Rockrich
|
Re: How is Rock Art aged?
Dec 20, 2012, 09:05
|
|
Hob wrote:
Yes it is possible to age new carvings to some extent. It takes bloody ages, patiently wearing down all the peckmarks. Then leave it outside long enough for a coating of yoghurt to turn into moss then lichen, and it'll look not new.
You still haven't told me how long Ketley Crags took you?
|
Harryshill
|
Re: How is Rock Art aged?
Dec 20, 2012, 15:28
|
|
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?
Not necessarily. Something doesn't have to be on view to have importance or give importance. It's existence might of been important to the dead or maybe to the living. The carving might have been the work of a/the person interned, and it's existence in the structure, being more important than it being seen in it's entirety.
|
Harryshill
|
Re: How is Rock Art aged?Moving On
Dec 20, 2012, 16:00
|
|
It strikes me that with this kind of engraving, that there is bound to be error creeping in and that whatever it represents, (If anything) in the mind of the person creating it, it would need to be, for the loss of a better word 'stylized'
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: How is Rock Art aged?
Dec 20, 2012, 17:09
|
|
Harryshill wrote:
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?
Not necessarily. Something doesn't have to be on view to have importance or give importance. It's existence might of been important to the dead or maybe to the living. The carving might have been the work of a/the person interned, and it's existence in the structure, being more important than it being seen in it's entirety.[/quote]
In principal I agree with you, but why I think it was not important in this instance is that the cupmarks were buried in the passage wall out of sight (except fot three) and not displayed inside the chamber itself which I would have thought carried more weight to its importance to the dead, especially if as you suggest the actual carver. It looks to me that it was simply a stone that fitted into the space required, but who knows!
|
Harryshill
|
Re: How is Rock Art aged?
Dec 20, 2012, 17:20
|
Who knows indeed.
I have read that stonemasons would sometimes leave their names in places where they would never bee seen or probably found.
They could have left them in a more prominent position but didn't. Important to them that it was there and that's all.
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: How is Rock Art aged?
Dec 20, 2012, 18:57
|
|
Harryshill wrote: Who knows indeed.
I have read that stonemasons would sometimes leave their names in places where they would never bee seen or probably found.
Sh*t their work must have been bad to do that! :-)
|
Harryshill
|
Re: How is Rock Art aged?
Dec 20, 2012, 19:07
|
|
Sanctuary wrote: Harryshill wrote: Who knows indeed.
I have read that stonemasons would sometimes leave their names in places where they would never bee seen or probably found.
Sh*t their work must have been bad to do that! :-)
St. Paul's, if I remember right and one of the pyramid I think.
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: How is Rock Art aged?
Dec 20, 2012, 19:14
|
|
Harryshill wrote: Sanctuary wrote: Harryshill wrote: Who knows indeed.
I have read that stonemasons would sometimes leave their names in places where they would never bee seen or probably found.
Sh*t their work must have been bad to do that! :-)
St. Paul's, if I remember right and one of the pyramid I think.
Wasn't Meidum was it!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meidum
|
Harryshill
|
Re: How is Rock Art aged?
Dec 20, 2012, 19:31
|
Can't remember now.
I have been trying to think of other examples. Green men?
Old shoes built in the space above doors to prevent bad spirits getting in
|
Harryshill
|
Re: How is Rock Art aged?
Dec 20, 2012, 19:39
|
|
Something new, something old, something borrowed
|
