Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Neolithic Rock-Art in the British Isles: Retrospect and Prospect

Neolithic Rock-Art in the British Isles: Retrospect and Prospect

Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68.

Chapter 4

Neolithic rock-art in the British Isles: retrospect and prospect

Clive Waddington

Introduction

Although an increasingly popular topic of study, rock-art in Britain is still poorly understood by the wider archaeological community who frequently find the myriad of publications and varying views somewhat confusing. The reality today is that there are emerging areas of consensus and evidence- based conclusions about aspects of the cup-and-ring and art traditions, though of course much else also remains conjectural and contested. This chapter, although it attempts to treat the subject in an objective manner, is of course coloured by the author’s own views about British rock-art and this brings in an inevitable degree of subjectivity into the treatment of the subject, though I have sought to reflect others’ views fairly and accurately. The paper has been structured so as to provide an initial overview before proceeding to discuss the key areas of debate. There then follows a summary of what is currently known with confidence about various aspects of British rock-art, a section deliberately included in order to dispel some of the myths and misunderstandings that have arisen over recent years. Finally the paper deals with the research agenda and the possibilities of future fieldwork. Such a structure has led to a degree of repetition throughout the chapter but it is considered worthwhile as it has the advantage of separating out what is conjecture and debate from what is generally acknowledged fact – an important distinction as some commentators prefer to view the whole rock-art phenomenon as being ‘up for grabs’ thereby justifying ill-informed guesswork. By anchoring the known within the structure of this chapter a platform is created from which the research community can move forward, and this structure has the added benefit of helping the general reader to avoid misunderstandings over current knowledge and the state of the art. Archaeopress Open Access

The story so far ………

There has been a renaissance in British rock-art studies over the last 15 years as academics, the amateur sector and the wider public has sought to expand our understanding of these mysterious motifs. Much of the current work has been focused around recording, cataloguing, identifying associations and limited interpretation. The work of Beckensall (e.g. 1992; 1999; 2001; 2002a), Beckensall and Laurie (1998), Morris (1977; 1979; 1981; 1989), van Hoek (e.g. 1982; 1991), RCAHMS (e.g. 1999), the Ilkley Archaeology Group (1986), Boughey and Vickerman (2003) and Brown and Chapell (2005), have been seminal with respect to the cataloguing and recording of sites across northern Britain whilst more

49 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. CLIVE WADDINGTON recent surveys such as those by Darvill and Wainwright (2003), Darvill and O’Conner (2005) and Nash (this volume) have expanded the data sets for , the and South-West respectively. Their work has provided a large, and typically -recorded, corpus of data that provides a basis for future research that seeks to interpret these symbols. However, it is only recently that some academics have attempted to integrate the interpretation of British rock-art within wider archaeological narratives of the period. The work of Bradley has been particularly influential in this respect (e.g. Bradley 1997), and together with others (e.g. Waddington 1998; van Hoek 2001; Purcell 2002; Evans 2004), has anchored the future study of rock-art within landscape and contextual approaches. Particular attention has been focused on understanding the landscape location of rock-art panels and noting views to and from sites (e.g. Bradley et al. 1993; Bradley 1997, 81-88; Waddington 1998, 37; Beckensall 2002b), as well as GIS-based viewshed analyses (e.g. Gaffney et al. 1995; Winterbottom and Long 2006), and in this respect the use of new such as GIS and virtual reality modeling clearly have an important role to play. Indeed, they have the potential to provide a for innovative studies that draw on phenomenological and experiential approaches, particularly when coupled with radiocarbon dated vegetation sequences obtained from organic sediments close to rock-art panels that have localised pollen rain catchments. The study of landscape location has led Bradley to see many rock-art sites on outcrop rock as being positioned along ancient routeways (Bradley 1997, 81 and 120-123). The significance of landscape setting is now widely accepted (e.g. Bradley 1997; Waddington 1995; 1998; Beckensall 1999; van Hoek 2003; Chippindale and Nash 2004; various papers in Nash and Chippindale 2002), but the view that rock-art was positioned so as to be inter-visible has been challenged as this would require a largely open landscape at a time when the environmental record indicates widespread broad-leaf woodland (e.g. Waddington 1998, 36). Knowledge of the location of panels must have been important because most of the rock-art on outcrops occurs on relatively flat or shallow-sloping panels close to, or at, ground level (Bradley 1997, 80; Beckensall 2001, 18), and so it is clear that the majority of panels simply cannot be seen until the viewer is positioned immediately next to them and, therefore, prior knowledge of location is essential. This said, some of the more complex panels occur on upstanding and conspicuous outcrops or boulders, such as the Roughting Lynn hogback (Beckensall 2001, 24-27), the ‘tabletop’ rocks at Old Bewick (main rock) (Beckensall 2001, 77-79) and Fontburn (Fontburn b) (see Beckensall 2001, 116-117 respectively), or the dramatic decorated rock faces at Ballochmyle (Beckensall 1999, 96-97) and Patterdale 3 (Beckensall 2002, 20-27). In cases where such prominent natural features were inscribed, distinctive landmarks were evidently being selected for hosting panels of symbols that marked out theseArchaeopress locales as places to be seen, as well as to viewOpen the surrounding Access landscape from. Recent attempts to interpret rock-art have focused on assessing the ‘complexity’ of panels and searching for pattern in their distribution (Bradley 1991; 1997, 72-81), relating rock-art to exploitation of the surrounding landscape (Waddington 1996; Bradley 1997, 173-189), relating motif shape and position to the architecture of contemporary monuments (Bradley 1989; 1997, 107-120; Thomas 1992; Nash this volume), assessing the physical relationship between carved rocks incorporated into monuments (Simpson and Thawley 1972; Bradley 1997; Waddington 1998, 37-45; Evans and Dowson 2004; Nash this volume; Vyner this volume), and the content and stylistic components of the tradition (van Hoek 1994; Frodsham 1996; Bradley 1997; Waddington 1998, 45-49). Related to such study has been the attempt to understand passage grave art in relation to entoptics, trance imagery and altered states of consciousness (e.g. Bradley 1989; Dronfield 1995a; 1995b; Lewis-Williams and Dowson 1993).

50 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. ROCK-ART IN THE BRITISH ISLES: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

However, the most recent trend in British and Irish rock-art research has been the adoption of investigative fieldwork (e.g. O’Connor 2003; Waddington et al. 2005; Andy Jones pers. com.) which has demonstrated the potential of rock-art sites to yield information relating to panel biographies, date, use, associated activities and original setting. Field investigations are still in their early stages so as this new information comes to light a significant increase in what is known about rock-art sites can be anticipated.

The key debates

As interest has grown and research papers have multiplied, key areas of debate have emerged. Perhaps the most crucial of these debates from the archaeological perspective is that of chronology (Simpson and Thawley 1972; Burgess 1990; Waddington 1998; Bradley 1997), as without a sound grasp of the dating sequence of rock-art, and the timing of changes in the circumstances and context of deployment, it is difficult to attempt either meaningful interpretation or integrative studies as rock-art sites must otherwise remain divorced from their wider contemporary archaeological context. However, it is just such a context which is required if we are to reconstruct how these symbols were deployed, experienced and construed within wider society and within systems of land-use. Furthermore, once a broad chronological frame has been established then the search for regional sequences and the relationship with other rock-art from northern and Atlantic Europe can be attempted. Understanding the associations between rock-art and other aspects of material culture remain a tantalizing, and in some respects contested, area of study. For example, attention has been drawn to the relationship between the cup-and-ring repertoire and other forms of Early Neolithic material culture, such as forms and ceramic styles, while the latest style of angular and geometric passage grave art has been related to Later Neolithic arrowhead forms and (see Burgess 1990; Waddington 1998; Bradley 1997). Colin Burgess and this author in particular have drawn attention to the curvilinear style of the cup-and-ring tradition and its similarity with Early Neolithic material culture forms, whereas the later ‘plastic’ style of Irish passage grave art has been compared with later Neolithic Grooved Ware pottery decoration (Bradley 1997; Waddington 1998). Other important associations that have been identified that require further research and debate include the linkage between quarried rock-art panels from outcrop contexts and their re-use in prehistoric monuments of different forms and date (e.g. see Simpson and Thawley 1972; Bradley 1997; Waddington 1998; Beckensall and Frodsham 1998; Evans and Dowson 2004). There is now clear evidence to showArchaeopress the use of cup, and cup-and-ring, marked Open panels in monuments Access ranging from the 4th millennium cal. BC to the beginning of the 2nd millennium cal. BC. Examples include the cupmarked slab sealed below the Dalladies long mound (Piggott 1972 and Fig. 1), the inclusion of cupmarked capstones on several such as those at Bachwen (see Waddington 1998, 32 and Fig. 2) and Ratho (Simpson 1867, 23-24, pl. 9), their use in chambered tombs such as Cairnholy (Piggot and Powell 1949; Beckensall 1999, 138), their incorporation into monuments such as Milfield South (Harding 1981, 97-99) and Knowlton South (Lewis et al. 2000), as well as their inclusion in free standing stone circles such as Long Meg (Beckensall 2002, 59-70) and Duddo (Beckensall 1999, 151- 152), recumbent stone circles such as Loanhead of Daviot and Sunhoney (Beckensall 1999, 122-123), and on standing stones such as those at Ballymeanoch (Beckensall 2005, 82-83), Nether Largie (Beckensall 2005, 84-85) and Matfen (Beckensall 1999, 155 and Fig. 3) to name just a few such associations.

51 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. CLIVE WADDINGTON

Figure 1. Cupmarked rock recovered from a primary pit sealed below the Dalladies long mound, Reproduced with the permission of The Trustees of the National Museums of Scotland). Scale = 1cm graduations.

Archaeopress Open Access

Figure 2. Cupmarked capstone of the Bachwen , Llyn Peninsula, North Wales.

A general sequence that appears to hold true is that there is an early phase of rock-art that occurs on outcrop rock; these carvings are then later incorporated into the full spectrum of Neolithic ceremonial monuments – from long , chambered tombs and dolmens to stone circles, standing stones and – and by the Early they are incorporated specifically within the burial monuments of the dead, usually as part of graves. This change in contextual associations through time is of course more complex than this, as some outrcrop rocks have clearly been inscribed on several

52 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. NEOLITHIC ROCK-ART IN THE BRITISH ISLES: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

occasions though separated by long periods of time (see for example Waddington et al. 2005), and some ceremonial monuments appear to have been decorated for the specific purpose of inclusion in the built monument as has been suggested by Frodsham and Beckensall (1998, 53-56) for the cist cover at Whitton Gilbert, County Durham. However, the overall sequence outlined above remains secure when tested against the plethora of evidence now available for the re-use of decorated panels in many different types of monuments, and there is now emerging something of a broad concensus for this long chronology. Recognition of this long chronological span throws out many questions and avenues of enquiry relating to issues of change in use, meaning and significance through the period 4000 – 2000 cal. BC. Understanding of symbols is largely formed through the context in which they are experienced, and it therefore follows that any changes in their context of deployment must be indicative of a deliberate change in its significance or the message it is intended to convey. Therefore, Figure 3. The Matfen standing stone, , with changes in the context of rock-art over time cupmarked decoration. provide a touchstone for identifying wider social change taking place throughout the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. A key avenue for future research must be relating the observed changes in rock-art deployment to wider patterns noted in the contemporary archaeological record (see also below). The relationship between cup-and-ring marks and passage grave art has been, until recently, something of a confusedArchaeopress and poorly resolved issue. Some Open commentators haveAccess viewed them as part of separate traditions (e.g. MacWhite 1946; Burgess 1990; Waddington 2007) whereas others have viewed them as directly related, usually with cup-and-ring marks being thought to derive from passage grave art (e.g. Shee Twoig 1981; 1988; Beckensall 1983). More recently however the key components of each rock-art tradition have been contrasted for the Irish material (Johnston 1993) and a detailed case has been made for recognising each as a distinctive tradition (Waddington 2007). A key area of interest that remains contentious is that of landscape setting. Reconstructing how these inscribed rocks were situated in relation to their contemporary environment is essential if we are to gain an understanding of how these carvings were encountered and intended to be engaged with. Some researchers have viewed cup-and-ring marked outcrop rocks as occupying relatively open landscapes above the treeline and commanding wide views over large areas (e.g. Bradley 1997), while

53 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. CLIVE WADDINGTON others have suggested that during the Neolithic at least, these carved rocks are likely to have been situated in wooded settings, probably within small glades (Waddington 1998; 1999). However, attempts to reconstruct viewsheds are ultimately prejudiced by the fact that we can never know with absolute certainty where cleared pathways or other openings were situated and such small-scale clearance is unlikely to show in the pollen record. This said, the inability to obtain such ultra-localised records must not be used as a substitute for lack of evidence in order to argue for open vistas. In a similar way the vegetation sequence around and henge sites remains poorly understood in much of northern and upland Britain where cup-and-ring marked rocks occur. In order to address this issue, programmes of targeted palaeoenvironmental research need to be undertaken in conjunction with further work on the dating of rock-art panels themselves. Without this framework any assessment of the experiential and phenomenological aspects of rock-art sites will remain partial and elusive. Reconstructing the experiential dimension of passage grave art sites has led to important new ways of understanding these monuments and the way they could have functioned (see Bradley 1989; 1997; Thomas 1992 and Nash this volume for examples), and this is now being attempted for cup-and-ring rock-art sites (Winterbottom and Long 2006; Andrew Blanshard pers. com.) which, afterall, remain in situ and command the same topographic setting as they did in the past. The role of rock-art in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age society, and the ways in which it was used, is perhaps the Holy Grail of current rock-art research, though some researchers doubt whether we will ever be able to find reliable answers. As we inch closer to a more informed understanding of rock-art as a result of advances in excavation, new dating techniques, environmental research and access to national rock-art data bases (for the latter see Mazel this volume; Mazel 2005a; 2005b; 2005c), it is probable that we will gain a more incisive view of the ways in which rock-art functioned, the types of activities that took place at these sites, and the way it was used over time to imbue meaning into new kinds of activities in new kinds of monuments. As our questions become more pertinent, and our field research provides new insights, there is room to be hopeful that questions relating to role and use may yet be tackled.

Current understanding

The span of time over which rock-art was employed is now known with much greater reliability than was the case at the beginning of the 1990s. The cup-and-ring mark tradition had been generally thought to be a Bronze Age phenomenon (e.g. Haddingham 1974; Shee Twoig 1981; 1988; Beckensall 1983) dating to theArchaeopress years around 2000 cal. BC. However, Open more recent reviews Access of the dating evidence (e.g. Waddington 1998; 2007; Bradley 1997) have demonstrated that this tradition has its roots in the Neolithic with a final phase of deployment occurring in the Early Bronze Age. Indeed, the use of cup marks in 4th millennium cal. BC contexts can no longer be contested as these inscribings have been found in long cairns (e.g. Piggott 1972; 1973), chambered cairns (e.g. Piggott 1956; Piggott and Powell 1949; Waddington et al. 1998) on dolmen capstones (e.g. Simpson 1867; Waddington 1998), though we must be cautious how the latter are interpreted as the capstones may have remained visible after construction, and there is a cup-and-ring-style design on a stone ball from an Early Neolithic horizon at the lake settlement at Eileen Domhnuill on (Armitt 1988; 1992). At the other end of the chronological span we have a re-used cupmarked stone from an Early Bronze Age at Chatton Sandyford that has a terminus post quem for its construction of 2140-1870 cal. BC (1670±50bc,

54 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. NEOLITHIC ROCK-ART IN THE BRITISH ISLES: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

GaK800) (Jobey 1968, 26 and 30). In summary we now have a long chronology for the cup-and-ring mark tradition spanning perhaps up to 2000 years. Some elements of the tradition are clearly in use in the early part of the Neolithic and these symbols continue to be used in the 4th and 3rd millennia cal. BC until their final period of use in the Early Bronze Age, though whether there was a break in the tradition between its re-use in Neolithic monuments and its final phase of use in cist graves and later cairns does seem a probability (Waddington et al. 2005, 46-49). Occasional inclusion of cup marked rocks within Iron Age contexts has also been noted (e.g. Stanley 1954; Bayley and Roycroft 2003; Steve Speake pers. com.; Vyner 1988) but it is highly improbable that these represent some sort of continuation of the tradition or anything other than incidental re-use or inclusion. The most likely explanation is that these represent the inclusion of, by then, ancient curios into Iron Age structures, perhaps with the intention of gaining ornamentation value or perhaps some sense of protection from these antique objects. Notwithstanding such a view the end of the rock-art tradition and the issues surrounding why people stopped carving, and how carvings were re-used or ignored in later sites and landscapes, remains an important thread of research. Passage grave art has a more restricted span of use being primarily a later 4th and 3rd millennia cal. BC phenomenon in the British Isles (see Sheridan 2003; Scarre et al. 2003; Waddington 2007), though it may have earlier dates in Iberia and France (Scarre et al. 2003). Passage grave art is recognised as having several phases with an earlier ‘depictive style’ and a later ‘plastic style’ according to O’Sullivan (1986). This type of rock-art is found only in passage graves and its use appears to terminate when the passage graves are blocked and go out of use. It seems then that the mechanisms behind the initiation and abandonment of passage grave art were different to those behind the initiation and abandonment of cup-and-ring marks. With cup-and-ring rock-art in Britain being extremely well served by the amateur archaeological community the location of thousands of sites are now known, and more come to light on a yearly basis. This has meant that the distribution of rock-art sites, particularly in mainland Britain, is fairly well established (Fig. 4). The cup-and-ring marked sites are concentrated primarily in the north, but also in the west. They are found from the Peak District (e.g. Barnatt and Reeder 1982; Guilbert et al. 2006) northwards, including particularly the moorlands of Yorkshire (e.g. Boughey and Vickerman 2003; Brown and Chappell 2005), County Durham (e.g. Beckensall and Laurie 1998), Cumbria (Beckensall 2002), Northumberland (e.g. Beckensall 2001), Dumfries and Galloway (e.g. Morris 1979), the Scottish Borders and Lothians (e.g. Morris 1981), (e.g. Morris 1977; Beckensall 2005) and Perthshire (e.g. in Morris 1989). However to the west, they are also known in smaller numbers from Wales (e.g. Darvill and Wainwright 2003; Nash 2006), the West Country (e.g. in Morris 1989; Lewis et al. 2000), the Isle of Man (e.g. MorrisArchaeopress 1979) and in parts of (e.g. Johnston Open 1989; 1991; PurcellAccess 2002). Typically these carvings are found on uplands or the upland fringes that overlook fertile areas (see Fig. 5) and can be found inland, around lakes/lochs as well as near to the coast. Examples of such areas include the Rombald’s Moor sites in West Yorkshire, the Fylingdales group on the North York Moors, those above Coquetdale and the Milfield Plain in Northumberland, the sites in Argyll and those in Strath Tay, eastern Scotland. Elsewhere, such as in Ireland, and , the cup-and-ring mark sites occupy the same sort of locations, fringing, and usually overlooking, fertile areas that are thought to have been centres of Neolithic settlement (Johnston 1991, 93; Bradley 1997, 90-91). In general terms the cup-and-ring tradition is associated with high ground and the settlement fringe in what are the more remote areas of Atlantic Europe. It appears to be centred on northern Britain, if volume of sites is

55 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. CLIVE WADDINGTON

Archaeopress Open Access

Figure 4. The distribution of cup-and-ring marks and passage grave art in Atlantic Europe.

56 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. NEOLITHIC ROCK-ART IN THE BRITISH ISLES: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

Figure 5. A typical setting for cup-and-ring marked rocks positioned so as to overlook the settled landscape: view from Doddington Moor over the Milfield Plain. (Courtesy of Aron Mazel) anything to go by, and is suggestive of cultural connections between remote areas (see also Bradley 1997) that include Scandinavia, the British Isles, Brittany, and western Iberia. Passage grave art occurs predominantly in coastal regions or on sites immediately overlooking navigable rivers (seeArchaeopress Waddington in press). Again this is Opena of Atlantic Access European passage grave art sites but it has a different distribution from cup-and-ring rock-art. Passage grave art tends to occur in distinct clusters and is absent in most areas where cup-and-ring sites occur. Although some commentators have previously conflated the cup-and-ring mark and passage grave art traditions it is now clear that we are dealing with separate traditions with their own unique contexts of deployment, use and design grammar. Attention has been drawn to the clear distinctions that can be made between these two traditions with regard to their date, distribution, style, contextual setting, experience and their functionality (Johnston 1993; Waddington in press). Although there is not space to rehearse all these arguments here, the uniqueness of the passage grave art styles, which occur only in one type of original and specialised setting, denote the specific relationship this art has with a single type of monumental setting and human experience. This contrasts markedly with the cup and

57 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. CLIVE WADDINGTON

Figure 6. Cup-and-ring marks inscribed on to Fell Sandstone at Old Bewick, Northumberland. ring tradition that occurs on open air sites, with no physical restriction of access, and is later incorporated into a wide range of ceremonial and burial sites. The design elements of the two traditions are different and they are placed on different types of canvas. Cup-and-ring marks are inscribed on to natural unprepared bedrock whilst passage grave art is applied to hewn stone that has usually been dressed and prepared prior to the carving. By recognising the separateness of these two traditions this allows us to focus on each more clearly and unpick the detail and subtleties both at the detailed site level but also at the more general level. Rare examples occur where motifs from the passage grave art tradition can be found alongside those of the cup-and-ring tradition, such as the often quoted horned spirals on the otherwise cup-and-ring marked outcrop at Achnabreck 1 (RCAHMS 1999). Such an example is the exception rather than the norm and could occur for other reasons, particularly as it is located in a coastalArchaeopress area bordering the Irish Sea, without Open having to invoke Access a direct derivation of cup- and-ring marks from the passage grave art tradition. Similarly the carving of bronze on to previously decorated cist slabs, as occurs at Nether Largie North for example, does not mean that the cup marks are Early Bronze Age, but rather that it was seen fit to superimpose these symbols of early metalwork over what were by then already ancient on a slab that appears to have been broken off a decorated outcrop and incorporated into a cist burial. A key feature of rock-art in the British Isles is the association with sedimentary rock, and sandstones in particular (Fig. 6), although it is occasionally found inscribed on metamorphosed and igneous rocks such as the schists and Greenstone in Argyll. Elsewhere throughout the British Isles rock-art is found primarily on Fell Sandstone, Millstone Grit, Old Red Sandstone and Greywacke with only occasional carvings known on limestone and volcanic rocks. Quite what the significance of this is

58 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. NEOLITHIC ROCK-ART IN THE BRITISH ISLES: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT remains obscure but one suggestion is that the upland locales and rocks in question tend to give rise to thin soils and a scrub woodland vegetation and this begs the question as to whether cup-and-ring marks are associated with communities engaged in using these upland landscapes in a specific way, such as for herding stock or hunting. If we take north Northumberland as an example there is a particularly clear distinction between the volcanic Cheviot uplands and the adjacent sandstone escarpments. The cup-and-ring marked rocks occur virtually exclusively on the Fell Sandstone numbering close to a thousand panels whilst only three examples are known on the volcanic rock of the Cheviots. On the basis of the pollen evidence so far available cereals started to be grown and clearance took place in the Cheviots during the Neolithic (Tipping 1992; 1996), while the first evidence for clearance and cereal cultivation on the Fell Sandstones occurs in the Late Neolithic-Early Bronze Age (Davis and Turner 1979). It would seem that here these distinctive areas of landscape, with their different topographies, vegetation and potential for cereal agriculture, were used in different ways during the Neolithic, and this appears to be reflected in the distribution of rock-art. Relating rock-art to specific types of subsistence behaviour may yet provide an important avenue for future research, particularly when pitched at a regional scale. Generally, cup-and-ring marks are located on the upland fringe overlooking fertile valleys attractive for early settlement (see Fig. 5). This is a feature also noted by Bradley (1993) who described such sites as being located on the edge of the settled landscape. This is an important observation as it ties in with observations relating to rock type. In the case of the Milfield basin, where one of the largest concentrations of rock-art is known, recent archaeological work has demonstrated that the gravel terraces of the Milfield plain formed the focus for Neolithic settlement (Waddington 1999), whilst the high ground encircling the basin appears to have been less intensively settled. Agriculture appears to have taken place across the plain and in the Cheviot foothills to the west but to the north and east the Fell Sandstone escarpment appears to have been used in a different way. The only earlier Neolithic archaeology known on these escarpments are the occasional stone burial cairns, the cup-and-ring marked panels and the occasional flints found during fieldwalking. With no evidence for early agriculture it would seem that these wooded hills lay beyond the farmed area and the settlement focus. However, to characterise the area as a place for burial, on account of the presence of the cairns, would be to fail to acknowledge that just as many Neolithic burials are known from the gravel terraces, and Neolithic cairns are also known to occur in the Cheviot Hills (Gates 1982) and therefore people were being buried across all parts of this landscape at that time. Therefore, the presence of rock-art on the edge of the agricultural and settled landscape appears to be associated with something unique to the sandstone escarpment. If they were associated with herding and/or hunting (see Waddington 1996 for an earlier idea), thisArchaeopress could perhaps explain why carved rocksOpen are found on Access the fringe of the Neolithic settlement foci. The final staging post of this review of rock-art is the recognition that the multiple contexts of deployment in which rock-art is found can be seen to have a chronological basis (see Waddington 1998). As cup, and cup-and-ring, marked slabs that are found in the earliest ceremonial monuments are weathered and have clearly been quarried from outcrop rock contexts before their inclusion in the monument (e.g. Dalladies and probably Long Meg herself), the inevitable conclusion is that the earliest context of deployment was on outcropping bedrock which, on the basis of the terminus post quem provided by the monument’s construction, means the original inscribing of the earliest outcrops must date to the 4th millennium cal. BC, or possibly even earlier. The next phase of use is characterised by their inclusion in a wide range of Neolithic ceremonial monuments such as cairns, stone circles and so

59 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. CLIVE WADDINGTON

Figure 7. The excavated outcrop at Hunterheugh Crag where a carved outcrop had been quarried away and new carvings inscribed on to the quarried surface (scale = 1m).

forth during the later 4th and 3rd millennia cal. BC, and it is likely that the inscribing of outcrop rocks continued throughout this period. However, by the Early Bronze Age, around 2000 cal. BC, cup-and- ring marked rocks are found exclusively in burial cairns re-used, or specially made, as capstones, cist slabs, portables and as kerbstones. Carved outcrop panels were broken up and slabs, probably for cist covers, removed (e.g. Bradley 1997, 138-146), while in other cases cairns were built on top of carved outcrops (Beckensall 1999, 130-136) and at the recently excavated site at Hunterheugh new, but somewhat crude, carvings were made on to the newly quarried surfaces of rock outcrops after earlier carvings had been quarried through during the destruction of the panel (Waddington et al. 2005, 38-41 and Fig. 7). It is this period of quarrying carved outcrops and cairn building, that appears to be associated with BeakerArchaeopress burials, that marks the end of the cup-and-ringOpen tradition. Access Whether or not there was a hiatus between the carving of outcrop rocks and their subsequent treatment in the Early Bronze Age is not known but this is an important issue that requires further investigation. However, the key point to be made is that a chronological distinction can be observed between the different contexts of deployment in which cup-and-ring marks are found.

Where do we go from here?

Rock-art studies are currently in a strong position with the AHRC, English Heritage, Historic Scotland, RCAHMS, Universities and learned and local societies supporting research, recording and

60 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. NEOLITHIC ROCK-ART IN THE BRITISH ISLES: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT dissemination. There is a wealth of interest and expertise in the amateur sector and a growing community of professional archaeologists specialising in British rock-art. It is therefore timely that the principal avenues for future research are mapped out to assist with maintaining the momentum of rock-art studies. A primary concern must be the continuation of work that looks into the dating and phasing of rock-art sites. In the cases where rock-art is found with potentially datable associations, either because it underlies a datable structure, or it is preceded by an earlier structure, then attempts must be made to understand the date and phasing of individual rock-art sites. This said, we must be discerning in the type of structural associations that we investigate as for example, a stone-founded Iron Age or Romano-British overlying a rock-art panel does not necessarily tell us anything new, whereas the positioning of an enclosure around a rock-art panel that has the potential to be dated would potentially be of much greater interest. Only when we have a clear understanding from a significant number of sites will we be able to refine our understanding of the chronology and phasing of rock-art sites. The contextual approach to rock-art has opened up new lines of enquiry and is well suited to the study of what are ostensibly symbolic traditions. Study of rock-art deployment in relation to a variety of contexts holds the potential for discovering so far unrecognised patterning. In particular, landscape location, choice of design elements, accessibility, archaeological associations, and linkages with other expressions of style and design in contemporary material culture provide useful contexts through which to view rock-art. Understanding the environmental setting of rock-art sites is a key challenge for future studies. This can not be achieved through reference to regional pollen studies alone, but must rather be linked to detailed studies where sediment traps that have local pollen rain catchments are located in the immediate environs of carved outcrops and which have date ranges that span the late through to the Early Bronze Age. As many carved outcrop clusters occur in upland locations there are many situations where carved rocks can be found close to small mire sites, peat beds and pools that have the potential to provide detailed local sequences. With high resolution dating of such sediment cores it will become possible to investigate in more detail the issues surrounding the type of environment marked rocks were carved in, and to underpin any attempts to reconstruct how carved rocks were experienced. Until recently Neolithic art has remained somewhat isolated from mainstream Neolithic studies and there is a real need to integrate the study and interpretation of rock-art into synthetic works and narratives. Indeed the whole issue of art and aesthetics during the Neolithic is a rather neglected area of study and has rarelyArchaeopress been considered from a broad perspective, Open notwithstanding Access the recent work by Lewis-Williams and Pearce (2005), Evans (2004) and papers in volume 33 (2001) of ‘World Archaeology’. Certainly there is a need to link rock-art to other expressions of aesthetics, form, style and decoration in contemporary Neolithic material culture. The concern with roundness, concentricity and the curvilinear is evidently a feature of monuments, pottery, lithics and decoration, but likewise the rectangular and the straight can be found in building forms, cairn construction and later forms of pottery and flintwork. The complexities and nuances of Neolithic material culture, and its changing character throughout this period, needs to be reviewed and evaluated in relation to rock-art and its changing contexts of deployment. A grand study such as this has the potential to provide a host of insights that will assist in linking consideration of art and aesthetics into the more usual studies of monument type, settlement, subsistence, enclosure, burial practice and ideology.

61 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. CLIVE WADDINGTON

Understanding how people experienced rock-art sites is both an interesting and potentially informative avenue of research and important work has been carried out at passage grave sites to explore how art was positioned and experienced at specific points within the monument (e.g. Bradley 1989; Thomas 1992; Lewis-Williams and Dowson 1993; Nash this volume). There has been very little work of this type applied to cup-and-ring art though (the recent work by Evans 2004 and by Winterbottom and Long 2006 being exceptions), and yet potential also exists here to undertake phenomenological appraisals of how art was experienced at different sites. Studies of sound, light and the effect of running water on surfaces all have the potential to reveal as yet unrecognised aspects of how people in the past experienced rock-art. However, such studies can only be undertaken on a site by site basis and would ideally be assisted by the results from excavations around the carved panels to see if there are any archaeological deposits that may light on the types of activities that took place there. Information of this kind is essential as the practices undertaken at, or near to, these sites would have been central to framing the way people experienced, and interacted with, the rock-art.

The fieldwork agenda

The latest avenue of rock-art research that is now being pursued is that of investigative fieldwork at sites in England (Waddington et al. 2005) (Fig. 8), Scotland (Andy Jones pers. comm.), Ireland (O’Connor 2003) and the Isle of Man (Darvill and O’Connor 2005). Although not all of this fieldwork has yet been published it has demonstrated the potential for targeted fieldwork to reveal archaeological deposits and relationships at cup-and-ring rock-art sites. Datable deposits have been discovered in some instances and interesting new relationships with later archaeology observed. Small finds include lithics and pottery implying that carved panels form parts of more complex sites where human activities other than just the inscribing of rocks took place. There is immense scope for investigating rock-art sites and it is only by thorough programmes of targeted work that further light will be shed on the activities that took place at these sites, and associated archaeological deposits dated. In addition to excavation other techniques can be applied to understand prehistoric activity in the immediate environs of these sites. Geophysical survey, geochemical survey and fieldwalking can all be used to study the landscapes immediately surrounding rock-art sites. Not all these techniques can be used appropriately at all sites, but at those that lend themselves to such analyses characterising behaviour around such sites may be achievable. Fieldwork, though, must include provision for improving understanding of how best to conserve rock-art sites (O’ConnorArchaeopress 2003; Darvill and O’Connor 2005) Open. It is our responsibility Access to grasp in more detail the mechanisms of erosion, how it can be inhibited and the best ways to manage rock-art sites for the future. Preliminary studies have taken place in the UK (e.g. Barnett et al. 2005), but a more concerted effort is required from the rock-art community as a whole to ensure the long term care of the many sites that exist. Recent dialogue with the Scandinavian rock-art community, organised by English Heritage, Historic Scotland and the Northumberland and Durham Rock-art Project by way of a meeting and fieldtrip in 2006, has started the ball rolling in terms of sharing know-how and experiences that are undoubtedly more developed in Scandinavia, although some preliminary studies have been undertaken in Britain (e.g. Barnett and Díaz-Andreu 2005). A guide to good practice would be the logical outcome of conservation-directed research. Linked to the issue of conservation is that of interpretation and the ways in which rock-art sites can be selectively presented to the public. This is an

62 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. NEOLITHIC ROCK-ART IN THE BRITISH ISLES: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

Figure 8. Excavations underway at a cup-and-ring marked outcrop at Hunterheugh, Northumberland. increasingly important area of concern as there is huge public interest in rock-art and yet often very little to inform people at the most frequently visited sites, certainly in England. This results in further erosion of the carvings due to people not realising the consequences of their actions, and disappointment on behalf of the visitor due to the lack of information that could bring the site to life. The extent of interpretation, avoidance of ‘urbanising’ the experience of a remote site, and the nature of interpretive content all require careful research and discussion, and this provides one of the most important challengesArchaeopress for future on-site work and management. Open This said, Access the role of the world wide web in providing readily accessible off-site interpretation and information is only just beginning to be tapped as can be seen for example with the success of the Northumberland Rock-art web site (http://rockart.ncl.ac.uk/; Mazel 2005a).

In conclusion

One of the critical choices that affects how new research into British prehistoric rock-art is conducted is the scale at which the analysis is pitched. At a national level there is a need to identify broad patterns and examine in detail key sites that can shed light on the broader issues. Likewise palaeoenvironmental

63 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. CLIVE WADDINGTON studies at key sites are also needed in different parts of the country. Still at the national level, we need to compare British rock-art with its European neighbours including particularly that of the Atlantic façade, Canary Islands, Scandinavia, the Alps and the Mediterranean if we are to gain an understanding of British Neolithic and Early Bronze Age art in relation to the wider cultural milieu of the time. Attention not only needs to be focused on the commonalities between regions but also the uniqueness of rock-art in different areas, such as the absence of figurative art in the Neolithic rock-art repertoire of the British Isles. At a regional level there is a need to carry out intra and inter-regional studies to help identify regional patterning and/or areas of similarity. This can only be achieved through detailed landscape studies in the rock-art-rich areas. This would require concerted fieldwork programmes and mapping in areas such as the Kilmartin Valley, the various Northumbrian foci and Rombald’s Moor as obvious starting points. At the site level there is now the need to understand the detail of individual site biographies and the way they were used and re-used over time. This can only be achieved through careful recording and examination of individual panels and by open area excavation to delimit the original extent of the carvings and the exposed bedrock, as well as any phasing, dating or other archaeological associations. Armed with detailed site-based histories we will then be able to build up regional and national pictures. This is an exciting time for rock-art research across the British Isles and it is hoped that the hard won momentum that has now been achieved can be pushed forward to the benefit of academic research and public enjoyment.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to George Nash for inviting me to give a review of Neolithic rock-art in Britain at a British Rock-art Group conference in Bristol (2006) as it formed the nucleus of this paper. I would also like to record my thanks to Blaise Vyner, Jonathan Last, George Nash, Richard Bradley and Aron Mazel for commenting on this paper and helpful suggestions and to Blaze O’Connor for pointing me in the direction of additional rock-art publications. I am indebted to Alan Saville who kindly provided me with the photograph of the Dalladies cupmarked rock and for permission from the National Museums of Scotland to reproduce this image. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are entirely my own, though I hope to have reflected fairly the opinions and work of others.

Archaeopress Open Access References

Armitt, I. 1988. Excavations at Loch Olabhat, North Uist, 1988. Third Interim Report. Department of Archaeology: University of Edinburgh. Project Paper 10. Armitt, I. 1992. The Hebridean Neolithic. In N. Sharples and A. Sheridan (eds.) Vessels For The Ancestors. Essays on the Neolithic of Britain and Ireland. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press: 307-321. Barnett, T., Chalmers, A. Chalmers, Diaz-Andreu, M., Longhurst, P., Ellis, G., Sharpe, K. and Trinks, I. 2005. 3D laser scanning for recording and monitoring erosion. International Newsletter on Rock Art 41: 25-29.

64 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. NEOLITHIC ROCK-ART IN THE BRITISH ISLES: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

Barnett, T. and Díaz Andreu , M. 2005. Knowledge capture and transfer in rock art studies. Results of a questionnaire on rock art decay in Britain. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 7(1): 35-48. Barnatt, J. and P. Reeder. 1982. Prtehistoric rock art in the Peak District. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 102: 33-44. Bayley, D. and N. Roycroft. 2003. discovered in souterrain. Archaeology Ireland 17 No. 3 Issue No.65: 4-4. Beckensall, S. 1983. Northumberland’s Prehistoric Rock Carvings. Rothbury, Northumberland. Beckensall, S. 1992. Cumbrian Prehistoric Rock Art. Symbols, Monuments and landscape. Hexham, Northumberland. Beckensall, S. 1999. British Prehistoric Rock Art. Stroud, Tempus. Beckensall, S. 2001. Prehistoric Rock Art in Northumberland. Stroud, Tempus. Beckensall, S. 2002a. Prehistoric Rock Art in Cumbria. Landscapes and Monuments. Stroud, Tempus. Beckensall, S. 2002b. British prehistoric rock-art in the landscape. In Nash, G. and Chippindale, C. 2002. European Landscapes of Rock Art. London, Routledge: 39-70. Beckensall, S. and Fordsham, P. 1998. Questions of chronology: the case for Bronze Age rock art in northern England. Northern Archaeology 15/16: 51- 69. Beckensall, S. and T. Laurie. 1998. Prehistoric Rock Art of County Durham, Swaledale and Wensleydale. Durham, County Durham Books. Boughey, K.J.S. and E.A. Vickerman. 2003. Prehistoric Rock Art of the West Riding. Cup-and-ring marked rocks of the valleys of the Aire, Wharfe, Washburn and Nidd. Leeds, West Yorkshire Archaeology Service. Bradley, R. 1989. Deaths and Entrances: A Contextual Analysis of Megalithic Art. Current Anthropology 30: 68-76. Bradley, R. 1991. Rock art and the perception of landscape. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1: 77- 101. Bradley, R. 1993. Altering the Earth. The origins of Monuments in Britain and Continental Europe. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Bradley, R. 1996. Learning from Places - Topographical Analysis of Northern British Rock Art. Northern Archaeology 13/14: 87-99. Bradley, R. 1997. Rock Art and the of Atlantic Europe. Signing the Land. London: Routeledge. Bradley, R.,J. Harding, S. Rippon and M. Mathews. 1993. A Field Method for Investigating the Distribution of Rock Art. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 12(2): 129-143. Brown, P.M. and ArchaeopressChappell, G. 2005. Prehistoric Rock Art inOpen the North York AccessMoors. Stroud, Tempus. Burgess, C. 1990. The Chronology of Cup-and-ring Marks in Britain and Ireland. Northern Archaeology 10: 21-26. Darvill, T. and O’Connor, B. 2005. The Crook yn How stone and the rock art of the Isle of Man. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71: 283-331. Darvill, T. and Wainwright, G. 2003. A cupmarked stone from Dan-y-garn, Mynachlog-Dhu, , and the prehistoric rock art from Wales. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69: 253-264. Davis, G. and J. Turner. 1979. Pollen Diagrams From Northumberland. New Phytologist 82: 783-804. Dronfield, J. 1995a. Subjective vision and the source of Irish megalithic art. Antiquity 69: 539-49.

65 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. CLIVE WADDINGTON

Dronfield, J. 1995b. Migraine, light and hallucinations: the neurocognitive basis of Irish megalithic art. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 14(3): 261-276. Evans, E. 2004. Archaeology from Art. Exploring the Interpretive Potential of British and Irish Neolithic Art. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 363. Evans, E. and Dowson, T.A. 2004. Rock art, identity and death in the Early Bronze Age of Ireland and Britain. In Cummings, V. and Fowler, C. (eds.) The Neolithic of the Irish Sea. Materiality and traditions of practice. Oxford, Oxbow Books: 103-112. Gaffney, V., Z. Stancic, and H. Watson. 1995. Moving from catchments to cognition: tentative steps towards a larger archaeological context. Scottish Archaeological Review 9/10: 41-64. Gates, T. 1982. A Long Cairn on Dod Hill, Iderton, Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana 5th ser. 10: 210-211. Guilbert, G., D. Garton and D. Walters. 2006. Prehistoric cup-and-ring art at the heart of Harthill Moor. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 126: 12-30. Haddingham, E. 1974. Ancient Carvings in Britain: a Mystery. London, Garnstone Press. Ilkley Archaeological Group. 1986. The Carved Rocks on Rombalds Moor. A Gazeteer of Prehistoric Rock Carvings on Rombalds Moor West Yorkshire. Wakefield, Wakefield Metropolitan Council. Jobey, G. 1968. Excavations of Cairns at Chatton Sandyford, Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana 4th series, 46: 5-50. Johnston, S. 1989. Prehistoric Irish : their analysis and interpretation in anthropological context. Ann Arbor, University Microfilms. Johnston, S. 1991. Distributional aspects of prehistoric Irish petroglyphs. In P. Bahn (ed.) Rock Art and Prehistory. Oxford, Oxbow: Johnston, S.A. 1993. The relationship between prehistoric Irish rock art and Irish passage tomb art. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 12(3): 257-279. Lewis, H., C. French and M. Green. 2000. A decorated from Knowlton henges, Dorset, England. Past (The newsletter of the Prehistoric Society) 35: 1-3. Lewis-Williams, J.D. and Dowson, T.A. 1993. On vision and power in the Neolithic: evidence from the decorated monuments. Current Anthropology 34: 55-65. Lewis-Williams, D. and Pearce, D. 2005. Inside the Neolithic Mind. London, Thames and Hudson. Mackie, E.W. and Davis, A. 1989. New light on Neolithic rock carving. The petroglyphs at Greenland (Auchentorlie), Dunbartonshire. Glasgow Archaeological Journal 15: 125-155. MacWhite, E. 1946. A new view on Irish Bronze Age rock-scribings. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 76: 59-80. Mazel, A.D. 2005a.Archaeopress Virtual access to the Beckensall Northumberland Open rock Access art archive. International Newsletter on Rock Art 42: 24-27. Mazel, A.D. 2005b. Northumberland Rock Art. British Archaeology 82: 21. Mazel, A.D. 2005c. http://rockart.ncl.ac.uk. Archaeology in Northumberland 15: 48-49. Morris, R. 1977. The Prehistoric Rock Art of Argyll. Poole, Dorset. Morris, R. 1979. The Prehistoric Rock Art of Galloway and the Isle of Man. Poole, Dorset. Morris, R. 1981. The Prehistoric Rock Art of South Scotland. Oxford. Morris, R. 1989. The prehistoric rock art of Great Britain: A survey of all sites bearing motifs more complex than single cup marks. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 55: 45-88.

66 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. NEOLITHIC ROCK-ART IN THE BRITISH ISLES: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

Nash, G. 2006. Cup-and-ring on the Neolithic chambered burial monument of Garn Turne, Pembrokeshire, SW Wales. Rock Art Research 2006 (2): 1-8. Nash, G. and Chippindale, C. 2002. European Landscapes of Rock Art. London, Routledge. O’Connor, B. 2003. Recent excavations in a rock art landscape. Archaeology Ireland 17 (4): 14-16. O’Sullivan, M. 1986. Approaches to passage tomb art. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 116: 68-83. Piggott, S. 1956. Excavations in passage graves and ring cairns of the Clava group, 1952-1953. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 88: 173-207. Piggott, S. 1972. Excavation of the Dalladies , Fettercairn, Kincardineshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 104: 23-47. Piggott, S. 1973. The Dalladies long barrow: NE Scotland. Antiquity 47: 32-36. Piggott, S. and Powell, T.G.E. 1949. The excavation of three Neolithic chambered tombs in Galloway, 1949. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 83: 103 – 161. Purcell, A. 2002. The rock-art landscape of the Iveragh Peninsula, County Kerry, south-west Ireland. In Nash, G. and Chippindale, C. (eds.) European Landscapes of Rock Art. London: Routledge, 71-92. RAPP, 2000. Rock Art Pilot Project: Proposals. Bournemouth and London. Bournemouth University School of Conservation Sciences and University College London Institute of Archaeology for English Heritage (Limited circulation printed report). RCAHMS. 1999. Kilmartin. Prehistoric and Early Historic Monuments. Edinburgh, RCAHMS. Scarre, C. Arias, P., Burenhult, G., Fano, M., Oosterbeek, L., Schulting, R., Sheridan, A. and Whittle, A. 2003. Megalithic Chronologies. In Buenhult, G. (ed.) Stones and Bones. Formal disposal of the dead in Atlantic Europe during the Mesolithic-Neolithic interface 6000-3000 BC. BAR International Series 1201: 65-111. Shee Twoig, E. A. 1981. The Megalithic Art of . Oxford. Shee Twoig, E. 1988. The Rock Carvings at Roughting Linn, Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana 5th ser. 16: 37-46. Sheridan, A. 2003. Ireland’s earliest ‘passage’ tombs: a French connection? In Buenhult, G. (ed.) Stones and Bones. Formal disposal of the dead in Atlantic Europe during the Mesolithic-Neolithic interface 6000-3000 BC. BAR International Series 1201: 9-25. Simpson, J.Y. 1865. On Ancient Sculpturings of Cups and Concentric Rings. Edinburgh. Simpson, D.D.A. and J. Thawley 1972. Single Grave Art in Britain. Scottish Archaeological Forum 4: 81- 104. Stanley, J. 1954. at Ball Cross Farm, Bakewell. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 74: 85-99. Thomas, J. 1992.Archaeopress Monuments, movement and the context Open of megalithic Accessart. In N. Sharples and A. Sheridan (eds.) Vessels for the Ancestors. Essays on the Neolithic of Britain and Ireland. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press: 143-155. Tipping, R. 1992. The Determination of Cause in the Creation of Major Prehistoric Valley Fills in the Cheviot Hills, Anglo-Scottish Border. In S. Needham and M. C. Macklin (eds.) Alluvial Archaeology in Britain. Oxford, Oxbow: 111-121. Tipping, R. 1996. The Neolithic Landscapes of the Cheviot Hills and Hinterland: Palaeoenvironmental Research. Northern Archaeology 13/14: 17-33. van Hoek, M. 1982. The Carved Rocks Near Wooler. Oisterwijk, van Hoek.

67 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007 Art as Metaphor: The Prehistoric Rock-Art of Britain edited by Aron Mazel, George Nash and Clive Waddington, Archaeopress 2007, pages 49-68. CLIVE WADDINGTON van Hoek, M. 1991. The Rock Art at Millstone Burn, Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana 5th series 19: 7-16. van Hoek, A.M. 1994. The Spiral in British and Irish Neolithic Rock Art. Glasgow Archaeological Journal 18: 11-32. van Hoek, M. 2001. The Geography of Cup-and-ring Art in Europe. Warmsroth, StoneWatch. Vyner, B.E. 1984. The excavation of a Neolithic cairn at Street House, Loftus, Cleveland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50: 151-195. Vyner, B.E. 1988. The hill-fort at Eston Nab, Eston, Cleveland. Archaeoogical Journal 145, 60-98. Waddington, C. 1998. Cup-and-ring marks in context. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8(1): 29-54. Waddington, C. 1999. A Landscape Archaeological Study of the Mesolithic-Neolithic in the Milfield Basin, Northumberland. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 291. Waddington, C. 2007. Cup-and-rings and passage grave art: insular and imported traditions? In C. Burgess, P. Topping and F. Lynch (eds.) Beyond . Essays on the Bronze Age in Honour of Colin Burgess: 11-19. Waddington, C., J. Godfrey, and J. Bell. 1998. A chambered tomb on Dour Hill, Northumberland. A detailed survey and re-assessment of the Dour Hill ‘long cairn’. Archaeologia Aeliana 5th ser. 26: 1- 15. Waddington, C., B. Johnson and A. Mazel. 2005. Excavation of a rock art site at Hunterheugh Crag, Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana 5th ser 34: 29-54. Winterbottom, S. and Long, D. 2006. From abstract digital models to rich virtual environments: landscape contexts in Kilmartin Glen, Scotland. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 1-12.

Archaeopress Open Access

68 Copyright Archaeopress and the authors 2007

Top View