This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]On: 05 December 2014, At: 06:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Norwegian Archaeological ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sarc20

Ritual landscapes. Toward a reinterpretation of stoneage rock art in Tr⊘ndelag, NorwayKalle Sognnes aa Museum of Natural History and Archaeology , University of Trondheim , NorwayPublished online: 19 May 2010.

To cite this article: Kalle Sognnes (1994) Ritual landscapes. Toward a reinterpretation of stone age rock art in Tr⊘ndelag,Norway, Norwegian Archaeological Review, 27:1, 29-50, DOI: 10.1080/00293652.1994.9965574

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293652.1994.9965574

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ARTICLES Norw. Arch. Rev., Vol. 27, No. 1, 1994

Ritual Landscapes. Toward aReinterpretation of Stone Age Rock Artin Trøndelag, NorwayKALLE SOGNNES

Museum of Natural History and Archaeology, University of Trondheim, Norway

The topographical setting of Stone Age rock art localities in Trøndelag,Norway is discussed from both diachronic and synchronic perspectives.Two different types of localities are found. One type, found at topographicallandmarks, was probably used for transition rituals, while the other type,located at less distinct topographical features, was probably linked toaggregation sites, being used for rituals attended by larger groups. In thesame area Bronze Age type rock art is also found. During a transitionperiod both Stone Age and Bronze Age rock art appears to have beenexecuted, representing contemporary groups of hunter-gatherers and far-mers. The traditional interpretation of the Stone Age rock art as rep-resenting hunting magic is rejected.

INTRODUCTION

At the end of the 19th century some ex-ceptional rock art sites were discovered innorthern Norway and Sweden. The en-gravings and paintings found there depictedlarge animals, which were sometimes drawnin full size. These discoveries led to a re-consideration of Scandinavian rock art,which, because of the motifs depicted as wellas the geographical distribution, was dividedinto two groups or complexes (Hansen1904). These complexes were claimed torepresent different periods (Br0gger 1906).

The complex with large animals was calledArctic because its distribution was found tocorrespond with the distribution of artefactsbelonging to the so-called Arctic Stone Age,that is, the slate industry in today's termin-ology. The other complex, which consists ofmore symbolic images such as spirals, frames,rings, and cupmarks, but also boats, foot-prints, human beings, etc., was called South

Scandinavian. G. Gjessing later renamedthese complexes hunters' (Gjessing 1936) andfarmers' (Gjessing 1939) rock art respect-ively.

Later scholars have found these concepts,which were based on geography and sub-sistence, inadequate (Hagen 1969, Johansen1972, Mandt Larsen 1972) but they are stillbeing used. Here I use the term 'North Euro-pean' as a common denominator for all pre-historic rock art found in the northern partof Europe, that is, from northern Germanyto the Barents Sea; from western Norway toRussian Karelia.

As documented by literature publishedduring the last century, this rock art is farfrom homogeneous and the division into twocomplexes still seems highly relevant. Forboth complexes a further subdivision intowestern and eastern groups also seems rel-evant. This subdivision, however, is not ofrelevance for this study.

Here I prefer to use the chronological

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

30 Kalle Sognnes

terms for these two rock art complexes, be-cause I find these more 'neutral' than geo-graphical terms or terms derived fromsubsistence and economy. It has beenclaimed that the execution of Stone Agetype rock art took place as late as the EarlyBronze Age and that the earliest Bronze Agetype rock art was produced as early as theNeolithic and that this tradition survived un-til at least the pre-Roman Iron Age. How-ever, until a more sophisticated terminologyhas been established I will use the terms'Stone Age' [ = Arctic = North Scandina-vian = hunters'] and 'Bronze Age' type [=South Scandinavian = agrarian = farmers']rock art.

In my studies of the Bronze Age type rockart in Tr0ndelag, Norway I have found thatthe localities belonging to this complex havea non-random spatial distribution, which Ihypothesize is a reflection of the con-temporary settlement pattern (Sognnes1983a, 1987b, 1990). In other words, I claimthat a close relationship existed between rit-ual and social landscapes during the timewhen this rock art was made.

Topography has frequently played an im-portant role in localization of rock art. Thisis most evidently demonstrated in Australia'sDreamtime. Dreamtime's mythological crea-tures disappeared into the ground; intomountains and springs, etc., but not untilafter they had made the first rock art. Rockart, therefore, is linked to Dreamtime mythsand is the focus of rites and ceremonies andmust be maintained (Moore 1971, Lewis1976). Thus the mythological landscape ofDreamtime is transformed into a ritual land-scape through the making of rock art.

Ethnographical analogies are also knownfrom Africa (Deacon 1988:129) and NorthAmerica, where rock art is still part of thespiritual geography of the Pueblo and Na-vaho people, tying the Navaho and Zuni totheir mythical beginnings (Schaafsma1985:262). The landscape is seen as im-portant for the interpretation of Hopi andZuni symbols (Cole 1990:40).

Among the Sami in northern Fenno-

scandia a close relationship existed betweenhumans and nature. In general, the physicalmanifestations of this relationship are vir-tually invisible (Fjellheim 1990:17), butsome dominant topographical features areknown to have been of great importance.Examples are the island of Tjahkere in LakeTunnsj0en in R0yrvik, Nord-Tr0ndelag,Norway (Fjellheim 1989) and a cliff witha large anthropomorphic figure of naturalorigin at Lake Seidjavr in northern Russia(Pollu 1990:33).

Topographical landmarks also play an im-portant role in Norwegian folklore. One suchexample is the legend of the Leka maiden(Lekam0ya), which gives names to a numberofdominant mountains along the coast be-tween the towns of Namsos and Svolvsr.

In this paper I will examine the StoneAge rock art of Tr0ndelag. Two alternativemodels concerning the ritual landscape ofthe Late Stone Age are proposed and dis-cussed. I have concentrated on a limitednumber of sites but the results are assumedto have relevance for all Stone Age rock artin the district, probably also for other partsof Scandinavia.

STONE AGE ROCK ART INTR0NDELAG

The district of Tr0ndelag in mid-Norway islocated at the western coast of the Scandi-navian peninsula, between latitude 62°30'and 65°N. The main geographical feature isthe Trondheimsfjord, which reaches 130 kminland. However, in central and inner partsthe fjord runs parallel with the coast. Severallarge rivers empty into the fjord and the rivervalleys penetrate into vast forest and moun-tain areas. Most of the present habitation isfound along the southeastern side of the fjordand in the lower reaches of these valleys.

Stone Age rock art in Trondelag isdominated by engravings; however, onthe Fosen peninsula, between the Trond-heimsfjord and the Norwegian Sea, somesites with paintings are found (Fig. 1). A

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Ritual Landscapes 31

Fig. 1. Stone Age rock art found in Tr0ndelag, Norway. Circles = engravings; squares = paintings.

closer look at Fig. 1 reveals a tendencytowards clustering. As A. Hagen (1990:101)has noted, the sites at Beitstaden in Steinkjerconstitute one such cluster. After recent dis-coveries another cluster of localities wasfound at the mouth of the Stj0rdal valley.

The Trondheimsfjord is divided into sev-

eral smaller depressions or basins, most ofwhich have individual names. The Beit-stadfjord is the innermost and largest ofthese basins and the above-mentioned clus-ter of localities is situated at the northernside of this basin (A on Fig. 1) at the farmsHammer (1), Skjevik (2), Bardal (3), and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

32 Kalle Sognnes

Homnes (4). Further south a second basin(B) surrounds the island of Yttertfy. Alongthe shores of this basin are found rock en-gravings at the farms Selset [Kvernvika] (6),Berg (7), and Holte [Holtas] (8).

A third basin (C) is formed where thetributary fjords Asenfjorden and Stj0r-dalsfjorden meet the main fjord, which hereis called Strindfjorden. On the eastern sideof this basin engravings are found at thefarms Evenhus (9), Revlan (10), Lanke (11),Hell (12), and Hommelvik (13). Further westa fourth basin (D), called Korsfjorden, isformed by the confluence between the mainfjord and the tributary fjords Gaulosen andOrkdalsfjorden. Here, on the northern sideof the basin, engravings are found at thefarms Stykket (14) and Rein (15).

Stone Age rock art is also found outsidethe Trondheimsfjord basins; a number ofpaintings at the Fosen peninsula (E), at thefarms Heggvik (17), Gj0lga (18), Varghiet(20), Teksdal (21), and at Vasstrand (22).Caves with paintings are found in the outerNamdalen district at the farms Sve (24) andSolsem (25). South of the Trondheimsfjordarea paintings are found at the farms Nerhol(26) and Honnhammar (27), but engravingsare more scattered, found at the farms Ervik(16), Strand (22), and Reppen (23) and atthe B0la creek (5).

Stone Age rock art has been interpretedin a functionalist perspective as representinghunting magic, that is, as an expression of the'psychology of.hunting' (Br0gger 1925:92).The role of rock art in marking importanthunting and/or killing sites has also beenemphasized since this interpretation was firstproposed for the large site at the Vingenfarm in western Norway (Bing 1912, B0e1932) but has also been proposed at a generallevel (Farbregd 1980). These functionalistinterpretations have dominated until re-cently, but some alternatives have beenproposed. Most notable is the linking of rockart to aggregation sites. This has primarilybeen claimed for larger sites such as Nam-forsen in Angermamland, Sweden (Baudou

1977:82), Alta in northern Norway (Helskog1988:128, Hood 1988), and Vingen (Magnus& Myhre 1986:114, Hagen 1990:73). Aspecial variant of this interpretation is M.Malmer's (1981:107) interpretation of Nam-forsen as a meeting place for hunters of thenorth and traders from northern Scand-inavia.

The possibility that Stone Age rock artwas totemic was indicated by earlier scholars(Shetelig 1922:145, Gjessing 1945:318) butnever became a serious competitor to thehunting/magic paradigm. However, this hy-pothesis has gained new interest; hinted at byMagnus & Myhre (1986:114) and Mikkelsen(1977:195) and more broadly formulated asan interpretative model by Tilley (1991) forNamforsen. Also Stone Age rock art inNorth Norway has been interpreted as rep-resenting totemic systems (Hesjedal 1990,1992).

For most North European rock art studieschronology represents a problem (Hagen1976:154 f., Mikkelsen 1977:147, Sognnes1989:85). A stylistically based chronologyfor Stone Age rock art was proposed 50-70 years ago (Petersen 1922, Shetelig 1922,Engelstad 1934, Gjessing 1936, Hallstrom1938, cf. Bakka 1975). Style was used pri-marily for relative chronology, however. Ab-solute dates were provided by shore-leveldatings of some of the sites. This chronologywas later criticized, especially by C. Lind-quist (1984, 1985), who advocated analternative chronological system for bothStone Age and Bronze Age rock art con-sisting of nine phases and seven periods,covering the 5000-year period from theMesolithic through the Bronze Age. Lind-quist's alternative chronology, however, isno more firmly founded than the chrono-logical system he criticizes. Although it hasbeen demonstrated that in some of the lo-calities the Stone Age rock art was executedwhen the engraved panels were located in orshortly above the tidal zone, it has yet to bedemonstrated that this was the case for all,or, for that matter, for the majority of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Ritual Landscapes 33

localities. However, this problem will befurther discussed below.

The height of the panels above sea levelhas played, and still plays, an important rolefor dating the rock art in Tr0ndelag. If welook at the total record, it is obvious thatonly a limited number of engravings weremade when the panels were still situatedclose to the shore. In Tr0ndelag, rock artlocalities are found between ca. 15 m and ca.200 m above the present sea level but it isthe Bronze Age type sites that create thisdispersion. Less than 10 Bronze Age typelocalities can be dated by means of shorelinedisplacement. For Stone Age localities thesituation is different. Most of these localitieslie near and are facing the sea. Their heightsvary between ca. 25 m and ca. 55 m abovesea level. Attempts to date the Stone Agerock art by means of shoreline displacementmay therefore be relevant.

In an attempt to clarify the relationshipbetween sea level and Stone Age rock art, I

" have studied the landscape surrounding thelocalities located at the Stj0rdalsfjord andAsenfjord basin (area C). Localities in-cluded in this study are Evenhus in Frosta,Hommelvik in Malvik, and Hell and Lankein Stj0rdal (Fig. 2). Another possible StoneAge site is located at Revlan in Frosta. Herean incomplete, outlined animal is foundtogether with typical Bronze Age type en-gravings (Sognnes 1981).

The engravings at Hell were discovered inthe 1890s. They are found at the south-western side of a small steep-sided hilltopcalled Steinmohaugen, which is located onthe southern side of the mouth of the Stj0rdalvalley. Steinmohaugen is separated from alarger and higher hill called Gjevingasen, bya narrow pass. Approximately 500 m to theeast of Steinmohaugen, the Leksa river con-verges with the Stj0rdal river and Gjev-ingasen forms a promontory between theLeksdal and Stj0rdal valleys.

Hell I (Fig. 3) is a rather small locality(Gjessing 1936, Hallstrom 1938, Sognnes1983b). Today the locality lies ca. 43 m above

sea level. It consists of two panels; bothfacing southwest. The upper panel is vertical,the lower panel slopes 20°-40°. The localityis dominated by two large reindeer, alongwith eleven smaller animals, one geometricalornament, and some lines that have not yetbeen deciphered. Most of the small animalsare probably also depictions of reindeer.

The Lanke engravings were unknown untilaround 1980 (Sognnes 1983b). This site,which comprises five localities, is situatedat a crescent-shaped ridge called T0nsasen,situated about 3 km to the southeast of theHell site, in the middle of the lower Leksdalvalley. This ridge reaches 100 m above thesurrounding plain.

At Lanke the panels also face southwest,but the slopes are not as steep as those atHell, varying between ca. 15° and 50°.Approximately forty images are found (Fig.4). Lanke II lies ca. 32 m, Lanke III ca. 34,and Lanke I ca. 46 m above the present sealevel.

At Lanke I some engravings seem to besuperimposed on older images, but thesesupposed older ones consist of lines that havenot yet been deciphered. Most remarkableis a large bird whose interior pattern depictsthe intestines of the bird. Five elks, threewhales, eight fishes, four birds, one beaverand three unidentified quadrupeds arefound. To this should be added an imagewhich seems to combine the front of a whaleand a leg of a cervid and a phallic man whoappears to be wearing a bird-head mask.

The Hommelvik localities were discoveredin the 1960s (M0llenhus 1969). The site islocated on the eastern side of the Hommelvikbay, on the southern side of the Stj0r-dalsfjord. Two small sites were found ongently southwest-sloping rocks. The heightabove sea level is about 33 m.

At Hommelvik II, two fish images arefound. These images are almost 2 m long andprobably depict halibut. At Hommelvik I, abird image is found together with fragmentsof a quadruped (probably cervid) andanother bird (Fig. 5).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

34 Kalle Sognnes

Stjerdalsfforden

Hell

Hommelvik

MALVIK

ks-93

Fig. 2. Rock art localities at the Stj0rdalsfjordj'Asenfjord basin. Black circles: Circles: Stone Age sites.Squares: sites with earliest rock art of Bronze Age type.

Evenhus is located near the tip of theFrosta promontory, virtually in the middle ofthe Trondheimsfjord. The engravings werediscovered in 1918 near the eastern end ofa low hill (Petersen 1926, Gjessing 1936,Hallstrom 1938). Most of these engravingsare found on a little dome-shaped rock sep-arated from the main hill by a narrow cleft.Engravings are, however, found on bothsides of this cleft and the panels are facing

several directions, sloping 10°-50°. Thepanels are situated 23-24 m above sea level.

Seven images depicting elks are foundtogether with 13 whales (Fig. 6). More out-standing, however, are boats, of which thereare at least 28 examples. The boat is a raremotif in Stone Age rock art in mid-Norway,found at a few localities only, but dominatesthe Bronze Age type complex. Two anthro-pomorphic images are found. One of these

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Ritual Landscapes 35

Fig. 3. Rock engravings found at Hell in Stj0rdal (after Sognnes 1983b).

"B

Fig. 4. /?oc/: engravings found at L&nke in Stj0rdal (after Sognnes 1983b),

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

36 Kalle Sognnes

Fig. 5. Rock engravings found at Hommelvik in Malvik (tracing by K. R. M0llenhus).

Fig. 6. Rock engravings found at Evenhus in Frosta (after Gjessing 1936).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Ritual Landscapes 37

is placed in a boat. Some engravings of theBronze Age type rock art are known fromEvenhus too; these are mainly cup marksbut at least one boat and a few rings arefound. Some of these rings seem to be in-tegrated in one of the Stone Age type boats.

STYLES AND PHASES

Until recently there has been a consensusamong Norwegian archaeologists that theStone Age rock art covers a wide time spanand that several styles are represented. H.Shetelig (1922:150) proposed that a stylisticdevelopment took place from large natu-ralistic to small stylized animals. This wassupported by Gjessing (1936:168), who de-fined three stylistic phases for Tr0ndelagand northern Norway. All phases are do-minated by animals, chiefly elk and reindeer(Fig. 7). Phase I consists of large, often full-scale outlined animals drawn in a naturalisticway. Gjessing dated this phase to the MiddleNeolithic; according to the present chron-ology, that is ca. 3400-2400 BC. In phase IIthe animals are still relatively naturalistic,but smaller and they frequently have someinterior body pattern. The appearance ofinterior patterns has been considered animportant stylistic and chronological marker(Hagen 1976:165). Gjessing dated this phaseto the Late Neolithic, that is ca. 2400-1900BC. Phase III animals are strongly stylizedand their bodies are filled with internal lines.This phase was dated to the Early BronzeAge, that is ca. 1900-1500 BC.

Recent investigations in Stone Age Nor-way have challenged this stylistically basedchronology. In Alta a sequence of fourdiachronic phases, dated to the Neolithicand Bronze Age, has been revealed. Adevelopment from large to small pictures,however, is not found (Helskog 1984). In astudy of the Stone Age rock art in otherparts of North Norway, Hesjedal (1990)reached similar conclusions concerning thepostulated stylistic development. On theother hand, he found that the engravings

were probably made during two phases;one Early Mesolithic and the other LateMesolithic/Early Neolithic. For the StoneAge rock art in eastern Norway, Mikkelsen(1977) found that this must have been exe-cuted during the Mesolithic. His conclusioncontradicts Engelstad's previous inference,according to which, most of the east Norweg-ian engravings were later than those foundin Tr0ndelag (Engelstad 1934:115), cor-responding to Gjessing's stage HI.

Gjessing's chronology was based primarilyon the Tr0ndelag record. Only in this districtwere all phases represented, and thesephases are represented within a limited geo-graphical area. For this study I accept Gjes-sing's three stylistic phases but will discusswhether or not these phases might representchronological periods. Although the numberof Stone Age rock art sites in Tr0ndelag hasbeen tripled since Gjessing published hisstudy and data on most of these new sitesare now published, no later scholar hasquestioned Gjessing's chronology. Thesescholars seem to have been preoccupied withpublishing the material and finding the placeof this material within the existing frame-work.

The Stone Age rock art localities foundaround each of the aforementioned fjordbasins are in the following tentatively con-sidered as one analytical unit, representingseparate rock art areas. Within each of theseareas at least two of Gjessing's phases arerepresented. Future investigations will re-veal whether this is merely a coincidence.'Missing' phases may be found in areaswhere they are lacking today and/or newdiscoveries may reveal a totally differentpattern. At the moment, however, I use thepresent distribution as the premise for ahypothesis claiming that each area may rep-resent a spatial-temporal unit and that thesame stylistic development took place withinall these units.

In area A, phase I is represented at Bardal(Gjessing 1936), phase II at Hammer (Bakka& Gaustad 1974, Bakka 1988) and at Skjevik

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

38 Kalle Sognnes

XT

Co

a

ks-93

Fig. 7. 5(y'e phases represented in the Stone Age rock art of Tr0ndelag.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Ritual Landscapes 39

(Bakka & Gaustad 1974), and phase III atHomnes [Skotr0a] (Gjessing 1936). Withineach phase a further stylistic developmentseems to have taken place. Gjessing(1936:161) divided the Bardal engravingsinto two subphases, and investigations atHammer likewise indicate the existence ofpossible subphases (Bakka 1988:19).

In area B, phase I is represented at Berg(Gaustad 1977), phase II at Selset[Kvernvika] (Gjessing 1936) and phase IIIat Holte [Holtas] (M0llenhus 1968). Area Dincludes two localities only, but two phasesare represented; phase I at Stykket (Sognnes1979, 1981) and phase II at Rein (Gaustad1976, Sognnes 1979). Gjessing (1936:168)considered the paintings at the Fosen pen-insula (area E) to be of late origin; Vasstrand[Sandhalsen] was placed in phase II andVarghiet [Almfjellet] and Gj0lga [Rau-hammerfjellet] in phase III. I would ratherinclude these in phase II too. A fish imageat Teksdal in Bjugn (M0llenhus 1962) anda recently discovered, as yet unpublished,site at Heggvik in Bjugn also seem to rep-resent phase II.

Within area C, which is the primary sub-ject for this study, phase I is apparentlymissing but, in spite of their interior bodypattern, Gjessing (1936:108) placed the largereindeer at Hell in this phase. Both Evenhusand Lanke, probably also Hommelvik,should be classified as phase II sites. PhaseIII, however, has not yet been found in thisarea.

DIACHRONIC MODEL

This model is based on the assumption thatall Stone Age rock art was shore-bound. Aseldom expressed premise for this as-sumption is that people making and/orvisiting the engravings arrived in boats,keeping the walking distance from the shoreas short as possible.

The reasons for locating rock art at theshore, however, may have been more com-plex. The shore is a meeting place for three

important elements: sea, land, and air. Thisborder zone between elements is constantlychanging because of tides as well as currentsand wave\action. When, in addition, thewind blows, one of nature's most spectacularperformances is being staged here. Thesound of the wind and roaring waves in-creases these dramatic effects and J. Coles(1991:133) may be right when he assumesthat sound was equally as important as visionfor localizing some of the rock art. Forseasonally migrating hunter-gatherers thisborder zone between land and sea may havebeen crossed several times annually. Thesecrossings, which van Gennep called ter-ritorial passages, may have required ap-propriate ceremonies (van Gennep 1960:22-23).

At both Stj0rdal and Frosta the earlyHolocene marine limits are about 180 mabove sea level. The present uplift, however,is slightly higher in Stj0rdal than at Frostabut this should not have made any significantdifferences over the last millennia. ForFrosta a shoreline displacement curve hasbeen constructed. At Frosta 50 per cent ofthe Holocene uplift took place during thepre-Boreal and Boreal chronozones. Fewdata exist for the last 4000 years, however,and this part of the displacement curve isinterpolated from the present uplift (Kjem-perud 1981:12-13).

Proof that engravings were made on rocksin or immediately above the tidal zone isfound at Hammer, where Hammer VI, prob-ably also Hammer VII and parts of HammerV were covered by marine deposits shortlyafter the images were executed (Bakka &Gaustad 1974, Hafsten 1987). The situationis similar at Bj0rset in Molde, M0re ogRomsdal (Petersen 1939) and this may alsobe the case at Strand in Osen, S0r-Tr0n-delag, where Gjessing (1936:22, 176)claimed that the engravings had beencovered by marine deposits. The geologistTh. Vogt, who first investigated the site,inferred, however, that they had beencovered by scree (Vogt 1929).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

40 Kalle Sognnes

M

150-

-

100-

m

5 0 -

-

-

-

i i I

ad ILfa

UaJ

EnahwI-VI-

I

*•!-

a l l

i i i i

N\

\

\

V\\\111\\\\

V\\

\\

\

Hounlvikl

1 i

\

\\

,1 ._ 1 1 I I > I I t • i i i i i

• r12000 11000 10000 9000 8000

I • i • r7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 yean BP

Fig. 8. Shoreline displacement curve for Frosta, Nord-Tr0ndelag (after Kjemperud 1981). Heightsabove sea level for Stone Age rock art sites at the Stj0rdalsfjord/Asenfjord basin are plotted onto thecurve.

If we accept the supposed rock art/shorelevel relationship, we can use the knownshoreline displacement curve for Frosta forestimating maximum dates for each locality.This curve can be seen in Fig. 8, but it isdrawn too accurately, compared with thewide dates provided by radiometric datings.Rather, the curve should have been drawnas a broader belt (cf. Sveian & Olsen1984:32-33). Thus the curve cannot be usedfor any precise date. Neither do we knowthe exact height of the engraved panelsabove the contemporary sea level. For thisstudy, however, I use 2 m above sea level asa standard height.

Then we find that Hell I and Lanke I mayhave been made as early as around, oreven before, 4500 BC, that is, in the LateMesolithic. Since the ongoing uplift is fasterin Stj0rdal than in Frosta, this date probably

should be adjusted. However, a maximumdate of 4300-4000 BC (conservatively es-timated) seems reasonable. Lanke II—IIIand Hommelvik I may belong to the EarlyNeolithic, 4000-3500 BC, and Evenhus I-VI to the Middle Neolithic/Late Neolithic,2500-2000 BC. This is somewhat earlier thanthe dates proposed by Gjessing.

For further discussion, maps have beendrawn showing the surroundings of the siteswith supposed contemporary sea levels.These maps are based on Norway's economicmap system in the scale 1:5000 and 5 mcontour intervals. In practice, sea levels aretherefore drawn at the nearest 5 m curvebelow the sites.

At Hell this means a sea level 40 m higherthan that of today. Then, the Steinmohaugenhilltop was a small island with steep slopeson all sides (Fig. 9). This island was sep-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Ritual Landscapes 41

HELL

Fig. 9. Landscape at Hell with sea level +40 m.Radius = 1 km. \

Fig. 10. Landscape at Lanke with sea level +30 m.Radius «= 1 km.

arated from the mainland by a narrow strait,and on the mainland steep cliffs emergedfrom the sea. It may have been possible toland small boats near the engravings, butthere would only have been room for a fewpeople. I therefore find it unlikely that thisplace was used as a meeting place for alarger group or as a dwelling site. Neithershould Steinmohaugen be characterized asa good hunting site.

At Lanke and Hommelvik the re-constructed landscapes have a sea level 30 mhigher than that of today. Then, the seareached the hill-foot of T0nsasen (Fig. 10),which formed a crescent-shaped peninsulabetween the Leksa river and the Krikbekkenbrook. Because of later erosion we cannotidentify the exact position of the river mouth,but the shore probably ran westwards fromthe southern type end of T0nsasen. The areabetween T0nsasen and Gjevingasen formeda wide shallow bay.

At the engravings locations there wouldbe no good landing place, neither wouldthe relatively steep slopes be suitable for

dwellings nor as a meeting place for largergroups of people. However, 50-60 m northof the panels a small bay existed, whichmay have provided a suitable landing place.T0nsasen may have been a fairly good hunt-ing site for elk; fish could be caught in thefjord and in the river and whales might wellhave been stranded on the beach.

At Hommelvik this higher sea level makeslittle difference near the engravings but hassevere consequences for the inner part ofthe bay, where most of today's cultivatedand settled land would disappear (Fig. 11).Landing with small boats would be easy anda number of small terraces and ridges wouldbe suitable for dwellings. The surroundingswere probably good for elk hunting as wellas for fishing.

The sea level at Evenhus would be 20 mhigher than it is today (Fig. 12). Thenlarge parts of the Frosta promontory woulddisappear. All that would remain would bea low island separated from the mainland bya shallow, approximately 500 m-wide strait.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

42 Kalle Sognnes

HOMMEI.VIK

Fig. 11. Landscape at Hommelvik with sea level+30 m. Radius = 1 km.

EVENHUS

Fig. 12. Landscape at Evenhus with sea level+20 m. Radius = 1 km.

The site forms the easternmost end of thisisland, which, although it was only around40 m high, was visible from a great manyplaces in the Trondheimsfjord area. Therewould be no problem in finding good land-ings on either side of this island or sitessuitable for dwellings. Possibilities for fishingand hunting must have been good. Whalesmay have become stranded on the shores,both on the island and on the mainland.

Although the number of sites studied islimited, two types of sites appear to bepresent. At Hell and Lanke engravings wereexecuted at the base of distinct topographicallandmarks. Hell in particular gives an im-pression of isolation and solitude. This siteseems to have been deliberately chosen be-cause it was situated away from any settle-ment. The' Lanke site was more accessible,but this site, too, gives an impression ofsolitude and isolation. Whatever happenedin front of the panels, large groups were notsupposed to participate. At Hommelvik andat Evenhus the engravings were more publicand may have been frequented by largergroups. These sites may have been locatednear settlements or aggregation sites.Heights above sea level support the as-sumption that this topographical dichotomyreflects a chronological division. This di-chotomy was also observed by A. Hagen(1976:132) who especially emphasized thecorrelation between rock art on steep cliffsand isolated locations.

Gjessing supposed that the earliest en-gravings were made by the hunters them-selves as part of the rituals connected withthe hunt, while the later ones, which aremore stylized and symbolic, were executedby shamans (Gjessing 1936:154, 159). If so,the shamans may have acted in front of alarger audience. In a recent analysis, how-ever, C. Tilley inferred that the Namforsenengravings were non-shamanistic and thatthe transition to shamanism did not takeplace until the making of rock art was comingto its end. Tilley claims that the Namforsenengravings are totemic and that several clans

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Ritual Landscapes 43

visited and used the site (Tilley 1991:129).Similar inferences were drawn by Hesjedal(1990, 1992) in his study of the NorthNorwegian record.

The assumption that Stone Age rock artlocalities were reached primarily by boatis most evidently supported by Hell andEvenhus, since these sites were located onislands. A close relationship between sea-shore and rock art would imply that con-tinuous land uplift influenced the usage of asite and, ultimately, led to its abandonment,even though this uplift could enhance theesoteric character of a site.

The existence of two types of Stone Agerock art sites is exemplified by Hell andEvenhus. These types can be described by aseries of dichotomies: small panels:largepanels, steep panels: gently sloping panels,few images:many images, naturalistic: styl-ized, 'hidden':'open' sites. Many of thesedichotomies may have been caused bychanges in the meaning and/or function ofthe rock art. These again may be related tochanges in society. It is interesting to note thatthe earliest rock art in Tr0ndelag seems toappear at the transition from the Mesolithic tothe Neolithic, when the pioneer flint industry(Fosna culture) was replaced by the slate in-dustry. According to Hesjedal (1990:106) thepecked engravings found in Nordland andTroms are connected with the introduction ofthe slate industry. Furthermore, at the be-ginning of the Neolithic the first engravingswere probably made in Alta (Helskog 1984,1988).

During the Neolithic it became importantfor groups of hunter-gatherers living in theTrondheimsfjord area to have panels withrock art. The landscape was ritualizedthrough the making of rock engravings andpaintings. This first ritualization seems tohave been concentrated on topographicallandmarks. Engravings and paintings mayhave been executed to 'enhance the am-bience and to embellish landmarks alreadybeing of importance for other reasons'(Meighan 1981:89). In this first phase the

engravings appear to have been located atremote places for esoteric purposes. Thesesites can be interpreted as shrines locatedalong important hunting trails.

According to this diachronic model thebeginning of the making of rock art alongthe Trondheimsfjord appears to correspondwith the replacement of flint by slates andother local rocks for making weapons andtools. While the Tr0ndelag coast was settledshortly after the ice had melted, the earlyFosna flint industry is extremely rare in theTrondheimsfjord basin. This may, of course,be due to lack of investigations, or thatMesolithic dwelling sites are difficult tolocate in areas that are densely forested orhighly cultivated. However, this apparentcontemporaneity may reflect really impor-tant changes in Stone Age society in Tr0n-delag. Thus, the peopling of a new land; amigration from coast to fjords and forests;a change from coastal to fjord and inlandadaptations, at least for a part of the popu-lation, may have triggered a symbolic tamingor domesticating (paraphrasing Hodder1990) of the landscape through ritualizing bymeans of rock art.

During the later phases the ritualizationof the landscape changed. Rock art becameless esoteric, located at sites where a greaternumber of people could attend rituals heldin front of or around the engravings. Ag-glomeration sites where different groupscould meet became important; for keepingcontact with neighbouring groups, for find-ing spouses, diffusion of new knowledge andtechniques, exchange of raw materials, fin-ished weapons and utensils, etc. Althoughthe motifs were the same, this later rock artwas more prolific and was drawn in differentstyles. The meaning of these later engravingsmay have been the same as for the olderones, but their social function appears tohave changed. One possible reason for thismay have been the advent of agriculture andfarming communities in the district.

SYNCHRONIC MODELAs an alternative model, it can be assumed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

44 Kalle Sognnes

that all Stone Age rock art is contemporary.This contradicts the last 80 years of rock artdiscourse in Norway, but has been proposedby some scholars, for instance by the Swedisharchaeologist G. Ekholm (1916), who datedall North European rock art, of both StoneAge and Bronze Age type, to the BronzeAge.

Most scholars have agreed on Gjessing's(1936:168) dating of phase HI to the EarlyBronze Age. In particular, the Holte site(area B) has been emphasized in this discus-sion. Some stick-line zoomorphic figures atHolte I may be considered as a fourthstylistic stage (see Fig. 7) and have beencompared with horse images engraved atBronze Age type localities (Mdllenhus1968:17, Herje 1989:47). Most of these horseimages, especially those with riders, shouldbe dated to the Late Bronze Age, someprobably to the pre-Roman Iron Age (Mar-strander 1963:345, Sognnes 1990:91). If weare to accept that the stick-line animals atHolte I are contemporary with these horseimages, then at least parts of Holte I shouldbe dated to Late Bronze Age/pre-RomanIron Age; that is, to the period when mostof the Bronze Age type engravings in Tr0n-delag seem to have been made (Sognnes1987a:99, 1990:130).

I find a Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age- date for the Holte engravings difficult toaccept. The situation at Hammer supportsthis scepticism. The redeposition of marinesand and gravel that covered Hammer VI(area A) can be dated to the Neolithic(Bakka 1975), although it has proved dif-ficult to obtain a more exact date of theactual sea level (Hafsten 1987:116). Thereshould therefore be no doubt that if all StoneAge rock art in Tr0ndelag was contem-porary, it must predate the Bronze Age.

In Fig. 12 the sea level at Evenhus wasdrawn 20 m higher than it is today. This levelshould be dated to some time during theLate Neolithic, and is here used as thecontemporary sea level for alternative land-

HELL

Fig. 13. Landscape at Hell with sea level +20 m.Radius = 1 km.

scape reconstructions. For Hommelvik thismeans a 10 m lowering of the sea levelcompared with Fig. 11. This, however,would lead to relatively small alterationsin the vicinity of the engravings, where,although the engraved panels would be situ-ated higher in relation to the contemporarysea, the increased walking distance from theshore seems insignificant. I therefore havenot presented a map to show this situation.

At Hell the landscape changes more, butbecause of the steep hillslopes these alter-ations also are relatively small. BetweenSteinmohaugen and Gjevingasen a low ridgeof land has emerged (Fig. 13). This ridgewould have been suitable as a dwellingsite and would have provided a good boatlanding place on both sides. However, thisnew topography does not change the esotericcharacter of the site. Even so, only a limitednumber of people could attend any ritualbeing performed in front of the engravings.

The alterations are more dramatic atLanke, as is demonstrated in Fig. 14. Thelandscape shown on this map is to a certain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Ritual Landscapes 45

LANKE

Fig. 14. Landscape at Lanke with sea level +20 m.Radius = 1 km.

degree disturbed by later river erosion butwe find that the shore has moved to thenorth of the T0nsasen ridge. The distancefrom the site is almost 1 km to the shore,which must have been wide, shallow, andmuddy. However, at the base of the ridgethere is a narrow depression, which is per-haps the remnant of an earlier riverbed. Ifso, the rock art probably could have beenreached by boats being paddled up the river,thus avoiding the muddy shore.

If all Stone Age rock art in Tr0ndelag werecontemporary, one conclusion is inevitable:only a minority of the sites known weresituated at contemporary shores and weredirectly accessible by boat. The majoritycould only be reached after a shorter orlonger walk over land. However, the largestStone Age rock art sites in Trcindelag,Evenhus as well as Hammer, were shore-bound.

According to this model, the smaller sitesare also remote; their esoteric character isintact. Although these sites were not shore-bound, most of them seem to have been

situated within a relatively short walkingdistance from the shore and therefore mayhave been frequented by people comingfrom both sides of the Trondheimsfjord.Access from the shore most likely was im-portant for their localization, but panelsmust have been selected primarily for en-graving owing to other reasons. A locationsome distance away and out of sight of theshore, in fact, could underline the role thesesites may have played in esoteric rituals andceremonies.

In a study of rock art in northern Queens-land, Australia, P. Faulstich (1986) foundthree different but contemporary types ofsites represented: sacred, sorcerer, and secu-lar-sites. The situation may have been similarin Tr0ndelag during the Neolithic; differenttypes of rock art sites were used at the sametime. Following Faulstich's terminology, theengravings at Hell and Lanke may, forinstance, have been sacred, the Evenhusengravings secular. However, if Gjessing'sclaim that the later Stone Age rock art wasexecuted by shamans is correct, this sitecould be classified as a sorcerer site as well.At all sites animals were primarily depicted,but were stylistically different. Both styleand location, then, could signify functionand meaning.

Rock art is often connected with ritualsand myths (e.g. Lewis-Williams 1981, Lay-ton 1989, Patterson-Rudolph 1990). Thismight also have been the case for the Tr0n-delag rock art, as demonstrated for theBronze Age type by G. Gr0nnesby (1993).The Stone Age rock art can also be studiedfrom this perspective.

A number of different rituals exist, how-ever, many of which belong to some majortypes (Pilgrim 1978:65), and three of theseare of special interest here. The first groupof rituals is associated with ecological cycles,that is, the cycles of the natural universe:harvest, summer and winter solstices, etc.These- rituals are frequently participated inby large groups of people. A second groupis associated with the human cycle, focusing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

46 Kalle Sognnes

on the individual process of birth, death,initiations, naming, etc (rites of passage).These are rituals for individuals, althoughthey at the same time are of importance forthe whole society. A third major group isthe non-cyclic 'crisis' rituals.

The selection of rocks for imagery impliesthat the images were meant to last (cf.Conkey 1982:124) and thus were seen in along-term perspective; representing con-tinuity. Therefore they are most probablyconnected with cyclic rituals, less probablywith non-cyclic crisis rituals. Comparing theTr0ndelag rock art with these types ofrituals, one finds that small and isolated sitessuch as Hell and Lanke, might have beenused for rituals associated with humancycles; their esoteric character indicatingthat these rituals were primarily for initia-tions. Larger sites, such as Evenhus, wheremore people could come together, mighthave been used for rituals associated withnature's ecological cycles. Probably theserituals took place near aggregation sites.

The synchronic model implies a morethorough ritualization of the landscape andthis ritualization must have been of ut-termost importance for people living in thearea. Topographic landmarks were chosenfor esoteric rituals, but also more open siteslocated at less distinct topographic featuresexisted.

The engravings may have been totemic.At most of the sites cervids, mostly elk butalso reindeer, are depicted. Along with thesespecies are found whales, fishes and aquaticbirds, and at Evenhus boats too. Thesemotifs may represent different clans thatselected their totems from the forest, theair, and the sea (cf. Tilley 1991). This is inaccordance with a recent interpretation ofthe Stone Age rock art in Nordland andTroms, northern Norway (Hesjedal 1990,1992). If this is correct, several clans musthave lived side by side and in general theirrelationship and meetings at the rock artsites must have been peaceful. However, atEvenhus we find surprisingly many super-

impositions, particularly between boats andelks, and these symbols seem to competewith each other. This may be interpreted asevidence that inter-clan relationships werenot always without conflict.

CONCLUSIONS

Deeming which model fits the data best isdifficult. Both models should be regarded asextremes. The actual situation was mostprobably something in between. If we insistthat all sites were shore-bound, then thesynchronic model, of course, has to berejected. If, on the other hand, all StoneAge engravings were executed on rocksfound by the shore, this will have importantconsequences for the style-based chronologybecause phase III (Holte in area B andHomnes in area A) sites are found at higherlevels than sites where other styles are repre-sented.

There should be little doubt that the StoneAge rock art in Tr0ndelag was executed byhunter-gatherers. However, for both modelsthe rock art should also be evaluated in thelight of contemporary expanding agrariancultures. Not only rock art, but also gravesand hoards document close contacts betweenTr0ndeIag and the south ScandinavianBronze Age agrarian culture (Sognnes1990:114-123). These contacts started in theNeolithic. Influence and pressure from thesecultures must have increased during theBronze Age. It has been claimed that BronzeAge type engravings were made as early asduring the Neolithic in western Norway(Fett & Fett 1941:37, 1979) and Tr0ndelag(Sognnes 1987a:79). If the latest Stone Ageengravings belong to the Bronze Age, thenthere is a large chronological overlap be-tween the two complexes, and this pressuremust have been most strongly felt duringthis period (Hagen 1990:180).

If the earliest Bronze Age type and thelatest Stone Age rock art in Tr0ndelag werecontemporary, this would fit well with asocioeconomic model for Scandinavia pro-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Ritual Landscapes 47

posed by K. Kristiansen (1987). In thismodel Kristiansen operates with two levelsof centre-periphery relationships. On aregional scale there is a division between thesouthern central and the northern Scan-dinavia. On a local scale there are centresthat exploit their hinterlands by ideological,political and/or economic means. Stj0rdalwith its agglomerations of Bronze Age typeengravings, bronzes and stone ceremonialaxes (Sognnes 1990) may constitute one suchcentre, with hinterland including huntinggrounds in both Tr0ndelag and SwedishJamtland.

While the hunter-gatherers marked theirritual landscape by engraving the huntedand/or mythic or totemic animals on rocksaccording to their own traditions, the far-mers marked their participation in theScandinavian Bronze Age culture throughthe making of engravings which were specificfor this culture. Both groups may have feltan urgent need for ritualizing the landscapeas part of their claim to ownership, controland use of this landscape. Rock art, then,would be the physical manifestation of thisritualization.

The earliest Bronze Age type sites are notfound along the Trondheimsfjord. They arelocated inland but are found within a re-stricted area; most of them in the Stj0rdalvalley and on small hilltops on the Skatvalpromontory north of the Stj0rdalsfjord (cf.Fig. 2). This is the landscape where onewould expect to find the 'missing' phase IIIsite of area C. Almost one hundred localitieswith rock engravings are known from Stj0r-dal municipality and most of the Skatvalrecord has been known since around 1880.It is therefore remarkable that no Stone Agerock art has been found in this parish.

This may indicate that there is no suchphase HI Stone Age rock art in this area. Ifthe dating of this phase to the Bronze Ageis correct, then this phase may be missingfrom the area because of the existence ofother social groups. At this time Bronze Agetype rock art was being executed in the

area, which had been taken over by farminggroups who turned Skatval into a bridgeheadand stronghold for the advancing SouthScandinavian Bronze Age culture. The situa-tion is, however, different in Lanke parishsouth of the Stj0rdal valley. In this parishthe Bronze Age type engravings are of lateorigin. The earliest phases are missing. Thismay imply that when the first Bronze Agetype engravings were made at Skatval andat some sites on the northern side of theStj0rdal valley during the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, the Lanke area was stillexploited by hunter-gatherers. It was notuntil the Late Bronze Age that farmers tookover this land.

K this interpretation is correct, the sym-pathetic-magical aspect, which has domi-nated virtually all interpretations of theStone Age rock art and is still beingadvocated (e.g. Mikkelsen 1986) shouldbe strongly reduced, perhaps totallyabandoned. Instead of rock art seen as areflection of the hunters' magic potential tocontrol and catch the game, one shouldrather emphasize aspects such as the powerand magic of the large (totemic?) animalswhich were called upon for help and supportin the hunter-gatherers' efforts to deal withnew and changing times.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper was written during a sabbaticalat the University of Texas at Austin grantedby the Norwegian Research Council forScience and the Humanities (NAVF). Adraft has kindly been commented on by mag.art. Jenny Rita Nsss.

REFERENCES

Bakka, E. 1975. Geologically dated Arctic rockcarvings at Hammer near Steinkjer in Nord-Trøndelag. Arkeol. skrifter fra Historiskmuseum, Univ. i Bergen 2, 7-48.

Bakka, E. 1988. Helleristningane på Hammer iBeitstad, Steinkjer, Nord-Trøndelag. Gransk-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

48 Kalle Sognnes

ingar 1977 og 1981. Rapp. arkeol. serie 1988:7.DKNVS Museet, Trondheim.

Bakka, E. & Gaustad, F. 1974. Helleristnings-undersøkelser 1974 i Beitstad, Steinkjer, Nord-Trøndelag. Rapp. arkeol. serie 1974:8. Viten-skapsmuseet, Trondheim.

Baudou, E. 1977. Den förhistoriska fångstkul-turen i Västernorrland. Västernorrlands förhi-storia, 11-152. Härnösand.

Bing, K. 1912. Helleristningsfund ved gårdenVingen i Rugsund, Ytre Nordfjord. Oldtiden2, 25-38.

Brøgger, A. W. 1906. Elg og ren paa hel-leristninger i det nordlige Norge. Naturen 1906,356-360.

Brøgger, A. W. 1925. Det norske folk i oldtiden.Inst. for sml. kulturforskning serie A 6a. As-chehoug, Oslo.

Bøe, J. 1932. Felszeichnungen im westlichenNorwegen I. Die Zeichnungsgebiete in Vingenund Henøya. Bergens Museums skrifter 15.

Cole, S. J. 1990. Legacy on Stone. Rock Art ofthe Colorado Plateau and Four Corners Region.Johnson Books, Boulder.

Coles, J. M. 1991. Elk and Ogopogo: beliefsystems in the hunter-gatherer rock art ofnorthern lands. Proc. of the Prehist. Society 57,129-147.

Conkey, M. W. 1982. Boundedness in art andsociety. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Symbolic andStructural Archaeology, 115-128. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Deacon, J. 1988. The power of a place in under-standing southern San rock engravings. WorldArchaeology 20, 129-140.

Ekholm, G. 1916. De skandinaviska hällristnin-garna och deras betydelse. Ymer 1916, 275-308.

Engelstad, E. S. 1934. Østnorske ristninger ogmalinger av den arktiske gruppe. Inst. for sml.kulturforskning serie B 26. Aschehoug, Oslo.

Farbregd, O. 1980. Veideristningar og veidemåte.In Festskrift til Sverre Marstrander, 41-47.Univ. Oldsaksaml. skr. ny rekke 3.

Faulstich, P. 1986. Spirits on the rock: symboland structure in North Queensland, Australiarock paintings. American Indian Rock Art X,1-25. ARARA, El Toro.

Fett, E. & Fett, P. 1941. Sydvestnorske hel-leristninger. Rogaland og Lista. StavangerMuseum, Stavanger.

Fett, E. & Fett, P. 1979. Relations west Norway-

western Europe Documented in Petroglyphs.Norw. Arch. Rev. 12, 65-92.

Fjellheim, S. 1989. Det sørsamiske kultur-landskapet. Spor 1989: 1, 26-28, 48.

Fjellheim, S. 1990. Samisk forhistorie for samer?In Sognnes, K. (ed.), Arkeologi og etikk, 15-21. Rapp. arkeol. serie 1990:1, Vitenskapsmu-seet, Trondheim.

Gaustad, F. 1976. Steinalderkunst fra Stadsbygd.Årbok for Fosen 1976, 105-110.

Gaustad, F. 1977. Kalkering av helleristningsfeltnr. 1 og 4 [Berg, Verdal]. Report on file atVitenskapsmuseet, Universitetet i Trondheim.

Gennep, A. van 1960. The Rites of Passage. TheUniversity of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Gjessing, G. 1936. Nordenfjelske ristninger ogmalinger av den arktiske gruppe. Inst. for sml.kulturforskning serie B: 30. Aschehoug, Oslo.

Gjessing, G. 1939. Østfolds jordbruksristninger.Idd, Berg og delvis Skjeberg. Inst. for sml.kulturforskning serie B 37. Aschehoug, Oslo.

Gjessing, G. 1945. Norges steinalder. Norsk ar-keologisk selskap, Oslo.

Grønnesby, G. 1993. Helleristningene på Skatval.Ritualer og sosial struktur. Unpublished Cand.philol thesis, University of Bergen.

Hafsten, U. 1987. Vegetasjon, klima og land-skapsutvikling i Trøndelag etter siste istid.Norsk geogr. tidsskrift 41, 101-120.

Hagen, A. 1969. Studier i vestnorsk bergkunst.Ausevik i Flora. Årbok for Univ. i Bergen,hum. serie 1969:3.

Hagen, A. 1976. Bergkunst. Jegerfolkets hel-leristninger og malninger i norsk steinalder.Cappelen, Oslo.

Hagen, A. 1990. Helleristningar i Noreg. Detnorske samlaget, Oslo.

Hallström, G. 1938. Monumental Art of NorthernEurope from the Stone Age I. The NorwegianSites. Almquist & Wiksell, Stockholm.

Hansen, A. M. 1904. Landnaam i Norge. Enudsigt over bosætningens historie. Kristiania[Oslo].

Helskog, K. 1984. Helleristningene i Alta i ettidsperspektiv-en geologisk og multivariabelanalyse. In Sandnes, J., Kielland, A. & Øster-lie, I. (eds.), Folk og ressurser i nord, 47-60.Tapir, Trondheim.

Helskog, K. 1988. Helleristningene i Alta: sporetter ritualer og dagligliv i Finnmarks forhi-storie. [Alta].

Herje, T. 1989. Fragmenter av en fortid. Funn ogfortidsminner i Levanger kommune. Levanger.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Ritual Landscapes 49

Hesjedal, A. 1990. Helleristninger som tegn ogtekst: en analyse av veideristningene i Nordlandog Troms. Unpublished Magister artium thesis,University of Tromsø.

Hesjedal, A. 1992. Veideristninger i Nord-Norge;datering og tolkningsproblematikk. Viking 55,27-54.

Hodder, I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe.Blackwell, London.

Hood, B. C. 1988. Sacred pictures, Sacred rocks:ideological and social space in north NorwegianStone Age. Norw. Arch. Rev. 21, 65-84.

Johansen, O. S. 1972: Nordiske petroglyfer. Ter-minologi, kronologi og kontaktpunkter utenforNorden. Univ. Oldsaksaml. årbok 1969, 220-234.

Kjemperud, A. 1981. A shoreline displacementinvestigation from Frosta in Trondheims-fjorden, Nord-Trøndelag, Norway. Norsk geol.tidsskr. 61, 11-15.

Kristiansen, K. 1987. Centre and periphery inBronze Age Scandinavia. In Rowlands, M.,Larsen, K. & Kristiansen, K. (eds.), Centreand Periphery in the Ancient world, 74-85.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Larsen, G. Mandt 1972. Bergbilder i Hordaland.En undersøkelse av bildenes sammensetning,deres naturmiljø og kulturmiljø. Årbok forUniv. i Bergen, hum. serie 1970:2.

Layton, R. 1989. The political use of AustralianAboriginal body painting and its archaeologicalimplications. In Hodder, I. (ed.), The Meaningof Things, 1-11. Harper Collins, London.

Lewis, D. 1976. Observation on route findingand spatial orientation among the aboriginalpeoples of the west desert region of CentralAustralia. Oceania 46, 249-282.

Lewis-Williams, J. D. 1981. Believing and Seeing.Symbolic Meanings in Southern San Rock Art.Academic Press, London.

Lindquist, C. 1984. Arktiska hällristningar ochden marina anpassningen. Medd. från marin-arkeol. sällsk. 1984, 4-34.

Lindquist, C. 1985. Motivational continuity andchange in 5000 years of Fennoscandian rockart: a quantitative approach, with an Africanoutlook. Kontaktstencil 26-27, 89-131.

Magnus, B. & Myhre, B. 1986. Forhistorien.Fra jegergrupper til høvdingesamfunn. Norgeshistorie 1. Cappelen, Oslo.

Malmer, M. P. 1981. A Chorological Study ofNorth European Rock Art. Kungl. Vitterh.

Hist. och Antikv. Akademiens handlingar,antikv. serien 32. Stockholm.

Marstrander, S. 1963. Østfolds jordbruksristnin-ger. Skjeberg. Inst. for sml. kulturforskningserie B 53. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

Meighan, C. M. 1981. Theory and practice in thestudy of rock art. In Buccellati, G. & Speroni,C. (eds.), The Shape of the Past: Studies inHonor of Franklin D. Murphy, 65-91. UCLA,Los Angeles.

Mikkelsen, E. 1977. Østnorske veideristninger—kronologi og økokulturelt miljø. Viking 41,147-201.

Mikkelsen, E. 1986. Religion and ecology: motifsand location of hunters' rock carvings in easternNorway. In Steinsland, G, (ed.), Words andObjects, 127-141. Inst. for sml. kulturforskningserie B 71. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

Moore, D. R. 1971. Australian aboriginal rockart: its relevance to the European Palaeolithic.Boll. del Centro Camuno di studi preistorici 7,117-136.

Møllenhus, K. R. 1962. En ny bergmaling påFosenhalvøya. Det Kgl. Norske Vidensk.Selskab, Museet årbok 1962, 95-98.

Møllenhus, K. R. 1968. Helleristningene på Holtåsi Skogn. Det Kgl. Norske Vidensk. Selskabsskr. 1968:4.

Møllenhus, K. R. 1969. Helleristninger [Smed-berget, Hommelvik]. Report on file at Viten-skapsmuseet, University of Trondheim.

Patterson-Rudolph, C. 1990. Petroglyphs &Pueblo Myths of the Rio Grande. AvanyuPublishing, Albuquerque.

Petersen, T. 1922. Fra hvilken tid stammer denaturalistiske helleristninger? Naturen 1922,88-108.

Petersen, T. 1926. Nye fund fra det nordenfjellskeNorges helleristningsområde. Finska fornm.föreningens tidskr. 36, 23-44.

Petersen, T. 1939. Om Bolsøy i den hedenskeoldtid. Bolsøyboka 1, 19-37.

Pilgrim, R. B. 1978. Ritual. In Hall, W. T. (ed),Introduction to the Study of Religion, 64-84.

Pöllu, K. 1990. Kümme soome-ugri uurimisreisi.Olion, Tallin.

Schaafsma, P. 1985. Form, content and function:theory and method in North American rockart studies. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Advancesin Archaeological Method and Theory 8, 237-274. Academic Press, Orlando.

Shetelig, H. 1922. Primitive tider. John Grieg,Bergen.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

50 Kalle Sognnes

Sognnes, K. 1979. Steinalderens bergkunst påFosenhalvøya. Årbok for Fosen 1979, 7-24.

Sognnes, K. 1981. Helleristningsundersøkelser iTrøndelag 1979 og 1980. Rapp. arkeol. serie1981:3. DKNVS Museet, Trondheim.

Sognnes, K. 1983a. Bergkunsten i Stjørdal. Hel-leristningar og busetjing. Gunneria 45. DKNVSMuseet, Trondheim.

Sognnes, K. 1983b. Helleristninger i Stjørdal II.Stjørdal og Lånke sogn. Rapp. arkeol. serie1983:6. DKNVS Museet, Trondheim.

Sognnes, K. 1987a. Bergkunsten i Stjørdal 2.Typologi og kronologi i Nedre Stjørdal. Gun-neria 56. Vitenskapsmuseet, Trondheim.

Sognnes, K. 1987b. Rock art and settlementpattern in the Bronze Age. Example fromStjørdal, Trøndelag, Norway. Norw. Arch.Rev. 20, 110-119.

Sognnes, K. 1989. Rock art at the Arctic Circle.Arctic and agrarian rock engravings fromTjøtta and Vevelstad, Nordland, Norway. ActaArchaeologica 59, 67-90.

Sognnes, K. 1990. Bergkunsten i Stjørdal 3. Heg-raristningane. Gunneria 62. Vitenskapsmuseet,Trondheim.

Sveian, H. & Olsen, L. 1984. En strand-forskyvningskurve fra Verdalsøra, Nord-Trøn-delag. Norsk geol. tidsskrift 64, 27-38.

Tilley, C. 1991. Material Culture and Text. TheArt of Ambiguity. Routledge, London.

Vogt, T. 1929. Geologisk beretning om hel-leristningene ved Sandviksberget. Report onfile at Vitenskapsmuseet, University ofTrondheim.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

06:

09 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014