Rock Art, Semiotics and Meaning of

  • Álvaro Rodrigo MartelEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_2831-1

Introduction

The problem of the meaning of past societies’ material culture has been one of the main concerns of archaeology since its origins as a scientific discipline. Such interest in the meaning of things led archaeologists to make the first classifications, which were based primarily on utilitarian criteria. In this way, it was possible to differentiate between those objects with some functional meaning (an arrow, a pot, a plough, etc.) from those whose meaning was less obvious or could not be assigned a specific function, these were associated with the ambiguous sphere of the symbolic (a lithic statuette, a decorated rib, the ochre scattered on a buried body, etc.). Within this last group, rock art was – and still is – one of the cultural productions that has received most attention from researchers, precisely because of the difficulties involved in accessing its meanings. Even in ethnographic cases, where there was the possibility of working with aboriginal communities that...

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

References

  1. Ambrosino, Gordon. 2017. Rock art, ancestors and water: The semiotic construction of landscapes in the Central Andes. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Universidad de Los Andes, Colombia. https://www.academia.edu/35713000/Rock_Art_Ancestors_and_Water_The_semiotic_construction_of_landscapes_in_the_central_Andes. Accessed 3 May 2019.
  2. Bouissac, Paul. 2006. Probing prehistoric cultures: Data, dates and narratives. Rock Art Research 23: 89–96.Google Scholar
  3. Bouissac, Paul. 2009. The prehistory of scripts. Semioticon Virtual Symposia. https://semioticon.com/virtuals/arch_behaviour/bouissac_1.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2019.
  4. Cabak Rédei, Anna, Peter Skoglund, and Tomas Persson. 2018. Applying cartosemiotics to rock art: An example from Aspeberget, Sweden. Social Semiotics.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2018.1488338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Giraudo, Silvia E., and Álvaro R. Martel. 2015. Memory, identity, power: A semiotic approach to the social construction of meaning in rock art. Chinese Semiotic Studies 11 (4): 479–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hodder, Ian. 2012. Entangled. An archaeology of the relationships between human and things. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kechagia, Hermione. 1995. The row and the circle: Semiotic perspective of visual thinking. Rock Art Research 12 (2): 109–116.Google Scholar
  8. Kull, Kalevi, and Ekaterina Velmezova. 2014. What is the main challenge for contemporary semiotics? Sign Systems Studies 42 (4): 530–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Laming-Emperaire, Anette. 1962. La signification de l’art rupestre palèolithique. Paris: A. & J. Picard & Co.Google Scholar
  10. Leroi-Gourhan, André. 1968. The art of prehistoric man in western Europe. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  11. Lindström, Kati, Kalevi Kull, and Hannes Palang. 2014. Landscape semiotics: Contribution to culture theory. In Estonian approaches to culture theory, ed. V. Lang and K. Kull, 110–132. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
  12. Moragón Martínez, Lucía. 2007. Estructuralismo y post-estructuralismo en Arqueología. ArqueoWeb 9 (1): 1–52. https://webs.ucm.es/info/arqueoweb/pdf/9-1/moragon.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2019.Google Scholar
  13. Preucel, Robert. 2006. Archaeological semiotics. Malden: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Preucel, Robert, and Alexander Bauer. 2001. Archaeological pragmatics. Norwegian Archaeological Review 34 (2): 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Renfrew, Colin. 2004. Towards a theory of material engagement. In Rethinking materiality: The engagement of mind with the material world, ed. E. De Marrais, C. Gosden, and C. Renfrew, 23–31. Cambridge: McDonald Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Sanz Domingo, Inés, Sally K. May, and Claire Smith 2017. Etnoarqueología y arte rupestre en el siglo XXI: De la analogía directa a la redefinición del método arqueológico. Kobie Serie Anejo 16: 163–180.Google Scholar
  17. Sauvet, Georges. 1988. La communication graphique paléolitique. L’Anthropologie 92 (1): 3–16.Google Scholar
  18. Troncoso, Andrés. 2007. Arte rupestre en la cuenca del Río Aconcagua: Formas, sintaxis, estilo, espacio y poder. TAPA 39: 9–242.Google Scholar
  19. Troncoso, Andrés. 2008. Spatial syntax of rock art. Rock Art Research 25 (1): 3–11.Google Scholar
  20. Vogt, David. 2014. Silence of signs – Power of symbols: Rock art, landscape and social semiotics. In Rock art and sacred places, ed. D.L. Gillette et al., 25–47. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Gell, Alfred. 1998. Art and agency: An anthropological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Keane, Webb. 2003. Semiotics and the social analysis of material things. Language & Communication 23: 409–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Knappett, Carl. 2005. Thinking through material culture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lele, Veerendra. 2006. Material habits, identity, semeiotic. Journal of Social Archaeology 6 (1): 48–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Llamazares, Ana María. 1991. A semiotic approach in rock-art analysis. In The meaning of things, ed. I. Hodder, 242–248. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  6. Magariños de Morentín, Juan. 2008. Semiótica de los bordes. Córdoba: Comunicarte.Google Scholar
  7. Martel, Álvaro, and Silvia Giraudo. 2014. Semiótica de la imagen en Arqueología: El caso de los “escutiformes”. Revista Chilena de Antropología Visual 24: 21–45.Google Scholar
  8. Morales-Campos, Arturo. 2018. Análisis semiótico-cognoscitivo del arte rupestre de La Pasiega. La Colmena 100: 81–91.Google Scholar
  9. Wyndham, Felice S. 2011. The semiotics of powerful places: Rock art and landscape relations in the Sierra Tarahumara, México. Journal of Anthropological Research 67 (3): 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Arqueología y MuseoUniversidad Nacional de TucumánSan Miguel de TucumánArgentina
  2. 2.Instituto Superior de Estudios Sociales (ISES)CONICETSan Miguel de TucumánArgentina

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