|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » How is Rock Art aged? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
bladup 1986 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 01:44
|
||
|
Harryshill wrote: No I wouldn't. I also think its unlikely that a map would be required in the first place It might if some places were out of bounds, and if not there were more trees back then and we all know how easy it is to get lost in big woods.
|
|||
|
Harryshill 510 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 03:53
|
||
|
bladup wrote: Harryshill wrote: No I wouldn't. I also think its unlikely that a map would be required in the first place It might if some places were out of bounds, and if not there were more trees back then and we all know how easy it is to get lost in big woods. Difficult to find a small stone map in the woods.
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 07:59
|
||
|
bladup wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Being born and raised in Jersey this is the first time I'd heard about and eventually saw rock-art. It's in the passage grave at La Hougue Bie where we used to play as kids. Click on 'back' at the bottom of the page and you'll see a drawing of it. It was this at first sight that I thought might be a crude map indicating the various megalithic remains on the island and their importance but never really got too deeply into it. http://www.megalithics.com/europe/jersey/bie/biera4.htm I love instinct, especially a kids, what a great place to play, i bet it was great for your imaginations. Being born the year after the war and the German occupation of my island, places such as the passage grave at La Hougue Bie were pretty much unprotected at the time as there were far more important issues taking place. I lived in a 'States' house (the islands Council house) at the Arsenal about two miles or so from the site so it was part of our adventure route. Nobody cared much for what we did there and it was great jumping out on a pal after hiding in a side chamber. It was black as pitch inside then but we had no fear of it. It's only as you got older and learnt what it was all about that is sort of became spooky to you. If you ever get to Jersey it's an absolute must to see. Breathtaking.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 09:56
|
||
|
Harryshill wrote: bladup wrote: Harryshill wrote: No I wouldn't. I also think its unlikely that a map would be required in the first place It might if some places were out of bounds, and if not there were more trees back then and we all know how easy it is to get lost in big woods. Difficult to find a small stone map in the woods. If the woods are troublesome for finding anything then you might need a map to find the original "map " . Then what do you do ?. If what it is supposed to be indicating is nearby you may have come across "them " earlier in which case no need for the map. If they are more distant do you then remember the info but if so pretty soon your'e back to the original problem ,in the woods not knowing where to go and in need of a map . Where you find one marked rock often enough there will be others , so you miight find another "map" which will have entirely different info from the first , i..e. a different number of markings and in a different configuration , do you then accept this one as the real " map" ? Then there is the problem of the map maker how did they know how to replicate the configuration accurately when they also had the problem of being in the woods which caused the problem in the first place ? More likely punters did know their way around to important spots in the landscape whether in trees or otherwise and had no need for maps particularly "Flintstone " style ones .
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 10:21
|
||
Good points all, but it strikes me it's strange that "rock art as maps" is under discussion at all without some clear examples having been quoted. After all, hills, springs, tombs etc don't move position so the connection would still be very apparent even now wouldn't it?
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 10:23
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Harryshill wrote: bladup wrote: Harryshill wrote: No I wouldn't. I also think its unlikely that a map would be required in the first place It might if some places were out of bounds, and if not there were more trees back then and we all know how easy it is to get lost in big woods. Difficult to find a small stone map in the woods. If the woods are troublesome for finding anything then you might need a map to find the original "map " . Then what do you do ?. If what it is supposed to be indicating is nearby you may have come across "them " earlier in which case no need for the map. If they are more distant do you then remember the info but if so pretty soon your'e back to the original problem ,in the woods not knowing where to go and in need of a map . Where you find one marked rock often enough there will be others , so you miight find another "map" which will have entirely different info from the first , i..e. a different number of markings and in a different configuration , do you then accept this one as the real " map" ? Then there is the problem of the map maker how did they know how to replicate the configuration accurately when they also had the problem of being in the woods which caused the problem in the first place ? More likely punters did know their way around to important spots in the landscape whether in trees or otherwise and had no need for maps particularly "Flintstone " style ones . It's interesting that the 'map' in question was built into a passage grave nearly 6,000 years ago with only a small amount of cups showing. This suggests that whatever its 'use' was originally it was no longer of any further use by then. Would that be a fair assessment?
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 10:42
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Good points all, but it strikes me it's strange that "rock art as maps" is under discussion at all without some clear examples having been quoted. After all, hills, springs, tombs etc don't move position so the connection would still be very apparent even now wouldn't it? Yes , it would be good to see some new suggestions .To be fair you have to take each on it's merits , but all the others have failed so don't hold your breath . It is a common response for an explanation but as was appreciated by the mid 19th C it didn't work on on what was known then. There is also the general point also appreciated then , why ? Springs can pop up and disappear .
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 10:45
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Harryshill wrote: bladup wrote: Harryshill wrote: No I wouldn't. I also think its unlikely that a map would be required in the first place It might if some places were out of bounds, and if not there were more trees back then and we all know how easy it is to get lost in big woods. Difficult to find a small stone map in the woods. If the woods are troublesome for finding anything then you might need a map to find the original "map " . Then what do you do ?. If what it is supposed to be indicating is nearby you may have come across "them " earlier in which case no need for the map. If they are more distant do you then remember the info but if so pretty soon your'e back to the original problem ,in the woods not knowing where to go and in need of a map . Where you find one marked rock often enough there will be others , so you miight find another "map" which will have entirely different info from the first , i..e. a different number of markings and in a different configuration , do you then accept this one as the real " map" ? Then there is the problem of the map maker how did they know how to replicate the configuration accurately when they also had the problem of being in the woods which caused the problem in the first place ? More likely punters did know their way around to important spots in the landscape whether in trees or otherwise and had no need for maps particularly "Flintstone " style ones . It's interesting that the 'map' in question was built into a passage grave nearly 6,000 years ago with only a small amount of cups showing. This suggests that whatever its 'use' was originally it was no longer of any further use by then. Would that be a fair assessment? Re-use is quite common in passage graves sometimes the markings are turned the other way i.e. out of sight , buried , defaced or more recent engravings superimposed upon them .
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 10:50
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Harryshill wrote: bladup wrote: Harryshill wrote: No I wouldn't. I also think its unlikely that a map would be required in the first place It might if some places were out of bounds, and if not there were more trees back then and we all know how easy it is to get lost in big woods. Difficult to find a small stone map in the woods. If the woods are troublesome for finding anything then you might need a map to find the original "map " . Then what do you do ?. If what it is supposed to be indicating is nearby you may have come across "them " earlier in which case no need for the map. If they are more distant do you then remember the info but if so pretty soon your'e back to the original problem ,in the woods not knowing where to go and in need of a map . Where you find one marked rock often enough there will be others , so you miight find another "map" which will have entirely different info from the first , i..e. a different number of markings and in a different configuration , do you then accept this one as the real " map" ? Then there is the problem of the map maker how did they know how to replicate the configuration accurately when they also had the problem of being in the woods which caused the problem in the first place ? More likely punters did know their way around to important spots in the landscape whether in trees or otherwise and had no need for maps particularly "Flintstone " style ones . It's interesting that the 'map' in question was built into a passage grave nearly 6,000 years ago with only a small amount of cups showing. This suggests that whatever its 'use' was originally it was no longer of any further use by then. Would that be a fair assessment? Re-use is quite common in passage graves sometimes the markings are turned the other way i.e. out of sight , buried , defaced or more recent engravings superimposed upon them . But do you agree with the second part of my post George?
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 11:10
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Harryshill wrote: bladup wrote: Harryshill wrote: No I wouldn't. I also think its unlikely that a map would be required in the first place It might if some places were out of bounds, and if not there were more trees back then and we all know how easy it is to get lost in big woods. Difficult to find a small stone map in the woods. If the woods are troublesome for finding anything then you might need a map to find the original "map " . Then what do you do ?. If what it is supposed to be indicating is nearby you may have come across "them " earlier in which case no need for the map. If they are more distant do you then remember the info but if so pretty soon your'e back to the original problem ,in the woods not knowing where to go and in need of a map . Where you find one marked rock often enough there will be others , so you miight find another "map" which will have entirely different info from the first , i..e. a different number of markings and in a different configuration , do you then accept this one as the real " map" ? Then there is the problem of the map maker how did they know how to replicate the configuration accurately when they also had the problem of being in the woods which caused the problem in the first place ? More likely punters did know their way around to important spots in the landscape whether in trees or otherwise and had no need for maps particularly "Flintstone " style ones . It's interesting that the 'map' in question was built into a passage grave nearly 6,000 years ago with only a small amount of cups showing. This suggests that whatever its 'use' was originally it was no longer of any further use by then. Would that be a fair assessment? Re-use is quite common in passage graves sometimes the markings are turned the other way i.e. out of sight , buried , defaced or more recent engravings superimposed upon them . But do you agree with the second part of my post George? As we don't know what it's "use " was , it would be difficult to say . Usually in cases of re-use the markings are seen , ( but see above ) and it's unlikely that they don't retain some of their original impact i.e. the stone is not just being used for convenience and could be being accepted as having some power just as non -believers might wear a religious symbol or accept the power invested in icons i.e. If it was originally apotropiaic then it might still be doing it's job just as non believers wear crosses or ankhs .
|
| Pages: 42 – [ Previous | 1 … 26 27 28 29 30 31 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
