 of the figures on these surfaces. Such an understanding would benefit from more people drawing the panels in addition to photographing them, because drawing provides an interactive way to see structures that bind or separate figures — to see what is between the figures and not reiterate what one thinks one sees, what the brain ‘orders’ one to sec. I encourage us to break away from this tyranny.
Second, the reasons why prehistoric artists chose a particular surface at a particular place are undoubtedly many, as are the reasons for choosing what to (or what not to) depict. Any of these choices involves space, although not necessarily as a decisive factor. At the level of the rock surface, the compositions at Alta and other places indicate that there was a spatial relationship — a need to fit — between individual engravings, compositions and the surface. There had to be room enough for making the figures needed; and, judging from the engravings from the earliest period in Alta, size was reasonably standardised and choices were non-random. There was not much flexibility in manipulating figure size when the artists assessed fit and positioning.
Third, the position of the figures on the surfaces might be as important as the spatial relationship between the figures and their orientation. This does not mean that individual figures were not important, but does incorporate placement and position as potential meaning-giving factors. In addition, surface gradient and orientation may have played a role, while in Alta as at other places specific features such as colours, cracks and basins were part of the meanings and stories intended within the art. Such features might be one of the reasons why a particular engraving or composition was made on a specific surface. This is a point often made.
Finally, and specific to northernmost Europe, the position of elk on some rock surfaces, as with that of bears, leads me to suggest that it reflects, among other things, a prehistoric division of the universe. The dominant location of elk, on the lower sections of slanting panels, places them physically closer to the water’s edge than any of the other figures. Furthermore, the combination of boat-elk reinforces the connection to water, as docs the behaviour of the elk. The stories and the position of the elk in the ethnographic record also associate the elk with water, among other links, and in this way reinforce the observation from the engravings and the behaviour of the animal. The ethnographic record is a vestige of beliefs whose antiquity is unknown, while the engravings are remnants of a world of beliefs vastly pre-dating the ethnographic record. We do not know if there is a connection, but the similarities in what is described ethnographically and observed archaeologicaily are so striking that it is highly likely that there are some similarities in meanings, even if there is no direct historical continuity. A belief that connects the elk with water and the underworld among prehistoric populations is supported by the evidence in the rock are from Alta, as, I would like to add, is a belief in the transport of the souls of the dead in boats with elk heads and the regeneration of life. In these cases it appears that the elk is the boat, with the head in the bow, while the body is the hull and the tail extends from the stern. But from the ethnographic record, as well as from the positioning of the elk at the top of the composition in Kifjord in Alta, the elk also appears to have been a spirit in the upper world. The elk was in all worlds, as was the bear, representing different spirits with different functions and powers. The positioning of the elk in the rock an therefore places it in all worlds, as with the bear, but the elk appears to be more dominant in its connection to the lower world. In this way, what is seen in the rock an appears to be a variant of the beliefs in the ethnographic record.
This chapter was first prepared during my sabbatical year, 1999-2000, at the Department of Archaeology at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom