Monts des Ksour" im Süd-Oranais / Nord-Algerien - StoneWatch

Trimborn schreibt eindeutig, dass es sich sowohl um eine
inkaische Siloanlage als auch um ein Militärlager handeln
könne. In seinen Vorlesungen tendierte er eher zu einer
militärischen Interpretation. Die Ergebnisse des Huánuco-
Projektes waren damals ja noch nicht bekannt. Außerdem
hält er es für abwegig, dass es sich um Chullpa, also oberirdische
Grabanlagen handeln könnte. Dazu ist allerdings zu
sagen, dass die Hochlandbevölkerung nachweislich den
Spaniern im Chiriguanokrieg kurz nach der Conquista und
wahrscheinlich auch schon vorher den Inka in derselben
Auseinandersetzung als Hilfsarmee dienen musste. Nachweise
von Chullpas inklusive Grabbeigaben in Hochlandstilen
(z. B. Uruquilla) sind aus der Gegend bekannt, wenn
auch noch nicht wissenschaftlich dokumentiert.
Im Rahmen des Samaipata-Projektes haben wir damals die
Hunde schlafen gelassen. Aus projektstrategischen Gründen
und angesichts des Ausmaßes des „El-Fuerte“-Komplexes
(samt seiner Konservierungsnotwendigkeiten) nahmen wir
von Grabungen außerhalb dieser Anlage Abstand.
Mit dem Gebrauch des Begriffes „Steinkreise“ durch das
StoneWatch-Team sind nunmehr schlafende Hunde geweckt
worden, denn die damit verbundene Konnotation
geht nicht in Richtung auf „Gebäudefundament“ sondern
auf „rituelle Steinsetzung“. Dies ist durchaus möglich, denn
die Steine liegen ziemlich locker auf der Erde, Reste von
Fundamenten, sei es in Form von untererdigen Steinreihen
oder aber von Lehmziegelsetzungen sind oberflächig nicht
erkennbar. Also muss man mangels wissenschaftlicher
Unter-suchungen prinzipiell beide Versionen oder auch die
oben erwähnte dritte Möglichkeit in Betracht ziehen. Allerdings
gibt es bisher über die Art der eventuellen rituellen
Ausrichtung wenig plausible Vorstellungen.
Abschließend sei darauf hingewiesen, dass diese Steine den
Anstoß zu vielen Spekulationen geben können und das ist
gut so, selbst und gerade wenn damit schlafende Hunde geweckt
werden. Der gewollte Effekt könnte sein, dass sich
ein wissenschaftliches Team der Frage annimmt und mit
einer gezielten Untersuchung beantwortet, deren Ergebnisse
noch so einige Überraschungen enthalten können.
Stumbling Stones
Text and Fotos Josef Otto
Stone circles on a mountain west of Samaipata had been the
subject of a report in StoneWatch Magazine N 0 . 6 where
they are characterized as "ritual places whose purpose lies
still in the dark". (fig 1) The article caused harsh criticism.
(StoneWatch Magazin N 0 . 6 [2001], p. 63. Stone Circles,
Geoglyphs of Samaipata. By Josef Otto).
Embarrassing is the characterization of the stone circles at
Samaipata as geoglyphs or "ritual places whose purpose
lies still in the dark". What is the use of the "Advisory
Council" if you do not think it necessary to interview it?
Certainly Dr. Meyers knows the place since he has been
living in the neighbourhood long enough, and I have
discussed the matter with him, and the competent publication
on the subject was written by his old master Hermann
Trimborn, an authority in the field, who is perfectly right in
"interpreting" the place as relicts of silos of the Inca the
kind of which, by the way, was also found in other places in
Bolivia ("Cerro de las Rueditas", in: H. Trimborn, Archäologische
Studien in den Kordilleren Boliviens III: 124-129.
Baessler-Archiv, N. F. Beiheft 5, Berlin 1967 ("Cerro de las
Rueditas", from: Trimborn, H. Archeological Studies in the
Andes of Bolivia, III: 124-129. Baessler Archives, Supplement
N. F.(?), 5, Berlin, 1967).
Matthias Strecker, SIARB (Bolivianische Felsbilder-
Gesellschaft), La Paz, Bolivien
The mistake is in the (German) definition "deuten" ("interpret")
because neither Hermann Trimborn nor Dr. Meyers,
of the advisory council, nor anybody else has ever intensely
investigated the "stone circles" described by us. There have
been several reports on the subject, and the assumption, it
can be like this, was finally accepted as a matter of fact.
The text quoted from Trimborn's publication reads as follows:
"While Melgar without hesitation adopts a 'pre-Incan' origin
of the construction, Pucher handles the case more carefully,
speaking of 'preincas o incas' as constructors. Nothing
can definitely be said about it because even an
experimental excavation undertaken by me in four of the
stone circles did not bring to light any proof whatever.
As far as the importance of the constructions is concerned,
it has to be said that Melgar's hint 'En algunos lugares llaman
a estas edificaciones chulpas o cementerio' is misleading
since we are here far outside the dispersal area of
such tombs of the Altiplano. We would sooner agree to Pulcher's
opinion who believes the stone arrangements to be
foundations for houses of wood or clay and possibly for a
military camp, and whilst doing so he hesitates, as already
mentioned, whether to attribute it to the 'preincas', or
'incas'. Dr. Hans Horkheimer made the proposal to me by
letter to think also of so-called 'qollka' which means storage
constructions. To my opinion, it could have been as well
this as also an Incan camp which worked in strategical
cooperation with the so-called 'Fuerte' located further to
the east; it could have been abandoned during the invasion
of the Chiriguanos conquering the sculptured mountain,
and probably went up in flames on this occasion."
We examined the stone circles at an altitude of 1923 m on
the mountain ridge "Cerro de la Patria" running northsouth,
with slight deviation, near Samaipata (alt. 1653 m
above sea level). (fig. 2+3) At a length of abt. 180 m and a
width of abt. 15-19 m fieldstones are arranged in round patterns.
The outer diameter is maximum 3 m, the stones lying
very close together. In the said area, the stone circles are
organized at intervals of 1.8 m one after the other and in
two parallel rows at a distance between the rows of abt. 6.8
to 10.5 m. Distinctly recognizable are now 64 circles but
they are not always complete as stones have been removed
from certain circles in order to create other stone work. See
fig. 4. See also ground plan according to Dr. H. Müller-
Beck.
They are lying on the earth slightly deepened (fig. 5+6). Between
the stones or near to them no depressions or filled-up
hollows could be found where posts might have been set in.
An excavation aiming at a confirmation that post hollows
existed near the stones (fig. 7) did not produce any result.
Hollows or pits for the footing of posts between or by the
stones would bear out the theory in favor of stays and struts
for the erection of buildings. A storage bin like a silo, on
the other hand, is in need of an anchoring in the soil, as
shown in fig. 6, and stones lying loosely on the ground do
not guarantee a firm silo foundation.
A silo, as is generally known, is a tall usually cylindrical
structure either aboveground or belowground for storing
material and very often a bin for grain storage. It can be
erected unsupported, with an opening through which to fill
it. An Indian silo may well be 2 m high and with a diameter
of, say, 3 m still higher.
73