Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

They certainly don't look like cup marks of any description . Those holes are quite common and are often confused with cup marks . I could post examples of local ones . Cup marks tend to be like inverted cones whilst these have sharper edges with the sides being more vertical rather than sloping . They don't look like standing stones either .

Hi George,
Are many of those natural recumbent stones (as against those that are known to have fallen) we see with cup marks in various other locations ever lifted to see if they have any on the underside?

Hi Roy ,there has been some limited excavations in this country around marked boulders that are not bed rock (be rock ahs been excavated too ) but none have been inverted unless they were small enough .In the cases of genuine standing stones still standing with markings there are examples where both sides have been marked .The sequence is intriguing enough when the markings are on one side i.e. was the rock marked in situ then quarried and erected , the most likely sequence , or quarried then marked .When the markings are on both sides ,(sometimes the sides of the stones too therefore 3or 4 sides as is the case at Nether largie ) clearly on one side could have been done in situ but the stone could then have been turned over .

I'm afraid you're going to be more specific than that. Which stones do you mean? As I've listed several different stones, that are as far as half a mile apart, it is difficult to understand which ones you are referring to when you say they are common features on stones.

How are you able to tell the profile of the cupmarks on the stones from my poor photographs. The Slaggyford Stones are a couple of standing stones - one about five feet high, marked on two sides, very eroded, and the second just a couple of feet high. There's only the photos of one of those stones on that site page, so how are you able to deduce that 'they don't look like standing stones to me'. You would need to visit them to form a valid opinion, surely.

You have shown me that a group of boulders, that have been quarried, carved and arranged, would be unique in the British archaeological record. Eventually I may be grateful for that insight but, at the moment, am simply irritated. I do wish that I had taken a simple GPS handset on the fell to record their location accurately and I do wish I had the ability to return to these stones to take proper photographs. It could be that these carved stones are the crumbs amongst the larger monuments I have found and that I should concentrate on these more.

I do have more photographs but they are in very deep storage indeed. I don't think I've ever posted a pic of the Pogglestone, which is on the Cumbria-Northumberland border, nor do I recall posting a picture of the smaller of the two standing stones, which has two conventional cupmarks on one facet. I've found a few standing stones and this is the first time anyone has said 'it's not a standing stone'. It's like pointing to the sea and saying 'that's a motorway filling station' (ie it's ridiculous). The larger of these Slaggyford stones has quite an atmosphere - but you have to get past some devious and difficult farmers before you can see it. It's neither near a footpath nor under Right To Roam. But it is aligned and, from there, you can see maybe fifty miles, which is a long way in those hills ...

I'm sorry that you have quoted my post entirely, without taking a little time to digest what I wrote. I wonder if you could briefly summarise your qualifications, please? I did the same a couple of weeks ago and feel it is only fair, now. that you should do the same. Where did you study for your undergraduate degree? Which formal surveys have you taken part in? And so on ...