The Landscape Context of Valcamonica/Valtellina Alpine Rock-Art

The Landscape Context of
Valcamonica/Valtellina Alpine Rock-Art
First Year Report
Craig Alexander
Hughes Hall, University of Cambridge
19 May 2006

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
The Landscape Context of Valcamonica/Valtellina Alpine
Rock-Art
Introduction
The rock-art – petroglyphs and statue-menhirs/statue-stelae – of the Alpine valleys of
Valcamonica (see Figures 1 & 2) and Valtellina has long excited antiquarian and
archaeological interest (e.g. Graziosi 1931, Marro, 1930 – referenced in Anati 1994:24 )
and continues to do so today (e.g. Arcà 2005). Common designs include (purported)
maps of fields (see Figure 6 below), daggers (see Figure 4 below), anthropomorphs
(including the well-known oranti (praying/worshipping figures) – Figure 10) and plough
teams (see Figures 7 & 8).
Figure 1 Rock-art in Geographic Context
Source: Anati 1994:8
1

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
Figure 2 – Valcamonica from Il Capitello dei due Pini
Source: Keates 2000:99
Rock-art panels, particularly those exhibiting symbols from multiple periods, are
examples of chronotopes (Bakhtin 1981:84, referenced in Ingold 2000:205-6) – that is,
“place(s) charged with temporality, one(s) in which temporality takes a palpable form”
(Ingold 2000:205). In Ingold’s view (2000), landscape is “congealed” taskscape, and
temporality is the medium of taskscape – hence rock-art constitutes part of the ongoing
process that is landscape. This is not, typically, a perspective that has been adopted in
Alpine rock-art studies to date. Indeed, Bradley has written that most prior studies of
Alpine rock-art “lack an appropriate framework for interpreting it” (1997:8).
I propose to (re)incorporate Alpine rock-art into the landscape context of which it should
be regarded as an inseparable part. This aim will be accomplished through formal
2

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
analyses of the rock-art of a particular area, employing GIS tools in a variety of ways that
focus on human experience – on what Ingold would term “dwelling”.
The Rock-Art
Anati (1964:31-2) identified 12 distinct types of petroglyphs in Valcamonica, largely
rendered on sandstone surfaces, (see Table 1). The surfaces include exposed rock
surfaces (both flat and sloped), fallen boulders and deliberately erected statue-menhirs.
Table 1 – Petroglyph types according to Anati (1964)
o Human figures
o Animals
o Buildings and huts
o Vehicles
o Ploughs
o Looms
o Weapons and tools
o Nets and traps
o Labyrinths
o Feet and hands
o Geometric designs and abstract figures
o Inscriptions and alphabetic characters
3

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
More recent authors (e.g. Arcà 2004, Fossati 2000) have further identified petroglyphs
that they interpret as maps – these were most likely previously subsumed within Anati’s
“Labyrinths” and “Geometric designs and abstract figures” categories.
Examples of some of the more common petroglyph types are provided in Figures 3 to 12.
Where photographs show the petroglyphs adequately I have used them, otherwise I have
used the tracings recorded by, primarily, Anati’s teams. An unfortunate aspect of the
tracings is that they erase the surface topography of the rock, thereby losing (or, one
might say, disguising) information potentially vital to interpretation (see, e.g., Barfield &
Chippindale 1997:113). One can see some of this impact by comparing Figures 3 and 4
and Figures 7 and 8, which represent the same petroglyphs.
Figure 3 – Cemmo, Valcamonica – boulder 1 – animals, Remedello daggers (at upper
right)
Source: Anati 1994:35
4

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
Figure 4 – Cemmo 1 – animals throughout, daggers to right
Source: Keates 2000:95
Figure 5 – Bedolina – “houses” at left, “fields”/”maps” throughout upper half of image
Source: Anati 1964:106-7, edited by the current author
5

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
Figure 6 – Roccia 11, Seradina III – “map” at left, anthropomorphs and geometric
figures to right.
Source: Anati 1975:33
6

Figure 7 – Stela Bagnolo II – plough at
bottom, halberds at top right
Source: Anati 1975:75
First Year Report – Craig Alexander
Figure 9 – Borno menhir – geometric patterns
Source: Anati 1964:68
7
Figure 8 – Stela Bagnolo II – plough at
bottom, halberds at top right
Source: Anati 1975:74

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
Figure 10 – Naquane roccia 50 – Oranti (praying/worshipping anthropomorphs)
Source: Anati 1975:50
8

Figure 11 – Later Iron Age Warrior
Source: Anati 1964:186
First Year Report – Craig Alexander
Figure 12 – Cemmo 3 – anthropomorphs and daggers superposed on animals
Source: Keates 2000:93
9

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
Whilst dating rock-art is notoriously difficult (see, e.g., Taçon & Chippindale 1998:6) the
overall relative chronology of the Alpine forms is fairly widely agreed, although some
disagreements persist, especially between followers of Anati and those of De Marinis.
Dating has largely proceeded through two approaches: superposition and specific
representations. First, it is reasonable to assume that a petroglyph incised over/through
another must be later (see Figure 12 above). (Note, however, that it is not always that
easy to tell which petroglyph cuts which, perhaps especially where weathering has been
severe.) Second, certain of the objects represented (see, e.g., Figure 3 (Remedello
dagger) and Figure 8 (plough, halberds) above) can be dated through independent means,
providing, at worst, a terminus post quem for the representations.
An example of a form that was – until recently, if not still – the object of controversy is
the anthropomorphic form known (in the plural) as oranti. Anati (1994) claims these to
be Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic while Fossati (2002:94) dates the oranti to the Bronze Age
instead. Similarly, the “maps” have been previously claimed as Iron Age (Battaglia
1934, referenced in Fossati 2002:99) and middle Bronze Age (Anati 1966, referenced in
Fossati 2002:99) whereas Fossati (2002) dates them even earlier.
Ignoring relatively infrequent medieval and modern additions, the bulk of the rock-art
dates from later prehistory – between the Late Neolithic and the Iron Age (see Figure 13).
10

Figure 13 – Petroglyphs by Period
Source: Anati 1994:49
Prior Research
First Year Report – Craig Alexander
My proposed research dwells at the confluence of three intellectual streams – landscape
archaeology, rock-art studies and GIS. The volume of prior research in each of these
fields is immense so I will here focus solely on those aspects most directly relevant to my
own concerns.
11

Landscape Archaeology
First Year Report – Craig Alexander
In terms of landscape archaeology, current perspectives commonly focus on the human
experience. For example, Tilley (1994) has considered the experience of monuments in a
phenomenological framework, as has Barrett (1994). Similarly, Ingold (on whose work
Barrett, amongst others, has drawn) has, as noted above, argued for a phenomenological
perspective in which the creation of landscape is ongoing:
“In short, the landscape is the world as it is known to those who dwell
therein, who inhabit its places and journey along the paths connecting
them…. If the body is the form in which a creature is present as a being-in-
the-world, then the world of its being-in presents itself in the form of the
landscape. Like organism and environment, body and landscape are
complementary terms: each implies the other, alternately as figure and
ground.” (Ingold 2000:193)
Brück & Goodman (1999) – in the context of settlement studies – also note that “place” is
the result of cumulative practice, citing Barrett’s work as an example.
Further, Jordan (2003:16-17) extends the logic of Barrett, Ingold et al to argue that
“inhabited cultural landscapes” should, in fact, be considered as part of meaningfully
constituted material culture and studied in that light.
12

Rock-Art Studies
First Year Report – Craig Alexander
Rock-art studies in the Western Alps have, to date, focused primarily on the issues of
chronology (see page 10 above), (changes in) symbolic repertoire (e.g. Anati 1975) and
meaning.
Research has also tended to focus on larger panels with more symbols, a trend that
continues to this day: in the most recently published work on Valcamonica, Arcà (2005)
discusses the Dos Cüi panel which contains about 240 petroglyphs. Given Anati’s (1994)
claim that there are about 200,000 petroglyphs distributed over 2,400 rocks (see Figures
14 and 15) this suggests an average of about 80 petroglyphs per panel. The actual
empirical distribution function of glyphs per panel across Valcamonica does not,
however, appear to be available.
The question of meaning is, naturally, more contentious. Anati (1994) sees the
petroglyphs as quite straightforwardly representational of belief systems, a view strongly
contested by, for example, Bradley who refers to “grandiose interpretations of the
imagery based on the literature of comparative religion” (1997:8) and Chippindale &
Nash, who write that Anati’s approach has “too much faith in unproven social universals”
and “too little respect for the particular course of social change in any place or region.”
(2004:16).
13

Figure 14 – Spatial density of
petroglyphs
Source: Anati 1975:25
First Year Report – Craig Alexander
14
Figure 15 – Petroglyph locations –
Valcamonica/Valtellina
Source: Anati 1994:6

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
Fossati (1993, referenced in Fossati 2002:94) sees some rock-art (the “maps”) as perhaps
a form of visual legitimation of land divisions imposed during agricultural development –
a view that in some ways is echoed, in a different context, by Hartley & Wolley Vawser
(1998) who see certain repeated petroglyphs in the American southwest as markers of
storage facility ownership. In the Mont Bégo context, however, de Lumley (1995,
referenced in Arcà 2004:332-3) sees the topographic engravings as representing
divinities.
Other views have also been advanced: Robb (1994) saw the Later Neolithic and
Chalcolithic rock-art as forming part of emerging strategies of gender inequality. Bevan
(2000) also sees the art in the context of gender differentiation, but takes issue with
Robb’s view of, for example, ploughing as a solely male practice.
Keates (2000) sees the statue-menhirs, in particular, as representing ancestors in the
landscape as part of a broader construction of memory and legitimation of territorial
control. In this, his arguments are somewhat parallel to those advanced by Arcà (2004)
and Fossati (2002).
There seems to have been little – quite possibly no – analysis of Valcamonica in
shamanic terms (e.g. Lewis-Williams 2002), perhaps because almost all the images are
believed to post-date predominantly hunter-gatherer lifeways in the valley. Interestingly,
even though Lewis-Williams (2005) has recently extended his analysis into the Neolithic
of Europe, the Italian Alpine sites warrant not one mention in his index.
15

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
The most sophisticated work to date on meaning appears to be that of Barfield &
Chippindale (1997), who carefully consider patterns visible at Mont Bégo. The authors
establish three principles for analysis: respect for context, focus on common/repeated
rather than rare petroglyphs and employment of only the more robust cross-cultural
analogies. Proceeding in light of these principles they posit that “the dagger (or halberd
as its equivalent) is an icon of the status, the ‘social persona’ of the adult male….the
Bégo rock-engravings (as) a statement of that adult male status” (1997:122). Further,
they argue that the making of the images was probably more important than the finished
product – perhaps forming part of a male initiation rite.
GIS Applications
Research in GIS applications in archaeology has been intense over the last 15 years or so
(e.g. Lock & Stančič 1995, Lock 2000). Of particular interest are analyses of
intervisibility of sites, particularly those that recognize the differences between GIS
“visibility” and human perception (e.g. Wheatley & Gillings 2000, Llobera 2003),
analyses of the tensions between topographic and visual prominence (Llobera 2003) and
analyses of visual exposure (Llobera 2003). While intervisibility analyses are well-
known, it is worth briefly introducing Llobera’s concepts: topographic prominence refers
to a location’s elevation relative to its surroundings while visual prominence is,
essentially, the total viewshed – the number of places from which the location is
intervisible. Combining these two measures of prominence one can identify, for
16

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
example, places that allow one to see much of the landscape but that are not, in
themselves, topographically prominent. The concept of visual exposure attempts to
measure not just whether one can see an object at a given location (as in viewshed
analysis) but how much of the object one can see.
More recently we have seen attempts to incorporate other senses into GIS models,
particularly hearing (Mlekuz 2004). Such emphases on “experiential” aspects of
landscape, together with associated virtual reality (VRML) modelling, are beginning to
bridge the gap that many (e.g. Gillings & Goodrick 1996, Llobera 1996, Wheatley &
Gillings 2000, Wheatley & Gillings 2002) initially felt separated contemporary landscape
archaeologies from GIS modelling. Indeed, Llobera (2001:1006) goes so far as to claim
that such analyses can provide rigorous support to the somewhat impressionistic writings
of, for example, Tilley (1994).
Landscape, Rock-Art & GIS
To date, these three streams of research have seen but limited interaction. Certainly,
Arcà (2004) notes that visibility to/from panels could be important, and notes,
impressionistically, that many sites containing “map” petroglyphs command fine views
over the valley (see Figure 16) but are not especially visible, being on horizontal surfaces.
Similarly, Chippindale & Nash write that:
17

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
“So the pattern of occurrence in those Alpine valleys, as we know it, is an
intricate consequence of where the rock was available for rock-engraving in
prehistoric times, of where the rock surfaces that were used have and have
not been covered over, of where chance observations and systematic surveys
have led to their notice, and of where the effort to clear and expose surfaces
has been made.” (2004:11)
Figure 16 – Rock-art at Vite, Valcamonica – view from panel at left, photograph of panel
at top right and tracing of panel at lower right
Source: Arcà 2004:334
None of these authors has, however, undertaken GIS-based analyses to substantiate their
claims. GIS applications in rock-art archaeology appear to date, to be but four: Gaffney,
18

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
Stančič & Watson (1995), Hartley & Wolley Vawser (1998), Moscrop (2002) and
Robinson (2006). Gaffney et al presented a straightforward intervisibility analysis of
rock-art and other monuments in Kilmartin, Scotland. Hartley & Wolley Vawser’s work
sits firmly in the tradition of cultural ecology and thus outside contemporary British
archaeological practice. Moscrop’s work is similar to Gaffney et al but undertaken in
West Yorkshire. Robinson has used GIS to look at the location of Native American rock-
art relative to human tasks and also at the privileging of viewsheds from the panels.
Research Questions
What, then, was the role of the rock-art of the Western Alps in the process of (re)creating
the landscape, particularly between the Neolithic and Iron Ages? Starting from a
“dwelling” perspective (see page 12 above), we view the landscape as “the congealed
form of taskscape” (Ingold 2000:199). Thus, the landscape is always becoming and is
never at rest. The landscape of the Chalcolithic builds on that of the Neolithic, the
landscape of the Bronze Age on that of the Chalcolithic and so on – until we,
contemporary archaeologists, add the latest, but by no means final, elements to the
landscape.
What does this imply in terms of research questions? In short, it suggests hypotheses
both synchronic and diachronic about the relationships of petroglyph sites and other
landscape elements: topographical, hydrological and anthropogenic.
19

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
Considering first the synchronic hypotheses we can see that, if the petroglyphs form part
of the taskscape (as, for example, Barfield & Chippindale’s work at Mont Bégo argues
that they do) then we might expect some regularities in their deposition within a given
period. Whilst we cannot identify the “hand” of an individual carver and so tell directly
whether multiple people carved at a given site we can look for concentrations of
petroglyphs that can be dated to a given period. Are they at similar altitudes? Are they
near known settlements? Are they on particular soil-types? Does their distribution
coincide with likely activity areas? Do they coincide with expected paths between
settlements (or, more broadly, the valley floor) and higher land? Are the sites
intervisible? Are they interaudible?
Considering, as a specific example, the “maps” – are Arcà and Fossati correct in viewing
the “maps” as reflecting land tenure? If they do, and if the “map” panels are
contemporary, what do they imply about farm-size? Are “map” petroglyph sites
intervisible? Even though Arcà notes that “maps” are found on flat rocks it is still
possible that their locations could have been known to all or some members of society –
and perhaps even marked in ways no longer extant? Are the sites inter-audible? If one
accepts the land tenure hypothesis one could imagine a ritual that reinforced boundaries
taking place at these sites, something like the English traditions of marking parish
boundaries. How long would it take to walk between the “maps”? How would varying
weather conditions – fog, snow, rain – impact the geospatial relationships? Do the sites
lie along likely routes of travel? Do they lie above the likely level of fog, thereby
informing a traveller of changes of land tenure even when the valley is obscured?
20

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
Moving now to diachronic hypotheses we can ask about the formation of place from
space – which sites were re-used over time? Are they simply the easiest of access? What
are their characteristics? Are they close to water? Close to paths? At places of greater
than average viewshed? At places of enhanced visual exposure? Do certain petroglyphs
from one period typically co-occur with certain types from earlier periods? Do the
locational characteristics of sites with a predominance of later petroglyph forms differ
from those with a predominance of earlier forms? What does this tell us about the
changing interrelationships of people, activities and land?
More general questions also suggest themselves: Are particular petroglyphs typically
oriented in particular ways (as Barfield & Chippindale 1997 suggest can be the case)?
How are large and small petroglyph panels situated relative to each other and to other
landscape features, both geologic/hydrologic and anthropogenic?
In sum, my research will not only provide new insight into the changing landscape
context of the rock-art of Valcamonica but will also demonstrate the value of the
application of “experiential” or “humanistic” GIS in the context of rock-art archaeology –
if any element of the archaeological record deserves to be seen this way it is surely the
often seemingly intensely personal images of rock-art.
21

Bibliography
First Year Report – Craig Alexander
ALDENDERFER, M. & MASCHNER, H.D.G. (eds.) 1996. Anthropology, Space, and
Geographic Information Systems. (Spatial Information Series). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
ANATI, E. 1964. Camonica Valley: A Depiction of Village Life in the Alps to the Birth of
Christ as Revealed by Thousands of Newly Found Rock Carvings. London, UK: Jonathan
Cape.
ANATI, E. 1966. Il Masso di Borno. (Pubblicazione dek Centro 2). Breno, Italy: Centro
Camuno di Studi Preistorici.
ANATI, E. 1975. Evoluzione e Stile nell’Arte Rupestre Camuna. (Archivi 6). Capo di
Ponte (BS), Italy: Edizioni del Centro.
ANATI, E. 1994. Valcamonica Rock Art: A New History for Europe. (Studi
CamuniVolume XIII). Capo di Ponte (BS), Italy: Edizioni del Centro.
ARCÀ, A. 2000. Agricultural landscapes in Neolithic and Copper Age engravings of
Valcamonica and Mt. Bégo Rock Art” In NASH, G. (ed.). Signifying Place and Space:
World Perspectives of Rock Art and Landscape, 29-40 (BAR International Series 902).
Oxford, UK: Archaeopress.
ARCÀ, A. 2004. The topographic engravings of Alpine rock-art: fields, settlements, and
agricultural landscapes. In CHIPPINDALE, C. & NASH, G. (eds.) The Figured Landscapes of
Rock-Art: Looking at Pictures in Place, 318-350. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
22

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
ARCÀ, A. 2005. Archeologia rupestre in Valcamonica: Dos Cüi, un caso di studio. Rivista
di Scienze Preistoriche 40, 323-384.
BAKHTIN, M.M. (TRANS. EMERSON, C. & HOLQUIST, M.) 1981. The dialogic imagination:
four essays. Austin, Texas, USA: University of Texas Press.
BARFIELD, L. & CHIPPINDALE, C. 1997. Meaning in the Later Prehistoric Rock-
Engravings of Mont Bégo, Alpes-Maritimes, France. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 63, 103-128.
BARRETT, J.C. 1994. Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain,
2900-1200BC. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
BATTAGLIA, R. 1934. Ricerche etnografiche sui petroglifi della cerchia alpine. Studi
etruschi 8:11-48.
BEVAN, L. 2000. Women’s Art, Men’s Art: Gender Specific Image Selection in the Rock
Art of Valcamonica. In NASH, G. (ed.). Signifying Place and Space: World Perspectives
of Rock Art and Landscape, 103-109 (BAR International Series 902). Oxford, UK:
Archaeopress.
BRADLEY, R. 1997. Rock Art and the Prehistory of Atlantic Europe: Signing the Land.
London, UK: Routledge.
BRÜCK, J. & GOODMAN, M. 1999. Introduction: themes for a critical archaeology of
prehistoric settlement. In BRÜCK, J. & GOODMAN, M. (eds.) Making Places in the
Prehistoric World: Themes in Settlement Archaeology, 1-19. London, UK: UCL Press.
BRÜCK, J. & GOODMAN, M. 1999. Making Places in the Prehistoric World: Themes in
Settlement Archaeology. London, UK: UCL Press.
23

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
CASINI, S. (ed.)1994. Le pietre degli dei: menhir e stele dell’Età del Rame in
Valcamonica e Valtellina. Bergamo, BS, Italy: Centro Culturale Nicolò Rezzara.
CHIPPINDALE, C. 2004. From millimetre up to kilometre: a framework of space and of
scale for reporting and studying rock-art in its landscape. In CHIPPINDALE, C. & NASH, G.
(eds.) The Figured Landscapes of Rock-Art: Looking at Pictures in Place, 102-17.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
CHIPPINDALE, C. & TAÇON, P.S.C. (eds.) 1998. The Archaeology of Rock-Art. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
CHIPPINDALE, C. & NASH, G. 2004. Pictures in place: approaches to the figured
landscapes of rock-art. In CHIPPINDALE, C. & NASH, G. (eds.) The Figured Landscapes of
Rock-Art: Looking at Pictures in Place, 1-36. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
CHIPPINDALE, C. & NASH, G. (eds.) 2004. The Figured Landscapes of Rock-Art: Looking
at Pictures in Place. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
CONOLLY, J. & LAKE, M. 2006. Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology.
(Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
FOSSATI, A. 1993. Il mondo dei Camuni: l’arte rupestre della Valcamonica.
(Valcamonica Preistorica 4). Cerveno, Italy: Edizioni della Cooperative Archaeologica
Le Orme dell’Uomo.
FOSSATI, A. 2000. Landscape representations on boulders and menhirs in the
Valcamonica-Valtellina area, Alpine Italy. In NASH, G. & CHIPPINDALE, C. (eds.)
European Landscapes of Rock-Art, 93-115. London, UK: Routledge.
24

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
FOSSATI, A. 2002. Landscape representations on boulders and menhirs in the
Valcamonica-Valtellina area, Alpine Italy. In NASH, G. & CHIPPINDALE, C. (eds.)
European Landscapes of Rock-Art, 93-115. London, UK: Routledge.
FRACHETTI, M. & CHIPPINDALE, C. 2000. Alpine imagery, Alpine space, Alpine time; and
prehistoric human experience. In NASH, G. & CHIPPINDALE, C. (eds.) European
Landscapes of Rock-Art, 116-143. London, UK: Routledge.
GAFFNEY, V, STANČIČ, Z., & WATSON, H. 1995. Moving from Catchments to Cognition:
Tentative Steps Toward a Larger Archaeological Context for GIS. IN ALDENDERFER, M.
& MASCHNER, H.D.G. (eds.) Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems,
132-154. (Spatial Information Series). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
GILLINGS, M. & GOODRICK, G.T. 1996. Sensuous and Reflexive GIS: exploring
visualization and VRML. Internet Archaeology 1:
http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue1/gillings_index.html. Accessed 30 March 2006.
GRAZIOSI, P. 1931. Le incisioni preistoriche di Valcamonica. Archivio per l’Antropologia
e l’Ethnologia 59, 1-8.
HARTLEY, R. & WOLLEY VAWSER, A.M. 1998. Spatial behaviour and learning in the
prehistoric environment of the Colorado River drainage (south-eastern Utah), western
North America. In CHIPPINDALE, C. & TAÇON, P.S.C. (eds.) The Archaeology of Rock-Art,
185-211. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
HIGUCHI, T. (TRANS. TERRY, C.S.) 1983 (1975). The Visual and Spatial Structure of
Landscapes. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
INGOLD, T. 2000. The temporality of the landscape. In INGOLD, T. The Perception of the
Environment: Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill, 198-208. London, UK: Routledge.
25

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
INGOLD, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays in livelihood, dwelling and
skill. London, UK: Routledge.
JORDAN, P. 2003. Material Culture and Sacred Landscape: The Anthropology of the
Siberian Khanty. Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Alta Mira Press.
KEATES, S. 2000. The Ancestralization of the Landscape: Monumentality, Memory and
the Rock Art of the Copper Age Valcamonica. In NASH, G. (ed.). Signifying Place and
Space: World Perspectives of Rock Art and Landscape, 83-102 (BAR International Series
902). Oxford, UK: Archaeopress.
LEWIS-WILLIAMS, J.D. 2002. The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origins of
Art. London, UK: Thames & Hudson.
LEWIS-WILLIAMS, J.D. & PEARCE, D. 2005. Inside the Neolithic Mind: Consciousness,
Cosmos and the Realm of the Gods. London, UK: Thames & Hudson.
LLOBERA, M. 1996. Exploring the topography of mind: GIS, social space and
archaeology. Antiquity 70:612-22.
LLOBERA, M. 2001. Building Past Landscape Perception With GIS: Understanding
Topographic Prominence. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:1005-14.
LLOBERA, M. 2003. Extending GIS-based visual analysis: the concept of visualscapes.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science 17:25-48.
LOCK, G. (ed.) 2000. Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies. (NATO
Science Series Vol. 321). Oxford, UK: IOS Press.
LOCK, G. & STANČIČ, Z. (eds.) 1995. Archaeology and Geographical Information
Systems. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
26

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
LUMLEY, H. DE et al. 1995. Le Grandiose et le sacré: gravures rupestres protohistoriques
et historiques de la région du Mount Bego. Aix-en-Provence, France: Edisud.
MARRO, G. 1930. Arte rupestre zoomorphica in Valcamonica. Rivista di Anthropologia
29, 1-39.
MLEKUZ, D. 2004. Listening to Landscapes: Modelling Past Soundscapes in GIS. Internet
Archaeology 16: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue16/mlekuz_index.html. Accessed 30
March 2006.
MOSCROP, D. 2002. A GIS Based Analysis of the Prehistoric Rock Carvings and
Archaeological Sites in the Rombalds Moor Region, West Yorkshire. Unpublished MA
dissertation, University of Birmingham, UK.
NASH, G. (ed.) 2000. Signifying Place and Space: World Perspectives of Rock Art and
Landscape. (BAR International Series 902). Oxford, UK: Archaeopress.
NASH, G. & CHIPPINDALE, C. 2002. (Eds.) European Landscapes of Rock-Art. London,
UK: Routledge.
ROBB, J.E. 1994. Gender Contradictions, Moral Coalitions, and Inequality in Prehistoric
Italy. Journal of European Archaeology 2:20-49.
ROBINSON, D.W. 2006. Landscape, Taskscape and Indigenous Perception: Rock-Art of
South-Central California. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, UK.
TAÇON, P.S.C. & CHIPPINDALE, C. 1998. An archaeology of rock-art through informed
methods and formal methods. In CHIPPINDALE, C. & TAÇON, P.S.C. (Eds.) The
Archaeology of Rock-Art, 1-10. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
TILLEY, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments.
Oxford, UK: Berg.
27

First Year Report – Craig Alexander
WALLER, S.J. 2000. Spatial Correlation of Acoustics and Rock Art Exemplified in
Horseshoe Canyon. American Indian Rock Art 24, 85-94.
WHEATLEY, D. 1995. Cumulative viewshed analysis: a GIS-based method for
investigating intervisibility, and its archaeological application. In LOCK, G. & STANČIČ, Z.
(Eds.). Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems, 171-186. London, UK:
Taylor & Francis.
WHEATLEY, D. & GILLINGS, M. 2000. Vision, perception and GIS: developing enriched
approaches to the study of archaeological visibility. In LOCK, G. (Ed.). Beyond the Map:
Archaeology and Spatial Technologies, 1-27. (NATO Science Series Vol. 321). Oxford,
UK: IOS Press.
WHEATLEY, D. & GILLINGS, M. 2002. Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The
Archaeological Applications of GIS. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
WILSON, A. 2006. A hybrid viewshed analysis. Unpublished paper presented at CAA UK,
University of Southampton, 31 March 2006.
28