Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

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.