ERSTVERÖFFENTLICHUNG  " Vom Informationsträger Stein zum Bilderkatalog der Altsteinzeit"  ein Beitrag von U. Benekendorff, Geesthacht, Hamburg mit Fotobeiträgen des Groß-Pampau Fundmaterials durch den niederländischen Vorstand Ben Duppen ELST, Holland.

"A point of contact with an international foundation"

... historical background info. concerning the general  theme  of suppression of hundreds  of stone sculptures, an evidence material of early palaeoart...... SOME WORDS about  My experience with this contact and what can be learned from it...

Here a first  selected sentence from the foundations statutory laws given in 1983, taken now from the Magazine Nr. 19 with the title "BOUKOUL/COQUELLES" a french site.:

(A noteworthy reflection of "good intentions" but "question marks" accompanied  within the best  execution intended?)

1983........"to compile, to print and to issue this series of monographs, as well as all other activities, that serve to maintain and to continue the character of this series, which is distinguished by the given possibilaties, an as high as possible quality, ORIGINALITY and the DARING to tackle hot issue and to have CRITICAL SENSE." End of citing the first part of interest.

My first contact  to the Netherland group was during the 80th of the last century, undertaken in the hope, to see find material from the Netherlands for comparison to my sampled finds, but instead I was offered  a number of Magazine issues only, in which I hoped to see such pictures, as found on the cover of the Nr. 15 edition,- see photo below - in which I recognised a Mammuth figuration. But only one and  the same picture inside, was all, that got  offered, next to "Tools".

I had, a t that time, purchased the latest numbers of this  Magazines series, such was Nr.18,17, 16, and 15, but also  numbers 14, 13 etc, not much  of relevance to the latest controversional  points of  discussion, to be followed over my guestbook and Website "guestbooks" of  Jan v. Es./INNOxia

 A "suppression of stone sculptures within this foundation?" 

  New  find material of  the Boukkoulian site of Jan v. Es A site examined for over 20 years  under suppression?

    His discovery of microlithic material, so everyone can read now openly,  was   unable to get  published, for more than 4 years, a time span, where I was not on the board panel. And to me , hardly understandable in the light of the following sentence, taken from the statutories law,  of this foundation in 1983.

...."to offer opportunities to practicing archaeologist and like minds, to make public the results of their studies and their opinion, that would not or insufficiently get this right granted elsewhere." End of citing.

How was such possible? The older  Magazines like Nr. 15 and 16, could help here to find ANSWERS ? What kind of "Stichting" is that, practising  an "archaeology", that  a v o i d s  or  is  not  going conform with its principles?

While the edition Nr. 15, is presenting one  sculpture next to many tools, the Issue of Nr. 16 , has a word on art, see  pages 108-127,  also adding drawings of Bear-sculptures, from England, Netherlands, Haddendorf- W Duitsland, and Hejlminde-Denmark.

 BUT  this "AB Nr. 16" has also an essay by JAN VAN ES, about a find site, consisting of TOOls only called "De Plek", from Helden, NL. here written in co-author-ship with A.Wouters. A second essay begins on page 2, also written by Jan v.Es, here in co-authorship with Dr. Franssen, showing the kind of artefacts similar to the ones  discovered at Gr.-Pampau side, presented in drawing later in AB Nr. 20. 

It is impossible for an outsider like me to tell, why the Boukoulien Site and its many hundreds or thousands microlithic finds, studied at length by JAN van ES, were not able to find entrance for publication in this Nr. 16 edition consisting of 200 pages, but  instead Jan v. Es publishes  TOOL finds? Who was suppressing his sculptures in micro tradition? It was the year 1985; a time, where I had just begun serious research switching form my secondary site discoveries to  the primary site of Gr.-Pampau. Here I  was compiling good  and convincing material in only 5 years time and believe to this  day, the people of the AB-panel had difficulties accepting micro-tools and micro sculptures? What  was their "problem"?

But,  when I had confirmed his finds unknowingly   through my  independant research  this "new material"  from here  can get  under no circumstances any      priority now, no matter what kind of  promises were made ( Written and personal invitations for publication.)

 Consequence:....  my discoveries were set back as well by the people in charge of publication administration. I now had to wait, until all Boukoul material was published in AB 19,   but  having enough material still, to fill up  a next  edition  called AB Nr. 20.

But here in Nr. AB 19, in the year 1989, one finds also the newly discovered ape theme for northern Europe, so as if general knowledge amongst  all researchers in NL   and of course , all  had  known suddenly by now about standardisation, however, the       only part   missing  was  the" evidence material " for such in AB 19?

 GENERAL CONCLUSION:  Here an independant discovery like mine,   was used to further the themes in sculpture  MATERIAL, or palaeoart in NL,  so far  always believed to occure as  an individual component within the artefact category of palaeolithic traditions,  therefore  not everybodies "Darling" for acceptance in official and amateur research alike. To make the point it is well worth in  going back to the NL. AB Nr. 17. 

 Re-checking this Magazine Nr. 17. Again it was  filled with drawings of Tools, consisted of 184 pages, and could have  added  extra   pages with art finds like in AB Nr. 16 reaching a volume of 200 pages , especially seen now in  light of  the "suppressed" art complex of Boukoulien??? ???? But who am I to say,  this was all before my times and  my contact with the AB - people, but is a good example, how the argumentation by Jan van Es is grossly  twisting facts?

Interesting in connection with  parts of  my discoveries  was for me, however,    an  essay, printed 1987, in AB Nr. 18, by  the researcher RON WILLIAMS from England. This was   right after the  congress held  in  Southampton, Engl. 1986.   Several  researchers from NL got invited by Ron Williams ,a collector and researcher of  flint stone only,  to come and attend, and why was Jan v. Es not invited there, had he not collected sculptures, no matter what  the size -boukoul site-  All intern affairs,  now the past, and certainly  "none of my business" at that time. 

A required congress - paper, presented under the title "Animal farm", tells any interested  reader, what sort of sculpture themes  were known than by "NL research"1986, and is a complete record of the many intern  personal discussions  amongst the many members, participating in Archeologische Berichten?  An ape or  Makaake, from Gibraltar,  was not under the many drawings in that paper, but was mentioned only later  in the   essay by Ron Williams ,printed in AB Nr. 18, thus not a scuplture find  from NL! 

 I  really do not care that much, but someone ought to  have a  close  look into the matter  for the sake of   ending  this "never ending: ..."You did not invent the apes," argument, which  is more than silly.(Apologise)

  AB 19,  tells still  about my disappointment about  the promised  but  rejected  publication  at that time. I was on the verge of leaving the group already at that time, publishing my material in a SELBST-VERLAG, many times practised already by others.  Suddenly the offer came, to publish   all in AB Nr. 20.

 To-day, I consider , for completeness of records, perhaps to print here   my letter dated 17.7.1989 sent to the editor at that time, ( will see,)  but  the reply that followed, gets presented here. (see below). It ended with a sentence "In all solidarity"!!!????(AB19-Oct. 1989) expressed by  me in many assisting efforts, and even with relevant pictures still on my webnet about Jan v.Es. finds, until  7th of Jan. 2009. NOW. After all, I consider this a " solidarity", expressed BY ME during 20years, and in last 15years, it  seems to me,  fading into  a  very onesided  affair.   

Concluding: 

In an effort to make the suppressed material ,like stone sculptures , known to the field of official archaeology, we must listen to their principal arguments, of having difficulties to distinguish between art and non art, or beween non-utilitarian artefacts or ulitiltarian ones. It is suggested by them,  we operate with a neutral term "palaeoart" used here in my first paragraph above. 

 For this see the Nov. 2003 issue of AURA ; VOLUME 20, Nr. 2 by Robert Bednarik, stating:

 ...."IGNORING THE MATERIAL OR SUPPRESSING IT, IS NOT SO VERY CONDUCTIVE FOR A  BETTER UNDERSTANDING?" Rock Art Research 2003

 I might add, if  solely to us, the amateurs,   this large field of   research is left to be investigated or   to be studied , we at least ought to practise some  understanding between us and attend to   the many problems involved in a co-operative way, and not act  envouisly   in hindrance towards other peoples  research and  efforts, who also try  to cope with it all. Such has always been my aim, but  of course, it  has  its   limits.?  

Jan. 14.th  2009