SIDE COLUMN

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

A: Because it challenges evolutionary thinking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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