is infinitely simpler than
what may be represented here because even in modern times, it is no
easy task to express the crucial two-dimensional information
accurately while simultaneously representing the third
dimension.
There is nothing at all absurd about the Bilzingsleben map
proposition, wherever it may lead, or for whatever hard-to-believe
capabilities it may imply. Science begins with objective
observation and measurement. Apart from the studies offered in this
paper, there already exist many other studies detailing the likely
association between Artifact 6 and the layout of Bilzingsleben, all
of which are based on openly testable evidence understandable by
anyone. It is my belief that if the various archaeological maps
produced by Mania and Maniaover the past 20 years are accurate
representations of the site, and if Artifact 6is indeed from this
very site in place and time, then there can be little doubt that
Artifact 6 is a map or layout plan of the site in three dimensions.
Finally, just in case the map interpretation proves not to be
correct, it hardly seems to matter whether we regard this engraving
as a three-dimensional map or a two-dimensional study in some
basics of trigonometry; it all seems to be telling us the same
thing, namely, that Homo erectus people were as intelligent and as
capable as any peoples in modern historical times
-
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
About 20 years ago, Mania and Mania, the excavators of
Bilzingsleben, suggested that the Homo erectus inhabitants of the
site were capable of abstract thought and language and that they
had a spiritual concept of the world. Although these claims may
seem perfectly reasonable in light of the studies above, ideas such
as these that suggest Homo sapiens-like qualities in early peoples
are greatly resisted by mainstream science as they do not support
the preconceived notion of gradual cognitive evolution. Homo
erectus, as noted earlier, has long played the central role of
half-way-there link in the cognitive evolution paradigm. In this
paper, I hope to have demonstrated by openly-testable empirical
means not only that Mania and Manias interpretationof Bilzingsleben
was correct from the beginning but that they actually understated
it.
The geometric and representational complexity of the engraved
Bilzingsleben artifacts is not anything one would expect in a
survival-level environment or even in the traditional notion of a
prehistoric hunter/gatherer society. Instead, itsuggests an
advanced cultural setting highly-supportive of pursuits unrelated
to questions of survival, one that seems better matched, in fact,
to a much larger society. This is especially the case if one
considers the evidence offered for duplicated motifs and
mathematics as most cultures that have developed anything even
remotely resembling a writing system or advanced mathematical
system tend to be regarded as civilizations.
While Mania and Manias advanced hunter/gatherer interpretation
of Bilzingsleben (e.g., Mania and Mania 2005) has been difficult
enough for traditional archaeology to accept, it is not at all
unreasonable to point out that in modern times such an unparalleled
concentration of evidence within so smallan area (about 35 meters
in diameter) for precision graphics which are easily readable in
philosophic, linguistic, or mathematical terms would be readily
identified as an academic setting of some kind. Regardless of
whether or not one accepts the academic setting interpretation, a
social environment diverse enough to inspire innovative work at the
level of the Bilzingsleben engravings would certainly have been one
in which artistic and academic pursuits were encouraged and held in
high regard, even at this early time, 400,000 years ago. Moreover,
the high degree of sophistication and innovation reflected in the
six artifacts discussed does not support the idea of this being a
case of sudden or isolated creativity by a single, even
highly-motivated, individual; rather, it points to the presence of
a larger intellectual community where there has been an exchange of
similar ideas between many individuals and even between many groups
of individuals for quite some time.
If Bilzingsleben represents a typical Homo erectus
hunter/gatherer campsite, it is clear that early human societies
were far more inclusive than traditional baselevel survival
interpretations have long implied. From this point of view, I
suggest that hunter/gatherer campsite and academic setting are two
equally important and integrated aspects of early human culture
that likely developed in tandem from the very beginning rather than
via the unnecessary standard scenario that organized hunters and
gatherers came first followed by artists and philosophers a distant
second hundreds of millennia later. This latteridea, of course, is
based on the single-theory mindset which has dominated
-
Western thought ever since Darwin, the idea that humanity
gradually becomes more and more intelligent over hundreds of
thousands of years time. In contrast, the Bilzingsleben engravings
as well as those from other Lower Palaeolithic sites represent
unequivocal proof that there has been no change whatsoever in human
cognitive ability for at least 400,000 years and that a great deal
of reflective thought was a characteristic trait of Acheulian
culture. In the Part II paper, Phi, this idea is extended back even
further to the beginnings of the Acheulian.
Once we move past the idea of gradual cognitive evolution, the
entire world of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic mathematics, language
and philosophy opens upfor us to study and learn from. This process
has only begun to occur during the past 20 years or so but it
promises to be a much more interesting and diverse story than we
ever anticipated. In the case of Homo erectus, it is a story that
involves the longest surviving and most successful group of people
ever to have lived on the earth, who they actually were, and what
they were capable of. The evidence is beginning to show that not
only have we severely underestimated these people, but that we have
done so to the highest degree imaginable. Surely, it is time to
accept them as our equals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the following scholars for encouragement
and/orcontributions to my work during the past few years. In
alphabetical order:
Robert Bednarik, David Brill, Noam Chomsky, Ellen Dissanayake,
James Harrod,Ekkehart Malotki, Adrienne Mayor, Steven Pinker,
Oliver Sacks, Raymond Tallis,
and Randall White. In addition, I wish to thank my family and
friends, andothers who have offered support and inspiration; but I
especially wish to thank
the 11 sponsors who made my presentations at the XVth UISPP
Congresspossible.
About the author
John Feliks is an anthropology theorist specializing in the
study of early humancognition. His approach is based on a long-time
background in the arts andtechniques of geometry and design. His
recent work involves understanding
the linguistic and mathematical capabilities of Homo erectus
through empiricalgeometric studies of engraved artifacts and stone
tools.
-
Bibliography
BEDNARIK, R.G. 1995. Concept-mediated marking in the Lower
Palaeolithic. Current Anthropology 36: 60534.BEDNARIK, R.G. 1997.
The origins of navigation and language. The Artefact
20:1656.BEDNARIK, R.G. 2003. The earliest evidence of palaeoart.
Rock Art Research 20: 89135.CAPRA, F. 1982. The turning point:
Science, society, and the rising culture. Simon and Schuster,New
York.
CHOMSKY, N. 1972. Language and mind. Enlarged Edition. Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, Inc. New York.
CORMAC, E.M. and M.I. STAMENOV (Eds.). 1996. Fractals of brain,
fractals of mind: In search of a symmetry bond. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Co.DISSANAYAKE, E. 2000.
Art and Intimacy: how the arts began. University of Washington
Press, Seattle.
DONALD, M. 1991. Origins of the modern mind: three stages in the
evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.EGLASH, R., C.S. DIATTA and N. BADIANE 1998. Fractal
structure in Jola material culture. Paper presented at the Congrs
Dveloppement insulaire durable et rles de la recherche et de la
formation. Rhodes, Greece. 27783.
EGLASH, R. 1999. African fractals: Modern computing and
indigenous design. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey.
EGLASH, R. and T.B. ODUMOSU 2005. Fractals, Complexity, and
Connectivity in Africa. In G. Sica(ed.) What Mathematics from
Africa? Polimetrica, International Scientific Publisher. Monza,
Italy.FELIKS, J. 1992, 1993, 1994. The Tao of Bach: J. S. Bach,
mysticism, and ancient Chinese philosophy. Pp. 153, unpublished
thesis.FELIKS, J. 1998a. The impact of fossils on the development
of visual representation. Rock Art Research 15: 10934. (199597
versions submitted for publication and widely circulated).FELIKS,
J. 1998b. The value of interpretive approaches in archaeology. Rock
Art Research 15: 12829.
FELIKS, J. 2000. Iconic interface between the worlds. Comment on
D. Hodgson, Art, perception,and information processing: an
evolutionary perspective. Rock Art Research 17: 2325.FELIKS, J.
2003. Toward a comprehensive paradigm. Comment on Robert G.
Bednarik, The earliest evidence of palaeoart. Rock Art Research 20:
11114.FELIKS, J. 2006. Musings on the Palaeolithic fan motif. In P.
Chenna Reddy (ed.), Exploring the mind of ancient man: Festschrift
to Robert G. Bednarik, 24966. Research India Press, New Delhi.
FELIKS, J. 2008. Phi in the Acheulian: Lower Palaeolithic
intuition and the natural origins of analogy. In BAR S1804 2008:
Proceedings of the XV World Congress UISPP (Lisbon, 4-9 September
2006), Volume 19, Pleistocene Palaeoart of the World, edited by
R.G. Bednarik and D. Hodgson.
FEYNMAN, R.P. 2001. What do you care what other people think? W.
W. Norton and Company, New York.
GOWLETT, J.A.J. 1984. Mental Abilities of Early Man: A Look at
Some Hard Evidence, in Hominid Evolution and Community Ecology:
prehistoric human adaptation in biological perspective. Edited by
Robert Foley. London: Academic Press.
GOWLETT, J.A.J. 1993. Ascent to civilization: The archaeology of
early humans. 2nd Edition. The McGraw-Hill companies.
-
GREENE, B. 1999. The elegant universe: superstrings, hidden
dimensions, and the quest for theultimate theory. First Vintage
Books Edition, New York.GRUJI, P.V. 2002. The concept of fractal
cosmos. II: Modern cosmology. Serbian Astronomical Journal. 163:
4566.GRUJI, P. 2006. Fractal cosmology today. Publications of the
Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade 80: 6776.HARROD, J.B. 2006.
Bhimbetka Glyphs. In P. Chenna Reddy (ed.), Exploring the mind of
ancient man: Festschrift to Robert G. Bednarik, 317328. Research
India Press, New Delhi.HAYDEN, B. 1993. The cultural capacities of
Neandertals: a review and re-evaluation. Journal of Human Evolution
24: 113-46.HREBCEK, L. 1994. Fractals in language. Journal of
Quantitative Linguistics 1(1): 826.KADMAN, A. 1995. The guitar
grimoire: a compendium of formulas for guitar scales and modes.
Carl Fisher, Inc., New York.
KHLER, R. 1997. Are there fractal structures in language? Units
of measurement and dimension in linguistics. Journal of
Quantitative Linguistics 4(1-3): 122125.LEOPOLD, E. 2001. Fractal
structures in language: The question of the imbedding space. In L.
Uhlirova, G. Gejza, G. Altmann, R. Khler (eds.), Text as a
linguistic paradigm: Level, constituents, constructs. Festschrift
in honour of Ludek Hrebcek. pp. 16376. Wissenschaftlicher Berlag
Trier.
MANIA, D. and U. MANIA 1988. Deliberate engravings on bone
artefacts of Homo erectus. Rock Art Research 5: 91107.MANIA, D. and
U. MANIA 2003. Bilzingsleben - Homo erectus, his culture and his
environment. The most important results of research. In J. M.
Burdukiewicz and A. Ronen (eds.), Lower Palaeolithic small tools in
Europe and The Levant. BAR S1115, pp. 2948.MANIA, D. and U. MANIA
2005. The natural and sociocultural environment of Homo erectus at
Bilzingsleben, Germany. In C. Gamble and M. Porr (eds.), The
Hominid Individual in Context: Archaeological investigations of
Lower and Middle Palaeolithic landscapes, locales and
artifacts,98114. Routledge, New York.
MARSHACK, A. 1977. The meander as a system: the analysis and
recognition of iconographic units in Upper Paleolithic
compositions. In Form in Indigenous Art, Prehistory and Material
Culture Series, No. 13, ed. P. J. Ucko (Canberra: Australian
Institute of Aboriginal Studies), pp. 286317.
MARSHACK, A. 1990. Early hominid symbol and evolution of the
human capacity. In P. Mellars (ed.), The emergence of modern
humans: an archaeological perspective, pp. 45798. Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, N.Y..
MARSHACK, A. 1997. The Berekhat Ram figurine: a late Acheulian
carving from the Middle East.Antiquity 71: 327-37.MIKITEN, T.M.,
N.A. SALINGAROS, and H-S YU. 2000. Pavements as embodiments of
meaning fora fractal mind. Nexus Network Journal 2: 6374.
http://www.nexusjournal.com/Miki-Sali-Yu.html. (To appear in A
Theory of Architecture by Nikos A. Salingaros. Umbau-Verlag,
Solingen).
MORRIS, D. 1962. The Biology of Art. Alfred A. Knopf, New
York.MORWOOD, M.J., F. AZIZ, P. OSULLIVAN, NASRUDDIN, D.R. HOBBS,
and A. RAZA. 1999. Archaeological and palaeontological research in
Central Flores, East Indonesia: Results of fieldwork 19971998.
Antiquity 73: 27386.OAKLEY, K.P. 1973. Fossil shell observed by
Acheulian man. Antiquity 47: 5960.OAKLEY, K.P. 1981. Emergence of
higher thought, 3.0 0.2 Ma B.P. Philolosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London B 292: 20511.
-
POTTS, R., A.K. BEHRENSMEYER, A. DEINO, P. DITCHFIELD, and J.
CLARK. 2004. Small mid-Pleistocene hominin associated with East
African Acheulean technology. Science. 305: 758.SACKS, O. 1990.
Seeing voices: A journey into the world of the deaf. Harper
Collins, New York.SACKS, O. 1999. Migraine. Revised and expanded
edition. First Vintage Books Edition, Random House, New York.
SACKS, O. 2002. Oaxaca journal. National Geographic Society, New
York.SACKS, O. 2003. A neurologists notebook: The minds eye: What
the blind see. The New Yorker,July 28: 4859.
STEGUWEIT, J. 1999. Intentionelle schnittmarken auf tierknochen
von Bilzingsleben Neue lasermikroskopische untersuchungen.
Praehistoria Thuringica 3: 6479.THIEME, H. 1997. Lower Palaeolithic
hunting spears from Germany. Nature 385: 80710.
THIEME, H. 1999. Lower Palaeolithic throwing spears and other
wooden implements from Schningen, Germany. In H. Ullrich (ed.),
Hominid Evolution: Lifestyles and Survival Strategies.Archae
Edition.
THIEME, H. 2005. The lower Palaeolithic art of hunting: The case
of Schningen 13 II-4, Lower Saxony, Germany. In C. Gamble and M.
Porr (eds.), The Hominid Individual in Context: Archaeological
investigations of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic landscapes, locales
and artifacts,98114. Routledge, New York.
VLEK, E. 1978. A new discovery of Homo erectus in central
Europe. Journal of Human Evolution 7:239 51.VLEK, E. 2002. Der
fossile mensch von Bilzingsleben The fossil man of Bilzingsleben.
In Der fossile mensch von Bilzingsleben. Bilzingsleben VI. Edited
by E. Vlek, D. Mania, and U. Mania, pp. 145392. Weissbach: Beier
& Beran.
WHITE, R. 1989a Toward a Conceptual Understanding of the
Earliest Body Ornaments, in The Emergence of Modern Humans:
Biocultural adaptations in the later Peistocene. Edited by Erik
Trinkaus, pp. 211 31. Cambridge University Press.
WHITE, R. 1993. Technical and Social Dimensions of Aurignacian
age body ornaments across Europe. In Before Lascaux: the complex
record of the Early Upper Paleolithic. Edited by Heidi Knecht, Anne
Pike-Tag, and Randall White, pp. 27799. CRC Press, Ann Arbor.
WHITE, R. 1993. The Dawn of Adornment. Natural History
102:607.
-
The Graphics of Bilzingsleben was a "requested" paper with
rigorous geometric studies challenging the modern science notion
that Homo erectus was an ape-man. Although it resulted in
passionate and ongoing accolades such as those quoted on the
full-text html page, The Graphics of Bilzingsleben was ultimately
relegated to an obscure miscellanea volume 'five years' after its
presentation. This was due to the misconduct of competitive
researchers and editors in several science organizations and
universities beginning within one week of the Congress. The story
is part of increasing examples of misconduct in science which has
been aggressively promoting to the public a false impression of
Paleolithic peoples. Many other examples related to Paleolithic
sites other than Bilzingsleben have been published in Pleistocene
Coalition News (PCN). The censorship story of The Graphics of
Bilzingsleben as well as use of the author's submitted materials to
alter the writings of competitive researchers with privileged
access to the materials can be read in detail in a series of nine
articles in PleistoceneCoalition News (Issues #12-20). One can also
go directly to the Series (Parts 1-9) in quick html form which
includes very sharp enlargable figures starting with Part 1, Proof
of Straight Edge Use By Homo erectus.
Organizations such as Retraction Watch have also begun to cover
the problem of misconduct inthe sciences in general. The journal,
Science, as part of its own response to the problem, recently
echoed a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science (PNAS) that "misconduct" rather than "mistakes" is the
cause of most retractions of scientific papers. Retractions due to
misconduct including such as fabrication of data or plagiarism are
on the rise in science while rigorous original papers such as those
discussed in PCN experience similar fates to The Graphics of
Bilzingsleben.
This particular paper was produced in response to a request made
to the author to expound on recently published original work, e.g.,
straight edge use by H. erectus and scientific proofs of the
earliest duplicated symbol. The session chair making the request
was already quite familiarwith the rigor and integrity of the prior
work, which is what prompted the request, and which included The
Impact of Fossils on the Development of Visual Representation
(blocked by Current Anthropology while an author who had prior
borrowed from the paper without citation was published therein
shortly afterwards) and Musings on the Palaeolithic Fan Motif (also
a requested paper).
Positive response to the presentation was immediate and
passioned and lasted for the next seven months. All subsequent
comments followed exactly as the first comment at the Congress: "an
absolutely thrilling presentation." It is clear in retrospect that
plans for censorship of the paper and its Part 2, Phi in the
Acheulian (geometric proofs of mathematical ratio in Lower
Paleolithic bone engravings, microlithic tools, etc.), began at
that moment for political rather than scientific reasons for
beginning within one week of the Congress two falsified reports
were published in which both papers were deleted. The first was by
a cataloguer of the Chair and was published in The European
Archaeologist as a response to the session in which the two
back-to-back papers (totalling 40 minutes in the middle of the
session)were deleted from the presenter-by-presenter account of the
session. This created immediate problems with the presenter's
sponsors having made it appear to the sponsors that the two papers
were not even presented.
The second effort a few weeks later was for both Co-Chairs of
the session to block the Part 2 paper, Phi in the Acheulian,
claiming that it was "highly problematic" and would damage the
author's reputation were it to be published. However,
simultaneously, one of the Co-Chair/Editors, who had not written on
the topic of geometry before, quickly produced their own version of
an Acheulian Phi paper, submitting it to a French journal without
any reference to theoriginal work. This was done while the original
author's paper, including full references and supplementary
material, were still in hand due to priviledged acces as an editor
of the session. The original author wrote several complaints to the
French journal which refused to retract the paper (a similar
occurance happened with another author's paper presented in a
related session at the XV UISPP Congress). After the original
author insisted on the Part 2 paper's publication (promised in
advance by the UISPP with the author being a paying presenter at
the Congress) the censorship effort was then switched over by the
Co-Chair/Editors to the "Part 1" paper, Graphics, which wound up
being relegated to an obscure volume four years "after" the
-
Part 2 paper was published. This was with the Session Chair's
false claim that there was no time to publish it having put an
arbitrarily fast deadline on all presenters in the Session. The
second falsified report was by the Session Chair making it appear
in a second confirmation as though neither paper had been presented
at the Congress. As anyone would understand, falsehoods like this
in published form manipulated the author's 11 sponsors into
believing that the sponsored presenter did not fulfill the
obligation. No presenter at a Conference, especially arequested
presenter, should have to deal with suc