Previous interpretations

Although interpretation has never been a major focus in Finnish rock art research, this aspect of its history of research has been exceptionally well chronicled (Saavalainen 1999a; 2001) and therefore need not be discussed in great detail here. In the conclusion to his Licentiate thesis on the subject, the historian of religion, Janne Saavalainen (2001: 68), finds that in spite of decades of work, this research has so far not led to any breathtaking results:

If we look back to the interpretations suggested by Europaeus of the first panel found, we may observe that research has not progressed much at all. Europeaus already dated the Finnish rock painting tradition to the Comb Ware period and was as confident in associating it with hunting cultures and their subsistence strategies as modern scholars have been […]⁷ (Saavalainen 2001: 68; my translation)

Saavalainen (2001: 67-8) lists altogether ten different interpretative frameworks that have been used to explain the paintings, including ‘art for art’s sake’, ‘fertility cult’ and ‘totemism’.

However, there can be no question that generalised ‘hunting magic’ has been the dominant paradigm in Finnish archaeological literature (e.g., Sarvas 1969; 1973; Sarvas & Taavitsainen 1976; Taavitsainen 1978; Luho 1971: 41; Siiriäinen 1981; Edgren 1984: 64; Huurre 1990:

66-7; 1998: 261-2; 2004: 222; Purhonen 1998: 33). As Saavalainen points out, Europaeus (Fig. 24) concluded that the paintings of Vitträsk were unlikely to be idle scribbling, but more probably represented the “primitive religious beliefs” of their Stone Age painters (Europaeus 1917; 1922). More to the point, Europaeus (1917: 49) associated the paintings with a hunting culture and its hopes of maintaining hunting luck.

The idea that the ‘primitive hunters’ of the Stone Age believed in ‘sympathetic magic’, where the production of art had a magico-functional purpose – increasing hunting luck – ul-timately derives from the writings of the Victorian anthropologist Sir James Frazer (1890). In Europaeus’ time, Frazer’s ideas were in the process of becoming the established truth among rock art researchers such as Solomon Reinach (1903) in France, Gutorm Gjessing (1936) in Norway and Gustaf Hallström (1938) in Sweden. The theory of hunting magic also found favour with the most influential figure in the early 20^th century study of cave art, the French cleric Henri Breuil (1952). These scholars regarded rock art as a rather straightforward matter, the purpose of which was to ensure that game was plentiful.

Following Europaeus, the theory of hunting magic was adopted by Pekka Sarvas (1969), who found the important site of Astuvansalmi while on a boating holiday on Lake Saimaa in the late 1960’s. Gjessing’s publications appear to have been the main source of inspiration for Sarvas, who was convinced that the paintings were done to either secure hunting luck (if they were painted before the hunt) or to express thanks for the catch (if they were painted after the hunt) (Sarvas 1973: 28; 1975: 46). Together with Taavitsainen (1978; Sarvas & Taavitsainen 1976), he associated the paintings with springtime elk hunting, which would have been easier on lakeshores than in the snowy forest. The fact that paintings are mostly located in narrows

7 “Jos katsomme taaksepäin aina Europaeuksen ensimmäisestä kuvakentästä tekemiä tulkintoja, voimme todeta, ettei tutkimus ole juurikaan edennyt. Jo Europaeus ajoitti suomalaisen maalausperinteen kampakeraamiseksi ja liitti sen yhtä varmasti pyyntikulttuuriin ja toimeentulostrategioihin kuin tämän päivän tutkijatkin […]”

he explained as being related to the migratory routes of the elk, which would have provided plenty of good opportunities for the elk hunters, thus perhaps also giving such places a religious dimension.

Rather exceptionally for his time, Sarvas was not content with studying the paintings alone, but arranged a small-scale excavation in front of the painting. The finds – two prehistoric stone arrow points, one of them broken – were of course a perfect match with the hunting magic theory, and have secured its popularity among Finnish archaeologists up until the present day.

For example, a 1998 book on ‘Stone Age Finland’ explains that

[Painting a picture] lured the prey to the site or imprisoned its soul in the rock, so that it would have to remain in its surroundings. The absence of predators in the paintings may, on the other hand, be due to the fact that one did not want them to compete for the prey, and for this reason, depicting them was avoided.

Sometimes the pictures appear to have been shot at: every once in a while, the heart has been marked in the paintings like a bull’s eye. Perhaps it was hoped that such ritual shooting was would ensure that the arrows would hit the real creatures as accurately as they hit the pictures. The two fragments of stone ar-row points found in front of the Astuvansalmi painting may be remains of such a rite.⁸ (Huurre 1998: 261; my translation).

In a significant break from this tradition of interpretation, the anthropologist Anna-Leena Siikala – an expert in the study of Siberian religions – wrote a paper on the shamanistic interpretation of the art in 1980 (Siikala 1980; first published in English in 1981). Although the paper is not widely cited in North European rock art literature, a number of Finnish researchers (e.g., Miettinen 2000: 41; Saavalainen 1999a: 10) have regarded it as the most important study on Finnish rock art written so far. Some of Siikala’s ideas are evidently derived from the work of Andreas Lommel (1967), which she cites in her paper, but even so, and given the fact that it predates the boom in shamanistic interpretations inspired by the ‘neuropsychological model’

of David Lewis-Williams and Thomas Dowson (1988), it has some claim to being a pioneering paper in hunter-gatherer rock art research.

According to Siikala, the images of elk in Finnish rock paintings may be related to so-called ‘animal ceremonialism’, whereupon the continuity of the hunted species is guaranteed by a ritual in which the animal is sent back to its ‘owner’. A well-known example of animal ceremonialism involves the rituals surrounding bear hunting, which among the Saami, Finns and other circumpolar peoples is ritually moved to the spirit world (Hallowell 1926; Manker 1971b). Siikala believed that the large number of elk in Finnish rock paintings associates them with hunting, but not in the traditional sense of hunting magic. Instead, the paintings were done in order to return the hunted elk to their ‘owner spirit’, which she identified with the ‘Lady with the Bow’ at Astuvansalmi. According to Siikala, this image is likely to represent a being of the spirit world, since among modern circumpolar cultures, special taboos exist concerning women and game: “the very presence of a woman in hunter’s quarters might defile the hunting tackle, making [it] unfit for use” (Siikala 1981: 94). In Siikala’s view, then, rock paintings were to be understood as places where the shaman could contact the ‘keeper’ of the elk species.

Unlike Sarvas, Siikala attempted to interpret all the images of rock art – not just some categories such as elk. Siikala saw all the paintings in a shamanistic light. For example,

an-8 “[Kuvan tekeminen] ehkä houkutteli saalista paikalle taikka vangitsi kallioon eläinten sielun, niin että niiden oli pysyttävä lähiseudulla. Petojen puuttuminen maalauksista taas saattaa johtua siitä, ettei niitä haluttu kilpaile-maan riistasta ja siksi niiden kuvaamista on vältetty. Joskus kuvia lienee myös ammuttu; silloin tällöin hirvenkuviin on merkitty sydämen kohta kuin napakympiksi. Ehkä tällaisen rituaaliammunnan on toivottu takaavan nuolten os-umisen todelliseen otukseen yhtä tarkasti kuin kuvaan. Astuvansalmen maalauksen edustalta löytyneet pari kivisen nuolen katkelmaa saattavat olla muista tällaisesta toimituksesta.”

thropomorphic images represent, in her view, human-shaped spirit helpers, as do the images of birds and fish. Boat figures, on the other hand, were related to the passage to the Oth-erworld in a boat or canoe. Siikala also found a parallel to the handprints of rock art in the metal decorations of the shaman’s costume, which sometimes include metal plates cut in the shape of a human hand (Siikala 1981:

92).

In a series of papers, the amateur archaeologist Eero Autio (1993 a & b; 1995;

1998) has criticised Siikala’s interpretation for relying too heavily on Siberian ethnography, making the important point that analogies should be ideally based on local ethnogra-phy. His main argument concerns the horned anthropomorphs, usually interpreted as sha-mans (e.g., Siikala 1981: 94). Autio points out that although Siberian shamans did wear a specific shaman’s dress, which sometimes included horned headgear, there is not very much evidence that the Saami noaidi used such paraphernalia. Therefore, he concludes, the horned anthropomorphs of rock art are more likely to represent mythological beings than shamans. Instead, he associates the rock paintings with totemism, a system of belief in

which a mystical kinship relationship exists between a group of people and a ‘totem’ animal.

Autio believes that the horned anthropomorphs depict totemic ancestor beings and finds a parallel in Saami myths that speak of Meandaš, a creature who was half human and half deer.

The Saami of the Kola Peninsula are said to have believed that they were descended from Meandaš (Autio 1993b: 117).

Some professional archaeologists have also attempted to make use of Saami ethnography in their interpretations. In the early 1970’s, Ville Luho compared certain motifs of rock art with those on Saami drums and noted also the similarity between the Saami sacred sites (sieidi) and rock painting sites (Luho 1970; 1971). His ideas were cautiously endorsed by Taavitsainen (1978; 1981), but dismissed by Sarvas (1973) and in the end did not inspire much discussion.

However, a little later on, Milton Núñez has continued the line of argument begun by Luho, pointing out further similarities between Saami religion and the rock paintings (1981; 1994;

1995). He is also one of the few scholars to have argued that there may be a ‘direct historical’

relationship between rock art and the modern Saami. His articles are regrettably short and lacking in ethnographic detail, but contain, in embryonic form, many of the ideas that have been expanded and argued further in this dissertation.

Finally, the work of archaeologist Timo Miettinen must be mentioned. A prolific writer on rock art since the mid-1970’s, Miettinen has advocated the use of an “ethnosemiotic method”

in interpreting rock art (e.g. Miettinen 1990a: 39; 2000: 43). It is, however, somewhat unclear what this method entails or how it is realised in his own work. Miettinen’s ideas on interpreta-tion are summarised in the introducinterpreta-tion to his book on the rock paintings of the Kymi river

Figure 24. The archaeologist Aarne Europaeus (who later ‘Finnicized’ his surname to Äyräpää) at the rock painting of Vitträsk in 1922. Photo: Finnish National Board of Antiquities.

valley (Miettinen 2000). According to him, rock art is “functionally a highly multidimensional phenomenon and, given the present state of research, it is too early to define the relationships between its various elements, such as shamanism, hunting magic, totemism, fertility cult, cos-mology and the aesthetic element”⁹ (Miettinen 2000: 42; my translation). In sum, Miettinen (2000: 43) feels that the meanings of the art are “kaleidoscopically ambiguous”.

The ambiguity of rock art meanings is, of course, an idea famously championed by Chris-topher Tilley (1991), but Miettinen’s publications lack the theoretical arsenal employed by Tilley and are thus more difficult to approach. Instead, as exemplified by the above quotation, they often exhibit a somewhat uncritical and disorganised use of concepts like hunting magic, shamanism and totemism, never properly defined. Together with the fact that his publications include relatively few references to scientific literature, this casts a shadow over the many good ideas and interesting observations in his work. Miettinen’s other books on the subject (Pentikäinen & Miettinen 2003; Miettinen & Willamo 2007) are riddled with similar prob-lems. Indeed, as the folklorist Kaarina Koski (2003) comments, these and other recent works on Finnish rock art have suffered from a somewhat confused approach to interpretation and a certain lack of scientific rigour.