Re: Calling Rock-Rich. | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Rockrich Dec 19, 2006 23:30:35

Replying to tiompan

George, just posted a slightly closer view of the carving.

I’m glad it’s not just me, a few things struck me as not quite right when we uncovered it. But, I thought given its proximity to the other carvings (2 meters away) it was probably me being too sceptical.

For what it’s worth here are my musings, both +ve & -ve:

-‘s
* The motifs and arrangement are extremely unusual.
* don’t like the lone ring, something not quite right (maybe too small compared to other cupless rings)
* inconsistent tool marks, some appear long & thin.
* significantly less eroded than other carvings within 2 meters (but this was turf covered & therefore could have been more protected)
* 200 meters from a large manmade pond dug in the 19thC, used as a skating rink for people from miles around. Area got quite busy in the 19th & early 20th C, apparently.

+’s
* proximity to other carvings (2 meters), although this wouldn’t stop folks carving later.
* cup size & formation consistent with others close by + theres other strange groovings.
* the way natural fissures have been incorporated into the design.
* under 2-3inch of turf.

Really would be interested to hear your thoughts!

Chris Collyer Dec 20, 2006 00:44:33

Replying to Rockrich

That’s a weird one.
The cups look much older and smoother than that ring and arrow and there just seems to be too much strange stuff going on in too small a space, especially when compared to the simple designs and worn cups on the other stones on the site.
I can’t put my finger on it, but to me it just looks wrong.

-Chris

tiompan Dec 20, 2006 11:01:05

Replying to Rockrich

Rich , Even from the pic it looks "stiff" and unbalanced but that's subjective. The cups seem to be straight sided rather than being an inverted cone . If it has been under cover and well preserved then you would expect to see some decent pick marks .A good look should show if it was done using a metal tool . Then there is the "face" . At least it's not in the Kelvingrove museum .