THE GRAPHICS OF BILZINGSLEBEN:

SOPHISTICATION AND SUBTLETY IN THE

MIND OF
HOMO ERECTUS
John Feliks
U.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 UISPP
Congress, 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 320,000412,000 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 which
to 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 does
not 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 we
apply 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 quite
contrary 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, and
other 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 than
thesis 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 selfcontained, from this point onward, one may go directly to the figures (Figs. 7.17.16, in any order) or read the following explanatory sections.
Overview: PARTS I, II, & III (STRAIGHT EDGE THEORY, THE EARLIEST MOTIF DUPLICATED
ON 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 (W HO WERE THE PEOPLE
OF 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 authors
systematic 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 from
the 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 longpromoted 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 were
just as diverse as we are today and with as many different abilities and
interests.

PART I
STRAIGHT EDGE THEORY: BEGINNING ACCESS TO A
LOWER 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 is
straightforward, confirmable by direct observation, and testable on the page by
anyone. 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 word
or 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 edgeengraved 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 duplicated
angles 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 from
Mania 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 a
highly 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 colorcoded.

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 all
of 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 II
THE EARLIEST MOTIF DUPLICATED ON TWO
SEPARATE 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 two
motifs 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 otherwise
alike, 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 that
the nature of the Bilzingsleben graphics seems more in alignment with the
intellectual environment of larger societies where, for instance, straight
edge use is common than what would be expected in a more survivaloriented 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 those
found 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 are
compared 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 scallop
shell, 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 III
350,000 YEARS BEFORE BACH: PITCH, RHYTHM, AND SYNTAX IN
HOMO 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 of
musical 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 observation
that 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 equivalents
in 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 this
paper to detail the geometric equivalents of each of these techniques, suffice it
to 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 portrait
of 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 over
100 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 no
less 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. In
the 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-wholewhole-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-halfwhole, 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 the
second 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 mood
may 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 different
mediums, 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 studying
the 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 key
and 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 fractals
is 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 IV
TOWARD 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 point
and 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 ERECTUS
Page 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 composite
line 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 complex
graphics 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 this
and without the aid of a supportive culture bank to inform them, even the most
intelligent 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 different
story. 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 been
specially 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 artifact
whether 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 the
Fugue (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 a
trapezoid. (c) The earliest completely abstract and measurable two-dimensional shape. (d)
Excerpt from symmetric asymmetry studies. This one shows fractal extensions from the Artifact
2 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 works
of 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 of
as 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 V
WHO WERE THE PEOPLE OF BILZINGSLEBEN? WHAT FIRE USE AND
OTHER TRAITS SAY
ABOUT 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 during
the 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 Terra
Amata 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 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 complex
graphics 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 this
and without the aid of a supportive culture bank to inform them, even the most
intelligent 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 different
story. 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 been
specially 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 of
the 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 with
the 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 in
the 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 VI
TWO SKETCHES FROM BILZINGSLEBEN: WHEN A MAP IS
A 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, I
suggest 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 supposedly
rudimentary 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, subdominant, 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 twodimensional 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 Mania
over the past 20 years are accurate representations of the site, and if Artifact 6
is 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 twodimensional 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 interpretation
of 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, it
suggests 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 small
an 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 base
level 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 latter
idea, 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 up
for 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/or
contributions 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, and
others who have offered support and inspiration; but I especially wish to thank
the 11 sponsors who made my presentations at the XVth UISPP Congress
possible.
About the author
John Feliks is an anthropology theorist specializing in the study of early human
cognition. His approach is based on a long-time background in the arts and
techniques of geometry and design. His recent work involves understanding
the linguistic and mathematical capabilities of Homo erectus through empirical
geometric 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 the
ultimate 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 for
a 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 midPleistocene 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 Pleistocene
Coalition 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 in
the 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 familiar
with 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 CoChair/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 the
original 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 a
requested presenter, should have to deal with such misconduct in the science community. By
this time the author's only recourse for the sake of sponsors and public record was to produce a
webpage, The Graphics of Bilzingsleben, posting original responses to the paper and beginning
to tell the story of misconduct in anthropology so that sponsors and other readers could see
that the papers were indeed presented and to what response.
To demonstrate how the misconduct affects both researchers and those who trust the process
of science, in the politics of the XV UISPP Congress the paper quickly went from being called
"absolutely outstanding and stunning...breathtaking...a landmark contribution," as spoken by
the Session Chair, to the same Chair stating in a cc message to international colleagues that
the author had been told all along that the paper had, "no scientific merit." If one cannot
reconcile these two one knows something of what the five-year battle for publication was like.
Similar to the other Chair's uncredited use of the Part 2 materials (Phi in the Acheulian), within
two months of the presentation, the Chair published a quick paper making extraordinary overthe-top claims for bone engravings discovered 10 kilometers from Bilzingsleben. Again, this
was done with all submitted Graphics of Bilzingsleben materials in hand and without any
citation to explain where the sudden bolstered claim and confidence in Neanderthal
representational drawing came from. This fact is notable for the reason that the Chair was a
prior long-published detractor of representation in Neanderthal or Homo erectus engravings.
The artifacts had been mentioned before, but this time, fresh from the UISPP Congress and the
proofs presented in the Graphics of Bilzingsleben, the makers of the artifacts suddenly went
from being barely conscious ape-men to artistic genuises without attributing a single word on
where the sudden change of interpretation had come from. It was also done without showing
any geometric or technical reasoning for the claims which were made.
Afterwards, the agendas of the Session Chair/Editors extended next to the XV UISPP General
Editor, as well as to the Journal of Human Evolution and an anonymous censorship board
ultimately resulting in the paper's five-year publication block. The author (a requested
presenter) was treated as a troublemaker by the General Editor (an associate of the Chair) with
The Graphics of Bilzingsleben being called a "polemic."
The story as presented above was an impetus behind formation of the Pleistocene Coalition in
2009 joining forces with many other researchers, PhDs and professors of similar experience, to
fight against suppression and censorship in anthropology. Similar blockades involve
organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and
the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and many other organizations which are
outspoken promoters of the evolutionary paradigm. Evidence that conflicts with this paradigm
or evidence such as in The Graphics of Bilzingsleben which actually falsifies the paradigm is
blocked from the public. The result is a public which, through trusting well-known institutions
without looking into the evidence for themselves, winds up being easily misled regarding
Paleolithic peoples. The subject of understanding Paleolithic peoples is absolutely critical in
modern times because proclemations from the science community have great control over
what individual persons as well as ethnic groups or nations believe about their identity. This has
direct repurcussions on the rest of modern human culture. Science institutions and science
leaders need to be held accountable for falsifying the reality of what evidence of early peoples
is actually out there allowing the public to see evidence from all sides whether or not it conflicts
with the agendas of powerful institutions or ethnic groups. "Normal sciences" do not mislead
the public through suppression of evidence. This is a trait of evolutionary anthropology,
evolutionary psychology, and evolutionary biology. It is not difficult to see what these three
have in common. So, The Graphics of Bilzingsleben was censored for two different reasons, 1.)
the personal agendas of competitive researchers, and 2.) the powerful and censorshipdependent agenda of evolutionary sciences for which the paper offers no support whatsoever
but challenges them at their very core.

Absolutely outstanding and stunning. You have single-handedly demonstrated that the cognition
and intellect of these hominins may have been of an order entirely unexpected by all of us ...
breathtaking ... a landmark contribution.
- Robert G. Bednarik, session chair, Pleistocene Palaeoart of the World, 2006.
Archaeologists will try every trick in the book to reject your interpretation of the engravings. It
is entirely unacceptable to them that they were completely wrong about the cognitive abilities of
these people you do have science on your side... a proposition that is utterly falsifiable. Everyone
can repeat your experiment, and the engravings are fixed in time and space. If your calculations
are correct the archaeologists will be stumped.
- Renowned international authority, 2007, approximately 5 months after Graphics & Phi were presented
I have consulted various people there is complete agreement that your innovative evaluation
of the Bilzingsleben engravings is utterly brilliant.
- Collective conclusion of many scholars with backgrounds in linguistics, neuroscience, psychology, archaeology,
and engineering, 2007. Scholars had copy of 8-page thumbnails handout with all 112 slides.
Brilliant insights of a kind more conventional researchers would not dream of.
- Neuroscience author attending The Graphics of Bilzingsleben in 2006, quote arrived early 2007
Brilliant insights that scientists are often barred from, through the nature of their method.
- Quote of the same neuroscience author as above arriving a mere two days later, early 2007
I find the data you presented in Lisbon of outstanding importance and believe that they must be
published prominently.
- Renowned international authority, engineer, early 2007
[Your Bilzingsleben work] goes way beyondtheory of phosphene/entoptic/doodles and way beyond
any prior interpretation of the savage mind of Homo erectus.
- International authority on Paleolithic art 17 months after presentation
Totally brilliant analysis.
- Same authority as prior quote after looking over the materials more thoroughly
This is very exciting! I think the only thing you might have to fight is the erectusheidelbergensis issue; but in comparison to what you have demonstrated here, that is not
important at all.
- Physical anthropology expert and author attending The Graphics of Bilzingsleben , paraphrase of direct
comment.
An absolutely thrilling presentation.
- Antiquity author attending The Graphics of Bilzingsleben presentation. This was the first response immediately
after the presentation and encapsulated the mood of the entire audience.