This is a full-text html version of the following article from Pleistocene Coalition News posted 10-8-2011:
Feliks, J. 2010. The graphics of Bilzingsleben series: Scientific misconduct over ancient artifact studies and why you should care:
Part 2: Censoring the world's oldest human language
Pleistocene Coalition News 3 (5): 12-14.

Return to Phi in the Acheulian.   Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 1: Straight edge use by Homo erectus.

Go next to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 3: Base grids of a suppressed Homo erectus knowledge system.




THE GRAPHICS OF BILZINGSLEBEN SERIES: SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT OVER ANCIENT ARTIFACT STUDIES AND WHY YOU SHOULD CARE:

PART 2: CENSORING THE WORLD'S OLDEST HUMAN LANGUAGE

By John Feliks


“Mania & Mania have published...a series of marked bones from the German Acheulean site of Bilzingsleben, claiming that the markings were purposeful... [I] find no greater patterning in these marks than on the wooden cutting board in my kitchen.”

- Randall White, Anthropology, New York University, 1992: 545


SIDE COLUMN

Q: Why is the science community blocking proof of the oldest language?

A: Because it challenges evolutionary thinking.


Readers are invited to compare the original authoritative responses to the Bilzingsleben engravings (in the sidebars and text) with the censored geometric studies. By responding to proof of any early language with censorship (as recently occurred) the scientific community is losing credibility on the topic of human origins.



“Certain bones from Bilzingsleben… have scratches in groups of parallel or radial lines. These could be due to butchery, especially as there are clear indications of knawing.”

- William Noble & Ian Davidson Psychology and Anthropology, University of New England, 1991: 245-6

tn_Motifs-in-context_Fig5a_crop-for-pcn13.jpgLanguage is the most unique aspect of what makes us human; and without doubt, it is the greatest difference between human beings and animals. In its most basic form language is a system of organized signs or symbols, audible or visible, such as spoken words or written words which we use to communicate with each other. With this single tool, the possibilities of poetry, art, mathematics, history, music, philosophy, even ideas of space and time open up to anyone who learns to use it. In written or graphic form language is even able to communicate across vast stretches of time as if earlier people were in our very presence.


Fig. 1
.
The two motifs of Artifacts 1 & 3 in context with other syntactic variablesThe fact that these are ‘duplicated’ motifs was discovered by the author and submitted for publication in 2004, Musings on the Palaeolithic Fan MotifThis is Slide #17 (of 112) presented at the XV UISPP Congress in Lisbon, Portugal, 2006, and Fig.5a of tn_Same-size_Fig5c_crop-for-pcn13.jpgThe Graphics of BilzingslebenPrior to its 5-year censorship by the science community—while it was circulated in peer review to researchers worldwide—theorists such as Bednarik, White, Davis, Davidson, Chase, Noble, Dibble, Mithen, claimed the engravings showed no deliberation beyond simple patterning or ‘half-way-there’ mental states comparable to those of apes; phosphene hallucinations were also suggested. However, these two extremely sophisticated and linked motifs featuring precision angles (Figs. 4-6, 9-10) and Cartesian point relationships (Figs. 7-10) would have been recognized as such were it not for evolutionary preconceptions.


Fig. 2
.
Conference Slide #19: Artifacts 1 & 2Observation 1: These complex motifs are the same size.


tn_Photos_Fig5b_crop-for-pcn13.jpgFig. 3. Conference Slide #18: Photographs of Artifact 1 side-fan and the fan of Artifact 3.


The origins of language is a problem that has puzzled
philosophers and now scientists for thousands of years because it has no known link to the natural world. Modern-day linguists (those who study language) and scientists who think only in evolutionary terms believe with little reserve that human language evolved gradually out of animal communication systems and that there were necessary stages of language development between ape cries or gestures and modern human words. Although evolutionary linguists seldom even mention who these middle language speakers might have been—writing primarily in abstract terms and without recourse to artifacts—they certainly mean them to be either early Homo sapiens (“less able” ancestors of our own species) or Homo erectus, formerly known as Pithecanthropus or the “ape-man.” However, famed linguist Noam Chomsky who revolutionized linguistics in the 1950s and 60s never believed that human language could have had any half-way-there stage but that it appeared as a fully-developed capacity. Even though evolutionary linguists believe that this is where Chomsky went
Page 12


PLEISTOCENE COALITION NEWS

Page 13


“In my opinion, the [Bilzingsleben] marks should not be thought of as anything more than ‘self-sufficient,’ to use a term I once applied to some chimpanzee scribbles.”

- Whitney Davis

Art History, Northwestern University, 1988: 103




“By suggesting that the deliberate marks indicate a faculty of abstract thought, the authors may in fact be trivializing their find. Its scientific significance is perhaps primarily that it does not indicate, but foreshadow such a faculty.”


- Robert G. Bednarik
Editor, RAR, IFRAO, 1988: 99




“There are a few objects that… bear markings that some have considered symbolic in nature, such as marked bone scraps from… Bilzingsleben… However, some of these may indeed have served practical functions such as ‘cutting boards’… Such ‘motifs’ are not repeated often enough to be recognized either as intentional or as a style.”


- Philip G. Chase
Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, 1991: 210.




“Over the course of hundreds of thousands of years there are no two [Acheulean or Mousterian] objects that are alike.”

- Randall White
Anthropology, New York University, 1992: 546


wrong, Chomsky’s was, and still is, the most scientific position as there are no known existing or historical ‘primitive’ languages. They are all complex. tn_Same-outer-angles_Fig5d_crop-for-pcn13.jpgStill, most modern linguists have adhered to the evolutionary system ever since the claims made in Darwin’s 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, were accepted as axioms. Chomsky himself, influenced by peer pressure to conform with the template, adopted Eldredge and Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium though anyone familiar with the physical rather than the theoretical evidence from both paleontology (fossils) and palaeolinguistics knows that what this theory really says is that we have no idea how anything including language evolved. The conditional, “if it evolved at all” is of course, not permitted.


Fig. 4
.
Slide #20 (of 112). Observation 2: The motifs share identical outer angles and vertices demonstrated via protractor. Artifacts 1 & 3.


Shooting-in-the-dark approaches to language origins are relied upon because it is believed that language leaves no traces we can study directly. However, this is not true, as demonstrated at the XV UISPP Congress (International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences) in Lisbon in 2006 in a program called The Graphics of Bilzingslebentn_Same-inner-angles_Fig5e_crop-for-pcn13.jpgIn this program by means of easy-to-understand geometric studies was presented the first proofs of a Lower Palaeolithic language of Homo erectus 400,000 years old (Figs. 1-10 and others). These studies showed that Homo erectus people were just as intelligent as we are today and that their symbolic and mathematical abilities made them our equals.


Fig. 5
.
Slide #21 (of 112). Observation 3: The motifs share identical ‘inner’ angles and vertices demonstrated via protractor. Artifacts 1 & 3.


The problem this created for the mainstream science community is that it simultaneously showed that there has been no evolution of language ability nor any other human mental ability for at least 400,000 years—a claim which can readily be extended back 1.4 to 2 million years (including evidence such as the incised bones from Kozarnika Cave, Bulgaria; fire use; etc.) or, in fact, to whatever point in time we assign as the first appearance of the genus Homo. The prediction is that future evidence will show not Darwin’s gradation of mental abilities but that there has been no change in such abilities and that everything interpreted as change in cognitive ability is actually related to culture.tn_Many-other-angles_Fig5f_crop-for-pcn13.jpg


Fig. 6
.
Slide #22 (of 112). The motifs share many other identical angles. Artifacts 1 & 3. NOTE: There are many more shared angles besides those in Figs. 4-6, the only difference being that they do not share the same vertices within their respective motifs whereas all of these do.


Since the scientific community is committed to the evolutionary paradigm as an act of faith, any evidence which does not align with this paradigm is seen not in the light of normal scientific discovery but rather as a threat. This is reason enough for even scholars of once high-integrity to participate in behind-the-scenes blockades of the early language hypothesis from publication.

Ignoring evidence like this did not occur with the discovery of cuneiform or translation of hieroglyphs via the Rosetta Stone as neither of those discoveries challenged a religious dogma. However, in the biased modern science community, one must contend with the dogged belief that everything, including language, evolved from lower forms.

Ironically, despite many months of behind-the-scenes accolades from those present at the program and others with copies of the Thumbnails handout—including linguists, psychologists, engineers, etc.—The Graphics of Bilzingsleben was immediately censored from the public record not only in the false

Page 13


PLEISTOCENE COALITION NEWS

Page 14


“If the authors mean that the mark makers of Bilzingsleben exhibit preferences for orderly pattern... these kinds of preferences are well documented among the great apes.”

“There is no need to invoke some ‘faculty for abstract thinking,’ like planning ahead, to account for these morphologies.”

- Whitney Davis
Art History, Northwestern University, 1988: 102


report mentioned in Part 1, but in the tn_Same-point-coordinates_Fig6a_crop-for-pcn13.jpgsubsequent follow-up report on the congress by the Session’s Chair in Rock Art Research. In fact, the Chair allotted only one sentence to the entire Pleistocene palaeoart of the world session sacrificing a standard acknowledgment of all presenters, while in its place publishing an unexpectedly high claim about engraved bones from a site 10km from Bilzingsleben. I have had many similar experiences ever since submitting my work for peer review in anthropology in 1995.


Fig. 7. The motifs share horizontal point coordinates. Artifacts 1 & 3. This is Slide #25 of the “original 144-slide series” before reducing to 112 to fit the time constraints of the XV UISPP Conference. It is also Fig.6a of the published thesis paper, The Graphics of Bilzingsleben (BAR International Series 2224) registered April 2007 but censored from publication until 2011! (NOTE: Anticipating problems such as this, I made certain to register the Slide programs & Thumbnails handout in 2006 and the papers in early 2007 being already experienced with extreme misconduct in anthropology including discovering my work or its influence in papers by competitive researchers as peer reviewers ‘without citation.’) Working in the shared space of mathematics and linguistics the technique used to prove association between the two motifs as well as thetn_Established-planes-and-3D_Fig6b_crop-for-pcn13.jpgir obvious ‘pre-planned’ complexity is a double Cartesian grid (optional curvilinear grid). Whether one is thinking in terms of grammar or other organizational systems it offers a means to test the placement or shared association of any components. Looking beyond this, Figs. 1-2 and 4-10 clearly show complex and intricate structures within a single ‘radial structure convention.’ Unlike standard writing systems, fugue techniques (as in musical composition) and radial structures can potentially hold a great deal more factual or symbolic information in multi-layered or superimposed form. There is no doubt that what we are dealing with here at Bilzingsleben is not an “ape-man.”


F
ig. 8. Conference slide #23. Observation 5: Each motif shares an established plane (ABCD) and one isolated 3D component (EF). Artifacts 1 & 3. tn_Mirror-images_Fig7a_crop-for-pcn13.jpgThese aspects relate to the internal 3D radial system (Musings on the Palaeolithic fan motif, Graphics, p.72, Phi, p.12). Not expecting a 5-year censorship, I assumed the “Larger system” announced in the papers would be published shortly after.


Fig. 9. Conference slide #24. Observation 6: The motifs are mirror images. Artifacts 1 & 3.


Fig. 10
. Conference slide #25. Artifacts 1 & 3. If the two original motifs are superimposed, any remaining doubt that each is a sophisticated variation on the same motif is effectively dissolved. Duplicated motifs are the hallmark of language.


The proofs of language in The Graphics of Bilzingsleben were subsequently forced to endure five years of academic misconduct. tn_Final-proof-duplication_Fig7b_crop-for-pcn13.jpgThis involved agendas not only of known competitive researchers but a censoring peer review board working from the safety of anonymity at the Journal of Human Evolution (recommended by Randall White familiar with the disgraceful action by UISPP and with editor of JHE in his own department at NYU) doing all in their power to keep the first proofs of Homo erectus language obscured.

By keeping The Graphics of Bilzingsleben from the public, the science community has performed a great disservice. Here is physical evidence that our ancestors were like us rather than ape-like. Suppressing this evidence because it does not agree with the preferred world view is academic misconduct on a very high level. In light of the recent scandal in the Cognitive Evolution Lab at Harvard University (eight counts of misconduct related to evolution of language research) and similar examples brought forward by the Pleistocene Coalition, consumers of science should prepare themselves for the fact that this is only the tip of the iceberg in the evolutionary community.

REFERENCES

Mania, D. and U. Mania. 1988. Deliberate engravings on bone artifacts of Homo erectus. Rock Art Research 5: 91-107.

White, R. 1992. “Beyond art: Toward an understanding of the origins of material representation in Europe.” ARA 21:537-64.

Davis, W. 1988. Comment on Mania and Mania 1988. RAR 5: 101-3.

Bednarik R. G. 1988. Comment on Mania and Mania 1988. RAR 5: 96–100..

Noble, W., and I. Davidson. 1991. “The evolutionary emergence of modern human behaviour: Language and its archaeology.” Man 26: 223-53.

Chase, P. G. 1991. “Symbols and Paleolithic artifacts: Style, standardization, and the imposition of arbitrary form.” JAA 10:193-214.

Feliks, J. 1998 [submitted ‘95]. The impact of fossils on the development of visual representation. RAR 15:109-34.

- 2006 [submitted ‘04]. Musings on the Palaeolithic fan motif. In P. Chenna-Reddy (ed), Exploring the mind of ancient man. Research India Press. New Delhi.

- 2008. Phi in the Acheulian: Lower Palaeolithic intuition and the natural origins of analogy. BAR International Series 1804:11-31.

- 2011 [submitted ‘07]. The graphics of Bilzingsleben: Sophistication and subtlety in the mind of Homo erectus. BAR I.S. 2224:71-91.


John Feliks is founder of the Pleistocene Coalition. He has specialized in the study of early human cognition for nearly 20 years.


Page 14

Return to
The Pleistocene Coalition

Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 9: Artifact 6 'Lower tier' in multiview and oblique projections
Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 8: Evidence for a Homo erectus campsite depiction in 3D
Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 7: Who were the people of Bilzingsleben?
Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 6: The Lower Paleolithic origins of advanced mathematics
Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 5: Gestalten
Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 4: 350,000 years before Bach
Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 3: Base grids of a suppressed Homo erectus knowledge system
Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 2: Censoring the world's oldest human language
Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben series, Part 1: Proof of straight edge use by Homo erectus

Return to The graphics of Bilzingsleben - full-text html with figures

Recent external mathematics publications:

Feliks, J. 2012. Five constants from an Acheulian compound line. Aplimat - Journal of Applied Mathematics 5 (1): 69-74.

Feliks, J. 2011. The golden flute of Geissenklosterle: Mathematical evidence for a continuity of human intelligence as opposed to evolutionary change through time. Aplimat - Journal of Applied Mathematics 4 (4): 157-62.

Return to Reviving the Calico of Louis Leakey, part 2
Return to Reviving the Calico of Louis Leakey, part 1
Return to A prehistory of hiking - Neanderthal storytelling
Return to The golden flute of Geissenklosterle
Return to 12 Angry Men, starring Henry Fonda: A superb classic film for teaching critical thinking attitude and skills
Return to Four arguments for the elimination of television, Jerry Mander

Return to Ardi: How to create a science myth
Return to The straight line route: A different perspective on trekking from Central Asia to the U.S. Southwest

Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, Part 1: Basic propaganda techniques in college textbooks
Return to
Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 2: Fictions taught as fact in college textbooks, 1st half
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 3: Fictions taught as fact in college textbooks, 2nd half
Return to
Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 4: Evolutionists are not qualified to assess 'any' evidence
Return to
Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 5: Mandatory U.S.-legislated indoctrination now in place, 1st target, captive-audience children in K-12 science classrooms
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 6: The inconvenient facts of living fossils: Brachiopoda
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 7: The inconvenient facts of living fossils: Mollusca
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 8: The inconvenient facts of living fossils: Porifera and Cnidaria
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 9: The inconvenient facts of living fossils: Echinodermata
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 10: The inconvenient facts of living fossils: Bryozoa
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 11: The inconvenient facts of living fossils: Arthropoda
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 12: The inconvenient facts of living fossils: Trace fossils & graptolites [PDF]
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 13: The inconvenient facts of living fossils: Plants [PDF]
Return to Debunking evolutionary propaganda, part 14: The inconvenient facts of living fossils: Fishes and invertebrates [PDF]



Pleistocene Coalition News
is produced by the Pleistocene Coalition
bi-monthly since October 2009.


Contact the author of this article: feliks (at) umich.edu