The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe

by Chris Fowler

  Much has been written on the connections between passage tomb motifs and those found on natural rock surfaces. Previously it was suggested that passage tomb images pre-dated rock art, with there being continuity into the early Bronze Age (Shee Twohig 1981; Johnston 1993; Jackson 1995; Bradley 1997; Cooney 2000). Recently, however, Waddington (1998) has argued that cup and ring marks (normally associated with open-air rock art) on orthostats from Newgrange Site 1 were incised before inclusion, suggesting that the rock art tradition is older than the act of carving passage tomb images (see also Van Hoek 1988; Edwards and Bradley 1999; Coyne 2001; Purcell 2002; O’Connor 2003). Waddington (1998) does, however, concede that cup and ring marks do occur in later periods, with examples from the stone circle at Newgrange and the early Bronze Age.

  In summary, it seems likely that the rock art traditions in Britain and Ireland commenced in the early Neolithic and continued until the early Bronze Age, with a peak of activity during the late Neolithic. This is confirmed by the dating of passage tombs in Ireland and the fact that open-air rock art motifs are components of a wider repertoire of motifs associated with late Neolithic artefacts, such as Grooved Ware pottery (Bradley 1997; Jones 2000); decorated maceheads, such as that from Garboldisham, Norfolk (Edwardson 1965) or Knowth Site 1, Co. Meath (Eogan 1986); and objects such as the carved chalk artefacts known as the Folkton Drums (Longworth 1999).

  DATING THE NEOLITHIC ROCK ART OF NORTHERNMOST EUROPE

  It is clear that in northernmost Europe the Neolithic rock art cannot be understood in isolation from Mesolithic artistic practices; continuity is evident here that is not present in Britain or Ireland. Indeed, only some of the rock art in northernmost Europe seems to have any relation with societies normally covered by the term Neolithic. Vast areas in this region have never been cultivated: hunting-gathering-fishing has prevailed for millennia, even after most of Europe entered the Bronze and Iron Ages.

  In Karelia, rock art and dwelling occur together on ancient shores. A number of dwelling sites have been excavated at Lake Onega and at the river Vyg by the White Sea (Savvateyev 1988). At the Vyg, dwelling sites were dated to the Neolithic by artefacts, with radiocarbon dates around 5000 BP. Some rock carvings were covered by deposits dated to 1500–1300 BC. At Lake Onega, Mesolithic sites were believed to be much older than the rock carvings; however, Eneolithic dwellings were excavated too. In western Norway excavations at Vingen and Ausevik (Lødøen 2007) yielded fireplaces and dwelling structures. Most artefacts belong to the late Mesolithic, as do a series of radiocarbon dates. At Ausevik (Fig. 46.4), there were few artefacts, but the bottom sample from a series of radiocarbon dates from a charcoal sequence dated to the early Neolithic, the other samples were Bronze Age and early Iron Age. The bottom sample from a rock shelter with rock paintings at Vasstrand, Sør-Trøndelag, was dated to the transition between late Neolithic and Bronze Age. Similar dates were obtained from two decorated caves (Sognnes 2009). Most rock paintings in Finland are located on vertical cliffs emerging from the lakes. Areas immediately below some of these sites have been excavated. At Astuvansalmi, Ristiina, two arrowheads were found, one from the late Neolithic (Sarvas 1969). Underwater investigations in front of some of these paintings yielded a piece of amber shaped like a human face (Taskinen 2000).

  A complicating factor for dating is that northernmost European Neolithic art has similarities with southern Scandinavian early Bronze Age rock art—similarities that can lead to confusion about whether motifs are Neolithic or Bronze Age in date. A fairly acceptable chronology for boat images of the south Scandinavian tradition has been established, based mainly on similar images engraved on bronze razors (Kaul 1998). Few razors are dated to the late Bronze Age, and none to the periods before and after the Bronze Age. The bronze razors have thus been used to suggest a chronological straightjacket for the rock art tradition that may not correspond with reality: boat types (contemporary, older, and later) not represented on razors are not included in the sequence. Whether boat images were made on rocks in the Neolithic is difficult to prove, but at least one type may belong to this period (Fett and Fett 1941, 137; Marstrander 1978, 65; Sognnes 2001, 54).

  FIG. 46.4. Carved rock surface, Ausevik, Sunnfjord, Norway (Hagen 1970).

  FIG. 46.5. Decorated cist slab, Mjeltehaugen, Sunnmøre, Norway (Linge 2007).

  (Reproduced by kind permission of Trond Eilev Linge).

  In central Norway, where most of these images are found, they were made on the same panels as south Scandinavian Bronze Age images and seem to represent the earliest phase on these rocks, sometimes associated with cups and rings. In the same region, boat images from the Scandinavian Bronze Age period 1 (1800–1500 BC) are found too; an earlier phase, then, may date to the late Neolithic (2200–1800 BC). These earlier boat images were also made in a different technique, with narrower and shallower lines. At Leirfall in Stjørdal, central Norway, a framed zigzag pattern adjacent to some of these boat images was made in the same technique and another panel has similar designs. These geometrical designs are reminiscent of a Bell Beaker decoration scheme, with bands of horizontal chevrons and zigzags, and strengthen the suspicion that we may be dealing with late Neolithic rock art. Beakers are virtually non-existent in Norway but were found at a dwelling at Ogna, south-western Norway (Skjølsvold 1972), whilst at Hitra, central Norway, an archer’s wristguard of possible Beaker origin has been found (Marstrander 1954).

  Similar designs are depicted on decorated slabs from stone cists in central and south-western Norway, which probably date to the early Bronze Age (de Lange 1912, Marstrander 1978, Syvertsen 2002). Unfortunately, all of the graves in question were disturbed when these slabs were found. The nearest European parallels to these designs, particularly chevrons and herring bones, but also circles and tassel-like parallel lines, are found in the Göhlitzch grave near Halle, Germany, which belongs to a group of tombs with decorated slabs from central Germany (Marstrander 1978, 51–52). Horizontal bands with zigzags are also found at the Kivik grave in Scania, Sweden (Kristiansen and Larssson 2005; Randsborg 1993), but otherwise no parallels exist between the Norwegian and the Kivik slabs.

  The largest decorated grave cist in Norway was found in the Mjeltehaugen barrow in the Sunnmøre region, western Norway, in the early nineteenth century AD. Unfortunately all slabs were broken into numerous pieces shortly after discovery (Linge 2007; Mandt 1983). The existing fragments most likely belong to several different slabs, some decorated on both sites. On most, the decoration follows the same scheme, with alternating horizontal bands of chevrons/zigzags and parallel lines and, at the bottom, a row of boat images similar to the open-air ones claimed to be Neolithic (Fig. 46.5). If we try to loosen the grip held by the conventional chronology, we may find that a late Neolithic date for the Mjeltehaugen slabs is feasible.

  The provenance of these slabs is an interesting question. The rock is greenish-grey, fine-grained schistose meta-greywacke with rusty weathered layers rich in carbonate. Its nearest sources are in the Sunnfjord region, western Norway, and in the Trondheim Fjord area, central Norway (Askvik 1983). In both cases the slabs would have been transported over long distances, including rough stretches of open sea or portaging across one or more isthmuses between neighbouring fjords. Distribution studies for many Neolithic artefact types, whether of south Scandinavian origin or made from local slates and schists, indicate that Sunnmøre belonged to a socio-economic sphere different from neighbouring regions to the south (Bergsvik 2006). Most likely, the Mjeltehaugen slabs came from the Trondheim Fjord area, where there are decorated slab fragments from several graves (Mandt 1983, Marstrander and Sognnes 1999) and a major cluster of similar boat images from open-air sites, particularly at Røkke (Sognnes 2001).

  The age of the Ausevik site in western Norway has been much debated. At this site several hundred zoomorphic carvings are found together with concentric rings and spirals frequent in the Bronze Age tradition (Fig. 46.4). Zoomorphs and rings appear to represent an entity, dated to e
ither the Bronze Age (Hagen 1970) or to the Neolithic, showing influence from the cup and ring tradition in the British Isles (Fett and Fett 1979, Walderhaug 1998). Gøran Burenhult (1980) argued in favour of a Neolithic beginning for the ring images in Scandinavia. The cup and ring tradition can be identified as far north as the inner end of the Trondheim Fjord around 64°N.

  Other finds from south-western and central Norway indicate Neolithic and early Bronze Age contacts with western Europe, among them a spatula-shaped bronze axe from Vevang, Nordmøre. This axe was produced in the area between the rivers Rhine, Rhone, and Seine (Rønne 2009). At Lindås, in the same region, a carved stone ball from Scotland, probably Neolithic, was found (Marstrander 1979). Most likely, central and west European impulses reached south-western and central Norway during the Neolithic. These impulses were not mediated via south Scandinavia. They merged with existing local rock art traditions, in which boat images played an important role. At the beginning of the Bronze Age, local rock art traditions were replaced by a new symbolic system transmitted from south Scandinavia (cf. Kristiansen and Larsson 2005). Whilst boat images endured through this new tradition, the style of boat depictions changed, as did much else about the art, including a shift from animals to humans as the most common beings shown and a new emphasis on depicting human-made material culture alongside significant numbers of cup marks, rings, and geometric images.

  DISCUSSION: SURFACE TENSIONS

  Rock art in Scandinavia was made from the late (or perhaps even the early) Mesolithic to the Roman Iron Age, presenting two different symbolic systems and traditions, one made by hunter-gatherers-fishers and one by early farmers. Some, and possibly most, hunter-gatherer-fisher rock art was made during the Neolithic, contemporary with the expansion of farming. Both traditions seem related to social changes, the rock art being used to create and mediate cohesion alongside cultural distinction.

  Gjessing (1936) suggested that the later Neolithic rock art in Norway was made by shamans as part of rituals performed before and during the hunt. Recently, shamanism has been brought back into the discourse. In Norway, Geir Grønnesby (1998) has identified a series of geometric images which may be correlated with the three-stage model for shamanic entoptic images (Lewis-Williams and Pearce 2005). Shamanism has also been strongly argued for Swedish rock art (Fandén 2002) and for the Finnish rock paintings (Lahelma 2008). This has, however, been strongly criticized by Helena Günther (2009), who finds that Swedish scholars in particular seldom demonstrate how and in what way shamanism may be present in the archaeological material.

  The total dominance of elk images has made it difficult to argue in favour of Scandinavian rock art representing totemism; alternative totems are hardly ever found. There are, however, some exceptions in regions where more than one representational motif is present, for instance in Alta, Finnmark (Olsen 1994). Anders Hesjedal argued in favour of totemism in his study of rock art in the provinces of Nordland and Troms, Norway, where images represent reindeer, bear, birds, seals, and whales. The majority of marine animals are, however, found in central Norway, where panels may contain fish, birds, or whales only. Sites at Hammer and Evenhus, Nord-Trøndelag, contain most of these motifs. Here clans with different totem animals may have met; at Hammer during the late Mesolithic and early Neolithic, at Evenhus at the end of the Neolithic. For south-eastern Norway, where rock art is dominated by elk images, Ingrid Fuglestvedt (2008) argues that we might identify different totemic groups by means of how the images were drawn. She suggest the existence of an early Mesolithic phase with animistic rock art represented by animals drawn by contour lines only and a later totemic phase during the late Mesolithic and early Neolithic, when the images had certain types of infill, which she suggests represent three possible totemic groups.

  Different animals or infill motifs may symbolize clans with different totems, then, whilst the emphasis on the larger undomesticated animals symbolizes traditional values and ways of life in a changing world. But this art cannot be considered in isolation from the representational material culture of the period: both demonstrate ambiguous images which could be read in several different ways. Some knives were shaped like whales, but have tales shaped like a bear or a bird head. A bird image turned upside down resembles a whale. An elk may have the antler of a reindeer. Elks and deer, predominantly shown without antlers, might be female, or male elks during wintertime. Some elks are depicted with their legs detached, and their heads and bodies look like boats. Thus, the meaning of these images might have been polyvalent.

  The motifs on the Boyne passage tombs in Ireland indicate relationships mediated by images (Cochrane 2006, 267). Asking what these abstract images ‘meant’ may be the wrong question (cf. Bloch 1995; Cochrane 2005, 2009a; Jones 2006; Cochrane and Jones 2012). We may do better to focus on the effect and the process of repeatedly carving images into the same stones and leaving the potential for similar practices in the future (cf. Gell 1998; Cochrane 2008, 2009a). Many previous accounts interpret these images as signs and tokens that reside in the ‘real’ world, alluding to a hidden cosmological world (e.g. Tilley 1991, 1999; Lewis Williams and Dowson 1993; Lewis Williams and Pearce 2005). Yet these images may express rather than represent—significance is thus based on contextual contingencies of use; it is not a pre-constructed given. So, rather than decode the possible meanings of the rock art in Britain and Ireland, we suggest the utilization of non-textual analogies such as those based in appreciations of performance or artistic production. Unfinished works—such as Michelangelo’s non finitos (three-fifths of his sculptures were unfinished: Schulz 1975) or much rock art in Britain and Ireland—effectively create a neurological trick. They create cognitive indecipherability and activate imaginative processes—the spectator is stimulated by the ambiguity of the sculpture and is enticed to try and interpret what is missing or what is happening. These effects work whether one imagines the images as carved into, drawn out of, or passed along the stone. It is plausible for rock surfaces to be thought of as semi-permeable and multi-directional. Images on passage tombs and open-air rock art are simulations of interpretations of reality (Cochrane 2006, 2009a). When engaging with any unfinished decorated stone, the viewer will try to determine what is happening: where do the images start and the stone stop? Why are parts of the stone left unfinished and undressed? Is there another trace image below? As such, rock art invites questions that the spectator will often not be able to answer. With rock art, ambiguity and hesitation are triggered by the visual puzzles left by the creators of the art.

  Across two to three generations, memories of the carving of motifs at open-air panels or at passage tombs may be attributed to particular persons or groups within society, with memories of why they were engraved persisting. Over longer periods of time, such as from the earlier Neolithic to the later Neolithic, personal narratives or stories of motif application may have transformed into myths or sagas. These oral ‘histories’ or myths may have been complex and open to creative and selective re-workings, producing many memories, some real and some imagined, often simultaneously. Bradley (2002a, 8) notes that oral traditions can in some instances become unstable or even corrupt within 200 years. Whittle suggests that these ‘long conversations’ may have incorporated ‘powerful general notions of partiality, fragmentation, contrast and overlap’ (2003, 132). To expand upon this point, we draw upon the recent work of Cummings (2002), who has commented on the similarities between some chambered tombs and natural geological features in south-west Wales and south-west Scotland. She remarks that over successive generations, people may not have distinguished between structures that were ‘original’ and ones created by past generations or mythic entities. Likewise, earlier rock art motifs might not have been ‘remembered’ or considered in the same manner by successive groups. Relationships between people and motifs may have been ambiguous, needing to be constantly worked at or renegotiated, for instance by superimposition. If the superimpositions of motifs were part of processes of remembrance or
citation, they create a paradox where the images refer to a possible past but are directed to a future in which it is anticipated that interpretation will be retrospective (see Bradley 2002b, 122). It is also possible for interpretation to be ad hoc and prospective in other circumstances.

  CONCLUSION

  The rock art of Britain and Ireland was executed over a broad time span from the early Neolithic to early Bronze Age. Whilst the tradition changed over this period one of its curious aspects is the singular lack of representational images. In this sense this practice contrasts strongly with other regions of Europe, including northernmost Europe. We have argued that motifs are ambiguous and that, compared with elsewhere in northern Europe, British and Irish rock art traditions are more closely directed towards activities of making rather than signification. By focusing on the relationship between rock surface and image, on the unfinished and the uncertain, this tradition might be more concerned with what carving does than what it means. These could be ‘images about image making’. Rock art appeals to senses beyond vision (e.g. touch, sound) and sensuous engagements with rock panels (decorated and otherwise) can be further stimulated by the applications of liquids, pigments, and sounds (Jones 2006; Cochrane 2008; Watson 2009). Because of their abstract and engraved nature, the rock art traditions of Britain and Ireland stand distinct from other European Neolithic rock art traditions as they are not attempting to carve persons in the world, be it animals, humans, or objects: rather they are making present the act of carving itself. In contrast, the representational art of northernmost Europe has been used to track the identity-making practices of hunter-fisher-gatherer groups in the context of changing long-range networks. The elk was the dominant motif of these communities, stressing the importance of wild animals for them. Nonetheless, among these traditions too we can suppose that the making of motifs was at least as important as the meaning of the motifs themselves and, following the end of the Neolithic in Scandinavia, non-figurative art played an increasingly important role alongside figurative motifs.