| Summary: | SUMMARY In a review article on P. V. Glob's recent publication, »Rock Carvings in Denmark«, the author compares the situation in Scandinavian petroglyph studies today with that in 1945 when C. A. Althin published his monograph on the petroglyphs of Scania -mainly those within sight of the sites on the island of Bornholm, a main theme in Glob's book. We are still far from relieved of the necessity to accept isolated »petroglyph research« - with all the dangers of speculation and sterility involved. There is still too little chronology, and too few contextual data for the petroglyphs. In a cross-regional argument, the view preferred here is that the dichotomy between »South Scandinavian«, »bronze age«, »agricultural« petroglyphs and »Arctic«, »North Scandinavian«, »hunting and fishing« petroglyphs has been overemphasized. None of the quoted labels are adequate today. The first mentioned group (the »shiptype« rock art) is seen as a south-western, geographically marginal part of a large North and East European, partly North Asiatic complex, together with the »gametype« art, which prevails towards the north-east.In Lewis R. Binford's »Archeological Perspectives«, questions of the importance or non-importance of »hidden data« are discussed -with a passage in B. Allchin's »The stone-tipped arrow« as an example. It is clear that Glob's analogous way of reasoning would be refuted by Binford. On the other hand, the consequence of Binford's position would be to emphasize the importance of studies of »independent« data, parallel with the petroglyph study. In fact, Glob has a marked tendency in this sound direction.C. A. Moberg
|
|---|