“...other [lines] had a more religious significance...”
Come on! Not that old story again! Every time some archaeologist finds or discovers anything, the first thing out of his/her mouth is that ‘it had deep religious significance.’ Give me a break! When asked what that religious significance was, he/she doesn’t know! lol Maybe, when archaeologists put aside a lot of those silly assumptions, we will start to learn something about the past.
One of the first things I learned when entering the field of anthropology was that the default explanation for an otherwise inexplicable site was that it was ceremonial...whats wrong with that? Unless the culture recorded exactly what went on at the site, theres really no way of knowing...