Refuting Creationism - Scientists Find Blue Pignment That shouldn't Exist If The Bible Tales Are True

Europe's oldest blue pigment found in Germany

As I’ve pointed out many times, 99.9975% of Earth’s history took place before the period in which creationists—treating the Bible as literal historical truth—believe the planet itself existed. It is remarkable how effectively biblical literalists manage to ignore, distort, or otherwise dismiss almost the entire body of geological, archaeological, and palaeontological evidence in order to cling to the easily refuted notion of a 6,000–10,000-year-old Earth and a global genocidal flood supposedly occurring about 4,000 years ago.

Unsurprisingly, discoveries such as the one below make no impression whatsoever on committed creationists.

Now archaeologists from Aarhus University, working with colleagues from the National Museum of Denmark as well as teams from Germany, Sweden, and France, have uncovered yet another piece of evidence destined for creationist dismissal: blue pigment on a stone artefact dating from around 13,000 years ago. Their findings were recently published in Antiquity.

Not only should this archaeology not exist at all if the biblical timeline were correct, but even if it had somehow escaped the supposed global flood, it would necessarily be buried beneath a thick, worldwide layer of sediment containing a chaotic mixture of fossil plants and animals from disconnected continents. No such layer has ever been found anywhere on Earth. A truly global flood, as described in Genesis, would have left unmistakable and ubiquitous geological signatures. It did not.

The blue pigment was discovered on a shaped, concave stone originally thought to be an oil lamp but now believed to have served as a mixing palette. Until now, only black and red pigments had been identified on Palaeolithic artefacts, leading archaeologists to assume these were the only colours available. The presence of blue pigment suggests something more nuanced: selective use of colours for different purposes, with blue likely used primarily for body decoration or dyeing clothing—activities that rarely leave direct archaeological traces.

The Final Palaeolithic Site of Mühlheim-Dietesheim, Germany. The Mühlheim-Dietesheim site lies in Hesse, central Germany, within a landscape shaped by the retreat of the last Ice Age. It is part of a cluster of **Final Palaeolithic** sites associated with the period immediately following the Last Glacial Maximum, roughly 14,000–11,500 years ago, when hunter-gatherer groups recolonised northern and central Europe as the climate warmed.

Archaeologists classify it within the Federmesser or Azilian-related cultural horizon—known for small, finely made stone points (the “little feather knives”), scraping tools, and evidence of both hunting and craft activities. The shaped stone containing blue pigment fits within this broader toolkit and reflects the growing diversity of symbolic and decorative practices at the end of the Ice Age.

---

How the Artefacts Were Dated

The age of the finds at Mühlheim-Dietesheim is supported by several standard archaeological dating methods:

1. Stratigraphy
   
   The artefacts were recovered from well-defined Palaeolithic layers sealed beneath later sediments. These layers correlate with other well-studied Final Palaeolithic sites in central Europe, providing a consistent contextual age.
   
   
2. Typological Dating
   
   Stone tools from the site match the characteristic forms of Federmesser/Azilian technology, which is firmly dated elsewhere to c. 13,000 years ago. Tool typology is especially reliable for this period because these industries are geographically widespread and chronologically tight.
   
   
3. Radiocarbon Dating of Associated Organic Material
   
   While the stone palette itself cannot be dated directly, radiocarbon tests on charcoal, bone fragments, and other organic remains from the same archaeological horizon anchor the site to the Late Glacial period. These results consistently fall in the range of ~12,500–13,000 years before present.
   
   
4. Environmental and Geological Context
   
   Sediment analysis, pollen data, and the fauna present at the site all correspond to the climatic conditions of the Final Palaeolithic (the Late Glacial Interstadial). This additional evidence supports the radiocarbon and typological dates.

The discovery, made at the Final Palaeolithic site of Mühlheim-Dietesheim in Germany, is summarised in a news release from Aarhus University’s Faculty of Arts by Mette Gjanderup Heilskov.

Europe's oldest blue pigment found in Germany

---

In a ground-breaking discovery that illuminates new insights into the early prehistoric origins of art and creativity, a new study led by re-searchers from Aarhus University have identified the earliest known use of blue pigment in Europe.

---

At the Final Palaeolithic site of Mühlheim-Dietesheim, Germany, archaeologists from Aarhus University found traces of a blue residue on a stone artifact dating back around 13,000 years. Using a suite of cutting-edge scientific analyses, they confirmed the traces were from the vivid blue mineral pigment azurite, previously unseen in Europe’s Palaeolithic art.

This challenges what we thought we knew about Palaeolithic pigment use.

Dr. Izzy Wisher, the lead author,
Department of Archaeology and Heritage Studies
Aarhus University, Denmark.

Until now, scholars believed Palaeolithic artists predominantly used red and black pigments – practically no other colours are present in the art of this period. This was thought to be due to a lack of blue minerals or limited visual appeal. Given the absence of blues in Palaeolithic art, this new discovery suggests that blue pigments may have been used for either body decoration or dyeing fabrics – activities that leave few archaeological traces.

The presence of azurite shows that Palaeolithic people had a deep knowledge of mineral pigments and could access a much broader colour palette than we previously thought – and they may have been selective in the way they used certain colours.

Dr. Izzy Wisher.

The stone bearing the azurite traces was originally thought to be an oil lamp. Now, it appears to have been a mixing surface or palette for preparing blue pigments — hinting at artistic or cosmetic traditions that remain largely invisible today.

The findings urge a rethink of Palaeolithic art and colour use, opening new avenues for exploring how early humans expressed identity, status, and beliefs through materials far more varied and vibrant than previously imagined.

The study was conducted in collaboration with Rasmus Andreasen, James Scott and Christof Pearce at the Department of Geoscience, Aarhus University, as well as Thomas Birch who is affiliated with both the Department of Geoscience, AU, and the National Museum of Denmark, alongside colleagues from Germany, Sweden and France.

Publication:

Wisher I, Birch T, Andreasen R, et al..
The earliest evidence of blue pigment use in Europe.
Antiquity. 2025; 99(408):1 464-1479. doi:10.15184/aqy.2025.10184

Abstract
Blue pigments are absent in Palaeolithic art. This has been ascribed to a lack of naturally occurring blue pigments or low visual salience of these hues. Using a suite of archaeometric approaches, the authors identify traces of azurite on a concave stone artefact from the Final Palaeolithic site of Mühlheim-Dietesheim, Germany. This represents the earliest use of blue pigment in Europe. The scarcity of blue in Palaeolithic art, along with later prehistoric uses of azurite, may indicate that azurite was used for archaeologically invisible activities (e.g. body decoration) implying intentional selectivity over the pigments used for different Palaeolithic artistic activities.

We document here the first and earliest example of blue pigment use from the European Upper Palaeolithic. The blue pigment was identified on a stone artefact with a concave, bowl-like morphology (Figure 1)—originally interpreted as an open-circuit lamp (cf. de Beaune 1987a)—from the Final Palaeolithic (c. 14 000–11 700 BP) open-air site of Mühlheim-Dietesheim (Germany). The traces of blue residue are present on one surface of the artefact only, and we used a suite of archaeometric approaches to determine its chemical composition and crystalline structure. This novel documentation of blue pigment use during the Upper Palaeolithic has significant implications for understanding artistic behaviours during this period, encouraging a deeper consideration for why blue pigments have not been previously identified within Upper Palaeolithic contexts.

Figure 1. The three areas of blue residue present on the sandstone layer of the stone artefact from Mühlheim-Dietesheim. Area A, due to its more accessible location on a flatter area of the sandstone, was the primary focus of archaeometric analyses. Scale bar is 50mm (figure by authors).

Introduction
Blue pigments are conspicuously absent from the Palaeolithic record. Mineral and organic colourings were exploited by both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens but have appeared limited to the use of only black and red-yellow hued pigments deriving from charcoal, manganese dioxides and a variety of ochres (iron oxides). These are well-documented across different continents for a plethora of activities. In the European Middle Palaeolithic (c. 300 000–40 000 years ago), Neanderthals seem to have used ochres and manganese dioxide for not only functional purposes, such as compound adhesives (Schmidt et al. 2024) or for fire-lighting (Heyes et al. 2016), but additionally for symbolic practices, potentially and controversially (White et al. 2020) including producing parietal art (cave/rock art; Pike et al. 2012; Hoffmann et al. 2018). In Homo sapiens, pigment use emerged at least 100 000 years ago (Henshilwood et al. 2009) and has been associated to the emergence of ‘behavioural modernity’, perceived as a hallmark of cognitive complexity (d’Ericco 2003; Dapschauskas et al. 2022). There was a diverse range of symbolic activities across the globe for which Homo sapiens used pigments, from parietal and portable art (Aubert et al. 2014; Cuenca-Solana et al. 2016.1), decorating the body (Medina-Alcaide et al. 2018.1; Velliky et al. 2018.2) to funerary practices (Pettitt et al. 2003.1; Siddall 2018.3). Ochre use, in particular, exemplifies the deep knowledge of pigments held by Palaeolithic peoples. Ochre has been documented to have been processed in different ways in the African and Levantine Middle Stone Age (c. 300 000–25 000 years ago) and the European Upper Palaeolithic (c. 40 000–12 000 years ago) to produce variations in its colour vibrancy (Hovers et al. 2003.2; Sajó et al. 2015; Velliky et al. 2018.2), utilised as part of compound adhesives (Lombard 2007; Kozowyk et al. 2016.2; Schmidt et al. 2024) and for its antimicrobial properties to tan and preserve animal hides (Watts 2002; Rifkin 2011).

Given the abundance, artistic complexity and technological prowess needed to manipulate black and red hues, the absence of other colours, such as blue and green, is notable. The intensity of pigment use throughout the Upper Palaeolithic appears contradictory to a restricted use of charcoals, manganese dioxide and ochres, and raises important questions regarding the absence of blue pigments (Pettitt et al. 2022.1). There has been an implicit assumption that this limited pigment selection was driven by a lack of access to materials other than red and black pigments. Ochres and manganese dioxide were readily available from surface outcrops in the landscape at the time, and charcoal would have been a quotidian byproduct of pyro-technology (Barnett et al. 2006; Siddall 2018.3). There has been some speculation about whether there was also a deliberate preference for these kinds of pigments, particularly red ochre, driven by their salience to the visual system (Wreschner et al. 1980; Hovers et al. 2003.2; Hodgskiss 2014.1), the ethnographically documented symbolic connotations of red hues (Velo & Kehoe 1990; Watts 2002; Hovers et al. 2003.2; Knight 2013; Hodgskiss 2014.1) or their elevated visibility in cave environments illuminated by red-shifted firelight (Pettitt et al. 2022.1). Yet, it has also been argued instead that blue-hued pigments may in fact have been more salient than red or black pigments to Palaeolithic peoples due to its wavelength and potential connotations with important resources such as water (Janik 2020.1). This makes the absence of blue pigments even more perplexing. To date, only one case of a copper-based blue-green pigment has been recorded for the Palaeolithic from decorated anthropomorphic figurines at the site of Mal’ta in Siberia (c. 19 000–23 000 BP; Lbova & Volkov 2020.2). No blue pigment use has been previously recorded in the European Palaeolithic.

Site background
Mühlheim-Dietesheim sits on the southern bank of the River Main. Sandwiched between Franconia and the Swabian Jura to the south, the Rhineland to the west and the Thuringian Basin in the east, this region—broadly corresponding to the southern part of the German Federal State of Hesse—is characterised by a relative dearth of Palaeolithic sites (Fiedler 1994), including those dating to the very end of the Pleistocene. Small Final Palaeolithic sites have, however, been identified both downstream of Mühlheim-Dietesheim (Loew 2005) and nearby (Rosenstein 1992).

While the area surrounding Mühlheim-Dietesheim was previously under cultivation, there has been no or only occasional ploughing in the past four decades. The stone artefact derives from investigations conducted between 1976 and 1980, during which a total area of 63m² was excavated yielding a Final Palaeolithic assemblage and revealing the typically ephemeral stone lining of a possible tent structure, as well as associated working areas (Fruth 1979, 1994.1). In 2023 and as part of the European Research Council-funded CLIOARCH project (Riede et al. 2020.3), a 6m² keyhole excavation was conducted in the immediate south-eastern continuation of the original excavation area (Riede et al. 2024.1). The keyhole trench exposed a new profile which confirmed the relative intactness of the find layer and allowed for multiproxy geochronological investigations (Figure 2; see also online supplementary material (OSM) section 1.1). The spatially circumscribed, single-component human occupation at Mühlheim-Dietesheim pre-dates the 13 006±9 cal BP eruption of the Laacher See volcano (Reinig et al. 2021) whose continentally widespread isochronous ashfall (Riede et al. 2011.1) is reflected in elevated magnetic susceptibility readings and an enrichment of volcanically derived heavy minerals immediately above the main find distribution. Together with newly obtained optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dates, these observations constrain the upper and lower age estimates to between c. 14 000 and 13 000 years ago (OSM section 1.2). The Laacher See eruption and its manifold socioecological impacts appear to have led to a settlement hiatus in the wider region (Riede 2016.3).

Figure 2. Compound stratigraphy for Mühlheim-Dietesheim, with the sample locations for OSL dating, measurements of magnetic susceptibility and heavy minerals analysis. The main find distribution is located between the upper two OSL dates (indicated by arrows) and clearly below the elevated magnetic susceptibility and volcanic heavy minerals readings (figure by authors).

As part of our recent investigations, archaeological finds from the original excavations were revisited. These predominantly consist of lithics made from a variety of regionally available materials—chiefly lydite, chalcedony and Baltic flint—which link the site to major contemporaneous settlement areas in the Middle Rhine region to the west as well as sites in Franconia further east along the River Main and its catchment, in addition to more northerly areas (Riede 2016.3). The site itself is located close to a historical fishing and fording area and may represent a bridgehead for small human groups moving along and across the River Main. Notably, the archaeological finds included the stone artefact investigated here and a small (<10mm long) piece of ochre, that was also possibly locally sourced based on the presence of nearby ochre outcrops. The stone artefact has a natural concave, bowl-like morphology which resulted in its original interpretation as an open-circuit lamp and had been on display at the Stadtmuseum Mühlheim.

Wisher I, Birch T, Andreasen R, et al..
The earliest evidence of blue pigment use in Europe.
Antiquity. 2025; 99(408):1 464-1479. doi:10.15184/aqy.2025.10184

Copyright: © 2025 The authors.
Published by Cambridge University Press. Open access.
Reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)

The discovery of blue pigment on a shaped stone palette from the Final Palaeolithic site of Mühlheim-Dietesheim in Germany is a direct challenge to the creationist belief that the Earth is only 6,000–10,000 years old. The artefact comes from a well-established archaeological horizon dating to around 13,000 years ago—long before young-Earth creationists claim the planet even existed. This alone places the find outside the creationist timeline by several thousand years, but it also fits seamlessly into a wider and independently confirmed body of European Late Glacial archaeology.

What makes the discovery especially problematic for biblical literalism is that it does not stand in isolation. The layer in which the artefact was found corresponds with other Final Palaeolithic sites across central and northern Europe, all of which are dated using radiocarbon analysis, stratigraphy, and typological sequences that interlock with each other and with climatic data from ice cores and lake sediments. For the creationist model to be true, an entire continent’s worth of mutually reinforcing scientific evidence—archaeological, geological, and environmental—would need to be wrong in precisely the same way.

It also contradicts the notion of a global flood only 4,000 years ago. If such a flood had occurred, every pre-Flood artefact would be buried beneath thick, chaotic layers of sediment loaded with the mixed remains of plants and animals from different regions. Instead, sites like Mühlheim-Dietesheim show intact, undisturbed Palaeolithic layers with no trace of catastrophic deposition. The blue pigment discovery therefore not only predates the creationist timeline but directly refutes the geological consequences that a global flood would necessarily have left behind.

In short, the find fits perfectly within the scientific understanding of human history at the end of the Ice Age, while being irreconcilable with a literal reading of Genesis. It joins the vast majority of archaeological evidence in demonstrating that human culture—and the Earth itself—are far older than creationists claim.

---

Advertisement

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

All titles available in paperback, hardcover, ebook for Kindle and audio format.

Prices correct at time of publication. for current prices.

Advertisement

Thank you for sharing!

Tweet Link