London’s last permanent wall probably expressed the same subconscious structuralist orientation as the stoneprint among London buildings. During the Renaissance the stoneprint among buildings doubled in diameter, and quadrupled in surface. The wall was demolished and gates became obsolete. London’s stoneprint retained its orientation (as Rome, Paris and other cities did), but some buildings and some gates acquired new identities, and the polar points moved south-westward, first to Temple Ave (see below), then to the Thames south bank corner. London’s Medieval gates
Type label; Medieval gate (noting archetypal features):
1 Bjuilder or Taurus; Tower (tower, cluster, maze) Postern Gate, pedestrian bend (twisted).
3 Queen or Aries; Billingsgate, of Belin, his head buried here (sacrifice), at the river port (pool).
4 King or Pisces; Ebgate. 4p Gal.S.Pole; Dowgate, at Mill Brook mouth (juncture, spout).
5 Priest or Aquarius; Queenhithe (water).
6 Exile or Capricornus; Blackfriars corner, far from the centre (egress).
7 Child or Sagittarius; Ludgate.
8 Healer or Scorpius; Newgate.
10 Teacher or Libra; Aldersgate (council).
11 Womb or Virgo; Wood Str? No gate (womb /interior). 11p Gal.Pole: Cripplegate, low lintel.
12 Heart or Leo; Moorgate.
13 Heart or Leo; Mill Brook stream (water-work), under the wall (inversion).
14 Mixer or Cancer; Bishopsgate.
15 Maker or Gemini; Aldgate.
The ecliptic pole is near Watling Str /Bread Str (juncutre). The celestial pole may be on Mill Brook at Lombard Str (juncture), and the celestial south pole on Friday Str. Both cardinal directions indicate ‘summer’ in Gemini, thus ‘spring’ and the cultural time-frame in Age Pisces, perhaps confirmed by the central riverfront position of Ebgate.
The general theme among these gates are type 11p ‘Galactic Pole’, dry centre of a galactic ‘river’.
London’s Roman gates
Type labels; Gate (noting archetypal features):
2 Builder or Taurus; Tower Hill (tower) keep and stockade (bovid).
2c Basket; Eastern corner.
3 Queen or Aries; Belin’s Gate and head (sacrifice).
4 King or Pisces; St Magnus (king), and Roman bridge.
5 Priest or Aquarius; ?
6 Exile or Capricornus; Palace or a villa (camp), near the centre (ingress).
7 Child or Sagittarius; ? (unfolding). 7g Gal.Centre: St Martin at Fleet River (water, juncture).
9 Healer or Scorpius; Bailey.
9c Basket Lid; Newgate and prison (10 law enforcement).
10 Teacher or Libra; Aldersgate (council), at Barracks (guard).
11 Womb or Virgo; Barracks (interior), kitchen (wheat).
13 Heart or Leo; No gate (interior).
14 Mixer or Cancer; Bishopsgate.
15 Maker or Gemini; Aldgate; and Forum (order, face, sceptre). 15g Gal.Gate; Pedestrian gate?
Polar markers are uncertain.
London’s civil war forts
Citizens worked hard as volunteers to first erect redoubts, then a large chain of forts, banks and dykes in the Civil War in 1643. Royal forces did not attack London afterward, and internal opposition was suppressed by democratic terror. Parliament soon demolished the forts in 1647. A conjectural map of 1739 and a modern survey demonstrate that artworks and plans are different media using the same spatial ‘grammar’.
Typology in the modern survey of London’s civil war defences (map after Vauban, noting differences in the survey by Vertue, on Fortified Places):
1 Builder or Taurus; Wapping Fort, at the later Millbank Prison (maze); On the same axis as the Tower; outer front for the Tower, seat of power (build, sack) and records (book).
2 Builder or Taurus; Redriff or Rotherhithe Fort.
2c Basket; Bermondsey Church Fort.
3 Queen or Aries; Kent Str Fort.
4 King or Pisces; Newington or Blackman Str Fort, at Elephant & Castle, ferrier (furnace). 4p Gal.S.Pole; St George’s Fields Fort (juncture. 4 field).
5a Priest or Aquarius; Vauxhall Fort (assembly), land and water forces (hyperactive, water).
5b Priest or Aquarius; Tothill Fort (assembly, mound of 12 opposite).
6 Exile or Capricornus; Milkfield Fort, far out (egress).
7 Child or Sagittarius; Goring House Fort. 7g Gal.Centre: Oliver’s Mount (juncture) or Sergeant’s Fort. [Another survey found a western corner 7g at Hyde Park Fort].
8 Healer or Scorpius; Banqueting Fort.
9 Healer or Scorpius; St Giles Fort.
9c Basket Lid; Southampton Fort.
10 Teacher or Libra; Lincoln’s Inn Fields? (interior, more typical of 11).
11 Womb; Virgo; Holborn? (interior from Pinder Of Wakefield Fort); or Royal Fort (one of only two exterior forts, usually one of two interior forts). 11p Galactic Pole: St John Str or Waterfield Fort (12 water-work), near Royal redoubt (juncture). [Another survey indicates type 12 Leo here].
12 Heart or Leo; Interior (heart) from Mount Mill Fort. [Another survey reveals this fort as type 13].
13 Heart or Leo; Hoxton Fort, which another survey places interior (heart). [Another survey reveals 13c here].
13c Basket Head; Shoreditch Church Fort.
14 Mixer or Cancer; Brick Lane Fort.
15 Maker or Gemini; Whitechapel Mount Fort, artificial hill (churn); and Mile End redoubt (doubled).
The ecliptic pole is near Talus Str (unmarked). [Another survey places the axial centre near Temple Church]. The celestial poles are uncertain.
The general theme among the Civil War defences includes type 11p Galactic Pole, of junctures and gestation, also of the short-lived Republic.
Or order the book Stoneprint (2016), or Mindprint (2014); or slide show talks, or to contribute articles, email firstname.lastname@example.org or call +27 (0)11 955 6732. Four Equators Media, Johannesburg. ISBN 978-0-620-69863-4
Here are some examples of structural art analysis using mindprint; a set of sixteen types with their frequent attributes; in their standard sequence; with the eyes of typological figures on an axial grid. All art containing more than eleven characters express this structure, without the conscious knowledge of artists.
An example of the standard typological sequence and geometric structure, present in all art of all cultures), in a seasonal, clockwise direction, in formal Egyptian funerary art. Type 7g Galactic Centre between types 7 and 8, here both as hieroglyphic figures, is a canal vortex (see hieroglyphs as figures, also in Babylonian and in Mexican art).
A sand mound formed by water expresses the idea of becoming in Egyptian theology. Giza waterworks, including the Sphinx reservoir (see Robert Temple’s book on the Sphinx) and lower shafts (see Edward Malkowski on gravity pumps) incidentally express the concept of the galactic centre and four galactic corners. Many Egyptian sites had symbolic water features, as in Peru, India, and other parts of the far east.
The sun-in-horizon glyphs at Leo and Cancer, express midsummer, the birds express the celestial pole near Ursa Minor, and their ponds may express summer, perhaps a rare incidence of conscious use of some calendric parts of the subconscious structure of cultural expression. The pegs at Cancer may incidentally express solstice or precession calibrators. Some elements in afterlife scenes, as in duat hour scenes, polar groups, decanal groups, and tree of life groups, are traditional, some are updated, and some are re-arranged by the individual artist. Stock artworks were seldom if ever copied by mechanical means, yet beneath their apparent differences, and beneath their apparent stock elements, is a rigorously identical set of types, in standard sequence, with their eyes on a standard axial grid, and some limb joints in standard polar positions.
The galactic poles are both on the edges or ‘elbow’ banks of akhet horizon hieroglyphs, representing desert hills in a cross-section of the Nile valley. A celestial polar marker on the elbow of an extra, polar type 15 Maker or Gemini, tags the inspiration as Age Aries-Pisces, but his hand tags the earlier Age Aries, and the foot of a benben bird on an obelisk provides for the future Age Aquarius. Artists are not conscious of most of the aspects of the detailed iconographic hologram that they express.
Bull foreleg as Ursa Minor and celestial pole is a semi-conscious symbol
The celestial pole star in the Senmut ceiling is at the hoof of a severed bull foreleg, or ‘poing’ stick skewering some dots, as the Ursa Minor tail, calibrator of recent polar positions. Yet this is not an feat of astronomy, but a feat of semi-conscious structural expression.
The bull leg is speared by an extra type 10 Teacher or Libra, decan Bootes, also with his arms raised. His spear is part of the Ursa Major severed bull foreleg (related to the former spring bull, since it calibrated the precession of the celestial pole, and thus of the summer sun, at the time). The two forelegs are conflated in myth and art, though usually separate constellations.
The polar decan behind the bull leg is a nominal type 15 Maker or Gemini, which is often the rope puller, re-creator, smiter, and ancestor. Gods are not enthroned on the poles, however some polar attributes are transferred to the Taweret group in the lower register, which doubles as the seasonal constellations 14 Mixer or Cancer (eye of crocodile on Taweret’s back); 12/13 Heart or Leo (Taweret’s heart, see the note on ‘eyes’ or lucida below); 11 Womb or Virgo (unseen eye in Taweret’s pregnant womb); 10 Teacher or Libra (eye of a duplicate Bootes with his arms up); 8/9 Healer or Scorpius (eye of a rampant crocodile); 7 Child or Sagittarius (eye of a young crocodile curled up).
The Senmut ceiling has a constellation and seasonal cycle split into two. On the upper register appears the rest of the ecliptic (zodiac) constellations (not ‘signs’, which the decans partly are, hence their perpetual confusion). Some ambiguity here due to some extreme variants in typology, indicate that the upper register may have been designed for the other side-wall of a barrel vault, and was thus inverted and stands in retro sequence.
However they continue the seasonal sequence; Capricornus (eye of a crane); Aquarius (eye of a turtle); Pisces (eye of a boatman); Aries (eye of a hieroglyph, a weak point in the visual expression, however it’s determinative is one star, common for delta Arietis in several decanal calendars); Taurus Perseus (eye of a backwards-looking boatman, identified by seven stars as standing on the Pleiades, and by three stars as adjacent to Orion); Gemini (star on an axe-shape, perhaps Canis Sirius).
Some of the decanal figures, and some hieroglyphs, confirm the identifications.
The axial centre confirms the subconscious spacing (I could not find any reference to any artist or school being aware of the mindprint structure in art).
The polar configuration is not marked by ‘gods’ or archetypal principles, but by structural features, usually limb joints; the galactic pole is on Taweret’s jaw (a frequent polar marker), the galactic south pole is on Pisces’ foot. The moving celestial pole was on Dinwiddie’s rear foot, moved to his front foot, as confirmed by his vertical plane, the other figures’ horizontal plane. The celestial south pole was on his elbow, moved to his front shoulder.
The celestial poles, and thus solstices, here lie in the wide gap between Cancer and Gemini, indicating a broadly Age Aries framework. In subconscious anticipation of moving closer to Age Pisces, and thus to a Gemini pole and summer, the bull foreleg hoof offers a (formerly forthcoming) limb joint marker, opposite Dinwiddie’s hips as a limb joint marker for the celestial south pole.
Art, myth, ritual, and crafts like astrology, all derive from archetype. Culture is sustained and standardised by subconscious expression. I did not design archetype, or this quirky cultural expression of archetypal structure. I merely identify and demonstrate this expression.
Astronomical figures are not primarily zodiac figures, since they are not conventionalised. However their ranges of attributes, their sequence, and their relative positioning are highly standardised, forming a mindprint (Edmond Furter; Mindprint, 2015, lulu.com). Mindprint is not a zodiac, it appears in all cultural media, in all cultures and eras, has never been consciously recognised, and does not evolve.
Some zodiacs or star maps subconsciously express mindprint, while motivated by a mixture of calendric, charting, astronomical, mythical, theological, political, decorative, and other conscious aims.
The decans in the lower register, all with red spheres on their heads, perhaps indicating lunar stations (hours), do not stand for much else, as usual. One of the few decans with blank spheres on their heads, doubles as a second Cancer (its eye is on the same axis as the Cancer crocodile’s eye).
The Senmut types, as in all artworks, confirm one another in five ways;
 by features (eg raised arms is typical of type 10 Teacher Libra, etc, see the statistics in other posts);
 and in sequence (eg type 10 Teacher Libra is between type 11 Womb or Virgo, and type 9 Healer or Scorpius);
 and in axial spacing (eg type 10 is always opposite type 3);
 and in the exact spacing of their eyes (type 10’s eye is opposite type 3’ eye, with two constant, standard exceptions to the ‘lucida’; type 12/13 Heart or Leo is spaced by his heart in 85% or artworks, and type 11 Womb or Virgo is spaced by her womb 87% of artworks);
 and in the polar structure, based on limb joints and the horizontal or vertical plane.
[UPDATE 2019: Here is the set of labels used to mark typology characters in artworks or building sites, using generic functions instead of myths, and numbering the c-types to enable the Sort function to place them correctly in the sequence. Pairs of opposites that always appear on the same axis, are given above/below one another;
1Builder 2Builder 2cBasket 3Queen 4King 4p
8Healer 9Healer 9cLid 10Teacher 11Womb 11p
5aPriest 5bPriest 5cTail 6Exile 7Child 7g
12Heart 13 Heart 13cHead 14Mixer 15Maker 15g
cp csp ? ?
I tested the Senmut ceiling for the book Stoneprint (initially in response to two queries); for clearly demonstrating that traditional astronomical programmes, commissions, and artists, concentrate on consciously political and theological intentions, and on some semi-conscious symbolic conventions.
Yet the same work clearly expresses the universal structure of culture, perception, and nature, using the same predictive and testable criteria as in the book, and in the article. Mindprint analysis of highly detailed cosmological features, reveals how the assumed unique art for or by the talented commoner social climber Senmut, under queen Hatshepshut, and the assumed unique Egyptian culture, repeats the same tupos (seal or imprint) as the art of all cultures and all ages.
Art demonstrates that the origin of culture is archetypal, not astronomical, astrological, mythical, religious, political, calendric, decorative, incidental, etc. All cultural media play some roles in mutating expressions and styles, but the core content is as hardy as the periodic table of chemistry, of DNA.
Like DNA, even slight changes in some attributes, in sequence, or in spatial positioning of ‘chromosomes or acids’ would be fatal. There are other Egyptian ceiling examples in Mindprint on p175 (Seti 1, and Ramses 6); Egyptian art on pp 204, 205, 210, 215, 217; Egyptian palettes on pp 170, 184; and political murals on p166 etc, Egyptian jewellery on p224, 227.
All complex artworks (containing eleven or more figures, or characters) express the complexities of natural structure in surprisingly minimalistic and ‘innovative’ ways, beyond the conscious capacities of the artists. The same goes for each of the other 200 artworks in the book, and about 543 tested since, from all the known cultures in and before history (see some examples in my article at Graham Hancock’s website, under Author of the Month September 2015, and some discussion in the context of archaeo astronomy).
The same goes for a pseudo-Egyptian painting by an amateur South African artist (Mindprint p189). Artists do not have to be ancient, or Egyptian, or have big and commodified names (many of whom feature in the book), to express archetypal structure in Egyptian style, or in any style.
Styling is pseudo culture. Art, language, ritual and all of culture, is first, foremost, and in the final analysis, structure, clothed and disguised in conformist fads.
I have avoided including zodiac artworks in the book, to escape the apparently ‘logical, common sense’, but false impression that mindprint may be ‘based on the zodiac’. The opposite is true; nature, seasons, ritual, myth, art, emblems, zodiacs, crafts, such as astrology or psychology, and everything cultural, expresses archetypal structure.
None of these media derive from any other, or require the pre-existence of any other, although some cultural media sometimes illustrate the conventions of other cultural media at a conscious level. However all cultural media are subconsciously standardised, and sustained, by compulsive structural expression. We are structural creatures.
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.
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.
Finding mindprint in a work of art is as simple as finding correspondences to any archetypally complete set or sets of about sixteen (twelve to twenty) items, such as pantheons (lists of gods), myth cycles, epics, emblems, lunar mansions, trumps, historic or fictional characters, constellations, heraldic devices, lyrics, or animals.
Researchers should tack characters in art to sets that they are familiar with, and use the mindprint axial grid and tables for confirmation (see the post What is mindprint, on this website. See Mindprint, the subconscious art code, by Edmond Furter, 2014, Lulu.com). Here is a shortcut method to finding the basics of the five layers of the archetypal art code;
 Identify a likely periphery of figures in a roughly elliptical arrangement.
 List the figures in their circular sequence, by any distinctive attribute, such as a posture, season, function, species, or device.
 Provisionally tag the list or the artwork, with likely type numbers, such as 10 Teacher for a figure with arms up or a staff, 12 or 13 Heart for a felid, 1 or 2 Builder for a bovid or tower, 5 Priest for varicoloured, skin paint or a hyperactive posture.
 Tag figures notably ingressed or egressed towards or away from the centre, as 6 Exile or 14 Mixer.
 Tag a pregnant figure as 11 Womb; and an adjacent major figure as 12 or 13 Heart (usually with an exposed chest), and the adjacent figure on the other side as 10 Teacher.
 Infer a clockwise or anticlocwise sequence, and provisionally complete the labellling.
 Count the number of eyes (for example 17), assume the lower even number (for example 16), subtract two (for example 14), skip half of this number (for example 7) between eyes, and draw tentative axes between each pair of likely opposing eyes.
 If three or more axes cross at the same point, find the likely 11 Womb, and a likely 12 or 13 Heart, and redraw errant axes by not using their eyes (unless their eyes also find counterparts across the axial centre).
 If three or more peripheral figures remain unaccounted for, assume a higher equal number (for example 18), and repeat the test with higher numbers.
 Resolve the sequence by splitting up or combining the major doubles (1 /2 Builder, 5a/5b Priest, 8/9 Healer, 12/13 Heart).
 Complete all the possible axes. Connect the equator from eye to eye (with the two exceptions).
 Find one or two polar markers between 11 Womb and 12 Heart, or between 4 King and 5 Priest, near the equator (not near the centre). These poles are often on limb joints.
 Find a polar marker nearer the axial pole, on or near the 15 Maker, 14 Mixer, or 13 Heart axis; which is often a limb joint, perhaps a jaw, vertical or horizontal from the axial centre or from one of the galactic poles. Connect this marker to the galactic pole to form a polar triangle (or if there is a marker on the opposite side, connect it to the galactic south pole).
 Mirror the polar triangle on the other side of the ecliptic pole. Polar markers are not always expressed. Infer the inspirational date (spring) from the type that precedes the polar axle (midsummer) by an ideal 90 degrees (approximate, not measured on the distorted grid).
 Apply the set of labels, one to each figure, and the four structural points, in sequence. Note that there is a choice of two labels (/) at the four major types if they are represented by only one figure (typical if the total is only twelve or fourteen);
The axial centre or ‘Ecliptic Pole’ is unlabelled to avoid clutter.
 Half-types (2c Basket v 9c Lid, 5c Tail v 13c Head) are usually off the axial grid, but within their sectors, designated by the axes of the two types that flank each of them.
 On a separate page, list the type numbers, with basic distinctive features or characters found in the artwork, to compare to other artworks, mindprint statistics, stories, myths or typological sets.
This structure applies to all artworks, in all cultures, in all ages, due to the structure of nature, perception, expression, and cultural media. Mindprint also applies to myths and legends, but it is difficult to extract to a subtext, due to typical fluctuation between characters, places, episodes, and time. In art, the time-slice of the story stands still, and the composition could be verified against the original, or reproductions in catalogues, books and electronic galleries, such as tourist image sites.
See a standard format for testing and reporting structural art or building site analysis, in the post on ;What is mindprint’ on this website.
Themes, moods, rhythms, styles and fads in poetry and lyrics could each be reduced to a distinctive format among a limited range of modes or ‘grooves’, and compared across a gulf of millennia to identify the character of the inspiration.
So it seemed to a literature student raised on Homer and art rock. My first thesis, Urban poets and prophets, directly compared some poems and ‘art rock’ lyrics. “Once tuned in to a particular inspiration, a poem writes itself”, I announced to a literature lecturer, who in return rattled off a list of authors, such as Mallarme, who have already said that.
“We should study poem cycles for their mythic structures, and study writing techniques only for how they support thematic structure,” I announced to a poetry lecturer, who suggested that I should study philosophy or psychology instead.
My next thesis explored the structure of phonemes (speech sounds) and the limits of meaning as revealed by their artistic use in what I took to be lyrical ‘modes’, bent to similar structural rules as parts of speech. Each phoneme’s pronunciation and perception is influenced by the succession it occurs within.
We perceive the distribution and succession as a whole, a kind of auditory speed-reading that support some meanings and obscure others. The grammar lecturer replied that I should consider an anthropology or psychology course.
From a combination of Freudian psychology and myth, including Fraser’s apparently fragmented Golden Bough, emerged vague but persistent impressions that some elements of the human psyche and culture were structured, compulsive and somewhat mechanistic, but partly subconscious and expressing spiritual logic beyond conscious definition. Jung’s depth psychology I had to read in my own time, it was not part of the psychology course.
An eventual career in journalism taught me that living myth and legend, or myth in the making, dictates which news, history and even technical magazine content would sell. No story is as difficult to write and to read as one containing new thought patterns or new assumptions. News gradually revealed itself as the sceptic’s definition of history; a set of fictions we agree to tell one another.
Invisible structure dogged my writing, and my hobby as a musician. Underneath conscious behaviour and even small talk, lie elements of a bigger conversation that I sought out in Egyptology, archaeology, astronomy, sacred sites, Theosophy and art.
Archaeology Society field trips and aerial photography flips over extensive kraal (cattle corral) cities in South Africa offered me a visual framework for interpreting cultural artefacts as shaped by individual and collective economy (paths of least resistance), using ready physical material and symbolic spacing. Culture seemed also to ‘write itself’.
The idea that visual art express stock themes, just as poems, lyrics, phonemes, huts and music do, gradually rose to prominence as I studied supposed astronomical artefacts, to find archetypes instead.
Rock art images often include swallow mud nest forms, swifts in half-human shape, water and a vortex in the sky. These birds, sometimes half-fish and mistaken as ‘mermaids’, are what archaeologists label ‘swift people’ (see theme 1 Taurus16), but archaeological literature fails to address the rest of the ensemble, or visual ‘mode’, resembling predictions of the 9/11 2001 New York terror attack.
An alchemical emblem by Basil Valentine of the 1300s (type 1:16 Builder/Sacker or Taurus) contain the same features that I had linked to swift people in rock art, and in Tarot trump 16 (Tower struck by lightning), several years before the iconic event of November 2001. Valentine’s alchemical emblem shows a high-rise city, on an island across a bridge, on fire, with a tract above it being torn up or struck by lightning. The medieval caption speaks of national pride, meddling in foreign affairs and mixed messages coming home to roost, in the same terms and tone used by critics of former USA president George W Bush.
Illustrations to the modern tale of the Wizard of Oz, with the related theme of a towering city and a yellow brick road, and the synonymous song by Bernie Tauplin and Elton John, closely fit the type or mode. Lyrics to Yellow brick road (“When are you gonna come down, when are you going to land… I bet that’ll shoot down your plane”) below an image of the fallen World Trade centre, came as a shock of recognition to the informal class of archaeo astronomers that I teach each midwinter holiday in June-July.
I gradually came to understand that the subject of my short course in archaeo astronomy was a misnomer, since it revealed structures in supposed astronomical artefacts that do not require archaeology or astronomy to express or to read.
If the Tower of Babel had a type number (1:16), and a cluster of features (build, sack, rain, etc), and came with a standard set of supporting icons and themes, such as language, diplomacy and trade tracts; then other icons in art, rock art, poetry, supposed prophecy and even historic events, could carry similar heraldic and emblematic markers. If archetypal events tend to be well recorded and reported, and less archetypal events selectively recorded, then visual art could reveal a visual grammar, and in turn crack the archetypal code.
While following this approach in research, I chanced on an image of the Lamb of God (Agnus Dei) in a Papal seal imprint in ash-laden wax, posed as a query in an archaeological magazine (Voyage of the Planet, now defunct). I recognised the image from a Babylonian cylinder seal and the Egyptian Narmer palette that I had already tentatively identified with myths and features related to dragons and to Aries.
Since Agnus Dei was universally known in Judaeo-Christian iconography as well as astrology, it offered an anchor point for the underlying structure of myth. The Lamb of God also appears in alchemical emblems and Tarot trump 18 (Moon), anchoring a camouflaged sequence of correspondences, affinities, or ‘tacking’ between several esoteric sets.
Conventional logic that tags the Tarot’s crayfish to Cancer had to be wrong. The creature had to be Cetus or its tail, expressing the concept of a Kraken-type sea monster, the scaly component of a dragon, by definition a composite beast. Conventional astrology that cast Aries as a ram and ram only, had to be wrong.
Yet another clue to the sequence of types emerged from my own archaeo astronomy course material; a music DVD including an interview with rock icon Ian Anderson, genius of the band Jethro Tull, explaining how he eventually discovered that his chromatic, lilting, riffed music, and one-legged stance, resembled Krishna and Kokopelli (Jethro Tull, Living with the past, Eagle Vision DVD). Anderson does not mention Pan, but I already had his number from mythology, since forests, goats, and Capricornus ‘tacked’ to Trump 6 (Lovers) in the Tarot deck.
Combining these and other anchor points and filling in the gaps, I cracked the sequence of attributes that populate myth, alchemy, art, astrology and Tarot trumps. The little list (actually a semi-spiral with four expandable parts) soon became a lens with which to read rock art, which emerged as identical to myth and schooled art in inspiration, compulsion and structure, across the gulf of millennia and continents.
Art history and archaeology are prone to exaggerating diffusion and conventions, despite examples of independent development of similar pantheons, rituals, pyramids, temples, monuments and the entire repertoire of culture in the Americas and elsewhere. All have characters near identical to Perseus, Hercules and the rest, and modes similar to ode, sonnet, gloria, blues and hero epic.
The concept of cultural elements, such as half-humans, as idiosyncratic developments, prompted and ‘framed’ by their own cultures, had to be wrong.
Comparing ancient Egyptian rock art and Egyptian formal (dynastic) art with Zimbabwean rock art, allowed a series of breakthroughs beyond the broadest thesis or imagination of my earlier research in lyrics, speech sounds and emblems. Many figures include standard attributes in implicit elements such as a staff, a long or craned neck, certain postures, relatively larger or smaller size, pregnancy, position relative to the approximate centre, species, attire, skin paint, status or apparent social function.
The frequent distinctive attributes appear in the periphery, in a standard sequence, and as axial opposites, which in turn reveal the standard geometric structure.
The more I tested, the simpler the sequence and structure became to identify. If academia was right, archetypes should be scattered at random in art, and every region or culture should have a unique set of figures, and display different stages of development in different eras. Yet artists all sing the same hymn to an archetypal tune, over the same set of polar ‘chords’.
If art history was right, there should be no axial structure in art. Iconographic analysis of large political art panels at Wits University (see T’Kama Adamastor), Brenthurst Library (see Leonard French’s Bridge), and the Voortrekker Monument (see Hennie Potgieter’s marble friezes), confirmed the same ‘rock art sequence’ in schooled art. Only some stylistic elements differ.
Learned artists, and supposedly primitive rock artists whose visionary figurative and geometric engravings I had puzzled over on field trips, share subconscious recourse to archetypal structure. The universal structure also appears in myth and wisdom literature. A deceptively simple little list of seasonal evening stars in the Mishnah confirmed astrology as just another layer or medium, and not the origin of structure (see the Literature section).
From years of searching for a ‘unified field theory’ in esoteric literature, I knew that lists appeared in hundreds of guises, but were nowhere reduced to a universal set, except in the stereotype of astrology, and these do not explain the more ‘rounded’ halo’s of meanings that I found in emblems and art.
Could there be more than conceptual symmetry between the sixteen types that were emerging? When I had casually asked sculptor Danie de Jager about geometric ratios in art, he explained that artists had “geometry built in”.
To find these ‘built-in’ structures on a larger scale, I developed a template from what I had thought at first to be a re-construction of a ‘Babylonian’ division of the cosmos and constellations, keyed to galactic features, mythic figures of various relative sizes and extent, as well as star lore.
Once I understood this structure as archetypal, not an ‘oral tradition’, legacy or secret source, but re-invented by every culture, and innately understood by artists and viewers, healers and patients, it became obvious that the sequence and the structure were part and parcel of perception.
Most artists do not study astronomy, and would have to invest some months of conscious effort to become familiar with the interplay between the forces, positions, observation and background texture of the sky. Yet the innate structure of perception, as revealed in artistic expression, could be super-imposed on a cosmogram or star map, or on any sufficiently complex natural or cultural set.
I systematically super-imposed astrological, alchemical, emblematic, mythic and conceptual elements on the sequence revealed by my affinitive ‘tacking’, then on a multi-cultural armillary projection of the sky developed for an educational installation in a theme park (not yet built). I tested the sequence and its structure on rock art, then on famous artworks, then on amateur art.
The structure hinges on the eyes of each figure (or in frontal faces on the eyes nearest to the geometric focal point), and on axes to the eyes of each opposite but complementary types (with two constant exceptions; a heart and a womb, corresponding to type 13 Heart or Leo, and type 11 Womb or Virgo). These axes always cross in one point.
One of the first rock art works to confirm the test in all its complexity was a group of goat people (half human figures) in Turkey, in a small shelter at Mount Latmos near Ephesus. Perhaps it was an informal oracle site, or just the haunt of an inspired goatherd that may have been a candidate for a temporary appointment at one of the earlier ‘Amazonian’ oracles, or the later formal temples. Perhaps by an aristocrat ordained for religious service as a Vestal virgin or priest, or a poet such as Aesop.
As I compared the ‘primitive’ figures to sophisticated, ritualised, formulaic, programmatic art depicting Artemis and her goats, it became clear that the elaborate oracular rock art of the Matobo range in Zimbabwe was no different in impulse, core content, structure, impact or style.
Panel after panel of rock art reproductions (particularly in the book by Elspeth Parry), as well as a range of works by classical and modern masters, chosen for their apparent differences, cracked under the lens of what I eventually named mindprint.
Another strand in the braid of archetypal expression came from the order of painting. Archaeologists carefully label strata, often paper thin, as they dig down, leaving portions they name ‘witness sections’ stuck with an array of flagged pins to re-check their dig reports and subsequent seasons or other sites against. This method, named the Harris matrix, they also apply to rock painting, useful where many figures partially overlay one another (assuming that each figure is completed in a separate episode).
The method reveals likely episodes of painting, typically grouping three, four, five or six figures into three, four or five episodes. Comparison of a meticulous academic paper on stratigraphy in a Drakensberg rock art work, to mindprint analysis of the same work, revealed that the artist had painted pairs of opposite figures together. This may not apply to all artists (see stratigraphy problems in the ‘Three Magi’ rock art scene in examples Chapter 13), but the cloth of evidence was woven to demonstrate the collective subconscious inspiration, or at least expression in practice.
The evidence awaited only a statistical test, which added the final strand to the art code. Despite my habitual reluctance for quantitative grammar, the test and results ‘wrote themselves’, and revealed some visual and structural qualities that the new conceptual sequential and geometrical lenses did not initially detect.
This study traces the structure in visual expression back to the invisible structure of inspiration and perception, and thus to the structure of nature, as far as we could know her, ultimately to archetype, which existed before creation and time. Breaking through the layers of disguise and distraction that protect our conscious logic from subconscious logic, required following thousands of trails in a forest of scientific and esoteric mazes, locking out dead ends, and returning to unexplored turns.
The reputed skill of artists in translating inspiration into visual form, as a tool of individual spiritual transformation, is confirmed. Our conscious and scientific views of art, perception and ultimately identity, have to recognise that we are essentially re-creators of archetypal structure.
Since the sequence and structure of visual types are sufficiently demonstrated, as repeated and repeatable, it stands as an artefact requiring a theory, no longer a theory supported by artefacts. Relevant sciences, arts and crafts will probably find their own explanations for mindprint.
The book was written twice, first as 200 captions to art and rock art images, to demonstrate how artists express eternal archetypes in a mixture of consciously understood and subconscious, universal esoteric terms, then as a statistical research report.
[UPDATE 2019 January; Since Mindprint, the same structural features were demonstrated in building sites, in the book Stoneprint (2014). The list of isolated features, and their average features, was expanded there, and in six editions of Stoneprint Journal in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019.]
Together, the images and text place mindprint, our involuntary art code, in context with archaeology, anthropology, mythology, philosophy, psychology, art history and popular culture.
The two spheres of this book, theoretical and practical, hopefully enable conscious access to the vast array of subconscious meanings in art, in acclaimed individual works and seemingly different cultures across continents and millennia.
The revelations and conclusions enable a synthesis of our academic, artistic and esoteric views of culture. The three sides of the artistic, esoteric and scientific divide meet here on their own terms.
Mindprint leads several crafts, arts and sciences through their commonalities to the subtext in cultural and natural expressions of archetype.
To avoid the double risk of alienating scientists by esoteric terminology, or alienating esoteric readers by scientific terminology, technicalities are kept to a minimum. Concepts are demonstrated in terms of actual expressions of the archetypal attributes and structure in artworks, and multiplied by many references to the 200 illustrated examples.
Science and esoterica both operate on the principle of predictability and isolation (distinction), although science proceeds from measurables in theoretical context, and esoterica from intrinsic correspondences. This book describes and tests archetype in both contexts.
– Edmond Furter, Johannesburg, March 2014
(Extract from the Postscript in the book Mindprint, the subconscious art code, 2014, Lulu.com, 266 pages, 200 illustrations, $29 plus postage, or R250 at presentations in South Africa, or email edmondfurter at gmail.com)