Return to Phi in the Acheulian
Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 3: Base grids of a suppressed Homo erectus knowledge system
|"New ideas are always criticized - not because an idea lacks merit, but because it might turn out to be workable.”|
-Physicist, requested anonymity
As hopefully is
becoming clear, the evidence offered in this series is meant to
demonstrate that the view of our ancestors as unintelligent ape-people
as promoted by the science community is not at all correct. In reality,
there is no evidence for a gradual evolution of mental ability but only
evidence of a continuing and stable human intelligence.|
Fig. 1. A study of the 400,000-year old engraved bone Artifact 1 side-fan motif from Bilzingsleben eliminating the variables of angle and horizontal positioning of the lines and applying the musical technique known as “compound line” (see Fig. 5 for definition). It was originally presented at the XV UISPP Congress in 2006 in the program Phi in the Acheulian. Photograph by R. Bednarik, cropped with permission. The study is further explored in the recent paper, Five constants from an Acheulian compound line, presented at the Aplimat (Applied Mathematics) 2012 Conference in Bratislava by Professor Mauro Francaviglia (see Fig. 5).
Because there is the physical evidence of complex engravings, it can safely be said that human abilities such as reasoning, philosophizing, or simply being creative have never undergone any evolutionary change.
It can probably also be stated with a fair degree of confidence that the same is true for every representative of the animal kingdom. Whatever intelligence level any creature was at when it first appears in the fossil record is likely to be no different today.
It may sound humorous, but invertebrate sea creatures such as clams and snails which live in the water today are probably no more intelligent than they were 500 million years ago in the Cambrian seas. The fish that live in the sea today, no more intelligent than Silurian or Devonian fishes were. And in all likelihood your cat or dog friend is no more intelligent than the first saber-toothed cat or the first wolf.
So why stop there? What proof do we have that the human species is any different?The reason I ask this is because while we have no way to compare the intelligence of ancient animals with modern animals we do have a means to do this with ancient humans and modern humans. That method is by comparing the creative work of ancient people with that of the artists and mathematicians of today. My proposal is that there is no difference and I offer these ongoing studies, most of which have been censored by the evolutionary community, as testable and transparent proof.
Fig. 2. This music-based study of Artifact 1 shows how the particular compound line (zig zag melody) taken from Fig. 1 has precise analogues in use today. Although there are other possible interpretations, the terms shown here account perfectly for the Indian scale, Raga Bhinna Pancama. It is a challenging scale playable just as shown or set up in “universal scale” degrees as 1 2 4 5 b6 7 which in the Key of C would be played C D F G Ab B. The raga is known for its special quality of containing no major or minor 3rd.
This mathematical evidence, just like that for very early people in the Americas, has turned out to be a big problem for the science community because it is as close to real-time proof as science is likely to get that our ancestors did not evolve but were very much like us from the beginning and that they were able to record their thoughts in some external form which has been preserved across time and which we are able to read.
FIGURES 3 & 4
With more and more such evidence coming to light it is no longer scientifically prudent to teach the ape-man scenario as fact.
Where does this lead? Since the science community has committed to the evolutionary paradigm leaving itself no graceful way out it has been forced into the situation of using methods such as censorship to block new evidence from the public rather than facing it and adjusting for what the new evidence indicates.
Adjusting according to new evidence is how “normal” science works. So, what do you call a science that blocks new evidence and continues to promote an old view despite the evidence? It is something other than science.
The science community has decided to respond this way to the evidence from Bilzingsleben and other evidence we offer in this newsletter so as not to have to address the implications. By responding to empirical evidence in this way and not addressing the challenge in a true scientific manner the science community has lost credibility.When I started in science as a young boy I just assumed that scientists abided by high standards of truth. As background, I was absorbed early on in paleontology, biology (as a naturalist), and chemistry (even inventing my own plastic tar among other things).
Fig. 3a; Fig. 3b.Two studies of Bilzingsleben Artifact 2 applying standard ratios as used in modern musical scales.
In the years that followed—and this is all separate from the arts—I learned psychology, sociology and anthropology, not to mention exploring to one degree or another most other sciences, e.g., physics, optics, astronomy, cosmology, as well as pursuing a knack for geometry, drafting and practical design. Though inspired by many including open-minded teachers, this was primarily self-disciplined and motivated research so I naturally kept an open mind and have always been open to looking at science in new ways.
There is the saying, “Don’t re-invent the wheel,” but actually, that may be one of the best ways to learn.
Fig. 4a; Fig. 4b.Two studies of Bilzingsleben Artifact 2 applying standard ratios as used in modern musical rhythms.
After the few examples in Part 3, Base grids of a suppressed Homo erectus knowledge system, in this Part 4, I offer additional studies based on musical composition techniques to show how they can be applied to uncovering unexpected information locked in ancient engravings.
“Fifty” of these and similar studies were blocked from publication for five years by the XV UISPP International Congress even though I was requested to present the material being promised publication in advance.
The material was all then censored by the Journal of Human Evolution even though submission to that journal was suggested by a longtime anthropology correspondent since the journal was edited by someone in his own department at New York University. This censorship was quite ironic because I actually began correspondence with this professor when he called me on the phone regarding my first censored paper by Current Anthropology in 1995-97 (two years of anonymous peer review followed by censorship). He was one of the ‘anonymous’ reviewers who was intrigued enough by the ideas in the paper, The impact of fossils on the development of visual representation, that he chose to break the anonymity to hear more about it. His recommendation for publication was vetoed by a team
“It is no less scientific to presume high intelligence in early peoples than it is to presume low intelligence.”
reviewers obviously protecting the evolutionary paradigm as the paper
suggested high intelligence in early peoples. Leading neurologist
Oliver Sacks, in a full-page handwritten letter, referred to the paper
as, “absolutely riveting” giving permission to quote the letter. His
was one of many others of a very similar nature.
So, one must ask, how does work which receives this type of response from leading authorities wind up being censored from the public?
After 15 years of such experiences plus discovering a pattern of submitted ideas not only blocked from publication but showing up in the work of competitive researchers, there occurred a loss of trust in scientific process so I finally hooked up with other researchers with similar experiences and together we formed the Pleistocene Coalition to challenge the mainstream science power structure.
Fig. 5. Another example of how musical techniques can be applied to ancient artifacts, excerpted from the Aplimat 2012 paper, Five constants from an Acheulian compound line. Compound line is a technique characteristic of Johann Sebastian Bach’s music. A common form is when a single melody can be interpreted as two distinct melodies. In the example above, the Artifact 1 sequence from Fig. 1 labeled adebfcg (left) measured by way of five mathematical constants (numbers which remain the same independent of physical measurement) can be read as two separate lines, abc and defg. These define two circles (right). As hard to believe as it may seem for something taken from a 400,000-year old artifact, each of the constants in the compound line are represented to equal precision (five decimals) within the two circles.
In Part 3, I showed how information encoded in ancient artifacts might be decoded in different ways (see founding member Jim Harrod’s weblink for other methods of decoding extremely ancient artifacts such as Bilzingsleben). In this Part 4 (Figs. 1-5), I offer studies that were inspired by the work of Dietrich and Ursula Mania, discoverers of the engraved artifacts of Bilzingsleben, who noted the mathematical ratio in Artifact 2 (Figs. 3-4). Contrary to the standard paradigm used in anthropology, approaching ancient artifacts with the expectation that there may be deeper inherent meanings increases the chance that such meanings, if they exist, can be found. For those who question such an approach, I suggest that it is no less scientific to presume high intelligence in early peoples than it is to presume low intelligence.The engrained idea that our ancestors were of low intelligence is not based on fact and the sooner we move past this idea the sooner we can move to the next stage of discovery. Presupposition of high intelligence in ancient peoples is a powerful key. It opens up the entire world of the Paleolithic.
Mania, D., and U. Mania. 1988. Deliberate engravings on bone artifacts of Homo erectus. Rock Art Research 5 (2): 91-107.
John Feliks has specialized in the study of early human cognition for nearly twenty years using an approach based on geometry and techniques of drafting. Feliks is not a mathematician; however, he uses the mathematics of ancient artifacts to show that human cognition does not evolve. One aspect of Feliks’ experience that has helped to understand artifacts is a background in music; he is a long-time composer in a Bach-like tradition as well as an acoustic-rock songwriter and taught computer music including MIDI, digital audio editing, and music notation in a college music lab for 11 years.