'They' said it was natural, and the result of geological processes. It was just a he but then he is the accepted face of academia. A decent person, just a few years younger than myself. He was genuine - there was no artifice at all - but he did think it was a natural stone. I was so sure that he would recognise the tool marks that I didn't rehearse the geological rebuttal - Millstone Grit doesn't have fossils, no geological process could cause those shapes etc. I just became quite sad. He just didn't recognise it.
I didn't say that rock art was figurative just that my piece had a figurative element upon it. 'Natural erosion'. The other figurative rock art that I can recall is the foot on the stone in the Liverpool park. I think there are other examples too. Under the Passage Grave Art heading.
 Reply | with quote | Posted by StoneGloves
27th March 2008ce
10:24 |
Theories on 'cup and ring marks' (12pointer, Feb 27, 2008, 14:22)- Re: Theories on 'cup and ring marks' (Seph, Mar 12, 2008, 07:21)
- Re: Theories on 'cup and ring marks' (Rhiannon, Mar 12, 2008, 13:42)
- Re: Theories on 'cup and ring marks' (Hob, Mar 12, 2008, 14:46)
- Re: Theories on 'cup and ring marks' (Snap, Mar 24, 2008, 11:19)
- Re: Theories on 'cup and ring marks' (fitzcoraldo, Mar 27, 2008, 10:21)
- Re: Theories on 'cup and ring marks' (12pointer, Mar 28, 2008, 12:12)
|
|
Head To Head 
Re: Theories on 'cup and ring marks' (FourWinds)