Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Modern memorials as 'ancient monuments'
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Hob
Hob
4033 posts

Re: Modern memorials as 'ancient monuments'
Sep 29, 2012, 18:07
I think yYou're right, a plaque wouldn't really fit for the Brouwer carving.

I think the best way to avoid confusion is by having it clearly flagged up with those who record these things (hence posting it here as a part of that). A couple of times in the past decade, I've had to accompany the CA and a fella who'd found some CnR like motifs in North Tyneside, and even after the CA told them these were accounted for as modern, they didn't believe it until taken and shown how it'd been done.
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Re: Modern memorials as 'ancient monuments'
Sep 29, 2012, 18:08
Hob wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Someone complained and said they should be dated . personally I don't see why you should.


I'm working on this same premise with modern CnR motifs. The one at Blawearie for example, is so obviously the work of metal tools, with peck marks fresh as daisies, even when it's weathered in after a few years, it should still be clear to a half-experienced eye that this isn't the real deal.




It's rock art , got a long tradition and we know bugger all about why it was produced , except in this case and a few others .
tjj
tjj
3606 posts

Re: Modern memorials as 'ancient monuments'
Sep 29, 2012, 21:33
Hob wrote:
I think yYou're right, a plaque wouldn't really fit for the Brouwer carving.

I think the best way to avoid confusion is by having it clearly flagged up with those who record these things (hence posting it here as a part of that). A couple of times in the past decade, I've had to accompany the CA and a fella who'd found some CnR like motifs in North Tyneside, and even after the CA told them these were accounted for as modern, they didn't believe it until taken and shown how it'd been done.


That explanation will do for me Hob, like I said ... no offence intended. I didn't know Jan but he came across as a man without ego issues, who in his latter years was dedicated to the furtherance of rock art awareness.

I came across this Australian Aborginal proverb earlier this evening ... perhaps a memorial for each of us, however ordinary or extraordinary ....

"We are all visitors to this time, this place. We are just passing through. Our purpose here is to observe, to learn, to grow, to love ... and then we return Home"

All the best
tjj
The Eternal
924 posts

Re: Modern memorials as 'ancient monuments'
Sep 29, 2012, 23:37
Hi June,

I think that the big difference between prehistoric monuments and the imitations erected/inscribed today is that of recording.

Prehistory is unrecorded at the time. Modern stuff is always recorded in some way or other. Whatever imitations are created today will be recorded by someone somewhere, be it in a diary, on a pc or laptop, or on t'internet, be it on sites like this, or on the moron-magnet otherwise known as Facebook. Somewhere everything is recorded, observed, witnessed, and, of course, there's Big Brother, who seems to be an ever-present in these days of government prying. George Orwell failed - he got the year wrong!

"We are all visitors to this time, this place. We are just passing through. Our purpose here is to observe, to learn, to grow, to love ... and then we return Home"

As for your aboriginal verse, for me it's pure poetry, and speaks the truth of what life really means.

All the best,
TE.
GLADMAN
950 posts

Re: Modern memorials as 'ancient monuments'
Sep 30, 2012, 00:26
The Eternal wrote:
Hi June,

I think that the big difference between prehistoric monuments and the imitations erected/inscribed today is that of recording.

Prehistory is unrecorded at the time. Modern stuff is always recorded in some way or other. Whatever imitations are created today will be recorded by someone somewhere, be it in a diary, on a pc or laptop, or on t'internet, be it on sites like this, or on the moron-magnet otherwise known as Facebook. Somewhere everything is recorded, observed, witnessed, and, of course, there's Big Brother, who seems to be an ever-present in these days of government prying. George Orwell failed - he got the year wrong!

"We are all visitors to this time, this place. We are just passing through. Our purpose here is to observe, to learn, to grow, to love ... and then we return Home"

As for your aboriginal verse, for me it's pure poetry, and speaks the truth of what life really means.

All the best,
TE.


To be fair, TE, I think Mr Orwell's greatest testament is that we aren't being worked to death in a gulag somewhere..... I guess he scared us enough.
tjj
tjj
3606 posts

Edited Sep 30, 2012, 19:26
Re: Modern memorials as 'ancient monuments'
Sep 30, 2012, 00:29
Thanks TE ...

Best wishes back to you.

June
The Eternal
924 posts

Re: Modern memorials as 'ancient monuments'
Sep 30, 2012, 00:39
GLADMAN wrote:
To be fair, TE, I think Mr Orwell's greatest testament is that we aren't being worked to death in a gulag somewhere.....


Gladders,

Some people I know might disagree with you on that one!

Cheers,
TE.
Hob
Hob
4033 posts

Re: Modern memorials as 'ancient monuments'
Oct 01, 2012, 00:17
No offence taken, none at all. I've been pondering, and have concluded there ought to be some kind of overt sign in a modern repro, some element of the thing, be it a carving, a standing stone or earthwork, that makes direct reference to it's otherness when compared to it's ancient counterpart.

Millenium stones all seem to have the date on them, modern stones are usually easily discernable by the lack of weathering, and earthworks would all have totally different stratigraphy from old ones, but despite this, the only common method of identifying new carvings seems to be by the methods discussed here, i.e. by recording. Ideally, a photo of the rock surface before carving and after carving. That would be difficult for anyone to get mixed up with.
tjj
tjj
3606 posts

Re: Modern memorials as 'ancient monuments'
Oct 01, 2012, 08:43
Hob wrote:
No offence taken, none at all. I've been pondering, and have concluded there ought to be some kind of overt sign in a modern repro, some element of the thing, be it a carving, a standing stone or earthwork, that makes direct reference to it's otherness when compared to it's ancient counterpart.

Millenium stones all seem to have the date on them, modern stones are usually easily discernable by the lack of weathering, and earthworks would all have totally different stratigraphy from old ones, but despite this, the only common method of identifying new carvings seems to be by the methods discussed here, i.e. by recording. Ideally, a photo of the rock surface before carving and after carving. That would be difficult for anyone to get mixed up with.


Thank you! I won't pretend I didn't feel uncomfortable about raising this as I know the high regard with which Jan is held, and that your carving is part of the
Jan Brouwer Trail (hope to walk it myself in the not too distant future). 'The Eternal' made the same point in his post - call me a worrier (not a warrior) but I always think 'what if ...' the internet disappeared. I would put my faith in traditional methods of recording i.e. some small symbol on the rock face which marks it 'of its time'.
Rhiannon
5291 posts

but...
Oct 01, 2012, 17:59
Just to be devil's advocate though June, why do you think a contemporary addition needs labelling as such? To help some poor confused archaeologist in 3500AD? Why do they need help? Won't they have lots of advanced techniques to investigate things? Won't they twig that Hob's carving wasn't done with a stone?

I'm not really advocating deliberately 'forging' rock art, you know, like trying to make new ones and pass them off as old. But I'm not sure it matters even if people do do that?

I think an archaeologist thousands of years in the future would be intrigued as to why people were still making the carvings now, thousands of years after their heyday. They might wonder why people like Hob were doing it. (I wonder if he truly could explain why himself, other than for this memorial example). But that's for them to wonder about isn't it. I'm not sure we're obligated to leave them any clues. The original carvers certainly weren't worried about leaving clues for their far off descendants (well, maybe they were, maybe they thought it was that obvious what they meant, but who can say).

I don't think it's important. I don't think there are enough people doing it to worry about (whatever it is you're worried about). Does it matter if people are confused -even now- if they come across a new carving?

I happened across a new stone circle the other day. The stones didn't look right (to my fairly inexperienced eye), they looked too newly hewn. But if someone in years hence wants to wonder why someone from our time made it, then I dunno, let them.

Mine isn't really a position to argue from, but I'm not sure it isn't any less clear than yours?

Anyway varied opinions, that's what we want eh.
Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index