Norwegian Archaeological Review 'Figure It Out!' Psychological
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This article was downloaded by: [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] On: 25 May 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 907435713] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37- 41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Norwegian Archaeological Review Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713926118 'Figure it out!' Psychological Perspectives on Perception of Migration Period Animal Art Torill Christinelindstrømand Siv Kristoffersen To cite this Article Kristoffersen, Torill Christinelindstrømand Siv(2001) ''Figure it out!' Psychological Perspectives on Perception of Migration Period Animal Art', Norwegian Archaeological Review, 34: 2, 65 — 84 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00293650127468 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293650127468 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. ARTICLE Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2001 ‘Figure it out!’ P sychological P erspectives on P erceptionof Migration P eriod Animal Art TORILL CHRIST INELINDSTRØM AND SIV KRISTOFFERSEN Department of Psychosocial Psychology, Bergen; Museum of Archaeology, Stavanger/Department of Archaeology, Bergen, Norway. E-mail: [email protected] In thisarticlewe explore some percept ual-psychologicaland semioticaspects of t heMigrationP eriod‘animalart’from thenorthernGermanicculturalarea. Primarily,it is suggested that this art, which has been described as using symmet ry and ‘split representations’,is laden with ‘ambiguous figures’ (including ‘embedded figures’ and ‘reversible figures’). T he ambiguous qualityof theartis suggest edto be presenton a perceptuallevel, but also on a compositional (structural) and iconographic level. P sychological (and neurological) processes involved in the percept ion of ambiguous figures and their effect s are presented:Gestalt formation, unconscious processing, subliminal perception, motivated perception, and changed states of consciousness. It is suggested that this art inst igated,or at least referred to such processes. In addit ion,on a semiot iclevel, t heartis suggestedtocontain information-condensat ion(‘hyper-texts’),cryptic information, and to have had other semiotic functions. INTRODUCTION on this kind of art — and consequently,our collaborationstarted. The MigrationP eriod animalart has inspired Primarily, we sought to explore to what numerous archaeological analyses of the extent the term ‘ambiguous gures’ could be Downloaded By: [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] At: 14:16 25 May 2010 historical-cultural contexts of this art, its applied to the Migration P eriod animal art. socioeconomic contexts, religious-symbolic Furthermore, the psychological processes content and references — not forgetting the connected to the perception of such gures many treatiseson its content:interpretations fascinated us because they could have rele- of what the art depicts. However, from a vance for the social functions of this art. psychological point of view, the immediate Therefore, we ended up by relating simple perceptualpropertiesof the art seem largely perceptionand neurology to complex semio- to have been ignored, or at least excluded tic and social functions, and to a particular from analysis in its own right. This is cultural-political context. This span may intriguing for a psychologist, because it seem pretentious,but it should be not ed that immediately strikes the eye that this art this project is explorativeand not conclusive. contains ambiguous gures, and the percep- tion of such gures has been thoroughly studied in psychological research. For an Migration Period animal art archaeologist,thisopensup a new perspective This paper focuses on the Migration P eriod 66 Torill Christine Lindstrøm and Siv Kristoffersen ‘animal art’ from the northern Germanic culturalarea. Norwegian relief brooches and scabbard mountings from the Migration P eriod represent some of the nest and most developed examples of Germanicanimal art, the so-called Style I (Nissen Meyer 1934:86, Hougen 1936:8–14, Kristoffersen 1995:1–3). This style existed during the 5t h and 6th centuries in the northern Germanic cultural area, which includes the northernpart of the European continent, parts of England and Scandinavia (Salin 1935 [1904], Haseloff 1981). T hedevelopmentof thisart took place withina particularand relativelyshort period, and rapidly grew into a highly sophisticated artistic expression. An important source of inspiration for the techniques and motifs Fig. 1. Ambiguous figures, here: reversible figures. (a) A vase/two profiles. (b) Duck/rabbit. which led to the development of the style (c) The ‘Necker cube’. (d) ‘The reversible was drawn from late imperial Roman and staircase’. (a): Drawing by T. C. Lindstrøm; (c) provincial Roman small-scale metal work, & (d): from Krech, Crutchfield & Livson (1969: for example belt-clasps and other items of 166, fig. 11.1). Roman military equipment (Bo¨hme 1974, 1986). Initially,the art was producedwith,at least, a touch of naturalism. Through the animal forms altogether (Kristoffersen development of Style I, the animals under- 1995:8). In short, the Roman animals are went a processof abstractionandvery quickly de ned and easy to identify, whereas the developed into a unique, Germanic, artistic Germanic animals are more ‘hidden’. Put expression that can still be traced in the another way, one could say that the Roman portals of the Medieval Norwegian stave animalsstandout as a clear ‘text’,whereasthe churches. T he way in which the Roman and Germanicanimalsresemble a cryptic,hidden, Germanicanimal gures differ, and what this perhapssecret ‘text’. Crypticfunctionsof this may mean, is an interestingarea for investi- arthavebeen suggestedbefore (Nissen Meyer gation. 1934:87). We sought to elaborate on the Downloaded By: [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] At: 14:16 25 May 2010 One of the most strikingdifferences is the possible functions and meanings of this Germanic non-naturalismas opposed to the ‘cryptic’ art. Roman naturalism.In Roman art the animal species are recognizable. Although muscles Figures that are ambiguous, embedded, and and sinews are no longer visible in thesmall- reversible scale provincialRomanart,thelimbs, at least, As mentioned above, from a psychological are in their properplace and organic position. point of view, it is obvious thattheMigration The plasticityof the animals is also typical. Period animal art contains ‘ambiguous g- The Germanicanimals in Style I are, with a ures’. The terms‘ambiguous gures’, ‘rever- few exceptions (in the late brooches from sible gures’, and ‘embedded gures’ are Sogn), impossible to specify with regard to closely related concepts, the rst two in species. In addition, they are intricately particular often being used interchangeably mingled and entangled.Details are omitted, (Krech et al. 1969:153, 166, 176). T he terms the limbs are often sketchily outlined, in come from thepsychology of perception,and awkwardpositions,or even detachedfrom the may need some explanation. ‘Ambiguous Perspectives on Perception of Migration Period Animal Art 67 gures’ generally means that the stimulus materialis structured(or rather:unstructured) in such a way thatseveral interpretationsare possible. In the‘reversible gures’ thestimuli are seen as (usually) two objects, or sets of objects,which seem to alternatein the visual eld. All the contoursof one object are used to form the other(s). T ypical examples of reversible gures are the vase/ twopro les alternation (Fig. 1a) and the duck/ rabbit alternation(Fig. 1b). Classical examples are also the ‘Necker cube’ (Fig. 1c) and ‘the reversible staircase’ (Fig. 1d). ‘Embedded gures’ are closely related to reversible gures in the sense that several discrete objects may be perceived within the same stimulusmaterialand may seem to alternate as we focus on one or the other.1 However, whereas all the contour lines are used in the ‘reversible gures’, in the‘embedded gures’ just partsof, some of, or noneof thelines may be used to make up the gures which are seen Fig. 2. Ambiguous figures, here: embedded to be ‘embedded’ in the larger stimulus figures. Within a landscape, a man with a cap complex. T his means that several gures and a rabbit are embedded. The faces of the man may be seen within another one, sometimes and the rabbit also function as reversible figures. using partsfrom anot her,and extendingtheir (From Leeper 1935:53, fig. 1.) forms beyond the boundariesof other gures (Fig. 2). In this article, because of the similaritybetweenthem,theterm‘ambiguous gures’ will be used for