Sanctuary wrote:
tiompan wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
Harryshill wrote:
It's possible then that they evolved to more complex patterns and then slowly (or not) reverted to a simpler style..
I've always believed that nobody did anything without good reason, so what the heck do cupmarks represent, do or say?Why should we expect to understand a silent voice so distant temporally and culturally ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Young_Simpson
wrote " Archaic Sculpturings of cups, circles and . upon stone and rocks in Scotland, England and other countries." in 1867 , many would argue that it has not been bettered . Since then our understanding of other areas of archaeology has improved dramtically but not rock art , although plenty has been written since ,with most of the speculation lasting not much more than it takes to refute . There are some elements of a possible grammar that have been noted since Simpson e.g. the previously mentioned open access and less open styles or De Saulieu's art ostentatoire and art discret , funerary art has motifs rarely found outwith these contexts , some pasage grave may be associated with particular architectural features .etc .
Most people that I know that know anything about the subject are just happy to appreciate , contrast and compare the engravings and have a laugh .
The problem is that too often single simplistic explanations are suggested when the subject covers huge swathes of time ,cultures and geography and clearly has many different possible "explanations " .
I would speculate that in ninety years time there will still be books and articles claiming to know the "meaning " of the engravings and they will be instantly refuted .
