You are on page 1of 17

Studies in Scandinavian Prehistory and Early History

Images as Messages in Society. Prolegomena to the Study of Scandinavian Petroglyphs and Semiotics
By Jarl Nordbladh, University of Gteborg, Sweden.

is, however, no: quite true. Andr Leroi-Gourhan has looked at this, but unfortunately I am not sufficiently well in-, formed about his ideas to discuss them). This paper is not a thorough study of theoOne of the most important aims of the ry, method or practice. It tries to demon- study of images is to gain understanding of strate some new tentative ways for re- and around the visual message and the syssearch in the field of prehistoric images and is tems of symbols which the images constian attempt to enlarge the held of possible tute. This understanding should be so orknowledge. The means for this are, how- ganized that it can be used to broaden other ever, not yet fully agreed on. fields of knowledge whether based on In archaeology it has always been a prob- symbols or not. lem what made man Man. At one stage he It is also possible to treat images as an was a creature that used tools. Later his ordinary archaeological material possessability to devise his own tools was stressed ing physical and technical qualities etc., as the criterion. However, archaeologists but whose existerxe as visual symbols working on prehistoric images can also must be taken into account. Such symeasily make their concept or man a sym- bol-based systems are an important historibol-using and a symbol-making creature, cal source, and they are probably the best (Cassirer 1923-31; White, 1949). Such a starting-point for gaining an understandview gives this research a new dimension ing of a society's view of itself its conwhich has not yet been systematically dealt ceptual world. The study of such material with as regards prehistoric images. (This is, however, especially problematic be-

Images as a Specific Kind of Material in an Archaeological Context

63

cause, as we ought to remember, it already is a result of interpretation when it reaches the hands and minds of archaeologists. This line of thought can be illustrated by the following, simplified figure (fig. 1). In the process of reaching answers to questions concerning the past, several factor; are involved. Much of the physical material existing in the past has disappeared and the remainder is all the time being reducec in quantity. The possibilities open to archaeologists are limited to discovering new material within this contracting amount the limits of which are not known - and also to use the finds in the solving of problems. However, the immanent informaPHYSICAL REALITY OF X

tion of these finds is in principle unlimited. It is only our own capacity for thinking and our experiences that set the limits here. From this it follows that archaeological material can never be fully treated. New problems can make old archaeological finds current issues again. The figure shows the components necessary for the discrimination of symbol-carrying material. Archaeology is a product of our society while the conception of the world of the prehistoric societies is expressed in the material. Therefore the discernment of the symbolic figures is complicated and not altogether clear. It is important in archaeological research

their view of symbols and the symbolic contents in the reality of X

- and what really existed

******** REALITY OF X

OUR view of symbols and the symbolic contents now - and what really exists ficance and a culturally determined concept of symbolic significance. However, everything thought to have such a significance frill in fact become symbolically significant.

Fig. Z. Interacting fields in the establishment of prehistoric symbolic material and symbolic significance. The contents of the two views to the right are not quite logical, but denotes the difference between known and unknown signi-

64

to critically analyse the relations between retical and practical tentatives are still the prehistoric conceptions of the world, open (Rosvall 1974). such as are discernible through the symUnlike art, items such as tools, housebolic material on the one hand and the past hold utensils, buildings, linguistic forms, reality, which the total archaeological finds place-names and social norms may be cononly hint at, on the other. To accept an sidered as concrete material that can be unproblematic illustrative relation without used directly in interpreting past reality (Clausen 1963 : 76). But this view is hardly further ado is not possible. This is one way of facing the problem, a correct. It is typical for archaeological mavery simplified one, but hopefully illumi- terial as well as for all artifact material to nating. A certain conception of the world have different functions in different situcan, however, favour particular social ations. Not only the object but the whole groups and disfavour others, but this does context determines whether symbolic not automatically lead to the creation or lvalues are included or not. ) What is indicated here is a different view different and opposing conceptions of the world. These two reasons have been rather of images, where practically all archaeoloneglected by traditional aft history. When gical artifacts can be investigated according studying images one should therefore con- to their visually symbolic functions, as sider the possibility that contemporary, part of the total symbolic system of the perhaps opposing conceptual worlds, are society. The study of images in a prehistoperhaps what is expressed. The opinion ric context could thus develop and produce that counter-images are a relatively late a set of problems rather than being simply historical phenomenon (Firth 1956 : 67) is a category of physical objects. probably wrong as future studies of the subject may show. The task of investigation should therefore also include discriminating the different imagesystems and their mutual relations. General Discussion of CommuniThe category prehistoric art suggests a cation, Semiotics and Art division of the archaeological material in two parts, consisting of images (in a restric- In archaeology an is generally looked at ted sense of the word) and non-images. from several different points of view, e.g. : A concept of art having special criteria is This is a very crude classification and is sometimes created for idealistic and evohardly suitable to research aimed at clarifylutionary reasons where art itself is seen ing prehistoric images. If the phenomenon rather as an abnormal phenomenon. Acof images is not the same as the one we cording to this idea all societies do not usually accept in our culture - but may have art, or rather they do not possess instead stand for visual messages, then it art of any high quality. The reason for follows that what we usually call art only this lack of art is thought to lie in the forms a part of such a category. The matesupposedly low level of development of rial must be enlarged to be representative. certain societies, societies having a ruBut how far and with what? On the other dimentary aesthetic need but without hand art studies of prehistoric material are sufficient creative powers. far from being exhausted and several theo65

A second view of art is more objective. All cultures are thought to have possessed art, but the material has not always been preserved. It is possible, in archaeological literature, to find yet another explanation for art: art is only made possible when man has sufficient time for recreation,and no longer has to spend all his rime on gaining his subsistence. Explanations like this give art a rather peripheral place in society, and omit the quality of images that many objects can have (Nordbladh 1973). But, as mentioned already, systems of symbols, to which images belong, are fundamental to all human societies. By means of such systems it is possible to establish a conception of the world - a general reference system for a society. Regulated contacts can be made within and between different fields of activities (Ross 1962; Duncan 1968). The term symbol is used with different meanings and of course there is no correct definition. In this paper symbol is intentionally rather vaguely used. It simply means something that indicates something else. The symbol is made and used to evoke thought and action about something extra-symbolic. As a consequence it is-sometimes destroyed to prevent certain..thoughts and actions. It is possible to see prehistoric images - a term to be preferred to prehistoric art - as parts of such systems of symbols. In such a context several reference terms are used, communication and semiotics to mention two of them. It is possible to keep these quite separate, but their respective status refers to different kinds of approach. Here, the term communication is used for a symbolic act within a contact-creative system between individuals and institutions. Communication then contributes to the

orientation in life, establishing social units and - not the least - to the control of one's own and other people's actions. Communication must work both synchronically and diachronically. The action can, under certain conditions, be performed without the presence of a communicator. Communication :s always social, but not necessarily a positive, uncontroversial phenomenon. What is more, many conflicts take place at a symbolic level. Visual communication, as well as other communication, is often net informative, that is, it brings nothing new into being (Maryama 1972). Communication takes place in the acoustic, gustatory, olfactory, tactual and visual fields. Normally these cannot be regarded as independent of one another. Many of these fields are, however, very unstable and therefore discrete or impossible to get at by historical investigation. Sounds, tastes and smells are dependent on time and mostly they are highly incidental or variable. Within the tactual and visual fields there are better conditions for structures to be preserved, but even within these fields completely preserved contexts are not available. In order to enrich the material for the researcher one can make experimental reconstructions of such contexts by attempts to discover the historical use of various areas of communication which were used to emphasize and elucidate the messages. Visual perception could help to clarify this kind of material, but all people do not see the same. Perception seems to be very culture-bound; man probably sees what he expects to see (Campbell 1964). Consequently, illusions provide extra proofs of the use of habitual channels. Only well established perceptional systems can afford the competition of illusions. But as illusions

66

are determined by culture, they are very difficult to show in a historical context. Can visual experiments be used? Qualities of the material can be found which may have affected perception. Light, distance and visual angles can be analysed in relation to the materials and the colours, dimensions, forms etc. of the artifacts. If one looks at the visual structures, supposing that they participate in and depend on processes of social communication, different traditions of perception must, however, be taken into account when analysing these images. The archaeologists of todav are the only ones who see these images with the same eyes at one and the same time. The scourge of chrojiplogy in archaeology has imposed much restraint on the analysis of prehistoric images. In quest of the correct dimension of time, archaeologists have too often forgotten that their image material was to convey some message. It seems, however, that it is possible to go deeper into this problem of significance. Linguists have elaborate frames of reference for analysing words, sentences and even whole languages. These frameworks are controversial, but help us to see the complexity of analysing symbolic structures. Heavily based on linguistic theories, but with no total isomorphism, a new unified body of research has appeared, called semiotics or semiology. Its appearence was unexpected by established scientific organizations and was received in a rather hostile way, especially because it demanded a place - an important place - in the body of research. The semiotic approach states that a society is only intelligible through the messages and the communication structures which it comprises (Eco 1 9 7 1 ; Aspel i n 1973; Malmberg, 1973). In order to make contacts, a system of references, called codes) is required, mak-

ing it possible to create, perceive and interpret symbolic structures. These codes contain rules of the relationships between the parts of the structure and how these parts can be combined. But, to be correctly understood, the message is not given by the rules of combination only, since it depends very much on the context in which the structure is presented or perceived. Without a knowledge or this context it is hardly possible to specify either the formal meaning of the message or its practical implications in a given situation, i.e. an isolated image can mean anything. In an archaeological context images are often forced to mean too much or to mean the wrong things, because too little attention is paid to their context.; An image is a vehicle for communication and consists of a single sign or combinations of signs, with or without a framework (Shapiro 1970): A sign is a unit, with content and expression. To arrange the signs of a message in a linguistic context is quite easy. Speech is, if its semantic dimension is ignored, a linear phenomenon, consisting of a combination of sounds separated by means of pauses. Images are, however, mostly constructed in a different way; it is almost only writing and in cartoons that we are more directly reminded of speech. Images seldom have a beginning and/or an end. Unlike speech, images cannot usually be analysed into correspondingly small physical units which can help us to understand them. Pigments of paint, lines of graphite, stone-peckings, negative marks from chips of wood, these are not good starting points for interpreting images. Their importance lies at the level of perception and of technique. It is thus necessary to distinguish the intelligible parts of the image and the important relationships which exist between the components 67

and the total structure. It should perhaps be pointed out that the structure of an image should be understood as - a structure. This can be completely misunderstood if signs are overlooked or misinterpreted, or even wrongly composed originally. Every archaeologist is, by the way, a semiotic researcher. Every interpretation of any structures on the ground, artifacts, charts, mapping, surveying, etc. needs codes for understanding. But these codes are our scientific and specifically archaeological codes. Here they are images of another kind, which will not be further commented on in this paper. To advance the analysis of images, different kinds of signs have been noted. In this respect man-made signs are the main subject for image-analysing archaeologists. However, there are signs, which are not man-made, but are used as signs in a society, e.g. lightning and thunder can be seen as a sign of the activities of the god

Thor.
The conventional signs are social products and not possible to interpret without further ado. As signs are created from the more or less abstract use of visual and tactual experiences of the world, it could be tempting to suppose that there exists a more direct relationship between the symbols and their referents. Such a correspondence is found in so-called iconic signs, e.g. a doll, a model of a house, a portrait. What is mentioned above only concerns the relationship between a sign and its referent. If our focus is moved towards the function of signs, there is a special category, whose main purpose is to direct interest to something else, the main message, e.g. arrows. These signs are called signals. Often such signal signs are combined with other signs. Symbol is an often-used term in visual 68

contexts. In this paper all images are said to belong to the symbolic world. But certain signs can be shown to be of a rather specific character: the referent of the sign itself refers to something else, e.g. the white dove to peace. Some of these symbols are occasional, others more permanent. Often such symbols are determined by their alleged schematic form. But there is no way, unfortunately, to define such a symbol from its morphological qualities. A symbol can then have a very simple structure as well as a verv elaborate one [Firth 1956:177). Which sign belongs to which category, is therefore not given directly in the archaeological material. It has to be determined in the research process. As a result, these terms may have explanatory value, probably not so much in the interpretation of a single image-system, but more at a general level, how image-systems are created, organized and for what purposes. Here, a highly interesting comparison with language is dimly seen to glow on the scientific horizon. As mentioned above, symbolic communication is an activity involving at least two persons or, in exceptional cases, a man and an animal. Communication does not necessarily bring anything new. It is the contact that is the important thing, not what is apparent. Semiotics, on the other hand, concentrates on what is shown. Theapproach here is to try to formulate the laws or rules which create the meanings in the communication system. Semiotics is not a clear bocv of concepts and methods (Tondl 1972). Therefore it is not directly applicable to e.g. the study of prehistoric images. But this general way of thinking of visual symbolic structures seems to be useful.

Interpretation and Different Meanings


The philosophers have great difficulty in explaining what meaning is - most probably meaning has m a n y meanings. In this paper I have indicated a standpoint which allows several meanings to become apparent. One of them is that signs and messages are used to give a certain meaning when formed and used by a sender. The receiver, on the other hand, is a different person who understands the message according to how he finds himself. What attitude to this problem can be helpful for a researcher? A fictitious example might be of some, help: a woman is wearing some gilded brooches, intricately ornamented with interlaced animals. The brooches are used to fasten her dress, but as signs they also belong to the total costume-image of the woman. As the ornaments are rather small, it is only possible to see them at a close distance. As signs these brooches mean different things to different people, and possibly also different things to their user, according to the situation they appear in. The maker, the owner, her husband and family and other persons in her company, all see different things in these brooches. They also look at the brooches differently, from seeing them in full detail to noticing them only as a bright reflection from the sun. The meaning seems to change according to the spatial and social distance of the perceiver to the wearer. But meanings also change with time. This happens in the case of things that are used over a long period of time, such as coins, or things that exist as part of the landscape for a long time, such as megaliths (Daniel 1972), or things which are unearthed and interpreted in quite a different social context, such as archaeological

artifacts today. In these cases the physical objects are more or less unchanged, but they appear in a new environment, in another society. Thus meaning is really more a set of re.ationships than anything specific. For an image researcher all situations where objects become images are important to study, and it is essential to link images to situations. Some of the factors which create and influence meaning are indicated in fig. 2. Petroglyphs It is not my intention here to go through and criticize the existing research on the petroglyph material in Scandinavia (but see: Nordbladh 1978), or to present any general characteristics of the petroglyphs themselves. The interested reader is referred to the literature, which lays more stress on illustration (Gjessing 1939; Fett & Fett 1941; Althin 1945; Marstrander 1963; Glor 1969; Hagen 1969; Hllristningar 1971; Mandt Larsen 1972; Burenhult 1973). In volume 3 and 4, 1970, of the Norwegian Archaeological Review, one finds the most recent general discussion of Scandinavian petroglyph problems, using Marstrander's work as a basis. Instead, I would here like to bring in some observations and prepositions which might be helpful in attaining knowledge about that social context of which the petroglyphs were a part. If looked at from the syntactic, semantic and pragmarc viewpoints, the images present several quite different qualities (Morris 1938 : fig. 3). This way of treating the image material is not exhaustive, but it shows which point in the model the discussion has reached at a certain time. Thus the figures in this paper can be used as maps for thinking. Syntactic analysis of petroglyphs has 69

Fig. 2. A simplified linguistic model applied to the petroglyphs. 1-3 Syntactic studies: 1) between picture frames 2) between signs of different picture frames 3) between signs inside a single picture frame 4-5 Semantic studies: 4) between sign and thing (= image) 5) between message-contents and reality 6) between user and image 7) between user and message 8) between user and reality, inclusive things.

6-8 Pragmatic studies:

If 1-8 communication, 9, is possible. From: Acts of the Rock Art Symposium at Hank 1972. The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture. Oslo. 1978.

been rather limited. It has mainly been focused on the isolation of so-called types and on counting these. Structural analysis has still to be done. Some methodologically more advanced studies have been done on the same kind of material outside 70

Scandinavia (Podolski 1972), but with the same main purpose: to establish chronologyBut besides two-dimensional form, depth, (colour) and dimension, also direction and location of the signs are probably

Fig. 3. Communication as a semiotic system. From: Acts of the Rock Art Symposium at Hanko. The Institute for Comparatirf Research in Human Culture. Oslo. 1978.

71

fundamental for the analysis of meaning. Also fundamental for this is where the sign-complex is located, as a permanent point in the landscape or on a movable object. Even if sign was added to sign and site to site at different times, that does not detract from their meaning. The structure is as important as the single item. There are two attitudes in philosophy which are relevant in this context (Schaff 1967): The first tells us that any culturally determined structure is a reflection of a; structure in reality. The second says that a system is like a game, where the parts are pieces following certain rules of position. This rather neo-positivistic approach is of doubtful use for the understanding of con-

temporary communication structures since it fits a specific kind of a wider world view (Nordbladh 1974). However, for the study of prehistoric objects it might be helpful. If it is possible to find regularities in the assemblages of petroglyphs, then the often stated arbitrariness of the positions of the petroglyphs seems to be no longer valid. In this context, a recently excavated, rather damaged Bronze Age grave (?) mound at Sagaholm, near the town of Jnkping in Sweden, is very important (Wihlborg 1972). In this mound were found the remains of a circle of 45 stones, of which 15 had images on their outer side (figs. 4, 5). The signs of the images are familiar m the general petroglyph context,

Fig. 4. Saganolm. The Bronze Age mound during the excavation. The inner of the two stone trcles is the one with petroglyphs. The small cairns outside the mound belong to the Iron Age. From: Smlndska Kulturbilder.

Meddelanden frn Jnkpings Lns Hembygdsfrbund. XLV. 1972. Jnkpings Lns Museum. Jnkping, Sweden. Photo taken by A-.ders Wihlborg 1971.

72

Fig. 5. Sagaholm. Petroglyphs on a stove situated directly to the left of the smaller break of the circles, seen opposite the cairns on fig. 4. From: Smlndska Kultu wilder. Med-

delanden frn Jnkpings Lins Hembygdsfrbund XLV. 1972. Jnkpings Lns Sfaseum. Jnkping, Sireden. Photo taken by Stig Ljung 1?71.

with motifs such as ships, animals, men images as such do not appear to be what is and cupmarks. There are variations in the usually called a composition, i.e. no attenshape of the stones and in the dimensions, tion is paid to balance. Nevertheless they direction, placing and number of signs. are compositions, and they will be of great The image stones are placed alone or in help in the analysis of the general petrotwos or threes. The lacunae, or non-im- glyph material in shoeing that what in our age-beanng stones, consist of one, two, perception seems chaotic is not a reflection three, four, five or seven stones. of a completely arbitrary prehistoric meThese observations were made from the thod of placing the signs on the rock surthird of the grave which remained, and it is face. There must then have been a structural difficult to say how the whole mound was relationship between the signs, and/there once arranged. However, some very im- "are probably also signs which are not used portant conclusions can be drawn. The by themselves b u t only in combination images consist of different combinations of jvvith other signs^j a few signs only, and the image vehicles are There can be great differences between arranged in a row. There seems to be great sites as regards the number of signs, both concern about the wholeness, even if the between sites within the same local area 73

(e.g. Bohusln) and between whole regions (Southern Sweden-Denmark). The differences in the number of signs used in images are a problem which is seldom touched on (Wolfe 1969), but the reasons for these differences would be of a structural and systematic as well as of a semantic and pragmatic kind. As regards the petroglyphs we are considering here, the reasons for these are not yet known, in fact hardly ever seriously discussed. Semantic analysis of petroglyphs has also been very restricted. Usually meaning is limited to what the iconic signs represent. Signs which to us appear as abstract are treated as a class without specific meaning. They are looked upon as being more mystic than the iconic signs and as impossible for us to interpret. How things become signs is a somewhat neglected question. Meaning is often assumed to be inherent in the visualized object or to be Bidden in the relation between the sign and the object - the reference. This seems to be, a false assumption (Schaff 1967). Signs do not have an existence of their own. The sign situation arises because of the relationship between the people communicating by signs - produced for the purpose of communication. Some of the misunderstandings about meaning can arise from unclear thinking about the signs themselves, especially the iconic ones. It seems that simple representation is impossible. All representations even the most naturalistic ones - are the products of conventions (Eco 1971). Representation is a way of translating experiences into visual signs - which contain special transformational problems (Jacobson 1959). Not even the artist can faithfully transcribe what he sees. He can onlytranslate his perceptions into terms suitable for the medium at his disposal (Gombrich 74

1972). As the signs normally have no physical qualities in common with the object presented, a (code for recognition (Eco 1971: 224-236) - as well as a code for perception - is needed. This code, if found, helps to clarify the meaning of the object represented, but it is also helpful if attention was paid to'how the object was seen and to which values were given to it, etc. At present there is little use in trying to find any specific meaning for the petroglyphs. As archaeologists we are in a form of pseudo-communication with the petroglyph-makers, and any such meaning would be rather one-way. We cannot learn to understand the petroglyph language in order to use it again, because that is culturally impossible. Our task in this case is to try to say something relevant about the life of those who made the signs through studies of some of their systems of symbols, Instead of trying to speak their language we should try to learn from their symbolic communications. There are, on the one hand, structural systems, with orders of different kinds, to be observed, orders which could imply the existence of different social relationships. On the other hand, it is possible to make certain social observations from the organization of symbolic systems, by analyzing those parts of the reality converted into signs. Furthermore, visual codes can never be completely congruent with the visual sign system. There are always uncoded or unclear components used in the formation and maintenance of the messages which tell us about phenomena not meant to be communicated. Thus, without any knowledge of the intended contents of the visual messages, it is still possible to make observations about social life. Where pragmatic analysis of the petroglyphs is concerned, it has for long been

impossible to discuss who exactly were involved in the use of the signs because the discussion has been mostly concerned with the relationship between man and the supernatural (Mandi Larsen 1972 : 126ff). But, as stated earlier in this paper, the sign-systems are above all human communication systems and it is not advisable /for archaeologists to apply ideas from the history of religion directly to the petroglyphs. Too much valuable knowledge will then be wasted. To be able to reach the social relationships presented in the sign-systems, we have to know more about the circumstances in which the signs were used. Certain circumstances were needed for the production of signs as well as certain conditions for the release of the sign function. What these circumstances were we do not yet know, but excavation might help us here. As symbolic systems have the function of gathering people, to create social groups and also exclude other people from the community, it is necessary to find out what kind of people were involved in the use of the signs. In the petroglyph material there are certain rare or unique signs, and here it is important to look upon the sign-systems as rather restricted systems. Or, in other words, unsucessful signs were presented. In such a case a new social relationship was perhaps being tried. On some rock surfaces are also found what we believe to be unfinished figures. W h y these figures were not completed we do not know, but the reasons could be syntactic and semantic as well as pragmatic. The phenomenon as such is worth studying, especially as it is one of the few recorded cases of mistakes or misspellings of this time. The main problem of the pragmatic ana-

lysis is still waiting to be solved: in which social situation did the sign-systems have their place and what was the specific task of the images ? Petroglyphs and other symbolic systems of the same period In spite of the petroglyph material being very comprehensive, it is both a difficult and an uncertain undertaking to try to solve problems concerning them by only considering the petroglyphs themselves (Moberg 1970). Comparisons have been made, mainly with engravings on bronze artifacts, e.g. razors, but usually for the purpose of establishing a chronology and interpreting particular motifs, more seldom treating the material as categories of artifacts from different social contexts (Maimer 1970). In order to obtain a more comprehensive picture of Bronze Age life, it might be rewarding to separate out the different symbolic artifacts and look at them as parts of different symbolic systems/then in use. We are here concerned with a very extensive Bronze Age material which is clamouring for attention. It seems possible to distinguish two quite different areas where symbols occur: on permanent and on movable objects. Certain manifestations in the topography such as cairns, gravemounds and grave-fields, houses, petroglyphs, hoards, votive gifts, even the transformation of raw nature into a cultivated landscape, have acted to create and maintain a (permanent symbolic environment (Douglas 1972), in which other, movable symbols have been set and reset in order to establish and resolve certain relationships of a social nature, by these arrangements. We have, however, a long way to go before a general analysis can be made, but

75

there are some clues available. Quite clearly an established topographical symbolic order exists in the county of Bohusln on the west coast of Sweden, an area with a large quantity of petroglyphs. The cairns are situated at the top of the hills along the coast and the petroglyphs are found inland, on the slopes and in the bottom of the valleys. In this way the organization of physical parts of the environment has established symbolic zones with different, sometimes overlapping extensions. We do not know, either, if the petroglyphs were individual creations for rather individual reasons, or if they had a more collective purpose, or perhaps both. For images in certain situations it is easier to argue a closer connection to individuals, like those in graves, which have special attribution to the dead. Prehistoric burial customs can of course be very varying (Binford 1971), but it is possible to observe differences in the conception and significance of man{ in the way he appears in the petroglyphs, is engraved on razors, occurs in three-dimensional pieces of sculpture (for a new important find, see: Larsson 1973-74) and in graves. Vehicles such as' carriages and ships, and also bronze artifacts such as helmets, shields, large axes and horns seem to be part of a common social context and not attributable to individual deceased members of the society. These artifacts could be attributes of the group and not of any one individual person. Images of man were created in different contexts, as already mentioned and do not all have the same contents. They vary in their attributes and in their combinations with other signs. It could be argued, that it is possible and advisable to collect together all these images to form a generalized superimage of man. Man's opportunities to 76

act are restricted to certain social contexts and what works in one situation may not be possible in another. As the systems of social relationships are very complicated, so are the different qualities of man, as they appear in the images, and these cannot be summated. The symbols have a given place in social life. They help to solve problems, but on certain conditions. The set of symbols used and the qualities of the different systems are probably critical in enabling the society and its members to attain certain goals (cf. the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; Kluckhohn 1961). Like language, other symbols are also a result of experience. A set of symbols and its system is connected to certain areas of activity. For example, the Lapps of northern Sweden complain of the difficulties of working with reindeer using the Swedish language, a situation which has arisen because of the Swedish school system. ' ' T h u s different symbolic systems affect different parts of life. It is in the context of such problems that the petroglyphs can be given a meaningful place in the society of their time, and perhaps answer questions of a more general nature in our own society.

Acknowledgements:
Martine van Bergh, Bruxelles, Kristian Kristiansen, Copenhagen, as well as the post-graduate seminar at the Department of Archaeology. University of Gteborg have generously given me comments and criticisms on this paper, which originally was presented at the fifth research-seminar in archaeology and related subjects: art, artisans & societies, Liecester, 3-5 January 1975. I also thank Maja Jackson, Edinburgh and Helga Ohlsson, Lidkping, for their valuable help with the translation.

References
Althin, C.-A. 1945 Studien zu den bronzezeitlichen Fdszeichnungen von Skne. 1-2. Lund
ASPHLIN, G.

FIRTH, R.

1956

Elements of Social Organization. Josiah Mason Lectures delivered at the University of Birmingham. London. Ostfolds jordbruksristninger. Idd, Berg og delvis Skjeberg. Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning. /Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture. Series B. XXXVII. Helleristmnger i Danmark./Rock Carvings in Denmark, jysk Arkologisk Selskabs Skrifter. /Jutland Archaeological Society Publications/. Vol. VII.

GJESSING, G.

1939 Bilden i sitt sprkliga sammanhang. BILDANALYS. Stockholm.

1973

Binford, L. R. 1971 / M o r t u a r y practices: their study and their potential. American Antiqury. Vol. 36, No. 3, Part 2. July.
BURENHUL, G .

GLOB, P. V.

1969

The Rock Carvings of Gtaland, excluding Gothenburg country, Bohusln and Dalsland. Part II. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia. Series in 4, No 8. Cmpbel, D. T. 1964 Distinguishing Differences of Percerrion from Failures of Communicanrn in Crosscultural Studies. CROSSCULTURAL UNDERSTANDING. Epistemology in .Anthropology. Ed. F.S.C. Northrop & H. H. Livingston. New York, Evanston, and London.
CASSIRER, E.

1973

Gombrovich. E. 1972 Konst och illusion. En studie i bildframstllningens psykologi. (Art and Illusion, 3d ed. London 1968). Stockholm.
HAGEN, A.

1969

Studier i vestnorsk bergkunst. Ausevik i Flora. Acta Universitatts Bergensis. Series Humaniorum Litterarum. No. 3. Kville hrad. Svenneby socken./Rock Carvings. Kville hundred. Svenneby parish./Documentation: A. Fredsj. Ed. by J. Nordbladh & J. Rosvall. Studier i Nordisk Arkeologi./Studies in North European Archaeology./Nr.
7.

1923-31 Philosophie der symbolischen Formen. IIII. Berlin.


CLAUSEN, H. P.

HLLRISTNINGAR.

1972

1963

Hvad er historie? Den historiske videnskabs metodiske grundsporgsrrul og nyere synspunkter p histonetorskningens teoretiske problemer. Kabenhavn.
JACOBSON, R.

DANIEL. G.

1972 Megaliths in history. Waiter Neurath Memorial Lectures. 4. London.


DOUGLAS, M.

1959

Symbolic orders in the use of domestic space. MAN, SETTLEMENT and URBANISM. Ed. by P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham & G. W. Dimbleby. London. Duncan H. D. l968 Symbols in Society. New York. Eco, U. 1971 Den frnvarande strukturen. (La struttura assente. Milano 1968). Lund.
FETT, E. & FETT, P.

1972

On linguistic aspects of translation. ON TRANSLATION. Harvard Studies In Comparative Literature Founded by W. H. Scofield. 23.

KLUCKHOHN, C.

1961

Notes on some anthropological aspects of communication. With comment by A. L. Kroeber. American Anthropologist, 63.

LARSSON, L.

1941

Sydvestnorske helleristninger. Rogaland og Lista. Stavanger.

1973-74 The Fogdarp find. A hoard from the late Bronze Age. Meddelanden frn Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum. /Memoirs Du Muse Historiques De L'Universit De Lund.

77

MALMBERG, B.

1973

Teckenlra. En introduktion till tecknens och symbolernas problematik. Lund. Bronsristningar./ Bronze engravings./. Kuml. Arbog For Jysk Arkeologisk Selskab. Bergbilder i Hordaland. En undersokelse av bildernas sammensetning, deres naturmilj og kulturmiljo. /Rock-pictures in Hordaland. An analysis of the composition of the pictures and of their ecological and cultural background./. Acta Universitatis Bergensis. Series Humaniorum Litterarum. 1970. No. 2. 0stfolds jordbruksristninger. Skjeberg. Instituttet f or Sammenlignende Kulturforskning./Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture. Senes B. LIII. 2 vols. Non-classificational Information and Non-informational Communication. Dialectia, 26, Fasc 1.
C.-A.

tute for Comparative Research in Human Culture./. (Will appear in 1978).


PODOLSKIJ, N. L.

MALMER, M. P.

1972

1970

MANDTLARSEN, G.

1972

Kolichestvennye kharakteristiki kompaktnosti razmeshscheniya naskal'nykh risunkov. STATIST1KO-KOMBINATORNYE METODY VARKHEOLOGII. Ed. by B. A. Kolchin & Ja. A. Sher. Moskva I960. (Desk translation in Swedish by C.-A. Moberg: Antalskaraktristiker fr kompaktheter i frdelningen av hllristningar. Gteborgs universitet, institutionen fr nordisk och jmfrande fornkunskap. 1972). Symbols & Civilization. New York. Instructive instruments on prehistoric images. Nordbladh. J. & Rosvall, J.: Val Camonica and Monte Bego. Travel report. Publ. by the Institute of Art History. University of Gteborg. Introduktion till semantiken. (Introduction to Semantics. Oxford 1962). Uddevalla. On some problems in the semantics of visual art: Field and vehicle in Image-sign.

Ross, R. 1962
ROSVALL, J.

MARSTRNDER, S.

1963

1974

MARUYAMA, M. I

1972

SCHAFF, A.

1967

MOBERG,

1970

Regional och global syn p hllristningar./Research in rock carving./. Kuml. Arbog For Jysk Arkologsk Selskab. Foundations of the theory of signs. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. I. 2. Om bilderna som meddelanden i samhllet. BILD & MILJ. Konstvetenskapliga studier. Publ. by the Institute of Art History. University of Gteborg. New positivism and some of its implications. Nordbladh, J. & Rosvall, J.: Val Camonica and Monte Bego. Travel report. Publ. by the Institute of Art History. University of Gteborg. The relation between rock art, religion and society. ACTS OF THE ROCK ART SYMPOSIUM AT HANK0, 1972. Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning. /Insti-

Shapiro, M. 1970

MORRIS, C.

SIGN. LANGUAGE. CUL TURE, fanua Linguarium. Ser


TONOL. L.

1938

1972

NORDBLADH, J.

1973

Sign. SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT. Some underlying concepts, methods and procedures. Paris, the Hague. The Science of Culture. A study of Man and Civilization. New York. Hllristningar och jrnldersgravar. En preliminr beskrivning av en arkeologisk underskning vid Sagaholm i Jnkping. Smlndska Kulturbilder. Meddelanden frn Jnkpings Lns Hembygdsfrbund. XLV.
W.

WHITE, L.

1949
WIHLBORG, A.

1974

1972

1978

WOLFE, A.

1969

Social structural bases of art. Current Anthropology. 10.

78

You might also like