|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Creswell Crags » Romano British Goat |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Amil04 447 posts |
May 15, 2017, 16:31
|
||
|
I am of the impression that the 'stag' in CHC is a depiction of a goat. I have seen this engraving many times and have studied it closely. I don't think that the eye is the natural hole as described by reasearchers. If one looks closely you can see an engraved eye down and to the left of the hole...it's in a far more anatomically correct position for an eye. On seeing this it turns a rather sweet looking 'stag' into a commanding looking goat....with two front legs. I think the reasearchers claimed the second leg to be be part of another animal engraving.? Also why is it presumed that the series of vertical engraved lines beneath are contemporary with the goat/stag? This is where the samples for U series dating came from, the deposits overlay the lines, not the goat/stag. These are questions I've held for years and was amazed to find out more recently that the late Dr. Roger Jacobi who led the 2006 excavation outside CHC also thought it was most probably a goat and most probably was Iron Age/Romano British. This information came from a colleague of his. The 'alternative' can be clearly seen in the researchers own photographs. As for engraved antler..well to be honest I could never really see any times clearly.. Thoughts anyone..?
|
|||
|
Amil04 447 posts |
Sep 30, 2017, 11:33
|
||
|
That's 'alternative eye' and tines not times.. I was really hoping for some discussion here..This was meant to be one of the discoveries of the that decade..
|
|||
|
GLADMAN 950 posts |
Sep 30, 2017, 23:38
|
||
|
Amil04 wrote: That's 'alternative eye' and tines not times.. I was really hoping for some discussion here..This was meant to be one of the discoveries of the that decade.. So... to educate us here... assuming what you say is true, and we have a poorly executed goat instead of a stag. What does that mean. In your opinion?
|
|||
|
Amil04 447 posts |
Oct 01, 2017, 18:27
|
||
|
Hi, firstly can you see and appreciate the carved eye I mentioned? What do you think? Is it not in a far more anatomically correct position for an eye?..Rather than the natural hole the researchers claim to be the eye? On the other hand the natural mouth feature does look like it was perhaps chosen for a starting point. I won’t say it’s a poorly executed goat anymore than I would say its a poorly executed stag. Remember the team themselves thought it was an ibex to begin with. Quote “Our initial assessment is that this is the figure of a male ibex and it’s style suggests a date of 12,500-12,000 years ago” British Archaeology issue 72 Sept 2003. How did this article get to be printed in such a publication before any proper research/dating had been done? Dated stylistically? Surely a goat is a goat is a goat..? Ask any artist today to draw a goat in profile and they’ll no doubt come up with something pretty similar? I tried yesterday to upload an image I took of where exactly the samples of flowstone had been taken from, but this site wasn’t accepting images for some reason. I’ll try again. People will clearly see that the flowstone does not overlay the goat/stag engraving. So how has this engraving been sufficiently dated? U series dating for cave art in any case has been said to be an inadequate method from what I gather. Even if the samples did overlay the image I’d have liked to have seen it blind tested and done by someone other than a colleague of the research team so as to promote a greater confidence in the results. The research team themselves have said just because evidence of palaeolithic material has been found it doesn’t automatically mean any art/engraving found is contemporary. Which is common sense. And yet.. The only other samples taken for dating were from near to the engraving further into the cave, the long necked birds, or as one researcher claims, quote ‘naked ladies dancing'. So these two samples are dating up to ten motifs by association...I just don’t get it. I don’t want to be pointing fingers too much or mentioning names here and you’ll have to trust me about Roger’s views. It came from an experienced and reliable source. I was a little surprised she gave this information away in some ways. I respect her for that though. What does it mean? Broadly it means people should never be afraid to question the ‘experts’ findings..and their motives. Specifically it means that individuals and organisations are potentially making money and names for themselves without a solid foundation of evidence. But that’s the thing with Archaeology, you can come up with any theory you like and sell it pretty much as fact. Plus if it is a depiction of a goat it would be more likely that it’s been engraved in more recent times. It only takes a hundred years or so for carved stone in the open air to achieve full patina. Many examples of graffiti in the caves at Creswell from the 18th/19th century have full patina, including examples toward the end of the passage in Church Hole. Having said all this I would encourage anyone to visit the Crags, the gorge and caves are marvellous. Just don’t be afraid to ask questions if like me you’re not completely convinced about something. I’ve read on many sites how people have felt so privileged to have viewed the art..I used to feel like that and it saddens me. I could be wrong. I don’t have any hard evidence to say the engravings aren’t palaeolithic in date..but I don’t think there’s the evidence to say they are either, beyond reasonable doubt. The Crags seem to have a history of controversial finds...Ochre Horse, planted? PinHole Man which was found by the same man that faked (allegedly!) the Chalk Goddess found at Grimes Graves..poor Crags. Thank you Gladman for taking this subject up. Check out Robert Bednarik, he seems to be one of the only Cave Art researchers publicly calling the teams approach and findings into question. There’s much more I could say on this matter and I feel I’ve kept it fairly tame being a public forum..I don’t want to get kicked off! ‘Money rules the game’
|
|||
|
thelonious 330 posts |
Oct 01, 2017, 19:56
|
||
|
Can't really add much to the discussion as I know nothing - where's tiompan when we need him? :-) but I enjoyed reading your post. I'd love to visit someday. I'm pretty sure I can see the eye you are talking about (looks like someone's given it a beard as well!) If it's a goat, would that rule out a date of 12,500-12,000 years ago? Anyone got a rough date for introduction of goats to these isles?
|
|||
|
GLADMAN 950 posts |
Oct 01, 2017, 21:05
|
||
|
thelonious wrote: Can't really add much to the discussion as I know nothing - where's tiompan when we need him? :-) but I enjoyed reading your post. I'd love to visit someday. I'm pretty sure I can see the eye you are talking about (looks like someone's given it a beard as well!) If it's a goat, would that rule out a date of 12,500-12,000 years ago? Anyone got a rough date for introduction of goats to these isles? That's the point, isn't it? Sheep are not indigenous to the UK, so presumably goats weren't here before the last Ice Age either.
|
|||
|
Amil04 447 posts |
Oct 06, 2017, 17:31
|
||
|
By all accounts goats/sheep were introduced to this part of the world by the first Neolithic farmers. It’s said that the goats that roam in the Cheviot Hills today are possibly directly related to them. Another point to note and ask about if anyone should visit the Crags is why aren’t the engraved vertical lines next to the ‘vulva’ in Robin Hood Cave acknowledged in any of the researchers publications? The ‘vulva’ engraving can also be interpreted as the ‘mark of Bride’ an Iron Age goddess who incidentally used to ‘hang out’ with a goat...The mark of Bride or Bridgit looks like the imprint of a birds foot. Tenous, but is there a link between the flowstone and milk? I encourage the reader to look into Bride and her associations. Spring, birth, milk...For those that aren’t aware the flowstone in the caves has a milky appearance. Also if you should visit RHC just before you go down the small passage to what’s known as the central chamber look up and to your left above head height ..you may notice a series of eight vertical lines deeply carved into the cave wall...Why were these of no interest to the researchers? They certainly aren’t recent. Going back to CHC two of the engravings found are very simple line drawings thought to depict a horse and a bovid. In both instances the lines ‘appear’ to disappear under flowstone deposits. Do they? For arguments sake let’s say I was someone feeling mischievous...maybe even L A... I would engrave next to flowstone so as to give the impression the lines disappear underneath to give the appearance of great age? Just a thought...Removing the flowstone would be a challenge but it would rule such a scenario out. These engravings look to be exicuted by a different hand than the goat/stag and birds. No direct dating has been done on them but they appear in the researchers publications as palaeolithic. If one should be lucky enough to see the birds first hand turn 180 degrees there’s a feature on the opposite side of the passage which I think is significant and possibly the reason for the engraving being where it is. It’s a phreatic tune that to me looks like an eye....I find this the most intriguing of all the engravings. I did wonder if it had anything to do with ‘The Bull and Three Cranes’ Horn like feature and long necked birds? Again I encourage the reader to research this should it be of interest. Let’s not forget that the Crags have evidence of activity in every age and yet the focus is always on the palaeolithic. As for the story of the research team about to leave without even looking in Church Hole Cave because little evidence of occupation had been found...?? (In ‘Britain’s Oldest Art’English Heritiage publication] What about the long standing hearth in section on the left near the entrance with flints and bones poking out of it! Story telling folks...Plus it gave a little weight to their theory that this Cave was a ‘ritual space’ and less visited perhaps.You don’t go to the trouble of organising a visit and not look in one of the largest caves at the site... I’m playing devils advocate here and again would encourage anyone to visit and judge for themselves. ‘It’s far easier to be fooled than to acknowledge you’ve been fooled’
|
|||
|
Amil04 447 posts |
Oct 06, 2017, 17:35
|
||
That’s ‘phreatic tube’ not tune! Wonder what that’d sound like?
|
|||
|
Amil04 447 posts |
Oct 06, 2017, 17:45
|
||
Still can’t upload photos. I press the ‘I have understood guidelines’ and it just takes me back to the top of the page. I would apricciated any advice here cheers.
|
|||
|
GLADMAN 950 posts |
Oct 08, 2017, 15:16
|
||
|
Amil04 wrote: Still can’t upload photos. I press the ‘I have understood guidelines’ and it just takes me back to the top of the page. I would apricciated any advice here cheers. You 'should' be able to upload an image by going to the site page and choosing the 'Add an image' selection from centre far right drop down list. If not suggest the Eds will be able to help
|
| Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
