Question 3

This is actually a problem even when analyzing single assemblages. On what grounds should we opt for a disassociation of figurines from other "representational" media (vases, amulets etc.)? Could a focus on "theme" rather than "medium" provide an alternative? For example in Makriyalos (Greece) we (M. Pappa and myself) are trying to study the material as to how the human or animal form is negotiated in different materialities, a question that could cross-cut the given categorization of artefacts in figurines, vases, paintings etc. E.g. are there are any differences in how the human form is represented in clay (be it a figurine or a vase) or stone? [SNan]

I am not sure about analyzing figurines using themes. This may lead to disregarding culture and grouping widely varying societies in ways that over look important differences (JG).

The intense interest in figurines across the world seems like it might stem from the idea these figurines don't have an immediately obvious function or use, unlike a vase or pot whose purpose seems pretty straightforward (to carry or store something, for example). The figurines have something of a mystical aura -- were they representations of deities? Portraits of individuals? Children's toys? Since they aren't inherently useful, they stand out from much of the archaeological record as a luxury (or at least something without which a person could live). As such, it's interesting to place figurines from around the world side-by-side in one giant collective assemblage, but to compare them might not produce the most fruitful or informed conclusions. Cultural specificity falls by the wayside in favor of finding commonalities on a global scale, which I think is unfair to the individual cultures. Within-culture examination of figurines might be less interesting in terms of "big questions about human nature" but may be more interesting in getting at the true root of the figurines' creation and their role in the culture. (TL)

Building off of the above comment, if we view figurines as art objects, it seems natural to try to collectively analyze them -- part of the allure of visual art is that we can tend think of it as an ideal global language, one that translates across cultures because it relies on the biological standard of vision and sight. However, we can also talk about how vision is inherently subjective and culurally influenced, a consideration which severely impacts attempts to view figurines as a global category. Because of the subjectivity of sight, the look is more a determinant of the figurine's use and importance than the actual shape of the figurine itself. So an ancient figurine in Ghana may share the same physical characteristics as one in Turkey, but the perceptions of that figurine's use vary from place to place, making it difficult to ever fully understand the original nature of the figurine. [LMR]

When cultures are essentialized into the figurines that they produced, we lose the ability to understand the as distinct entities. Global analyses look for universalisms and, particularly in archaeology, can lead to misinterpretations. If one culture and another have similar looking objects, it is assumed they had the same purpose. The specificities of each are lost. What could have religious significance in one culture could have none at all in another. On the other hand, universalisms can provide a starting point for analysis when little is known about a newly discovered object. This starting point can be dangerous if it never questioned. (KP)

Cultural specificity is lost when looking at figurines as universal. Modern equivalents of figurines can hardly be treated this way: a Kachina doll, a Ghanean fertility doll, and a Barbie couldn’t have less in common. The same should be said of figurines of past cultures from just as remotely different parts of the world. The representation of human form can be compared across multiple cultures and times, but not equated. (CBL)