{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022627737226277374, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00291970802919708, 'mean_word_length': 5.260273972602739, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Graffiti-Art: Can it Hold the Key to the Placing of Prehistoric Rock-Art?

Abstract Can we with a twenty-first-century mindset make meaningful statements concerning the commissioning and execution of prehistoric rock-art, and what are the mechanisms that encourage people to put their mark onto a rock surface? In a key text Taçon and Chippindale (1998) coined the term “informed methods.” This approach relied on the direct contact between artist and researcher and was successfully used in understanding some of the problems associated with narratives incorporated into indigenous art in Northern Australia. Using the informed-methods approach, the author was interested in drawing analogies between historic graffiti art from a coastal site in Morecambe Bay, northern England and prehistoric art. Bearing in mind the subversive nature of modern graffiti-art and probable positive endorsement of rock-art by status individuals in the prehistoric period, this article identifies a number of analogies between the two, such as landscape grammar and the way messages, signatures, and symbols are expressed and conveyed. By looking at the potential underlying socio-economic, political, and ritual mechanisms that allowed people to carve and paint onto rock in the modern period, can we make inferences as to why prehistoric people would want to carve and paint onto rock?