Re: Slaggyford Stones . | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Slaggyford Stones 1

Image by StoneGloves

Slaggyford Stones .

more_vert

tiompan Sep 10, 2011 15:50:50

Replying to Littlestone

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 .

Sanctuary Sep 10, 2011 16:18:13

Replying to tiompan

tiompan wrote:

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.

Which round are we in at the moment or is this 'last man standing?' :-)

Littlestone Sep 10, 2011 17:56:31

Replying to tiompan

Just as natural markings on a rock no matter how "artistic " are geology not archaeology .

But can a purely geological item become an archaeological one? Surely the act of selection (eg the ammonite at the entrance to Stoney Littleton) is equally as valid as a purely act of construction; valid in so much as selecting something, in this case something natural, involves an act of considerable human discernment.

The fact that something is not manmade does not, imho, automatically place it outside the realm of the archaeological; if that were the case we would disregard the remains of the flowers recently found in the 4,000 year Bronze Age dig as merely botanical :-)

Littlestone Sep 10, 2011 18:18:31

Replying to tiompan

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 .

I beg to differ Mr t. True, the fact that Silbury is manmade is of immense importance but I disagree that what it looks like is of secondary importance. Indeed, what it looks like may indeed be of primary importance, that is why it was made to look like it is, and it may even have been modelled on, or inspired by, a natural formation. Again, as stated above, I think it’s a mistake to lay too much emphasis on the purely manmade when we can easily list several natural mounds, hills, rocks and mountains which, because of the cultural importance they have been endowed with, are of anthropological if not of purely archaeological importance.