Perceiving Rock Art: Social and Political Perspectives.

Tacon, Paul S.C.

As the title of this fascinating book implies, rock pictures are far more than neutral artefacts used by archaeologists or other researchers solely as data. They have social and political 'lives', they were created in social and political contexts, their study reflects on the social and political conditions of both past and present. Rock-art, however we view or represent it, is not impartial. But this does not mean that we are forever locked into highly subjective analyses or that rock-art is less informative than other forms of archaeological evidence, even though some people, through the selective use of data and ignorance of rock-art's larger significance, have used it to support any pet theory or interpretation that took their fancy. Indeed, it is this ignorance of rock-art's larger significance that Knut Helskog and Bjornar Olsen's edited volume primarily addresses. In the process, not only do they greatly increase our awareness of social and political issues that affect the ways we undertake research and, more importantly, the results of research, but they also fill a major knowledge gap. Furthermore, the papers act as a warning about the misuses of rock-art studies and are a reminder of the value of rigorous research methods. But more importantly, Helskog & Olsen's papers act as ballast by reassuring us that great value can and will continue to be obtained from comprehensive, well-thought-out investigations into the rock pictures of particular regions.

Knut Helskog was the primary inspiration behind the book. Its genesis occurred in 1993, at the Alta Conference on Rock Art (ACRA), held in Alta, Norway on 19-24 June. This event occurred to celebrate the opening of the new Alta Museum in the Hjemmeluft part of a World Heritage rock-engraving area - one not to be missed by intrepid rock-art world travellers! Scholars were invited from around the globe, but one of the main goals was to present and promote Scandinavian research and to strengthen international contacts. The conference papers were organized into 5 main sessions, and the book follows this format:

I general perspectives (with wonderful historical overviews!),

II social context (fascinating but some are controversial),

III ethnographic analogies and interpretation (cautious, as they should be),

IV political and ethnic perspectives (sobering but wonderful) and

V on-going research (great stuff!).

This is followed by a concluding commentary and a retrospective look by David Lewis-Williams. I highly recommend that one reads this section first, as it provides a better introduction than the actual introduction and sets the tone for much of the book. Since it also brings us down to earth (where all archaeologists should be), it should also be re-read at the end!

This is not the place to outline each paper in detail, but it is worth noting some of the key elements or statements presented in some of the more exceptional articles. First of all, do read Jean Clottes' overview of research in France - it is both elegant and informative. Lewis-Williams' history of rock-art research in southern Africa is similarly brilliant. Patricia Vinnicombe's summary of Australian research is worth repeating: 'rock art studies have moved well beyond the early "antiquarian" phase, through a "quantitative" to a more "qualitative" and interpretative phase which is now being tempered to some degree by the realities of ethical and political expediency' (p. 97). I think this is also true of the history of research in North America and elsewhere, but as Lewis-Williams points out in a later article, the last change is only just beginning in southern Africa. Vinnicombe's conclusion, in both her papers, that 'one of the basic motives responsible for the development of pre-literate imagery may prove to be a quest for the control of power and the unseen forces to which life is subject' (p. 98) is certainly worthy of investigation.

Richard Bradley begins his paper by reminding us of something of great importance: 'The simpler the outward form of a particular art style, the wider the range of meanings that can be read into it. The more complex the designs, the smaller the potential for ambiguity'. Why do we so often forget this and assume the opposite? I was intrigued to learn from Kalle Sognnes that most Scandinavian hunters' rock-art appears to have been located near the sea, farmers' rock-art being inland, it is the latter and not the former that is 'frontier phenomenon'. Eva Walderhaug's paper should be read after Sognnes, especially for insight into the farmers' responses of rejection or defiance of a strong and ancient hunter - gatherer culture. Then read Gro Mandt's paper in another section for yet another perspective that includes discussions of gender!

I did not like John Coles' paper at all. The lack of proper referencing did not help matters much. However, Coles is to be applauded for playing with new, innovative ideas to increase understanding of rock-art. Too bad it didn't work. I also disagreed with much of Anders Hesjedal's piece.

Robert Layton, as he often does, reminds us of an essential (students take note!): 'anthropology lacks the time depth available to archaeology, but archaeology cannot achieve the fine-grained ethnographic detail of anthropology. A proper synthesis of the two, I believe, have [sic] to include recognition of how far prehistoric texts remain opaque to modern readings and how far they still advertise their significance' (p. 226). Most of us do not do enough of this! Remember this in conjunction with Bradley's gem.

The four papers by Meehan, Lewis-Williams, Paikalainen and Haetta that comprise the 'present political and ethnic perspectives' section are all outstanding and some of the best of the volume. Read and re-read these ones!

An outstanding set of papers, a must read for all students of the discipline, and an unrivalled database on the history of rock-art research for at least Scandinavia, South Africa, Australia, France and the United Kingdom is how I would summarize this excellent book. Strangely, North America does not even get a mention, but an excellent paper by Chen Zhao Fu updates us on developments in China and N. Lobanova tells us about on-going research in part of Russia. Certainly the inclusion of some North or South American material would have been a great benefit, as would more photographs and anything in colour. That aside, I highly recommend the purchase of this book by anyone interested in the world's visual, social and political heritage. Students, stretch your budgets!

PAUL S.C. TACON Division of Anthropology Australian Museum, Sydney [email protected]