is there any evidence to suggest that megaliths were once painted like the Picts and the Terracotta army?
close
L

ur23 wrote:
is there any evidence to suggest that megaliths were once painted like the Picts and the Terracotta army?
Don't think there's any evidence for such ur23 but the idea's an intriguing one, and one we've discussed before somewhere. Personally I'd go with it. If you're going to haul great stones from great distances you're m'be going to enhance some of those stones with colour and/or decoration (both on the stones themselves and between them?).
S

Yes, certainly. I own one that has been painted black, with a finely ground coal and oil mixture and can show someone another, much larger, one that has been painted with burnt ochre along one face. I don't think they were painted all over - like a car is sprayed - but were highlighted. The practise was continued in the North Pennines up until the 1960's by decorating the north-facing sides of drystone walls with a burnt ochre wash. Just the faces were painted and the caps (copes) and throughs were left plain. I can show many examples of this but have seen no academic account. There's even a railway bridge on the south tyne line that still has traces of red on its northern side. So the answer is - yes, certainly. It's mainly all washed off now.
C

There's evidence of paint still remaining on at least one anta/dolmen in Portugal, near Crato if I remeber correctly. It's featured in The Megalithic European.
J

I think there is a very good chance indeed that stones were painted or decorated in some way. Humanity has a long, long history of it.
You know all those greco-roman sculptures? They were all painted - bright colours, too. I find it inconceivable that carved stones, and rock art - especially those found in tombs were not painted too. Think for a moment of the Egyptian tombs and temples, pre-Columbian statuary with all its adornments of metal and jewels, native Australian rock paintings - all embellished with gorgeous colours and pulsating designs, symbols and totems.
The weather up here in these harsh wet northern climes would have meant that any stones outdoors here would have to have been painted afresh each season or according to whatever festivity was being celebrated. However, given that there are so many prehistoric monuments around the world that WE KNOW were painted, if ours here had not been, then WE would be a very strange exception indeed.
P

If standing stones were sometimes used as is often stated as waymarkers leading you through a totally natural enviroment, then it would make real sense to make them stand out from the background,
Stone blends really well with the natural surroundings seeming almost invisible .
F

Many Irish stones have a history of being white washed (if you can't afford a nice bit of quartz, what else can you do?)
It is said that the high crosses were probably painted and, as some standing stones may only be from 700 years earlier (Iron Age boundary/way markers) than the earliest high crosses, I don't see why some of them shouldn't have been decorated.
I remember someone suggesting that the cairn kerbs made of stone that can't be carved easily, such as those at Carrowkeel, could either have been painted or maybe had colourful rugs draped over them when ceremonies were held.
S

They've found paint at the dolmen de dombate in Galicia. From memory it was built, painted and then the lower half was buried in a contempoary mound so the paint was protected.
It now has a rather flimsy taupaulin over it, hopefully they'll get funding and permission to preserve it properly soon. They have some lovely artists impressions of the museum they want to build but it is Spain so who knows when it'll happen....
T

ur23 wrote:
is there any evidence to suggest that megaliths were once painted like the Picts and the Terracotta army?
Paint or otherwise there is a definite Munchian feel to this one .http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/66901/images/lurgan.html
L

It's maybe useful to remember that a pigment doesn't become a paint until it's bound with something to hold the pigment particles together. One of the most common binders used worldwide was/is glue obtained from various animal sources. In the Far East naturally occurring minerals like red and yellow ochre, malachite, azurite and soot have been used for thousands of years. With the exception of soot, minerals were/are ground down and then bound together with a glue to form a paint. The glue used to bind traditional pigments in the Far East is still obtained from deer horn. Interestingly, the finer the mineral is ground the lighter in colour it becomes, so a coarsely ground piece of malachite will have a sandy texture and the colour of an oak leaf, while the same piece of malachite ground to a fine powder will be a very pale green.
Perhaps the very first paint was made from animal fats dripping onto a sooty surface - the kind of thing that might happen naturally around a campfire. Ink sticks in the Far East are basically still made by mixing soot (of various grades) with animal glue and then leaving the stick to harden. When the liquid ink is required the stick is ground on a stone with a little water. These kind of inorganic paints are pretty stable but the organic glue binding them can break down in quite a short period (10-20 years perhaps even in good conditions) returning those paints once again to powdery pigments where they might be easily washed, blown away or eroded by some other means.
What's slightly puzzling is that you'd expect some evidence (in the nooks and crannies of stones that have been buried for example) of paint if it had ever been used to enhance megaliths. It could simply be, though, that no-one has actually bothered to look and record trace remains of such paints on megaliths - an interesting research project for somebody perhaps :-)
T
On my travels through France, I found these.
http://www.megalithic.info/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=15185
From talking to the chap there (Jonny Ferré) I am sure he told me that there was some evidence for this somewhere, and it was not the only place I saw painted stones like this.
But I have none of my notes or books to hand, and my memory is fading....
I dont see why they shouldn't have painted them though. Especially after you see some of the carvings on some of them.
http://www.megalithic.info/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=38022