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.


 * 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 that does help. I belive the article was started from content in the Scottish 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   Mac  Dui  11:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC) PS I think it's worth mentioning the High Pasture Cave Iron Age lyre as well.