Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
257
 Rock Art Research 2007 
- Volume 24, Number 2.
with a di
ff
erent posture, give a completely dissimilarexpression to the animal (Fig. 1B).
Possible sequences
It is certain that the
 position
of the upper part of the
fi
gure was determined by the location of the naturaldisc on the stone. It is also possible that the ‘twistedperspective’ of the ‘monkey’ was ‘enforced’ by thenatural disc. It is, moreover, o
f
en uncritically assumedthat a
whole
 
fi
gure was completed by
one
manufacturer
at the same time
. Indeed, this is o
f
en the most likelypossibility, but such a procedure should not always be taken for granted. The presence of the natural discyields an interesting alternative.Possibly, the ‘monkey’ was not at all created byone manufacturer at the same time. Petroglyphs ofisolated ‘faces’ or ‘masks’ are very common in Peru,especially in the north. O
f
en these ‘faces’ consist ofa simple (circular or rectangular) groove with simpleeyes and a mouth, or even just the eyes and the mouthwithout an enclosing line. It is possible that the pres-ence of the natural disk ‘invited’ someone to shapethe disk into a (human?) ‘face’ by adding the ‘eyes’and the ‘mouth’. At a (much?) later stage, someoneelse may have added the rays in order to elaboratethe image and, later still, another person may havecompleted the image by turning the (human?) faceinto a ‘monkey’ image by adding the squa
t
ing bodywith the characteristic monkey tail.This sequence might explain why the ‘monkey’features the ‘strange looking’ aureole. Many Peruvianpetroglyphs of ‘complete’ anthropomorphous
fi
guresand of isolated anthropomorphous ‘heads’, ‘faces’and/or ‘masks’ feature all sorts of appendages thatsometimes are halo-shaped. But zoomorphs with suchaureole-like appendages are rare and doubtful andmay represent something else, like ‘feathers’ at the‘bird’ petroglyph at Alto de la Guitarra (Núñez Jimén-ez 1986: Fig. 694). Moreover, the San Juan ‘monkey’is, as far as I could check, the only Peruvian ‘monkey’petroglyph with a distinct aureole. If the aureole is aproperty found only at anthropomorphous images inPeruvian petroglyph art, it could imply that, indeed,this ‘monkey’ originally started o
ff
as an isolated ‘hu-man head’.
Conclusions
I realise that this sequence is only one of all thepossible arrangements and that
all
sequences are onlyspeculations. We may never know the exact procedurewith which this ‘monkey’ petroglyph was ultimatelyrealised. My point, however, is that insu
ffi
cient infor-mation and an incorrect illustration of a rock art imagemay lead to false conclusions and, more importantly,inhibits the possibility of analysing the
fi
gure properly.Also, if an incorrect recording is presented, it will beused and uncritically copied by others (see for instanceHostnig 2003: 209) because they assume the originalillustration is correct. This story is also a plea for eitherstating in publications that a site or speci
fi
c rock artimage has not been seen by an author by referringto the original illustration (whether that illustrationis incorrect or not), or for fully describing the image based on personal observations.
Maarten van HoekLaurier 205061 WS Oisterw
ij
kThe NetherlandsE-mail:
rockart@home.nl
REFERENCES
N
úñez
J
iménez
 , A. 1986.
Petroglifos del Perú
. Panoramamundial del arte rupestre. 2da. Ed., PNUD-UNESCO– Proyecto Regional de Patrimonio Cultural y Desarrollo.Havana, Cuba.H
ostnig
 , R. 2003.
 Arte rupestre del Perú. Inventario nacional
.CONCYTEC, Lima.V
an
H
oek
 , M. 2005. Biomorphs ‘playing a wind instrument’in Andean rock art.
Rock Art Research
22: 23–34.
RAR 24-845
New megalithic art withinthe Neolithic passage grave of Barclodiad y Gawes, Anglesey,North Wales
By GEORGE NASH and ADAM STANFORD
As part of ongoing research, the authors discuss therecent megalithic rock art discovery at the Barclodiady Gawres Neolithic passage grave in Anglesey, NorthWales (NGR SH 3289 7072). The discovery forms partof a much wider research agenda — the Anglesey RockArt Project (ARAP), which up until April 2006 hadmade four signi
fi
cant rock art discoveries in Anglesey(Nash et al
.
2005). In terms of rock art assemblageselsewhere in the world, the Welsh discoveries can beconsidered relatively insigni
fi
cant. However, prior tothe Anglesey discoveries, only around forty-
fi
ve rockart sites were known in Wales and of these, 35% areassociated with Neolithic burial monuments (Darvilland Wainwight 2003; Sharkey 2004; Nash et al
.
2005;Nash 2006). The rock art from the majority of thesesites comprises mainly single and multiple cupulesthat are either arranged haphazardly or in linearpa
t
erns.Barclodiad y Gawres is located on an exposedpeninsula on the western side of the island and wasexcavated between 1952 and 1953 by Terrence Powelland Glyn Daniel (Fig. 1). It is one of three highlydecorated passage grave monuments in England andWales that date to the late Neolithic (c
.
4500 cal.
bp
),
 
 Rock Art Research 2007 
- Volume 24, Number 2.
258
and the megalithic art from this site is regarded asan outstanding example (Lynch 1970: 40). The othertwo monuments, Bryn Celli Ddu in Anglesey andthe destroyed Calderstones monument in Liverpoolpossess similar motifs to Barclodiad y Gawres andwere probably constructed and in use at the sametime. The rock art from the three monuments has beenrecorded and received comment (Forde-Johnson 1956;Lynch 1967; Powell et al. 1969; Shee-Twohig 1981).
The discovery of the rock art panel
The site, comprising a circular mound with passageand chamber had, until the recent discovery withinits architecture,
fi
ve stones that have been peckedwith geometric art (Fig. 2). The pecked art includesconcentric circles, chevrons, cupules, lozenges,serpentine motifs and spirals which are carved onstrategically placed uprights within the inner passageand chamber areas. The art from one stone, formingthe northern upright of the eastern chamber, wentunrecorded during the 1952–53 excavation but hassince been discovered in 2001 by Maggie and KeithDavidson, who subsequently placed animage of the decoration on the Internet, butit went largely unnoticed by the academicworld.In February 2006 a team from the Uni-versity of Bristol recorded the stone usinga variety of techniques, including digitalphotography and tracing on acetate (Fig.3). The results from this
fi
eldwork notonly acknowledged the discovery in 2001 but also revealed that two other chamberuprights, located between the south andwestern chambers, had been severely da-maged as a result of recent vandalism. Thediscovery and the vandalism were dulyreported to CADW, Wales’ government he-ritage agency, on 9 March 2006.Recording of the new petroglyph began on the 7March 2006 and followed reconnoitres by the sameteam in September 2004 and February 2006. Thepecked lines, although not as clearly de
fi
ned as thoseon other stones, can be identi
fi
ed as a series of linesforming a complex geometric chevron pa
t
ern. The
fi
ne pecking technique used had ironically assistedin concealing this art until very recently. Followinga detailed study of the monument it was revealedthat the original excavation team had missed thisand several other stones that contained pre-Historicrock art. Other stones highlighted by the survey teamincluded stones within the western chamber, eachpossessing several cupules (Stones 20 and 21, a
f
erPowell and Daniel 1956). A single cupule was alsorecorded on the north-eastern corner of the capstonethat covers the southern chamber.The newly discovered decorated stone, referredto in Powell and Daniel’s excavation volume as Stone7 (Shee-Twohig’s classi
fi
cation: Stone C2) forms thenorthern wall of the eastern chamber and is hiddenaway from any current natural light source. Only thepassage, the central galleryand the southern chamber areilluminated by natural light.However, this was probablynot the case during the Neo-lithic. The constricting pas-sage, strategically set doorand threshold stones, plusperiodic blocking wouldhave restricted the naturallight from the inner passageand chamber areas. The 1953excavation revealed a hearthwithin the central chamberarea and this would haveprobably provided the neces-sary light source in order thatthe decorated stones could be seen and ‘read’. Today theeastern and western chambers
 Figure 1.
Location of Barclodiad y Gawres (image by A. George).
 Figure 2.
Plan of the passage and chamber areas showing decorated stones (inblack). The newly discovered rock art is on the southern face of Stone C2.
 
259
 Rock Art Research 2007 
- Volume 24, Number 2.
can only be seen by arti
fi
cial light and it is probablythis factor that has kept the rock art of this and otherstones hidden.The newly discovered decoration on the northernslab of the eastern chamber comprises a series ofvertical and horizontally pecked lines that form achevron (Fig. 4). These lines, located on the inwardface, converge towards the centre of the stone andmerge into a lightly pecked disc section, measuringaround 4 cm in diameter. The pecked chevron extendsto the western edge of the stone, onto the side face.Centrally placed on the side face is the lower sectionof a single lozenge measuring around 22 cm × 19 cm.Apart from the chevron design there appears to beanother phase of carving on the northern face of thestone. The horizontal lines that construct the chevronappear to have been either extended, or the chevronhas been superimposed by a later design comprisingof a series of four horizontal lines. The designs appearto be the result of two phases of artistic endeavour.
Discussion: art that is seen but not seen
The newly discovered stone has received widepublicity and has been brie
fl
y described by Nash etal. (2005). The design is not replicated anywhere elsewithin the monument, however, the light peckingtechnique is used an all decorated stones. Partly basedon the excavation report by Powell and Daniel (1956),the decorated stones including the newly discoveredStone No. 2 appear to be
 
in situ. The design codingcan be considered angular in style, a genre that isfrequent within the Boyne Valley monuments ofKnowth and Newgrange. Included within the angulardesign classi
fi
cation are chevrons, lines, lozenges,triangles and zigzags. These designs are also found onuprights within Barclodiad y Gawres. Similar angularstyles are also found in thechamber at Fournocks, CountyMeath (Eogan 1986: 153). It isconceivable that the conceptand ideology behind theangular style, important to the builders and users of the Irishpassage grave tradition, wastransmi
t
ed and used by peopleat Barclodiad y Gawres.The stones that form theeastern chamber along withthe decorated stones from thismonument show that the waythe dead were interred wasparamount. Symbolically, thedead, who would have em- barked on a number of jour-neys prior to being finallydeposited in the chambers,would have ‘seen’ the art onthese chamber uprights (Nash2007). Each stone, locatedwithin the inner passage and central gallery areas,could have only been seen and fully read by peopleusing these areas of the monument. Accompanyinggrave goods such as po
t
ery,
fl
ints and beads —retrieved from the excavation — suggest that thechamber was merely a respite before embarking on
 Figure 3.
Recording images on Stone C2 using acetate(photograph by G. H. Nash).
 Figure 4.
Chevron and linear designs on Stone C2.
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more