Andy Jones (2006) Animated Images.pdf

8/13/2019 Andy Jones (2006) Animated Images.pdf

1/15

ANIMATED IMAGESImages, Agency and Landscape in Kilmartin, Argyll, Scotland

ANDY JON ES

University of Southampton, UK

Abstract

Although the temporality of the landscape has become a major concern for

archaeologists, the temporal quality of art images has not been fully appreci-

ated. This issue is especially pressing when we analyse prehistoric rock art in

a landscape setting. This article offers a critique of current semiological

approaches to prehistoric art and suggests an alternative in the study of signs

as indexes as proposed by the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce.An indexical analysis of prehistoric rock art and its relationship to monuments

in the landscape of Kilmartin, Argyll, Scotland provides an enriched under-

standing of the relationships produced by marking the landscape.

Key Words Bronze Age Neolithic landscape rock art temporality

INTRODUCTION

Time is a major disciplinary focus for archaeology (Shanks and Tilley,1987; Gosden, 1994; Thomas, 1996; Lucas, 2004) and, because of this,archaeologists have been quick to embrace the point that landscapes arenever static but always in process. Curiously, this attitude to landscapehas not permeated the archaeological analysis of visual culture. Thisdisjunction in the way the two phenomena are studied is especiallypressing when we analyse prehistoric rock art situated in a landscapesetting. In this article I will consider this issue by focusing on the caseof British prehistoric rock art in the landscape of Kilmartin, Argyll,

Scotland.Let me begin by examining the temporal character of the landscape.

Ingold (1993) characterizes the landscape not as a plane upon which

211

Journal of Material Culture Vol. 11(1/2): 211225

Copyright 2006 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)[DOI: 10.1177/1359183506063023]www.sagepublications.com


2/15

meanings are attached, but as a relational field in which places aregathered from within the landscape and are indivisible from the whole.The act of inhabiting the landscape is therefore an embodied activity, inwhich the form of the landscape is generated through a process of incor-poration whereby forms are not so much inscribed upon the landscapebut are rather generated out of interaction. Tasks and activities conductedwith landscapes are constitutive of place, and the occupation of land-scapes occurs at a series of tempos or rhythms, landscapes and whatIngold defines as taskscapes emerge within the same current of activity.

That landscape is processual in character is emphasized by Benderspoint that landscape is time materialising. Landscapes like time neverstand still (Bender, 2002: 103). The process of engagement and re-engagement is underlined by her remark that:

Human interventions are done not so much to the landscape as with the land-

scape, and what is done affects what can be done. A place inflected with

memory serves to draw people towards it or to keep them away, permits the

assertion of knowledge claims, becomes a nexus of contested meanings.

(Bender, 2002: 104)

The material correlates of activity are especially important here, sincethe act of inhabiting the landscape involves an intimate perceptualengagement with an environment imbued with traces of the past. To

remember is to actively deal with these traces. To interpret these tracesinvolves discovering meaning rather than reading meaning into land-scape. Landscape forms are then clues to meaning rather than carriersof meaning (Ingold, 1993). In a Peircean sense they are natural signs.

This view of landscapes as time materializing harmonizes nicelywith Melion and Kchlers (1991: 3) discussion of the role of memory inimage production. Rather than treating image production as a processenabled by memory, instead it may be more appropriate to think of it asa process that enables mnemonic transmission. Just as landscapes aretime materializing, so too are images a means of materializing remem-brance. This critical aspect of human cognition is produced with and byimages, and the act of producing each visual trace will affect the produc-tion of the next (Davis, 1996). Like places, images will also inflectmemory and draw people towards or away from them.

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ART

However, there are a number of problems with the archaeologicalanalysis of visual culture: form has been privileged over process; the

visual is elided with and subordinated to representation. In many waysthis is a precondition of the discourse of typology in which visual formsare transferred to the medium of paper to aid in comparison and

J o u r n a l o f M AT E R I A L C U LT U R E 11 ( 1 / 2 )

212


3/15

analysis. This decontextualizes images and tends to present them synop-tically as static entities. However, while these procedures are related toa specific disciplinary discourse the treatment of the image as a staticentity pervades other interpretative frameworks.

The form of the image is especially emphasized in semiologicalinterpretations of art. For example, discussions of the menhirs ofNeolithic Brittany have mainly focused on the ascription of meaningbased on the interpretation of images as visual symbols (e.g. Thomas andTilley, 1991; Whittle, 2000), as have semiological interpretations ofScandinavian rock art (e.g. Nordbladh, 1978; Tilley, 1993). It is not myintention to suggest that these assumptions are invalid. Indeed they havegiven rise to many useful interpretations. However they arise out of astatic conceptualization of the image and do not encompass the full

materiality (or visuality) of prehistoric imagery. In a sense, by foreclosingon the visual in this way, these interpretations circumscribe both whatwe define as art and narrow what can be said about prehistoric visualforms. Alternative attempts to examine the visual properties of imagessuch as Palaeolithic Cave Art and Neolithic Passage Tomb art have beenmarried to an interpretative framework which solely focuses on thecapacity of visual images to evoke altered states of consciousness (Lewis-Williams and Dowson, 1993; Dronfield, 1996; Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1998; Lewis-Williams, 2002; Lewis-Williams and Pearce, 2005).

Many of our problems with the ascription of meaning arise due todistinctions made along the schism between surface and depth. Problemswith the relationship between surface and depth are voiced by Stafford(1996) who traces to Plato the subordination of surface to depth. She railsagainst the treatment of images as mere surface appearances as theybecome what she calls decorporealized signs and highlights the over-arching desire in the analysis of visual images to reduce communicationto a process of inscription. Similarly, in posing the intriguing questionWhat do pictures really want? Mitchell (1996: 82) states that pictures

want equal rights with language, not to be turned into language.Polemical statements such as Mitchells tend to assume that all sign

systems operate according to Saussures version of semiotics.1 I believethat the call for an analysis of the visual dimension of images need notpreclude semiotic analysis; it depends on which version of semiotics isadopted. For the purposes of this article I adopt the version of semioticsformulated by Charles Sanders Peirce (e.g. Peirce, 1958; Corrington,1993), since this encompasses both natural signs (such as icons andindices) as well as cultural signs (such as symbols). For much of this

article I will focus on the way rock art images function as natural signs.Helpfully Mitchell (1996) suggests that images should not be seen asby-products of social reality but as actively constitutive of it. I will adoptthis position in the analysis that follows.

Jones: A N I M A T E D I M A G E S

213


4/15

Problems emerge with the analysis of rock art because we treat rockart production as a form of inscriptive practice in which meaning is laidupon a blank surface. What rock art is, is at least partly defined by thenature of human action on matter. Matter is seen as substrate, and thehuman mind is imposed through action on matter. Culture is literallysculpted onto mute materials. In recent years this attitude has begun tochange and more attention is now being paid to the role of the rocksurface in influencing the composition of rock art images (Helskog, 1999,2004; Tilley, 2004: 147215). The representative nature of rock art seemsto be borne out by the evidence of images evidently meant to resemblehumans, animals or artefacts. The case is more difficult to make inBritain and Ireland. In what sense should we consider these abstractimages as representative?

BRITISH PREHISTORIC ROCK ART

Curvilinear and geometric motifs are an important feature of the lateNeolithic and early Bronze Age in Britain, approximately spanning theperiod 30001500 BC. Their date is equivocal, but the floruitof theseimages is most likely to be during the late Neolithic. Images of similarcharacter are found on certain forms of late Neolithic pottery and on aseries of specialized portable artefacts. Similar images are also found on

the kerbstones and interior of passage tombs, such as those at Knowth,Newgrange and Loughcrew in eastern Ireland. Although these imageshave a wide currency, their location in open-air contexts is restricted tonorthern Britain, and north-west and south-west Ireland.

Work by Richard Bradley on the topographic location of images hasdemonstrated that they are often placed in prominent landscape posi-tions, often with extensive views over inland valley route ways or coast-lines (Bradley, 1997).

While the recognition that particular images are executed in particu-

lar places is clearly important, the interpretation of these images presentsproblems. Early researchers in the field attempted to enumerate thepossible functions and meanings of these abstract motifs, as representa-tive of natural elements such as water ripples to the use of cups and ringsfor arcane practices. More recent researchers, such as Bradley, have recog-nized the opaque nature of these images. Richard Bradley (1997: 11)acknowledges that we will never understand the meaning of these images.However, observing that images of greater or lesser visual complexityoccur in different regions of the landscape he draws on Howard Morphys

analysis of Yolungu art (Morphy, 1991) to suggest that images are likely tocontain inner and outer meanings, depending upon their audience.On the face of it this analogy appears reasonable, but problems arise

when we compare the materiality and periodicity of production of


214


5/15


6/15

a major rock art land-scape. The art mainlyconsists of a series ofabstract cup and ringimages pecked into rockoutcrops or boulders.Importantly a number ofother motifs are found inthe Kilmartin valley.These include motifscommonly associatedwith Irish passage tombart such as rosettes and

horned spiral motifs(Figure 3). These arefound both on open-airrock surfaces and on

upstanding monuments such as the southern stone circle at TempleWood. Images are used to refer to contact with places, such as Ireland,beyond the confines of the landscape (Bradley, 1997: 117; Jones, 2001).

The most complex rock art sites are found in upland locations at thejunction or entry points into valleys and these have extensive views into

the valley. Less complex sites are found on the lower terraces of thevalley overlooking monuments and in the upland hills. The execution ofimages of differing visual complexity therefore defines distinct topo-graphic zones within the landscape.

In the valley bottom a series of monuments is located, whichincludes chambered cairns, round cairns, stone circles and standingstones. Each valley appears to have discrete clusters of monuments, andin each case cairns and standing stones seem to direct the axes ofmovement through valleys. This is particularly evident with the major

monument complexes at Kilmartin and Ballymeanoch. At Kilmartin alinear cemetery of cairns runs down the axis of the valley over a distanceof four miles. This is accompanied at one end by two stone circles atTemple Wood and by a linear alignment of standing stones at NetherLargie. Likewise the monument complex at Ballymeanoch includes asmall linear cemetery of cairns and incorporates a late Neolithic hengereused as a burial cairn. It too has an impressive double avenue ofstanding stones.

Rock art is not confined to natural outcrops; many of the standing

stones in the region are decorated with cup and ring marks. A numberof cairns also incorporate decorated stones.Detailed analysis of the major rock art panels in the region reveals

that, contrary to expectation, images are executed on cracked and fissured


216

FIGURE 2 A view looking south down the

Kilmartin Valley. Note the terraced valley sides.

Photo: the author


7/15

rock surfaces (Jones, 2005). Field survey in the surrounding area indicatedthat smooth (and perfectly serviceable) rock surfaces were ignored infavour of surfaces cracked and scoured by glacial action. Not only thisbut rocks with specific systems of fissures or cracks were carved on.Three main types of surface were utilized: surfaces with dense criss-crossed lozenge shaped cracks; surfaces with widely spaced rectangularcracks, and surfaces with widely spaced lozenge shaped cracks.

There are clear distinctions in the complexity and type of motifs oneach type of panel. I have discussed this in detail elsewhere (Jones, 2005).Here I will provide a summary of these observations: panels with densetriangular/lozenge criss-cross cracks were decorated with complex motifs,often with unusual motifs found in the passage-tomb art repertoire (seeFigure 3). Panels with large rectangular or lozenge shaped cracks aredecorated with complex motifs with multiple rings (Figure 4). Panels withsmall lozenge or rectangular shaped cracks are decorated with simplemotifs, cups with one or two rings and tails (Figure 5). In the case of the

first of these types of panel, images are often placed over systems ofcracks, in the other cases cracks frame the images. Distinctions also occurat the regional level as analysis of sites in the side and upland valleysindicate that each valley employed distinctive types of motif.


217

FIGURE 3 Rosette motifs at Ormaig. Note the way in which the motifs are

fitted between natural cracks in the rock surface.

Photo: the author


8/15

The relationship between rock surfaces and images is not confinedto cracks and fissures. At Achnabreck the form and orientation of naturalglacial runnels is paralleled by the form and orientation of the tails ofrock art images. At the same site carved cup marks mimic naturalhollows in the rock. In a great number of cases the tails of motifs areused to join motifs to the natural fissures of the rock and appear to enter

the rock via these cracks.How are we to conceptualize the relationship between the geological

features of the rock and rock art? What kind of relationship was beingexpressed through the execution of rock art motifs? At one level therelationship appears to be mimetic. Images enact mimetic resemblancebecause of their correspondence with natural features of the rocksurface; they also enact a form of mimetic contact whereby images incor-porate components of the rock surface. This relationship is emphasizedby the physical contact made between natural features and carvings.

Curiously the organization of motifs on rocks closely resembles theorganization of motifs on other media, especially late Neolithic GroovedWare pottery and passage-tomb art. Because of this I believe rocksurfaces are being addressed as surfaces upon which the trace of ances-tral or prior images are visible (Jones, 2005: 116).


218

FIGURE 4 Rock art at Cairnbaan upper panel. Note the way in which the

motifs are fitted between broadly rectangular cracks in the rock surface.Photo: the author


9/15

If this interpretation is accepted, then the production of motifs is arepetitive, mnemonic act that treats the rock surface as a surface uponwhich previous images are present. A sense of the repetitive act ofproduction is gained when we consider the nature of the activities associ-ated with rock art sites. Recent excavations at Torbhlaren revealed astone-built platform encircling the rock art site. On this platform were a

series of layers containing hundreds of quartz artefacts (hammerstones)and pieces of smashed quartz, which are likely to represent the residueof several rock art production events.

The repetitive nature of rock art production can also be observed atthe largest panels, such as Achnabreck, where differential weatheringsuggests the successive carving of images. In a sense the carving ofcomplex visual images attracts others to the rock. These complex panels,usually numbering in excess of 100 images, are situated at entry or exitpoints into different valleys.

How do images operate visually? Critically the size of images isproportional to the distance between fissures in the rock. Visually theimages are either suspended between these frames, or are executed overcracks. Through the production of the sinuous tails connecting image to


219

FIGURE 5 Simple rock art motifs on the lower panel at Cairnbaan.

Photo: the author


10/15

fissure the entire rockbecomes an indivisiblevisual whole. Crowdingimages together alsoproduces a sense of indi-visibility between rockand image. Like Wittgen-steins famous duck-rabbit figure, throughspatial crowding andjuxtaposition with therock the images becomemultistable. Are images

distinct from the rock?Are they in fact distinctfrom each other? Figureand ground oscillate asthe viewer moves aroundthe rock.

The indivisibility offigure and ground isimportant, since it visual-

izes a sense of the fusionbetween image and place.The production of imagesin the landscape drawsattention to significantplaces in the landscape,

however images themselves can also iterate or draw together places. Thisis especially significant when we consider that, by carving motifs foundin the passage-tomb art repertoire people produced images that were

presencing places outside the immediate landscape. This process of con-densing the significance of other places through image production iscritical to understanding the treatment of other elements of the prehis-toric landscape. I now want to consider the significance of images onstanding stones and in cairns.

If we are to understand standing stones we need to consider theirspatial and temporal contexts. Field surveying around the valley sideshas located the likely source of many of the standing stones. An exposedcliff face above the standing stones at Ballymeanoch consists of stones

of identical size, shape and lithology. In the neighbouring KilmichaelGlen a standing stone quarry was identified overlooking a complex ofstanding stones and rock art (Figure 6). The vertical and laminatednature of these outcrops suggests that these natural standing stones are


220

FIGURE 6 The standing stone quarry at

Torbhlaren. Note the vertical nature of the

outcrops.

Photo: the author


11/15

literally being prized off, walked down the valley sides and re-erectedin rows or as solitary stones in the valley bottoms.

Analysis of the position of rock art motifs on standing stones suggeststhey were decorated during or after erection. Motifs are located at thebase of the stone and are large and fairly simple making them highlyvisible. No visual reference is made to natural fissures on the stone.

The removal of stones from the valley sides and their decorationperforms a number of important functions. Stones placed in the valleybottom direct movement through the valley; they are aligned on routesthrough the landscape yet their sides are oriented back towards thevalley sides from whence they came. Overall they are involved in thecreation of a visible sense of order. Stones are both part of and other thanthe landscape. Their rough texture offers a clue to their origin. The

presence of rock art on many of the stones acts as a citation or refer-ence to the rock art located on the valley sides. However the massiveform of the stones and the size and visibility of the rock art motifs alsodenote that they are distinct from landscape.

Because of the tension between the timeless and the transitory oraltered landscape embodied in their form, location and decorationstanding stones have fluid biographies. During the early Bronze Age(22001500 BC) standing stones may have been broken up and reusedin the burial cairns of the linear cemetery that runs through the valley.

At Nether Largie North excavation indicated the stone holes or formerlocations of standing stones beneath the burial cairn (RCAHMS, 1999:32). Indeed a large stone incorporated into the central burial is decor-ated. An undecorated portion at its base suggests that it formerly stoodupright (Bradley, 1993: 92).

The carving executed on reused stones differs from the execution ofmotifs in the landscape. Motifs are generally geometric lozenges or curvi-linear rings. At three sites there are also representations of bronze axes.Motifs on burial slabs operate in a number of ways. The execution of

lozenges and curvilinear motifs reference the rocks upon which imagesare carved in the surrounding landscape, as well as the images carvedupon them, while they also cite the decoration on portable artefacts fromthe late Neolithic and early Bronze Age. The execution of axe motifs isalso referential as the process of producing the image of an axe in stonecorresponds to the process of pecking out the stone moulds used toproduce early Bronze Age metal axes (Jones, 2001: 224). There is atechnological equivalence to the process of image production that evokesand memorializes the productive capacity of metalwork.

Motifs on burial slabs are on smooth surfaces and often cover thesurface of the stone. Stones exhibit evidence of a number of episodes ofrecarving and it is likely that due to the construction of the stone burialcists they remain open and accessible for a period of time prior to final


221


12/15

burial (Jones, 2001). On burial images that were visible elements of thelandscape are now removed from visibility; the site of burial becomesmarked by an immense mound of stone and earth. The position of thesecairns along the axis of the valley mirrors the axis previously occupiedby stone alignments.

The decorated faces of the fragmented stones placed in burial cairnsare always turned to face the dead. Because of the origin of the stonesthe dead are in a sense enclosed by the valley sides (Jones, 2001). Theenclosure/containment of the dead by complex images is reiterated bythe practice of burying their cremated remains in highly decorated pots,or encircling inhumations with decorated artefacts, such as jet necklaces.

TEMPORALIZING THE LANDSCAPE OF KILMARTIN

In effect images operate at two different temporal registers, the firstinvolves a process of decorating living rock in the wider landscape. Theplacement of images in the landscape provides a means of ordering thelandscape and orientating the subject. As visual traces of past activitythey draw attention to features of past and future significance. Byreading natural fissures and cracks as ancestral traces and responding tothem with the repetitive production of images people were temporallysituating themselves in a landscape perceived as timeless. The produc-

tion of images is a form of poeisis, a way of weaving a sense of belong-ing and place, just as images are visually woven into the rock surface.More than this it is a way of objectifying or visualizing the relationshipbetween people and place.

Images are at once static and mobile, binding and connecting. Theirplacement on static rock panels in the landscape enacts a process ofbinding. However images are also simultaneously connective as theirproduction may presence distant places. In terms of the immediate land-scape of Kilmartin the production of images weaves skeins of signifi-

cance across the landscape binding one place to another. The productionof images at geographically important points such as valley junctures arethe nodes or knots which tie this network of connections together.Images are elements of a relational indexical field, or oeuvre in the sensedefined by Gell (1998), whose purpose is to visualize and mobilize asense of place.

The grounding of images in the landscape offers a platform for theuse of images in a quite different temporal register involving standingstones and burial slabs. Images were not so much woven onto standing

stones, rather standing stones were mediums for mobilizing or presenc-ing images at other places in the landscape. Standing stones occupy anambiguous temporal position, as immense sculptural forms placed in thevalley bottom they act as figures against the ground of the landscape,


222


13/15

however as erstwhile components of the landscape they also merge withthat landscape. Are they placed there by people, or are they an indis-soluble part of the landscape? Attention is drawn to the ambiguousnature of standing stones by images that in their size point up the alterityof the stones, but which also refer to their natural origins in the hillsides.

The alterity of the stones is emphasized by the execution of imageson burial slabs which evoke their past status as elements of the land-scape and also evoke cultural artefacts. In a sense the treatment ofstanding stones and their subsequent burial echoes the human life cycle,in the valley bottom the stone intervenes materially and bodily with thelife of humans, on burial its material presence is removed from view. Nowimages bind the person rather than the landscape. Their removal fromcirculation creates a space for remembrance, materialized by a cairn.

Images offer a way of visualizing events of different temporalduration, one the timelessness of the landscape and the other theduration of the human life course. By addressing living rock as if it werethe traces of past events and carving upon it, people situated themselveshistorically in the landscape. The provision of a timeless temporal andspatial framework created by carving images on living rock provided theground for people to comprehend their own temporal spans and thecapacity to alter the landscape through the production and destructionof standing stones and cairns. The production of images at each stage of

these events provided a way of tracing the history of events.

CONCLUSION

Let us return to the relationship between time and landscape. If asBarbara suggests landscape is time materializing, how are imagesimplicated in this process? The meaning of images is not so muchinscribed in their form as in the relationships they help to producebetween different components of the landscape. The production of the

rock art images at Kilmartin offered a way of visually cognizing time.Images are a means of mapping the movement of the living in andaround the landscape and come to be a way of charting the movementfrom life to death. If we are to understand British rock art images asrepresentative, we need to understand that what they are representingis the materialization of temporal events.

Note

1. It may be useful to distinguish between semiology, Saussures version of

semiotics, and semiotics: the wider study of signs introduced by CharlesSanders Peirce (see Gottdiener, 1994 for useful overview). How do the twodiffer? For Peirce the function of signs was divided into three terms so thesign itself could be envisaged as having three forms: index, icon or symbol.


223


14/15

The most basic of these is the index. The meaning of an index is not a productof social conventions or codes; instead it is established as a sign throughpragmatic understanding of the material world. The association betweenlightning and thunder is an index; when we see lightning we anticipate the

sound of thunder, the meaning of this index is a storm. An icon is a sign thatconveys an idea by virtue of its close reproduction or resemblance of anactual object or event. A good example of this would be traffic signs, whichconvey their meaning directly without the aid of language or social conven-tion. They do this on the basis of physical resemblance the shape of anaeroplane is used to signify an airport. A symbol is closer to what Saussuremeant by a sign, it is a sign-vehicle that stands for something else which isunderstood as an idea in the mind of the interpretant; it is conventional andregulated by culture and is a sign by virtue of a law or rule. We need notchoose between the two, in fact Saussures conception of the sign is includedin Peirces theory of the sign.

References

Bender, B. (2002) Time and Landscape, Current Anthropology 43: 10312.Bloch, M. (1995) Questions Not to Ask of Malagasy Carvings, in I. Hodder,

M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Carmen, J. Last and G. Lucas (eds)Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past, pp. 21215. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Bradley, R. (1993)Altering the Earth. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of ScotlandMonograph Series No. 8.

Bradley, R. (1997)Rock Art and the Prehistory of Atlantic Europe: Signing the Land.

London: Routledge.Clottes, J. and Lewis-Williams, D. (1998) The Shamans of Prehistory: Trance and

Magic in the Painted Caves. New York: Harry Abrams.Corrington, R.S. (1993)An Introduction to C.S Peirce: Philosopher, Semiotician, and

Ecstatic Naturalist. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Davis, W. (1996) Replication and Depiction in Palaeolithic Art, in W. Davis

Replications: Archaeology, Art History, Psychoanalysis, pp. 6694. UniversityPark, PA: Penn State Press.

Dronfield, J. (1996) Entering Alternative Realities: Cognition, Art and Architec-ture in Irish Passage Tombs, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6: 3772.

Gell, A. (1998)Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon.

Gosden, C. (1994) Social Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell.Gottdiener, W. (1994)Postmodern Semiotics. Oxford: Blackwell.Helskog, K. (1999) The Shore Connection: Cognitive Landscape and Communi-

cation with Rock-Carvings in Northernmost Europe, Norwegian Archaeo-logical Review 32: 7394.

Helskog, K. (2004) Landscapes in Rock Art: Rock Carving and Ritual in the OldEuropean North, in C. Chippindale and G. Nash (eds) The Figured Land-scapes of Rock-Art: Looking at Pictures in Place, pp. 26588. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Ingold, T. (1993) The Temporality of the Landscape, World Archaeology 25:15274.

Jones, A. (2001) Enduring Images? Image Production and Memory in EarlierBronze Age Scotland, in J. Brck (ed.)Bronze Age Landscapes: Tradition andTransformation, pp. 21728. Oxford: Oxbow.

Jones, A. (2005) Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Rock Art and Mimesis in


224


15/15

Neolithic and Bronze Age Scotland, in V. Cummings and A. Pannett (eds)Set in Stone: New Approaches to Neolithic Monuments in Scotland, pp. 10717.Oxford: Oxbow.

Lewis-Williams, D. (2002) The Mind in the Cave. London: Thames & Hudson.

Lewis-Williams, J.D and Dowson, T.A. (1993) On Vision and Power in theNeolithic: Evidence from the Decorated Monuments, Current Anthropology34: 5565.

Lewis-Williams, J.D. and Pearce, D. (2005) Inside the Neolithic Mind. London:Thames & Hudson.

Lucas, G. (2004) The Archaeology of Time. London: Routledge.Melion, W. and Kchler, S. (1991) Introduction: Memory, Cognition and Image

Production, in W. Melion and S. Kchler (eds)Images of Memory: On Remem-bering and Representation, pp. 147. Washington, DC: Smithsonian InstitutePress.

Mitchell, W.J.T. (1996)Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation.

Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Morphy, H. (1991) Ancestral Connections: Art and an Aboriginal System ofKnowledge. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Nordbladh, J. (1978) Images as Messages in Society. Prologomena to the Studyof Scandinavian Petroglyphs and Semiotics, in K. Kristiansen andC. Paludan-Mller (eds)New Directions in Scandinavian Archaeology, Studiesin Prehistory and Early History I, pp. 6379. Copenhagen: National MuseumPress.

Peirce, C.S. (1958) What Pragmatism Is, in P.P. Wiener (ed.) Values in a Universeof Chance: Selected Writings of Charles S. Peirce, pp. 180203. New York:Doubleday Anchor.

Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. (1987) Re-constructing Archaeology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Stafford, B. (1996) Good Looking: Essays on the Virtue of Images. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.Tilley, C. (1991)Material Culture and Text: The Art of Ambiguity. London: Routledge.Tilley, C. (2004) The Materiality of Stone: Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology.

Oxford: Berg.Thomas, J. (1996) Culture, Time and Identity. Routledge: London.Thomas, J. and Tilley, C. (1993) The Axe and the Torso: Symbolic Structures in

the Neolithic of Brittany, in C. Tilley (ed.) Interpretative Archaeology,pp. 225324. Oxford: Berg.

Whittle, A. (2000) Very Like a Whale: Menhirs, Motifs and Myths in theMesolithic-Neolithic Transition of North-West Europe, Cambridge Archaeo-logical Journal 10: 24359.

ANDREW JONES is a lecturer in archaeology at the University of Southamp-

ton. He has previously held a fellowship at the McDonald Institute for Archaeo-

logical Research, Cambridge (19992001), and a lectureship at University

College Dublin, Ireland (1998-1999). He is the author of Archaeological Theory

and Scientific Practice (CUP, 2002) and editor of Colouring the Past(Berg, 2002).He has recently completed a book on memory and material culture (CUP, forth-

coming) and is currently editing a volume on recent approaches to European

Prehistory (Blackwell, forthcoming). [email: [email protected]]


225

Andy Jones (2006) Animated Images.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Andy Jones (2006) Animated Images.pdf