Maarten van Hoek The Geography of Cup-and-Ring ... - StoneWatch
Maarten van Hoek The Geography of Cup-and-Ring ... - StoneWatch
Maarten van Hoek The Geography of Cup-and-Ring ... - StoneWatch
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
* 3.2.2 INTERVISIBILITY *<br />
Almost every time my wife <strong>and</strong> I visited a cup-<strong>and</strong>-ring site in<br />
unfamiliar terrain, a lot <strong>of</strong> effort was involved to find the stone, even<br />
with a good map. Ninety times out <strong>of</strong> a hundred a carved rock proved to<br />
be a inconspicuous stone on ground level <strong>and</strong> in many cases the rock<br />
proved to be buried under a thin layer <strong>of</strong> turf that had to be removed<br />
carefully before the full extent <strong>of</strong> the engravings was exposed.<br />
Moreover, when the weather is particularly dull, it can be very hard to<br />
find such decorated stones too, also because nowadays there is hardly<br />
any difference between the weathered engravings <strong>and</strong> the rest <strong>of</strong> the<br />
stone’s patinated surface.<br />
When it concerns a prominent decorated rock, it may be equally<br />
difficult to trace, when it is hidden among other similar boulders.<br />
Often it is situated higher up a slope, so that the carvings are invisible<br />
from below. It even proved, for instance in Argyll (1.2.1) <strong>and</strong> Galicia<br />
(1.3.1), that the most prominent<br />
rocks, true l<strong>and</strong>marks in some<br />
cases, were clearly avoided by<br />
the cup-<strong>and</strong>-ring tradition ! In<br />
conclusion, the most puzzling<br />
characteristic <strong>of</strong> cup-<strong>and</strong>-ring<br />
art is <strong>of</strong>ten its invisibility !<br />
Yet, some authors (Bradley 1997)<br />
believe that intervisibility is a<br />
premeditated characteristic <strong>of</strong><br />
cup-<strong>and</strong>-ring art in some British<br />
regions like Northumberl<strong>and</strong><br />
(1.2.3) <strong>and</strong> Argyll (1.2.1.2).<br />
In the previous chapters (1.2.1<br />
<strong>and</strong> 1.2.3) I have clearly<br />
demonstrated, however, that his<br />
conclusions were based on false<br />
<strong>and</strong> therefore premature<br />
interpretations. Moreover, it has<br />
been proven throughout this book<br />
(Chapters 1.2.2; 1.3.1.1;<br />
1.3.1.1 <strong>and</strong> 1.5.3) that in most<br />
FIG. 186: GLENNAN VALLEY.<br />
instances there was no question<br />
<strong>of</strong> intervisibility <strong>and</strong> that intervisibility even seems to have been<br />
avoided (on purpose ?). Only on the eastern route through the Kilmartin<br />
area, a premeditated selection <strong>of</strong> rock art sites may have created a<br />
chain <strong>of</strong> intervisible sites (Fig. 4). On the western route only a few<br />
sites seem to have been possibly selected for their intervisibility; the<br />
best example is found in the Glennan valley (Fig. 13) between the sites<br />
<strong>of</strong> Eurach <strong>and</strong> Glennan (Fig. 186). Intervisibility clearly is an exception,<br />
M. <strong>van</strong> HOEK: 228<br />
GEOGRAPHY