This first level of Formal Analysis

This first level of Formal Analysis is where the majority of rockart researchers of prehistoric or preliterate societies will findthemselves, with limited opportunity to penetrate further withoutassistance from other media or information (informers, ethnographers’ accounts, recorded histories, sacred texts etc). Layton (2000:51) argues for visual representations having two aspects e anoutward reference to a world of experience which the observer andartist can both perceive (ie. we may recognise a hippopotamus in ascene through its distinctive morphology), and inward to a world ofcultural meaning known only to the producer. In the absence ofother media such as texts to assist in its elucidation, the iconographical consideration of the rock art is therefore largely restrictedto the referential aspect, risking an outcome of what Layton (2000:52) refers to as an empty system of signification. Transition to thesecond level of iconographical analysis (where we begin to addressthe matter of meaning) requires therefore the ability to connectmotifs and compositions with themes or concepts, albeit in a