Hidden Sites, Hidden Images, Hidden Meanings: Does the Location and Visibility of Motifsand Sites Correlate to Restricted or Open Access?

Abstract

Using an ethnographic approach, this research assesses common assumptions in rock art research in terms of their validity for Aboriginal rock art sites in the Barunga region of the Northern Territory, Australia. In particular, we assess the potential and limits of the commonly held assumption that open or restricted access to sites and/or the meaning of motifs can be assessed by determining the visibility of the site or image within the landscape. This research calls into question some assumptions that are core to contemporary archaeological method and theory. Our results challenge the notion that a secluded location, or difficulty of access, is needed to restrict access to a site. "Hidden" sites do not need to be hidden, as site access is controlled by a plethora of cultural rules. Moreover, sites that appear to be hidden within the landscape may be open access sites, although access may be restricted for periods of time. Conversely, sites that are visible and accessible from a landscape perspective can be subject to restricted access, regulated through social rules. In addition, the results question the notion that the control of secret information in rock art sites is determined by the visibility and location of motifs and sites. Hidden meanings are not necessarily related to hidden locations or the low visibility of the art, since cultures can have many other ways of hiding meaning. Finally, the results of this study challenge the commonly held dichotomy between sacred/restricted access and secular/open access.

Petroglyphs and place: complex histories at four sites in New Britain

“…; cf. Domingo et al., 2020). For example, historic reports about the American invasion of New Britain in the Second World War note that the hill on which Malapapua is situated was surrounded by an almost impassable muddy swamp in the wet season (Nalty, 1994), which suggests that access to the site was naturally controlled at times.…”

Humans Making History through Continuities and Discontinuities in Art

“…It may have involved many people and always been visible to those who approached the site. On the other hand, it may be that custodians once existed to provide the ritual structure that used to limit access to sites (Domingo et al 2020). Under such circumstances, restrictions on access were social rather than physical, but the circumstances of persistence on the rocks give the appearance of different contexts in the present day.…”

“…In general, Levantine art consisted of scenes of people hunting animals, dancing, engaged in ceremony, and fighting, with 'unquestionable graphic evidence of the lack of continuity' in Cataluña (Fullola et al 2015, 167). Despite the occurrence of scenes of hunting, the images were painted by people who probably practised agriculture and pastoralism (Domingo Sanz 2021;López-Montalvo 2018;Villaverde Bonilla 2021) and whether or not there were restrictions on access at the time (Domingo et al 2020), the paintings are now visible. It also seems to be the case that where scenes in Palaeolithic art were representations of static interactions, those of Levantine art had a dynamic element rarely seen earlier in cave and rock art (Villaverde Bonilla 2021).…”

Characterizing the pigments and paints of prehistoric artists

“…Other authors, though, see a more symbolic explanation when ochre is recorded in relation to human skeletal remains (Hovers et al 2003). Interestingly, ethnographic accounts suggest that the boundaries between symbolic and practical domains are often blurred and both can coexist in the same object, tradition or practice (Rosso 2017;Domingo et al 2020). Nevertheless, symbolic uses are usually culturally constructed and archaeologically invisible since they leave behind no empirical evidence, and thus, they are hard to demonstrate.…”