Generally speaking, there is a consistent move away from social structure and the meanings that they created, in favour of a growing emphasis on historicism without its materialism, phenomenology and landscape/environmental archaeology. Whilst this is a positive development, in one sense, in another, it is leading archaeology towards creating an extreme kind of discourse where social practice is separated from any form of meaning and structure connected to social conflict and inequality. However, the separation of meaning and structure (and its rejection) from social practice is unnecessary. By re-evaluating the role of the social system, outlined by Giddens, the method outlined, here, applies a model that can investigate social processes, grounded in historical materialism, as well as social structures that express the conflict surrounding inequality. The reason for this disconnection is an inability to translate the theory of structuration into a methodology that can be applied to the archaeological record. This has allowed scientific, objectifying, visualising and aesthetics to creep into prehistoric
81
research- whose purpose is to deny conflict and inequality in prehistory, by rejecting social theory that argues the contrary.
By addressing social questions using a textual metaphor, the (well grounded) arguments against ‘material culture as text’, and the excesses of structuralist ideology can be avoided. At the same time, the methodology can integrate agency centred approaches into social practice in prehistory. Material culture, as a ‘metaphor for text and dialogue,’ can help us develop a methodology that answers both questions that concern social structures, and those concerning social processes. In order to do this, a number of steps need to be undertaken. Firstly, there is the need to develop a context. Secondly, the archaeological remains (in this case rock-art) can be viewed as a ‘snapshot’ of the social structures. Thirdly, the narrative can start to ‘animate’ the archaeology by considering the inherent dialectical and dialogical nature of the archaeological material. Finally, by viewing the archaeology as a dialogue, rather than simply a text, (methodologically speaking) to energise an otherwise static frame of prehistoric social life (the rock-art panel), the method can begin to apply agency centred approaches. The ultimate goal is an understanding of the whole social system, in which the rock-art formed only a small (albeit visible) part.
83
CHAPTER FOUR
Cumbrian rock-art I
4.0 Introduction
The previous chapters explored how historical developments (chapter 2) have led to specific theoretical directions (chapter 3), that have generally led to archaeological narratives placing more emphasis on process, objectification, data collection and historicism (minus the materialism), whilst less and less emphasis is currently being placed on the systems that support social theory. The outcome is a slow slide towards a ‘post-archaeological narrative’ whereby the archaeological record is aestheticised (and hence, depoliticised) to the point that tables of data-along with high quality visual computer graphics- will have replaced all textual and social discourse. In order to overcome this situation, it was suggested that a coherent methodology that can view the prehistoric evidence (in this case, rock-art) as historically contingent, but also, more importantly, structured according to an underlying social system (which made prehistoric social acts meaningful). It was suggested that by using the metaphor of a dialogue (and thus identifying the basic discourses of prehistoric society-reflected in material culture), a post-archaeology that is centred in computer based aesthetics and alienation, can be avoided. The transition from theory into methodology requires a number of steps to be successful. Firstly, in part 4.1, the rock-art needs to be situated within a context that is made up of a number of sub-contexts (environment, human/environment interaction and archaeological). Secondly, section 4.2 will attempt to ‘read’ the rock-art narratives and identify the basic design elements of Cumbrian rock-art. Often, the desire to situate rock-art within a landscape or within the body, leads to the art itself being ignored. The purpose of an ‘internal’ rock-art analysis is to define the basic building blocks of this rock-art tradition, and to identify the art’s basic structuring principles. Once the basic ‘letters’ have been established, the underlying rules that
84
determine their arrangement can be investigated. The hypothesis is that rock-art (like all other forms of communication) is structured according to a limited number of meaningful symbols- which were articulated and rearticulated in order to create meaning. Tilley argues that speech, phonetic writing, and material culture be considered as communication, and that all are structured in ways that centre on the creation of meaning (Tilley 1991, 16). However, although some of the principles developed by Tilley in Sweden are used here, it is not the purpose to return to viewing rock-art (or material culture) as text. Instead, by using a textual metaphor for the methodological approach outlined here, the criticism levelled against pure structuralism can be avoided. Especially since structure will be linked to discourse and agency, in the following chapters.
Finally, part 4.3, will discuss the basic underlying structure of Cumbrian rock-art, and which motif combinations were important. The purpose of identifying the ‘letters’ (and their arrangement) is not that rock-art is a text, but to show that one level of understanding is based in a textual metaphor- and this is important when accessing the art’s sociological significance. In the next chapter, the second level of meaning within the social system is centred in discourses- but discourse needs a structure and framework to work within. All texts (modern or prehistoric) need a ‘con-text’ from which they emerge-and the most basic context is the rock itself. Figure 4.1 shows how the levels of ‘con-text’ will be built, one upon the other, to create a totally integrated social approach to the prehistoric rock-art.
85
Environmental I sub-context
Environmental II sub-context
Historical (material culture) sub-context
Rock-art sub-context
Textual sub-context
Interpretive sub-context
Figure 4.1 Levels of rock-art textual context, moving from objective to the subjective.