Saami Religion and Finnish Rock Ar.pdf

Communicating with “Stone Persons”: Anthropomorphism,

Saami Religion and Finnish Rock Art

Antti Lahelma

antti.lahelma@iki.fi

University of Helsinki, Finland

Institute for Cultural Research, Department of Archaeology

P.O. Box 59, 00014 Helsingin yliopisto

‘Christ-like’ shell to go on sale

A bar manager in Switzerland has announced plans to sell an oyster shell

resembling the face of Jesus Christ, according to local media. Matteo

Brandi, 38, may hope to repeat the success of a Florida woman who sold

a piece of toast said to bear an image of the Virgin Mary for $28,000. The

Italian said he had found the shell, whose contents have since been eaten,

in a batch two years ago. The oyster stuck to his hand as if God was calling

him, he said.

BBC news 13.1.2005

Introduction: The “Face on Mars”

sion to Mars , directed by Brian De Palma

in 2000). More detailed images of the rock

formation taken by Mars Global Surveyor

in 1998 and 2001 have thrown cold water on

theories of ancient Martian civilizations, and

the whole incident could easily be dismissed

as being just another example of the “lunatic

fringe” of science. However, there is a more

interesting side to this story that has to do with

In 1976, the American space probe Viking 1

Orbiter took a photograph of the surface of

the planet Mars, showing a region called Cy-

donia. The photo seems to show an enormous

human face, almost 1.5 km long from one end

to the other, staring back at the cameras of the

spaceship. Amused by the discovery, NASA

scientists published the image with a caption

that described it as showing eroded mesa-like

landforms, including a “huge rock formation

in the centre, which resembles a human head

[...] formed by shadows giving the illusion of

eyes, nose and mouth” (Jet Propulsion Labo-

ratory 1976).

NASA hardly anticipated the reaction

inspired by the photograph. In the past three

decades, the “Face on Mars” has become an

icon of popular culture, a common element

of conspiracy theories and UFO-mythology

(Sagan 1996: 52-55). Interpreted in lay lit-

erature as the vestiges of a lost civilization,

the “face” has been compared to the Sphinx

of Giza and the Shroud of Turin, featured in

numerous ‘New Age’ books, Internet pages

and even a major Hollywood movie ( Mis-

Fig. 1. A photograph (P-17384) of the Cydonia

region of Mars, taken by Viking 1 on the 31 st of

July 1976. The “face” is located in the upper

central part of the image. Photo: NASA.

121

anthropomorphism, or the attribution of hu-

man characteristics to nonhuman things such

as rock formations.

People attribute human shape and quali-

ties (such as agency) to the widest range of

objects and phenomena imaginable. The

anthropologist Stewart Guthrie (1993) has

argued that anthropomorphism is a universal

strategy that logically arises from a kind of

betting game. Guthrie writes that

vival. In an ambiguous and threatening world,

making such errors gives us an evolutionary

advantage over the reverse strategy of assum-

ing no agents without concrete proof of their

presence. It yields more in occasional big wins

and avoiding big losses than it costs in more

frequent little failures. As a consequence, our

intuition does not require much solid evidence

for detecting agency, but easily ‘jumps into

conclusions’.

The relevance of the “Face on Mars”

or an oyster shell claimed to bear the face of

Jesus Christ to archaeology may not be im-

mediately clear. To most archaeologists, such

phenomena would probably appear strange or

ridiculous, because in modern Western culture

anthropomorphism is rarely attributed any

spiritual significance. But however bizarre

such things may appear, they bear evidence of

the pervasiveness of anthropomorphism even

in today’s world. Many non-Western peoples

do attribute cultural meanings – often related

to animism – to anthropomorphic rocks and

similar “natural” phenomena. And because an-

thropomorphism and animism are (according

to Guthrie 2002) strategies that are shared not

only by anatomically modern humans but even

many animal species, we should be prepared

to encounter them in prehistory also.

[…] we anthropomorphize because

guessing that the world is humanlike is

a good bet. It is a bet because the world

is uncertain, ambiguous, and in need of

interpretation. It is a good bet because

the most valuable interpretations usually

are those that disclose the presence of

whatever is important to us. That usually

is other humans. (Guthrie 1993: 3).

Because our species has evolved in envi-

ronments where we have to deal with both

predators and prey, our cognitive systems have

evolved so as to work on a ‘better safe than

sorry’ principle that leads to ‘hyper-sensitive

agent detection’. Since early prehistory, the

most important elements in the environments

of both humans and animals have been other

humans and animals. Humans and animals

affect our lives more than anything else, both

negatively and positively, making it vital to

detect all possible animals and humans in

our environments. Humans, therefore, have

a deeply intuitive tendency of projecting hu-

man features onto non-human aspects of the

environment, and we commonly perceive

intentional agency even in ‘dead’ objects.

We speak of “Mother Nature”, talk to a car

or a computer as if it could understand us, or

mistake an upright rock for a human.

Guthrie sees a close relationship between

anthropomorphism and animism; in his view,

both anthropomorphism and animism arise

from the same, largely unconscious perceptual

strategy of detecting humans and animals

(Guthrie 1993: 61). This strategy inevitably

leads to numerous errors, but according to

Guthrie, these are “reasonable errors” in the

sense that they increase our chances of sur-

Anthropomorphism and Finnish rock art

Although the examples discussed by Guthrie

are mostly taken from contemporary advertis-

ing, arts, theology, philosophy, etc., he does

present a few instances of anthropomorphism

in a prehistoric context (e.g. Guthrie 1993:

120, 134-135) and it seems easy to find more.

In this paper I will concentrate on the case of

seeing “faces” in natural rock formations, par-

ticularly in Finnish rock art and Saami (Lapp)

sacred sites known as sieidi .

Finnish rock paintings

Finnish rock art, which consists of paintings

only, is typically located on outcroppings

of rock (usually granite or gneiss) that form

vertical surfaces rising directly from a lake

(Kivikäs 1995, 2000, 2005, Taskinen 2000,

Lahelma 2005). Only a few paintings do not

122

conform to this general pattern of location: in

less than ten cases, paintings have been made

on large boulders rather than cliffs, and a small

number of sites are associated with flowing

water rather than lakes. There is not, however,

a single painting known that is not (or has not

been) intimately associated with water.

The number of rock paintings known to

exist in Finland today is a little over one hun-

dred. Some of these may be ‘pseudopaintings’

or natural accumulations of red ochre, but at

least 90 sites have identifiable figures and

are likely to be of a prehistoric date. All the

paintings are made with red ochre and feature

a limited range of motifs, including images of

elks, boats, stick-figure humans hand stencils

and geometric signs. Interpretations given to

the art include hunting magic (Sarvas 1969),

totemism (Autio 1995) and shamanism (e.g.

Siikala 1981, Lahelma 2001, 2005). Of these,

shamanism is commonly favoured today (e.g.

Miettinen 2000 calls it a ‘canonical’ interpreta-

tion), even though alternative interpretations

still persist alongside the shamanistic one.

Geographically the paintings are con-

centrated in the Finnish Lake Region in the

central and eastern parts of the country. The

area around Lake Saimaa is particularly rich

in rock paintings, but some sites are located

far from this main rock art region. Five sites

have been found in the vicinity of Helsinki,

two in the far northeast of the country, and one

site in the southwest, close to Turku (Åbo).

Although the first rock painting in Finland was

discovered already in 1911, the vast majority

of sites have only been found in the past three

decades. One may therefore still expect the

distribution map to change somewhat.

Because the paintings are almost without

exception associated with water, they can be

dated by the shore displacement method. The

Holocene isostatic land uplift and associated

tilting of the Fennoscandian landmass has

been a major factor in the formation of the

Finnish landscape. As a result of these proc-

esses, some paintings evidently originally

made from a boat close to the surface of a lake

are now situated more than ten meters above

water. Assuming that no scaffolding or other

artificial means were used to paint higher than

Fig. 2. Distributions of prehistoric rock paint-

ings (dark grey areas, based on Kivikäs 1995

with additions) and historically known sieidi

(light grey areas, based on Sarmela 2000)

in Finland, with some of the sites discussed

shown. The distributions overlap in a small

area in Northern Finland, close to the eastern

border, where two rock paintings have been

found.

water level (which seems like a rather safe

assumption to make), the probable age of

the paintings can be calculated based on our

knowledge of the hydrological history of Finn-

ish lakes. According to current understanding,

the paintings of the large Lake Saimaa region

date from approximately 5000-1500 cal. BC

(Jussila 1999; Seitsonen 2005a), and similar

datings have been suggested for other areas

as well (e.g. Seitsonen 2005b). This locates

the paintings mainly within the period of the

Subneolithic Comb Ware cultures, which prac-

ticed a hunting-gathering-fishing economy.

However, the rock painting tradition appears

to continue to the early part of the Early Metal

Period (1900 cal. BC – 300 cal. AD). Evidence

of barley cultivation as early as 2200 cal. BC

has recently been found in the Lake Region

(Mika Lavento pers. comm.) Seeing that many

of the finds associated with the rock paintings

date from the Early Metal Period (fig. 10), rock

paintings appear still to have been in active use

123

Fig. 3. Some Finnish rock painting sites that have been perceived as anthropomorphic in shape:

a) Astuvansalmi, b) Lakiasuonvuori, c) Viherinkoski A, d) Mertakallio. Photos: Eero Siljander

(a), Antti Lahelma (b & d), Miikka Pyykkönen (c)

when primitive agriculture was introduced in

the Lake Region.

& Morton 1991). When children grow, faces

acquire emotional and social significance. As

Guthrie writes, “ Choosing among interpreta-

tions of the world, we remain condemned to

meaning, and the greatest meaning has a

human face ” (Guthrie 1993: 204). This fasci-

nation with faces is not learned, but based on

human biology, and appears to have been char-

acteristic of hominids for hundreds of thou-

sands of years (see below). Seeing “faces” in

Seeing “faces” at rock art sites

All humans are fascinated with faces and face-

like shapes. Even newborn infants show an

interest in human faces, and children display

great competence in recognising emotions,

attractiveness or individual features of human

faces already at a very young age (Johnson

124

natural objects is thus a particularly interesting

case of the process of anthropomorphism.

That some of the cliffs where rock paintings

occur in Finland exhibit human-like “faces”

has been recognised for some time. The

archaeologist Jussi-Pekka Taavitsainen was

the first to publish this observation in 1981,

although according to Milton Núñez (pers.

comm.) it was first discovered by Ushio

Maeda, a Japanese exchange student who

studied archaeology at the University of Hel-

sinki in the early 1970’s. Maeda noticed that

the large and important rock painting site of

Astuvansalmi resembles a huge human face

in profile view, its eyelids closed, as if it were

sleeping (fig. 3a). Taavitsainen presented three

further examples – the paintings of Mertaka-

llio, Löppösenluola and Valkeisaari, all located

in South-Eastern Finland (Taavitsainen 1981,

figs. 1, 3 and 4). Of these, the three first men-

tioned sites include formations that are said to

resemble a human face in profile, where as at

Valkeisaari, it is possible to recognise a human

face in frontal view. The above mentioned sites

remain among the most striking examples of

anthropomorphism in Finnish rock art.

Several other examples of anthropomor-

phic rock painting sites have been presented.

Miettinen sees a human face in profile in the

painted rock of Verla (Pentikäinen & Miettinen

2003: 12). At the site of Lakiasuonvuori it is

possible to distinguish two faces, one in profile

(Pentikäinen & Miettinen 2003: 11) and one

resembling half of a human face (fig. 3b), seen

as if it were peering from behind a corner. The

painted boulder of Viherinkoski A (fig. 3c) has

the rough appearance of a human head. The

site of Ilmuksenvuori includes two features

that have attracted the attention of modern

observers. One is a large granite head, with

a nose, chin and eyes formed by the natural

features of rock, rising from the lake (Kivikäs

2000: 42-43). Some remains of red ochre paint

can be seen on the “head,” but it does not seem

to have been applied to make the features more

human-like. A second human-like formation at

the same site illustrates the pitfalls associated

with these kinds of observations. Kivikäs notes

the “gnome-like” shape of the formation, but

fails to appreciate the fact that it consists of

rapakivi-granite – an easily crumbling type of

rock that is unlikely to have retained its shape

for millennia.

The list of purportedly anthropomorphic

sites could be continued. But regardless of

the number of examples presented, this kind

of “face-spotting” remains a somewhat dubi-

ous branch of rock art research. Recognising

human features in natural cliffs is a fundamen-

tally subjective experience. How can we, in

the absence of living informants, know what

formations were considered anthropomorphic

by a Stone Age people? And how can even

begin to guess what (if any) cultural meanings

were attached to them? Did these “faces” in

rock stimulate religious feelings or just amuse-

ment and curiosity?

Although the significance of anthropo-

morphic natural formations is clearly a difficult

subject for prehistoric archaeology, a number

ways to tackle the question can be suggested.

It would, for example, be possible to arrange

different kinds of experiments in which test

persons are brought to the vicinity of an

“anthropomorphic” rock and asked to record

their observations. Something like this was

attempted in 1993, when two young Khanty

brothers, Yeremey and Ivusef Sopotchin, were

brought to the rock painting of Astuvansalmi

and their behaviour at the site was observed.

The brothers, sons of a Khanty shaman, are

said to have immediately recognised the cliff

as a sacred site and to have forbidden anyone

from climbing on top of it. Furthermore, they

claimed to recognise some of the paintings as

representing scenes from Khanty mythology,

made sacrifices of money, muttered prayers in

Khanty and acted out a ritual shooting of the

rock (Pentikäinen 1994, Pentikäinen & Miet-

tinen 2003: 13-16). However, the artificial set-

ting of this experiment does not seem to stand

to closer scrutiny. The Khanty are natives of

the extremely flat River Ob region, where

rocky cliffs such as Astuvansalmi practically

do not exist (Jordan 2003: 79). Moreover,

given the costly arrangements of the trip

and the presence of academics and reporters

(whose employer, a popular magazine called

125

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: