1 / 51

‘Relevant Indicators’ A Cross-Disciplinary Indexing Tool?

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

kyrie
Télécharger la présentation

‘Relevant Indicators’ A Cross-Disciplinary Indexing Tool?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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

More Related