Rowtor Rocks, it's all fake

Rowtor Rocks 3

Image by megadread

megadread Dec 15, 2009 03:23:06

Ok, bear with me here.
It's well known the Rev Thomas Eyre carved out all sorts of crazy shit on the rocks, 3 metre square caves, a 3 seater chair, a font, numerous sets of steps etc etc.
Now there's also cup and ring designs, the flower / solar carving, serpents and numerous cup marks, but i now have my doubts as to whether any of it is genuinely ancient.
It's mentioned that our Mr Eyre may have employed people to do this work for him and not done all this alone, did he have some weird motives going on, i doubt he needed the money but he did employ a guide to give people tours of the rocks, he also was of the opinion that the druids used the rocks for some purpose, did he carve all the "ancient" stuff to give this validity and to further impress the tourists. ?

My doubts stems from a visit to the neighbouring Tor last sunday, Bradley tor.
Now like Rowtor rocks Bradley tor has a rocking stone, but much more impressive, but on a couple of hours searching the rocks the only sign of anything similar to it's neighbours decoration i could find was a solitary cup mark, i'm not even sure if that's genuine, it looks to be but as they are so hard to verify who knows.
Bradley tor has a better view of Cratcliffe tor where the hill fort was built, it also has a better view of robin hoods stride, these two outcrops stand a couple of hundred metres apart and are very similar except for the "rock art", you get where i'm coming from. ?
Now i sincerely hope i'm wrong but this has all made me very dubious about the "ancient" tag afforded the examples on Rowtor rocks.
Have we been hoodwinked. ?

Hob Dec 15, 2009 21:56:26

Replying to megadread

Wey, you could be right Megadread, they are pretty unusual motifs.

But.

According to my hasty googling, the Rev E died in 1717 and the first open air RA in Britain wasn't recognised as ancient until1826 (ish), so if the good reverend had made the carvings at Rowtor, or had them comissioned, it would only deepen their mysterious nature, as how the heck would he have known over 100 years before anyone knew the things he was copying existed? That would be proper weird :)

Paulus Dec 16, 2009 22:05:40

Replying to megadread

As you know Mega - I think the 'solar' design carving at Rowter Rocks aint prehistoric. And I don't see how anyone needs to draw parallels with any of Mr Eyre's knowledge (or lack of it) in relation to prehistoric CR-imagery. He had no need whatever to look at CRs. The fella was a xtian wasn't he? And as there are plenty of similar designs on many early christian art, on crosses, churches, etc, I don't see why anyone needs to invoke prehistoric rock-art knowledge or parallels - whether we wanna see Rowter's solar design as slightly akin to Newgrange or not.

Surely some folk here are aware of the progressive evolution & development of symbols. There are plenty of CR designs on early crosses, where such imagery was probably adopted & plonked onto their designs. That's likely what's happened at Rowter. There's at least one Saxon cross less than 10 miles south of Rowter with a stylized cup-and-ring on its shaft. Why couldn't any recent carver have based his designs on that? As any good rock-art student knows, one needs to branch out a bit further and explore the evolution of symbols in early xtian religious iconography. We know that people were etching cup-marks on upright stones in Yorkshire in the 16th century, so I see little problem with some dood/s down Derbyshire doing the same, with a little additional flair!

Does the Rowter Rocks solar design really originate in prehistoric times? I very much doubt it. And whether Pastscape, Baza or anyone else thinks otherwise, they're probably wrong on this one. Soz...

Weirdly though, I think those on t'other side of this rocky mass, with the 3 CRs on top of the stone, are likely to be more ancient. Why? God knows! :)