wolfnighthunter wrote:
Though alot of the cup marks are thought to be of the of a later date,being easier to carve, as time passed the carvings would evolve into more complex designs involving rings etc..now this is where the debate gets a little more interesting. Are the carvings more complex because they are using better tools, ie metal tools instead of stone tools?..as Hob says it is harder to make more detailed carvings using stone tools than if you used a metal tool.
But then again the rock itself perhaps states which form of carving can be made, hard stone is harder to carve, soft stone is easier to carve.....the debate goes on.
I'm not too sure about the inability to create complex carvings without using metal tools. Them pre-metal fellas seemed were extremely skilled in utilising stone technologies. Just take a look at the passage grave carvings or some of the carvings on the monuments of Brittany or the Mediterranean. But then again the rock itself perhaps states which form of carving can be made, hard stone is harder to carve, soft stone is easier to carve.....the debate goes on.
Given a pretty unexhaustable supply of suitable stone and a good knowlege of the properties of rock I think stone chisels could be fabricated and discarded with ease.
Personally speaking, and with no great evidence to back my idea, I favour the idea of using bone and antler tools. Bone and antler would have been readily available. An antler tang is as hard as stone and when used with a wooden mallet would make an ideal tool for creating peck marks and carvings.
