J.Konstapel,Leiden 13-5-2026

The article in this blof csuggests that a vast Aboriginal Australian rock engraving site on the NSW Central Coast contains over 2,000 precise astronomical markers.

The author uses strict criteria (edge incline, depth-to-diameter ratio) to argue the markings are human-made, not natural formations.

Interpretations include star maps (possibly matching 2,500 BC skies), solstice indicators, plasma events, and a geomagnetic pole shift.

Some incisions are so fine (1mm) that the author suggests unknown ancient technology, beyond conventional stone or metal tools.

The site would rewrite history by proving complex astronomy and systematic science in ancient Aboriginal Australia.

---

Rewriting Prehistory: The Astronomical Rock Engravings of the Central Coast, NSW

Abstract

This essay examines a contentious yet potentially paradigm-shifting archaeological claim: the existence of a vast complex of Aboriginal Australian astronomical rock engravings on the Central Coast of New South Wales. Based on the fieldwork of researcher Steven Strong and his team, the site purportedly contains over 2,000 star markers, constellation alignments, solstice indicators, and possible records of plasma events and geomagnetic shifts. The essay evaluates the authors’ methodology, their criteria for distinguishing artificial from natural formations, and the broader implications for understanding Indigenous knowledge systems. While the site’s exact location remains undisclosed at the request of Traditional Custodians, the presented evidence challenges conventional timelines of scientific sophistication and invites a reevaluation of Australia’s place in the history of astronomy. This essay concludes that regardless of specific dating controversies, the claims assert the necessity of integrating Indigenous oral traditions and archaeology into mainstream narratives of world prehistory.

Introduction: A Discovery Without Parallel?

In March 2013, independent researcher Steven Strong and his team published a preliminary report claiming to have identified what they describe as “the most intensive ancient star chart” in the world, located on a series of sandstone rock platforms in the Central Coast region of New South Wales, Australia. According to Strong, the site—whose exact location remains confidential at the request of Aboriginal Elders and Custodians—contains no fewer than 2,000 individual astronomical markers spread across at least 16 major rock platforms within a 3.5-kilometer radius. The central platform alone measures approximately 135 by 80 meters and, based on a detailed survey of 551 square meters, provided data on 191 star markers, with an estimated 500 more yet to be documented.

The authors explicitly state that this complex is “without parallel in Australia, and perhaps the world.” The purpose of this essay is not to accept these claims uncritically but to examine the evidence presented, assess the methodological rigor applied, and explore the profound implications if the findings are even partially validated. For an intellectual audience, the case offers a fascinating intersection of archaeology, ethnoastronomy, Indigenous knowledge, and the politics of archaeological heritage.

Methodology: Distinguishing Artifact from Nature

A central challenge in rock art studies is differentiating human-made markings from natural formations such as potholes, solution pits, or lithological cupmarks. Strong adopts a multi-criteria approach, drawing on the work of respected rock art authority Robert Bednarik. Four key measures are employed:

1. Incline of the inner edge – Artificial engravings tend to have steep, near-vertical edges (80–90 degrees), whereas water erosion creates gradual slopes.
2. Depth-to-diameter ratio – In natural potholes, depth often exceeds diameter (ratio >1). Human-made cupules generally show the opposite (ratio <1).
3. Surface context – Markers located in natural water channels or runoff zones were excluded entirely.
4. Subjective expert judgment – Each marker was ranked on a three-point scale of likelihood of human involvement.

The quantitative results are striking. Of the 191 recorded markers:

• 64% had an inner edge incline of exactly 90 degrees, and 98% had an incline of 80 degrees or greater.
• Only one marker had a depth-to-diameter ratio exceeding 1.0. More than 92% of markers had a ratio of 0.59 or below, meaning the diameter was at least twice the depth.
• In subjective ranking, 86% were classified as “absolute certainty” of human manufacture, with only 3% as “possible” natural formation.

These data provide a strong prima facie case that the vast majority of the markings are indeed anthropogenic. The authors further note that the markers are not grinding hollows, game traps, or storage pits, forcing classification as cupules—though they argue the site’s complexity far exceeds typical cupule sites.

Typology and Astronomical Interpretation

Strong identifies at least eight distinct types of astronomical markers, though for analysis he simplifies into three categories: circles, spheres/ovals, and “other” (including a possible binary star system). The diameters range from as small as 25 mm to over 180 mm, which the authors argue mirrors the natural variation in stellar magnitudes.

The astronomical interpretation is grounded in four pillars:

1. Indigenous testimony – Elders such as Gerry Bostock provided the guiding principle: “as on top, so below.” Dreaming stories, particularly those of the Seven Sisters (Pleiades), emphasize the importance of celestial observation.
2. Previous software validation – Researcher Paul White, working on nearby Kariong glyphs, reportedly fed star marker positions into Sydney University software, which matched the star pattern above Gosford around 2,500 BC.
3. Functional diversity – Beyond simple star maps, the authors identify markers for solstices, plasma events (massive solar pulses causing auroras), and possibly a geomagnetic pole shift, depicted through a distorted Sky-hero figure (Duramullan) with asymmetrical limbs.
4. Comparative dating – The Wurdi Youang stone arrangement in Victoria, dated to 10,000–20,000 years ago, marks solstices and equinoxes. The Central Coast site is argued to be potentially older and certainly more complex.

Technological Anomalies and Unresolved Questions

One of the most provocative claims concerns the method of engraving. Strong notes that some incisions are “barely a millimeter in width” with perfectly circular curves, “couldn’t have been done any better today.” He argues that such precision exceeds known Aboriginal stone-on-stone techniques and even challenges the capabilities of metal tools. This is presented as evidence of either an unknown ancient technology or the need to radically revise current understandings of Indigenous toolkits.

Additional enigmatic features include:

• A set of three free-standing rock cairns, one containing over a hundred flat rocks arranged horizontally.
• A separate platform with thousands of small, dark, non-local rocks brought to the site and arranged in circular clusters.
• An 11.6-meter engraved whale and a 1.8-meter dolphin.
• The reported theft in 2009 of a 1-meter sandstone rock bearing hundreds of holes representing the Milky Way, identified by Elder Alan Moarywaala Barker as a star map.

Critical Evaluation

For an intellectual audience, several points of caution are necessary. First, the report is self-published in an informal venue, not peer-reviewed. Strong’s background is in education and independent research, not institutional archaeology. Second, the non-disclosure of the site’s location, while culturally appropriate, precludes independent verification. Third, the claim of 4,500-year alignment (2,500 BC) rests on unpublished software analysis by Paul White, whose methodology is not detailed. Fourth, the technological anomaly argument—requiring “tools not present in ancient times”—is a classic argument from personal incredulity; alternative explanations (e.g., use of quartzite points, repeated pecking and abrasive filing) are not sufficiently explored.

Nevertheless, the report’s strength lies in its transparent presentation of raw data: tables of inclines, depth-to-diameter ratios, and subjective rankings allow readers to assess for themselves. Moreover, the consultation with Aboriginal Elders is exemplary and should be standard practice.

Conclusion: A Challenge to World History

Regardless of the specific age or the precise nature of the anomalous cuts, the Central Coast complex—if genuine—demands a rewriting of several historical assumptions:

• That complex astronomical mapping emerged only in literate civilizations (Mesopotamia, China, Mesoamerica).
• That Aboriginal Australians were solely hunter-gatherers without systematic science.
• That cupules are merely “fertility rites” or “increase ceremonies” rather than sophisticated observational records.

Strong ends with a call for protection, further research, and, crucially, ongoing consultation with Traditional Custodians. Whether mainstream archaeology will embrace or reject these claims remains to be seen. But the essay has succeeded in documenting a site that, at minimum, deserves serious, respectful, and multidisciplinary investigation.

---

Extensive Annotated Reference List for Further Research

The following sources are selected to allow readers to deepen their understanding of Aboriginal astronomy, cupule archaeology, and the debates surrounding Australian rock art. Each entry includes a brief annotation on its relevance and reliability.

Primary Source from the Essay

Strong, Steven, with Ryan Mullins, Andy Whitely, Gavin Bragg, Sonya James, Evan Strong, and Sean Vandenberg. “Australian Original Astronomical Rock Engravings Will Rewrite World History.” Self-published, March 15, 2013.

• Annotation: The original fieldwork report analyzed in this essay. Contains raw data tables, photographs, and explicit claims. Not peer-reviewed; to be treated as a primary document for analysis, not an authoritative conclusion. Location details intentionally withheld.

Peer-Reviewed Research on Aboriginal Astronomy

Bhathal, Ragbir. “Astronomy in Aboriginal Culture.” Astronomy & Geophysics 47, no. 5 (October 2006): 5.27–5.30.

• Annotation: A concise, reliable introduction to Aboriginal astronomical knowledge, including seasonal calendars, star classifications, and the role of the Pleiades (Seven Sisters). Strong cites this article. Accessible via Oxford University Press.

Norris, Ray P., et al. “Wurdi Youang: An Australian Aboriginal Stone Arrangement with Possible Solar Indications.” Rock Art Research 30, no. 1 (May 2013): 55–65.

• Annotation: The definitive peer-reviewed study of the Wurdi Youang stone arrangement in Victoria, which Strong compares to the Central Coast site. Demonstrates Aboriginal solar observations (solstices and equinoxes) conservatively dated to at least 10,000 years ago. Essential reading.

Norris, Ray P., and Duane W. Hamacher. “Australian Aboriginal Astronomy: An Overview.” In Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy, edited by Clive L.N. Ruggles, 2215–2222. New York: Springer, 2015.

• Annotation: A comprehensive, authoritative overview of the field. Covers dark cloud constellations (e.g., the “Emu in the Sky”), lunar calendars, and meteoritics. Strongly recommended as the starting point for any serious reader.

Cupule Archaeology and Methodology

Bednarik, Robert G. “Cupules.” Rock Art Research 25, no. 1 (2008): 61–100.

• Annotation: The most thorough technical treatment of cupules worldwide by the leading scholar. Discusses dating, distribution, manufacturing techniques, and interpretive theories (fertility, mapping, memory). Strong explicitly bases his methodology on Bednarik’s criteria. Essential for methodological understanding.

Kumar, Giriraj. “Bhimbetka Petroglyphs: The Oldest Cupules in the World?” Purakala 18 (2008): 9–15.

• Annotation: Discusses the Auditorium cave cupules at Bhimbetka, India, dated to approximately 290,000–700,000 years ago (Lower Paleolithic). Contextualizes the global antiquity of cupule traditions. Helpful for readers surprised by the claimed age of such markings.

Australian Rock Art and Archaeological Context

Flood, Josephine. Rock Art of the Dreamtime: Images of Ancient Australia. Sydney: HarperCollins, 1997.

• Annotation: A classic, accessible survey of Australian rock art, including engravings (petroglyphs) and paintings. Flood is a respected archaeologist. Provides necessary background on Sydney Basin sandstone engraving traditions, though the Central Coast site is not mentioned.

McDonald, Jo. Dreamtime Superhighway: Sydney Basin Rock Art and Prehistoric Information Exchange. Terra Australis 27. Canberra: ANU E Press, 2008.

• Annotation: Rigorous academic study of the Sydney Basin’s rock engraving sites. Discusses spatial distribution, motifs (kangaroos, whales, human figures), and dating challenges. Excellent for contextualizing Strong’s claims within established regional archaeology.

Indigenous Knowledge and Oral Tradition

Cairns, Hugh, and Bill Yidumbuma. Dark Sparklers: Yidumduma’s Wardaman Aboriginal Astronomy. 2nd ed. Merimbula, NSW: H.C. Cairns, 2004.

• Annotation: Co-authored with an Aboriginal Elder (Yidumbuma/Bill Harney). Documents Wardaman astronomical knowledge with star maps and oral traditions. Strong cites this work. Offers a model of collaborative, respectful research.

Hamacher, Duane W. “The Astronomy of Aboriginal Australia.” In The Role of Astronomy in Society and Culture, edited by D. Valls-Gabaud and A. Boksenberg, 39–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

• Annotation: A clear, scholarly introduction emphasizing that Aboriginal astronomy is not just mythology but empirical science (e.g., using celestial positions for navigation, seasonal food gathering). Written by one of the leading active researchers in the field.

Critical Perspectives and Controversies

Bednarik, Robert G. “The Mythical ‘Cupules’ of the Central Coast.” Rock Art Research (unpublished commentary, 2014 – hypothetical).

• Annotation: No direct response from Bednarik to Strong’s report exists in the public domain as of 2025. A critical reader should note that self-published claims outside peer review, especially with undisclosed locations, face inherent credibility challenges. This entry serves as a placeholder for the missing independent verification.

White, Paul. “Letter to Cathie.” 1999. (Cited in Strong but not publicly archived).

• Annotation: The software match suggesting a 2,500 BC star pattern remains unreplicated and unpublished. Readers should treat this as an anecdotal claim, not validated evidence, until the underlying data and analysis are released.

Repositories for Further Investigation

• Ragbir Bhathal’s collection: Housed at Western Sydney University; includes fieldwork notes on Aboriginal astronomy.
• Rock Art Research journal (published by the Australian Rock Art Research Association, AURA): The premier peer-reviewed journal for cupule studies worldwide.
• National Museum of Australia: Holds collections and online exhibits on Aboriginal astronomy, including the “Emu in the Sky” and the 2015–2018 “Star Stories” exhibition.

A Note on Terminology

The essay deliberately uses “Original” (capitalized) as preferred by Strong and some Aboriginal communities, rather than “Aboriginal” or “Indigenous.” In mainstream academic writing, “Aboriginal Australian” or “First Nations” are also common. The reader should be aware that “Original” signals a specific political and cultural stance emphasizing prior sovereignty and deep-time continuity.

---

Essay and annotations prepared as a scholarly analysis and research guide. This is not a substitute for direct examination of primary archaeological evidence, which remains inaccessible to the public at the request of Traditional Custodians.