Semiotics is the study of signs and their associated meanings, and has been broadened to include nearly every form of communication. The symbol/index/icon triad, an analytical tool created by Peirce, remains central to most anthropological, philosophical and psychological inquiries attempts to understand meaning. This triad describes three relationships between the sign, or stimulus, and the signified, or referent. An icon is the most basic, representative
relationship between sign and signified. The icon is an image which has specific properties in common with its referent, usually by appearing similar to its referent. Examples include a diagram, scale model, metaphor or portrait. An index has a factual connection to its object; a weather vane is physically affected by the wind, the smell of food cooking is directly connected to the
temperature of the bread and paw prints, though not simultaneous, indicate the presence of an animal. "A sundial or a clock indicates the time of day...A rap on the door is an index...Anything which focuses the attention is an index" (Peirce 1955: 109). A symbol has a constructed meaning that must be learned. It is dependent on social or cultural convention and can appear entirely arbitrary, such as the colors of traffic lights. "Any ordinary word, as 'give,' 'bird,' 'marriage,' is an example of a symbol" (114). The crucial difference between a symbol and signs or indices is that an icon and an index are signs even without an interpreter. Without an interpreter, a symbol is meaningless. Let us use the example of a pair of cheating bridge players using a secret and arbitrary code. An itchy nose without an interpreter who knows the code (bid high) is nothing more than an itchy nose. An object may relate to its referents in more than one way, acting as icon, index and symbol simultaneously. Peirce gives the example of a photograph: it is an icon as it resembles its referent, it is an index as the result of its optical connection to reality, and it can be symbolic of the subject matter to which it is attached (e.g. a photo with a news article).
A fetish is a material object exalted as “genius” (Hegel 1956: 991), an “object believed to bring good luck to its owner” (Ubelaker and Wedel 1975: 449), an experienced construction set up in place of something else (Hodge 1907), or a thing in which a potent spirit resides, or in which it is embodied (Patt 1997: 69). There are several recurrent themes that these variant definitions include. The essential characteristic of a fetish is materiality. “The truth of the fetish resides in its status as a material embodiment; its truth is not that of the idol, for the idol's truth lies in its relation of iconic resemblance to some immaterial model or entity” (Pietz: 1985: 3). A fetish does not represent, it is.
A second characteristic of a fetish is power. “The fetish has an ordering power derived from its status as the fixation or inscription of a unique originating event that has brought together
34
previously heterogeneous components appropriated into a novel identity” (Pietz 1985: 3). Both physical features and immaterial desires may be fixed in the fetish, “whose power is precisely the power to repeat its originating act of forging an identity of articulated relations between certain otherwise heterogeneous things” (Pietz 1985: 3-4). Patt (1997) distinguishes between the
psychological and anthropological uses of 'fetish' by showing that mystification is 'attached' to the object according to psychological approaches, while the potency or power is intrinsic to the object in anthropological discussions of fetish (69). The changing direction of power shows that human agency, 'giving' the power to the object, is important in psychological consideration of fetish, which anthropologists focus on the effect of the fetish on the person.
Other attributes of fetishes are mentioned by various researchers, though without the universal agreement that power and materiality have. Objects that reinforce social value or personal individuality are sometimes considered fetishes, as are objects that are small enough to be worn.
Ethnographic studies of fetish began in conjunction with West African peoples, but reached its current apogee in mid-century discussion of native peoples of the American continents. Along the Missouri River, there is evidence for bird bones “purposefully and selectively modified by...”
Amerindians (Ubelaker and Wedel 1975: 444). These bones are dried and bundled and worn as a personal fetish or hung from the rafters of a tipi as a sacred bundle. Stanislawski (1973: 379) points to the importance of the mobility of fetishes in semi-nomadic communities. Wissler (1912: 65) demonstrates that the bundle or object can precede the ritual for its veneration. Once an object is recognized as fetish, or when a newly arrived group brings a fetish, the established community expects the creation of a new ritual to bolster their spiritual power. In this case, the object precedes the act. The power of the fetish is such that its presence creates new rituals. Eggan (1966) described how each sub-clan has fetishes to feed and maintain, and that lesser clans may leave the village in search of prosperity, returning a few times a year for the feeding and maintenance of the clan fetish. If a clan moves further afield, another person is invited to move into the hut that houses their fetish(es) and adopt him/herself into the clan as fetish caretaker. This shows how the power “over the desires, actions, health and self-identity” (Pietz 1985:6) of the object is not diminished by distance.
As the idea of the fetish was derived from Portuguese sailors encountering a foreign cultural practice for the first time, we must consider how the term arose in order to assess its applicability. Fetish “remains specific to the problematic of the social value of material objects as revealed by situations formed by the encounter of radically heterogeneous social systems” (Pietz 1985: 3). The use of the term fetish should then be restricted to this sort of situation or new encounter. We as archaeologists are not encountering a previously unknown social system; merely rummaging through durable remnants of a very old one. Without informants to show the appropriate behaviours around objects, it is difficult to pursue the theme of fetish.
The sacred fetish bundles of the Amerindians cannot be considered as icons, for they do not clearly resemble anything. These bundles are certainly indices, as they have a direct, physical connection to the animals and plants from which they are made. The most important relation of object to meaning is that of symbol. There is an emotionally- and spiritually-charged meaning that
35
is inaccessible to outsiders. Objects with symbolic meaning are more likely to be used in ritual, and therefore more likely to be deposited as a sacred collection, rather than simply discarded. Through the patterns of object discard across a site, fetishistic and symbolic meanings may be inferred. 3.6 An oversight: animals
One conspicuous omission in these considerations is the relationship of animals as a part of the outside world. Humans interact with animals in many ways “beyond protein and calories” (Russell 2012). Animals may be seen as pets or pests, subjects of art or objects of sacrifice. Some animals function as symbols, totems, or tokens of wealth. They may be hunted, herded,
domesticated or shunned by taboo.
The relationships that farmers, herders and foragers would have had with animals must have been very different from each other. Foragers may have seen themselves as very similar to animals, engaged in similar activities and therefore analogous or easily represented by metaphor (Tapper 1988). Herders may have seen themselves as caretakers, parental, with no economic or social desire to eat their own flocks. Farmers would have had different interactions with those animals in closest proximity than with those rarely encountered. As familiarity increased, edibility decreased (see Leach 1964: 36 ff for a discussion of distance from the ego). These relationships are made explicit through animal representations and animal remains.
The majority of animal remains found onsite tend to be in a midden context. Larger heaps may signify large-scale butchery waste, but consumption cannot account for all remains.
Interpretation based on body-part distribution or spatial patterning by species help the
archaeologist determine the relationship between particular animal remains and the humans with whom they interacted. Some skeletons may have belonged to pets, sacrificed animals or interred as part of a ritual. Certain skeletal elements may have been brought from offsite as trophies or attached to furs. The archaeological indications of these practices may vary, but pets tend not to be eaten, and perhaps even buried. As sacrificial animals are often eaten, the presence or
absence of butchery cuts cannot always assist in distinguishing between sacrificial and mundane consumption.
Totemism is most commonly defined as when various species of animals represent clans or groups of humans. We should expect the remains of the totem animal in greatest concentration around the areas or structures associated with those groups. Representations of the totem animal and deposits of the totem animal’s bones within or on structures can also be archaeological
indications of totemism. There are often taboos associated with eating the totem animal, so no butchery marks would be expected on bones, if bones were present at all, but this does not always hold true. These totemic animals are seen as similar to humans, or possessing coveted attributes such as power, cunning or grace. Totem animals are thus easily integrated into ritual activity. A recent survey among the indigenous populations of Cameroon showed that belief in a human- gorilla totemic relationship was still very strong. Over 4/5 of responders (out of several hundred) agreed that gorillas were personal counterparts, or spiritual assistants to people in their village. As such, these people did not hunt or eat their totems, for fear that the human counterpart would
36
also die. This did not preclude gorilla remains from the village, as some scavenged bones are used in traditional medicines (Etiendem et al. 2011).
A taboo is a prohibition. With respect to animals, a taboo is a prohibition on killing, consumption of or contact with certain animals or parts of animals. The taboo may be gender- restricted or situationally-dependant. For example, in many groups in Sub-Saharan Africa, menstruating women are not allowed to eat meat, extract clay or handle certain tools (see
Gausset 2002). The presence of a taboo does not necessitate the absence of the tabooed animal’s remains on site, even in the case of a total taboo. The Nukak of the Amazon have a very strict taboo on the hunting or consumption of both deer and jaguar, yet the humeri of jaguar and the tibiae of deer are scavenged from the forest to make flutes (Politis and Saunders 2002).
“Therefore, small numbers of limited body parts used as artefacts or found in special contexts may signal a tabooed and ideologically important animal...” (Russell 2012: 39).
Many animals - not just those that are tabooed - are shown respect. “A central attitude in the conduct of hunting is that game animals are persons and must be respected” (Tanner 1979: 130). Respect is shown by removing the corpse from polluting factors such as proximity to dogs or women, or by special treatment. The respectful treatment of hunted animals shows the animal spirit that the hunter is worthy of being successful again.
Hunting trophies are brought back to the site and publicly displayed. As such, it is easy to confuse a trophy with an element displayed out of respect. A trophy is often displayed in the house of the hunter, or in the men’s house, if one exists. Preferred elements to display include mandibles, skulls, horns and paws.
Animal remains are often used as ritual paraphernalia or as amulets. Many Amerindian tribes, including the Missouri River clans, use bundles of animal bones as protective fetishes. The North American Cree wear charms including animal parts to harness the power of and show respect to the animal (Tanner: 1979: 140). The well-known analogue of a lucky rabbit’s foot is no exception. Modern-day Mongolian truckers attach wolf astralagi to their key chains for luck. This practice is derived from the protective wolf-bone amulets worn by Mongolian children (Birtalan 2003). Amulets are most often recognized in the archaeological record through their inclusion with burials, as they are interred with the bearer. Claws and teeth are easily drilled for pendants, and make excellent amulets. Pierced raptor claws have been found in burials at Spong Hill (Bond and Worley 2006: 97); perforated mammoth teeth are found all over Northern Europe throughout the Mesolithic and Neolithic (Janzon 1974, Jaanitz 1957); drilled red deer teeth at Çatalhöyük (Russell 2005: 355); and a perforated wolf tooth in a Toqua infant burial in Tennessee (Bogan 1983: 319). Bear and wolf paws in leather bags are referred to as ‘medicine bundles’ and have been recovered from Amerindian sites across North America. Mollusc remains, often overlooked by
archaeozoologists, are often perforated and may have been worn as protective amulets.
Animal remains may also be worn as costumes or masks for ritual or teaching purposes. Pig’s teeth are used in Bali for ceremonial mask construction, as are peacock feathers in Java and Cambodia (Brunet and Leyenaar 1982). Construction of masks used in ritual only occurs on auspicious days. When not in use, the masks are kept hidden from the impure or the uninitiated. Those who wear the masks are said to enter into a consecrated relationship with the supernatural;
37
“to mask oneself is to give life to a superior being” (Brunet 1982: 68). The historian Lucian describes a Syrian religious practice: “When a man goes as a worshipper for the first time to Hieropolis, he cuts his hair, then he sacrifices a lamb, he kneels down and puts the animal’s head and feet on his own head, and prays to the god to accept his sacrifice” (Lucian: De Dea Syra). This may be interpreted as an act of contrition, or as a continuation of a practice known from Cretan worship. There are many representations of priests wearing bull-masks, or possibly bucrania from Aya Irini (Karageorghis 1971: 262).
Some masks eschew the use of animal remains and instead directly create the image of the animal involved. In South America, the piranha and wild pig images are worn by masked dancers to teach the origin story (Brunet: 1982). Other dances, such as the antelope dance, symbolically ‘kill’ the masked dancer to ensure hunting success. Masked dancers take on the attributes of the animal they represent, changing their gesture, walk and vocalizations. “Imitation in the miming animal-dance is therefore a highly religious ritual act of self-surrender to some external being” (Warburg 1939:282). The nyau yolemba of the Chewa tribes of south and central Africa is a woven cage worn about the body of a dancer in the shape of some animal. This zoomorphic basket structure is said to house the animal spirit, and the dancers themselves believe they are possessed by “spirits of the animals whose masks they wear” (Yoshida 1993:35).
Another common element used in ritual masks and costumes are bird wings. From central Asia, Altai and Khakas shamanistic costumes have wings that hang from the chest plate (Kılıç 2010). The dancers of the Ainos crane dance also wore feathers and kept tame owls (St. John 1873). Costumes of bird feathers and wings are also found in prehistoric burials. In a middle Neolithic burial at Zvejnieki (modern Latvia) a man was buried with at least 17 wing bones of the jay (Zagorskis 2004) extending from around his shoulders down to his knees. The 38
carpometacarpi are those bones that bear the primary, deep, rich blue feathers of the jay (Mannermaa 2006), and were possibly part of a whole-body costume for ritual dances. Another adult male, buried in Ajvide (modern Sweden) was interred with 7 wing bones from a red-throated diver near his right hand (Mannermaa 2007), possibly a wing-sleeve. The symbolic role of birds, especially those that fly in the air and dive in the water are central to some tripartite cosmologies. Yet another way animals may be “worn” is though tattooing. Among the modern Khanty
population of Siberia, it is believed that bird tattoos, usually on the shoulder, will serve to protect the bearer; both in life and during their journey to the underworld (Chernetsov 1963; Loze 1983). Both decorative and therapeutic tattoos are known from Ancient Peru. Ornamental tattoos on the hands and arms of a mummified female depicted reptiles, apes and birds; while circular, hidden tattoos of probable therapeutic value were made of very different material, and placed
corresponding to acupuncture points known from Chinese medicine (Pabst et al. 2010). Beautiful mythical creatures were tattooed all over the arms and torso of a Scythian prince (Dorfer et al. 1999). This shows even the image of an animal can bear witness to the permanence of meaning.
Both the representation of animals and their remains can shed light on one of the more interesting aspects of human-animal relations: the transition to herding and domestication of wild animals. Common indications that an animal has been affected by interactions with humans include: the presence of animals outside their wild range, demographic change in age ratio or sex
38
ratio from what is found in wild populations, or pathologies associated with cramped conditions. Morphological changes such as size diminution or shorter snouts and molars indicate that
domestication has already occurred. Similarly, representations of animals being shorn, milked or ridden refer to past domestication.
The decision to separate the human relationship with animals from discussion of environment or other humans was taken to point out a difficulty in modern anthropological thought: How should animals be categorized? Are they more akin to humans, so easily
anthropomorphized? Are they rather a part of the external wilderness? The relation of animals to the supernatural must also be considered.
Many supernatural entities are given the shape of animals, and there is more evidence for early depictions of animal than of human forms. Many myths involve people becoming
supernatural through the more-easily-harnessed animal spirits. Animals are seen as vessels, or liminal points of incursion, having both human and otherworldly characteristics. All of these problems indicate that more discussion is necessary to understand the meaning of animal objects and symbols in relation to ritual deposition.