Archaeolog

Figurines are a ubiquitous class of archaeological artifact. As a result, much has been written about them and, more importantly, what, if anything, they can tell us about the cultures that produced them. Anthropomorphic figurines, in particular, entice us with a promise of human self-awareness, encoding cognition in the modeling and representation of the human form (Hamilton 1996). In recent decades, since Ucko’s (1962) seminal article refuting the traditional interpretation of all female figurines in relation to a universal “Mother Goddess”, many scholars have addressed the issue of understanding figurines in their specific cultural-historical context. Indeed, as Bailey has written, “seen in terms of the relationship between humanity and the world, figurines are an institution for defining, expressing, claiming and legitimating one’s own identity or for suggesting and realigning the identity of others” (1996: 294). Most scholars, however, have focused on one or two aspects of figurine studies: the importance of specific contexts or their site-specificity (e.g. Marcus’ work with Oaxacan Formative period figurines (1996, 1998)), or issues related to the body, gender, identity, etc. What is left, though, when these approaches cannot take into account the associations with other data and the contingencies of recovery? My concern is with anthropomorphic figurines from extra-urban ritual sites on Crete in the Bronze Age. My question, given issues of associations and contingency in retrieval, is what can we do with them?

On 17 December 2006, an amalgamation archaeologists, anthropologists, social theorists and artists descended on the University of Exeter for a full day of debates and deliberations in the spirit of the 28th meeting of the Theoretical Archaeology Group. Taking part in a session organised by Vitor Oliveira Jorge and Julian Thomas, a dynamic and accomplished panel of speakers regaled a room filled to capacity for most of the day with presentations engaging with the important topic: ‘Overcoming the Modern Invention of Material Culture’.

The full-day session began with the presentation of Julian Thomas’ (University of Manchester) paper ‘The Trouble with Material Culture’. In true Thomas fashion, he contextualised his presentation with the depth of intellectual history regarding the construction of ‘material culture’ as a concept. Exploring the dichotomies nature:culture and mind:body, Thomas advanced his contention that ‘material culture’ is the projecting or stamping of ‘culture’ onto a perceived inert matter. Thomas proposed rather that archaeology could approach this material positivism through the metaphor of ‘cultivation’ as opposed to culture. Proposing a tending of the landscapes of relationships, with assemblages of beings, while navigating existence through material ontologisations, Thomas’ presentation lit the first logs of what would become a raging debate throughout the day. The most pertinent question raised against Thomas related to his use of the term ‘cultivation’ in relation to ‘pre-Neolithic’ (that is people who lived before the adoption of settled lifestyles and agricultural cultivation).