Changing Pictures: Rock Art Traditions and Visions in the Northernmost Europe

1

Changing Pictures

An Introduction

Joakim Goldhahn, Ingrid Fuglestvedt and Andrew Jones

Introduction

On the cover of this anthology is a documentation of some rock art images that were made by Peder Alfsøn in 1627. He was a Norwegian clerk travelling and documenting ‘Monuments and peculiar things’ on the behalf of Ole Worm, the State Antiquarian of Denmark. During this time he visited Backa in Brastad parish in Bohuslän, a place nowadays situated within the borders of present day Sweden. Here he was told odd stories about a ‘shoemaker’ that strangely enough had been depicted on a rock panel nearby. Alfsøn was guided to the place and spent some time documenting it, using watercolour, and to this very day this aquarelle is the oldest documentation of a rock art panel from the northernmost parts of Europe (Nordbladh 1981). It is also one of the oldest known rock art documentations in the world (Bahn 1998: 1–29).

In the 17th century rock art from the Scandinavian countries were interpreted in the light of folkloristic beliefs. It is hard to find any noticeable dissonances between the interpretations made by peasants and antiquarians. Both groups supposed that the rock art was created by furious giants that had once roamed the landscape or, every so oft en, by ill-wishing elves that would cause sickness if they were disturbed (Jensen 2002: 321–324). It seems as if figurative images were more frequently linked to the former, while only cup marks were linked to the elves. In the case of the rock art panel at Backa in Brastad, people in the vicinity had no clear answers about who had made ‘the shoemaker’, nor when this was done, but it is still evident that the images were known and discussed among people. Alfsøn thought local stone workers made the images. It is notable that Alfsøn documented the shoemaker as a woman; an interpretation that nowadays seems odd not least since latter antiquarians and archaeologists have noted very prominent male genitalia on the figure (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1. The most recent documentation of the ‘Shoemaker’, RAÄ 1 in Brastad parish, Bohuslän. Documentation by Vitlycke Museum (www.hallristning.se).

Beside the stunning beauty of Alfsøn’s aquarelle we have chosen this image as a metaphor for the objectives of this anthology – Changing pictures. Rock art traditions and visions in northern Europe – that aims to return to traditional interpretative notions regarding the meaning and significance of rock art to investigate if and why any information had been left behind to recover and rethink. The anthology was built out of a workshop held at the University of Kalmar, (nowadays Linnaeus University), Sweden between the 20th–24th of October 2008. The aim of this gathering was to provide a forum for rock art researchers from different parts of northern Europe to discuss traditional as well as current interpretative trends within rock art research.

As Melanie Wrigglesworth notes in her contribution to this volume: ‘The history of research is not always linear, old ideas crop up and are reworked’. Therefore, whether we like it or not, the history of research constitutes a vital part of our pre-understanding of the phenomena we wish to explore. Consequently, we argue that these ‘pre-understandings’ should be explicit; otherwise we might re-affirm them implicitly. Having said this, our purpose with this volume has not been to perform any kind of ‘defacement of older images’ (cf. Figure 1.1), or should we say earlier theoretical approaches to rock art, but instead to pay a sincere attention to them with the aim of enlightening contemporary theories about rock art as a meaningful medium to understand past societies. To reuse a wellworn phrase: we wish to keep the baby and throw out the bathwater.

Another reason for this anthology is the immense global interest that archaeologists and anthropologists have invested in studying rock art during the last decades. Northern Europe is not an exception. It has not always been like that. One of us can still remember the disappointment in his supervisor’s voice when he declared that rock art would be the topic for his PhD: ‘But Joakim, rock art!? Why? There isn’t any thing left to say about them’! I myself (AJ) can remember the look of shock and disgust on a senior colleague’s face when I revealed that I had shift ed from the eminently sensible study of the British Neolithic to study, of all things, Norwegian rock art!

Thankfully there is much left to say about rock art and during the last couple of years, rock art research in northern Europe, as elsewhere, has intensely explored a manifold of methodological and theoretical perspectives (Goldhahn 2008a). It is more or less a full time job keeping abreast of all the articles, reports, monographs and anthologies that appear in a constant escalating cycle. Between the years 2000 and 2005 alone more than 500 articles or books were published about the rock art traditions of northern Europe (Goldhahn 2008b). Most of these studies have been published in languages that seldom reach beyond the native speakers of Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish, not just to mention the research published in Russian or Finnish. Therefore an important motivation for this volume is to try to appraise some of the current movements within this field of research and present it to an international audience.

Saying that, nowadays rock art research is a global phenomenon with an international network of researchers who more than ever read and influence each other’s work. Many of the topics explored in this anthology with the purpose of ‘changing the picture’, might therefore ring unexpectedly familiar in the ears of international scholars. Others are perhaps more rooted in interests, discussions and questions that are more specific for rock art researchers working in northern Europe.

Nevertheless, this anthology wishes to explore the relevance of older ideas, such as notions about prehistoric religion (Wrigglesworth), ritual performance (Skoglund; Cornell and Ling), sympathetic magic, animism and totemism (Fuglestvedt), the mindscapes of landscapes (Goldhahn), etc., from the present ‘state of the art’, and try to develop a broader and ‘deeper’ understanding of the phenomenon we call rock art. This aspiration can be seen as a common thread linking the different chapters in this book. Saying that, some, if not all, of the articles presented in this volume challenge the notion ‘rock ART’ itself, arguing that sometimes the rock (Lødøen), the ‘canvas’ (Gjerde) and rather intangible but equally important sensual encounters – such as sound (Hultman), echoes and touch (Lahelma) – and temporal phenomenological changes and the perception of decorated rock art panels (Ljunge), should be regarded as at least as important as the ‘art’ itself.

Other contributors have explored the iconic order and importance of rock art images, arguing that our readings and interpretations of the images must move beyond the most obvious identification of ‘elks’ (Sjöstrand) and ‘ships’ (Wrigglesworth) to establish wide-ranging cosmological interpretations in which sun symbols, horses and human beings are incorporated (Skoglund).

In a related tactic Cornell and Ling argue that rock art primarily acted within a non-linguistic sphere within prehistoric society, beyond the oral dimension of the people who made and used rock art. They argue that there is simply more to the iconic picture than can ever be expressed in words. The medium is the message. Nilsson approaches rock art from another perception of form and tries to explore how rock art from the past was perceived in the past. For how long was the meaning of a rock art image readable without it losing its ‘original meaning’? When were the rock art images first re-discovered and how were they perceived?

One may claim that rock art used to be concerned with ideology as something primary. We believe it still is, but after rereading the papers in this anthology, our perception of this matter has started to change. On a general basis we may argue that rock art research now has come ‘to the ground’. This is a way of expressing that theories of practice more or less pervade approaches to how rock art was made and used. This is not to say that specific practice theories are necessarily addressed in this volume, but more that the very idea of practice has become a fundamental framework for approaching depicted panels. Thus, rock art is increasingly understood according to the basis of ‘how life was actually lived’, i.e. life as specific types of practice which in turn shapes the way people think, which is ideology. Parallel to this – and perhaps in opposition to this – we are still concerned with narratives and metaphors, which may be regarded as something more rigid, and which may stand in opposition to the idea of practice. Thus, practice is formative and flexible and, as such, is the origin of historical change.

Furthermore, practice is also concerned with the functioning of the society, e.g. social formation and power relations. Such topics are, of course, a relevant context from which rock art should be approached. So, if we should dare to offer a critique of the present volume before you even read it, it would perhaps be that these aspects of prehistoric contexts are poorly considered here. Peculiarly enough, the issue of communication is almost exclusively discussed in relation to people, i.e. personal communication with place and/or the immaterial. Highly interesting as this topic is, it still disregards the social dynamics (i.e. communication/interaction between society members) at the rock art place. We may hope these aspects will be better integrated in future work.

Before presenting the papers and organization of this volume in a more comprehensive way, it is wise to introduce the unfamiliar reader to the chronological and cultural settings of the rock art traditions that we are going to discuss.

Rock art in northernmost Europe

It is commonly argued that the Post-Palaeolithic rock art traditions found in the northern parts of Europe can be divided and related to two major ways of living, and likewise to two cultural pre-understandings of the world (Figure 1.2): One is the Northern rock art tradition (NT) that is associated with the cultures of hunters, fishers and gatherers, and the other is the Southern tradition (ST) that has traditionally been associated with Bronze Age farmers in the southern part of Scandinavia (e.g. Hansen 1904, see Malmer 1981; Bertilsson 2004; Sognnes 2008a). The NT is generally dated from the Early Mesolithic to the Middle Bronze Age (traditionally labelled ‘Early Bronze Age’ in the Nordic countries, approximately 1700–1100 cal BC), from the ninth to the end of the second millennium cal BC. The ST is usually dated from the Middle Bronze Age to the Pre-Roman Iron Age, approximately from 1600 to 300 cal BC. In some areas, such as Western Norway and on the Baltic island of Gotland, rock art ship images belonging to the ST were still being made in the Roman Iron Age, and beyond (Mandt 1991; Sognnes 2001; Skoglund 2008). In reality both these traditions consist of multiple traditions that differ in time and space.

The main motifs within the NT consist of animals, oft en prey species such as large game for example elks, deer, reindeer, whales, Atlantic halibut, etc., but we also find depictions of humans, boats and abstract designs (Figure 1.3). Sites belonging to these traditions are known from all parts of Norway (Lødøen & Mandt 2010), the lake districts of Finland (Lahelma 2008) and the central part of Sweden (Ramqvist 2002). One of the most stunning rock paintings belonging to these traditions is found in the town of Gothenburg on the Swedish West Coast, the Tumlehed site (Figure 1.3d), and there are also rock paintings known in this tradition from Bohuslän, Dalsland and Värmland in the south-western parts of Sweden (Heimann 2005; Nash 2008).

From the beginning of the 20th century it has been argued that the NT had its origin in the wellknown Palaeolithic rock art traditions of the European continent (Almgren 1934; Gjessing 1936; Hallström 1938). Following this evolutionary framework, the NT was linked to the ‘Lapps’ (read Saami speaking groups). Large natural depictions of animals were thought to be the oldest while the more abstract rock art images, revealing more ‘abstract and evolved minds’, were thought to be of a recent date (Almgren 1934; Gjessing 1936; Hallström 1938). For some traditionalists, old chronologies built on this perception of form are still considered valid today (e.g. Bertilsson 2004). We think this is peculiar and requires revision. With increased empirical knowledge and a broader theoretical consciousness it has been found to be impossible to trace such an evolution of styles within these or other rock art traditions (cf. Lorblanchet & Bahn 1993; Whitley 2001); we believe that this undermines such a position.

Figure 1.2. The general distribution of northern hunter/gatherer/fisher rock art (red) and the southern ‘agrarian’ or ‘maritime’ rock art traditions (green) in northern Europe. In grey areas both the NTs and STs occur.

Figure 1.3. Examples of rock art belonging to the northern traditions: a) human, animals and abstract designs from Ausevik, Norway, b) deer from Vingen, Norway, c) rock paintings from Flatruet, in Sweden, and, d) rock painting from Tumlehed in Gothenburg, depicting a full-size deer and images of boats, nets, fish and abstract designs. All photos by Joakim Goldhahn, except c) photo by Christina Thumé.

However, according to this thought style, the NT is represented in an Early Mesolithic ‘wave’ of rock art making (Gjessing 1932, 1936; Hesjedal 1990, 1992, 1994). This early phase is characterized and known by its very naturalist styles and sizes. The famous ‘Bøla-reindeer’ (Gjessing 1936: Pl. LIII) of North-Trøndelag and the great rock art panels of Nordland belong to this Early Mesolithic phase. Aft er a gap of a few millennia (cf. Hesjedal 1994: Tab. 1 & 2), a new and clearly distinguished ‘wave’ of NT in the Late Mesolithic, e.g. the 5th millennium cal BC can be witnessed (e.g. Mikkelsen 1977; Helskog 1984; Sognnes 1995; Ramstad 2000; Lødøen 2001; Klang et al. 2002; Lindgren 2004, cf. Simonsen 1958). Parallel to this development there is a widespread shift to more stable settlement patterns among groups of hunter gatherers across northern Europe (Olsen & Alsaker 1984; Renouf 1989; Olsen 1994; Fuglestvedt 1998, 1999, 2006, 2008; Boaz 1999; Glørstad 1999, 2002, 2004; Larsson 2000; Bergsvik 2001, 2006; Bailey & Spikins 2008; Bjerck 2008). Among other things, this change reinforces a sense of belonging in the world. Archaeologically this is manifested by a handful of regional cultures in northern Europe, such as the Comb Ware Culture in northern and eastern Fennoscandia, the Ertebølle Culture in South Scandinavia and the Lihult and Nøstvet complex in Southwest Sweden and Southern parts of Norway respectively. All over Northern Europe we find a similar investment in rituals that seem to strengthen and reinforce a new sense of place, for instance, in southern Scandinavia we witness the establishment and occurrence of monumental shell middens (e.g. Tilley 1996) and sacred burial grounds (e.g. Larsson 2004), such as Skateholm in Scania (Sweden), Bøgebakken on Zealand (Denmark), Zvejnieki (Latvia) and the Oleni ostrov cemetrey from Lake Onega (Russia). In several regions in northern Europe, this change can be connected to the emergence of more stable settlements, in the northernmost area even with Stone Age villages – such as the famous Varanger complex (Olsen 1994, see also Boaz 1998; Norberg 2008) – maybe the result of a new set of semi-settled economies and cultures. All these changes indicate a new conceptualization of the world and in some areas rock art mediated this new perception.

As an antipode to the NT, the ST was early on linked to settled agrarian German speaking groups (Figures 1.2, 1.4), that were thought to be the ancestors of the modern Swedes, Danes and Norwegians (no figurative rock art from this tradition is known in present day Finland). Rock art from the ST is found in Northern Germany, within the present borders of Denmark (Glob 1969, Kaul 1998), Southern Sweden up to the Mälar valley (Coles 2000), and along the Norwegian coastline up to Trøndelag (Sognnes 2001); areas that are all suitable for agriculture. Having said this, there are sporadic rock art sites belonging to this tradition all the way up to Helgeland and even Alta in Northern Norway (Helskog 1988, 2000), as well as a handful of known motifs from Nämforsen in central Sweden (cf. Hallström 1960; Malmer 1981; Tilley 1991). The most common rock art motifs within the ST are the cup mark (Table 1.1), followed by depictions of ships, sun symbols, humans, animals (horse, deer, cattle, dog, etc.), weapons (axes, spears, swords, etc.), and ritual paraphernalia (lurs, wagons, ceremonial axes, capes, etc.).

More than 21,000 rock art sites are known from present day Sweden associated with the ST (numbers based on registered rock art sites at the Swedish National Heritage Board in Stockholm), in Norway there are less, about 5000 sites (Lødøen & Mandt 2010) and in Denmark there are about 2000 known sites (Glob 1969; Kaul 1998). Approximately 80–90 per cent of these sites consist of cup marks only. Cup marks were produced from at least the Middle Neolithic B, approximately 2800–2350 cal BC, and this tradition continued well into the Early Iron Age. Figurative art seems to develop along with the emergence of metal producing societies in southern Scandinavia; the oldest datable ‘rock art’ image is depicted on a bronze item – the Rørby ship cast on a scimitar deposited in Zealand in Denmark (Figure 1.5), dating to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (approximately 16th century cal BC (Vandkilde 1996; Kaul 1998)). Using shore displacement, Ling has shown that this approximate date is commensurate with the emergence of figurative open-air sites in Bohuslän in southwestern Sweden (Ling 2008); here ship images were made at least until the Early Iron Age – about 300 cal BC. This pattern appears to be confirmed in other areas associated with the ST, such as Denmark (Kaul 1998), Uppland in Sweden (Coles 2000) and Rogaland (Nordenborg Myhre 2004) and Trøndelag in Norway (Sognnes 2001).

At several places, such as Nämforsen in Ångermanland in Sweden (Hallström 1962), Åmøy in Rogaland (Nordenborg Myhre 2004), Bardal in Nord-Trøndelag (Gjessing 1936) and Alta in Finnmark in Norway (Helskog 1988, 2000), the two major rock art traditions occasionally occur on the same panel. When superimposition can be distinguished and satisfied, established images belonging to the ST are always pecked over Northern ones (Forsberg 1993; Sognnes 2008b). We find it logical and reasonable to suppose that this pattern indicates a succession of time and cultural affiliation (cf. Nash 2008). The NT seems to have ended, or been radically transformed (see Helskog 1987), by the end of the second millennium cal BC. Having said this, there is an increasing amount of rock art from the northern parts of the Scandinavian Peninsula that can be associated with the historically known groups of Saami peoples (e.g. Helskog 1987, 1999; Shumkin 2000; Mulk & Bayliss-Smith 2006; Goldhahn 2008a, 2008b), a pattern that demands further consideration and research.

Table 1.1. The relationship between different types of rock art images in areas where the ST is present (numbers are based on Bertilsson 1987 (Bohuslän), Selinge 1989 (Västergötland), Mandt 1991 (Sogn og Fjordane), Coles 2000 (Uppland), Sognnes 2001 (Trøndelag), and Wahlgren 2002 (Östergötland). The numbers of Bornholm and South-East Scania is based on an unpublished survey from 1997 conducted by Goldhahn).

It is easy to distinguish several regional rock art traditions that diverge in time and space within these two grand rock art traditions in northern Europe. In present day Finland, only rock paintings belonging to the NT are known (Lahelma 2008, cf. Forsberg & Walderhaug 2004), while a mixture of paintings and engravings are known from the central parts of Sweden and Norway (Sognnes 2001; Ramqvist 2002). In the central part of Sweden engravings belonging to the NT are rather similar in style and technology – with the exception of the Gärde site (Sognnes 1999) – while the rock art found along the western coast of Norway is very diverse; some are naturalistic images, while others are abstract; some are of natural size, others are scale images; some rock engravings are pecked, others carved, some are even polished (Gjessing 1932, 1936; Hallström 1938; Simonsen 1958). Cave paintings, mainly dating to the second and first millennium cal BC, are only known from the Nordland area along the Norwegian coast in an area between Trøndelag and Lofoten (Sognnes 1982; Økland 2000, Ljunge this volume). Painted sites belonging to the NT predominate in areas such as Telemark in present day Norway (Slinning 2002, 2005) and Bohuslän, Dalsland and Värmland in Sweden (Heimann 2005; Nash 2008), while considerable areas in the northernmost part of present day Sweden lack any known rock art sites (see Ramqvist 2002; Walderhaug et al. 2002).

We also find several prominent regional differences within the ST (Table 1.1). First and foremost this is evident in the spatial distribution of sites with figurative images and sites that are dominated by cup marks, a distributional pattern that differs from region to region (cf. Mandt 1972, 1978; Malmer 1981; Larsson 1986; Bertilsson 1987; Coles 2000; Skoglund 2006; Ling 2008). For instance, in areas where barrows are the most common monumental burial tradition, open-air rock art sites with figurative images are oft en lacking, but in these areas rock art is made on portable slabs and incorporated in cists, slabs and on the kerb stones of barrows (Glob 1969; Goldhahn 1999; Nordenborg Myhre 2004). In these regions bronze items oft en show a very intricate use of ‘rock art images’ as ornaments that without doubt are similar to rock art images found in other parts of southern Scandinavia (Glob 1969; Kaul 1998; Fredell 2003; Bradley 2009). Deposits of bronze items are common. In areas where cairns are the main burial monument, open-air rock art sites are common and ornaments on bronze items are not so abundant. In these regions deposits of bronze items are rare (e.g. Almgren 1960, 1962; Malmer 1981, cf. Goldhahn 2007).

The reason for these regional patterns still await discussion and exposition but here we suggest they may be the outcome of different, yet related, cosmological beliefs and ritual practices (e.g. Barth 1987; see Goldhahn 2007; Skoglund this volume).

Text versus context – a tentative history of research

In general the history of interpretation of the different rock art traditions in northern Europe follow the same theoretical styles, fashions and inclinations as ‘ordinary archaeology’ (whatever that is). A specific or defined body of ‘rock art theory’ cannot be distinguished, and for us, this is not desirable either, as: ‘Rock art research must contribute directly to archaeology if it is to achieve anything of value’ (Bradley 1997: 8). From time to time we find some pronounced differences between theoretical modes within the different Nordic countries, especially during the Cold war period (Hodder 1991; Trigger 2006), but in general the international communication between different research communities has guaranteed parallel interpretations and discussions within this field of knowledge.

Figure 1.4. Examples of rock art belonging to the southern traditions: a) ship and axes from Simris in Scania south Sweden, b) ship and humans from Åmøy in Rogaland, western Norway, c) humans, animals and ships from Fossum, Tanum parish in Bohuslän, and d) section of the famous Vitlycke panel from Tanum parish, Bohuslän in south-western Sweden. All photos by Joakim Goldhahn.

Figure 1.5. The oldest ship depictions from a bronze item, the Rørby scimitar from Zealand, Denmark. Note that the sword profile bears a strong resemblence to a ship (aft er Aner & Kersten 1973).

However, it is possible to detect certain epochs when international trends have been more influential, for instance during the early years of culture-historical and post-processual archaeology. Theoretical and methodological perspectives, however, took an independent pathway within the Nordic countries during the formation of the New Archaeology or processual archaeology in the 1960–1970s (e.g. Myhre 1991). This is also evident during most of the 19th century, a time best described as the ‘Golden Age of Scandinavian Archaeology’, when persons such as Christian Jürgensen Thomsen, Sven Nilsson, Jens Jacob Worsaae, Bror Emil Hildebrand, Oscar Montelius and Sophus Müller made lasting contributions to the creation of the discipline of archaeology (Klindt-Jensen 1975; Gräslund 1987; Trigger 2006). During the last few decades, Danish and Finnish archaeologists have had a tendency to stick to the bread-and-butter traditional archaeology and discard grand theoretical elaborations, while this kind of archaeology has been more open-mindedly embraced in Norway and Sweden (exceptions of course confirm the rule).

In the early 1980s Mats P. Malmer divided rock art research into two categories or styles, ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ interpretations, which he saw as two polarising scholarships within the present field of rock art research (Malmer 1981: 108):

‘Absolute interpretations look immediately to the central significance of the symbol. […] If a ship represents the actual divinity among Tacitus’ Suebi and also in a carnival in Flanders in the year 1133 AD, the meaning should have been the same in the Scandinavian Bronze Age (Almgren 1962). For absolute interpretations, chronological and chorological facts are secondary. It is believed that a fundamental significance has been discerned, broadly human and universal, valid at least for a large span in time and space. Other possible interpretations […] are rejected as of secondary or negligible importance.

Relative interpretations reject the possibility of arriving immediately at an understanding of the central symbolic significance of a motif, either by means of intuition or on the basis of material compiled from the realms of ethnography and religious history. The material available for study according to this persuasion is first of all the variations of a motif, both geographical and chronological. The major characteristics of a motif are illuminated through its variations and enable us to pronounce with some certainty on the object represented […] It is through these variations and the manner in which an object is portrayed that we may learn something of the ideas with which is was associated’ (Malmer 1981: 108–1009, italics in original).

Malmer’s distinction can be understood in light of Paul S. Taçon and Chris Chippindale’s (1998) ideas of informed and formal methods, which they describe as two critical pathways for gaining knowledge about rock art and how it was related to past and present beliefs and worldviews. The former uses historical and anthropological sources and the inside information that can be gained from the typically multi-vocal voice of indigenous informants. In areas where this information is lacking, informants are replaced by formal analogies, which are used to fill the gaps. Alongside this, we have the kind of knowledge produced by the ‘shovel’ – simple dirt archaeology – illuminated by outsiders’ perspectives and different kinds of formal methods such as quantitative or spatial analysis (Taçon & Chippindale 1998), but also theoretical interpretative perspectives. David S. Whitley has argued that informed methods are strongest when symbolic interpretations are produced from an emic and synchronic perspective, while formal methods are better situated to study social aspects from an etic and diachronic perspective (Whitley 2005).

Another way of looking at these different pathways is to view them as text-based interpretations versus context based interpretations where historical, ethnographic and anthropological sources are distinguishable from the information that can be gained from archaeological methods for studying past and present societies. It will not come as any surprise that informed methods are scanty and sparse concerning the rock art traditions of Northern Europe (although see Lahelma 2008 for an attempt to apply informed methods to the study of Finnish rock art). In most cases there are at least several thousands of years between the available historical or ethnological sources and the rock art traditions studied. A brief glance at the archaeological records of different areas in this part of the world, unambiguously indicates that the societies we associate with the NT and ST have undergone several fundamental changes before informed sources begin to enlighten us about the worldviews of indigenous groups of farmers, fishers, hunters and gatherers (cf. Kivikoski 1967; Edgren 1993; Jensen 1995; Rydving 1995; Burenhult 1999, 2000; Siikala 2002; Lavento 2004; Wickler 2004). Most of the rock art traditions of northernmost Europe are therefore best explored using formal analysis (cf. Mulk & Bayliss-Smith 2006; Kristiansen & Larsson 2005). This does not mean that cautiously structural analogies cannot be undertaken from informed sources to broaden our formal analysis (see Lahelma this volume); it just signifies the simple fact that any direct clear cut answers from informed methods about the meaning and significance of the rock art traditions that we are concerned with in this anthology are not within our grasp.

Figure 1.6. Bredarör on Kivik from Scania in Sweden. Documentation by Beckanstedt 1760 based on a drawing made in 1756 by Feldt. Courtesy of ATA/Stockholm.

Figure 1.7. A casting of plaster of a rock art sword images from Ekenberg in Östergötland, Sweden, and, to the right, a real Bronze Age sword dating to period II, approximately 1500–1300 cal BC, that Hildebrand used as argument for his Bronze Age dating of rock art belonging to the ST (reworked aft er Hildebrand 1869).

Notwithstanding, text, in its widest sense, has been used and is still being used as a means of informing us about the meaning and significance of different rock art traditions in northern Europe. The informed method was introduced under the guiding light of the Enlightenment during the second half of the 18th century in an attempt to replace the Bible as the only true source to the history of past and present people and cultures (Klindt-Jensen 1975; Schnapp 1996; Trigger 2006). One of the leading stars in this process was the famous naturalist Carl von Linné, a man motivated by the great quest of following the hand of his Master in exploring the greatness of His creation. Von Linné unassumingly declared that if man wants to know more about God’s will with the human race, man must study God’s wonder by using his own intellect. By ‘letting the stone speak’ for themselves, man could gain a glimpse of God’s plans in the future to come.

Using the free will of the human mind we witness a replacement of folkloristic interpretation of rock art amongst the antiquarians of the second half of the 18th century. Instead, the antiquarians tried to understand them through the written word – text. One of the most informative examples of this process is the famous Bronze Age cairn Bredarör on Kivik from Scania in South-East Sweden (Randsborg 1993). Discovered and looted in 1748 this immense cairn, it once measured 75 metres in diameter and 3–7.5 metres in height, soon triggered interpretations of its origin and meaning. To add to this interest some enigmatic ‘hieroglyphs’ were discovered on the inside of the cist (Figure 1.6). The local peasants were not able to offer any explanation, nor did the Holy Bible, but close reading of historical sources soon pinpointed two possible explanations. One school favoured an indigenous origin and turned to historical sources such as Saxo and Snorre Sturlasson, relating the monument to prominent kings and heroes from early Scandinavian history. Another school favoured a more exotic origin for the rock art claiming Roman or Celtic invaders having raised the monumental cairn (see Goldhahn 2009). Soon thereaft er, rock art in the landscape was associated with the Norse Sagas and the brave and glorious days of the Vikings (e.g. Christi 1938; Holmberg 1848).

This textual reading was challenged by the formation of modern archaeology during the first half of the 19th century (Gräslund 1987; Trigger 2006). The dating of rock art to the Viking period was soon thereaft er contested through comparisons between rock art images and ornaments on different bronze artefacts (Åberg 1839, 1842). The rock art images from Bredarör on Kivik were then re-dated to the Bronze Age, mainly on the basis of comparisons with the zigzag ornaments on the slabs and ornaments on bronze artefacts (e.g. Holmberg 1848; Nilsson 1862; Brunius 1868). But the dates of open-air rock art were still under debate. Some still argued that they belonged to the grand days of the noble Vikings (Holmberg 1848; Nilsson 1862), others argued forcefully that they belonged to the raw and brutish people of the Stone Age (Brunius 1868). In 1868 this debate came to an end when Bror Emil Hildebrand compared the sword motifs from Ekenberg in Östergötland with real bronze swords found in the vicinity (Figure 1.7), which lead him to be convinced that all of the open-air rock art belonging to the ST was dated to the Bronze Age (Hildebrand 1869). In general this date has since become the orthodox interpretation.

The dating and interpretation of the NT was more problematic. In his introduction to Scandinavian prehistory from the 1840s to the 1860s, Sven Nilsson argued that the different prehistoric ‘ages’, could be linked to different economic and cultural understandings of the world. The emergence of humanity was linked to these economic and cultural stages and the immigration of ‘new races’ (Nilsson 1843, 1864). The savages of the Stone Age were identified as Lapps (read Saami peoples) living as hunters and gatherers, the Bronze Age with noble nomadic Celtic people that possessed some grain of culture, or even Phoenician settlers, and the Iron Age with German speaking farmers. This was the first time that the prehistory of Northern Europe was presented as an economic, social and cultural evolution (Gräslund 1987). In this scenario the rock art belonging to the NT was identified as artwork made by hunter-gatherers from the Stone Age, e.g. the Saami people (Wetterberg 1845, see Olofsson 2004), but there was no clear consensus on this issue. In many instances it was the intuitive understanding of the ‘brutishness’ or ‘nobleness’ of the images that determined their chronological and cultural affiliation. Holmberg saw the depiction of ploughing scenes from Bohuslän in Sweden as proof that they were made by ‘people with a distinct sense of culture’ (Holmberg 1848, our translation), while Brunius used the same images and their well-defined male genitalia to attribute them to a ‘raw and brutish Stone Age people’ (Brunius 1868, our translation).

Nilsson’s fascinating interpretation, which was mainly based on textual sources and comparative analogies with contemporary indigenous groups from different parts of the world, was celebrated to begin with. It did, however, soon come under fire from archaeologists working with formal methods – e.g. context based interpretations. Using simple dirt archaeology it was shown over and over again that farming and domestic animals were already present during the Stone Age, and it was soon suggested that the ancestors of the contemporary Swedes, Danes and Norwegians already inhabited the Scandinavian Peninsula before the Iron Age. The Stone Age savages were transformed into ‘our ancestors’. The Saami people in the north, that were considered to be unable to evolve culturally, were simply left without a prehistory of their own (Olsen 2007).

The significance of informed methods was highlighted by Oscar Montelius who designed a research paradigm that later has been known under the name ‘Seidlungsarchäeologie’ and associated with the German linguist Gustaf Kossinna (Jones 1997; Trigger 2006). The idea was clear and simple. By using the location of known groups of people from historical sources and relating them to the distribution of some contemporary material culture, their prehistory could be revealed by following their settlement history and the distribution of their material culture back into prehistory (Jones 1997). Text gained power over context. Montelius formulated this settlement archaeology for the first time in a short paperback in 1884, entitled On our ancestors migration to northern Europe (our translation). The German-speaking ancestors of the present days Swedes were identified through runic inscriptions from the Roman Iron Age; approximately dated to the first and second century AD (Montelius 1984). The question then was how to follow them into the fog of prehistory?

This was not solved archaeologically until the early 20th century when Oscar Almgren was sent to Bohuslän to map and check the extensive rock art documentation made by the fine artist Lauritz Baltzer (Nordbladh 1995). From the early 1880s Baltzer had devoted himself to the discovery and documentation of the Bronze Age rock art from Bohuslän, the first systematic survey and documentation project of rock art in northern Europe. Baltzer’s documentations were published year-by-year in a large (A3) series of booklets until 1908 (Baltzer 1881–1908). Almgren was interested in Baltzer’s work because of the huge number of rock art sites that he believed could be linked to Bronze Age settlements. By using the research paradigm formulated by Montelius, he argued for the compilation of a spatial analysis of the rock art and the settlement history of the Bronze Age in Bohuslän (Ling 2008: 15–33). Aft er the Bronze Age settlers had been interpreted as ancestors of the Swedes, Almgren forcefully argued that the meaning of the rock images could best be understood using written sources such as Tacitus’ descriptions of the Suebi and more recent folkloristic beliefs known through informed methods. This absolute interpretation was manifested in Almgren’s seminal work ‘Hällristningar och kultbruk’ (Rock art and cult practice, our transl.) from 1927, published in German seven years later (Almgren 1934).

The ST was then correlated to German speaking groups in prehistory, and as a consequence rock art belonging to the NT was (sometimes) attributed to the Saami people (Sognnes 2008a). Both rock art traditions were considered to be the outcome of sympathetic magic, the ST to appease certain weather gods or to produce rain or sunshine, the NT as a mean of ensuring hunting success, or gaining control over the souls of game animals. Soon thereaft er the Norwegian archaeologist Gutorm Gjessing labelled the ST ‘agrarian rock art’ and the latter became ‘Vejderistningar’ or ‘Arctic rock art’ (Gjessing 1936, 1939), in reality meaning ‘archaic’ rock art (Goldhahn this volume). The evolutionary perception of form was evident and the different rock art traditions were simply formulated using a contemporary mirror to fit the interpreter’s world view:

This perception had its counterparts in the evolutionary thinking of international scholars such as Salomon Reinach (1903), Herbert Kühn (1922) and Abbé Breuil (1952), leading to a cultural understanding of the prehistory of Northern Europe that is to a large extent mirrored in the political maps of the 19th and early 20th century AD: German speaking groups in the south and Saami speaking groups in the north (Figure 1.8).