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.
“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
A: Because it challenges evolutionary thinking.
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
Language 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. 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
opinion, the [Bilzingsleben] marks should not be thought of as anything
more than ‘self-sufficient,’ to use a term I once applied to some
- 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. Still, 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.
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
“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
report mentioned in Part 1, but in the subsequent 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. 9. Conference slide #24. Observation 6: The motifs are mirror images. Artifacts 1 & 3.
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.
REFERENCESMania, D. and U. Mania. 1988. Deliberate engravings on bone artifacts of Homo erectus. Rock Art Research 5: 91-107.
John Feliks is founder of the Pleistocene Coalition. He has specialized in the study of early human cognition for nearly 20 years.