Re: Slaggyford Stones . | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Slaggyford Stones 1

Image by StoneGloves

Slaggyford Stones .

more_vert

Littlestone Sep 10, 2011 15:30:26

Replying to tiompan

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.

tiompan Sep 10, 2011 15:50:50

Replying to Littlestone

Littlestone wrote:

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 .

tiompan Sep 10, 2011 16:38:22

Replying to Littlestone

Sorry LS didn't reply to your Alphamstone etc query . The Alphamstone marking is not in the usual cup and ring tradition if man made it looks like it was tooled . It's use and those of other naturally striking stones ammonite at Stoney Littleton etc is intriguing and an important component of understanding the choice of materials at monuments ,little doubt it is intentional but in artistic terms it's the difference between Duchamp and Da Vinci . One is found art and the other man made and whilst we may conflate the two in studies of art in archaeology there is an important distinction .
Another example you might have mentioned is the use of antural markings within genuine rock art ,look at how the man made markings are enclosed in natural markings . http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/6641/craig_hill.html .This is not uncommon and the questiion is did the engravers see these natural markings as convenient frames or whether they maybe perceived as earlier man made markings .

StoneGloves Sep 10, 2011 18:49:45

Replying to Littlestone

Thanks for breaking that up. I could have used the intervention a few days ago. There are some natural cupmarked (or pitted, more like) stones, at the Knar, that have been gathered together, but these aren't they. I'm still learning, of course ...

When I was a child there was a solid stone bridge over a little stream, down Ivy Road. We used to play there a bit - mid nineteen fifties - Robin Hood/Friar Tuck games mainly. This little stone bridge was pulled out, perhaps in the eighties, and stuck in the garden of a local church. It was a christianised standing stone, with a dinky little cross on top, that had been hidden in the bankside. This stone is cupmarked, on one side, but nobody will ever admit that they are actually cupmarks. We've no idea where the standing stone originally stood, of course, and the best guess is where Ivy Road is now.