Rock Art Sites: Management and Conservation

  • Johannes H. N. LoubserEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_2158-2
  • 2 Downloads

Introduction

Concomitant with an increase in site accessibility, digital availability of information, and concern by traditional stakeholders is an increase in the need for explicit management plans, thorough condition assessments, and, whenever necessary, hands-on conservation and maintenance of rock art sites. Significance values concerning rock art sites tend to vary; whereas traditional stakeholders normally value the spiritual aspects of places with rock art, researchers typically look for material samples suitable for physical analysis and dating, and public visitors and tourists mostly look for any destination that they expect to be aesthetically pleasing. Interactions by traditionalists, academics, and the visiting public with the rock surface, albeit in different ways and to different degrees, are adversely affecting the longevity of the rock art. Being fixed to the surrounding terrain on relatively hard and durable material, art on rock constitutes places that tend to survive...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bwasiri, E.J. 2011. The implications of the management of indigenous living heritage: The case study of the Mongomi Wa Kolo rock paintings world heritage site, Central Tanzania. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 66 (193): 60–66.Google Scholar
  2. Corruchaga, J.A.L., and P.F. Monforte. 2006. The new museum of Altamira: Finding solutions to tourist pressure. In Of the past, for the future: Integrating archaeology and conservation, ed. N. Agnew and J. Bridgland, 177–183. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Gale, E., and J. Jacobs. 1986. Identifying high-risk visitors at aboriginal art sites in Australia. Rock Art Research 3 (1): 3–19.Google Scholar
  4. Loubser, J. 2001. Management planning for conservation. In Handbook of rock art research, ed. D.S. Whitley, 80–115. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  5. Sullivan, S. 1993. Conservation policy delivery. In Cultural heritage in Asia and the Pacific: Conservation and policy, ed. M.G.H. MacLean, 15–26. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Trust.Google Scholar
  6. Thorn, A., and C. Dean. 1995. Condition surveys: An essential management strategy. In Management of rock art imagery (occasional AURA publication 9), ed. G.K. Ward, and L.A. Ward, 116–123. Melbourne: Australian Rock Art Research Association.Google Scholar
  7. Zilhāo, J. 1998. The rock art of the Côa Valley, Portugal: Significance, conservation and management. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 2: 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stratum Unlimited, LLCJohns CreekUSA
  2. 2.Rock Art Research Institute at the University of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa

Section editors and affiliations

  • Inés Domingo Sanz
    • 1
  • Danae Fiore
    • 2
  • Ewa Dutkiewicz
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Departament de Prehistòria, Història Antiga i ArqueologiaICREA/Universitat de Barcelona/SERPBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2."CONICET - AIA - UBA Asociación de Investigaciones Antropológicas"Buenos AiresArgentina
  3. 3.Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Stiftung Preußischer KulturbesitzBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Department of Early Prehistory and Quaternary EcologyUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany