Karl-Johan Olofsson Glösa – Transfiguring Rock Art Introduction In the summer of 2003 I and my colleagues from the Archaeology Department at Jämtlands läns museum spent a few pleas- ant weeks doing recording work at Glösa, Alsen. The items being recorded were the famous rock carvings at Glösabäcken, and the work was a small part of the large inter-Nordic RANE–project (Rock Art in Northern Europe). As we lay there and worked on the rocks there was one question that kept on coming back to us: What do the figures really depict? The majority of those who have come into contact with these carvings in recent years have, in one way or another, had previous knowledge of the elks at Glösa. What was a little strange was that the more time we spent at the rock carvings, the more difficult it was to see them as elks. All of us working with the recording had visited Glösa before, but with activities of this type one works close to the figures for a long period of time; later we explained the animal figures in a the figures were literally right under our more conventional manner: possibly elks, noses. perhaps reindeer and maybe a little bear. You In the autumn of 2000 anyone who was in- can imagine our surprise when, a few days terested could read in the local newspaper later, we read in the newspaper: “It looks sort about a newly discovered rock painting at of like a little pig, and a larger animal with Tänndalssjön. What was written made me horns next to it.”1 (LT 2/10 2000). This, almost a little reflective. It had been my colleague, embarrassing, incident taught us that rock Lars-Inge Lööv, and I who had shown the paintings are not a matter for jokes. Today journalist the site and it was us that she had no-one believes that a pig is depicted in the interviewed. On the way to the painting we cave painting at Tänndalssjön, or…? had joked with the journalist when she had Prehistory and archaeology are usually as- asked about what sorts of animals could be sociated with material culture – objects and seen in the painting. “Maybe a little pig,” remains. From one perspective this is correct. we said. When we got to the painting a bit From another perspective archaeology and 55 prehistory are about texts. Practically all ar- about them today than we did in 1685? Or chaeology results in text. Reports, articles, do we know something else today? theses and popular reference works about In this study not only the various interpre- prehistory are some examples of archaeologi- tations are important, but it is also of im- cal texts. Archaeology and prehistory are also portance who made those interpretations usually associated with the distant past. In and when. I have therefore chosen to use one way this is true, but from another point a strictly chronological presentation. If the of view archaeology and prehistory are ex- interpretations of the figures are products of tremely contemporary phenomena. During their times, what factors are relevant to the the time that archaeology has been carried assertions about what is depicted? Who be- out using scientific methods a number of lieves they have the authority to decide what texts have been produced on the subject of the figures represent? The word authority prehistoric conditions. These texts have been is problematic. Knowledge and authority produced in a social and historical context are intimately associated with each other; where the archaeology has not existed in it is through knowledge that authority is prehistory, but rather in the currently exist- exercised. Knowledge gives the authority to ing contemporary society. define, categorise and decide what “reality” A fair amount has been theorised and writ- should look like. Knowledge of phenomena ten about rock carvings. This study examines is most often mediated through texts; texts the suppositions and writings about the rock can therefore be seen as a form of exercising carvings at Glösabäcken. I have chosen Glösa authority. A text’s authoritative importance for primarily two factors: the first known is often longer than its author’s active life. written record of them is from 1685, which Accordingly old, but also new, texts that are makes it possible to follow interpretations read as if they are unproblematic sources of them over a long period of time, and the of knowledge to be used for understand- carved figures are difficult to interpret. ing ‘reality’ exercise their authority over the One question is: How can it be that the same reader. figures can be described in different ways at Further, the various descriptions of Glösa that different times and by different people? Is follow are to be seen as a process where a it research about rock carvings that results set of ancient remains or, more accurately, a in this change, or could it possibly depend cultural environment, is loaded with values on other factors? With regards to Glösa the and meanings over a long period of time. differences revolve around what the ani- However, Glösa is also to be seen as a place mals carved into the rock actually are. The that has generated all these descriptions and most common interpretation of the animal stories. In other words, there is a two-way figures at Glösa is currently that they depict interaction between place and description. elk, but that hasn’t always been the case. Some changes that occur in a cultural en- Another question is almost the opposite of vironment consist of physical changes to the first: Why is it that the figures have been the environment, while other changes can interpreted and described in such a similar be found in people’s thoughts about the manner, especially in the descriptions from place. the past 40 years? Is it scientific proof of what For archaeological material to be able to the figures depict that could be the basis for reveal something it has to be interpreted; this this, or could it be due to something else? is absolutely the case with rock art. However My study is also, to a certain extent, an episte- this can be problematic when interpretations mological study, in which the Glösa Carvings appear to be facts. The basis of the empirical are an example of how presumed knowledge scientific ideal is that objective facts exist; and truth are constructed and created. Has facts come from observing and describing new knowledge been accumulated or has reality as it is. Interpretation is something old knowledge been reproduced; can it be that may occur at a later stage of scientific claimed that 319 years of studying the Glösa thought and has nothing to do with facts. It Carvings has resulted in us knowing more is often said that facts are interpreted. In my 56 Fig. 2. Some of the figures at Glösa. The Glösa carvings are highlighted, signed and easily accessible to visitors. (Photo: Karl-Johan Olofsson/JLM) opinion this is completely wrong. Facts do not The animal figures that can be seen at Glösa exist in their own right, facts are produced are usually regarded as fact. They are of a by people. People are shaped by a cultural certain type and of a certain size, and the and social environment that changes with carved lines have a depth and a width. That time. Therefore a fact, and the knowledge which is said about them after this is most that is built upon facts, is highly relative and often called interpretation; this usually con- dependent on factors that are a long way sists of ideas about the carvings’ meaning, from the object being studied. Thus, fact what they represent and their context. My and interpretation are different words for thesis is that all of these are interpretations, the same thing. All knowledge is tied to the but at several different levels. In this study perspective that was used when the so-called I am going to examine the most basic level reality was studied. Which perspectives are of interpretation, the interpretation of the used and how they are created are described figures’ design. Consequently it is not the by the discourse analyst Jonathan Potter: question of what the figures represent or “The world is not ready categorized by God communicate that is most important in this or nature in ways that we are all forced to study, but rather what various people have accept. It is constituted in one way or another said about what the figures literally depict, as people talk it, write it and argue it.” (Pot- which of course are also interpretations. In ter 1997:98). In other words, the perspective other words this is a study of what people taken on a phenomenon is combined with have written about the figures at Glösa when changeable cultural and social processes, the figures have been treated as icons, in which in turn leads to something that can other words as directly illustrative pictures temporarily be called fact/interpretation. (for a more thorough reasoning about how 57 rock art can be seen from a semiotic perspec- The descriptions that I have selected are not tive, see Lindqvist 1994:125-126). the only ones in existence. My selection is Rock art is, or can be, among the most demo- based upon what can be found in the muse- cratic of ancient remains. Each and every um’s library as well as, in some cases, material person can have their own ideas about what which has been easy to order.