KAPITEL VII <<< zurück                                                   vor >>> KAPITEL IX

KAPITEL VIII CHAPTER VIII

 Bekannte und anerkannte FORMENWELT aus der paläolithischen FORSCHUNG in den handlichen Formaten, aufgegriffen hier in der Kiesgrube  von Groß-Pampau, Schleswig -Holstein und zum weltweiten Vergleich vorgestellt./

 Known and accepted SHAPES found during the world wide  PALAEOLITHIC RESEARCH; here now are   hand size implements introduced for comparison, comming from a  gravel pit of Groß-Pampau, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany.

EXPERTISE AUS MOSKAU/ RUSSLAND von Dr. ARSEN FARADZHEV  (2006)

Scroll down to picture/Scrollen bis gleiches Bild erscheint.

Foto 1

Handaxe-like implements and scraper in almost identical shape appearance to the Oldisleben, north of Weimar, Germany finds in the Saale drainage basin, where Pleistocene geochronology is well established.Reference"Portable palaeoart of Pleistocene" by Robert Bednarik: http://mc2.vicnet.net. au/home/portable/web/index.html. Together with the more archaic, Lower Palaeolithic types of implements, and the fact that all objects here have a worn appearance, these finds cannot be seen any longer as typical for Middle Palaeolithic times. Please compare also the following artefacts with the find spectrum of the so called "pebble tool" forms of the Elster and Mindel cold and warm times. (500.000 to 600.000 years) 

Foto 2

Zwei formenidentische Geräte aus quarzitischem Sandstein und Flint, aber in fast gleicher Größe., The Cortex/ Rinde des Flintsteines shows traces of pecking all over. The implements are of almost identical size and form.

Foto 2a

Foto 2b

Foto 2c

Foto 2d

Foto 2e

Foto 3

Foto 3a

Zugespitzes Gerät mit linksseitiger Beschädigung wie nach Abnutzung durch Gebrauch. Siehe dazu im Vergleich auch das linke Objekt von Foto #4

Foto 4

Pebble tool to the left and a "skull with facial features"  on a  triangular core with calky white cortex patches. Considered  here as  "purposeful decoration" , signalizing a wanted set. See also the scraper on the right of photo # I and the  object on photo# 3 as well as  the  white "chopper" of photo # 4 and 4a

Foto 4a

Foto 5

Foto 5a

Foto 6

Foto 6a

Foto 6b

Foto 6c

Foto 7

Object  on the right is not the same as shown on photo 2, difference is in the size.Objekt zur Rechten ist nicht das gleiche Stück wie auf Foto # 2 gezeigt. Der Unterschied liegt in der Größe und ist ein Serien-Objekt dieses Fundplatzes

Foto 7a

 Geräte, die an  Werkzeuge/tools wie "Chopper" oder Schaber/scraper sowie an Stichel/ oder Bohrer/ Punches erinnern.

Foto 8

Foto 9 Object to the right is viewed from front with percussen marks.

Foto 9b    Same object shown from back.

Foto 10

Foto 11

Foto 12

Foto 13

Foto 14 

Foto14a

Foto 15

Eine 18cm lange Flintknolle hat eine artifizielle Zuspitzung nur an einem Ende und Spuren von Gebrauch.Ansonsten ist diese runde Knolle völlig "naturbelassen". Sie macht aber bei vertikaler Betrachtung den Eindruck einer "Tiergestalt". Next Foto Damit könnte es ein "dekoriertes Werkzeug" darstellen./ Transl.: An 18 cm long implement with" double image" features. Artificially "pointed" on one end only, and noticeable  use-wear traces it seems to transform into an animal like form, see picture below, when viewed in vertical position. A decorated "Tool"!

Foto 15a

Foto 16

Foto16a

Dieses zweischneidig zugespitze Gerät/bifacial point,  könnte auch als Meißel/chisel gedient haben.

Foto 16b

Werkzeugformen, die einen Hinweis auf Fertigkeiten aus der Steinzeit vermitteln. Es könnten Hack oder Haugeräte, sowie Ahlen, Schaber und Bohrer gemeint sein, in Ermanglung von deren Gebrauchtspuren-Analysen jedoch, ist nur ein Vergleich über die Kategorien aus anerkannten und untersuchten Grabungsplätzen möglich. Die Reihe der "Schaber" ist sehr variantenreich und reicht von sehr schwer patinierten Stücken bis hin zu "dekorierten Werkzeugen".Fotos 13 u. 13a Ein mehr ungewöhnliche Form trägt das folgende Fundstück./Transl.:  Tool-shapes known and accepted for palaeolithic human history of the Old World. Those are awls, choppers, scrapers and punches, however for this material no use-wear analysis is available, therefore only typological comparison to implements excavated on accepted sites are possible.  The series of scrapers presented here are ranging from heavily patinated, to "decorated" ones, see  also photos #13 and 13a. More unusual shape carries the next pointed object.

Foto 17

If this is not a "tool", the shape is that of a sting-ray, but the pointed part of the over all form has no "use-wear traces" to be detected with the  human eye.

Foto 17a

Wenn es dann kein Werkzeug sein kann, erinnert die Form des Objektes an einen Rochen.Die deutliche "Spitze" hat keinerlei Abnuntzungserscheinungen.

Foto 18

Foto 18a

Foto 19

Foto 20

In Ermangelung von Interesse an den gefundenen Objekten seitens professionell ausgebildeter Fachleute im Lande, war durch den Erwerb und der Mitgliedschaft des australischen Vereins für ROCK ART RESEARCH ( RAR )  das Magazin unter 2 maliger jährlichen Ausgabe durch seinen Editor ROBERT BEDNARIK, von Interesse für mich. In seiner Ausgabe des Heftes AUSTRALIAN ROCK ART RESEARCH ASSOCIATION (AURA), an international Federation of Rock Art Organizations (IFRAO), Volume 22, Number 2 von November 2005, wurde ich auf die Aufsätze von Dr. Arsen FARADZHEV aufmerksam gemacht. 

Transl.: Missing the interest in my finds  of any  professional educated Experts of my country, I felt inspired by the ROCK ART RESEARCH ( RAR ) Magazine. Twice during the year its  editor ROBERT BEDNARIK issued" References of relevant interesting papers.  The issue of November 2005 of (AURA) AUSTRALIAN ROCK ART RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, Volume 22, pointed at  three papers of interest, written by  a Moscow  researcher Dr. Arsen FARADZHEV.

Dieser Forscher hatte dort in BOOKHOUSE Moscow  und im Science-Publicistic Magazine No. 4, insgesamt 3 Aufsätze geschrieben, die allein schon durch die Überschriften mein Interesse erwekten./ This researcher published in BOOKHOUSE, Moscow and in a Science Publicistic Magazine No. 4,   three Articles, which have drawn my attention simply by the  headlines of this essayist for example: "Creative consciousness in the Stone Age."

 Zum Beispiel: "Wie hat die Kunst sich entwickelt? Der Beginn einer nutzlosen Aktivität." Dieser Artikel erschien in einem anderen Buch mit Titel "Zivilisations-Geheimnisse". Kürzlich bekam ich seinen Aufsatz "PALAEOART ON INDIAN TERRITORY" in russischer Sprache abgefaßt.   Die Bookhouse - Bücher jedoch sind  ein wahrer Bilder-Schatz, die alle Artikel  mit außergewöhnlich schönen Fotos umrahmen. Eines, mit dem Buch-Titel "STONE" , kann ich nun mein Eigen nennen, mit einer Widmung vom  Forscher und Artist zugleich. Siehe dazu das nächste Foto: "PETROGLYPHIC CREATIONS";  den Text werde ich übersetzen lassen, denn Eigeninitiative war bereits  genommen, IHN HIER BEI MIR PERSOENLICH ZU TREFFEN, um über seine Arbeit zu sprechen und dabei dann die meine zu beurteilen.    So waren die ersten 10 Tage seines Besuches   vom Kennenlernen des Steinmaterials geprägt, mein Zimmer war  mit  Artefakten überfüllt,( siehe Foto), doch macht er  seine eigene Auswahl und hinterließ mir darüber eine EXPERTISE, welches ich dem interessierten Leser auf dieser Seite und auf dem KAPITEL IX, getrennt  vorstelle.

Transl.: ....For example: " How did art arise? The origins of useless activity"  but printed in another  book  with the title "Secrets of Civilisations" but not  in my possession so far. In recent time I did receive his essay "PALAEOART ON INDIAN TERRITORY" in the russian language version as well. The Bookhouse-prints from Moscow are  presenting their   articles in addition with beautiful photos. The Book title called STONE(KaMeHb) , I can call  my own now , signed by the researcher for me. See picture below. I will have this text translated some day but meanwhile, I rather took the chance to get to get to know him in PERSON, to speak to him about the subject matter, and to evaluate my finds. On his first 10 day`s visit here, there was much to be "presented"  to him, getting  a feeling for my sampled material. My room was "packed" with artifacts, but he made his own selection. About this he wrote an EXPERTISE which I publish  here for any  interested viewer to read on Chapter VIII and parts of it on Chapter IX.

The Title of the book is called "STONE . A many sided planet." It shows what human hands made out of "stone" of for instance BERSTEIN, but much more. It  is a" picture treasure" in itself for me.  ARSEN FARADZHEV shows what people did to " open air rock surfaces" in former times on the pages 256-267.(Petroglyphic creations).Transl.: Dieser Buchtitel nennt sich "STEINE"; EIN VIELSCHICHTIGER PLANET. Dabei ist dieses Buch ein wahrer Bilder-Schatz schon für sich selbst und zeigt auf, wie sich zum Beispiel Bernstein unter der Hand des Menschen "verwandelt". Aber Arsen FARADZHEV zeigt , wie sich schon in viel früheren Zeiten auf offenen Felshängen die künstlerische Seite des Menschen offenbarte. Auf den Seiten 256-267 (siehe Foto unten) sieht man Petroglyphen entstehen, sein Aufsatztitel "Petroglyphic creations".

The book title/Buchtitel: "The mind secrets", he signed for me the pages 160-170

"In co-operation with nature.Creative consciousness in the Stone Age" is here the subject matter.

Leider ist mir die russische Sprache nicht geläufig, zu gern hätte ich hier gelesen, was Arsen Farad. selbst dazu niedergeschrieben hat, denn zu diesem Thema hatte auch ich mir mit den Jahren so meine eigenen Gedanken gemacht. Dabei hat mich auch der Stein selbst immer inspiriert und fungierte als Informationsträger, erlaubt mir aber gleichzeitig,  keine eigene Kreativität durch Veränderung am so entstandenen" Bilderkatalog der Steinzeit".  Menschen, die schon vor mir den Stein "erkannten" und  ihn manches Mal in seine heutige Form  nun " verbannten", haben viele Steine vielleicht für andere Zwecke umfunktioniert. Dieser Gedanke hatte sich immer mehr verfestigt, wenn der Steinträger den Eindruck einer Multifunktionalität erweckte, wie zum Beispiel der "Logo-Stein" dieser Webseite. Sein Bildniss ist beeindruckend, aber nicht herausragend, denn seine Grundform ist eine wohl übliche Formgebung, wie es sich durch  die Erforschung des Paläolithikums, nun ergibt.  Auf  dem nachfolgenden Foto zeige ich seine Rückseitenansicht und stelle das Bildnis eines Menschen dabei auf den Kopf.

Translation: Sorry, that I do not speak and read the Russian language, I would have loved  to read the text from Arsen Faradzhev. During the years of my own research and rescue attempt in the gravel pit, was the "stone"  always an inspirator via form and other signals, he was an information recorder at the same time, who did not allow me to "re-use"  him in any   personal  creativity attempts,  however signalizing   a " multi functionalism"  for instance, like my  "Logo-Head" of this website Chapter 1 "suggests".  On  the next  photo, I do present the backside of this impressive human face, by turning the object up side down, an alltogether different impression  is obvious. Resembling thus a well accepted "shape" of so called  "handaxes", found during research  of the old and middle palaeolithicum.  

Backside view of the "double image" or picture # 1 in the following text .   Rückseiten-Ansicht des Bilder-steines von Seite 1 dieser Web-seite. Vergleiche dazu den folgenden Text.

Diverse Formen typologisch als "Werkzeugformen" in der paläolithischen Forschung definiert und akzeptiert. Several shapes typologically  identified as tools and accepted in pal. research.

Month of June 2006

Besuch/ visit in Groß-Pampau vom Experten aus Moskau, Russland ARSEN FARADZHEV, PhD  and Official representative of Russian Federation at International Federation of Rock Art  Organization (IFRAO).

June 2006

Month of June 2006

November 2006

                      E X P E R T I S E   by

Arsen Faradzhev, PhD, from the MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY;  DEPT. of Archaeology

PALAEOART AND SELECTION

 

Human life is a process of selection. Everybody knows this for sure from his or her daily life experience. It is such a common act that people are at times no longer aware of this act. Nevertheless, humans as one of the Hominid species have to “select” every single moment simply to stay alive.

The Palaeoart creation is also a kind of activity selection. The Palaeoart images alone include several processes of selection: first, there is the idea of the image, resulting there after is the material selection, including here the selection of some kind of manipulations in order to create the artificial image, according to the author’s plan. For instance the selection of the place needs to be considered, or more so the type of rock surface, depending on the plan, for either cave or open air rock art, as well as the selection of  an appropriate natural object, to create some portable artifacts only.

However, the act of Palaeoart creation is in itself already a unique exception from all other possible kinds of human selections. It may well be compared or described as an hypothetical prehistorical ocean where amongst the different routine artifacts, few drops are spared on Palaeoart images only

Now, the Palaeoart research seems to be also a selection process. It could be scientific or non-scientific but never at the same time. (Farajev 1995b; 1999b). The prehistorical researcher either coming from some Institute or being a private collector selects the images, site, the approach, methods, and evidences and so on. Moreover, for each, it remains an individual selection, often governed by a person private judgment applied towards creation.

But in either way, wether it is the selection of images in the field, or the judgment of somebody’s collection of artifacts, the Palaeoart images themselves are evidence of a very special creative “selection” process, with the most expressive, extremely sensitive and immediate influential effect on human life. Therefore, Palaeoart images are our most precious and authentic historical documents shared by all involved.Palaeoart research activity reflects also a very personal feeling towards art. Again, this is the same for everyone either being an institutional or private researcher and a key point at the same time. It is similar to musical “feeling” and understanding of tunes not always heard with a “perfect ear”. Regardless, the researchers do have to present their “scientific evidences” of their investigation in a proper way and such can be expeceted in general from the institutional researchers having been trained to present the basis of research (Allakhverdov 2005, p.49), so as if it is some kind of scientifical approach even on a minimum basis.. 

......Here we are coming to the most difficult part of the great harmony of the Palaeoart research – the possibility to see, to understand and to learn something completely new and unexpected.

The private researchers are very independent in their investigation compared to institutional colleagues. This might be of an advantage or not at all for both parties. The benefits, when weighing up on the advantages of the matter might be in favour of the private researcher. This is only seemingly good since it allows proposing innovative ideas concerning their selected artifacts. Contrary stands the situation for the private researcher when judged in the light of the effect which his or her approach caused. The institutional colleagues are challenged by this new material, however being in an opponent position here within their scientific community, they are not automatically also a “ guaranty” for an acknowledgment on behalf of the complete scientific community, even if it was of great scientific achievement as we know from the history of science (Allakhverdov 2005, p.50).

Another important issue is that people are using the language in order to explain something. This is a limited way towards a possibility to explain everything. For example, Bertran Russell used to say that it is very difficult to explain when the cutlet someone is eating is no longer a cutlet any more. Therefore, such collaboration of interest via language on both sides, usually leads often enough to a complete misunderstanding or even hostility between the “partners” generally working on the same codes of ethics serving an understanding of a mutual past. The private collector cannot understand the often-presumptuous institutional attitude expressed, and is frustrated by the seemingly desintered attitude he or she  is confronted with.

In general, the whole situation is not at all favorable and most of all it is “the unwritten past” that suffers, which both parties, the private and the institutional researcher, intended to “enlighten”.

The institutional researchers have the long list of systematical results received by several generations of scientists. Nevertheless, from time to time, it happens that young generations can see that scientists who promoted some views yesterday were equally wrong (Bednarik 2005, RAR Vol.22., n.2 p.148).

Therefore, it is an illusion that they are able to judge the point of view of the private collectors. However, everybody has to remember, that the scientists are searching for the truth and are not the truth bearers themselves. For such an example of a not proper scientifical institutional judgment stands the field research assemblage of Mrs. Ursel Benekendorff from Geesthacht near Hamburg, Germany.

She was confronted with artifacts during the times of 1984/1985. According to the state regulations (law) Mrs. Benekendorff had to report her historical finds to the authorities. She followed this advice and had ever since trouble to get the huge number of artifacts accepted as relicts from the past, which she had collected in a nearby gravel pit, during the past 20 years.

I remember Mrs. Benekendorff name mentioned at the Robert Bednarik reply 2003 “Crusade for science” after publishing his article “The earliest evidence of Palaeoart” (Bednarik 2003. Vol.20. n.2). Then I visited her Internet site several times and still was not ready to say anything well defined concerning her collection. Therefore, it was luck and great honor to get an invitation from Mrs. Benekendorff to work with the collection in Germany in June and November 2006.I found numerous evidences, which will rehabilitate her collection guided by my experience best to see the artifacts directly. It does allow me to state that Mrs. Benekendorff collected genuine artifacts, which offer a wide range of interpretational possibility as well. For instance Mrs. Ursel Benekendorff presented an image (Fig. 1) as a “double image”, representing a human face on a tool form typologically called ”handaxes”.

In her opinion, it ought to be consider, that many of her lithic remnants found, would need to be discussed further and not only judged under the tool type aspect alone. 

The village of Gross-Pampau, where she collected the material in a gravel pit, is located in the vicinity East of Hamburg, and closely situated near the small town of SCHWARZENBEK, in SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN, Northern - Germany.

This former gravel pit celebrated a 25th anniversary already in 1992. At that time, the old surface ground lowered by 7 meters when entering the site and most of her finds came from the ground water level filling the site gradually. There were professionally drillings done by the Geological Institut KIEL and several whale and shark fossils discovered from the Miocene clay. Mrs. Benekendorff documented some of the geological occurances there and published some of her findings in 1990 (Benekendorff 1990, pp. 14-28).

Her collection consists from thousands of artifacts. It is archaic tools and tool’s preforms. They have a wide variety of different size, design, and hard materials. More than twenty of them are identical to the Acheulian rougher bifaces, cleavers, hammerstones and thick Levallois flake tools from Bajanibhat (Bednarik 2005, V. 22, n.2. p. 185. Fig.48.). More than hundred of handaxes of the Benekendorff collection would allow providing typological analysis of different periods of the Stone Age. At the same time, there are more than fifty different kinds of artifacts with evidences of artificial work.Those artifacts were not shape as handaxes tools; they were not shape as portable art images. Nevertheless, from my point of view, it will be big mistake not to mention such evidences of artificial work on very hard materials (Fig. 1a). It is a separate group of artifacts, which should be considered according to the attention to the context. However, the most attractive part of the findings is, some of the artifacts, I consider as Palaeoart, portable art.

Fig. 1a  the evidence of artificial activity on milky quartz artifact     Catalog Nr. 490 III, photo  U. Benekend.

 This artifact group made from the similar spotty type of flint material does include several types of tools completely different from the Acheulian type. They are smaller, lighter and more thinly, approximately 1 – 1,5 cm only, with an elongated, approximately 15 cm. sharp part on one side created by retouching and re-use flaking. The most representative examples of those tool types cataloged under number T-0,056, (Fig.2), T-0,075 (Fig.3) and T-0,095 (Fig 4).

Fig.2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Continue with the Lisbon - paper  2006 of Arsen Faradzhev --page- 5

T-0,095 (Fig.4) is considered by me a good example of the highest level of Stone Age peoples’ “possibilities” of handicraft, in having more than 70 very precise and small flint chips in form of “re-use flaking” taken off.

 --- text will be continued on Chapter IX for portable art items.  Fortsetzung des Textes auf Kapitel IX mit "portable art" Objekten.

KAPITEL VII <<< zurück                                            vor >>> KAPITEL IX