This is the scientific proof of our zodiacal hypothesis. It is another representation of the data in our 'cave art' paper.

This plot shows the difference in the radiocarbon age and 'zodiacal age' for every recognisable animal symbol in western European Palaeolithic caves that has been carbon dated and belongs to our zodiac, and which has been peer-reviewed by an English-language research journal. It also includes 2 data points for stag/megaloceros symbols (not included in our initial zodiac), which are deduced to represent Aquarius from the radiocarbon age of a 3rd megaloceros symbol (not plotted - see an earlier blog post).

Where several measurements of the same animal symbol were made, their radiocarbon ages are averaged.

The open circles represent animal symbols for which 2 or more radiocarbon measurements have been made, but which are mutually inconsistent at the level of 3 standard errors. In our paper, we used 2 standard errors - here I am relaxing this constraint somewhat. The chance of 2 reliable measurements being inconsistent at this level (3 standard errors) is extremely small. Therefore, it is almost certain that this data is unreliable, and must be rejected.

The open triangles represent animal symbols for which the uncertainty in their radiocarbon age is greater than 1100 years (1 standard error). Our hypothesis can only be reliably tested with data that has an uncertainty less than about half the 'width' of a zodiacal symbol, i.e. 1080 years on average. Therefore, these triangles must also be rejected from consideration. Because of their large uncertainty, all these data points are, nevertheless, consistent with our hypothesis.

The open square symbol represents an animal symbol from Cosquer cave below the high tide mark. Analysis of other animal symbols in this cave shows that radiocarbon measurements of symbols below this tide mark are unreliable. Therefore, this data point must also be rejected.

The filled circles are all the remaining data points. The probability of obtaining this skewed distribution of data points(the filled circles), assuming the null hypothesis of a random distribution, is around 1 in 2.3 billion. Our hypothesis easily passes this test. The two outliers are both from Cosquer cave. Only 1 symbol is actually inconsistent with our hypothesis (horse 5).

We can therefore now interpret the meaning of these ancient artworks, and those at Gobekli Tepe, in terms of a consistent framework, i.e. coherent catastrophism and the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. See our 'cave art' paper for details.

The excellent match of symbols on Pillar 43 (the Vulture Stone) at Gobekli Tepe with the same constellations reinforces our hypothesis to an unassailable level. Our hypothesis is proven.


Popular posts from this blog

Prehistory Decoded - new book sent to publishers