1. ‘Relevant Indicators’A Cross-Disciplinary Indexing Tool? Examples from Mythological Thinking Frog University of Helsinki Transcultural Contacts in the Circum-Baltic Area 2nd Meeting of the Austmarr Network 8th–10th June 2012, Helsinki, Finland

2. ‘Relevant Indicator’ as a Term • Viking Age in Finland project

3. ‘Relevant Indicator’ as a Term • Viking Age in Finland project • Proposed by Lassi Heininen • Perspective of Geopolitics

4. ‘Relevant Indicator’ as a Term • Viking Age in Finland project • Proposed by Lassi Heininen • Perspective of Geopolitics • Problem of data from diverse disciplines • Relating a plurality of data • Identifying data as relevant

5. ‘Relevant Indicator’ as a Term • Viking Age in Finland project • Proposed by Lassi Heininen • Perspective of Geopolitics • Problem of data from diverse disciplines • Relating a plurality of data • Identifying data as relevant • An indexing strategy • Correlating markers of continuity or change

6. ‘Relevant Indicator’ as a Term • Viking Age in Finland project • Proposed by Lassi Heininen • Perspective of Geopolitics • Problem of data from diverse disciplines • Relating a plurality of data • Identifying data as relevant • An indexing strategy • Correlating markers of continuity or change • Two benefits • Allows ambiguity • Specific ‘relevance’ may remain unresolved • Markers may be ‘indicators’ of several things simultaneously

7. ‘Relevant Indicator’ as a Term • Still preliminary • Only a few trying to use this as a tool • Focus on indicators of ‘change’ • Something different in one period than in another • Focus on groups and social processes

8. ‘Relevant Indicator’ as a Term • Still preliminary • Only a few trying to use this as a tool • Focus on indicators of ‘change’ • Something different in one period than in another • Focus on groups and social processes • Potential indexing tool for a database • Problem of data from diverse disciplines • Navigating a plurality of data

9. ‘Relevant Indicator’ as a Term • Still preliminary • Only a few trying to use this as a tool • Focus on indicators of ‘change’ • Something different in one period than in another • Focus on groups and social processes • Potential indexing tool for a database • Problem of data from diverse disciplines • Navigating a plurality of data • Three aspect model? • Semiotics – conceptual systems – social practices

10. ‘Relevant Indicator’ as a Term • Still preliminary • Only a few trying to use this as a tool • Focus on indicators of ‘change’ • Something different in one period than in another • Focus on groups and social processes • Potential indexing tool for a database • Problem of data from diverse disciplines • Navigating a plurality of data • Three aspect model? • Semiotics – conceptual systems – social practices • Diachronic processes – systemic models of change • Synchronic systems – ‘ethnocultural substrata’

11. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Problems in earlier research • Interpretations too concrete and/or absolute • Observations in data could still be valid

12. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Problems in earlier research • Interpretations too concrete and/or absolute • Observations in data could still be valid • Undeveloped understandings of cultural processes • Linguistics / phonetics, material culture, folklore, literature

13. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Problems in earlier research • Interpretations too concrete and/or absolute • Observations in data could still be valid • Undeveloped understandings of cultural processes • Linguistics / phonetics, material culture, folklore, literature • Ways of thinking about material

14. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Problems in earlier research • Interpretations too concrete and/or absolute • Observations in data could still be valid • Undeveloped understandings of cultural processes • Linguistics / phonetics, material culture, folklore, literature • Ways of thinking about material • Ideal models versus variation • ‘Reconstruction’ and (anachronistic) interpretation

15. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Problems in earlier research • Interpretations too concrete and/or absolute • Observations in data could still be valid • Undeveloped understandings of cultural processes • Linguistics / phonetics, material culture, folklore, literature • Ways of thinking about material • Ideal models versus variation • ‘Reconstruction’ and (anachronistic) interpretation • Isolated cultural phenomena from social practices • ‘What’ but not ‘why’

16. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Problems in earlier research • Interpretations too concrete and/or absolute • Observations in data could still be valid • Undeveloped understandings of cultural processes • Linguistics / phonetics, material culture, folklore, literature • Ways of thinking about material • Ideal models versus variation • ‘Reconstruction’ and (anachronistic) interpretation • Isolated cultural phenomena from social practices • ‘What’ but not ‘why’ • Isolated phenomena from one another • Versus cumulative indicators • Versus systemic modelling

17. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Depends what we want it to do • Does not: • Distinguish indicator as ‘cause’, ‘consequence’ or ‘symptom’ • Necessarily define or classify indicator • Distinguish indicator as exclusive

18. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Depends what we want it to do • Does not: • Distinguish indicator as ‘cause’, ‘consequence’ or ‘symptom’ • Necessarily define or classify indicator • Distinguish indicator as exclusive • Allows (‘indicator of’) • Marking as significant without resolution • Multiple indexing – brooch from Uppåkra

19. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Depends what we want it to do • Does not: • Distinguish indicator as ‘cause’, ‘consequence’ or ‘symptom’ • Necessarily define or classify indicator • Distinguish indicator as exclusive • Allows (‘indicator of’) • Marking as significant without resolution • Multiple indexing – brooch from Uppåkra • Technology,

20. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Depends what we want it to do • Does not: • Distinguish indicator as ‘cause’, ‘consequence’ or ‘symptom’ • Necessarily define or classify indicator • Distinguish indicator as exclusive • Allows (‘indicator of’) • Marking as significant without resolution • Multiple indexing – brooch from Uppåkra • Technology, trade,

21. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Depends what we want it to do • Does not: • Distinguish indicator as ‘cause’, ‘consequence’ or ‘symptom’ • Necessarily define or classify indicator • Distinguish indicator as exclusive • Allows (‘indicator of’) • Marking as significant without resolution • Multiple indexing – brooch from Uppåkra • Technology, trade, economics,

22. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Depends what we want it to do • Does not: • Distinguish indicator as ‘cause’, ‘consequence’ or ‘symptom’ • Necessarily define or classify indicator • Distinguish indicator as exclusive • Allows (‘indicator of’) • Marking as significant without resolution • Multiple indexing – brooch from Uppåkra • Technology, trade, economics, gender,

23. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Depends what we want it to do • Does not: • Distinguish indicator as ‘cause’, ‘consequence’ or ‘symptom’ • Necessarily define or classify indicator • Distinguish indicator as exclusive • Allows (‘indicator of’) • Marking as significant without resolution • Multiple indexing – brooch from Uppåkra • Technology, trade, economics, gender, social structures,

24. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Depends what we want it to do • Does not: • Distinguish indicator as ‘cause’, ‘consequence’ or ‘symptom’ • Necessarily define or classify indicator • Distinguish indicator as exclusive • Allows (‘indicator of’) • Marking as significant without resolution • Multiple indexing – brooch from Uppåkra • Technology, trade, economics, gender, social structures, contacts,

25. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Depends what we want it to do • Does not: • Distinguish indicator as ‘cause’, ‘consequence’ or ‘symptom’ • Necessarily define or classify indicator • Distinguish indicator as exclusive • Allows (‘indicator of’) • Marking as significant without resolution • Multiple indexing – brooch from Uppåkra • Technology, trade, economics, gender, social structures, contacts, historical continuity,

26. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Depends what we want it to do • Does not: • Distinguish indicator as ‘cause’, ‘consequence’ or ‘symptom’ • Necessarily define or classify indicator • Distinguish indicator as exclusive • Allows (‘indicator of’) • Marking as significant without resolution • Multiple indexing – brooch from Uppåkra • Technology, trade, economics, gender, social structures, contacts, historical continuity, mythology,

27. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Depends what we want it to do • Does not: • Distinguish indicator as ‘cause’, ‘consequence’ or ‘symptom’ • Necessarily define or classify indicator • Distinguish indicator as exclusive • Allows (‘indicator of’) • Marking as significant without resolution • Multiple indexing – brooch from Uppåkra • Technology, trade, economics, gender, social structures, contacts, historical continuity, mythology, mythological thinking,

28. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Depends what we want it to do • Does not: • Distinguish indicator as ‘cause’, ‘consequence’ or ‘symptom’ • Necessarily define or classify indicator • Distinguish indicator as exclusive • Allows (‘indicator of’) • Marking as significant without resolution • Multiple indexing – brooch from Uppåkra • Technology, trade, economics, gender, social structures, contacts, historical continuity, mythology, mythological thinking, fashion,

29. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Depends what we want it to do • Does not: • Distinguish indicator as ‘cause’, ‘consequence’ or ‘symptom’ • Necessarily define or classify indicator • Distinguish indicator as exclusive • Allows (‘indicator of’) • Marking as significant without resolution • Multiple indexing – brooch from Uppåkra • Technology, trade, economics, gender, social structures, contacts, historical continuity, mythology, mythological thinking, fashion, etc.

30. Is ‘Relevant Indicator’ too Vague? • Depends what we want it to do • Does not: • Distinguish indicator as ‘cause’, ‘consequence’ or ‘symptom’ • Necessarily define or classify indicator • Distinguish indicator as exclusive • Allows (‘indicator of’) • Marking as significant without resolution • Multiple indexing – brooch from Uppåkra • Technology, trade, economics, gender, social structures, contacts, historical continuity, mythology, mythological thinking, fashion, etc. • Semantic networks and conceptual modelling – intersecting with socio-historical processes

31. Problem: Lack of Frameworks • Etymologies • Finnish äiti / Gothic aiþei ON (poetic) eiða = ‘mother’ • Contacts, social structures – not in Karelian • Indicator must be placed in relation to others

32. Problem: Lack of Frameworks • Etymologies • Finnish äiti / Gothic aiþei ON (poetic) eiða = ‘mother’ • Contacts, social structures – not in Karelian • Indicator must be placed in relation to others • Developed models of phonetic history • Model can be accurate although no individual case is 100% certain

33. Problem: Lack of Frameworks • Etymologies • Finnish äiti / Gothic aiþei ON (poetic) eiða = ‘mother’ • Contacts, social structures – not in Karelian • Indicator must be placed in relation to others • Developed models of phonetic history • Model can be accurate although no individual case is 100% certain • Modelling systems lacking for other areas of cultural expression • Different types and levels of signification • More complex units

34. Indicators and Change • Narrative traditions • ATU 1148b: Theft of the Thunder-Instrument • Baltic, Finnic, Germanic, Sámi (also early Greek)

35. Indicators and Change • Narrative traditions • ATU 1148b: Theft of the Thunder-Instrument • Baltic, Finnic, Germanic, Sámi (also early Greek) • Culture-specific forms • Relates to dominant models of thunder • ‘Change’ = outcomes of social negotiation • Indicators of social negotiation and its causes

36. Indicators and Change • Narrative traditions • ATU 1148b: Theft of the Thunder-Instrument • Baltic, Finnic, Germanic, Sámi (also early Greek) • Culture-specific forms • Relates to dominant models of thunder • ‘Change’ = outcomes of social negotiation • Indicators of social negotiation and its causes • Only one case – cf. äiti

37. Indicators and Change • Narrative traditions • ATU 1148b: Theft of the Thunder-Instrument • Baltic, Finnic, Germanic, Sámi (also early Greek) • Culture-specific forms • Relates to dominant models of thunder • ‘Change’ = outcomes of social negotiation • Indicators of social negotiation and its causes • Only one case – cf. äiti • Develop and correlate multiple and diverse models for each culture’s traditions

38. Technologies • Iron-working • Indicators of significance from folklore: beleifs, narratives, images, cosmological models • Connected with god identified with thunder / lightning-weapon

39. Technologies • Iron-working • Indicators of significance from folklore: beleifs, narratives, images, cosmological models • Connected with god identified with thunder / lightning-weapon • New Circum-Baltic fire-striker model • Oval-shaped stones • Technology changes • Symbolic world adapts

40. Technologies • Iron-working • Indicators of significance from folklore: beleifs, narratives, images, cosmological models • Connected with god identified with thunder / lightning-weapon • New Circum-Baltic fire-striker model • Oval-shaped stones • Technology changes • Symbolic world adapts • Unto Salo: • ‘Vulva’-shaped • Hieros gamos

41. Developing Indexical Networks • Unto Salo: • ‘Vulva’-shaped stones • Hieros gamos • Thunder responds to female sexuality • Fire-striking & lightning • Indicators form context

42. Developing Indexical Networks • Migration Period change in fire-striker symbolics (however interpreted) • Fire-steel becomes stylized

43. Developing Indexical Networks • Migration Period change in fire-striker symbolics (however interpreted) • Fire-steel becomes stylized • Salo argues bow as primary • Connects to ‘god’s arrow’ • (shape becomes ambiguous)

44. Developing Indexical Networks • Migration Period change in fire-striker symbolics (however interpreted) • Fire-steel becomes stylized • Salo argues bow as primary • Connects to ‘god’s arrow’ • (shape becomes ambiguous) • God’s arrow common lightning-weapon • Found across Northern Eurasia • Not manifest in Germanic / not prominent in Baltic (?) • Rainbow = ‘God’s Bow’

45. Developing Indexical Networks • Migration Period change in fire-striker symbolics (however interpreted) • Fire-steel becomes stylized • Salo argues bow as primary • Connects to ‘god’s arrow’ • (shape becomes ambiguous) • God’s arrow common lightning-weapon • Found across Northern Eurasia • Not manifest in Germanic / not prominent in Baltic (?) • Rainbow = ‘God’s Bow’ • Migration Period carried influences from he steppe(?) • Cannot interpret in isolation

46. Relevant Indicator as Tool • Identifying elements as potentially significant • Overviews of • Networks of symbols, semantics and conceptual systems

47. Relevant Indicator as Tool • Identifying elements as potentially significant • Overviews of • Networks of symbols, semantics and conceptual systems • Contextualizing phenomena

48. Relevant Indicator as Tool • Identifying elements as potentially significant • Overviews of • Networks of symbols, semantics and conceptual systems • Contextualizing phenomena • Patterns in diachronic processes

49. Relevant Indicator as Tool • Identifying elements as potentially significant • Overviews of • Networks of symbols, semantics and conceptual systems • Contextualizing phenomena • Patterns in diachronic processes • Synchronic perspectives on different eras

50. Relevant Indicator as Tool • Identifying elements as potentially significant • Overviews of • Networks of symbols, semantics and conceptual systems • Contextualizing phenomena • Patterns in diachronic processes • Synchronic perspectives on different eras • An indexing tool • Considerations for database