|
Stone-Maps
In the course of time stone-maps became to me and Jan Evert acceptable, just like the sculptures and tools. Because it requires such a comprehensive explanation I will start with the basic idea. First you should see through the system before taking the next step. Mind you, on no account I want to play the "teacher". It's just my view of this matter after many years of frequently examining the stones. Doing so I came to the conclusion that the appearances of the stones "speak for themselves". The basic idea is in the fact that nature delivered all starting-points. The initial stage was nature with all its natural shapes and structures. The early people took those shapes as their basis to figure out and create formes A, B, C etc., which finally resulted in a standardization. It's very plausible that this procedure took place all over the world, so we can call it a universal standardization of natural appropriate basic-forms. Looking at the final stage impressions, I see and think that this process of development took place for approximately 3 million years, with a rising peak in the Heidelberg and Cromar components. But actually the emphasis ought not to be the final stage of the sculptures, which are not admitted or even not recognized by the established archeological scientists; important is the course of development from step 0 to 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. etc. Thus: A. natural forms; B. minimal adaptation; C. increasing adaptation; D. totally adapted. The Heidelbergians, in their early stage, developed such a phenominal splitting-technique on any given stone that they were able to make tools from flint and many other kinds of stone. Many finds are hammered and two other important techniques were used, which are the buffer-technique and the use of repercussion, called the counterblow. They were capable to split stones intentionally into previously decided shapes and the results were predictable both to size and habitus. But they also could make a striking sculpture without even noticeable touching up. So the Heidelbergians were supposed to have much knowledge of the behaviour of many kinds of stone. At the same time there's the symbolic action of splitting one large stone into more smaller pieces, with the meaning of birthgiving.
Later the Acheulians used a lot of flint of which they made their tools such as blades, made out of flint cores. Archeologists now layed those blades lengthwise in a row and "came to the conclusion" that there was more cutting done by the Acheulians, who even used flintstone. Therefore they asserted that this is an indication of "greater intelligence"!! So their argument was: the Acheulians used flint, made 20 blades out of only one core, which is 3 metres of cuttings, thus they were smarter than the Heidelbergians. To my opinion a ridiculous point of view. Of course the Heidelbergians were able to do so, but they lived in a long-continued stable and warm climate with a varied and abundant menu, containing small and big game, fishes, birds, fruits, nuts and roots etc. In such a climate the standard tools were sufficient. In colder climates though, one needed more meat to survive and it was necessary to stay mobile, so then they used "portable" stone cores to make tools on the spot where they were preparing the prey they had hunted. It doesn't mean at all that the Heidelbergians made no blades in a warm climate or period of warmth, for what good is and functional needs not to be altered, but they made blades as well, only not much! I don't have the pretension to say that modern people nowadays, with their so called "scientific" inventions -which usually are very trivial and meant for commercial purposes- are very "intelligent". Maybe they're intelligent, but not wise! It's absurd to relate technical knowhow with intelligence. Intelligence is more than intellect. Now we use intellectual means just because the world became more intellectual. But how many "intellectuals" are socially ignorant, so not intelligent? Thus one can say that we're adapted to the world we live in. So were the early people. And now we're back to where I started: the starting-points of nature forms, which are related with measures, weights, distances, geometric, natural forces, time, colours, symbolism etc. All natural phenomenons, which they united until it became a life-style and -wisdom and which defined their attitude. It's very acceptable that, for instance, they saw the image of a goddess in a sacred mountain -which therefore looked like a mega-sculpture- and copied this in stones both in macro and micro. At the same time those mountains were marks in the landscape and observatories as well. In the course of time those mega-images were copied many times and this item, too, is universal. Finds all over the world manifest this and prove to me that this big items were recorded and this has been applicable to the natural landscape as well. And this is a reference to stone maps. This was a very long introduction to the item stone-maps. I hope I was not boring.
All the best,
Jan van Es
|
|
