Tweet
The Nature of Effigies!
I put this here because it's a wider issue.
Tyson, I know you said you weren't going to comment on any more effigy posts but this is not really that kind of post. Your views are valued. Sorry for the book, Pam. :blink:
What is an Effigy?
From the Oxford English Dictionary, an effigy is “a representation of a person, especially in the form of sculpture or some other three-dimensional form” and Webster gives us “an image or representation especially of a person; especially: a crude figure representing a hated person”. I would personally qualify “hated” as “loved or hated”. The word derives from the Latin “effingere” (to form or shape).
We’re not generally using the word in quite the same way, but no matter. To be a little more precise, we should be speaking of “zoomorphic” items when they are animal-shaped or “anthropomorphic” items when human characteristics have been depicted in a non-human form, like say part-man/part-eagle or the Sun but with a human face.
We also tend to assume that effigy frequently implies some kind of mythological, ritual or religious significance which doesn’t have to be the case. Decorative or ornamental reasons are just as valid.
Ritual Significance
When I look at things like Venus figurines which clearly did have some kind of deeper significance, the one thing that really strikes me is that these items generally have no base. Typically, they have no feet that would have enabled them to stand up, no flattened area on the back that would have enabled them to be laid down and no holes for suspension. It is inconceivable that they would have had a cord tied round the neck (bad omen!) and there are generally no wear patterns indicating the possibility of any other modes of display.
The consensus is that effigies with this kind of significance were designed to be held. Something to remember perhaps when considering other possible effigies.
Natural vs Man-Made
Invariably, when I look at a rock that is claimed as an effigy I see a lot of natural features that are inherent to the rock itself. Features which may look unusual but which have a rational geological explanation. OK, these features may well remind us of something, but they are natural nevertheless.
What begins to sink the possibility of an effigy for me, is when I see features that are internal to the rock. Things that could not have been visible until the rock was broken. Little deposits, inclusions, bands, swirls and imperfections that look like an eye or a mouth or feathers or whatever. It’s difficult to accept these as part of an intentional design if they would not have been seen in the starting material until after it had been worked. Yeah, OK they could sometimes be exposed as a result of natural breakage that happened before the rock is found… I accept that, but it’s a lot less likely.
I can also accept the possibly of rock “doodles”. The lithic equivalent of aimlessly whittling a stick, let’s say. I think it quite likely that ancient folk may have spent idle moments whacking a piece of rock into an amusing or pleasing shape for no particular purpose. I think it even more probable that children did this in imitation of their rock-knapping elders.
I would expect that the most likely forms generated would be faces plus birds and animals that were familiar to the people concerned and I would be confident that these people also had a sense of humour and a sense of fun… particularly when it came to faces!
Mother nature provides an abundance of natural rocks which are already part-way there, such that it doesn’t require much “whittling” to take the resemblance a few steps closer without too much skill or effort. Maybe that’s what we are seeing sometimes. Maybe not. It’s difficult to say unless there are unmistakable signs of workmanship (which is not normally the case) or there is clear context (grave goods, to take a more definitive situation).
If we accept even some of these kinds of pieces as at least partially man-made then we can say for sure that they were not produced with the same kind of loving attention that characterises most tools and artefacts. That’s always going to make them much more difficult to conclusively attribute to the hand of man… and the burden of proof should always rest with that conclusive positive attribution… not the other way round.
The incidence and context of most apparent finds does not suggest that they were cherished or regarded with any special significance. More what you might call “throwaway”. That wouldn’t necessarily mean that they are just spalls or debitage but the statistical likelihood is that given enough spalls there will inevitably be small number that just happen to look like a bird or a face or whatever.
The time to sit up and take notice is when the rock type is not native to the find area, when such items occur in suspiciously large numbers in one location or when there appear to be commonalities of design features that could be said to represent a “style”. This isn’t normally the case, but I don’t rule it out.
From a personal point of view, I work with these classifications:
I. Natural resemblance, purely coincidental and not used for anything… geofacts (by far the largest group, I would suggest).
II. Natural resemblance, purely coincidental but picked up and retained for amusement or curiosity (determination of this needs a clear context for the find, otherwise we would never know).
III. Natural resemblance, purely coincidental but a pleasing or useful shape for some purpose (determination needs a clear context for the find and/or signs of usage/wear).
IV. Natural resemblance, but further human modification has provided a degree of aesthetic enhancement or usage suitability improvement (determination needs clear context for the find and/or signs of workmanship/usage/wear).
V. Man-made for no other purpose than doodling or aesthetics (determination has a high burden of proof, normally requiring evidence of workmanship and/or other similar items to have been found. Even then, most of these items will be of the “we’ll never know for sure” type).
VI. Man-made from scratch for ritual or ornamental use (determination has a very high burden of proof unless the context is very strong, normally requiring other similar items to have been found).
VII. Man-made as a tool/artefact but with additional features having aesthetic or ritual significance which may or may not be natural – like say a knife with a zoomorphic blade or handle (determination of the tool/artefact element may be easy, but determination of the other elements have a high burden of proof, normally requiring signs of workmanship and ideally other similar items to have been found).
You may feel there are other categories or that some of mine are not valid. I wasn’t aiming to invent a classification system here… it just helps me get my mind round what I might be looking at sometimes. Mostly in my own finds and those of other posters, I’m looking at Type I and occasionally at what I believe to be Type IV or Type V but not much else normally. I have one personal example of what I think is a strong case for a group VII but I’m not gonna’ show it for fear of opening the floodgates!
Interested in your views.
Roger
Tyson, I know you said you weren't going to comment on any more effigy posts but this is not really that kind of post. Your views are valued. Sorry for the book, Pam. :blink:
What is an Effigy?
From the Oxford English Dictionary, an effigy is “a representation of a person, especially in the form of sculpture or some other three-dimensional form” and Webster gives us “an image or representation especially of a person; especially: a crude figure representing a hated person”. I would personally qualify “hated” as “loved or hated”. The word derives from the Latin “effingere” (to form or shape).
We’re not generally using the word in quite the same way, but no matter. To be a little more precise, we should be speaking of “zoomorphic” items when they are animal-shaped or “anthropomorphic” items when human characteristics have been depicted in a non-human form, like say part-man/part-eagle or the Sun but with a human face.
We also tend to assume that effigy frequently implies some kind of mythological, ritual or religious significance which doesn’t have to be the case. Decorative or ornamental reasons are just as valid.
Ritual Significance
When I look at things like Venus figurines which clearly did have some kind of deeper significance, the one thing that really strikes me is that these items generally have no base. Typically, they have no feet that would have enabled them to stand up, no flattened area on the back that would have enabled them to be laid down and no holes for suspension. It is inconceivable that they would have had a cord tied round the neck (bad omen!) and there are generally no wear patterns indicating the possibility of any other modes of display.
The consensus is that effigies with this kind of significance were designed to be held. Something to remember perhaps when considering other possible effigies.
Natural vs Man-Made
Invariably, when I look at a rock that is claimed as an effigy I see a lot of natural features that are inherent to the rock itself. Features which may look unusual but which have a rational geological explanation. OK, these features may well remind us of something, but they are natural nevertheless.
What begins to sink the possibility of an effigy for me, is when I see features that are internal to the rock. Things that could not have been visible until the rock was broken. Little deposits, inclusions, bands, swirls and imperfections that look like an eye or a mouth or feathers or whatever. It’s difficult to accept these as part of an intentional design if they would not have been seen in the starting material until after it had been worked. Yeah, OK they could sometimes be exposed as a result of natural breakage that happened before the rock is found… I accept that, but it’s a lot less likely.
I can also accept the possibly of rock “doodles”. The lithic equivalent of aimlessly whittling a stick, let’s say. I think it quite likely that ancient folk may have spent idle moments whacking a piece of rock into an amusing or pleasing shape for no particular purpose. I think it even more probable that children did this in imitation of their rock-knapping elders.
I would expect that the most likely forms generated would be faces plus birds and animals that were familiar to the people concerned and I would be confident that these people also had a sense of humour and a sense of fun… particularly when it came to faces!
Mother nature provides an abundance of natural rocks which are already part-way there, such that it doesn’t require much “whittling” to take the resemblance a few steps closer without too much skill or effort. Maybe that’s what we are seeing sometimes. Maybe not. It’s difficult to say unless there are unmistakable signs of workmanship (which is not normally the case) or there is clear context (grave goods, to take a more definitive situation).
If we accept even some of these kinds of pieces as at least partially man-made then we can say for sure that they were not produced with the same kind of loving attention that characterises most tools and artefacts. That’s always going to make them much more difficult to conclusively attribute to the hand of man… and the burden of proof should always rest with that conclusive positive attribution… not the other way round.
The incidence and context of most apparent finds does not suggest that they were cherished or regarded with any special significance. More what you might call “throwaway”. That wouldn’t necessarily mean that they are just spalls or debitage but the statistical likelihood is that given enough spalls there will inevitably be small number that just happen to look like a bird or a face or whatever.
The time to sit up and take notice is when the rock type is not native to the find area, when such items occur in suspiciously large numbers in one location or when there appear to be commonalities of design features that could be said to represent a “style”. This isn’t normally the case, but I don’t rule it out.
From a personal point of view, I work with these classifications:
I. Natural resemblance, purely coincidental and not used for anything… geofacts (by far the largest group, I would suggest).
II. Natural resemblance, purely coincidental but picked up and retained for amusement or curiosity (determination of this needs a clear context for the find, otherwise we would never know).
III. Natural resemblance, purely coincidental but a pleasing or useful shape for some purpose (determination needs a clear context for the find and/or signs of usage/wear).
IV. Natural resemblance, but further human modification has provided a degree of aesthetic enhancement or usage suitability improvement (determination needs clear context for the find and/or signs of workmanship/usage/wear).
V. Man-made for no other purpose than doodling or aesthetics (determination has a high burden of proof, normally requiring evidence of workmanship and/or other similar items to have been found. Even then, most of these items will be of the “we’ll never know for sure” type).
VI. Man-made from scratch for ritual or ornamental use (determination has a very high burden of proof unless the context is very strong, normally requiring other similar items to have been found).
VII. Man-made as a tool/artefact but with additional features having aesthetic or ritual significance which may or may not be natural – like say a knife with a zoomorphic blade or handle (determination of the tool/artefact element may be easy, but determination of the other elements have a high burden of proof, normally requiring signs of workmanship and ideally other similar items to have been found).
You may feel there are other categories or that some of mine are not valid. I wasn’t aiming to invent a classification system here… it just helps me get my mind round what I might be looking at sometimes. Mostly in my own finds and those of other posters, I’m looking at Type I and occasionally at what I believe to be Type IV or Type V but not much else normally. I have one personal example of what I think is a strong case for a group VII but I’m not gonna’ show it for fear of opening the floodgates!
Interested in your views.
Roger
:laugh: :blink:
Comment