Subconscious archetype structuralist anthropology model

Blueprint, the subconscious structure in cultural media

Abstract. Culture is rooted more deeply than analogy, symbolism, experience, or any conscious impulse. The archetypal structuralist model of an axial grid of typology, raises individual and social subconscious behaviour to conscious appreciation; and challenges the paradigm of cumulative conscious constructs. The core content of culture is a set of specific recurrent features, hard-wired into nature and subconscious behaviour; measurable and predictive in artworks, built sites and alphabets worldwide; and testable against about 100 details of an inter-dependent structure of five layers. The archetypal model includes twelve to sixteen character types (each with specific optional features, at specific average frequencies); their sequence; an axial grid between the eyes or focal points of specific pairs of opposites; five central area limb-joints or junctures; and the seasonal time-frame of the artist’s culture. Structuralist anthropology is a viable science, despite its recent detour into animism and perspectivism. Structuralism offers social perspective and therapy to the current age of global migration, population, socio-economic and environmental shock, perceived as ‘culture’ shock.

KEYWORDS: archetype, art, axial grid, built sites, expression, structuralist anthropology, subconscious.

By Edmond Furter. Independent structuralist anthropologist, author of Mindprint (2014) and of Stoneprint (2016).

  1. Introduction

Anthropologists and their informants seemed to share the paradigm of culture as a cumulative, conscious system or construct. Terence Turner (2009) cited ‘ethnographic evidence for significant, fundamental features of conceptual construction, and meaning of specific categories and propositions, that differentiate Amazonian societies [from one another], and from Modernist ideas.” In this paradigm, no idealist model could account for variations among cultural systems. But some myths indicate an archetypal paradigm, and several media express universal structure. Primordial animals and ancestors hold prototype objects, “self-existing, self-objectifying things and behaviours, found, appropriated, never made. People copied these.” (Turner 2009). Post-structuralism sought a midway to escape the impasse of nature v culture dualism: “Humans produce, or regulate in culturally standardized ways, internal bodily processes of transformation, that give rise to aspects of social personhood. Such products, either artefacts or conceptual knowledge, cannot be simple, internally homogeneous classes, or in a semiotic order of signification, or ethno-scientific taxonomy; but complex schemas of heterogeneous elements and levels of features, comprising transformational steps in a process of mediating relatively natural to cultural forms.” (Turner 2009). The present study demonstrates the complex schema (Furter 2014), but it is clearly innate and natural. The central question of What is human, now finds and answer in structuralist anthropology: We replicate natural structure and meaning, but appropriate it as ‘products’ of our faculties.

1.2. Structuralist failures

Structuralist anthropology had failed to demonstrate specific invariable principles, processes or patterns in cultural behaviour or artefacts; beyond ritualisation of obvious natural structures such as kinship. The field had found only apparently arbitrary details in myths, cosmologies and other crafts; and failed to isolate any comprehensive abstract structure. The ideal of formulating behaviour, as in economics, linguistics, semiotics and psychology, may seem to reduce culture to innate perception of natural categories and meaning; yet formulas grant access to subconscious social processes; reveal our place in nature, and thus answer the central question of human sciences, as Turner (2009) noted. But Claude Levi-Strauss was “the last major anthropologist to focus on that question”. Turner noted fundamental flaws in raising any cultural duality, such as nature v culture, to the level of a paradigm; and applying a rigorous model to apparently ‘fluid’ data. But several ‘splinters’ in cultural functions remained ‘beams’ in scientific paradigms. Viveiros de Castro (1998) had identified “implicit philosophy in interpretation” as requiring a ‘bomb’ to breach. Animists and Perspectivists magnified the dualist flaw into multi-culturalism, reducing nature to culture, thus repeating the Aristotelian error of allowing logic to override observation. Human sciences struggled to find the ghost in behaviour, despite the success of structuralism in natural sciences.

1.2.1 Society disrupted science

Anthropology is “an effort to understand human nature through systematic study of qualities in us, that vary in time and place, and those that don’t…” noted Peter Wood (2015). But Wood immediately recognised the dominant evolutionary and diffusionist paradigm; “…and how we emerged as a species, diversified into thousands of languages, tribes, and civilizations.” Despite “steadfast determination to stand outside the myths people tell themselves, to see things as they really are,” social anthropology had “learned the trick of promoting new myths in the name of de-mythologizing.” This failure of anthropology applied to all human sciences; inability to rise above socio-political agendas, such as rationalisations of colonialism, egalitarianism, social guilt, nostalgia, ideologies, and vague institutional agendas such as ‘curation’ and ‘education’. All the conscious and subconscious uses and abuses of culture remain scientific baggage. Anthropology remained partly untested popular philosophy, an extension of cultural crafts, as in divinity or art history training.

Structuralism, also named Ecological or Symbolic, was also distracted by social anthropology applications, labelled Political Economy, Ideology, or Cultural Construction of self v other; including some simplistic data, pragmatic interpretations and populism (Endicott et al 2005). Science had never studied cultural crafts sufficiently to inform practitioners or users at a paradigmatic level, despite the example of the successes of popular psychology. Culture consumes anthropology on its own terms; as critique of Modern Western thought and society, or as the supposed voice of ‘pure, primitive’ cultures.

1.3 Structuralist successes

Structuralist anthropology did influence human sciences and technologies, but under other labels, such as animism. A minor structuralist revival in the 2000s applied behavioural algorithms to data collection and interpretation, prompted by computer automation. One journal editor had declined a draft of this paper because the author was “the only structuralist anthropologist left”. But Turner (2009) had demonstrated transformed structuralism in supposedly post-structuralist and deconstructionist models. Levi-Strauss’ (1955) “Mathematics of man” had added impetus to cybernetics, information technology, machine interface, and artificial intelligence (AI), now one of the main fields of science and technology. His search for the machine in the ghost of culture was partly product of, and partly a prod to automation. Reconstructions of geared layers of the Antikythera device from a BC shipwreck, and Chinese clock towers, are reminders that our innate impulse to automate nature into logic, is timeless. George Boole (1854) had abstracted some behaviours into mathematical formulae using binary quantities, 1 and 0, as functions of And, Or, or Not. His book, Laws of thought, inspired programmers a century later. Structuralism may resemble a time-bomb, but it is alive in all sciences and crafts. Godel in Vienna, competing with Russel in England, found that logic applied to sets; could be consistent or complete; but not both. This paper describes five layers of structure, each consistent with itself (isolated from 700 examples), each with sets of optional features. In WWII, Alan Turing came across an Italian engineer’s description of a lecture on the failed Difference Engine of mathematician Charles Babbage, interpolated by Babbage’s student, Ada Lovelave, estranged daughter of Lord Byron. Ada was inspired by the Spinning Jenny and Jacquard’s punch-card looms, to propose extending automation beyond numbers. Babbage soon designed the Analytical Engine, but lost parliamentary funding. Turing mechanised letter code permutations in an electro-mechanical Universal Machine, nicknamed ‘The Bomb’ for Allied intelligence at Bletchley Park, to crack German Enigma codes. His colleagues built the Colossus machine on Boolean logic, to crack German Loren codes. A year after WWII, a science fiction magazine story imagined a world-wide web. Turing had noted in his book in 1950 that it was impossible to predict which problems a computer could solve; and that some logical solutions would remain improvable. He also predicted artificial intelligence, provided that rules of behaviour could be isolated. This idea was controversial, and is likely to remain so even after the discovery of subconscious behaviour (Furter 2014, 2016). Bletchley Park work was classified until the 1970s, but soon influenced some civil applications. Binary code, Nasa’s moon missions, magnetic tape, Xerox windows, Steve Wozniac’s Apple, and circuit miniaturisation all required user-friendly interfaces. Hard sciences technologised natural structure despite lacking theories, or ‘Shut up and calculate’ in the post-war tech axiom. The web was realised sixty years after the war, when Vint Cerf’s integration of defence and civil security agency radio and electronic networks escaped via academia into the corporate world in about 2000. Within a decade it was the largest and potentially most integrative and democratic artefact ever made.

Big budget science and tech banks on unravelling natural structure, as in the Large Hadron Collider, and in serving innate behaviour with animist applications such as ‘social media’. Structuralist anthropology seemed political, un-falsifiable, and incapable of breaking cultural or natural codes, but practitioners had misunderstood and abandoned it.

1.3.1 Synthesis requires structure

Turner (2009) proposed that natural-cultural structure resided in transformations, such as maturity cycles. Ironically, this development itself signified a phase in scientific maturity. Physical sciences co-operate to infer invisible structures in nature, such as bio-chemistry and physics; enabling applications in social crafts, such as health care and environmental management. Human sciences have access to massive data from the cultural record, including Google algorithms, but lag behind in theory, interpretation and applications, despite several efforts at synthesis, as by Talcott Parsons (Hays 1958). The humanities shy away from studying some core content of cultural behaviour, such as spiritual crafts, in any universal or comprehensive context. Education and training serve cultural crafts mainly by perpetuating media praxis, such as art, divinity and literature; in local, temporal, and political contexts. The net result of specialisation and occupational praxis is a post-modernist lack of context, and an unexamined general scientific paradigm.

Cultural qualities tend to relate to categories of natural, social and economic values (as Max Weber had recognised); such as species, elements, organs, functions and tools. Even apparently simplistic features such as ‘bag, weapon, or mixing’, have inherent meanings and abstractions that enable ‘grammar’ in perception, thus inviting structuralist study of perception, within consciousness levels, human nature, physical nature, and ultimately principles of matter and energy. Thus culture may offer as much access to immutable laws, or archetype as a self-calibrating standard, unaffected by place and time; as nature does. Jung and Jaffe (1965) had noted: “Again and again I encounter the mistaken notion that an archetype is determined [by cultural influences or experience] in regard to its content… It is necessary to point out once more that archetypes are… determined only as regards their form, and then only to a very limited degree.” This study indicates that even ‘forms’ (such as major gods, in Jung’s example), are global, thus natural, and not ‘culturally determined’ either. Even average numbers of selections of optional character features are global (see frequencies in Table I and the graphs).

Some archetypal themes are conventionalised (such as the creative vortex or churn, in the Hindu and rock art examples below; or healing trance rituals in San, Siberian, and other polities). Typology now emerges as the once elusive recurrent “motifs in the jet-stream of time.” (De Santillana 1969). Demonstrations of recurrent behaviour (see Data sources below) now confirm that we have individual and collective compulsions to re-express the innate canon, algorithm, blueprint, or ‘grammar’ in all our media; as affirmation and therapy in the broadest sense of the term. Demonstration of inherent commonalities, and superficial differences, offers conscious context to subconscious behaviour that may be valuable in the era of dynamic global migration and supposed ‘culture’ shock. We are now more diverse than even the Sumerian, Indus, Persian, Hellenic, Roman or Colonial empires.

The archetypal model challenges paradigmatic assumptions about supposedly ‘liberal’ arts and culture as artefacts of ‘development’. The subconscious expression model is highly testable. Universality of language and architecture validates testing of features of grammar or architecture; but invalidates the nurture model. Innate language capacity does require some transfusion, thus language is a multi-generational artefact. Likewise, transfusion could not sustain any cultural media without innate, natural, structuralist features in perception, ecological context, and in meaning itself (Furter 2017a). Any application of generic culture imposes its own layer of arbitrary elements or styling, for polity bonding, appropriation and exploitation. The thin layer of arbitrary features may likewise be subject to rigorous rules, a subject for further study. The present study offers a model to isolate, study, predict and automate the blueprint of subconscious and social behaviour.

1.3.2 Structuralist formulae and paradigms

James B Harrod (2018) demonstrates that an algebraic group-theory formula of Andre Weil was the format for Levi-Strauss’ kinship model, also applied to some aspects of ritual, artistic design, built site layout, and agriculture field layout. Levi-Strauss had formulated aspects of myth into aggregates, to extract various Functions (Fx, Fy), acting on Terms (a, b), relative to ( : ) other, swopped or substituted Functions and Terms; thus Fx(a):Fy(b) ~ Fx(b):Fa–1(y). ‘Deep structure’ as used by Levi-Strauss and Chomsky fell out of academic fashion, but the formula was revived and automated to reveal recurrent motifs in cultural and scientific texts. Harrod had earlier (1975) revised the Weil-Levi-Strauss formula to quantify myth as an unfolding process, instead of a structuralist analogy. Instead of Straussian opposites such as ‘a v a–1’ in an equation of ratios, Harrod proposed a set of transformations (>), demonstrated in qualities of self-awareness, in ‘animist’ mode. His Revised Canonical Formula (rCF) uses equations that are “asymmetric, non-linear, non-reversible, inverse by transformation”. He proposes “networks of semantic complementary binary opposites in cultural-value space”. He found “no universal application in the evolution and history of culture forms”, and concludes that culture and cognition ‘evolves in stages’, after the individual maturity model of conscious cognition. Yet he explained “creative imagination” as “not derived logically, [but] constrained or channelled by the formula.” The difference between ‘constraint’ and archetype could be a flimsy semantic veil, obscuring the large and testable semiotic structure in nature and culture (Furter 2017a).

  1. Blueprint in cultural media

The present study confirms that pairs of spatial opposites play some roles in archetypal expression, but challenges Harrod’s conclusions by expanding evidence of global application of a more concrete, less abstract, and more layered formula, with limited content.

2.1 Data sources

Data for Table I and the graphs, are from 265 artefacts, including 170 artworks and rock art works (Furter 2014); 45 built sites (Furter 2016); and 50 seals, including 25 ancient and 25 classical seals (Furter 2018c); all from a wide range of cultures and eras. A further 500 artworks (400 listed in Furter 2014) and 55 built sites confirm the five inter-dependent layers of structure. It is near impossible to find any artwork, built site, or cultural set with eleven or more characters, that does not express the standard structure, or doubled adjacent structure in cultural works with about 22 to 38 characters. Even semi-geometric shapes are kinds of characters (Furter 2015b).

2.1.1 The archetypal structuralist model

The five subconscious layers of expression are: (a) typological characters with specific optional features; (b) peripheral sequence, clockwise or anti-clockwise; (c) axial grid between eyes or focal points of pairs of opposites; (d) three pairs of polar junctures, implying three planes; (e) orientation of one polar pair vertical or horizontal to the ground-line or a cardinal direction, often indicating the seasonal time-frame of the artist’s culture.

Figure 1. Axial grid of the sixteen types (numbered 1 to 15, but repeating 5), and four transitional types (c-numbers), as they appear in artworks and building sites. Orientation, angles and radii differ in each work. Each character expresses some, never all of the cluster of features of its type.

Types could be labelled after any popular set. Generic labels, such as social functions used here, avoid the false impression of diffusion from any particular medium or culture. Zodiac seasons and decanal hour myth labels were used initially, requiring repeated clarification that they do not arise from conscious invention or diffusion. Correspondence theories are often misled by archetypal recurrent features, or by citation of parallel expressions among media and cultures; into assuming diffusion, and ignoring innate nature.

Numbering of the transitional c-types change in this paper, from 3c 6c 10c 14c in previous publications, to 2c 5c 9c 13c, for easier use of alphanumeric Sort functions in data. Their positions remain the same.

Recurrent behaviour subconsciously and rigorously follows several quirky rules. Type characters always have their eyes (except a womb at 11, and a heart at 12/13; or interior focal points in built sites), on the axial grid formed by pairs. Spatial elements in culture resemble cosmology, but both express archetype, and do not derive from one another. Cultural artefacts express two ‘galactic’ poles (4p, 11p); two galactic crossings (7g, 15g); an annual or Ecliptic Pole at the axial centre; and two ‘celestial’ poles (Cp and Csp) or midsummer and midwinter. Poles are not expressed by eyes, but limb joints (junctures in built sites). Four types could be double, as in Figure 1 (1v8 and 2v9; 5a v12 and 5b v13), or single (only 2v9 and 5v13); thus the total is usually sixteen or twelve. Some other pairs are doubled in complex artworks or built sites.

A shift in the position of two or three eyes could erase the sequence and the structure, but almost never does so. Axial grids are not inherent in any collection of about eleven to twenty items. Morley’s miracle (1899) applies only to the equilateral shape of an inner triangle, formed by the intersections of lines that trisect the corners of any irregular triangle into three equal parts. In axial grids, angles are irregularly unequal. Napoleon’s theorem applies only to some predictable properties of equilateral triangles, based on the edges of a triangle. Axial grids are not based on lines of equal length.

Table I. The minimal twelve type characters in any artwork, built site or craft set.

Label; known archetypal features with known global average frequencies:

1 /2 Builder; twist 44%, cluster 23%, bovid 19%, bird 19%, tower 18%, build 14%, sack 10%, hero 10%, book 8%, rain,

2c Basket; weave 25%, container20% instrument 20%, shoulder-hump 20%, hat 15%, snake 10%, throne 10%,

3 Queen; neck-bend 31%, dragon 19%, sacrifice 17%, queen 13%, school 12%, spring 10%, fish 6%, ovid 5%,

4 King; squat 30%, rectangle 28%, king  22%, twins 13%, sun 12%, bird 10%, fish 8%, furnace 8%, field 5%,

5a/5b Priest; varicoloured 37%, priest 34%, hyperactive 33%, tailcoat-head 32%, assembly 30%, horizontal 28%, water 24%, heart 24%, large 24%, bovid 20%, winged 14%, invert 12%, reptile 10%, sash 8%, equid, ascend,

5c Basket-Tail; weave 16%, tail 14%, U-shape 10%, contain 8%, herb 4%, oracle, spirit (ka), spheres,

6 Exile; in/out 58%, horned 44%, sacrifice 30%, small 14%, U-shape 13%, double-head 12%, caprid 8%,

7 Child; rope 24%, juvenile 24%, bag 22%, unfold 13%, beheaded 10%, chariot 8%, mace 6%, off-grid,

7g Galactic-Centre; limb- joint 38%; juncture 34% (throne, altar, spiral, tree, staff); path/gate 18%; water 16%,

8/9 Healer; bent 28%, strong 28%, pillar 28%, heal 22%, disc 14%, metal 8%, ritual 6%, canid 4%,

9c Basket-Lid; disc/hat/lid 27%, instrument 25%, reveal 16%, hump 15%, weave 8%,

10 Teacher; W-shape 44%, staff 36%, hunt master 24%, guard 20%, metal 14%, market 14%, disc 12%, council 11%, snake 8%, ecology 8%, school 6%, wheel 5%,

11 Womb; womb 88%, wheat 15%, water 14%, tomb 11%, interior 8%, library 8%, law 5%, felid 5%,

12/13 Heart; heart 83%, felid 42%, death 34%, rounded 21%, invert 14%, weapon 11%, war 9%, water-work 8%,

13c Basket-Head; oracle 14%, head 14%, weave 8%, ship,

14 Mixer; in/out 43%, time 28%, tree 20%, angel 15%, bird 11%, antelope 10%, dancer 8%, felid 8%, reptile 4%,

15 Maker; churn 44%, rope 28%, order 27%, rampant 26%, bag 20%, mace 16%, doubled 16%, face 12%, canid 12%, sceptre 11%, smite 8%, reptile 8%, winged 8%,

15g Galactic Gate; junct 30% (river 10%); limb-joint 12%.

Polar features (see the triangles in the centre of Figure 1) also follow universal average frequencies. The axial centre is usually unmarked at about 60%, or on a limb-joint or juncture, expressing both ends of a polar axle, and thus the projection angle.

4p Gal.S.Pole; mark 82%; limb-joint 67%; juncture 17% (spout 12%, stream, speech),

11p Gal. Pole; mark 88%; limb joint 64% (hand 12%, elbow 10%, foot 12%, etc); juncture 24% (door 12%, corner, etc),

Midsummer (cp); Limb-joint 54%, or juncture 24%.

Midwinter (csp); Limb-joint 46%, or juncture 24%.

One of the polar axles is on the horizontal plane 50%, or vertical plane 12% (or on a meridian or latitude on a built site). Polar markers usually place midsummer on or near type 12, 13, 14 or 15 (see Figure 1), implying spring and the cultural time-frame 90 degrees earlier (in seasonal terms), as Age Taurus1, Taurus2, Aries3 or Pisces4. Some recent works are framed in Age Aquarius5a, which started in 2016 (Furter 2014). The type hosting spring, 1, 2, 3 or 4, is often prominent. The general theme of a work is indicated by features shared among three or more characters. Works express about 60% of the optional, measurable, recurrent features.

Categories of the identified features are apparently inconsistent with conscious logic, indicating subconscious access to archetypal logic. Rigorous average frequencies, and consistency through millennia, also rule out learning, nurture or conscious revisions. The full repertoire appears in the oldest examples, about BC 26 000 (Furter 2014), ruling out accumulation of idiosyncratic ‘ideas’, and of localised cultural ‘frameworks’, as some cognitive archaeologists suggest for San art of the last millennium (Lewis-Williams and Pierce 2012).

2.2 Structuralist labelling


1Builder 2Builder 2cBasket 3Queen 4King 4p
8Healer 9Healer 9cLid 10Teacher 11Womb 11p


5aPriest 5bPriest 5cTail 6Exile 7Child 7g
12Heart 13Heart 13cHead 14Mixer 15Maker 15g


cp csp ? ? ?

Table II. Labels for marking typological features in cultural artefacts.

Labels are used in pairs of spatial opposites, here given above-below one another. Some pairs may remain unused; often the transitional c-types, or two of the four doubled types (1v8, 5a v12) may remain unexpressed in a work. Characters with eyes off the grid, without a limb-joint on a polar point are labelled ?. Numbering follows the horary (hours) sequence, also used in divination and emblems such as the Tarot trumps (Furter 2014), validated against atomic (proton) numbers in the periodic table (Furter 2016). Pairs of opposites are seven or eight numbers apart: 1v8, 2v9, 3v10, 4v11, 5a v12, 5b v13, 6v14, 7v15. Magnitudes are fifteen or sixteen numbers apart: 1:16, 2:17, 2c:17c, 3:18, 4:19, 5a:20, 5b:21, up to about 64, expressing base15 and base16, confirmed by chemical groups, and transition elements analogous to the four c-types. Proposed type numbers are probably archetypal.

2.2.1 Frequency graphs

Figure 2. Line graph of average frequencies (in percentages) of the seven most common features (see Table I) of each of the minimal twelve subconscious types and four border types (marked by thick vertical bars) in artworks and built sites.

The line graph could be traced in axial format (see the version of this paper on, with direct spatial analogy to how artists use canvases, and how communities use built sites.

Adjacent combined or split types 1 /2, 5a/5b, 8/9 and 12/13, express the same features at nearly the same frequencies, thus they are combined in data, causing minor peaks in the graphs. These four may be differentiated into eight types in future. Frequencies peak around type 11p, with a secondary peak around type 4p opposite. Four of the highest frequency features have spatial elements (here marked by dotted lines), in addition to their sequence position: type 11 has her axis on her womb; type 12/13 has his axis on his heart; types 6 and 14 are notably ingressed to, or egressed from the centre of the artwork. Frequency ranks indicate some interplay between the typological or ‘ecliptic’ plane, and the frequency or ‘galactic’ plane. The time-frame or ‘celestial’ plane seems to affect only seasonal features.

3. Structured art ‘design’

Figure 3. Example of archetypal structure in religious art (Vishnu churn after the Mahabharata. Tracing after De Santillana 1969. Type labels and axial grid after Furter 2014). Ropes, churn, canines and doubling express the general theme of types 15 and 15g, re-creation and incarnation.

Table III. Typological characters in a Vishnu pillar drawing (noting archetypal features):

1 Builder; Ring instrument of Vishnu (twisted).

2 Builder; Vishnu (twisted), some features of flanking types (NO EYE).

2c Basket; Umbrella (lid), and flower (cluster), and king’s rattle (instrument). C-types are off the grid, in their sectors.

3 Queen; King with four heads (necks, dragon, spring).

4 King; King (king).

5 Priest; Priestess (ritual).

5c Basket-Tail; Snake tail (tail).

6 Exile; Turtle (reptile), at the centre (extreme ingress).

7 Child; Pony, multi-headed (unfolding, decapitated), with saddle (bag).

8 Healer; Puller (strong?) without rope.

9 Healer; Pot? (NO EYE).

9c Basket-Lid; Three pots, closed (lid).

10 Teacher; Lotus goddess (arms up, autumn, balance).

11 Womb; Dog midriff (womb).

13 Heart; Elephant chest (heart).

13c Basket-Head; Ship (ship, container, texture).

14 Mixer; Elephant person with snake heads (mix, energy), far out (egress).

15 Maker; Two (double) dogs (canine) on churn snake (rope). Some functions are at 1 /2.

15g Galactic Gate; Vishnu lower hand (limb-joint).

The axial centre is on the turtle head (perhaps neck in the original artwork; limb-joint?).

11p Galactic Pole; Bow (juncture).

Midsummer (cp); Turtle front upper claw (limb-joint), or on the churn base (juncture).

Midwinter (csp); King’s foot, or knee (limb-joint). These markers imply spring and the cultural time-frame as either Age Taurus2-Aries3 (about BC 1800), probably the perceived era of cultural formation; or Age Pisces4, contemporary with the work. The central top character as a spring marker indicates cosmological Age Taurus2, however most alchemical works express that time-frame.

The main general theme here is type 15 Maker, of ropes, churn, re-creation and canines. This theme appears worldwide. Another general theme in the work is type 10 Teacher; arms-up, staffs, balance.

De Santillana et al (1969) popularised ethnographic archaeo-astronomy in Hamlet’s mill, reading Icelandic and several corresponding cosmic motifs as diffused and degraded ‘astronomy’. They indicated the possibility of innate subconscious impulses, but argued for diffusion. Archaeo-astronomy still reads myth as coded astronomy or proto-science, and does not investigate the role of archetype, and thus nature, in culture, nor in scientific practice.

4 Structured rock art ‘design’

Figure 4. Example of archetypal structure in rock art (Zimbabwe, Matobo range, Nanke Cave. After Parry 2012. Type labels and axial grid after Furter 2014). Ropes and a large churn express the general theme of type 15, re-creation.

Nanke cave in Zimbabwe was part of a set of oracles, on par with Bronze Age and classical Greek, Egyptian and other sites. Roman spiritual centres such as the oracle of the dead at Baia, in the volcanic Bay of Naples near Rome, also had paintings at their entrances; likewise destroyed to re-distribute spiritual authority (Paget 1967. Temple 2003).

Table IV. Type characters in a Nanke Cave painting (noting archetypal features):

1 Builder; Shoulder-head of rope-man churn (twisted), leaning on staffs (trance, of 8 opposite).

2 Builder; Rope-man churn (twisted) (NO EYE).

2c Basket; Shoulder-head rear, ropes (weave). C-types are usually off the grid.

3 Queen; Ostrich (long neck).

4 King; Antelope cow?, with young.

5a Priest; Antelope running (active).

5b Priest; Bowman spanning (active).

5b Priest B; Priest? (ritual?), axis on his chest (heart, of 13 opposite) and three with beams (horizontal).

6 Exile; Antelope (horned). And swimmer (ingress).

7 Child; Swimmer or walker.

7g Galactic Centre; Swimmer, arms up (limb-joints?), staff (of 10). Some apparently interrupted artworks indicate that visual expression spirals out as bags or limbs (named ‘formlings’ in archaeology) from this junction.

8 Healer; Swimmer in churn centre (strong?), at rope-man’s legs (pillars).

9 Healer; Swimmer? (NO EYE).

9c Basket-Lid; Fish pool churn wave (weave, lid).

10 Teacher; Swimmer (arms up?).

11 Womb; Pregnant womb (womb).

12 Heart; Runner?

13 Heart; Lion (felid), axis on chest (heart, confirmed by 15-14-13 flat outline).

14 Mixer; Dancer (dance), arms up, staff (of 10).

15 Maker; Antelope between two ropes (rope).

15g Galactic Gate; Antelope rump (limb joint).

The axial centre is unmarked as usual.

4p Galactic S. Pole; Small bowman’s feet? (limb-joint?).

11p Galactic Pole; Bender’s shoulder (limb-joint).

Midsummer (cp); Churn’s front elbow (limb joint), on axis 14-15, implying spring and the cultural time-frame as Age Aries-Pisces, probably the perceived era of cultural formation. But midwinter (csp) could be on the churn’s hip (limb joint), on the axis 5, implying spring and the cultural time-frame as Age Taurus, typical of alchemical works in all cultures, and supported by the centrality and prominence of types 1 and 2. Structuralist time-frames are approximate.

The main general themes here are type 15 Maker and 15g, ropes, churn, re-creation, and limb joints. This theme also appears in Indian art and myth, as a milky ocean of soma at the former spring equinox. The infinity wimple also expresses totality of responses to external pressures, named ‘panarchical discourse’ in history (Gunderson et al 2009); or ‘phase transit’ in chaos theory 3D graphs. Another general theme in the work is type 10 Teacher; arms-up, staff, hunt master, ecology.

5 Structured campus at Delphi

Figure 5. Example of archetypal structure in Delphic Apollo precinct about BC 400 (plan after Coste-Messelière 1936. Type labels and axial grid by E Furter). General themes here include types 4 King (sun, twins, rectangles, walls, fish, here a dolphin); and 4p (junctures, water); and 5 Priest (ritual, varicoloured, hyperactive, judgement, ascension).

Table V. Typological characters at Delphi Apollo (noting archetypal features):

1 Builder; Krateros column (tower).

1 Builder B; Apollo temple west chamber.

2 Builder; Stadium stairs. Statue of Auriga, Charioteer.

3 Queen; Apollo temple centre, slain dragon (dragon, long neck, sacrifice). Stage apron Hercules frieze of tamed monsters (dragon, sacrifice).

3 Queen B; Archaic building.

2c Basket; Apollo’s interior omphalos stone (monster head) in a net (weave), sunken (2 pool). Statues of Krateros saving Alexander (2 twisted) in lion hunt (3 bent neck).

4 King; Dionysus two identical buildings (twins), brother (twins) of Apollo (king), twin (twins) of Artemis. Apollo Dolphin (fish) inner door, in building of two east-west diagonals (twins).

5a Priest; Apollo’s hut of bay branches, wax, feathers, bronze (varicoloured), two eagles (elemental, cardinal). Apollo as Zeus (priest), eagles crossed (4p juncture) to drop omphalos. Knydian hall (assembly), mural of wooden horse (equid).

5b Priest; Apollo Sitalcas, Grain Guard (of 10), highest at 70ft (large); Daochus, draped (sash), leg flexed (4), a Delphic priest (priest). Entrance pillar of Prusias2 of Bithynia, equestrian (equid). Euremedon palm (6 tree) by Agamemnon’s charioteer (equid). Many features (varied).

5c Basket-Tail; Neoptolemus sanctuary; Syracusian treasury; tripods (oracle) of Gelon and Hiero; Aemilius Paulus pillar for PrusiasII of Bithynia, equestrian (equid); Acanthus plant column (6 tree), three graces under a tripod (oracle. 6 chair) holding a cauldron (container); Sockle stone.

6 Exile; Attalos portico, protruding (egress); Chios altar (sacrifice); Akanthian treasury.

7 Child; Rhodian chariot (chariot); Plataian tri-serpent spiral column (unfolding. 8 snake); under a golden tripod (6 chair).

7g Galactic Centre; Athenian porch. Central gate (gate) to Kastalian spring (water).

8 Healer; Prytanaion, fire altar (flame).

9 Healer; Cyrenean; Corinthian; Athenian stoa (pillars).

9c Basket-Lid; Corcyrian Bull revealed (oracle) a tuna school (ophiotaurus, snake-bull, transition).

10 Teacher; Market gate (market). Statues of Aegospotiamoi; Arcadians; and Philopomen. Spartan Admirals (guard) monument, Lysander crowned (crown).

10 Teacher B; Statues of Spartans, Athenes, Argives, wolf logo (canid); Threshing floor, Halos (11 crops), where Apollo kills a fountain dragon (3 opposite).

11 Womb; Argive King’s crescent (interior). Seven Epigonoi crescent (interior). Both of Argos, ‘Wheat Field’ (crops).

12 Heart; Sikyonian treasury interior (interior), reliefs of war (war), spears (weapons). Cnydian treasury, Triopas, Artemis shooting (weapon) at Tityus.

13 Heart; Siphnian treasury interior (interior), frieze with lions (felid), gods in battle (war) v giants. Cnidian interior (interior).

13c Basket-Head; Sibylline rock (oracle).

14 Mixer; Theban, protruding (egress). Boeotian. Athenian, central (ingress).

15 Maker; Bouleuterion, ‘bread, chew, talk’ (order), of local council (sceptre).

15g Gate; Sanctuary of Ge (15 creation). Asklepius. Two main SW gates, Gymnasium gate (gates).

The axial centre is probably unmarked, as usual.

4p Gal. S. Pole; Dionysus stairs (juncture). Kassotis spring (spout). Site’s long axis (juncture). Alyattes’ silver wine bowl on spiralling iron bands (junctures). Apollo (4 king) pronaos cauldrons.

11p Galactic Pole; Threshing floor (11 crops) south corner (juncture), site’s long axis (juncture). Tarantines’ captive women (11 wombs). The galactic polar axle is on the site’s long axis (juncture).

Midsummer (cp); Had moved from the Sibyl rock north edge, near the north-south cardinal, to the tall Naxian winged sphinx column (junctures).

Midwinter (csp); Had moved from the Apollo temple left corner, to the platform left corner (junctures). These markers placed the site’s subconscious ‘summer’ in 14 and 15, thus ‘spring’ and the cultural time-frame as Age Aries and Age Pisces (from about BC 1500, and from about BC 80); both ahead of the Age of the builders. ‘Predictive’ time-frames are typical of national legacy sites (Nemrut, Turkey, in Furter 2016: 238-241). Oracle sites seem to emphasise express the four transitional types (2c, 5c, 9c, 13c).

Delphic Apollo sanctuary nestles in a larger scale stoneprint in the area (not illustrated here; see note under 5b), wherein it probably expresses type 5 (assembly, varicoloured, ritual, hyperactive); as the Vatican City stoneprint is geared to the Rome stoneprint; as some Izapa stele engraving mindprints (such as the tree of life engraving) are part of a stele cluster stoneprint, which is part of a pyramid cluster stoneprint, which is part of a pyramid field stoneprint; as Teti’s pyramid group nestles in the Sakkara pyramid field stoneprint; as the Gobekli Tepe engravings form part of the houses, which express a larger scale stoneprint on Gobekli hill (Furter 2016, and 2016b; Expression 15).

Practical and conscious motivations are independent of subconscious archetypal structure. For example, Greek buildings were oriented by surveying one diagonal (crosswise, corner to corner) on a cardinal direction (east or north). Ranieri (2014) listed diagonal orientations of 200 Greek temples, including sixteen buildings of the Delphic Apollo sanctuary. The only overlap between regular geometry or celestial orientation, and the subconscious stoneprint, is in one element of the time-frame orientation. In Delphi, the galactic polar axle co-incides with the long axis of the site.

6. Structured city in Brussels

Figure 6. Example of archetypal structure in medieval Brussels (map after Pizzatravel. Type labels and axial grid by E Furter). General themes here include type 10 Teacher, of law enforcement (legislature, capital, and EU administration), balance (diplomacy), ecology and polarity.

Table VI. Typological characters in Medieval Brussels (noting archetypal features):

1 Builder; Congress Square obelisk (tower); and The Unknown Soldier; and Barricades Square.

2 Builder; Graphic Story centre (2c texture).

2c Basket; Paribas Fortis Bank (moving to a new building at type 13c in 2018).

3 Queen; Martyrs Square (sacrifice).

4 King; Our Lady (womb, of 11 opposite) of End of Earth, outside early medieval Brussels, and of Good Success. Northward lies the Atomium and Mini Europe.

5a Priest; Opera (hyperactive).

5b Priest; Origin Court; and Mint; and John Baptist of Beginnings, of camel skin coat (tailcoat). Outside the wall is another John Baptist.

5b Priest B; St Catherine, flying angel on a pillar (hyperactive, horizontal); Charcoal Lane, Brick lane (varicoloured); near St Géry and Notre Dame aux Riches.

5c Basket-Tail; Stock Exchange; St Nicholas, black (varicoloured), of merchants (varicoloured).

6 Exile; St Gorick. West lies the cruciform Realm building.

7 Child; Our Lady of Good Assistance, of nurses with bags (bag). A miraculous statue was found on Compostella pilgrimage route (bag). Former St James hospital. Large Market (bag, rope).

7g Galactic Centre; Fountain Square (water, light). Synagogue. St Anthony near the wall (juncture).

8 Healer; Peeing Boy fountain, Juliaanske ‘extinguished a bomb fuse to save the city under siege’ (strength feat), formerly of stone (pillar).

8B Healer; Near Europe statue (pillar). Axial centre of Brussels gates (strength. Not illustrated). Parliament (OFF GRID).

9 Healer; Our Lady of the Chapel, relics of St Boniface of Brussels opposed (strength) corrupt king FrederickII, and Francois Anneessens, beheaded for civil rights (strength).

9c Basket-Lid; Courts of Justice (10 enforcement, balance), ‘Gallows’ Hill.

10 Teacher; Our Lady on the Table, south facade.

11 Womb; Our Lady (womb) on the Table (platform, interior). A healing statue from Antwerp to the Crossbow guild.

12 Heart; St Jacques of Coudenberg; was chapel of Charles Quint. Royal Square (bastion). Palace 1500s, hall of Burgundy Dukes (bastion) ruin, 1775 Revolution law court (war), 1802 church.

13 Heart; Royal Palace (weapon) interior (heart).

13 Heart B; Brussels Park south pond (water-work).

13c Basket-Head; Brussels Park north pond. New Paribas Fortis Bank (bastion) with inner garden (interior), moved from 3 in 2018.

14 Mixer; National Palace. Former park (tree).

15 Maker; Cathedral Sts Michael and Gudule (doubled), Belgian patrons. Archbishop of Mechlin-Brussels (doubled), royal church (sceptre), ducal graves (sceptre). An 1100s church site. Window of LouisII of Hungary and his queen kneeling before Trinity (churn).

15g Gate; Freedom Square (juncture).

The axial centre is south of St Hubert Galleries, on the Montagne-Sculptor Roads intersection (junction).

11p Galactic Pole; Mont des Arts Park (juncture).

Midsummer (cp); Cathedral Square south end (juncture). Midwinter (csp); St Hubert Galleries south facade, on the east-west cardinal (orientation). These markers would place summer in 14-15, thus spring and the cultural time-frame as Age Aries-Pisces, at the start of the Christian era. The north-south cardinal indicates cosmological Age Pisces, contemporary with the work. Gates in the defensive wall of Brussels from another stoneprint around the old city centre, as in Piacenza, Rome, and elsewhere (see note on gates, at 8 above). Structuralist analysis of Brussels compares well with Paris (Furter 2017b) and London (Furter 2018b).

7. Structured emblems and alphabets

Some calendars, emblems and alphabets have similar sounds, numerals (in alphanumeric sets), pictographs, determinants, and related myths; in sequences that could be directly compared to one another, and to typological features isolated in artworks and other media, indicating that the natural blueprint extends to all cultural media. Some sets have fewer characters, usually skipping one of the doubled types (see __ blanks in Tables VII B and VII C). Alphabets have often been compared to hour asterisms to trace supposed diffusion, but never in the context of archetype informing various media (see Babylonian Plough Stars decans in Furter 2018a).

Cretan Archanes seals could be sequenced by archetypal features. The sets are highly stylised, and apparently without secure traditional sequence or fixed total. Comparison to other Cretan media, via the mindprint model, could resolve the sequence. About 26 often reproduced features include abstract ‘determinants’ that may be subconscious former or current spring markers (see types 2, 3, 4). These may compensate for lack of spatial layout and polar features. The set may illustrate a calendar or some other cycle, yet both sets would reveal collective and individual subconscious inspiration in the culture, in the re-designer, and in copyists.

Table VII. Typology in some Cretan Archanes seals.

Type; Upper Image (features); Lower Image (features):

2 Builder; Shelter or Trap (maze); on Antelope (bovid).

3 Queen; Flower (spring); on Horse (neck), Snake (dragon).

4 King; Two S-shapes (twins); on Horse (equid).

5a Priest; Zebra or horse (equid? colour?).

6 Exile; U-shape (U-shape).

7 Child; Centaur? In ropes (rope).

7g Gal.Centre; Hills or abstracts (unfolding?)

9 Healer; Podium (pillar), Herb (heal), Bent (bent).

10 Teacher; Double-axe (staff) of Apollo (teacher), Snake (snake, heal), Staff (staff).

11 Womb; Staff or Wheat (crops), Plough? (furrow?); Vase (womb).

11p Gal.Pole; Flower (junction).

13 Heart; Purse or Hand or Heart (heart?).

14 Mixer; Honey? (energy?), Brewer? (transformation).

15 Maker; Leg (smite? rampant?).

Figure 7. Fourteen Cretan Archanes seals (after Sakellarakis et al 1997. Type labels and sequence by E Furter).

7.1 Structured Germanic runes

The conventional 18 runes have graphic and phonologic counterparts in the Latin alphabet. The six others making up the conventional set of 24 runes, derive from a North Italic alphabet in the first century AD (Looijenga 1997). However runes assumed their own sequence, and set of emblematic derivations, both now testable against archetypal typology. Runes are conventionally listed from F, Wealth (here type 1 B). The tables follow Latin convention from A 1 (type 14).

Table VII B. Typology in Semitic alphanumeric sets (after Goldwasser 2006), v 22 Germanic runes, v Hour decans (after Furter 2014).

Type; Sound Numeral; Rune (features); Hour decan

14 Mixer; A 1; Speech (jaw, limb-joint); Ursa Minor.

15 Maker; B 2; Bough, Family (sceptre, ancestor); Canis Min.

15g Gate; G 3; Gift (bag); Galactic Gate or Canis.

1 Builder; D 4; Sun (former spring); ____­_.

1 Builder B; F/V 5; Wealth (bovid); Hyades.

2 Builder; W/Ng 6; Hail (rain, cluster); Pleiades.

2c Basket; Z/Gw 7; ____; (Diphthong)(transit); Algol.

3 Queen; EH 8; Horse (neck); Pegasus.

4 King; TH? 9; Thorn, Hammer (spring); Pisces Cord.

4p Gal.S.P.; Y/R? 10; Tree (junction); Pegasus neck.

5a Priest; K 20; Flame (4 furnace); Aquarius latter.

5b Priest; L 30; Water (water); Aquarius prior.

6 Exile; M 40; Man (scapegoat?); Cygnus?

7 Child; N 50; Chariot (chariot); Sagittarius.

7g Gal.Centre; Xi 60; Constraint (junction); Serpens Cauda.

8 Healer; AY Y 70; Home (hearth, heal); Scorpius Sting.

9 Healer; P 80; Hearth (hearth, heal); Scorpius Antares.

10 Teacher; R? 100; Ride (9 trance); Bootes.

11 Womb; HD 90; Fork, Tyr (10 staff, arms), Star Spica.

12 Heart; S 200; Ship (interior); Argo.

13 Heart; T 300; Horn, Bull, Sun (ruler); Leo Regulus.

14 Mixer; U 400; Joy (honey?); Beehive?

15 Maker; PH 500; Couple (double), Spell (churn); Gemini.

7.2    Structured Mayan day hieroglyphs

The Mayan ‘month’ of 20 days, part of the Tzolk’in, 20×13=260 days, has its own set of emblematic ‘derivations’, now testable against archetypal typology. The 20-day birthday cycle is a powerful predictor of personality globally, independent of annual seasonal calibrators and of Western astrology. Mayan days are conventionally listed from Crocodile or Water (here type 3). The tables follow Latin convention from A 1 (type 14).

Table VII C. Typology in Semitic alphabets (after Goldwasser 2006); v 20 Mayan day hieroglyphs, Limbs, and Images (after Pinzon 1995); v Hour decans (after Furter 2014).

Type; Sound Numeral; Mayan hieroglyph (features); Limb, Image; Hour decan.

14 Mixer; A 1; Vulture (bird); Tongue, Spirals (polar); Ursa (polar).

15 Maker; B 2; Motion (churn, polar); ____; Ursa Minor (polar).

15g Gate; G 3; Knife (risk); mouth (joint), Skull?; Orion Club (junct).

1 Builder; D 4; Rain (storm); Eye, ____; Orion.

2 Builder; F/V 5; [Sun?]; ___; ___ [Mayan skip]; Hyades?

2c Basket; W/GN 6/7; Flower (cluster); Eye, _; Pleiades.

3 Queen; EH/Th 8; Croc (dragon); Chest, _; Cetus Tail.

4 King; TH? 9; Wind (field?); Lung (furnace), _; Pegasus.

4p Gal.S.P.; Y R? 10; House (junct, pillar); _; Pegasus legs.

5a Priest;   K 20; Lizard (reptile); Hip?, ___; Aquarius.

5c B.Tail; L 30; Snake-knot (reptile, weave); Genital, R/snake; Capr.tail.

6 Exile;  M 40; Frog (fish), Death (sacrif); Ear (bleat), _; Capr (fish, goat).

7 Child;  N 50; Deer (juvenile?); Ear, ______; Sagittarius.

7 Child B; Xi 60; Rabbit (juvenile); Foot (joint), _; Tail, Serp.Cau., Tail.

7g G.Cntr; AY 70; Water (junction); _, _; Galaxy (water).

8 Healer; P 80; __; __; __ [Mayan skip]; Scorpius Sting.

9 Healer; R? 100; Dog (canid); Foot, ____; Lupus.

9c Lid; HD 90; _____? (diphtong)(transit); __; Serpens.

10 Teacher; S 200; Monkey (arms); arms (arms), Lizard (arms); Bootes.

11 Virgo; T 300; Grass (crops); womb (womb); _; Spica.

11p Gal.P.; U 400; Reeds (junct); _______; Coma (hair).

12 Heart; PH 500; Ocelot (‘felid’); Foot, __; Leo retro.

13 Heart; CH 600; Eagle (bird, polar); Hand; __; Ursa.

8. Conclusion

Hundreds of examples confirm that the large, specific, layered, rigorous repertoire of global, subconscious, individual and collective behaviour, is measurable and testable in several cultural media. The archetypal structuralist model of direct, simplistic features, made complex by their inter-dependence, indicates that archetype eternally guides and bounds re-expressions in nature and culture. This model challenges the paradigm of culture as ‘conscious’, with ‘creative options’ that ‘evolve’; and challenges correspondence theories and diffusion theories in science and in popular culture. The largely unstated and untested general paradigm is common to human sciences, and thus likely to resist data, models and even evidence to the contrary (Thomas Kuhn 1966). Evolution is one of the archetypes eternally dominating human sciences, by analogy to individual and technological maturity curves; which actually depend on ecology, population density and specialisation. Apparently diverse and unrelated features, consistent across time and place, confirms that cosmology is part of archetypal expression in all media, not ‘degraded science’ as De Santillana (1969) and others tried to demonstrate by ironically invoking ‘devolution’ into the diffusionist paradigm. Popular anthropology is particularly fond of correspondences, diffusion and devolution based on various assumed golden eras. As members of polities, scientists have some individual and collective vested interests in maintaining illusions of ‘cultural differences’. But scientists are equally compelled to study our species as objectively as possible.

The often silent assumption that media illustrate one another, such as art ‘illustrating’ ethnography or ritual; or myth ‘collating collective memories of major or repetitive events’; or symbols or divination features ‘deriving from’ analogies; should take caution that studies of cultural content and ‘origins’ agree with conscious, rationalised views of crafters and users. There was no conscious model, nor paradigm, for mathematical order in culture, such as the sizes of civic populations (Zipf 1949), or consistent average frequencies of specific features. Perception, expression and possibly meaning itself, is now revealed as ‘wired’ to archetype; and hidden by conscious habits, and our inability to recognise quirky rules as consistent. The core content of culture was static, and is likely to remain so, despite conscious discovery and diffusion of its features. Our repertoire of innate behaviour indicates that archetype guides nature and culture at several levels of scale, across media ‘boundaries’.

The archetypal structuralist model also finds support in some natural structures, such as the periodic table (Furter 2016). The high level of detail demonstrated in compulsive cultural expressions, invite automation of subconscious individual and social behaviour. Stalemates between rival anthropology models (Endicott et al 2005; Turner 2009) could be resolved by study of archetypal behaviour.

We could not know archetypes’ origin, as Plato realised, but we could study her expressions to explore our individual and collective roles in integration and self-actualisation. Our cultural works serve more purposes than we consciously know. Their study requires scientific integration and maturity. Structuralist anthropology has some experience in ‘tacking’ between data sets apparently in ‘disunity’, across time, place and layers of consciousness, as advocated by Alyson Wylie (1989, after Bernstein). Human sciences could extend its scope to global, diachronic behaviour. An opportunity, and perhaps a pressing need in the humanities, is to recognise differences between core culture and localised ‘branding’, and to inform society undergoing unprecedented globalisation and ‘culture’ shock. As nations and cities faction and fraction due to rival socio-economic bonds, the humanities could raise knowledge or our collective subconscious impulses, and our need for minor polity differences. A small step from modelling cultures, to modelling culture, may offer a leap in human sciences applications, validity and relevance, and potentially in general understanding of our place within nature.


Boole, G, 1854 /2003. Laws of thought. Buffalo:  Prometheus Books

De Santillana G. and Von Deschend, H. 1969. Hamlet’s Mill: An essay on myth and the frame of time. Boston: Gambit

Endicott, K. M. and Welsch, R.L. 2005. Taking sides. Third edition. Iowa: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin

Furter, E. 2014. Mindprint, the subconscious art code. USA:

Furter, E. 2015a. Gobekli Tepe, between rock art and art. Expression 8. Italy: Atelier Etno

Furter, E. 2015b. Rock art expresses cultural structure. Expression 9. Italy: Atelier Etno

Furter, E. 2016a. Stoneprint, the human code in art, buildings and cities. Johannesburg: Four Equators Media

Furter, E. 2017a. Recurrent characters in rock art reveal objective meaning. Expression 16, June. Italy: Atelier Etno Expression 16, June. Also in Expression 2019; Message behind the image. Book 25

Furter, E. 2017b. Stoneprint tour of Paris. Stoneprint Journal 3. USA:

Furter, E. 2018a. ‘Babylonian Plough List decans’.

Furter, E. 2018b. Stoneprint tour of London. Stoneprint Journal 4. USA:

Furter, E. 2018c. Culture code in seals and ring stamps. Stoneprint Journal 5. USA,

Goldwasser, O. 2006. Canaanites reading hieroglyphs. Egypt and Levant 16: 121-160

Gunderson, L. H. and Holling, C. S. 2009. Panarchy; understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington: Island Press

Harrod, J. B. 2018. A post-structuralist revised Weil–Lévi-Strauss transformation formula for conceptual value-fields. Sign Systems Studies, November. USA: Center for Research on the Origins of Art and Religion

Hays, H. R. 1958. From ape to angel. London: Methuen

Jung, C. G. and Jaffe, A. 1965. Memories, Dreams, Reflections. New York: Random House, p392-393

Kuhn, T. 1966. Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press

Levi-Strauss, C. 1973. From honey to ashes. Harper & Row

Levi-Strauss, C. 1955. Mathematics of Man. Paris: Bulletin International des Sciences Sociales 6:4.

Lewis-Williams, D., Pearce, D. 2012. Framed idiosyncrasy, method and evidence in the interpretation of San rock art. Johannesburg: SA Archaeological Bulletin 67, 75-87

Liritzis I. and Vassiliou H. 2003. Archaeo-astronomical orientation of seven significant ancient Hellenic temples. Athens: Archaeo-astronomy: the Journal of Astronomy in Culture, 17, 2003, 94-100

Looijenga, J. H. 1997. Runes around the North Sea and on the continent AD 150-700; texts and contexts. Netherlands: Rijksuniversiteit van Groningen, doctorate

Neugebauer, O. and Parker, R. 1969. Egyptian astronomical texts 3; Decans, planets, constellations and zodiacs. USA: Brown University Press

Paget, R. F. 1967. In the footsteps of Orpheus. London: Robert Hale

Parry, E. 2012. Rock art of the Matopo hills. Bulawayo: Amabooks

Pinzon, S. 1995. Early history of Belize. Belize:

Ranieri, M. 2014. Digging the archives; orientation of Greek temples and their diagonals. Athens: Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol 14, No3, 15-27

Sakellarakis, Y. and Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E. (1997) Archanes: Minoan Crete in a new light. Athens: Ammos

Temple, R. 2003. Netherworld. London: Century

Turner, T. S. 2009. Crisis of Late Structuralism. Perspectivism and Animism: Rethinking Culture, Nature, Spirit, and Bodiliness. Tipití: Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland South America: Vol. 7: Issuse 1, Article 1

Wood, P. 2015. Ferguson and the decline in Anthropology. USA: National Association of Scholars, Jan 20

Wylie, A. 1989. Archaeological cables and tacking: the implications of practice for Bernstein’s options, beyond objectivism and relativism. USA: Philosophy of Social Sciences 19(1), March, 1-18

Zipf, G.K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. USA: Addison-Wesley

Mindprint the subconscious art code Structural art analysis using mindprint Structuralist analysis of miniature artworks

Henry Holiday’s Hunting of the Snark art has subconscious order

The nonsense limerick poem Hunting of the Snark demonstrates several ironies, apparent contradictions, and hidden meanings. The quest is an analogy for scientific exploration and British empire enterprise; both could be imagined in the dock on charges of Trespass, Libel and Contempt as in Barrister’s dream. Author Lewis Carroll (1876) is the pen-name of Oxford mathematician Rev Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (d1898), who also wrote maths papers and books, and was a deacon, but not a full priest. This post applies archetypal structuralist analysis to the Snark for the first time, to demonstrate how Henry Holiday’s illustrations subconsciously express apparently different, yet structurally standard versions of universal archetypal layers. The artist added Hope and Care (or ‘With’) to the crew of ten, probably from a subconscious compulsion to complete the minimum number of characters required to express archetype.

Britain, a legacy of Rome despite her abandonment in the Dark Ages of AD 400s to rival raiders and local kings such as Arthur, regained Roman culture after the Norman conquest. The eventual nation of shopkeepers, brokers, bankers and explorers feared disorder and chaos, as psychological defense against personal annihilation (after Kelly). Religion and science have taken turns in shoring up a sense of order. Bellman’s Rule of Three; character names all starting with B; jaunty rhyme and meter; and a tragic-comic format, all attempt to impose some order [15] and meaning on the apparent chaos of lefend. But motifs in legend, poetry and art is never random or meaningless, and usually recurrent (Thompson1928, 1961. Uther 2011. McCormic 2011). Rigorous analyses of three illustrations below demonstrate that many features of subconscious behaviour, perception, and meaning itself is now measurable in standard terms (see also ATU catalogue legends demonstrated in afterlife themes, in three posts on Oracle of the Dead, on

Nonsense style was also used by Thomas Hood; and in Gilbert and Sullivan musicals, such as Bad Ballads; and in early movies by Charlie Chaplin. Carroll was a satirist, and keenly aware of controversies between religion and science. Snarking once described a sound, perhaps of derision. Snarky once meant snappish, sarcastic, impertinent or irreverent; but recently back-formed again to mean mocking irreverence or sarcasm. The poem may have been inspired by the violent death of Carroll’s beloved uncle, Robert Wilfred Skeffington Lutwidge, inspector of asylums, by a violent patient (Torrey et al 2001), and other personal losses.

In the plot, a crew of ten tries to hunt the Snark, easily confused with the highly dangerous Boojum. Baker may symbolise the author, with his 42 boxes after Thomas Cranmer’s 42 Articles of religion, the last on eternal damnation. Baker finds a snark but vanishes in black ash, indicating that he found a Boojum, perhaps punished as Cranmer was burned; perhaps bafflement at finding laws of nature (Cohen 1995). Banker is attacked by a Bandersnatch, pays a ransom, but loses his sanity or logic.

Unwritten rules in nature and culture

Bellman, according to Carroll’s preface, follows obscure Naval Code, pathetically reading out Admiralty Instructions which none of the crew ever understood, “but fastened anyhow across the rudder”. Rule 42, the last, is ‘No one shall speak to the Man at the Helm,’ completed by the Bellman himself with ‘and the Man at the Helm shall speak to no one’. Thus Carroll indicates that the search for unwritten, inherent rules or laws of nature and numbers are part of his theme in Snark. Collective behaviour is indeed guided by a code that many sciences suspected, but no-one understood before 2010 (Furter 2014).

The present study of recurrent features in behaviour, to reveal archetype in nature and culture (Furter 2014; 2016), was inspired partly by the Mike Batt’s musical version of Hunting of the snark. In this idiom, from our own investigations and the bearings on the charts, now we could rise to remark that we think we may be gaining on the snark! There are hints of underlying structure in all media. Discovery that the subconscious expression of archetypal structure, or mindprint, could be measured and predicted, incidentally completes the quest for inherent order; and reveals that cultural identity is as universal as mathematics.

Henry Holiday pictured fables, allegories and church windows

Henry Holiday probably alluded to animals in a 1674 print of Aesop’s Fables, illustrated by Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder (British Museum; Satires 1047, reg. 1868,0808.3286), around king William III with allegorical Religion and Liberty (after Prof L Wolsogen, L; Fig 4/4). Holiday discussed with the author Carroll (Dodgson) possible allegorical depictions of Care and Hope. Holiday was also a stained glass window designer at Powell & Sons (with many designs for American churches), and friend of Rossetti. Tigertail Associates hired artist George Gennerich to restore Holiday’s wood engravings electronically, and partly colorise them.

Holiday’s Banker’s Fate illustration may refer to Image-Breakers by Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder; and to William Sidney Mount’s painting, Bone Player; and to a photograph by Benjamin Duchenne used for a drawing in Charles Darwin’s Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. These visual citations together demonstrate that art design never replicates other designs; yet the illustration demonstrates again that all complex designs (of more than eleven characters) express specific, complex, universal spatial grammar, beyond the conscious capacity of any artist to learn or fake. Snark’s sections are named Fits, a pun on fitting rhymes to syllabic meters and pages. Structuralist analysis of the formerly invisible five layers of regular, universal features in the artworks, and probably in the character list, now adds another meaning to ‘fit’; artists have to ‘rhyme’ with the inherent structure in meaning and spatial relationships.

Carroll’s Easter sacrifice tragedy

Carroll re-uses a setting, some creatures, and eight portmanteau words from Carroll’s earlier poem, Jabberwocky, in his children’s novel Through the Looking-Glass (1871). The poem is dedicated to a young girl whom Carroll met at Sandown on the Isle of Wight, which he saw as an island of three monsters, “where the Jabberwock was slain”. In the first edition, he included a religious tract; An Easter Greeting to Every Child Who Loves Alice, perhaps to disguise the dark undertone of the pointless expedition, melting identity, apparently unjust punishments of life, and annihilation. Easter Greeting explores innocence and eternal life through Biblical and Romantic allusions from William Blake and William Wordsworth. Yet Easter is a spring sacrifice ritual, thus also a tragedy. Among many legacies of the Snark, are a graph theory; Snark Island in India’s Bengal Bay; Boojum Rock in Andaman and Nicobar Islands; and the excellent but failed 2-m dollar West End musical by Mike Batt.

Motley crew; it takes all types to make a story

The Hunting of the snark crew is listed here by proposed archetypal numbers and the types they probably subconsciously express in Carroll’s text; all named starting with the letter B:

2 Builder; Billiard-maker (builder), skillfull (hero). Or 9; 2v9.

2c Basket; Bandersnatch or subconscious, takes ransom and sanity (monster).

3 Queen; Butcher, math and geology, kills (sacrifice) only beavers.

4 King; Care or ‘With’, a Pandora, added by the artist.

5 Priest; Hope or Britannia, added by the artist.

6 Exile; Bellman, leader (exile).

7 Child; Broker, appraises goods, Jewish.

07g Galactic Centre; ??

9 Healer; Bonnet-maker (lid), hood-maker. Or 2; 2v9.

10 Teacher; Banker holds the crew’s money (balance, metal), loses logic.

11 Womb; Hope? or Britannia’s womb.

13 heart; Beaver (water-work), savious, makes lace.

14 Mixer; Hope? or Britannia.

15 Maker; Barrister, settles arguments.

15g Galactic Gate; Boots, cobbler (‘bag’), invisible or in a barrel (‘bag’).

Axial centre; Snark, of five signs, invisible, confused with Boojum.

04p Pig in dream, accused of deserting its sty.

11p Baker, wedding cakes, courageous, forgetful, vanishes.

Midsummer and Midwinter; Boojum, deadly illogic [3 12], invisible, confused with snark since it moves with time.

Dominant type 5 Priest, of assembly and ritual

Dominant general themes in Holiday’s illustration of Lewis Carroll’s Hunting of the Snark crew or Britannia parade, are revealed by extra features of type 5 Priest, typical of assembly, hyperactivity, ritual, ceremony (here including speeches in the text), sashes (robes) and water (implied by the naval crew); and its opposite type, 13 Heart, typical of weapons (pitchforks and a pitch fork, or tuning fork), war (implied colonisation), bravery and water-work (here implied by a beaver and anchor). This type seems appropriate to part of Rev Carroll’s own identity as a Deacon, and to the conscious theme of colonial and scientific exploration, including vague unease of venturing into foreign territories and somewhat taboo fields of science. Some authors have suggested a theme of search for happiness; or of USA independence and its motto of ‘pursuit of happiness’ as a tragedy for Britain.

Secondary general themes in the Snark parade illustration, include types 5c Basket Tail, typical of oracle, revelation (a vague monster or treasure), and maze (uncharted excursion); and 9c Basket Lid, of hats, instruments, enforcement, and metal (pitchforks, blunderbuss, anchor, sword); and 10 Teacher, of raised arms, staffs (pitchforks, anchor, blunderbuss, tripod), hunt-master (Bellman), guard, market (implied colonisation), council and school (Barrister’s toga); and type 15 Maker, of rope, order (names starting with B), bag, mace, sceptre (empire), doubling (Barrister and Banker resemblance), face (personalities as on coin ‘heads’, obverse of Britannia as ‘tails’). Missing from the illustrations are Boots the invisible cobbler, who may be a subconscious snark; and Baker, missing since attempting to unravel a conundrum; and Boojum, perhaps incomprehensible ultimate reality or archetype itself. This list below reports the characters in the parade illustration, in the standard structuralist anthropology archetypal cycle format.

Henry Holiday; Hunting of the snark parade illustration for Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson, mathematician, 1876). Woodcut by Joseph Swain. Colorised by George Gennerich for Tigertail Associates. Archetype labels and axial grid by E Furter.

Type Label; Parade character (noting archetypal features):

2 Builder; Bonnet-maker? with a fork.

3 Queen; Butcher? (sacrifice) with a chopper?

4 King; Care? in cloak.

5 Priest; Hope? or Britannia (assembly) as emblem (ritual), with anchor (hyperactive, water) and sword (weapon, of 13 opposite); her right eye.

5c Basket Tail; Bell (time, of 6v14). And anchor blade.

6 Exile; Hope? or Britannia, near the axial centre (ingress) with anchor (U-shape); her left eye. And Bellman with bell (U-shape).

7 Child; Anchor point (eyeless, rope implied), as emblem (mace).

7g Gal.Centre; Banker’s top hat (vortex). And anchor point (juncture).

9 Healer; Banker (metal) carrying (bent forward, strong) blunderbuss (metal), tripod stand (pillar) and pitch or tuning fork (metal, trance), a pun on pitchfork; his right eye.

9c Basket Lid; Banker’s glasses (disc, ‘balance’).

10 Teacher; Banker (balance, metal) or Broker (trade), with pitch-fork or tuning fork (metal, ‘balance’) raised (arm up), tripod (staff) and blunderbuss (hunt-master, guard, metal); his left eye.

11 Womb; Midriff (womb) of Hope? or Britannia (water, law), implied British lion (felid).

12 Heart; Beaver (water-work), OFF THE GRID.

13 Heart; Barrister’s chest (heart), carrying a pitchfork (weapon, war).

13c Basket Head; Barrister’s beard (weave).

14 Mixer; Anchor ring, NO EYE, nearer the centre (ingress).

15 Maker; Barrister (order) with wig (ropes), in toga (bag), carrying pitchfork (mace), striding ahead (rampant), with a large face (face), resembling Banker (doubled).

Axial centre; Unmarked as usual.

4p Gal.S.Pole; Britannia’s ear?

11p Gal.Pole; Anchor’s cross-bar ruing (juncture). And sea-star (limb-joints) at Beaver’s tail (limb-joint). And Beaver, a lace-maker (rope is more typical of 7g) carrying a microscope.

Midsummer; Britannia’s front shoulder (limb-joint).

Midwinter; Hope’s hip (limb-joint). These solstice markers are on a horizontal plane. The polar triangles place midsummer in Gemini-Taurus, implying spring and the cultural time-frame in Age Pisces-Aquarius, confirmed by the two types at top centre.

The snark crew parade analysis score is 45/68 archetypal features; 12/16 axial points; 4/4 c-type sector features; 2/2 g-gate sector features; 4/5 polar markers; 1/2 planar or cardinal orientations; 1/1 correlation with the Age, or Age prior to the work; 2/2 general themes; thus 71/100, minus 1 extra characters off the axial grid; total 70%, in the upper half of the average range of 40-80%. All structuralist features of expression are universal, and subconscious to artists, architects, builders, crafters and members of any culture.

Butcher and beaver calculate a song in Holiday’s snark art

Structuralist analysis of this illustration happens to co-incide with the theme of Butcher transcribing and calculating a Jubjub’s song, “or the sound of pencil on slate”, for his willing student Beaver. Carroll’s limerick is partly themed on a quest to find natural laws, identity and meaning. His tale has no resolution other than confirming baffling inexplicability, but his mathematics papers, and the present study, have better news. Snark episode illustrations, characters, and parts of the plot subconsciously express archetypal and thus natural and cultural order. In this context, the text acquires much more order than the rhyme, meter and plot provide.

“The thing shall be done! Bring me paper and ink, the best there is time to procure. The Beaver brought paper, portfolio, pens, and ink in unfailing supplies: while strange creepy creatures came out of their dens, and watched them with wondering eyes. So engrossed was the Butcher, he heeded them not, as he wrote with a pen in each hand, and explained all the while in a popular style, which the Beaver could well understand.”

The ‘strange creatures’ crowding into the story and the illustration repeats a motif familiar in religious art; temptation by delights and torments, usually shown with St Anthony (see a post on Oracles of the Dead Part II, on The illustrator was a church window designer by trade, thus well versed in religious art.

Dominant general themes in Henry Holiday’s illustration for the scene of the Butcher as author, artist and mathematician, include these types:

[] 4 King, of squat posture (here of nine characters), twins (here dragons, frogs, pigs, cats), rectangle (music boxes, books);

[] 6 Exile, of ingress (Beaver and Butcher near the centre), double-head (dragons, frogs, pigs, cats), reptile (dragons, frogs); and its opposite, 14 Mixer, of ingress (crowding in a narrow vale), transform (music to math), angel (winged rat, dragons, pigs), reptile, dance (of flying pigs);

[] 10 Teacher, of raised arms (here all twelve characters), metal (brass instruments, boxes), ecology (beasts), school (Butcher teaching Beaver math), carousel (dancing beasts);

[] 15 Maker, of order (books), doubled (dragons, pigs, frogs, cats), reptile, winged;

[] 2c v9c, 5c v13c Baskets, of instruments (music, writing), container (music boxes, ink-well), hat (Butcher’s beaver hat), or secret (Jubjub song and math score).

This artwork is remarkable for its general themes expressing the three known features that are ambiguous for being optional part of three or four types: reptile; winged; doubling (though it tends to take different forms in types 4, 6, 15). In addition, twinning and doubling is present in many visual citations of other artists as Kluge (2017) demonstrated. But canid of type 9, 10, 14, 15; and equid of types 3, 4, 5, are absent here. The known ambiguities are inherent in nature and culture, and appear at fixed average percentages, thus they are as archetypal and measurable as the unambiguous features, and the five layers of structure in spatial expression are.

Henry Holiday; Hunting of the snark Butcher calculating a jubub song, in the illustration for Lewis Carroll (Dodgson 1876). The woodcut is by Joseph Swain, later colorised by George Gennerich for Tigertail Associates. Archetype labels and axial grid by E Furter.

Type Label; Maths music character (noting archetypal features):

2 Builder; Pig trumpeter A in orchestra (cluster).

2c Basket; Music box B (instrument, container) churned (arm-link) by dragon B.

3 Queen; Bellman (school).

4 KingA; Dragon B (twin), winged (‘bird’), on rock (squat) with music box (rectangle).

4 KingB; Rat flying (bird), squeezing ink.

5a Priest; Dragon (reptile, winged) with music box (hyperactive). These boxes may refer to religious articles of faith, as of Thomas Cranmer (implied priest).

5c Basket Tail; Music box A (container).

6 ExileA; Butcher (sacrifice), near the centre (ingress); inner eye, as bard, in beaver hat (sacrifice).

6 ExileB; Butcher (sacrifice), near the centre (ingress); outer eye (‘double-headed’).

7 Child; Young (juvenile) frog’s bag (bag, eyeless) with newspaper (unfold).

7g Gal.Centre; Bonnet (vortex?) on cat A.

9 Healer; Cat C tearing (strong) a bonnet.

9c Basket Lid; Books (reveal) on a war treaty (enforce) and absurdity.

10 Teacher; Ink bottle B (school).

11 WombA; Beaver’s (water) midriff (womb), bearing ink (library).

11 WombB; Beaver’s (water) midriff (womb), bearing ink (library).

13 Heart; Frog’s chest (heart), drilling (rounded, weapon).

14 MixerA; Frog (reptile); inner eye.

14 MixerB; Frog (reptile); outer eye.

15 Maker; Pig with wings (winged) playing flute (‘sceptre’).

15g Gal.Gate; Tuba (juncture, vortex).

Axial centre; Unmarked as usual.

4p Gal.S.Pole; Butcher’s upper fingers (limb-joints).

11p Gal.Pole; Beaver’s elbow (limb-joint).

Midsummer; Pig A’s hoofs (limb-joint).

Midwinter; Butcher’s jaw (limb-joint) holding quill (juncture).

The solstice markers are on the horizontal plane. The polar triangles place midsummer in 14-15 or Cancer-/Gemini; implying spring and the cultural time-frame in Age 3-2 or Aries-Pisces, confirmed by the top central position of types 3 and 4.

The analysis score in the Butcher’s math scoring illustration, is 36/68 archetypal features; 16/16 axial points; 6/4 c-type sector features; 2/2 g-gate sector features; 4/5 polar markers; 1/2 planar or cardinal orientations; 1/1 correlation with the Age, or Age prior to the work; 2/2 general themes; thus 68/100, minus 3 extra characters off the axial grid; total 65%, just above the universal average of 60%. Structuralist features of expression are universal, and subconscious to artists, architects, builders, crafters and members of any culture.

Barrister’s courtroom trial dream scene

Barrister’s courtroom trial dream illustration by Henry Holiday has only nine characters, thus fewer than eleven, and is considered a minimalist artwork, wherein some structuralist compromises, and fewer than 60% of the known archetypal features are expected. Some characters and some structuralist features are doubled, as in his Butcher music and maths lesson scene.

Main general themes in this courtroom illustration are types 10 Teacher, of arms up posture (here of five characters), hunt-master (prosecution), disc (two wigs, dram fog), council (court); and type 11 Womb, of womb (here or the sleeping Barrister), law (trial).

Henry Holiday; Hunting of the snark courtroom trial scene illustration for Lewis Carroll. Woodcut by Joseph Swain. Colorised by George Gennerich for Tigertail Associates. Archetype labels and axial grid by E Furter.

Type Label; Court character (noting archetypal features):

1 Builder; NO EYE, Keys (cluster, implied twist, tower, build, maze). And; NO EYE, Prosecutor’s left hand holding rolled (twisted) charge sheet (book).

2 Builder; OFF THE GRID Jailer (implied tower, build).

2c Basket; Judge’s wig (weave, shoulder-hump, hat). And bench (throne).

3 Queen; Barrister or judge (school?), representing the Crown (queen).

4 KingA; NO EYE, Prosecutor.

4 KingB; Advocate A.

5a Priest; Advocate B In tails (tailcoat head) judging (judge, assembly).

5c Basket Tail; Advocate C, between axes, as c-types are.

6 Exile; Advocate D, far from the centre (egress).

7 Child; Accused in dock (rope?).

7g Gal.Centre; Fog end (water).

8 Healer; Prosecutor’s right hand, in cloak (trance? See Tarot trump 9, Hermit in hood).

9c Basket Lid; Fog middle (lid) of a dream (reveal).

10 Teacher; Prosecutor (‘hunt-master’) with arms up (arms up) or prop (staff) holding wig (disc, council).

11 WombA; Sleeping Barrister’s (law) midriff (womb), under fog (water).

11 WombB; Sleeping Barrister’s (law) midriff (womb), under fog (water).

12 Heart; Sleeping Barrister’s chest (heart).

13c Basket Head; Sleeping Barrister’s wig (head, hat, weave).

14 Mixer; Sleeping Barrister dreaming (transform).

15 Maker; NO EYE, Hand of Bellman ringing (order, smite).

15g Gal.Gate; Bellman’s hand (limb-joint), lifting fog from sleep to waking (juncture).

Axial centre; Prosecutor’s bow knot (juncture).

4p Gal.S.Pole; Advocate A’s talking jaw (limb-joint).

11p Gal.Pole; Sleeping Barrister’s elbow (limb-joint).

Midsummer; Charge of Trespass (juncture).

Midwinter; Advocate B’s demonstrating fingers (limb-joint).

The solstice markers are on a horizontal plane. The polar triangles place midsummer in 15-1 or Gemini-Taurus; implying spring and the cultural time-frame in Age 4-5 or Pisces-Aquarius. Pisces is confirmed by the top central position of types 4A and 4B.

The analysis score in the snark courtroom scene is 21/68 archetypal features; 14/16 axial points; 8/4 c-type sector features; 3/2 g-gate sector features; 3/5 polar markers; 1/2 planar or cardinal orientations; 1/1 correlation with the Age, or Age prior to the work; 2/2 general themes; thus 53/100, minus 2 extra characters off the axial grid; total 51%, in the lower half of the universal average range of 40-80%. Structuralist features of expression are universal, and subconscious to artists, architects, builders, crafters and members of any culture.

  • See a list of currently known optional archetypal features in other posts.

Some sources and references

Carroll, L. 1876. Hunting of the snark. London; McMillan

Cohen, M. N. 1995. Lewis Carroll: A Biography. Macmillan

Furter, E. 2014. Mindprint, the subconscious art code. USA:

Furter, E. 2015a. Gobekli Tepe, between rock art and art. Expression 8. Italy: Atelier Etno

Furter, E. 2015b. Rock art expresses cultural structure. Expression 9. Italy: Atelier Etno

Furter, E. 2016. Stoneprint, the human code in art, buildings and cities. Johannesburg: Four Equators Media

Furter, E. 2017a. Recurrent characters in rock art reveal objective meaning. Expression 16, June. Italy: Atelier Etno

Furter, E. 2017b. Stoneprint tour of Paris. Stoneprint Journal 3. USA:

Furter, E. 2018a. ‘Babylonian Plough List decans’.

Furter, E. 2018b. Stoneprint tour of London. Stoneprint Journal 4. USA:

Furter, E. 2018c. Culture code in seals and ring stamps. Stoneprint Journal 5. USA,

Furter, E. 2019a. Rennes le Chateau stoneprint tour. Stoneprint Journal 6. USA,

Furter, E. 2019b. Ayahuasca artists express universal structure. DMT Times; Archetypes

Gennerich, G. 2004. Hunting of the snark illustrations restoration and coloration. Los Angeles; Tigertail Associates.

Jung, C.G. & Jaffe, A. 1965. Memories, Dreams, Reflections. New York: Random House

Jung, C.G. 1945. Philosophical tree. In Collected Works 13: Alchemical Studies

Kluge, Goetz. 2017. Nose is a nose is a nose. Knight Letter 99, December, p30-31

McCormick, C.T.  2011. Folklore, an encyclopaedia of beliefs, customs, tales, music and art. Denver, Colorado; ABC-CLIO

Neugebauer, O. & Parker, R. 1969. Egyptian astronomical texts 3; Decans, planets, constellations and zodiacs. USA: Brown Univ Press

Roche, G.T. 2018. Temptation of St Anthony; on chemical mysticism.

Thompson, S. 1928, 1961. Motif index of folk literature. Ellis ref GR 67.T52. http://www.StorySearch

Torrey, F, and Miller, Judy. 2001. Invisible Plague: The Rise of Mental Illness from 1750 to the Present. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press

Traveler, The. 2009. DMT Nexus.

Uther, H.J. 2011. Types of International Folktales: A Classification and Bibliography. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica

Zipf, G.K. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. USA: Addison-Wesley