Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
A quick sketch
Log In to post a reply

259 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
1986 posts

Re: A quick sketch
Sep 12, 2012, 19:16
tiompan wrote:
bladup wrote:
tiompan wrote:
bladup wrote:
tiompan wrote:
bladup wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
bladup wrote:
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
In the latest edition of British Archaeology (digital subscriprion, get me eh) there's a feature on Rock Art and the findings from recent excavations at a couple of sites in Scotland. Part of the feature concerns quartz stones found near the panels, which are thought to have been used to create the motifs.

Something that surprised me was learning that experiments using similar quartz stones found that it took between only half an hour and an hour and a half to create simple motifs.

Given this relatively short amount of time (relative to, say, hauling a rock 5 miles and standing it upright) I would have thought we might expect to see much more elaborate and physically larger designs on rock panels.
This leads me to think the motifs were kept deliberately 'minimal', as if people were developing the most efficient way of communicating information, important information which needed to remain visible, but with the least possible effort.

I haven't read much concerning theories for British rock art and I was wondering if any work has been carried out to construct a 'language' of sorts from the motifs, perhaps attempting to correlate recurring motifs with recurring features in the landscape, sources of water etc and if so have there been any particular ideas which seem to fit?
Is there any reason to think the motifs were created to impart information to others?

At lot of regions [ maybe all ] where there's rock art is water that's got a lot of metal in it [ water at places like Ilkley and Kilmartin have high iron contents ] and would have been poisonous over quite a short time, so finding good clean water in these places if you didn't know the region would have been a matter of live and death, the places that have mainly clean water don't seem to have rock art, one thing i think they show is where the clean water is in an area, i discovered this by realising that the tree of life stone in yorkshire was a map of the landscape you could see from it, i then looked at the map and realised that the cups with rings were matched up with the springs [ flowing clean water ] and the lines linking the cups matched the water lines [ and the flow of the water ] in the valleys between the hills and cups without rings with still water, i think the way in is seeing cups with rings as moving water [ thats why it looks like a stone been thrown into water- as it signifies moving water and the lines between cups is where that water goes and cups without rings as still water [ never the best to drink, even without the metal content ], and i've got a feeling [ because of the slope of a lot of rock art panals ] that if you put water or a liquid on it in a certain place they may even show how the water moves though that area, if so it's fucking genius, i could use the tree of life to find clean water even now, i think this proves something.

You have come up with a lot of interesting theories bladup that you should put into print before someone else does if you feel confident enough. Some will be proven correct others not so but prehistory is like that and you have to take the rough with the smooth. You never seem afraid to state your case so good on you for having the balls to do it.

Thanks a lot, these places would have had dangerous water [to much iron can kill in weeks- fact], therefore knowing where the only safe and clean water was would have been massively important, clean and safe for them was moving water [ eg springs ], and these people who seem so interested in cup and rings don't seem to like someone saying that over years and years [13] i've learned about 1 aspect of them and i can actually use [ if the landscape is still natural ] them in that respect [ i never said i knew EVERYTHING about them just one aspect ], i must be on to something to create the utter bollocks that was written in response to my theory, and you know i can take the rough with the smooth [ like you do ] because i don't care [ beyond my family ] what other people think, these people think they are experts because they are so interested in this stuff, it makes them think they know, but have no answers at all, there isn't even a "go on explain more", you would think because their so interested in them they might want to know more, even if that is to then take the piss, instead it's just a piss take dismissal, it's really easy to not care what know it all's, know nothing sort of people think, what i like about you is your truly open mind, and there's not many of them about around here, i'm afraid.

You have completely avoided all the points raised against your suggestions , I'll list them on the next post if you like .Note , that rather than moan and say your suggestion was a narrow minded load of bollocks I explained why it was .
There was a cue to "go on explain more" , simply post a pic of the map or point out on the various maps available on the web where the springs or streams on the map mirror those on the stone .

I stopped reading, it's quite simple what i'm saying- I CAN ACTUALLY USE ONE ASPECT OF THEM, and i've even explained how, if you think it's rubbish well that's your right, you don't have to even read what i've written, just don't press on my name, you seem know what i'm going to say is bollocks already, but just for you- on the os25000 of that part of yorkshire the land that the tree of life stone looks over matches the pattern on the stone completely, the spring, rivers, wells the pattern of the water matches the pattern on the stone completely, have a look but keep going till the scales right, i tell you it matches, even if you can't see it , i tell you it matches, i've shown it over time to lots of different people and they all say straight away [ after i've shown them ] that they can see it, it definitely does it.

Your original comment was "cups with rings were matched up with the springs [ flowing clean water ] and the lines linking the cups matched the water lines [ and the flow of the water ]"
For a start the much sought after iron comes from springs and there are no springs close to the rock marked on the map .There is only one spring marked in the area on the map (and one well ) and there are cup marked rocks closer to it than the TOL .The Tol has about 25 cups with about 15 involved in the TOL interconnected groove design .Why don't you post a pic of your idea drawn on the map ?

I can match them completely, i've shown it to loads of people who would tell me if it was bollocks or that they couldn't see it [ my kids could see it and they would love to tell me they couldn't ], you can see a long way from there and this is the territory the stone shows so i imagine you have to look at a bigger area, if you can't see it then maybe this info is meant to be unknown, i was just been nice trying to answer the first question asked, i don't need or really want to tell anybody about it, i did laugh out loud when i read people who know the places just dismiss someone claiming to be able to use an aspect of them out of hand, you haven't, even though you admit you think it's bollocks, your still interested just in case your wrong, this shows your mind is open and i respect that. In respect to a photo, i have no desire to show anybody, i don't think you'll see it as i don't think you really want to, if i could show just you, it would blow your mind how exact it is, mapping the landscape is a little older than people realise, like i said i was just answering honestly the first question as i know it, i've done it lots of places over the years [ this is nothing new, i've known it years ], lots of times all over the country i've worked out on the rock compaired to the map where we are on the rock and worked out on the rock where water should be a low and behold there's always water where it should be, the beauty is i can now do it without a map as they seem to use a universal scale, but i'll leave it at that, i know what i know and you know what you know, and i think it's best i keep what i know to myself a little bit more in future.

All that repecting open mind /shut mind , negative /postive , binary oppostion stuff is bollocks .You either think good or bad , have a point you can support or not . You failed to respond to a variety of points and the one opportunity you have of showing something concrete you avoid . Don't kid yoursef ,just because you believe something , or as you would have it "know " something doesn't make it true . Yeah maybe it's meant to be unknown and only special people with an insight can get it , where have I heard that one before .

Good luck in your seach for knowing everything, and i wonder how many people have stopped using this site because of you alone, i am close but won't let you make that happen, i can think things without having to prove everything to you [ this is not an academic paper ], it is true and even my 7 year old kid could show you, i've never liked know it alls/ know nothings anyway, and if you were that clever you wouldn't spend so much time talking into the void on here, you would be doing something more constuctive than spending your time TRYING to pull other peoples ideas/ knowledge apart, over the times i've spoke to you, you've not answered one of MY questions just in case i could prove you wrong, which i admit was trying to do back to you, your knowledge is what the books say so it doesn't even come from yourself, my knowledge doesn't come from books it comes from within myself, you alone ruin this site for me.
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index