Categories
Ice Age art analysis Mindprint art examples Structural art analysis using mindprint

Structural analysis reveals another Ice Age mindprint in Chauvet

Chauvet antelopes, horses, and bovids (Patrick Aventurier /Getty. Mindprint labels and axial grid by Edmond Furter). The mental capacity, behaviour, and cultural repertoire at the time was identical to modern humans, despite lacking the population numbers to specialise or civilse in villages.
Chauvet antelopes, horses, and bovids (photo after Patrick Aventurier /Getty. Mindprint labels and axial grid by Edmond Furter). The mental capacity, behaviour, and cultural repertoire at the time was identical to modern humans, despite lacking the population numbers to specialise, or civilse in villages.

Application of the structural analysis method named mindprint, published in 2014, reveals the same core content in Ice Age cave art, as in hundreds of examples from every other era, place, and culture in the world. (An introduction to the book follows below some recently added posts).

The latest example of the mindprint structure in a Chauvet cave charcoal panel in France, indicates the same repertoire of perception and cultural expression as in various kinds of art and artefacts, from the Younger Dryas ‘thaw’ at Gobekli Tepe, to Babylonian, Egyptian, European, Indian, Chinese, Australian, African and American art.

Two other Chauvet panels (see below) were earlier found to express a partly interlocking double imprint (Furter 2014; Mindprint p154 and p155, Lulu.com). In all artworks containing eleven or more characters, each one expresses one of the attributes of a type; always in the same sequence; always with their eyes on an axial grid; and always with some limb joints in the centre indicating the time-frame of the work. Artists then, and now, are not aware that they express the structure of perception.

Type labels, and Characters in a Chauvet cave artwork, in the usual peripheral sequence (noting archetypal features):

2 Builder or Taurus; An antelope (bovid, not counted here due to abundance), in a twisting posture (twisting)
2c Basket; Jumble of lines (weave)
3 Queen or Aries; An antelope
4 King or Pisces; Horse (equid)
4p Galactic south pole; Horse shoulder (limb joint)
5a Priest or Aquarius; An antler, large (large)
6 Exile or Capricornus; An antler, nearer the centre (ingress)
7 Chile or Sagittarius; ? (often an indistinct shape. Perhaps damaged).
9 Healer or Scorpius; Bovid, large (large)
10 Teacher or Libra; An antler
11 Womb or Virgo; An antler’s womb (womb)
11 Galactic pole; Hump (limb-joint)
13 Heart or Leo; An antelope heart (heart)
13c Basket Head; Tally marks (texture)
14 Mixer or Cancer; An antelope, far out (egress)
15 Maker or Gemini; An antelope
15g Gate; Chasm in the rock face and ‘landscape’.

The ecliptic pole or axial centre is on a horse hoof (limb joint). The celestial pole is on a horse knee (limb joint), on the vertical plane (orientation) of most of the figures (one of the pairs of edges of the polar triangles are often vertical or horizontal). These polar markers place the summer of the subconscious cosmic structure (which is not a star map) in Virgo-Leo, thus the spring, and the cultural inspiration, in Age Gemini-Taurus, about BC 6400. However the time-frame is usually the Age or transition preceding the era of the work, thus this work was probably made in Age Taurus, when autumn was in Scorpius, and winter in Aquarius (both here on corners of the ocular (eye-to-eye) outline. Age Taurus lasted 40 degrees of precession, twice as long as Age Aries, which lasted 20 degrees, due to its compact borders. Subconscious division of ages does not follow the 30-degree divisions of of zodiac months, although Age Pisces lasted the average, of 30 degrees, or about 2100 years.

All five layers of structural expression (attributes; sequence; ocular grid; polar structure; and relation to preceding or current Age), are subconscious to artists, architects, builders and members of any culture.

The general theme here is probably the season, depicted by moulting of neck hair, and contrary movement.

The stoneprint analysis score is….. about 54% [the scoring format has since been updated, see later posts]. Despite the lack of species diversity, and themes that only paleontologists could spot, this panel demonstrates more than half the features identified (Furter 2014; Mindprint p 84 -87). Additional features of subconscious expression may yet be isolated and tested.

Chauvet cave rhino double panel, left half (mindprint labels and axial grid by Edmond Furter).
Chauvet cave rhino double panel, left half (mindprint labels and axial grid by Edmond Furter).
Chauvet rhino double panel, right half (mindprint labels and axial grid by Edmond Furter).
Chauvet rhino double panel, right half (mindprint labels and axial grid by Edmond Furter).

The presence of two other mindprints in Chauvet cave, and another in Lascaux cave (p150-151), and another in Niaux (p241), and another in Addaura (p240), and in Peche Merle, and relief carvings on two Gobekli Tepe pillars, confirms that pre-civilised cultures operated on the same principles of perception and expression as modern cultures do. The only differences between these ceilings, and cathedrals such as the Sistine Chapel ceiling, is in the scale, time, and budget afforded by empire.

Mindprint is present in all complex art, including modern art (see some of the 200 examples in the book, in other posts on this website, and on http://www.mindprintart.wordpress.com.

  • See an article on structural anthropology in the book WWW, Rock art When, Where, to Whom (2016. Atelier Etno).
  • See an article on http://www.grahamhancock.com under Author of the month, September 2015, on cultural structure.