Theories on 'cup and ring marks'

close
more_vert
FourWinds F
FourWinds Mar 27, 2008 06:54:23
Replying to StoneGloves

StoneGloves wrote:
And don't forget I've got this rock that'll drastically alter rock art perceptions - when it's been formally presented to the academic community (the countdown has begun and is T -6 days and counting).
Come on then. What did they say and where is it for the rest of us to look at?

StoneGloves wrote:
You can't prove trance states. You can prove figurative art though.
How can you prove that something as abstract as most rock art from the British Isles and northern Europe is figurative?

S StoneGloves
StoneGloves Mar 27, 2008 10:24:32
Replying to FourWinds

'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.