1.) 'Straight edge theory.' The engraved bone artifacts of Bilzingsleben have long been known to feature straight lines. Until the proofs offered in Musings on the Palaeolithic Fan Motif, however, no one had considered the possibility that these lines might have been created with a straight edge. This is because of the long-time working assumption in anthropology that the engravers, Homo erectus, were essentially ape-men unable even to speak, let alone use a straight edge. The proofs for straight edge use (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 above, and Figs. 4 & 5 just above to the right) are unambiguous and are characterized by perfectly-referenced and perfectly-straight radial lines.

        The figures for Straight edge theory were deliberately set up so that the reader could instantly test the radial lines for themselves right on the printed page, thus bypassing the need to be either convinced or unconvinced by any scholarly argument or argument from authority. Prior to these studies, all writers in anthropology - without exception - have referred to the lines on Bilzingsleben Artifact 2, for instance, as "parallel" lines. The straight edge test shows that the lines are, in fact, "radial" lines referenced to a point well away from the artifact itself (Fig. 2 above).

        The straight edge engravings from Bilzingsleben are securely dated 320,000-412,000 years old and show that just because an engraved line is ancient we can no longer simply assume that it was necessarily done freehand. Resistance to straight edge theory, especially in this year of Darwin, is due in large part to the fact that use of a straight edge is proof of unambiguously sophisticated behavior. In and of itself, and without need of any other evidence except its already-established association with the remains of Homo erectus, use of a straight edge demonstrates completely modern intelligence 400,000 years ago. In other words, straight edge theory demonstrates that there has been no change whatsoever in human cognitive ability for at least 400,000 years.

        The final proofs of straight edge use in these artifacts were presented at the XVth UISPP Congress in Lisbon, September 7, 2006 during the Pleistocene Palaeoart of the World session in a program called The Graphics of Bilzingsleben. Censorship of these uncontested final proofs began within one week of the Congress. The data, which has been studied by scientists in every field (archaeology, psychology, neuroscience, linguistics), as well as by engineers in Europe, the United States, and Australia, has been held back from the public for two and a half years while those who have had privileged access to the data have been quickly altering their publication course both online and in print without citing Musings on the Palaeolithic fan motif or its follow-up, The Graphics of Bilzingsleben.


2.) 'The earliest motif duplicated on two separate artifacts.' This is the first unambiguous geometric and linguistic proof of early language (Fig. 3 above). Duplicated motifs (such as written or spoken words) are the hallmark of language. Prior to recognizing these two motifs as either duplicates or variations of each other, most proponents of early language used unrelated references to "infer" language in early peoples, e.g., "If they could get from here to there then they must have had language," or "If they had the right vocal tract or the right genetic traits, they probably had a simple language." The association between these two motifs and similar associations between other motifs at Bilzingsleben were fully demonstrated with final and unambiguous proofs in the censored data presented in The Graphics of Bilzingsleben.


3.) 'Representation of angles theory.' Angles represented in the bone engravings from Bilzingsleben are shown to revolve around those angles most commonly observed by everyone both past and present, namely, those of the outstretched human hand (Fig. 6 at right). The point is made that the engravings do not necessarily represent the human hand per se but rather an awareness of the abstract concept of angles. The case is made that signs of abstraction in the early archaeological record may say more about the intellectual capabilities of early people than the more quickly-understood forms of iconic representation.