|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Slaggyford Stones Forum | Start a topic | Search |
170 messages | Select a forum: |
tjj wrote: Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: Littlestone wrote: Jeeze... c’mon fellas take a step back. I know feck all about rock art but the crux of your argument seems to be between rockart (manmade) and non-rockart (natural). Isn’t that looking at things from a slightly modern perspective? Where do you place found art in the prehistoric context, or does that just get kicked into the long grass? Wiki defines found art as an art which, “...derives its identity as art from the designation placed upon it by the artist...” Sure, the best manmade rockart has a wow factor that simpler manmade or natural cup and rings don’t but that doesn’t preclude them from being a form of art (if we can even use that term here). Where would you place the Alphamstone stuff? Probably natural but found on a Christianised site and perhaps brought and incorporated there because they looked ‘artificial’ (manmade or otherwise) or at the very least looked interesting and different enough for use at an important site. Ditto the ammonite at Stoney Littleton, the holed stones down by the river at Pewsey, the twisted stones used at Rollright, the puddingstones used up in this (Essex) neck of the woods. Sorry if I’ve got hold of the wrong end of the stick – just wanted to say that art doesn’t have to be manmade but that it becomes art when we make it so. Maybe the problem LS is the term "rock art " , without going into the rights and wrongs of the usage , like other terms like "stone circle" it can cause problems . The fact that the SC is not circular does not matter too much as long as it is man made ,a natural ring of stones may be aesthetically pleasing but it is not archaeology it's geomorphology . Just as natural markings on a rock no matter how "artistic " are geology not archaeology .The important distinction in "rock art " studies is whether something is man made or not . The fact that Silbury is man made is incredibly important what it looks like is secondary and we wouldn't consider comparing it with a natural hill or lump . Similarly if someone claims that that a natural lump is another man made hill we should ensure that it really is as they are precious .When claims are made for man made artefacts we must be as sure as possible that they really are as claimed or it confuses the record . Natural markings that look like rockart are very common and those that believe they are man made can take it personally when it is pointed out that that they are actually perfectly natural but we can't afford to be too polite , as much as we try , as what matters is not ego but the archaeological record . Which round are we in at the moment or is this 'last man standing?' :-) I'm not going to 'gang up' on Stonegloves as his posts are often challenging and I like that. I have to say though, and its been said before, Tiompan is the cornerstone of this forum and an acknowledged authority on rock art. Lets face it not many of us (who still post here) have seen too much rock art - my own experience is limited to a small museum in Durham and the enigmatic markings on Long Meg. When I first became interested in rock art I was 'seeing' it everywhere and I'm grateful to Tiompan for the 'grounding'. His knowledge and hands on experience is heroic. I can see George blushing from here :D Reply | with quote | Posted by Sanctuary 10th September 2011ce 16:53 In reply to: Re: Slaggyford Stones . (tjj) |
Messages in this topic: |
|