23 September 2006

Any Thoughts On Why?....

Hi Folks, We were at Park of Tongland today looking at the original recorded panel from 1987, although i have the original pictures, they do not do the carvings justice. One big thing about the carvings that makes me think, why would you start such a big motif as a cup and 6 rings, if you knew the rock you were carving on could not take such a size motif?..the rock has not been broken off, it is the same size it as always been, so why was that design chosen?.. Park of Tongland 1 (TMA) Park of Tongland 2 (TMA) wolfy


GraemeC said...

You keep posting some classic carvings Mr W.
But i think the answer to your question is right in front of us - on the actual rock.
These days my eyes are drawn straight to the natural features on the rocks (Hollows, cracks and crevices etc) then i look at the carvings as an after thought (grin).
In this case the signficant feature is the large crack/crevice across the top of the rock. It looks like it may even have been opened up a bit?
As you say you would not start such a carving on this particular rock if you were intending just to make 'pretty' multi concentric ring patterns. So this must be about something else.
These days my interpretation would be that the cup mark was carved alongside the crevice first - as part of the ritual practices which 'tapped into' the beliefs connected with that particular location. The focus of the carving was on the actual crack, as a physical and symbolic opening into the earth. If this was the case, was it to let something in or something out?
When i see the concentric rings i have the feeling of 'something' radiating out from the cup, but if i had to choose i would suggest that the rings were added at intervals after the cupmark was created (months/years/generations?) perhaps as a ritual revitalisation of the original carvings function?
I doubt there was ever a rock art 'rule book', but the similarities between the carvings in different regions indicate they were made within a framework of common beliefs, which for me adds another fascinating dimension to the study.

Its late
iv'e had a few beers
- i'm off to bed!

rockrich said...

That’s bleedin bonkers! Has to be the best example of a carving – fissure link up.

Hobson said...

>if i had to choose i would suggest that the rings were added at intervals after the cupmark was created (months/years/generations?)

That's one of those recurring isn't it? All at once, or over a while, or mix-and-match?

And how the hell would you tell thesedays?

wolfy said...

maybe its like a tree...the more rings the older it is, BOOM BOOM!!

wolfy said...

A ring for every 10 years of life..

GraemeC said...

Damn! -These kind of posts always lead to more questions than answers(grin).

I could imagine that most of the carvings we see today were created over a relatively short period, but then had a meaning and significance for hundreds of years afterwards. Almost like there was one episode of carving at a location (setting up the site?) then there was no need to carry on carving more.
Relatively speaking there are not that many carvings, so its not like everyone who lived in the neolithic/bronze age times made a carving. Its probably even possible that one person could have made all the carvings at one site in their lifetime?
looking at it like this and it seems more on a human scale, people working within a tradition which gave significance to carved rocks, with different areas having variations on the same theme.

If we can make RAM07 a full weekender we should all get round a (pub) table and 'brainstorm' the subject, no holds barred! If it ain't been done before, who knows we might come up with a working theory/interpretation?

wolfy said...

sounds good...

Megalithix said...

< sounds good... >

Sounds VERY good!