Rock Art as Social Representation: Papers from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Fourth Annual Meeting in Göteborg 1998 9781841710105, 9781407351216

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
0. Introduction: Rock art as social representation
1. Adorants, voltigeurs and other mortals -- an essay on rock art and the human body
2. Rock art and gender -- the case of the cup-marks
3. The transmission of an élite ideology -- Europe and the Near East in the second millennium BC
4. Rock art as a part of Bronze Age funerary rites -- the case of the Hjortekrog cairn
5. Rock art and the materialisation of a cosmology -- the case of the Sagaholm barrow
6. Hunter fisher gatherer ritual landscapes -- questions of time, space and representation
7. Rock art as visual representation -- or how to travel to Sweden without Christopher Tilley
8. Authors & addresses

Citation preview

BAR S794 1999

GOLDHAHN (Ed): ROCK ART AS SOCIAL REPRESENTATION

B A R

Rock Art as Social Representation Papers from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Fourth Annual Meeting in Goteborg 1998

Edited by

JoakimGoldhahn

BAR International Series 794 1999

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford

BAR International Series 794 Rock Art as Social Representation

© The editors and contributors severally and the Publisher 1999 The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841710105 paperback ISBN 9781407351216 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841710105 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 197 4 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd/ Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 1999. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

EMAIL

PHONE FAX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Contents

0

Joakim Goldhahn Introduction:

I

Rock art as social representation

Ingrid Fuglestvedt Adorants, voltigeurs and other mortals

2

8

77

Marek Zvelebil & PeterJordan Hunter fisher gatherer ritual landscapes

7

65

Joakim Goldhahn Rock art and the materialisation of a cosmology

6

49

DagWidholm Rock art as a part of Bronze Age funerary rites

5

41

ThomasB Larsson The transmission of an elite ideology

4

25

Britta Lindgren Rock art and gender - the case of the cup-marks

3

5

101

LilianaJanik Rock art as visual representation

129

Authors & addresses

141

3

4

0

Introduction: Rock art as social representation

Joakim Goldhahn

Rock art research must contribute directly to archaeology if it is to achieve anything of value. Richard Bradley

Many years ago Ake Hultkrantz, a famous Swedish historian of religions, visited the Shoshon-lndians in North America in order to investigate their native religion. The rock carving tradition was still alive at that time, and it constituted a vital part of their religious practice. It was both connected with puberty rites, childbearing rites, and rain and game rituals. The rock carvings were also connected with their dream and vision quests. Despite the fact that new rock art motifs occasionally were added on different panels, the Shoshonlndians had no knowledge about who "the artists" were that produced them. Hultkrantz's informants even seemed a bit ignorant and annoyed by his assiduous questions about how and why the rock carvings were made - "one can hear the spirits chiselling their pictures if one comes near these place in the winter-time", was the answer he got (Hultkrantz 1986: 54): Supplicants desiring their powers prayed and fasted several nights below the drawings, until they were blessed by a vision of some animal-featured guardian spirit, corresponding to some drawing, which bestowed its powers on the client. Animal shaped figures dominate the rock-panels, and the guardian spirit thus manifested itself in zoomorphic shape. Hultkrantz's investigation showed that the rock carvings were used for several different purposes, by several different agents and genders, which also provided several different interpretations about their meaning and significance (Hultkrantz 1981: 30ff; 1986). This pattern has been repeated in other, more recent,

anthropological research (e.g. Dowson & LewisWilliams 1989; Layton 1992; Whitley 1998). The conclusion of this seemed dear to Hultkrantz (1986: 55): The differences in opinion show that while the pattern is consistent the individual interpretations vary, and have presumably always done so. This is a true post-modernistic sense moral which is easy to convert into the history of rock art research and to different theoretical trends within this training today (e.g. Helskog & Olsen 1995; Bahn & Fossati 1996; Bahn 1998; Chippindale &Tac;:on 1998)! In order to grasp some of the kaleidoscopic theoretical perspectives that flourish around contemporary rock art research, and to try to respond to the growing interest this training has witnessed during the last couple of years, the organising committee of the European Association of Archaeologists 4th Annual Meeting in Gothenburg (1998) proclaimed a session entitled Rock art as social representation. Different circumstances meant that I became responsible to organise this session, and the organising committee left me with free hands to define the subject and arrange the session after my own head. From a personal point of view, I then saw three different areas with potential to contribute to the current rock art discourse:

i - "One which centres upon the way human beings are depicted on the rock surface, raising questions about different gender ideologies in various social contexts".

Joakim Goldhahn ii - ''A second which highlights rock art as an active component in different social contexts, raising questions about rock art as a social and political product which is manipulated within different rituals and social strategies".

male 81%

iii - ''A third angle could be to expose ourselves as rock art researchers soon to enter a new millennium - to the same questions about social represen. ,, tat10n .

female 19%

All in all eight different papers were presented at this session, and four of them are included in this anthology. Beside these, three additional papers were delivered to me after the EAA-meeting as a result of different discussions with participants of the audiences! All papers deal with the former points, and the selfreflexive perspective (iii), was left to its faith. Without any insinuations, this could be seen as a dear answer to the proposal, and maybe some of the reason behind the lack of interest in this question is highlighted in the book Whos who in rock art (Anati 1985)? A short glance in this book shows some recurrent, almost fatuously predictable, bias within the academic field. So, before we consider the former points and the specific contributions in this anthology, and because I think the question of social representation is a tangible and important issue to discuss, I would like to take the opportunity within this forum to address some of these questions mysel£

Figure 0.1. Fe/male relationship among rock art researchers listed in Whos who in rock art (source: Anati 1985).

to go back and see how this relationship changes in the future. Hopefully, in the end, this can contribute to make us all more self-reflexive in our daily social praxis. The following inquiry is based on Ariela Anati's (1985) book Whos who in rock art, and to begin the discussion, I would like to leave you with some figures - sometimes they do say more than a thousand words (fig 0.1-3). It has been fifteen years now since Ana ti published her book, Whos who in rock art - a world directory of specialists,scholars and technicians. In this book Anati gathered 294 rock art researchers from all over the world. She listed them according to their name and nationality, position, discipline, study area, period, special interests, birth date and place, education, language knowledge, eventually membership in different learned societies, conducted research and research in progress, published works related to rock art, and information about their addresses. It should be notice that the particular "specialists" gave this information themselves, whereby we can ascribe this data with some "self attributed bias". In addition to this, the directory was not a complete list of people conducting rock art research. It has also been awhile since it was accurately updated. The last decades enlarging interest in rock art could therefore have changed the map a bit (compare fig 0.1 and Nordbladh 1995: 26), but research conducted within other related academic disciplines warns us to be to optimistic. According to my opinion though, and in the purpose to start a dialogue about these issues within the global "rock art community'', I think it is fair to use this directory on purpose to raise questions about the contemporary social representation within this particular field. The following inquiry should therefore be perceived as an analysis of a self-defined engendered space within the broader spatial field of rock art research. I also think is fair to view the given information in this directory as trustworthy and in line with

A flashbackon a "backlash'' The question about contemporary social representation has not been addressed within the field of rock art until recently. Most studies that I am aware of have only raised doubts about the androcentric bias within this field indirectly, and in most of the cases this is done in respect of the interpretation of the rock art. It is then argued, implicitly or more explicitly, that the absence of "women" in the interpretations is caused by the androcentric bias within the academic field in general. Most efforts have then been invested in making the women "visible" in rock art (e.g. Mandt 1986, 1995, 1998; Conkey 1991; Drew 1991; Russel 1991; Lee 1992; Solomon 1992, 1998; WennstedtEdvinger 1993; Bass 1994; Andreu-Diaz 1998). There been less concern about how this androcentric bias actually appears, and maintains. Though I think this is an equally important issue to discuss as the androcentric bias in the interpretation of the rock art, I would like to stress the need to put this down on paper and into numbers. By doing this, nothing is really achieved, but at least this gives us an opportunity to unmask this bias, and also 6

Introduction: Rock art as social representation

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

100%

■

total 11male

I

C female II male I

8(1'/o

□female

6(1'/o 4(1'/o ci

2(1'/o

JO

0

0% 1 9 0 0

1 9 1 0

1 9 2 0

1 9 3 0

1 9 4 0

1 9 5 0

1 9 6 0

?

1111111? 9999999 0123456 0000000

Figure 0.2. Fe/male relationship according to birth decades (source: Anati 1985).

Figure 0.3. Fe/male relationship related to birth decades, expressed in percent (source: Anati 1985).

reality, and as a representative picture of the people acting within the broader field of rock art research. But it is equally important to stress that this and other statistics in related inquiries both should be open for criticism, as well as they can serve to address some self critical contemplations. It is stated in figure 0.1, that 81 percentage of the rock art researchers responded to a biological male attributed sex, which corresponds to 238 individuals, and consequently, 19 percent, or 56 of the researchers were female. There should be little doubt that this ought to be considered as an unwanted bias, but as the figure 0.2 and 0.3 demonstrates, there is some fluctuation between different age groups over time, whereby we not have to accept this relationship as a natural given phenomenon! Looking at figure 0.3 it becomes clear that there is a general trend in the relationship between the biological sexes, that extends from the beginning of the 30's until the 80's. The frequencies offemale researchers born between 1910 to 1919, and so on, to the late 60's, reads as follows, 21, 15, 22, 19, 16, 0. A bit surprising, at least to me, women's highest representation rates are found among the rock art researchers that were born before World War II, in the 1910's and 30's. Among the rock art researchers which belong to "the enlightened generation", which entered the enlarging education system in the late 60's, most of them born in the 40's, the relationship between male and female seems to harden a bit. This is particular interesting since this era often is described as the time when the "women's issue" was put under light and slowly started to revolt the academic field (e.g. Bertelsen 1987; Gero & Conkey 1991; Goldhahn in press). It also came as a surprise

that there were such numbers of female rock art researchers born before World War II, for at that time the access to higher academic education was very limited for women. From this pattern there are two points that I wish to stress. First, rock art research, as well as archaeology in general, was a relatively "open" discipline to enter for women born in the era before World War II. This is actually something which separates archaeology from other academic disciplines, not at least in Scandinavia where the first woman to defend a PhD-dissertation in archaeology dates back to the early 20's (Hanna Rydh, see Arwill-Nordbladh 1998). These pioneers and their partly unwritten history should be something to be proud of and to highlight within our discipline (see Claassen 1994; Diaz-Andreu & S0rensen 1998). Thereby have I not stated that this era represented a fe/ male relationship to be proud off. The reason for this "openness" is not easy to put a finger on. One could be the very strong romantic preconception of archaeology as something fashionable and exotic, which sometimes lead to the point of view that archaeology was an upper class hobby, and as a hobby, archaeology was not perceived as a real hard science (which actually was one of the reasons behind the proclamation of the New Archaeology in the early 60's). In general, and whether we like it or not, this is a common opinion among more ordinary people even today, but as Anati's directory clearly demonstrates, this is not the case here - most of the women concerned show a long and profound research history which also includes formal educational merits. Second, the recognition of this issue at different universities all around the world in the late 60's to the 7

Joakim Goldhahn Table 0.1. The relationship between fe/male agency within archaeological educational system in Sweden during the late 80's. The PhD-examination percentage stretches over a decade with the aim to reduce the fluctuations that occur during a single year.

Of course, we shall not rush to any deeper conclusions from this short Swedish example. But even if the relationship alters between different countries and research traditions, I think that this shows a general trend, which disadvantages women in front of men after, and probably as a consequence of this, during their individual PhD-studies. From this perspective we suggest two different and separated paths for male (research and theoretical) and female (teaching and practical) archaeologists. As a conclusion of this, I think the pattern in figure 0.1-0.3 could be seen as a result of a hierarchical system and structure which gives an advantage for young (eager) male archaeologists who agree to run along on different paths. Paths which (sometimes) have already been marked out by previous researcher/sand/ or by their tutors. Coming so far, I think it is quite clear that the social representation alters between the biological sexes within rock art research, and it does not take any genius to guess that the positions held within this field were (and are) shared unequally between men and women. To materialise the latter preconception and make it more tangible, we can look at the fe/male relationship within different positions that the participants in Anati's directory held at 1985.

Firstyearstud Secondyearstud. Thirdyearstud. PhD examine Lectures Researchfellows Professors early 80's, seems not to have made any deeper impact within this particular field of archaeology in the mid 80's! Instead, the relationship between the sexes seems to harden among the younger generation of researchers. This could conventionally, and conveniently, be explained as a result of women's childbearing bias, but it's a bit unlikely and simplistic. Another more likely possibility here, is that this could be recognised as a result of an institutionalised male dominated hierarchy, for such systems and structures has often proved to be eager to reproduce themselves. To exemplify this general trend, we can turn to the academic field in Sweden in the 80's. A general trend within this field, both then as well as in the present, was that the amount of female under-graduate students was higher in lower education (up to Bachelors examination), while their representation in higher education, MA-thesis, PhD etc., seems to cease. After the students have entered the post-graduate field, the male bias and the underlying factors which reproduce this academic field seem to become activated and visible. This can be illustrated in table 0.1, which data is taken from Nordbladh (1991). The amount of female professors was relatively high in Sweden at the time when Nordbladh conducted his survey - today seven out of eight chairs are male attributed, 87.5 versus 12.5 percent. This is actually a bit higher female representation than the average situation at Swedish universities, which states that between seven to 11 percent of the professors are female (sic). From this table it become perfectly clear that it is after the PhD-examination that the disadvantage of women starts and the male bias become visible in different statistics, mostly among research fellows and professors. It is also among these categories we can expect to find the people listed in Whos who in rockart, and its also then we find the most comparable numbers between these fields and figures.

Positions Compared to other related fields within archaeology, anthropology, ethnology, etc., rock art is something else. At first, the rock art images do not seem to need any deeper "translation" to speak to their audience. The depicted animals, humans, and other symbols seem to announce their presence directly and they also seem to demand some kind of answers - where, when, why? Compared to a flint flake or a scraper, rock art does not demand the same pre-knowledge, or should we say "cultural capital", to fascinate. The images, so to say, "speak'' for and by themselves. In that sense, rock art is comparable with "art", and as art in general it fascinates most of us. Rock art studies and research is also different in another respects. It is as time consuming as an ordinary archaeological excavation, anthropological fieldwork, or other kind of surveys. But in comparison to an archaeological excavation, the study of rock art does not need the same kind of sanction and permission as other archaeological investigations. 1 Mostly because of the fact that a proper survey and documentation does not destroy the rock paintings and carvings. An excavation, on the other hand, is more final in its character. Up until today it is usually free of charge to visit different rock art sites, to pay the images your respect and to contribute to the overwhelming flora of interpretations 8

Introduction: Rock art as social representation

male

male

87%

80%

female 20%

female 13%

Figure 0.4. Relationship between fe/male which lack formal education and employment within the field of cultural historical institutions (source: Anati 1985).

Figure 0.5. The fe/male relationship within the academic rock art discourse (source: Anati 1985).

which seem to be inherent in the arbitrary images. In this respect, rock art studies has probably been among the last disciplines within the broader academic field which has been open for more "common people", or so called amateur archaeologists. Here the latter notion only refers to individuals who do not make their actual living out of all their time and effort and - most of the time their well conducted and contributing surveys, documentation, and research. For instance, in present-day Sweden, there is not any professional rock art researcher that I am aware of, who conducts any systematic surveys and documentation work for their research. Most of the research that has been undertaken in the last 10 years, is based on already published material. When it comes down to documentations and surveys, its even hard to provide any field workers with formal archaeological education. When the rock art museum in Vitlycke in Bohuslan (western Sweden), recently started their new, and so far very successful, survey and documentation in Askum parish, the field workers consist of a county surveyor and a plumber (Brostrom & Ihrestam 1997, 1998, in prep). No educated archaeologists with formal training and with the proper experience of working with rock art were to be found. Anyway, not in comparison to the former, which together have more than 50 years of experience working with rock art. Together they have discovered about 20 percent (!) of the total amount of known rock art in Sweden, and they have also conducted continuously surveys and documentation work every year. Most of the time, or at least - too many times, without any economic compensation from any antiquarian institutions. As an archaeologists of the early 90's, entering the field of rock art with some kind of tabula rasa, you can only consider yourself lucky if you have the blessing to

get the opportunity to follow them in their field work, and to learn from their long and profound experience. We also have to admit that most of the rock art material which we ground our research upon today, would not be around if it was not for this kind of "voluntary" work. Or should we thank the magic of rock art? Sometimes the situation is alarming, not least because of the threats of natural weathering and the escalating impact of human beings in different forms of pollution, vandalism, excessive cultural tourism, etc. Today, in the bountiful rock carving area in Bohuslan, only five (!) out of 24 parishes have been properly documented and only four of them are published. Very prominent rock art areas, like the famous Tanum parish which has been listed on UNESCO's World Heritage list since December 1994, lack any more profound and consequently scientifically grounded documentation, but both surveys and documentation have been undertaken by so called amateur researchers. Most of the documented material remains unpublished though. One volume of Torsten Hogberg's, a former textile worker, very solid documentation was published in 1995 by the initiative of the Vitlycke museum (Hogberg 1995), but 90 percent of his documented rock carving materials still remains unpublished because of the lack of financial means (Hogberg in prep). So far, the antiquarian and archaeological establishments have failed to take on their full responsibility, and a big challenge lies in front of us to make it all up. This short Swedish example could maybe be seen as gloomy self-pity, if it was not for the fact that this is a rather common situation in too many rock art areas around the world (e.g. Beckenshall 1992; Beckenshall & Laurie 1998; Bradley 1997).

9

Joakim Goldhahn

PhD 40%

PhD 49%

other/? 9%

other/? 6% 32%

13%

Ma 49%

2%

Figure 0.6. Educational degrees among males (source: Anati 1985).

Figure 0.7. Educational degrees among females (source: Anati 1985).

This openness into the academic field of rock art, is probably about to change these days, in pace with an enlarging availability of higher education, but it was very evident when Anati completed her directory. It also reveals some interesting fe/male structure within this sub-field. Among the 294 people listed in Whoswho, there where 17, c. six percent, who did not state their position, and they are therefore excluded in the following numbers. 55 persons, c. 19 percent, state that they had not had any professional training within the academic disciplines which I directly relate to the current field of rock art, here archaeology, anthropology, ethnology, cultural heritage, history, etc. It is also stated in the directory that all these persons had another profession beside their apparently active involvement in rock art research. Among them 48 are male, seven female. The women state themselves as an architect, amateur archaeologist, astronomer (two), lecture in fine art, photographer, and as a private researcher (see appendix). Males have a wide range of professions, among others, five professors in different disciplines, four architects, four fine artists, four teachers in different areas, three engineers, some surgeons, and one "archaeological adviser", etc. All in all, they represent 38 different professions! The male bias is very clear and over represented within this group (fig 0.4, see fig 0.1-0.3). Turning to the professional trained and full time employed researchers within the broader cultural historical field of rock art, there are 222 individuals left. They embody 75 percentage of the listed persons in Anati's directory, and they represent no less then 65 different positions within this field. This means that there is an average of 3.5 person on every stated position! This certainly reflects a hierarchical structure, but also the fact that the genus of different positions alters between different countries and research traditions. A professor in Norway, is not the same as a professor in USA. In the following, I have tried to compensate this

fluctuation after my knowledge about the "academic ladder" in different educational systems, and I am sure that each individual in the directory has tried to do so too. Of the 222 individuals left, there are 177 male and 45 female (80/20), which actually represents a tiny improvement comparing the overall relationship between the sexes, with one percent (fig 0.5)! Looking at the most frequent position, together one third of this category, we get the following impression (tab 0.2) ... ...And if we rearrange this figure after an increasing or decreasing scale - your choice ! - yet another confirmation (tab 0.3). It is very notable that the female representation is decreasing with the higher and more prestigious positions. In comparison to the overall male bias, females seem to be a bit "over represented", if we should use this notion at all within this context, among researchers, archaeologists, and lecturers, but once again they seem to be excluded from the higher positions. Interesting enough, this impression is not in line with their ...

Educational merits Looking at the different educational merits that is given by the rock art researchers in Anati's directory, it can be summarised in two figures (fig 0.6, 0.7, see appendix). From these figures we see that there is a slightly lesser percentage of PhD's among females, 40 compared to 49 percent, but instead we find a higher average level of educational merits among female researchers than in the male category. And this is despite the fact that the female category is rather excluded from the more prominent positions like "head of departments, professors, and directors" (tab 0.2-0.3). If we relate these numbers to the total amount of fe/male in the directory, the over represented average of well educated females become clear. The frequency of individuals that have defended a MA or PhD, is 60 percent among

Introduction: Rock art as social representation

Table 0.2. The most frequent position named in Who's who according to fe/male relationship (source: Anati 1985).

Table 0.3. As tabler 0.2, but rearranged.

9 Director

Director Curator Researcher Archaeologist

Archaeologist Curator Head of dept Lecture

Lecture

males, 71 among females (144/238 vs 40/56). So, despite the fact that female researchers have a slightly better educational merit per se, this had little or no impact on their possibility to reach the most prominent positions within this field. 100 percent of the heads of different departments were male, 90 of the professors, 89 of the directors, 84 of the curators, etc. The reasons for this are harder to come to terms with, but, a bit contradictory, one seems to be the formal lack of higher education among females. For in fact, female rock art researcher were a little under-represented among the PhD's at the time when Anati compiled her directory. It was 87 male, and 18 female represented here, which totals 105. That gives about 83 percent males against 13 females among this group. The exclusion of females from higher positions is evident, but with these representational numbers in mind, it is also very clear that one reason behind the male bias can be understood as a consequence of the formal lack of PhD' s assigned by females. This should not be considered as any defence for the male bias, but rather as an explanation of it. If there were not more than 13 percent of females within the group who had defended a PhD, we could not expect to find a higher representation in a position that demands this examination, or? This does not mean that I like to turn the androcentric bias against the female researchers a second time around. Rather, this points to the fact that the exclusion of women from higher positions starts much earlier in their academic career, than when it comes to appoint individuals to higher and more prestigious positions (cf. tab 0.1). As I like to exemplify in the following, the biases of biological and social sex, also manifest themselves through very sublime and "hidden" strategies. These strategies are active on both a conscious and unconscious level of the agents, and this is responded to in a similar way by other agents within the engendered structure.

3 3 3 7

5 3 2

10 11 16 23 25

28

24 16 23 15

28

8

1

123

Some notes on the Oedipus complex One most fascinating thing with Anati's directory is that male participants tends to "add" and "spice up" their positions by small and sublime understatements. When they were asked about their current educational merit they did not state themselves as an MA-archaeologist, but as a "PhD-candidate". The result of this is that their stated current position seems to point further ahead. At first I did not notice this irrelevant (?) circumstance, but time after time it occurred again. This could easy be interpreted as some kind of Oedipuscomplex, where the male attributed agents, with or without their own consciousness, want to stress and demonstrate their ability and potency to climb higher on the academic ladder. "Watch me, I am powerful"! That these kinds of sublime understatements also paid off, can be studied in the fact that most of the women needed a better education and merits to gain their self stated positions and titles. For example, no women with lesser degree than a MA-thesis, state themselves as an archaeologist, six men do with "only'' a Bachelor degree. No woman reaches the position as a director without a MA, four men do. It demanded a higher education for females to become an assistant professor and research associate, then for males, etc., etc. (see appendix). It is also the males who keep on stating and reaching sub-titles as "head-", "chief-", and "senior conservator", or "chief-", "consulting-", "first,,, and "senior curator", or "senior lecture", etc. From figure 0.2 and 0.3, it seems that male students entered this post-graduate field much earlier than females, which could be seen as an intention eagerly to climb further within this particular academic field and in their careers. This is also notable if we look to the fe/ male relationship according to academic examination. Figure 0.8 shows that the female representation is highest in "the middle" group of MA-rock art researchers, which could be interpreted as if the male researcher enters this field much earlier than females (already as 11

]oakim Goldhahn

JOfJJ/4

convincingly demonstrates, this resulted in male field workers seeming to posses a more "clear cut" knowledge about their performed practice. Gero talks about two different engendered "research styles", and argues that they can be seen as different social strategies for two different genders, which in the end are actively involved in the reproduction of the male bias and the androcentrism within archaeological science. As Gero (1996: 274) puts it:

Elmale

8(JJ/4

□female

6(JJ/4 4fJJ/4 2(JJ/4 0% Ba

Ma

... women archaeologists have attended differently, more closely, to the specificity of the phenomena they encounter, in making pedestals and making maps, and to the extent that they have done so, they been disqualified from positions of cognitive authority, disadvantage and disempowered within the male identified epistemological framework of scientific archaeology.

PhD

Figure 0.8. Fe/male relationship according to academic examines (source Anati 1985).

Bachelors), and that the latter seem to get stuck in their academic career after their MAs. Meanwhile, in the other end of this discourse, males go ahead and finish their PhD's. Later on they enter the most prestigious positions (tab 0.2, 0.3). If we not chose to view this as a result of the different sexes' ability, which would be quite absurd, it seems logical to explain these figures as a result of the hierarchical structure itself: as an institutional male bias hierarchy which promotes males and male succession to the highest position within this field, "from father to son" and "as father as son". This may also gives us some hints about the "mechanism" behind the biases we touch upon above, but they are far from pronounced. It is my personal belief that this androcentric trend within the field of rock art, cannot be fully understood, nor coped with, without considering the larger field of archaeology, and in the end, the wider social and cultural context which constitutes the frame for our discipline. But as Ian Hodder (1999) recently pointed out, there has not been any deeper concern about how the production of archaeological reasons and knowledge is performed within an engendered space, nor has this been related to the shaping and reshaping of different agency and gender within archaeological practice. A most interesting exception to this is the American archaeologist Joan Gero and her study on how the assertion of power is reproducing the male bias within a given context, in this case a field excavation (Gero 1996). Her study showed how the practice of archaeology is engendered and actively involved with the reproduction of the androcentric bias within a small group of field workers. In this case, male agency tended to outline thicker soil stance and more pronounced and clear-cut boundaries around different notable stratigraphical structures, than female field workers did. This resulted in more photos being attached to "male soil stance", or "male attributed structures", and as Gero

A similar sublime strategy can be studied in Anati' s directory by the recurrent understatement of educational merits by male researchers, for you may ask yourself - "who is interested to know which year a professor emeritus took his Bachelor degree within the field he later became a professor?" From my experience of reading this directory there is a typical male-attributed phenomenon to line up merits like that, one after the other; female researchers just state their current educational status. In my opinion, this male attributed phenomenon could be linked to the urge of different agents within this engendered field to show their potency to move on with their career - as a part of the assertion of power within the field of rock art. Or do I overstate this? - You may judge this yourself. The purpose of this rather diminutive prologue about social representation within the contemporary rock art community, or more accurately, its status in the middle of the 80's, has been to address a question to the reader. It does not bring any firm conclusions or prescriptions for the academic field to come to terms with the - hopefully, but not likely - old worn out male bias. It is not even going to bring the just mentioned question to the reader, that question and its answer we all ought to search for ourselves. To quit this discussion about social representation and move forward with this anthology, it is tempting to paraphrase Hultkrantz's statement above: while the pattern is consistent, the individual opinion about the causes will vary ...

Looking furtherby looking back During the last decades, or since Ariela Anati published her directory, rock art studies has witness a tremen12

Introduction: Rock art as social representation dous growing interest, both among more "common people", partly in the form of a new kind of cultural elite tourism, as within the academic field of archaeology. The latter has manifested itself as a quite astonishing theoretical revival, and according to my view, some of the most interesting and path breaking archaeological works since the early 90's have been centred around the interpretation of rock art. I see several reasons for this and in the following I would like to touch upon some of these by using a wider archaeological perspective on this particular field. Rock art has a research tradition among the longest, strongest, and most profound within the field of archaeology (e.g. Bahn 1998: 1-69). This long and flourishing research history has shaped the study of rock art into a field on its own, and it could quite easily be perceived as an autonomous discipline, or at least as a free standing sub-discipline from, among others, anthropology, archaeology, ethnology, fine art, etc. It has its own vocabulary, field methods, journals (such as Adoranten, American Indians Rock Art, Bolletino def Centro di Studi Preistorici,/NORA Newsletter, Pictogram, Rock Art Research, Survey), and even its own research community with their own scientific meetings, and, most of the time, a common interest and goal. It could also be said to share a common theoretical body, which combines and connects rock art researchers to a global stage (cf. Bahn & Rosenfeld 1991; Anati 1993; Lorblanchet & Bahn 1993; Helskog & Olsen 1995; Bahn & Fossati 1996; Bahn 1998; Chippindale & Tac;:on 1998). Rock art is in a true sense a global phenomenon, and from that point of view, it connects people on a global scale with their common history and with a legacy which stretches from the early hominids to the dawn of mankind, and further ahead to the present. And to realise this, is probably one of the most fascinating, tickling and alluring features of rock art! This common field of research surely has some benefits and advantages, but it also has some less good consequences. The first and foremost point to be permitted here, is that this free standing position may have led to a too autonomous position from other academic fields, where discovering, recording, and, sometimes, publishing rock art becomes an aim in itsel£ Often this is performed in clear cut "territories" that embody different researchers with different research areas. As the head quoting of Richard Bradley suggests, this volume would like to follow a different path, and try to view rock art in relation to the thinking, feeling, laughing, dreaming, and in short - the living human beings that once produced the carvings. This both includes questions about the rituals that surrounded the production of rock art (Widholm, Goldhahn), the

broader cultural context which surrounded this production (Larsson, Zvelebil & Jordan), and why certain motifs are executed the way they are (Fuglestvedt, Lindgren). This path runs along with the increasing interest in theoretical issues which have been addressed within the field of rock art during the last decade. When I started my training to become an archaeologist in the late 80's, an interest in rock art was considered as a wasted interest, and you where told, quite odious - "there is not anything left to say''! For instance, one of the most path breaking dissertations dealing with rock carvings in Sweden (Nordbladh 1980), was best known for its bad smelling glue that had been used to bind the back of the book! An interest in rock art was viewed as a dead end, and in some respect it had been so for quite a while. For, while large parts of the archaeological field tried to break new theoretical paths during the early 80's, labelling with a lot of new "ismisming", nothing really happened within rock art studies. In any case, the researchers' efforts and results did not make any deep or profound impact on the general theoretical discourse. Of course, if we try, we will find some exceptions, but most of the rock art researchers put their heads close to the rocks and kept on working on their chronologies. Not so much for the reason to use them in discussing the changing ritual context of the rock art in time and space, but rather because it made them feel objectively safe and secure, and that they accomplish something long lasting for generations of rock art researchers to come. Meanwhile, the New Archaeology (NA) came and went, and while the young and eager post-processualist (PPA) kept the former's fire warm, rock art still was in the hands of the "bread and butter" traditionalist. For a long time then, rock art was treated as if the subject had had enough revealing investigations, there was nothing left worth saying out there. Instead, this field was handed over to the "amateur archaeologist", who in turn had endless time to spend, desperately trying to figure it all out. When occasionally "real" archaeologist dealt with rock art, it was almost certainly from a traditionalist point of view, which treated the images as "portable artefacts" (Bradley's 1997: 8 illuminating metaphor). Like Bronze Age metalwork they were presented as stray finds, clustered into some kind of chronological or typological succession, isolated from their context in the landscape, or elsewhere, and the meaning that seemed worth extracting was from the representational art which seemed to have a meaning of its own. I think the late Ronald Morris (1981: 3) summarise this perspective very well, here discussing the cupand-ring marks from northern Britain:

13

Joakim Goldhahn For over a century archaeologists have been trying to solve the riddles posed by these cup-and-ring carvings. What did they represent? What messages did they have? We don't know who, or what race that carved them. Now days we can make a very good guess at the period over which they were carved. But, in spite of a great deal of research by a great many people, that is all. A similar scepticism was present in Scandinavia during this time (e.g. Burenhult 1980; Maimer 1981: 102ff, 1989), and with but a few exceptions, the traditionalist perspective hold a strong hand until the early 90's. Knut Helskog (1993) has compared the situation with a "strait-jacket". Meanwhile, in another part of the archaeological field, the NA and PPA had dug themselves down to some previous unknown depth in their self made trench graves, and I think it is fair to describe the situation at the end of the 80's as some sort of disciplinary crisis. Divided by their common interest the situation between the battling forces seemed to freeze their positions. The division between theory and practice became more and more uncomfortable, it was time to act, for a praxis. One way out of this dreadful situation was the yet-untouched field of rock art. Here the discussion was not infected by any locked NA or PPA positions. The rock art itself could not easily be viewed without considering the ideological aspect of the prehistoric societies that made them. It is also very hard to distinguish the rock art from the surrounding landscape, which together with the former point seems to combine some of the strongest attributes for the NA and PPA. The theoretical paradigms, and "the loss of innocence", that the late David L Clarke proclaimed in the early 70's, were no longer diverging, but had start to converge (c£ Hodder 1999), and partly they co-joined in the new interest in rock art. (Once again, I have not said that any firm NA or PPA-archaeologist would agree with me on the former point, but judging from the theoretical debate - whereever it went - they seem to have withdrawn their arms). Among other things, this new interest in rock art concerned questions about the founding and reproduction of a social and ritual landscape (e.g. Hood 1988; Tilley 1991, 1999: 133ff; Hesjedal 1994; Bradley 1997; Withley 1998), a re-examination of the use of the concept of style (e.g. Layton 1992; Lorblanchet & Bahn 1993), as well as the emphasis of the ritual context of the production and reproduction of the rock art (e.g. Dowson & Williams 1989; Layton 1992; Clottes & Lewis Williams 1996; Goldhahn 1999).

About this anthology Recently Chris Chippindale and Paul Tac;:on(1998: 6ff) distinguished two rather different but related ways to explore the meaning and significance of rock art, what they define as the informed and formal method. The former centres on the rare but fortunate cases where rock art can be studied within "living traditions". Compared to the fact that rock art has been produced all over the populated world, from the Upper Palaeolithic to the 20th century, the actual cases where this kind of study can be conducted with some success is very limited -Australia, Southern Africa, and Northern America make up by far the best examples. From this we see that most of the preserved rock art has to be studied through the means of the latter formal method. This formal method can be said to be characterised by a "cabling" (Wylie's 1989 metaphor) of different kind of methods and theoretical perspectives which can be connected to an external and emic mode of viewing living societies, but also the so called "dead societies" which populate our prehistory. The latter have to be held responsible for the overwhelming part of the known rock art. This method includes several aspects. First - what is immanent in the images themselves or what can be interpreted from the structural relationship between different images and their position on different panels and in the landscape. Second- what can be gained through the use of different statistical methods in search for a chronology. Third - what can be gained by using other archaeological methods such as excavations to explore the ritual context of the rock art. And last,by the use of different ethnoarchaeological or anthropological analogies. To this list we can add more ordinary methods from other academic fields, which traditionally are in use within the field of archaeology (see Chippindale & Tac;:on 1998 for an extended discussion). The papers in this anthology all start in the latter group of formal methods and they deal with a wide range of settings. They range from an existential and phenomenological view of rock art, the interpretations of single contextual finds of rock carvings, to more broadened perspectives which try to connect the interpretation of rock art to the longdureeof hunter-fishergatherers, or to the spread of a chiefly semi-devine elite ideology throughout over Europe during the second millennium BC. The contributing papers fall into three parts. One which centres round the specific rock art motifs, and tries to provide an interpretation of their meaning and significance - the viewing section,and a secondpart which tries to re-viewthe rock art through their social, ideological, and cultural settings. The third part is made up of a reviewof Chris Tilley's rock carvings studies from Namforsen and Hogsbyn in Sweden. 14

Introduction: Rock art as social representation

Figure 0.9. Rock carvings from Namforsen, Sweden (after Hallstrom 1960).

Viewing Whether we just want to address the aesthetic values of rock art, or try to say something about its social, ritual and cultural context, viewing rock art is probably the most common "method" within rock art research. Having said that, I also want to stress that this is the most unexplored one! Usually we do not consider this viewing as anything problematic and worth dealing with in a theoretical discourse. But then we are forgetting that what we are viewing is not any objective natural thing or phenomenon - the rock art is the outcome of an active social and ritual practice which has been maintained, manipulated and manifested through the means of different agents and genders and their social strategies. This can in turn be related to the need of an ideological legitimisation within different societies, which in turn can be related to all forms of social praxis, both on an individual psychological scale as on a more extended sociological and cultural scale. Despite this, the actual "artists" are rather invisible for us today, and usually we do not have any information about who made the images. What we see today is the outcome of, most probably, ritual practice. If we accept this as a starting point and turn to the individual or individuals that once made the rock art, we

can view the production of rock art as "something more" than just [rock] "art". Rock art is an encultured space that embodies something more than just putting images on a rock. It is the outcome of an active action (event) which is activated in a broader cultural field of social praxis (structure), and it equally embodies the difference between the perceived and the concept. By conjoining these different, but equally unseparable, perspectives, rock art constitutes a performed wholeness which could be said to materialise both a diachronic and synchronic time scale (i.e. Levi-Strauss 1971). So the production of rock art always involves two different time concepts, and the way different panels and motifs are arranged according to the choice of motifs, scale, perspective, etc., can therefore be related to a kind ofhabitus (Bourdieu 1977), an institutionalised social praxis which can be perceived as different agents' "finger marks" within this broadened engendered setting. As an example of this we can look at figure 0.9 and 0.10, illustrating some elk motifs from the famous Namforsen site in Norrland, and some of the rock carving motifs from Backa in Bohuslan, both situated within the borders of present-day Sweden. The structural differences between these rock carvings, is obvious and overstated, but it highlights several of the former argu-

15

Joakim Goldhahn

Figure 0.10. Rock carvings from Backa, Sweden (after Almgrenl927).

ments. The elks from Namforsen all seem to be clustered at random, and in a quite chaotic state of mind they all seem to run around without any clear directions, composition or arrangement. The different motifs are similar in size and are repeated again and again. This could be interpreted as every new motif has been chosen to express some kind of unity. This is very much strengthened by the presence of the older motifs - the choice of motifs is made with the purpose to avoid contradicting elements and motifs (cf Tilley 1991). The relationship between structure and event is converging. If we then turn to the rock carvings from Backa, we see several different motifs, humans, a spear and some boats, but also some "unfinished" motifs like the

calves and legs of a human being. The rest of the body is "missing", as if it had sunk down into the rock. What is relevant here, the part of the body which has been pecked and is visible, or the other "missing" or invisible part? Further, both the human beings and the boats are altered in size and seem to express some sort of hierarchical perspective which is strengthen by the fact that some of the motifs have been pecked over "older", or already present motifs. The largest depicted human could then be interpreted as a ritual destruction of the former motifs and the choice of the size of these images seems to confirm this contradiction to the other motifs in an active way. The relationship between structure and event is more pronounced and seems to diverge. 16

Introduction: Rock art as social representation

So while the former rock carving seems to converge and conjoin the individual images, the latter seems to over-stress the relationship between them. Considering the (ritual) time concept that is expressed on these different panels, they seem to point in two totally different directions. The Namforsen carvings seem to constitute "time" by an emphasis and relationship with the past (the already present images, i.e. what has been), the Backa carvings, with the ritual destruction of previous images, seem to stress the future to come (i.e. Goldhahn 1999). Both made in "the present" though. It should not come as any surprise, that these two panels are taken from two different rock art traditions, which in turn relate to two different social and cultural settings. But, despite this, I think that these examples also highlight the possibility to explore these differences within their particular contexts. How and why are the motifs produced and arranged in the way they are. What relationship and perspective do they produce and reproduce? To highlight this further, we might ask ourselves, why most of the motifs within the Palaeolithic rock art are "looking down" on the observer, and why the observer finds himself "looking down" on images from yet another rock art tradition? What is the purpose behind these different perspectives? What relationship is re/produced, and why are the images executed in the way they are? What does the altered perspective between different images say about their meaning, the rituals that surrounded the production of the rock art? In short - which relations are gained through the images and the observer, and how can we use these relationships in our interpretations of the rock art today? This is a rather simple question, which in contrast demands a lot of theoretical concern and elaboration. But most certainly, these concerns will reveal rather different and complex answers, and by raising them we probably will take another step in our quest and search for the inherent meaning and significance of rock art. Another way to make use of this viewing is presented by Ingrid Fuglestvedt in the opening paper of this anthology - Adorants, voltigeurs and other mortals. By using depicted human beings from different panels from the South Scandinavian Bronze Age rock art tradition, and an existential and phenomenological perspective on the human body, she presents a discussion about how we could interpret these motifs through the use of the formal method. Fuglestvedt's interpretation is presented without any direct discussion of the ritual and cultural context of the rock carvings. Instead she argues for a "primitive extensialism" which is shared among all human beings, and that is expressed in the way that human beings depict and mediate the human body in different contexts. Fuglestvedt argues that we live our life through

our bodies, and that through this experience we perceive and make the world understandable. The bodyexperience is a precondition to move around and learn about the world. So we experience the world through our body, and as a consequence and response to this, by altering it in different media and contexts we also mediate our experience and knowledge about the world. In this particular case, this means that Fuglestvedt make use of depicted human bodies on different panels to raise questions about their underlying meaning and significance. A rather different point of departure is taken in Britta Lindgren's article Rock art and gender - the case of the cup-marks. The cup-mark, or couples, is by far the most common rock art motif within the south Scandinavian rock art tradition, but despite this, they are seldom discussed or interpreted in any more extended or theoretical way. Lindgren's paper deals with the relationship between cup-marks, human beings and animals, which have sometimes been considered as engendering factors. Lindgren argues that the relationship is far from simple, and suggest a more contextual approach where the cup-marks sometimes can be perceived as a narrative suffix, other times as an engendering symbol. The discussed relationship is far from explored to its full potential and extent, but Lindgren points to the need and benefit of raising these questions, at least it give us the potential possibility to search for answers to them in the future.

Re/viewing The reviewing section starts with Thomas B Larsson's paper The transmission of an elite ideology. Larsson argues for a strong per polity interaction between the Near East, the eastern Mediterranean, Central Europe and South Scandinavia during the second millennium BC, where the "diffusion" of both visible and invisible cultural traits was important. Larsson searches for a recontextualisation of the traditional diffusionistic approach, which not only looks for similarities, but also the social and cultural reason behind the spread of ideas or things. Instead he is looking to analyse "the causes and intentions behind the transmission of certain types of artefacts over vast areas". He finds these causes in the broad transformations of different societies in Europe during the second millennium BC, where the emergence of new hierarchical elite societies used the transmission of ideas and symbols to legitimise their newly gained positions. Larsson sees this development "as a chain of interaction'', where the spread of selected artefacts, traditions or myths, or even major parts of different cosmologies, indicates some more profound transmission than merely a diffusion of material cul17

Joakim Goldhahn ture - in this case "social transformation together with an adoption of new social institutions". This also leads to a converging cosmology over vast areas during the second millennium BC. According to Larsson, the south Scandinavian Bronze Age rock art tradition is one example of this. Both the contributing papers from Dag Widholm and Joakim Goldhahn deal with the latter context and some rare and fortunate contextual finds of rock carvings, the Hjortekrog cairn and the Sagaholm barrow. Both these finds stem from excavations which were undertaken some 30 to 40 years ago. Despite the fact that rock carving is rare in these kinds of contexts, there has not been any more profound examination of these finds, nor any proper investigation which highlights their originality. Both these find contexts have been published recently in Swedish (i.e. Widholm 1998; Goldhahn 1999), and together with the famous Kivik cairn from Scania (Randsborg 1993), these finds constitute the most important keys to the rituals that surrounded the production of the rock carvings within this particular rock art tradition. It is therefore both a pleasure and an honour to get the opportunity to present these rare finds to a wider and international audience of rock art researchers. Widholm's paper - Rockart as a part of BronzeAge funerary rites - centres round the presentation of the unique finds of rock carvings from the Hjortekrog cairn, but also raises doubts of more recent interpretations of rock carvings sites as major collective ritual centres. Instead he stresses the dose relationship with the burial ritual, and the intensity and intimacy of this particular context. Widholm argues that there is a strong structural deviation between the Hjortekorg cairn and other known cairns in this particular area of Sweden. The presence and absence of so called secondary burials, the placing of the cairns in the landscape, and of other repeated rituals around these graves, points to a rather unique burial of an individual with certain deviating gender or ritual positions. My own paper, Rock art and the materialisationof a cosmology,tries to dose in on the ritual context that surrounded the production of the rock carvings from Sagaholm. Here the rock carvings were produced as an important part of a burial ritual and incorporated into the body of a Bronze Age barrow, whose stratigraphy reveals several distinguishable construction phases. It tries to demonstrate that these phases can be related to and understood as different stages of the burial ritual's

rite de passage,where the exclusion, transition and incorporation of the deceased individual to a new metaphysical state was essential. By using the stratigraphy of the Sagaholm barrow and relating it to the interpretation of the rock carvings, I argue that they can be understood as a materialised cosmology - a hierophany. The morphology of the barrow and the rock carvings compose an intentional wholeness, which can be interpreted as a cosmological allegory of the regeneration of life, where the sun actively was used as a solid metaphor. The last paper in this part by Marek Zvelebil and Peter Jordan, Hunter fisher gatherer ritual landscapes, returns to the broadened cultural perspective present in Larsson's paper, but now it deals with the cosmology and founding of the ritual landscape of the taiga hunter and gatherers of northern Eurasia. By outline and cabling four different types of analogies - comparative, metaphoric, relational and direct historical analogy Zvelebil and Jordan emphasise the rich potential of the formal method of interpreting rock art. By focusing on the founding and reproduction of the ritual landscape, they demonstrate the need to view rock art as an integrated part of prehistoric societies cosmologies, and how different types of archaeological remains can provide a setting for a deeper and 'thicker' interpretation of rock art.

Review The last contribution in this anthology is Liliana Janik's critical review of Chris Tilley's work on the rock art from Namforsen and Hogsbyn in Sweden. In her paper, Rockart as visualrepresentation, she strongly rejects Tilley's proposal to read rock art, and material culture, as text within a hermeneutic and phenomenological discourse. Instead she argues that rock art is better understood as visual communication which has to be treated within its archaeological settings. She strongly rejects Tilley's "uncritical" and "direct" use of ethnographical analogies, and wishes to see more emphasis on the historical and cultural setting of rock art instead of "looking for linguistic structures with which to interpret the visual images". According to Janik, an emphasis on the latter will deny the particular culture and their communities their independent histories and this will only put more "stress on interpretation itself rather than the object of interpretation".

Introduction: Rock art as social representation Acknowledgement As the editor of this anthology I would like to express my gratitude to the organising committee of the EAAs 4th Annual Meeting in Goteborg, and the audience at this particular session which contributed to a friendly, but yet critical and stimulating dialogue. Many thanks also to David P Davison at Archaeopress in Oxford, for making the appearance of this anthology in BAR International Series possible. Not to mention, his patient to review the English in my own papers. And at last, my compliments to the authors whose professionalism and ability to collaborate made the editing of this anthology easy and worthwhile.

sacred and engendered places (e.g. Layton 1992; Flood 1997). This also goes for the increasing cultural tourism industry and the natural destruction of different panels, which sometimes has led to limiting access to different rock art localities (e.g. Bahn 1998: 254ff). My point here is not to encourage "ordinary people" to go out and start tracing rock art, this demands permission from different kinds of cultural departments and governments, and broadly speaking, this ought to be done by professional people and under controllable circumstances. My point here is that there is a big difference in access to rock art and to other kinds of prehistoric remains, which I think is relevant to point out in this context. For instance, compare the access to recently excavated material, stuffed in different magazines, and the access to different known and documented rock art. The accessibility of rock art is, in my opinion, one reason for its long, profound and increasing interest to non-professionals, which also is so evidently expressed in Anati's directory.

Note 1 - The exception to this is of course the areas where rock art constitutes a part of, so called, living tradition, where often hard restrictions and access to different rock art localities is present. In some places there are even prohibitions to visitors of different sex to visit different

19

]oakim Goldhahn Appendix I - " professionals". Profession and/or position, and education stated in Whos wrhoin rockart (source: Anati 1985). The educational degree is presented in relationship between the sexes male:female.

If:~..

Archaeo10g1st ltllstoncaJ) lpubhc) chief) Assmant Chairman COilaborator IConservator (head) cruerJ semorl Consultant I Cultural resource specialist Curator (chef) consultine:) first) senior) emeritus) Deputv keeper Director Environmem olaner Editor Ethnolnaist Freelance Graduate student Head of Depart. Historian Instructor uniorfdlow Lecture senior) Maitre de Conferences IMuseum stan I instructor IPresident I lv1ce) I Protess10nal Uthcer ol

1vfale

·:.'I...

I•

1,,,...

....

1 15 1 1 1 2

5

....

..

'::.·.'

9

1: 2: l:

2

1:2 l:

1

I:

1

1:

:1

3

1:

5:3 1:

1

1:

2:

1:

:1 2:

1: 1 3

:1 8:2

4:

11:1 1:

1: 1: :1

2: 1:

1 1:

1:

1

1:1 4:

I

1:1

1

4 2 I

:1 1:

2:

9

4 4 1

2: l:

1:

2 2 1

1 2

2:

4:2

1:

I

24 1 3 1 2 1

:

l:

3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

...,... .....

3:3

6:

·:,_•·~

/1':1,_:t\

:.;:·

3

1:2 1:

1 2 1

:1 :1

1: 1:

5: 1: 1: :1 3:1 3: 1:

2: 1:

:1 1 :1

1:

Arch. I Professor

28

3

l:

Z7:3

lass1stant prot) ,Researcher lass.) cordmator) director) expert) fellow) lmanager) rock art r.) (senior) worker) Remed Secretary :Sc1ennst ass. I:itudent I :Surveyor ·1eacher l echnic1an ·1our director Volunteer

4 6 4 1 2

4 4

1: 1:

1: 4: 2:1

1 1

:1

3:

3:4 1: 1:3 1: 2: :1 3: 1:

!

12.

0 2 1 I

6 I I I

1: I I I

:1 2:1 1: 1:

4:

:1

3:

3 I

1: :1 1: 1: 57:22

I I

1 2

1:

1:

1

22:1

20

87:18

5:2

5:2

Introduction: Rock art as social representation Appendix II - "non- prefessionals". Profession and education related to the study of rock art by "non- professionals in Whos Who in rockart (source: Anati 1985).

lm:i 1 :

Administrator Archaeologist (adviser) (amateur) Architect Art Instructor Artist (fine) Astronaner Cordinator Chemist Chief Deoutv orinci oal Doctor (med) Enl!'ineer Field worker General secret. Geololrist Headmaster Insoector Lecture Fine Art Museum ass. Photoi:rraoher Private resear. Professor (Ene:lish) (l!'eo!o11V) !invuistic\ natural science) socioloe:y) Psvchiatrisr Retired Soeleo!oe:isr Self emoloved (restoriator) ISurgeon l eacher (e:eoe:raohvl (Photography) l echnical Director

r

•·),

~e '

re / ....: ,,' :;!?



Deposited as

Social

Longue Duree

l l

Historically situated and interpreted in Western society

" ethnographic

instant"

Figure 6.3. Concepts of time and the archaeological record.

follows, then, that both the past and present temporal frameworks are reflected in the archaeological record: the first in the creation of its structure, the second in its interpretation (fig 6.3). In terms of land use, a crude, but basic distinction can be made between regular, abstract time, and personal, substantial time, the latter mediated more directly by the human experience. The substantial time can be further subdivided into secular and ritual, the former, according to Bloch (1977: 290) is associated with "the systems by which we know the world", the latter, ritual and mythological, "with the systems by which we hide it". As a basic point of departure, it can be argued that the organisation of hunter-gatherer activities in space reflects the different temporal frameworks at their disposal, in particular the operation of secular and sacred time dimensions.

Practical Structures At the practical level hunter-fisher-gatherer land use is guided by practical considerations such as the ecological structure of resources, seasonality, the balance between population and resources, technology and the motivation guiding resource use strategies: i.e. adequate provision of food, long-term risk minimisation, procurement for market and exchange, or social competition, or a combination of all of these. In temperate and boreal regions, hunter-gatherer choice of resource-use strategies is constrained by the marked seasonality of the environment and by the uneven distribution of resources over landscape. Late winter/ early spring tend to be leanest times of the year, and, throughout the year, food resources tend to concentrate in water-edge locations along rivers, lakeshores and coastal zones. In many areas, the concentration of water-edge resources is raised in the summer half of the year by seasonal migrations of waterfowl, anadro-

104

Hunter fisher gathererritual landscapes

♦A

~: .

]:

~

::

.

... .. .. . ... .. .. ... .. . . .. . .. .

.

--

--

.

,

--

---

-

: : :

...£-~._.,cc