Talk:Prehistoric art in Scotland

Scope

"Scottish art in the Prehistoric era includes all visual art created within the modern borders of Scotland, before the departure of the Romans in Britain in the early fifth century BCE." - personally I'd be inclined to define it as before Christianization, which implies the inclusion of the earlier Pictish stones. Trapain Law & other Pictish stuff is dated before the Roman departure & should go in anyway. I'd put a bit more stress on the lack of the modern borders, & especially the West Scotland/Northern Ireland cultural area. Note that (from memory) recent testing on teeth from Stonehenge has found that buried bodies grew up in Northern Scotland, so ther whole of Britain probably functioned as a single cultural unit. There are of course many other finds one could mention & I may add at a future point. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Concern regarding the nature of this article

Dear all. Sorry to be a bit of a buzz-kill here, particularly as this article is currently undergoing its GAN, but from an archaeological perspective, I have some serious concerns about the nature of this article as it currently stands. While I am not sure if these issues would automatically invalidate it from being awarded GA status, I do believe that they should certainly be considered by both the nominator and the reviewer. First and foremost, I would seriously reconsider the term "Scottish art" as it is applied here. In British archaeology, it is very unusual to see artefacts, sites and cultures described under the names of modern ethnic-national groupings. Hence, while we might talk about "British" society in the Neolithic (because it refers to an island that is clearly geographically demarcated), we would not talk of "English", "Welsh", and indeed "Scottish" society in this or any other prehistoric period; they only develop in the Early Middle Ages. On that issue, I would suggest that the title be changed to something like "Prehistoric art in Scotland". However, I am also concerned by the use of "Stone Age" as a section here, when this term is really not used in British archaeology, where far more specific and accurate divisions of Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic are employed. "Stone Age" is a leftover of nineteenth-century antiquarianism and early archaeology, and while it is still used in everyday speech (often in association with "cave men" and the like) it really is a very problematic concept in the archaeology of Europe. I would seriously consider that this article be expanded with greater use of specialist archaeological literature on Scottish prehistory. Again, sorry to have to complain, but I am saying this in the hope that the article can be greatly improved. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

What does the lithic mean in Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic?--SabreBD (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Roughly, lithic means creation and use of stone tools.

Midnightblueowl I guess I'm a little confused about the points about Stone Age and Bronze Age. Much of the literature mention artistic development within these periods. How do you suggest that periods of artistic advancement be addressed?

It sounds like the discussion about article name is also about the scope of the article. I agree that it Scottish art limits the discussion - and I got a little confused when I was doing research because there was manufacture and trading of artistic items across Britain. What would you suggest for article scope / name?

Perhaps Prehistoric art in Britain?.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that the article needs works. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a difficult one, but I'd probably go for "Prehistoric art in Scotland" as the general title. That reflects that the art is prehistoric (which it is) and that it is in Scotland (which it is) without implying that the prehistoric art is itself Scottish (a very sticky issue). Of course, the very concept of "art" is hugely problematic, particularly in archaeological contexts far divorced from our own modern society, but let's not get into that or we'll be here all night.

As for how to improve the article, I think that you should divide the "Stone Age" section into distinct "Mesolithic" and "Neolithic" sections. Although both share the fact that metal technologies were yet to be developed (confusingly, some copper items do get imported into Neolithic Britain from elsewhere), in British archaeology they are usually understood as being distinct because the entire mode of subsistence differed (Mesolithic folk were hunter-gatherers, Neolithic folk were pastoralists and agriculturasts). Problematically, prehistoric Britain is heavily regionalised, and truth be told, I'm not familiar with what is going on up in Northern Britain at this time. It will no doubt be distinct from the Southern stuff that I am familiar with; you may well have Mesolithic and Neolithic populations living side by side for some time, as we certainly see in Scandinavia. That being the case, I would advise you to maybe look at some of the (contemporary) academic literature on prehistoric Scotland, if that is possible of course. I think that it would benefit the article in other ways, because you could use such sources to dramatically flesh out many of the sections; for instance, when discussing the rock art, you cite V. Gordon Childe, whose article I brought up to GA a while ago; now, he died in the 1950s, and a lot of work has been done on the subject of British rock art since then, which you could put in the article. Fantastic archaeologist as he was, many of Childe's interpretations was well off; for instance, he somehow mistook Skara Brae for an Iron Age site when in reality it is Neolithic. Anyway, I hope that these comments help; I have an article awaiting GAN on the Early Neolithic Coldrum Long Barrow, which may be able to give you a few ideas, given that it deals with a similar subject matter. All the best - Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Midnightblueowl that does help. I belive the article was started from content in the Scottish art#Prehistoric art section and wasn't researched as fully as it could be.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

My point was that they have the term -lithic in them because these terms except the three age model and are part of the stone age. You can divide the stone age up if there is enough text to divide up. It was used here because this is easier for the reader to understand and because it made a reasonably sized section. Care should also be taken not to include so much background information that this becomes, in effect, an article about Prehistoric Scotland. There is a lot of to said for focusing on the article topic and pointing to other places where that information can be found for the interested. I would not be unhappy with a title change to Prehistoric art in Scotland, however, an article on Prehistoric art in Britain is a completely different article and I suggest that enthusiasts write that one and leave this one to deal with the specific topic, indicated clearly in the lead, of art in the region that later became Scotland.--SabreBD (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Prehistoric art in Scotland" would make sense to me as a title. I quite understand Midnightblueowl's concerns about 'Stone Age', which is not a title that would normally be used in an academic discussion and it looks a little quaint from that perspective. However, I am not sure what a better solution would be. The section does cover the stone age(s) and there is even a link to Stone Age. One could make something up like "Earliest period of human occupation" but this is clumsy and hardly helpful to the lay reader. In the absence of a better suggestion I'd just let it lie. I think the point about Childe is unreasonable in that he is only cited once and unless there is something to suggest the cited opinion is inaccurate or outdated I see no problem with that. This is by no means my field of expertise but I think the main finds are covered save that something coud be said about the different styles of Neolithic pottery such as Unstan ware and mention could be made of the Forteviot Bronze Age tomb. Ben MacDui 11:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC) PS I think it's worth mentioning the High Pasture Cave Iron Age lyre as well.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scottish art in the Prehistoric era/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 06:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be working on the review and post comments within the next couple of days. Interesting subject!--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for taking this on. I look forward your comments.--SabreBD (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Overview

It's an interesting article and I like that the historical context is set for the prehistoric periods. The article is well organized, with inline citations to reliable, secondary sources. It's well-written in an encyclopedic tone. There is no evidence of original research. The article is stable. The images used in the article are properly tagged as free images.

Coverage

Significance

It would round out the article a bit more to have some content about whether works created for ceremonial or religious purposes, significance of the artwork, and meaning of symbols or images within the works of art, etc. See this book, and [this book as examples

The answers to this issues are usually speculative, since we have no evidence as to the way art was perceived. Also, I cannot get to the text of either of those books through Google. I will have a look today and see what I can turn up.--SabreBD (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Cool, those books were just examples - and I think the conversation dates back to the 1850s, so there is some content to be found. I've written a bit about prehistoric art - mostly of the U.S., but also a bit about Asia, Britain, and Central and South America - so if you need help here, let me know. I can try and find more sources / info.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Works of art

Are there are other works of art from the prehistoric period: more specific forms of rock art (cave drawings, petroglyphs, etc.), pottery, ornamentation of clothing, baskets, etc.? If there are, is it possible to get images - or find some already in Commons but not categorized within the prehistoric Scottish art category? See this book - search on Scotland

These are the major forms of art from this period. If I had evidence of others I would have included it. We can always find more images, but I am not sure they will add much to the article.--SabreBD (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I have seen information about pottery, ornamentation of clothing, cave drawings... I can work on this.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the timing because there seem to be different definitions for the end of the prehistoric period: Should there be discussion and images of Pictish Stones or Runes? See Chapter 5,

The problem of time period is difficult in Scotland, largely because most of it does not have a classical period, because there is no long term Roman occupation. It is usually accepted that the Iron Age in Scotland continues until the post-Roman period, when Christianity takes root.--SabreBD (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused - does that mean Runes or Pictish Stones should / should not be included. I've seen them both classified as "prehistoric".--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Content

Intro

• Is "all" needed in "includes all visual art..."?
• Regarding "The earliest examples of art"... instead of example, what do you think of something like artifact or evidence?
• Is "the last of" needed in "including the Westray Wife, the last of which is the earliest known depiction of a human face from Scotland." - since "including" only has one item and ", which" would apply to the item just before the comma?

Stone age

• Regarding "These were part of a pattern that developed..." - is this a representation of a pattern of religious significance, other?
• Is there a way to clarify how the items in the first paragraph (e.g., standing stones and circles) are works of art, if they are? Or, is this all context setting?
• Regarding the petrosphere - its Wikipedia article, which is not properly cited, says that there were also artifacts found in Cumbria and Ireland.
• If you know from your research: Is there anything more specific about: "Many functions have been suggested for these objects, most indicating that they were prestigious and powerful possessions.[7]" - such as other suggested functions or archaeologist's opinions about how they might have been used as a prestigious possession?
• Is there an estimated date of the other two figurines known?

Bronze age

• Regarding: "These show little sign of use or wear, so may be symbolic representations of power." - should "so" be "so they" or "and"?
• I see "follow a pattern" again in this section without defining the pattern - What does "follow a pattern" mean to you? Are there any specifics (construction techniques, materials, symbolism) that describe how the works in Scotland are like those across Britain and in Portugal?

Template

As an FYI, there's a {{Prehistoric technology}} template that has an arts section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

There are some close paraphrasing / copyright violations (copyvio report): < removed content per following comment >

You need to exclude Wikipedia from the search. These are all from Scottish art, a section of which was the basis of this article.--SabreBD (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Whew, what a relief! I've never had that happen before - and I don't know of a way to remove Wikipedia from the search. Looking at one source at a time, I did some spot-checking and most seem to be fairly well paraphrased. Here's one you may want to look at from this source for "Many functions have been suggested for these objects, most indicating that they were prestigious and powerful possessions."--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not quite sure what to do with this review, given the unresolved issues on the talkpage. Would it be best to take it off, get consensus on changes, do them and then put it back up for nomination. I think it will be quite a lot of work and it unlikely that I will have that sort of time before Christmas.--SabreBD (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done - agreed. To keep track of the history, there are my review comments here + a discussion at Talk:Scottish art in the Prehistoric era#Concern regarding the nature of this article. It would be great to have the article reworked, likely renamed, and then renominated for GA.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for all your work on this.--SabreBD (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prehistoric art in Scotland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 03:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi there, I'll review this article. Been reading some relevant literature lately. FunkMonk (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for taking this on. I will try to find time to deal with the points over the week.--SabreBD (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• It seems the "Definitions and meanings" is about prehistoric art in general? Is it cited to works about Scottish art, and if so, is it possible to make it more specific to that, with examples or similar?

It is general. Unfortunately, there is unlikely to be a separate definition for Scottish art.--SabreBD (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Cup and ring marks have been suggested to have a variety of meanings" Could this caption be a bit more specific? You wouldn't know from reading that the subject was even from Scotland.

 Done I added a bit more detail and linked the topic.--SabreBD (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Also, some images have dates and museums for the subjects, some don't, perhaps it should be consistent?

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• "and which are found across Europe from about the same time." Though it is obvious, maybe add "similar stones" or such, as the preceding part of the sentence specifically refers to stones introduced on Scotland.

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• "built on an artificial islands." Is "an" needed here?

 Done Nope, its a typo.--SabreBD (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• "There are grave goods of a copper dagger" Seems oddly structured?

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The "Ballachulioddess" You don't use quotation marks for other artifacts with nicknames.

Its because, although she is called this, we cannot know if she was a goddess.--SabreBD (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• "from when there are the first finds of iron artifacts in hoards" Sentence seems a bit awkward.

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• "both showing a local Celtic influence." Does this indicate that locals built it, or was it out of some sort of courtesy to them?

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It just means it is Roman but has local elements to the style. The source didn't speculate on what that means.--SabreBD (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• "By this period Scotland had been penetrated by the wider La Tène culture." Perhaps mention where it originated?

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• The intro says "From the first century CE, Roman influence on material culture can be seen in stone carvings." But shouldn't it also mention the Roman made artifacts the article includes?

 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, looking good now, passed! FunkMonk (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)