The Simulacra and Simulations of Irish Neolithic Passage Tombs

Cochrane, Andrew

doi:10.1007/0-387-32216-7_10

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They can be stimulated by references to other images and they can perform. They do not always just represent -in fact they can create situations whereby they only present with there being nothing behind them -often dissimulating that they have nothing to conceal (see Cochrane 2006). Within such approaches, the image is acknowledged to be autonomous enough to abolish prescribed referents, creating a performance where the image is much more than applied representation.…”

Section: Encountering Imagerymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, oval settings have been found directly in front of the entrances and façades of Knowth Site 1 and Newgrange Site 1, County. Meath (M. Eogan 1996;Cochrane 2006). The mixture of demarcated oval platforms, imagery and quartz is very reminiscent of Knockroe, County Kilkenny (O'Sullivan 1996b:13; Cochrane 2012:185), and Torbhlaren, Argyll, Scotland, where quartz and clay is actively involved in the performance of motif production and reception ( Jones 2012:87).…”

Section: Lusts and Actionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Encountering Imagery: Materialities, Perceptions, Relations

Robb

2014

Norwegian Archaeological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pictorial and visual elements are special types of archaeological data that transgress boundaries; between the past and us and between the material and immaterial. Imagery communicates with the observer in elaborate and often unforeseen ways. What special powers are embedded in the pictorial that seem to hold so much promise and mystery? In what ways can we study how images affect and engage the beholder, and how are images actively entangled in past social worlds? Archaeological approaches to prehistoric images have traditionally circled around representation, symbolism and meaning. By and large this has resulted in a focus on interpretations with contextually inferred meanings set within hermeneutic, phenomenological or evolutionary frameworks. In recent years, however, other ways of exploring imagery have been discussed within cultural studies and visual theory (e.g. Mitchell 1996; Evans & Hall 1999; Rose 2001;O'Sullivan 2005). Common themes are the multi-sensuous aspects of the imagery that involve issues of materiality and aesthesis, emphasizing that in many cases images evolve into something with qualities of their own. Within anthropology and archaeology, in contrast, there are discussions of the possible agency of art and the pictorial (e,g, Gell 1998; Knappett 2002). Indeed, both objects and imagery are entangled in the social. Nonetheless, despite the power that past imagery seems to have over our minds in the present day, the study of past imagery is still theoretically and methodologically underdeveloped in archaeology (e.g. Hamilton et al. 1996:281-307;Aldhouse-Green 2004; Cochrane & Russel 2007). We need to elaborate on the different roles that the images may have in the social. That is, how can imagery work as actants and initiate or evoke thoughts and actions that are not originally intended, and how can it result in new, unintended and unforeseen consequences? There are a great number of approaches and elaborate theories on how to understand the pictorial in the social and humanist sciences. In 1 2 Encountering Imagery this introduction, we discuss a few that we believe have the greatest potential for archaeological studies. In this volume, we aim to engage with these issues and highlight the manifold, and hitherto less employed, methodological and theoretical ways in which imagery may be understood. Art and imageryIn traditional Art History images are generally assumed to have a content, something that needs to be decoded or unlocked (Cornell & Fahlander 2002:74). One typical example in this tradition is Panofsky's study of art as iconography (the identification, description and the interpretation of the content of images) and iconology (the analysis of the meaning of that content). Despite quite substantial criticism (e.g. Kubler 1962:127f; O'Sullivan 2005:15) iconological approaches in archaeology are generally concerned with questions of identifying what the imagery is supposed to represent, and in the second stage, to interpret how such an image may fit into a cultural cosmology or ideolo...

show abstract

Section: Encountering Imagerymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lusts and Actionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Encountering Imagery: Materialities, Perceptions, Relations

Robb

2014

Norwegian Archaeological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet, they do not always just represent -in fact they can create situations whereby they only present with there being nothing behind them -often (to be playful?) they dissimulate that there is nothing to conceal (see Cochrane 2006). Within such approaches, the image is acknowledged to be sophisticated and autonomous enough to abolish prescribed referents and replace it with itself, creating a performance where the image is much more than applied representation.…”

Section: Andrew Cochrane Chapter 12mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To move beyond these perennial occurrences has been one of the aims of this paper. passage tombs were probably more sites of creation than curation -fluid rather than stable -adaptations in performance with folds with eddies (Cochrane 2006;Van Saaze 2009;. motifs are therefore events in their own right and not subservient to an invisible immutable symbolic original -that is located just out there -or over there, or behind and below.…”

Section: Being Composedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Composing the Neolithic at Knockroe

Cochrane¹

2012

Visualising the Neolithic

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…;Cochrane 2006; Robin 2009; Eogan & Shee Twohig 2022). The curvilinear designs are best known in the Boyne Valley and are quite different from those in the open-air rock art of other regions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Long Distance Connections Within Britain and Ireland: the Evidence of Insular Rock Art

BRADLEY

2023

Proc. Prehist. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discussions of contacts between Britain and Ireland usually focus on monuments and on portable artefacts such as Grooved Ware, Beakers, and metalwork. New research on insular rock art suggests that it originated in the Middle to Late Neolithic period and continued to be used and re-used into the Early Bronze Age. This paper considers its relationship with decorated passage graves and other structures. It argues that the distribution of rock art sheds further light on connections between these islands. Estuaries, bays, and landing places were important, but the siting of pecked motifs indicates other links along three overland routes between the North Sea and the Irish Sea. Certain practices were shared between megalithic tombs and recently excavated rock carvings. It is possible that they expressed similar beliefs at a time when long distance travel was important.

show abstract

The Simulacra and Simulations of Irish Neolithic Passage Tombs

Cited by 5 publications

References 26 publications

Encountering Imagery: Materialities, Perceptions, Relations

Encountering Imagery: Materialities, Perceptions, Relations

Composing the Neolithic at Knockroe

Long Distance Connections Within Britain and Ireland: the Evidence of Insular Rock Art

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About