| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| Harriet Vered wrote: | | Presumably because someone has speculated it's 'Anglo-Saxon' rather than contemporaneous with the rest of the wall. The latter has surely to be adopted unless contrary evidence is produced. Cf. grotesque carvings in churches, no-one says they're brought in from elsewhere. |
Ms Treharne has no difficulty batting this away
| Re-sited from within the same building from a possibly pre-existing one. |
Ms Vered has no difficulty batting this away
| Excavations of Worksop Priory make no mention of a pre-existing structure. No feature earlier than C12 has been found. |
Ms Treharne adopts a lofty tone
| There’s a handful of references online, inc. the Priory’s Wikipedia page. No further elaboration though. |
Ms Vered adopts an even loftier tone
Historic England's Pastcape is generally reliable for sites' history and archaeology and useful for references/biblio. They are conscientious to the point of mentioning presumed earlier structures even where none exist tho' in Worksop's case not even a mention.
|
Oh dear, I think it's high time for everyone to move to the general...
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Ross McIntire, an Anglo-Norman specialist from York University, tries to be helpful
| Reused masonry is quite common. A lot of the best sculptural pieces we have came out of later walls. |
Poor old Ross, giving the game away. They just can't help themselves. Since it's an absolute fact that sculptural pieces on walls cannot be dated, there is no way of knowing whether they are a) from an earlier wall b) contemporary with the wall or c) carved later than the wall. And that's just the best pieces! Ms Vered bats him away effortlessly
| This isn't reused masonry. Why insert a 300 year-old carving into a wall of an Augustinian priory? |
Ms Treharne belatedly realises she has a battle on her hands
| It's not that uncommon at all to see stone re-purposed (e.g., Leaning Tower of Pisa, Llanddewi-Brefi, etc.) |
Ah bless 'em. They just can't help themselves. We now know that it isn't just English early medieval carvings that are iffy, it's a wider British and European problem. Cheers, Elaine. Ms Vered points out something that is blindingly obvious whether you're dealing with Italian, Welsh or English examples
| I think you miss the point. Everyone knows that stone is reused, it's a fact. And while you're reusing it, why not add a bit of carving? |
Since this is unarguable, it is time to bring out the big guns of connoisseurship.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Because the figural representation is clearly Anglo-Saxon, not 13th century Gothic. There are numerous examples of reused masonry that was positioned deliberately to show off earlier carvings, both inside and outside of churches. |
So there you have it. Something is "clearly Anglo-Saxon" because it looks Anglo-Saxon even though we do not have a single example of a known Anglo-Saxon figural representation from anywhere in the world for comparison. All we do have is some English examples that Anglo-Saxonists say are Anglo-Saxon because they look like other Anglo-Saxon examples that other Anglo-Saxonists say are Anglo-Saxon. Still, thanks to the good burghers of Worksop, Notts, we have another example! You may be sure it won't be the last.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Actually they've made a bit of a ricket. Have another look at our head
Ugly bastard, ain't he? Now usually when scholars are trying to palm off something as old for some nefarious purpose of their own they take care to make it properly old. Or they leave it vague. But saying 'thought to date from the 980's' is a very dangerous hostage to fortune. This is right on the cusp when Anglo-Saxons, Normans and Danes are milling about, presumably mixing and matching their cultural styles. So setting this grotesque figure out as 'Anglo-Saxon' means presumably that Normans and Danes were doing likewise at the time. That doesn't give the Normans much space to become the architectural and artistic cutting edge of Europe.
Though curiously the Normans, along with everybody else in the High Middle Ages, continued to carve grotesque figures on their church walls. Though obviously not this one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
I am going to get a wallop from Micha, but I think it's a Mithras face. A lot of these supposed A/S bits of Norman churches are Roman. The Normans often reworked stone that the Romans had previously used.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Did they, by Jove? Six hundred year old stone. Some with faces attached. We must hie ourselves to the White Tower, 'midst Britain's largest supply of pre-loved Roman stone, and count them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
|
If the 'dark' centuries are removed (for lack of evidence) it wouldn't be six hundred year old stone.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I accept that completely ex hypothesi and so, I expect, does Wiley. And, as you said in the exchange, re-using stone is routine enough. It's whether you are going to re-use stone with carvings on that is at issue. That is moderately weird in itself but possible. It is surely extremely weird to use somebody else's idea of a sacerdotal image for one of your own sacerdotal buildings but again that is possible.
That's not the main problem. Notice that Wiley, as a Mithras groupie, has done exactly what the Anglo-Saxon groupies have done, i.e. assumed it is Mithraic, just as they have assumed it's Anglo-Saxon. This is the source of much mischief when, frankly, it's anyone's guess what the head does represent. You don't have to believe that the face is contemporary with the wall but if you don't, if you reject the obvious explanation, you sure as hell have to come up with something better than "...er... it looks a bit Mithraic" or "...er... it looks a bit Anglo-Saxon."
Especially when the archaeology would appear to show that there was nothing earlier at all!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
All fair enough, but given you are looking at a unique feature, you will be relying on inference and there will be mistakes. I make plenty, but there again I am not bothered, as it's more about explanatory potential.
It's an obvious punt, given that I explain lots of so called AS features by the reuse of Roman stone.
I simply point out that there is no evidence for AS stone churches, whereas there is petrological "evidence" for the so called Normans using so called Roman quarried stone, and..... why wouldn't you? No rational person is going to quarry stone when you can reuse, that is unless you want some very posh stone like marble.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: |
Especially when the archaeology would appear to show that there was nothing earlier at all! |
I don't really get that.... the archaeology shows plenty of Roman sites reasonably close by linked to waterways, which is what you need if you are shifting large amounts of stone. I doubt that you would bother altering what was on said Roman stones. You keep costs down, by minimising effort.
Of course the face could be contemporary but do we know of similar examples?
In fact where are these huge numbers of contemporary quarries, to produce the stone needed for all these contemporary walls?
Just Askin.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| All fair enough, but given you are looking at a unique feature, |
They are saying it's not a unique feature, you are saying it's not a unique feature.
| you will be relying on inference |
OK but I haven't heard any from anyone! I 'infer' it's just a grotesque carved on a wall. Could be by anyone, of anyone. But then I'm trying to destroy history not invent it.
| It's an obvious punt, given that I explain lots of so called AS features by the reuse of Roman stone. |
As we do. There's a section in Chapter Seven of Forgeries on this very subject. But the face hardly looks Roman, does it? Any more than Sheela na gigs look pre-historic. Unless that's what you're determined to find.
| I simply point out that there is no evidence for AS stone churches, whereas there is petrological "evidence" for the so called Normans using so called Roman quarried stone |
Agreed.
| and..... why wouldn't you? No rational person is going to quarry stone when you can reuse, that is unless you want some very posh stone like marble. |
Slightly agree. Yes, the Normans made a big thing about getting posh stone for posh places from faraway quarries but we are dealing here with a rustic parish church in the East Midlands. Is there really likely to be re-usable Roman stone around? The Romans were just as much sensible cheapskates as anyone else -- they didn't plonk monumental masonry where there was no reason to do so. Worksop? Worksop! It would be lucky to get a wooden lean-to for changing horses.
| I don't really get that.... the archaeology shows plenty of Roman sites reasonably close by linked to waterways, which is what you need if you are shifting large amounts of stone. |
Entirely disagree. Transporting stone by waterways was not an economic reality until the Canal Age. That's why Portland stone or Caen stone are so popular for White Towers. It can go by sea. Even English cathedrals are not actually very dressy except for the facings and maybe a flying buttress or two.
| I doubt that you would bother altering what was on said Roman stones. You keep costs down, by minimising effort. |
Come off it, Wiley. If I see 'Kilroy wuz here' carved on the Great Pyramid I don't assume it was a Luxor quarryman.
| Of course the face could be contemporary but do we know of similar examples? |
At last! A sensible question. A bit late in the day. Shouldn't you have wondered this before your Mithraic ponderings? [Of course I am using you as a stalking horse to bash the academics -- you are entitled to be as bold as you like here among your ain folk.]
| In fact where are these huge numbers of contemporary quarries, to produce the stone needed for all these contemporary walls? Just Askin. |
As well you might. A very good question. Team: get on with it!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Wile E. Coyote wrote: | | I don't really get that.... the archaeology shows plenty of Roman sites reasonably close by linked to waterways, which is what you need if you are shifting large amounts of stone. I doubt that you would bother altering what was on said Roman stones. You keep costs down, by minimising effort. |
Local quarries not necessarily huge were dotted around, some are still in use. Even where stone is relatively scarce, e.g. Winchester where
| The majority of the building material used for the foundations, footings and walls of the Old Minster was of local origin (some 85%: Martin Biddle, personal communication, 2014): flint, chalk and greensand, including tile, brick, concrete, flint, limestone and sandstone blocks recovered from Roman buildings. However, all the carved details (both architectural and decorative) are of freshly obtained quarried stones, the bulk of which is Combe Down Bath stone ... |
| Of course the face could be contemporary but do we know of similar examples? |
No known Anglo-Saxon equivalent. They don't appear to have been skilled stonemasons according to the man in Winchester
| Saxon masons’ tools appear to have been rather coarse, dressing being done usually with axe and adze, although there is sporadic evidence for the use of fine chisels for carved stonework, a technique which only became more usual in England in the 12th century |
https://www.winchester-cathedral.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Winchester-Stone.pdf
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: |
Local quarries not necessarily huge were dotted around, some are still in use. Even where stone is relatively scarce, e.g. Winchester where |
| The majority of the building material used for the foundations, footings and walls of the Old Minster was of local origin (some 85%: Martin Biddle, personal communication, 2014): flint, chalk and greensand, including tile, brick, concrete, flint, limestone and sandstone blocks recovered from Roman buildings. However, all the carved details (both architectural and decorative) are of freshly obtained quarried stones, the bulk of which is Combe Down Bath stone ... |
That's exactly my point, it's local recycled Roman.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Not on this evidence, Coyote.
| However, all the carved details (both architectural and decorative) are of freshly obtained quarried stones, the bulk of which is Combe Down Bath stone ... |
And that's the whole point. Nobody is denying stone was re-cycled, it's just a dead liberty assuming this actual piece of stone was recycled just because it happens to suit one of your pet theories. But that is always the way with Dark Age specialists. They've got so little to go on that they just make it up and trust in peer review from other Dark Age specialists who are making other stuff up on their own account. Don't join them, Wiley!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Winchester is informative because it's considered to be an early church, even a prototype, e.g.
| Winchester's church may have been the first stone building erected in the kingdom since the departure of the Roman administration. |
What is being referred to is undoubtedly the elusive 'Old Minster'. But it could equally well refer to the Norman cathedral which was fairly crude by later standards
The quality of the workmanship is very crude with courses of almost square blocks of Quarr limestone, trimmed and dressed with an axe, with rough diagonal tooling and thick mortar courses, reflecting the methods and techniques of what was probably a large workforce of mainly unskilled labourers. The quality of the workmanship had considerably improved by the time the tower was reconstructed after its collapse in 1107.
Over the years, the size of stones employed increased, probably due to the improvement of the devices employed for hoisting up to scaffolds , progressing from the almost square blocks used by the Normans to stones two or three times their depth in length by the fourteenth century |
The 'probably' unskilled labourers suggests a lack of practice in building churches and, probably, decorating them..The style of architecture in early Norman churches is of course Romanesque.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
