Performance theory: a growing interest in rock art research

ABSTRACT

It is always surprising to find clear examples in archaeology of researchers with common interests working, albeit unintentionally, without any awareness of their colleagues’ allied research. The sub-discipline of rock art research provides a striking example. All rock art practices involve performances of one kind or another. While performance is notionally implicated in rock art studies around the globe, earnest appeals to performance theory are less common. The few studies employing recognisable performance theory to study rock art are largely independent of one another. Consequently, this sub-field has not accumulated insights. It is, nevertheless, a growing interest. This comparative appraisal reviews a selection of performance theory approaches to rock art, drawing attention to their similarities and differences as well as some of the benefits of performance theory. The standard terms, concepts and definitions of performance theory provide a means to coordinate and formalise disparate ideas. Rock art research globally stands to gain from comprehensive, rather than partial, engagements with performance theory.

KEYWORDS:

• Rock art
• social theory
• archaeology
• process
• practice

Acknowledgements

A sentence in Mark McGranaghan’s DPhil first drew the author's attention to performance theory. Dagamara Zawadzka alerted the author to Vastoka’s lecture and provided him with a copy. The author thanks George Nash for making his thesis available. Paul den Hoed, David Pearce and David Lewis-Williams read and commented on several earlier versions of this paper. The research was funded by a doctoral grant through the University of the Witwatersrand’s Rock Art Research Institute made possible by Susan Ward. The write-up was supported by a Doctoral Internship Grant from the University of the Witwatersrand’s Science Faculty Research Council.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.