The values in the term "Stone Age"

A dolmen from the Stone Age on Tjörn, Sweden

I have written two entries about the popular image of the Stone Age before on this blog, but based on a discussion in the chat of the ethnology class I am taking this semester earlier today I felt a need to write another one.

The popular image of the time period known as the Stone Age was created through colonial interactions with non-Western cultures in the Americas, Africa and Oceania. Like I wrote in the first Savage Stone Age post, this means that the popular image of this time period more than any others tends to bring out Western ethnocentric and evolutionistic contemporary biases both of the past and the present based in an imperialistic worldview. Indigenous groups were seen as the last remains of the Paleolithic hunter-gatherer societies, making the distant present become the distant past. This means that there are more to the term "Stone Age" than just being descriptive of a time period. It comes with a set of values and is often used both degradingly and evolutionistic.

Stone Age fishing-hook,
Skåne, Sweden

The popular picture of today has not really changed so much either. We still think about a less complex society populated by uncivilised beasts that could not speak, lived in caves and hit each other over the head a lot. And of course their lives was different from ours as I talked about in my second Savage Stone Age post. Their society was complex just like ours today are. However, because there are so very little material left from the time period and most of what we do have are artefacts made out of stone. We know next to nothing about their family constellations, their sexuality or their other relations and it is not so easy to use contemporary societies for comparisons and analogies. There is really no reason to think that the same livelihood means that anything else is the same.

Funnelbeaker pot

Comparisons and analogies between a society in the distant past and in the present degrade the latter society because they deny them a past just as adventurous and complex as our own. They also degrade the contemporary societies by implying that they are static and cannot change themselves but need a "more evolved" culture (like the Western one!) to help them. It acts hierarchically, putting the Western society higher than non-industrialised ones. And last but not least, it also puts the industrialised Western society as the norm for what a real society looks like and strive for.

Battle axe

This does not mean that you cannot use the present for analogies and comparisons however. In fact you can certainly find similarities between societies of today and societies in the past. We are, after all the same spieces and basic needs like food, sleep, love etc. is still ever present in our lives. However, we need to be aware of how we are doing it, because we are stuck with a racist evolutionistic and imperialistic past that can seriously hurt non-Western societies even though it is not intended.




All photos are from Wikimedia Commons.

Savage Stone Age 2

One of the Motala skulls
Photo: Fredrik Hallgren,
Stiftelsen Kulturmiljövård

This post will be a follow up to the last one because I really want to tell you what I think we can learn from the Stone Age. I am mostly familiar with Scandinavia and this will reflect my point of view.

A couple of years ago I participated in an archaeological excavation of a settlement and burial site from the Mesolithic period in Motala in South-Eastern Sweden. The site is called Kanaljorden and you can find more information (in Swedish) here. Today the site consisted of a peat bog, but during the Mesolithic it was a shallow lake. In this lake was a large stone packing and among other some human skulls were found. At least some of these skulls seem to have been placed on sticks. To us, living in the Western world today, this might seem confusing, scary and awful, but it might not have been to the Mesolithic people that gathered in Motala 8000 years ago.

I do not think we should talk about evolution as something that is constantly striving to get better. This gives a hierarchy to cultures and societies both in the past and present and history is reduced to being a constant struggle to evolve (in a unilinear way and with our contemporary Western society as the norm for ultimate goal of evolution). I think it is better to think in terms of cultural differences. The Stone Age people were not more stupid than us. They just lived different lives.

But why do we need to study the Stone Age? Is it really relevant to us today? It was so long ago and their societis were so different.

Well first of all, not all Stone Age societies were hunter-gatherers. Remember the Neolithic was a time of farming. Besides there were cities in the Middle East and the Egyptians built their famous pyramids during the Stone Age. But there is a special way in which the Stone Age can be very useful for us today. We live in a time of climate change and the Stone Age people did the same. They were forced to invent a new way of living and looking at the world. That is something I think we all need to consider today as well. The big question is if we are willing to do so.

Savage Stone Age

Even if it cannot be seen on this blog (yet), I do have more nerdy favourites than Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries. My second largest is the British sketch show Horrible Histories. It is mainly aimed towards children, but it has a huge adult fan base as well, which is not really surprising. It is based on books by Terry Deary and to a Swedish audience it is probably best described as similar in its setup to the Swedish children's show Fem myror är fler än fyra elefanter. Both consist of educational sketches and songs and both also use humour to teach children about certain themes. Fem myror är fler än fyra elefanter teaches them to read and count and therefore has a somewhat younger audience than Horrible Histories, whichs main theme is history. And not just history taught in school which mainly involves years, wars and rulers. The show uses fun, weird and sometimes quite gruesome facts about time period, people or weird thing that happened.

The humour of the show is what I like the most. It is not like in so many other shows aimed both towards children and adults today, it usually trusts its audience to be smart enough to get the jokes and messages that it want to get across. For short: it treats even children like they have a brain and they can think for themselves. The jokes are seldom straight forward and often want to evoke a reflection process in the audience, which it also seem to manage. It encourages children to do their own research and also be quite source critical. I can go on and on in my praises of the show, but I also have some minor criticism about it. Mainly when it comes to how the Stone Age and the Neanderthals are portrayed. These themes are often quite stereotypically depicted and the extremely problematic term "cavemen" is used often during the shows Stone Age sketches. It also portrays people who barely can speak, especially when it comes to Neanderthals. The subject of Neanderthals speech abilities has been discussed among scholars a lot in recent years and we have not heard the last about it. However, there are great sketches about the Stone Age as well in the show. Sketches that really problematize the concept and the general picture of the Stone Age human. The best I think is the one illustrated by the pictures below.

Normally I prefer later time periods like the Iron Age and Middle Ages, but after participating in a huge archaeological excavation in Motala in Sweden a couple of years ago, I see myself as tiptoeing around in the Stone Age as well.
First of all, the Stone Age is, like every other historical time period, is a construction of later times mainly made by academics to sort through the mess that historical facts can be. Just the Stone Age is part of the so called Three-age System that the Danish antiquarian  Christian Jürgensen Thomsen put together for the archaeological collection at the National Museum of Copenhagen in the 1820's. Therefore it fits best for the Scandinavian prehistory and might be less convenient for other geographical areas. It is not all the time good and handy and can be very unwieldy. However, I still is the most practical way to handle it.

The Stone Age can be divided into three smaller chunks: The Paleolithic, (the older Stone Age), The Mesolithic, (the Middle Stone Age) and the Neolithic (the New Stone Age). These divisions is based mainly on livelihood, but also somewhat on climate changes. I think the Paleolithic in some cases can be stretched as far back as we can get, even long before our own speices, Homo Sapiens, did evolve. The Mesolithic is mainly used for Northern Europe which was covered by the ice during the Ice Age. During both of these periodes, humans were nomadic hunter gatherers. During the Neolithic on the other hand, people started settling down with agriculture and pets. Even though, dogs seems to have been domesticated already during the Mesolithic.

But enough about the period itself! What I want to talk about in this entry is the depiction of the time period in popular culture. What does the Stone Age generally mean to someone who is not an archaeologist and why is it depicted as it is?

Stone Age is probably the one period that brings out the contemporary evolutionistic biases of the Western world the most. The period was mainly created through Western colonial contact with other types of societies and analogies were used to make parallels between the distant past and the distant present.

Archaeology as a science has its roots in the antiquarian tradition of the 17th and 18th century, but was not really founded as a dicipline until the second half of the 19th century. Charles Darwin's theories of (biological) evolution played a huge part in the development of the dicipline and cultural evolution was seen as an extention of it. The process was unilinear and everything was seen as striving to evolve. This lead (Western) scholars to place different cultures into hiearchies based on the level of evolution. Of course the Western one was the ultimate goal as to which every other society would become. Hunter-gatherer groups of (especially America, and Australia) were placed at the bottom of the hiearchies. They were seen as the last remains of Paleolthic hunter gatherer groups and had not the means to evolve by themselves. Neither the Stone Age nor the contemporary hunter-gatherer groups were viewed as societies and cultures that were supposed to be studied in their own rights and contexts, but as a mean to exaggerate how evolved the Western world had become and also to legitimize Western imperialism since contemporary hunter-gatherer groups were not able to evolve without the influence of the Western society.

Unfortunately this colonially biased view of the Stone Age has remained in Western popular culture and can be seen in many of the Savage Stone Age sketches of Horrible Histories, but I really enjoyed the one shown by the pictures above. This because it problematized our view of the Stone Age and also showed that white men still carry prejudice towards other culture. The joke works because, on the contrary to much humour of today, it is not bullying on the people already lying on the ground. It is the white man, considering higher up in the hiearchy that is suffering for his prejudices instead. That is humour at its best!

Johanne Hildebrandt - Idun. Sagan om Valhalla

In Norse Mythology, Idun (or Iðunn) is the wife of Brage (who she also marries in the book) and seems to be one of the lesser known deities of the Norse pantheon. She is connected to apples and youth and one myth tells how she is kidnapped by the giant Þjazi (Swedish: Tjatse) after having been tricked to walk outside of Asgard by Loki.

Idun is also the second installment of the Sagan om Valahalla series  by Johanne Hildebrandt. Like with the entry about Freja, I do not intend to do a full review of the book, but rather use this entry to discuss a topic from the book that got me thinking.

Just like with Freja, I was still a teenager when Idun was first published back in 2003 and also like with Freja, my maturity and archaeological training afterwards have made me see the book in a different light.

In the entry about Freja, I talked a little about how Swedes in general lack knowledge and understanding of Scandinavian prehistory. As an archaeologist I feel strongly for this topic and there are much more that I feel to be said about it. However, I refrain from doing so here because there is another aspect of Idun that I want to discuss because it got me thinking even more. But lets start at the beginning!

Idun is the daughter of Freja and Tor and not really anything like her mother. Freja is independent, confident, outspoken and quite fearless. She also has the ability to see and talk to gods and spirits and is a highly ranked priestess. Idun, on the other hand, is scared, timid, shy and introvert. She has not inherit Freja's supernatural powers and is not at all popular among the men during the fertility rituals. Freja sees her as a disappointment and therefore treats her poorly. With this background it might not be so hard to guess why she falls a little too fast and hard for the beautiful youngling Brage when he shows up with Tor and a dying Frej.

Contrary to her mother and aunt Gefjyn, Idun has many traits traditionally ascribed to women. She is caring and nurturing of all living things. Like the goddess, she cares for the apple trees, which makes the fruits taste better according to Freja. She also adores children. She cared for her little sister Hnoss who died before the book started and she is also a favourite to the queen of Alheim, Alfhild's daughters Ingvild and Svea. Her greatest dream seems to be a wish to give birth to daughters so she can show her mother that she is capable of something.

I find the contrast between Freja's and Idun's characters to be really interesting. Not so much because they are mother and daughter and seem to be so different in character, but because it puts a finger on depiction of female characters in popular culture and who's considered "strong" or "weak".

In general, there are two "criteras" for who are considered "good female role models" in popular cultures of today. One is that she is like Freja. She breaks away from the traditional role of the woman, being limited to the home. She is a priestess and does not have time or interest in housework like cooking and cleaning. The other criteria is not so much a trait of Freja, but traits that her sister Gefjyn exhibits. Gefjyn is trained to be a warrior and therefore kind of a female version of the "macho man". Neither of the sisters are especially motherly or loving even though they show empathy towards others from time to time. Idun, on the other hand, shows a lot of the traits traditionally ascribed to females being both of them. She is not the strong, independent priestess Freja has been waiting for and she therefore sees Idun as a shame to the family, something that I also see as common in feminism in general today.

I did touch upon this subject a little in my Heroines entry about my most recent heroine Phryne Fisher from the TV series Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries. Of course women should not be limited to the home, but I do not think it is wise to patronize women who wants to take care of their family either. In fact I would like to broaden that role so it can be a man who stays home caring for his family. The same goes to the question of characteristics. I cannot see any problems with Idun being motherly and caring. In fact we need more role models to be kind. There is no good that can come to female's situation by forcing traditionally male traits of violence and ignorance upon them. That will not change any patriarchal structures. Quite the contrary! It will only enforce masculinity and crush femininty. Besides, it will also only encourage violent behaviour while at the same time afflict traits like for example kindness. We do need more kind, caring and loving people of all gender, not violent, aloof ones!

Actually Hildebrandt deals with this problem in the book, weaving it into the plot. A dangerous decease is spreading at an alarming speed among both the Æsirs and the Vanírs. Tor seeks Freja's help to fight against the witch who has caused it. Freja refuses and Tor, realising that Idun is his daughter, brings Idun home to Idunvallen. There is a Swedish expression saying that one does not miss the cow until the stall is empty (Man saknar inte kon förrän båset är tomt.) and it is kind of fitting for Freja. Not until Idun has left with Tor does she realise that she has been unfair. Her own daughter therefore forces her to face her prejudices towards women who show traditional female traits and what is considered to be "strong women". This turn of event actually had me liking Freja even more. Hildebrandt lets her be flawed. She makes mistakes, but she also tries to change when she realises this. However it is not as easy to make amends with Idun as Freja thinks...

Egtvedpigen

For the Freja entry, I used a picture of a rock carving as a symbol of the Scandinavian Bronze Age and for Idun, I have chosen a picture of the probably most famous of the Danish oak coffin burials dating to the Bronze Age, Egtvedpigen (The Egtved Girl). I thought she fitted well into the context of Idun, but to not spoil anyone, I will leave the reason a secret. You can read more about the find on the National Museum of Denmark's webpage here.

Johanne Hildebrandt - Freja. Sagan om Valhalla

Freja is probably the most famous among the goddesses in Norse mythology. She belongs to the Vanir family and is the goddess of female fertility and sexuality, but she also has a connection to death. She is the leader of the valkyries, female spirits who walks around the battle field picking up fallen warriors. She then splits them with Odín taking half of them to her home Folkvang.

Johanne Hildebrandt's Freja is however not a goddess but a human being. She is a young priestess in Vanaheim during the Scandinavian Bronze Age. Her mother is Åse, queen of Vanaheim, but Freja has been raised by her aunt Gullveig, the high priestess of Vanaheim. One day they hear of a threat to their world, the Æsirs is pillaging Vanir farms and for the first time ever, Freja gets to leave Vanaheim to mediate in the conflict between them and the Æsirs together with Gullveig and Snotra. At the Æsirs farm Idunvallen, Freja meets Tor. He is the son of Oden, the leader of the Æsirs, and they fall in love. A war however breaks out and Tor is captured by the Vanirs.


Freja was first published in 2002 which was when I first read it. I was only 18 back then and as with so much other literature I read when I was a teenager or in my early twenties I have a somewhat different reaction to it now. In the case of Freja, my choice of profession probably plays a part in this.

Rock Carving of a sun horse from Tanum, Sweden

As a Scandinavian archaeologist, I love the fact that Hildebrandt chose to set her story in the Scandinavian prehistory. Besides the Viking Age, not many un-archaeologists in Sweden knows that much about the first couple of thousands of years after the latest Ice Age. The time before the Viking Age is generally seen as boring and not related to anything we do today. When talking about "ancient history" we generally go all the way down to the Mediterannean with Greeks and Romans taking their cultural heritage more in account than the one present in our own geographical sphere. This is sad, because there are many stories hidden within our own past. We just need to stop measuring societies by marbe temples.

To be completely honest, the Bronze Age is not really my favourite time period. This because I have heard to much about rock carvings during my educations. Do not get me wrong! Rock carvings are very beautiful and mysteriously fun, but if it is the only thing you hear about for three years and your main research interest is elsewhere in the past, you start to feel a little fed up after awhile. But I really enjoy Hildebrandt's Bronze Age. Both the physical and the spiritual. She has turned it into a matriarchy with women being the brain and with both the spiritual and the practical powers while men providing the muscles. Hildebrandt also portrays women as better suited for power than men. This is evident in for example the fact that the patriarchal Æsirs needs help in providing foods for their people. They have abandonned the mother goddess for the war god Tiwatz which might be seen symbolical as to their priorities.

I also enjoyed that Hildebrandt creates a mythological past to Freja's world with mentioning of what seems to be the Ice Age (even if the term is never used). There is a small mentioning of a battle between the Vanirs and what seems to be Stone Age people (maybe hunter-gatherers of the Paleolithic and/or Mesolithic eras) in the book called "the old people".

"Det gamla folket undvek människorna. Det sades att när Frejas folk kom seglande till detta land, vägledda av Gudinnan som räddade dem undan den stora katastrofen hade vanerna stridit mot det gamla folket, bronssvärd mot yxor av sten.

Vanerna hade segrat och sedan den dagen var det gamla folket försvunnet."

("The old people avoided the humans. They said that when Freja's people came sailing to this land, guided by the Goddess who saved them from the big catastrophe, the Vanirs had fought against the old people, bronze swords against stone axes.

The Vanirs were victorious and from that on, the old people had disappeared." )

At first I was not entirely sure I enjoyed this depiction of meetings between cultures. It seems very imperialistic. Cultures normally does not clash like that when they meet. However, as I continued on reading, I realised that there might still be a point in this depiction and that it might even be good and telling of the worldview of both Freja's society and our own. It is actually a pretty good description about the Western view of "cultural clashes" and how the West handled other "more primitive" people (not seldom groups of hunter-gatherers) during the European imperialism of later history. Seeing that this is a story about the past in Freja's world it provides a good example of how history is used to emphasize one group's past, making it more victorious and glorious than it might have been. And just like the non-Western groups the European met in the areas they colonized in the more recent past, "the old people" do not disappear completely. Freja thinks she sees them during her journey. This might be reading to much into nothing, but Hildebrandt does not portray the relations between the Vanirs and the Æsirs in this way. There are, of course, frictions between them at first, but none of them destroys the other completely. Instead, they start sorting out differences, creating new ways of living and interacting that is beneficial for all. This, I think, is a much better depiction of what cultural meetings really are in reality as opposed to in historical narratives.

Freja is the first in the series Sagan om Valhalla. There are much more to say about her and the stories, but it will become much clearer in later books. Therefore I will leave my analysis here at the moment and start rereading the book about Freja's daughter Idun.

The four Valhalla-books that have been published until this date (6/6 2016)

PS. Before you ask: YES! Of course my bedspread has skulls on it!!! I am an archaeologist. I see dead people!