Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/170955
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDomingo, Inés-
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Claire-
dc.contributor.authorJackson, Gary-
dc.contributor.authorRoman, Didac-
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-02T12:39:12Z-
dc.date.issued2020-07-14-
dc.identifier.issn1072-5369-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2445/170955-
dc.description.abstractUsing 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.-
dc.format.extent24 p.-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherSpringer Verlag-
dc.relation.isformatofReproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-020-09465-8-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2020, vol. 27, p. 699-722-
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-020-09465-8-
dc.rightscc by (c) Domingo et al., 2020-
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/-
dc.sourceArticles publicats en revistes (Història i Arqueologia)-
dc.subject.classificationAccés obert-
dc.subject.classificationEtnoarqueologia-
dc.subject.classificationSemiòtica-
dc.subject.otherOpen access publishing-
dc.subject.otherEthnoarchaeology-
dc.subject.otherSemiotics-
dc.titleHidden sites, hidden images, hidden meanings: does the location and visibility of motifs and sites correlate to restricted or open access?-
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article-
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion-
dc.identifier.idgrec703317-
dc.date.updated2020-10-02T12:39:12Z-
dc.relation.projectIDinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/819404/EU//LArcHer-
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess-
Appears in Collections:Articles publicats en revistes (Història i Arqueologia)
Articles publicats en revistes (Institut d’Arqueologia de la Universitat de Barcelona (IAUB))

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
703317.pdf2.21 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons