Natural ochre is not so consistent as you seem to be saying, I know as does any artist that have prepaired their own paints, and preparation would also vary on what or in which way the pigment was going to be used. Such as direct application and on what or in the preparing of pastes. You don't have to break up the surface but it helps. So presented with a raw lump of pigment with a rough surface I might grind that down producing a smooth surface, which would then not yield usable pigment so readily, so I might cross cut the surface so that the pigment yields once again and then when that wears down etc. I don't have to do it, but it makes the job so much easier. Now does that sound like the sort of thing that was done to this ochre?
So the marks on that ochre could well be just a way of preparing a particular stone.
I must thank you for that link I had not seen it before.
I think at this point we know each others positions, but I will look for 54, If you find it could you post it up?
Thanks jonb
Blombos Cave Ochre.
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
Re: Blombos Cave Ochre.
I was not suggesting any great consistency but on a Mohs type scale ochre is soft and can be scraped , ground , pounded , engraved and abraded .
No I don't believe what you may have done to your ochre is what was done to the Blombos ochre or is even common practice among ochre users .We have a more parsimonious explanation for the markings in that they are typical of engravings/markings found throughout the world in all periods with the vast majority not found on ochre . There were over 8000 pieces of ochre found at Blombos only two had certain engravings . Ochre use is ubquitous if the technique was used elsewhere we might expect to find many other examples . The actual example had been ground prior to being engraved suggesting that the engraving wouldn't have been considered necessary for grinding . Together the evidence adds up to an unlikely case for the markings being utilitarian .
I will post a pic , but I did have a good look and couldn't find one . I could send a pic from the O 'kelly book but not sure if that is possible .
No I don't believe what you may have done to your ochre is what was done to the Blombos ochre or is even common practice among ochre users .We have a more parsimonious explanation for the markings in that they are typical of engravings/markings found throughout the world in all periods with the vast majority not found on ochre . There were over 8000 pieces of ochre found at Blombos only two had certain engravings . Ochre use is ubquitous if the technique was used elsewhere we might expect to find many other examples . The actual example had been ground prior to being engraved suggesting that the engraving wouldn't have been considered necessary for grinding . Together the evidence adds up to an unlikely case for the markings being utilitarian .
I will post a pic , but I did have a good look and couldn't find one . I could send a pic from the O 'kelly book but not sure if that is possible .
Re: Blombos Cave Ochre.
Did you read the article you linked?
"The second "toolkit" consisted of an abalone, with a layer of pigment inside. It also contained a small block of ochre-stained quartzite, as well as a fragment of red mineral showing traces of abrasion and cuts."
Grinding a pigment against a surface would do what to a pigment? it would create a smooth surface would it not?. Abrasions and cuts. Now why would they do that?
Exactly as I described what I did with my pigments. Yet this is not in your view common place so why was it ground, why was it abraded and cut? Now if i hold the pigment and make abrasions or cuts across its surface I get diagonal lines in sucsession. as in the top image of the images I made a link to, If I turn the the pigment I am working on around I get a second set of lines at a diferent angle and a nice line down the centre of my tool to line it up what would that look like?
"The second "toolkit" consisted of an abalone, with a layer of pigment inside. It also contained a small block of ochre-stained quartzite, as well as a fragment of red mineral showing traces of abrasion and cuts."
Grinding a pigment against a surface would do what to a pigment? it would create a smooth surface would it not?. Abrasions and cuts. Now why would they do that?
Exactly as I described what I did with my pigments. Yet this is not in your view common place so why was it ground, why was it abraded and cut? Now if i hold the pigment and make abrasions or cuts across its surface I get diagonal lines in sucsession. as in the top image of the images I made a link to, If I turn the the pigment I am working on around I get a second set of lines at a diferent angle and a nice line down the centre of my tool to line it up what would that look like?
Re: Blombos Cave Ochre.
The quartzite mentioned in the link was the harder material I had alluded to when I said “ochre is soft , it only needs abrasion with something harder .” to which you replied “No that is not how an abrasive works. “ that is why I posted the link to point out the use of abrasives . If I hadn't read the link how would I have suggested it as an example of the use of term abrasion ?
There is no suggestion in the link that the ochre was engraved prior to be being abraded by the quartzite or that the abrading resulted in the engravings .
There is no suggestion in the link that the ochre was engraved prior to be being abraded by the quartzite or that the abrading resulted in the engravings .
Re: Blombos Cave Ochre.
An abrasive is rough not necessarily hard, water itself can be used as an abrasive, rub two surfaces together they tend to wear and smooth if you want to increase the abrasion you roughen at least one of the surfaces, it is often easier to roughen a softer material.
Cuts, abrasions and cuts. cuts were mentioned were they not?
It also fits the rarity of the two pieces you would not expect to find they had bothered to prepare many pieces and then not use them, but you would find a lot that have been very worn down. and it also points why the ochre fragment at the start of this thread shows signs that old lines had worn away and new lines were cut in it.
Another thought if the intention was to collect pigment, then when round pots were made it would be better to grind the pigment in a circular way as with a pestle and mortar which is less efficient, but you would be able to retain more pigment because you would not be loosing some from the edge of a flat surface. Thus when I was shown what to do in a printers in the six/seventies where there are a lot of low flat square trays it would be sensible to use the old original method like that mentioned in the article.
Cuts, abrasions and cuts. cuts were mentioned were they not?
It also fits the rarity of the two pieces you would not expect to find they had bothered to prepare many pieces and then not use them, but you would find a lot that have been very worn down. and it also points why the ochre fragment at the start of this thread shows signs that old lines had worn away and new lines were cut in it.
Another thought if the intention was to collect pigment, then when round pots were made it would be better to grind the pigment in a circular way as with a pestle and mortar which is less efficient, but you would be able to retain more pigment because you would not be loosing some from the edge of a flat surface. Thus when I was shown what to do in a printers in the six/seventies where there are a lot of low flat square trays it would be sensible to use the old original method like that mentioned in the article.
Re: Blombos Cave Ochre.
Your original suggestion was that “the objects look like the way I would cut a piece of ochre if I wanted to evenly cover a soft wet or damp material with an even surface of pigment. “ . Now that you are aware of the tool kit and the form of the application the hypothesis has changed to the markings being a result of producing the pigment rather than an aid to application of the pigment . If you are producing the pigment by abrading with a quartzite grinder creating the diagonal lines and lozenges are hardly the most likely outcome .It seems that the central concern is really about finding a utilitarian explanation rather than accept the obvious explanation of intentional design .
If you look at the central lines on the ochre you will see that it was formed in three separate events but all roughly at the same angle ,suggesting that the angle of the line was important and intentional . Rather than continuing the line with another attempt it would make more sense to increase the depth of the initial cut if extraction of pigment was the purpose . Cuts , a synonym for incisions were mentioned , that is what the markings are single cuts/incisions not the deep grooves we might expect from from a method concerned with extraction .
If you look at the central lines on the ochre you will see that it was formed in three separate events but all roughly at the same angle ,suggesting that the angle of the line was important and intentional . Rather than continuing the line with another attempt it would make more sense to increase the depth of the initial cut if extraction of pigment was the purpose . Cuts , a synonym for incisions were mentioned , that is what the markings are single cuts/incisions not the deep grooves we might expect from from a method concerned with extraction .
Re: Blombos Cave Ochre.
Yes I have an agenda, but don't we all?
What I noticed about the fragments that set me off on this trail, was that the marks on them do not to me look like the way people make marks for display, also it struck me that the pattern was so remarkably like the pattern of a method I was shown when I was in a print-shop a time ago. Now I made the presumption that this was because I was using it to get an even covering on a soft surface, but thinking about it that pattern is equally useful if I am trying to collect pigment by rubbing against a flat surface.
As my proposal is that this object is intelligently designed for a purpose, to get usable colour from the stone, or make an even covering the depth of cuts in it would be about how much I wanted to grind it down so the most important cuts would be at an angle to the strokes I was making in the grinding process, as such the deepest lines would be the diagonals because these would be doing the work the other lines are only slight because they would be used to line the thing up and only really used at first to place the ochre. Which is what we see. If on the other hand the item is made for display all the emphasis is on the diagonals, as a lightly cut line will not show up as well as a deeply cut ones, as such the horizontal lines are not of the same significance as the diagonals. we only have a few pictures of the ochre and we can presume they are made to show the cuts on the surface, but in most conditions the lighter marks might not show up at all. As such it would be odd if the creator of the object thought of the horizontal lines as having a great significance and then not to display them strongly as is done with the diagonals.
Further if water was used in the grinding which we could presume because it was present in the shells, so we know they had some in the cave at the time. This would also make sense because if they were grinding dry it would create dust which would blow about and they could thus loose a lot of the substance they were working to get, it means the paste of water mixed with ochre grains would itself be sticky and would get in the way of the two surfaces the ochre and the quartz meeting, so you would have to cut ridges into at least one surface to aid the grinding process.
Incidentally the reason why the lines would be diagonal is that it presents to the direction of grinding a long interaction, but at a slant it will best move the resultant paste from the grinding surfaces. The mention of the quartz with crystals in it I think also points they were using just the right stone for the job, flat, but rasping. This all points to me we are looking a very cleaver people who are making very good decisions for the job at hand, not the sort of people that would create a thing for display where parts would not display very well. where lines are cut into it without reference to other lines which had already been made. I remember Desmond Morris and his chimp that painted, and it was remarked by many that the chimp seemed to balance the images by reacting to the marks which had already been placed. It would therefore be odd to see a human making an object for display that did not achieve this basic level.
What I noticed about the fragments that set me off on this trail, was that the marks on them do not to me look like the way people make marks for display, also it struck me that the pattern was so remarkably like the pattern of a method I was shown when I was in a print-shop a time ago. Now I made the presumption that this was because I was using it to get an even covering on a soft surface, but thinking about it that pattern is equally useful if I am trying to collect pigment by rubbing against a flat surface.
As my proposal is that this object is intelligently designed for a purpose, to get usable colour from the stone, or make an even covering the depth of cuts in it would be about how much I wanted to grind it down so the most important cuts would be at an angle to the strokes I was making in the grinding process, as such the deepest lines would be the diagonals because these would be doing the work the other lines are only slight because they would be used to line the thing up and only really used at first to place the ochre. Which is what we see. If on the other hand the item is made for display all the emphasis is on the diagonals, as a lightly cut line will not show up as well as a deeply cut ones, as such the horizontal lines are not of the same significance as the diagonals. we only have a few pictures of the ochre and we can presume they are made to show the cuts on the surface, but in most conditions the lighter marks might not show up at all. As such it would be odd if the creator of the object thought of the horizontal lines as having a great significance and then not to display them strongly as is done with the diagonals.
Further if water was used in the grinding which we could presume because it was present in the shells, so we know they had some in the cave at the time. This would also make sense because if they were grinding dry it would create dust which would blow about and they could thus loose a lot of the substance they were working to get, it means the paste of water mixed with ochre grains would itself be sticky and would get in the way of the two surfaces the ochre and the quartz meeting, so you would have to cut ridges into at least one surface to aid the grinding process.
Incidentally the reason why the lines would be diagonal is that it presents to the direction of grinding a long interaction, but at a slant it will best move the resultant paste from the grinding surfaces. The mention of the quartz with crystals in it I think also points they were using just the right stone for the job, flat, but rasping. This all points to me we are looking a very cleaver people who are making very good decisions for the job at hand, not the sort of people that would create a thing for display where parts would not display very well. where lines are cut into it without reference to other lines which had already been made. I remember Desmond Morris and his chimp that painted, and it was remarked by many that the chimp seemed to balance the images by reacting to the marks which had already been placed. It would therefore be odd to see a human making an object for display that did not achieve this basic level.
Re: Blombos Cave Ochre.
Your objection is that the markings do not look like markings made for display . How many examples of non representational markings from the Paleolithic and after have you seen , that are not on ochre and obviously have no connection with the extraction of pigment , to allow you to make that judgement ?
A feature of engravings from the Paleolithic is repetition of parallel lines e.g. http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot. ... X5eEUpy3N4
A further feature is repetition of parallel lines but including diagonals .
Different medium no lozenges but note the parallel lines and diagonals .
http://www.internet-d.com/2010/03/02/so ... ic-design/
Scroll down to example from Gault .
http://portablerockart.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... al-at.html
http://www.stonestructures.org/html/manana_island.html
Parallel lines enclosing diagonals forming lozenges and or triangles
Go to page 32 of the link . An engraved ostrich egg has all but the central line . http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/J ... edir_esc=y
The quality and design found on the Blombos ochre is not uncommon throughout the world and prehistory .The great majority of Paleolithic art is not representations of animals but geometric designs , grids ,lattices , parallel lines , triangles , lozenges often sketchy and rarely mentioned in comparison with the more famous vivid well executed animals, the Blombos ochre is just one very many but has become known simply because of it's age .
A feature of engravings from the Paleolithic is repetition of parallel lines e.g. http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot. ... X5eEUpy3N4
A further feature is repetition of parallel lines but including diagonals .
Different medium no lozenges but note the parallel lines and diagonals .
http://www.internet-d.com/2010/03/02/so ... ic-design/
Scroll down to example from Gault .
http://portablerockart.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... al-at.html
http://www.stonestructures.org/html/manana_island.html
Parallel lines enclosing diagonals forming lozenges and or triangles
Go to page 32 of the link . An engraved ostrich egg has all but the central line . http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/J ... edir_esc=y
The quality and design found on the Blombos ochre is not uncommon throughout the world and prehistory .The great majority of Paleolithic art is not representations of animals but geometric designs , grids ,lattices , parallel lines , triangles , lozenges often sketchy and rarely mentioned in comparison with the more famous vivid well executed animals, the Blombos ochre is just one very many but has become known simply because of it's age .
Re: Blombos Cave Ochre.
Weeps!
You have a category, that includes all none representational marks produced by people, without refinement or analysis. Yes of course Blombos Ochre markings would fit in that category.
So how to analyse further to find out what is within those motifs?
As an artist who has been trained to analyse images, it is clear that I would have to show you how to analyse as well, that is a big project.
For instance given a pattern of squares, how do you know if the intention was to make squares, or that the squares were an occurrence because overlapping horizontal an vertical lines produce squares automatically?
Clue; You may have to study the lines themselves. not just the shapes that result.
You have a category, that includes all none representational marks produced by people, without refinement or analysis. Yes of course Blombos Ochre markings would fit in that category.
So how to analyse further to find out what is within those motifs?
As an artist who has been trained to analyse images, it is clear that I would have to show you how to analyse as well, that is a big project.
For instance given a pattern of squares, how do you know if the intention was to make squares, or that the squares were an occurrence because overlapping horizontal an vertical lines produce squares automatically?
Clue; You may have to study the lines themselves. not just the shapes that result.
Re: Blombos Cave Ochre.
[quote="jonb"]
No comments on the links and no answer to "How many examples of non representational markings from the Paleolithic and after have you seen , that are not on ochre and obviously have no connection with the extraction of pigment , to allow you to make that judgement ? i.e. the judgement being "the markings do not look like markings made for display ."
It looks like I'll have to give you some lessons in analysis of rock art ,one of the first would be to point out the failure of artists to have provided anything meaningful to the study .
No comments on the links and no answer to "How many examples of non representational markings from the Paleolithic and after have you seen , that are not on ochre and obviously have no connection with the extraction of pigment , to allow you to make that judgement ? i.e. the judgement being "the markings do not look like markings made for display ."
It looks like I'll have to give you some lessons in analysis of rock art ,one of the first would be to point out the failure of artists to have provided anything meaningful to the study .
Re: Blombos Cave Ochre.
Oh yes you are so right, it is much better to take an old car to a historian than a mechanic.
Re: Blombos Cave Ochre.
Poor analogy . You wouldn’t take your car to a mechanic who thought it was a hen house .
Still no response to the links , or an explanation for "How many examples of non representational markings from the Paleolithic and after have you seen , that are not on ochre and obviously have no connection with the extraction of pigment , to allow you to make that judgement ? i.e. the judgement being "the markings do not look like markings made for display ."
Some examples of your analysis .
“I think that the object is not a rock with an image on it “
It’s an intentional design / motif .
“I would also point out it is not the sort of image a human would first make.”
Humans have made similar images from the Paleolithic to the present .
“All children across the world develop drawing skills in the same way. They first learn to make marks which are identifiable as objects or people, it is only later they become interested in pattern. “ More like . Up to the age of two they scribble then comes phosphene shapes as is commonly found in paleolithic “art” these are often given names , then humans etc appear .
“If we look at examples of so called primitive art there is almost never a quality of sketchiness to it”
You have clearly no idea about what the quality of “so called primitive art “
the majority of it is simply sketchy .
“On the ochre the lines have no relationship to each other each diagonal is interdependent.” Look at examples of paleolithic art repetition of diagonals are just the same as is found on the Blombos ochre .
But then “the maker of the fragment was more interested in getting the angle of the lines on that pigment right “ interdependent yet an interest in getting the angle right .
There was even confusion about the putative utilitarian aspect of the markings . Your original suggestion was that “the objects look like the way I would cut a piece of ochre if I wanted to evenly cover a soft wet or damp material with an even surface of pigment. “ . Now that you are aware of the tool kit and the form of the application the hypothesis has changed to the markings being a result of producing the pigment rather than an aid to application of the pigment .
“If when you look at a pattern and you think that as there is a diagonal in it then it must be an image of triangles”
No , triangles don’t consist of diagonals , a diagonal or collection of diagonals are just that diagonals the Blombos ochre motif has triangles and lozenges , if you cannot see them I’m sure someone can point them out .
Still no response to the links , or an explanation for "How many examples of non representational markings from the Paleolithic and after have you seen , that are not on ochre and obviously have no connection with the extraction of pigment , to allow you to make that judgement ? i.e. the judgement being "the markings do not look like markings made for display ."
Some examples of your analysis .
“I think that the object is not a rock with an image on it “
It’s an intentional design / motif .
“I would also point out it is not the sort of image a human would first make.”
Humans have made similar images from the Paleolithic to the present .
“All children across the world develop drawing skills in the same way. They first learn to make marks which are identifiable as objects or people, it is only later they become interested in pattern. “ More like . Up to the age of two they scribble then comes phosphene shapes as is commonly found in paleolithic “art” these are often given names , then humans etc appear .
“If we look at examples of so called primitive art there is almost never a quality of sketchiness to it”
You have clearly no idea about what the quality of “so called primitive art “
the majority of it is simply sketchy .
“On the ochre the lines have no relationship to each other each diagonal is interdependent.” Look at examples of paleolithic art repetition of diagonals are just the same as is found on the Blombos ochre .
But then “the maker of the fragment was more interested in getting the angle of the lines on that pigment right “ interdependent yet an interest in getting the angle right .
There was even confusion about the putative utilitarian aspect of the markings . Your original suggestion was that “the objects look like the way I would cut a piece of ochre if I wanted to evenly cover a soft wet or damp material with an even surface of pigment. “ . Now that you are aware of the tool kit and the form of the application the hypothesis has changed to the markings being a result of producing the pigment rather than an aid to application of the pigment .
“If when you look at a pattern and you think that as there is a diagonal in it then it must be an image of triangles”
No , triangles don’t consist of diagonals , a diagonal or collection of diagonals are just that diagonals the Blombos ochre motif has triangles and lozenges , if you cannot see them I’m sure someone can point them out .
Re: Blombos Cave Ochre.
It seems you have no understanding of the terminology, I have used. I am used to talking to other artists and they would instantly understand, what is meant by a 'quality of sketchiness'. It now seems you do not understand the terminology, that is used by my discipline.
I have a great interest in Archaeology but no expertise. Now I would give it a go to see if I could explain what I have come to know through the study of making marks, and to try and translate that to you an outsider, But it would be very involved. I would be interested to undertake that project, but on the other hand you seem to be stating that, it could have no relevance, because I do not know about any particular age in detail.
So the ball is in your court, do you want to start again and put effort into a thing that might or might not produce a result?
I have a great interest in Archaeology but no expertise. Now I would give it a go to see if I could explain what I have come to know through the study of making marks, and to try and translate that to you an outsider, But it would be very involved. I would be interested to undertake that project, but on the other hand you seem to be stating that, it could have no relevance, because I do not know about any particular age in detail.
So the ball is in your court, do you want to start again and put effort into a thing that might or might not produce a result?
Re: Blombos Cave Ochre.
There has never been any suggestion that you should know about the detail of any age before suggesting anything , the problems have been exclusively with what you did suggest about the markings .
I assume you understood the terminology I have used , if so why no response to the questions and problems ?
“quality of sketchiness” is there some hidden Gellian terminology in the phrase that only “artists “ can understand ?
I assume you understood the terminology I have used , if so why no response to the questions and problems ?
“quality of sketchiness” is there some hidden Gellian terminology in the phrase that only “artists “ can understand ?
Re: Blombos Cave Ochre.
Every profession has terminology, that means something to that group that outsiders are less lightly to understand. I am used to talking to my group, and as such, and from the references you are making, it seems to me that should we want to proceed further I am going to have to re think the terminology I have used and explain what I say in a way that will be accessible to us both. I think to do that I am going to have to create illustrations so the concepts can be understood. I am going to need you to reiterate what I have said back to me so that we can both check we have a mutual understanding of what is said. Also because my evidence is based on practical activity, and I have no video, to show this taking place It would be useful if you are prepared to undertake a few simple exercises. This will take a lot of time work on my part, i am happy to do it if we are working towards an understanding, but if we are just to blokes who have locked horns it would be a pointless exercise and a massive waste of time on both our parts
So are you interested in starting afresh, I fully understand if you are not, I cannot guarantee any result, but I think there is interesting information to come from my view point about the marks on that ochre. This means you would if we proceed, to an extent be committed to the idea that information could be unearthed by looking at the fragments from a different angle, and I appreciate what a big jump that would be on your part
So can we trust each other?
So are you interested in starting afresh, I fully understand if you are not, I cannot guarantee any result, but I think there is interesting information to come from my view point about the marks on that ochre. This means you would if we proceed, to an extent be committed to the idea that information could be unearthed by looking at the fragments from a different angle, and I appreciate what a big jump that would be on your part
So can we trust each other?