close
more_vert

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 .

Good points all, but it strikes me it's strange that "rock art as maps" is under discussion at all without some clear examples having been quoted. After all, hills, springs, tombs etc don't move position so the connection would still be very apparent even now wouldn't it?

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?

Yep. As far as I'm concerned. If I wanted to find a village. I would follow the smoke and other signs of humanity.

If I lived in the village, I wouldn't need a map for anything, because I would know.

If I lived in the village, I'm damned if I would leave a map telling where and how many.

If I did want to leave a map of where and how many, I wouldn't write in in stone. I would use wood as I could correct the information as it changed (As it would)

And on and on.