Algunas acciones prioritarias

unfortunately a cup-and-ring was partially damaged by superficial quarrying or perhaps by the fire that ravaged the area recently (Van Hoek 1998: 98).

But it is not always that obvious that quarrying activities date from the historical Period. At Poltalloch 1 in Argyll, Scotland, petroglyphs have clearly been damaged by quarrying, although it is uncertain when this happened. Also the broken off decoration of the big rock at Lordenshaw (Fig. 137) has a deceptively ancient appearance. In prehistoric times, stone was the only enduring material with which all sorts of structures were built. One used for instance small cobbles from a river or large erratic boulders to build cairns and stone circles. Stones necessary for a more specific purpose, such as slabs used in the impressive megalithic monuments of the Neolithic period or for the more simple Bronze Age cists, had either to be taken from earlier structures or were quarried from outcrop rock or suitable large boulders. These stones were

often shaped to fit specific requirements and if petroglyphs were present, these could easily have been damaged in the process.

Damaged petroglyphs therefore may also point to prehistoric activity and it will be no surprise that many stones in Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments, especially in Britain, show such broken off engravings, like the hidden engravings on one of the vertical side slabs of the Fulforth cist in northern England (Fig 138). These engraved stones could have been broken from another decorated slab, once incorporated in another prehistoric monument, or have been quarried from outcrop rock.

M. van HOEK: GEOGRAPHY172 FIG. 138: FULFORTH CIST.

Yet, most of these shaped stones, whether decorated or not, will have been quarried once. Therefore it should be possible to trace instances of the prehistoric quarrying of decorated outcrops, especially in areas where petroglyphs and megalithic monuments occur together. However, for several reasons this is not as simple as it seems. The quarries may have been several kilometres distant from the site were the quarried stones were put in use. In most cases stones were, if need be, shaped (and sometimes decorated) on the spot were the monument was to be erected. Indeed, at the Irish Neolithic burial sites of Knowth in County Meath and Millin Bay in County Down there is evidence that the decoration took place on the very spot.

In a few instances, however, it is obvious that a stone was broken from a petroglyphic outcrop, disregarding the earlier petroglyphs, as probably is the case with the only cup-and-ring stone (No. 38) from the Millin Bay cairn. Also a number of standing stones, for instance in the Kilmartin valley in Argyll, Scotland, may have been quarried from decorated outcrops locally.

However, in his discussion about the dating of cup-and-ring marks in Britain, the late Ronald Morris (1990: 85) argues that no-one had so far been able to show the decorated outcrop from whence prehistoric people broke a decorated piece to be used as cist stone in a Bronze Age burial.

As I said before, this is rather difficult for several reasons. When a slab is broken from an outcrop, there will result a depression possibly much larger than the decorated slab itself, as more than one slab could have been taken from the same outcrop. Also because a quarried slab was often shaped afterwards, an exactly matching depression is hard to find. Moreover, the resulting depression will often have been rather superficial and would easily get overgrown and therefore hard to find. It is also possible that possible prehistoric quarries were destroyed by quarrying in more recent times. Yet, there are claims for the existence of such prehistoric quarries in the British Isles.

*

2.2.1.1 THE BRITISH ISLES

Reading the book on prehistoric rock art of County Durham by Beckensall & Laurie, I was struck by a statement about a decorated rock at Johnson’s Allotment (east) on Gayles Moor in northern England:

M. van HOEK: GEOGRAPHY173 FIG. 139: GAYLES MOOR 3.

“....but 3 is special. It is one of the most important rocks because it has been quarried in prehistoric times as well as more recently.” (1998: 35; emphasis mine). Then the authors give a short description of the petroglyphs carved on two levels of the rock, followed by an even more surprising remark: “This is a rare example, noted on two sites in Northumberland, of the removal in prehistoric times of decorated rock (for transfer to a monument ?) and the “re-sanctification” of that rock.” (1998: 37; emphasis mine). We already noticed however (Chapter

2.2), that “re-sanctification” actually has been a normal practice

within the cup-and-ring tradition.

What struck me most, was the complete absence of doubt about the prehistoric quarrying and “re-sanctification” in these statements. This is the more remarkable, as the brief description did not offer any evidence that would confirm prehistoric quarrying and “re- sanctification”. Surprisingly the book did not offer a photograph of the rock, essential for such an alleged important find, and only one sketch of the stone was included, unfortunately without stating which part had been quarried in prehistory and which part in recent times. Also no depth-dimensions of the removed parts were given and the south edge of the drawing was obscured (Fig. 139).

A strong argument in general against the practice of “re- sanctification” as presented by Beckensall and Laurie, is the fact that there proved to be only an extremely small number of possible instances of prehistoric quarrying and “re-sanctification” in Britain, Ireland or any other cup-and-ring region in Europe. Beckensall & Laurie mention only two sites in northern England and only at one important site near Glasgow, Scotland, MacKie & Davis claim prehistoric quarrying and “re- sanctification” (not using this term, however). However, in all these three cases there should have emerged question-marks. To my knowledge there are no other cup-and-ring sites in Europe claimed to have been quarried and ”re-sanctified” in prehistoric times and therefore only these three British sites will be discussed here.

M. van HOEK: GEOGRAPHY174

*

2.2.1.1.1 GAYLES MOOR

Site B3 on Gayles Moor is a small rock exposed for 110 by 55 cm and has two levels that are decorated. Clearly one part of the rock has been removed (stippled on Fig. 139). Although the size of the removed part is not too small to suggest prehistoric quarrying (for the use as a cist slab ?), this is not at all certain. The removal could namely also have been caused by the execution of the petroglyphs causing the already friable rock to flake off. It is nonetheless remarkable, that after the removal of the piece, whether accidental on intentional, one decided to execute a new design on the newly exposed surface.

Even when the piece was quarried on purpose, it remains doubtful whether the art is an example of “re-sanctification”. This is a matter of chronology and of semantics. The re-decoration could have taken place immediately after the piece was removed in which case there is no question of “re-sanctification”. Alternatively, the new motifs could have been executed a long period after the rock was quarried and only then this event just possibly could be interpreted as a sort of “re- sanctification”, but again, I consider this to be a normal practice in the cup-and-ring tradition.

There is another problem, however. If quarrying indeed took place, it must have had a reason. It is therefore suggested that the “quarried” parts were intended for monuments such as burial cists. However, not a single decorated stone has yet been recorded to be incorporated into the few burial monuments in the Gayles Moor area. Although low cairns have been reported in the vicinity, there is only one cupuled stone found near such a burial, the Stoneman Cairn. Also, there are some loose decorated stones in the area, but none of these is a suitable candidate for the removed slab at Gayles Moor B3.

*

2.2.1.1.2 NORTH PLANTATION

Further north, in Northumberland, is a flat topped hill, called Weetwood, on which several clusters of mostly complex rock art are found on sandstone outcrops bordering and overlooking two small lakes on top of the hill and a small stream flowing east from them.

Consequently two linear arrangements of rock art sites developed. One runs across Weetwood Moor Ridge towards Fowberry. The other runs from Whitsunbank Hill via North Plantation to Fowberry. Each group features a cairn that contained a large number of loose decorated rocks, but no burial. Cairn B was placed upon a heavily decorated outcrop area at the end of the North Plantation. Another decorated sandstone outcrop (marked SITE in Fig. 140) in the same Plantation features a panel which is engraved with much weathered motifs. What remained unnoticed for a long time, because of the covering earth and leaves, was that a corner of the outcrop features a rectangular

M. van HOEK: GEOGRAPHY175 FIGURE 140: ROCK ART ON TOP OF WEETWOOD HILL.