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 passage grave 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 Wales, the Isle of Man and South-West England respectively. Their work has provided a large, and typically well-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 technologies such as GIS and virtual reality modeling clearly have an important role to play. Indeed, they have the potential to provide a tool 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 Openview 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. NEOLITHIC 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 arrowhead forms and ceramic styles, while the latest style of angular and geometric passage grave art has been related to Later Neolithic arrowhead forms and Grooved Ware pottery (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.