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, 19:21
|
||
tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Granite would take longer but it is not used too often .It does tend have lots of natural cup like holes that could help as a start i.e. they that just get enhanced . Although granite on granite would work with nothing to enhance ,just take longer , the more complex motifs are usually avoided too . Funnily enough that's a point (no pun intended!) I was going to raise, the use of a natural cup like hole to start it off. If they did and there was more than one, the 'pattern' produced would have been random and may not have been important to them, just the cupmarks themselves. Does that tell us anything other than the obvious? No , it does us tell us something ,same as the important point that the rock surface often has a big input into what gets engraved . The assumption is often that the engraver approaches the canvas with a composition in their head that gets faithfully trasferred to the canvas .It doesn't seem that is what going on in many cases . It's more like jamming , you are constrained to an extent but not following anything prescriptive , you react to things as they appear to impose stuff . Following the flow of energy in the rock or following and using "the fault lines" in the rock, see you do know.
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 19:29
|
||
bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Granite would take longer but it is not used too often .It does tend have lots of natural cup like holes that could help as a start i.e. they that just get enhanced . Although granite on granite would work with nothing to enhance ,just take longer , the more complex motifs are usually avoided too . Funnily enough that's a point (no pun intended!) I was going to raise, the use of a natural cup like hole to start it off. If they did and there was more than one, the 'pattern' produced would have been random and may not have been important to them, just the cupmarks themselves. Does that tell us anything other than the obvious? No , it does us tell us something ,same as the important point that the rock surface often has a big input into what gets engraved . The assumption is often that the engraver approaches the canvas with a composition in their head that gets faithfully trasferred to the canvas .It doesn't seem that is what going on in many cases . It's more like jamming , you are constrained to an extent but not following anything prescriptive , you react to things as they appear to impose stuff . Following the flow of energy in the rock or following and using "the fault lines" in the rock, see you do know. Simples :-)
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 19:35
|
||
bladup wrote: tiompan wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Granite would take longer but it is not used too often .It does tend have lots of natural cup like holes that could help as a start i.e. they that just get enhanced . Although granite on granite would work with nothing to enhance ,just take longer , the more complex motifs are usually avoided too . Funnily enough that's a point (no pun intended!) I was going to raise, the use of a natural cup like hole to start it off. If they did and there was more than one, the 'pattern' produced would have been random and may not have been important to them, just the cupmarks themselves. Does that tell us anything other than the obvious? No , it does us tell us something ,same as the important point that the rock surface often has a big input into what gets engraved . The assumption is often that the engraver approaches the canvas with a composition in their head that gets faithfully trasferred to the canvas .It doesn't seem that is what going on in many cases . It's more like jamming , you are constrained to an extent but not following anything prescriptive , you react to things as they appear to impose stuff . Following the flow of energy in the rock or following and using "the fault lines" in the rock, see you do know. As we don't know what the engraver imagined about the rock that is not visually obvious we can't comment . What we can see that obviously has an infuence on the engraver are the texture , slope , cracks and fissures and shape of the rock .
|
|||
Harryshill 510 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 19:44
|
||
From the point of an observer rather than a speculator, I find this stuff fascinating.
|
|||
Harryshill 510 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 19:49
|
||
Harryshill wrote: From the point of an observer rather than a speculator, I find this stuff fascinating. Spectator you dumb ase. Lol...
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 19:53
|
||
Harryshill wrote: Harryshill wrote: From the point of an observer rather than a speculator, I find this stuff fascinating. Spectator you dumb ase. Lol... I dunno...speculator fits in with a lot of what we do doesn't it.
|
|||
Harryshill 510 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 19:56
|
||
I actively try not to
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 19:58
|
||
Harryshill wrote: I actively try not to We can't help but initially speculate in our heads, then hopefully come to a conclusion...or otherwise which is more likely :-)
|
|||
Harryshill 510 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 20:04
|
||
I disagree. That's not what I do at all. I can't say that I believe much about any of it. I think it over, but normally keep it open. Obviously, I do have thoughts about what I don't believe, or at least find dubious .
|
|||
Harryshill 510 posts |
Dec 19, 2012, 20:06
|
||
I disagree. That's not what I do at all. I can't say that I believe much about any of it. I think it over, but normally keep it open. Obviously, I do have thoughts about what I don't believe, or at least find dubious .
|
Pages: 42 – [ Previous | 1 … 33 34 35 36 37 38 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index |