Harryshill
|
Re: but...
Oct 01, 2012, 20:48
|
But that's your right.
Mine is not to agree.
I'm sure that saxon artefacts have been copied and 'sold' as the genuine article. Let the buyer beware. Anyway it's only talk.
|
Harryshill
|
Re: but...
Oct 01, 2012, 20:48
|
But that's your right.
Mine is not to agree.
I'm sure that saxon artefacts have been copied and 'sold' as the genuine article. Let the buyer beware. Anyway it's only talk.
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: but...
Oct 01, 2012, 20:50
|
ha no you're probably right, it does sound like double standards. But it's worth thinking through both sides isn't it? I'm not entirely decided where I stand. But I'm sure it's not quite the same as doing something that might physically affect the genuine article. It only has a theoretical sort of impact on the subject?
or am I talking utter swill. It is very possible.
|
Hob
|
Re: Modern memorials as 'ancient monuments'
Oct 01, 2012, 22:33
|
One possibility of indicating modernity whilst staying in keeping with the general vibe would be to accompany the motif with a series of small cups and grooves, along the lines of:
011100100110111101100011011010110110000101110010011101000111010101101011
Which is the text 'rockartuk' expressed in binary. It's obviously a bit too long to wrap around the CnR motif, but might make a good line if wrapped further down the outcrop.
|
Hob
|
Re: Modern memorials as 'ancient monuments'
Oct 01, 2012, 23:14
|
The design of the motif is such that it should be clear to anyone familiar with them that it's not contemporary with the other CnRs in the neighbourhood.
I think if the internets vanished, then it'd perhaps be in response to some kind of global electro-magnetic-pulse style disruption of communications, in which case the data appertaining to the site would hopefully survive intact on tma's servers. In the event of such a communications calamity, society would probably have enough things on it's plate than wondering about the provenance of rock carvings. However, I'd like to think that if the organic effluvia really did hit the blades of a rotating air conditioning device, this carving in particular would yield useful info under scrutiny. Like the older ones, it's 'tail' points downslope, and indicates the nearby watersource. It also points in the direction of The Netherlands, as that's appropriate given it's raison d'etre.
And it really, really looks modern. I think even if you were to stumble across it with no prior knowledge of prehistoric RA, you'd cast one glance and think 'Well that looks like some bugger's just bashed the rock with a pointy bit of metal'. It's blatantly new and shiny, even compared to the old RA where the carvings have laid buried and the peck marks are evident, the shapes of each peck are very different when done with metal as compared to stone.
|
Hob
|
Re: but...
Oct 01, 2012, 23:22
|
|
tjj wrote: That is all I have to say on the matter as I am aware Hob is a highly esteemed contributor.
Eeh, in't you nice to say that ;) I'm just a distant memory here, due to not posting hardly ever these days.
tjj wrote: Am genuinely perplexed by these double standards.
It's sort of different in this case as the outcrop in question was completely unmarked, and is a good 500m away from the next nearest real cupmark. No way in hell would I ever condone marking on already marked rocks. There's one like that at Lordenshaw, dating back to the 1950s I think, and it's just not right.
tjj wrote: If that view makes me an outcast on this forum ... well, no change there. I stand by my view. Well now, it's not like you've suggested the romans tidied the landscape up nicely or anything as blasphemous...
|
Hob
|
Re: but...
Oct 01, 2012, 23:25
|
|
At this juncture, I'd like to point out that faking CnRs is quite easy if you can be arsed to spend a few weeks weathering them artificially. If anyone feels like starting a line up on ebay, flogging genuinefakeprehistoricmodern rock art, I think there'd be a market, especially in California. Postage costs for large boulders to be sent across the pond might be a problem though ;)
|
Hob
|
Re: but...
Oct 01, 2012, 23:32
|
You've hit on a thing there. The fact that those outcrops have no CnRs on them has perplexed me. A couple of other places up here are the same, like Simonside, Cloudy Crags and Bowden Doors. They all are prominent, significant natural features that would have been mesolithic des res spots, yet the RA is sort of distributed around them, almost pointing towards them, not on them.
But them I consider that all these outcrops are exposed, and any old carvings would have eroded a long long time ago. It's all just a whopping great puzzle of time, mind and space, and that's good.
|
Hob
|
Re: Modern memorials as 'ancient monuments'
Oct 01, 2012, 23:34
|
|
The Eternal wrote: moron-magnet
Snigger....
Nice one TE, I'm gonna remember that one :D
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: but...
Oct 02, 2012, 07:19
|
Isn't Simonside quite big? but you're saying all the rock art has been eroded? That might be true mightn't it. But maybe it is true that it was never there in the first place, and that's why you can't find it. And there you go, there's a clue as to the carvings' meanings :)
Maybe Simonside is special in some sort of way that meant it couldn't be carved on. Like... (struggling to think of modern equivalent because it's hard to discern the slavishly-followed rules of your own society...) nope it's too early. But i'm assuming you think it's a decent possibility. You've obviously been to enough spots to have a feel for where's the places you'd expect it.
Spose it dunt help much though does it.
|
