The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory, eds, Emma Blake & A Bernard Knapp
Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 2004. 333pp, 27 figs, ISBN 0 631 23267 2 (hb £60)
ASBN 0 631 23268 0 (pb £19.99).
The study of Mediterranean prehistory has changed rapidly in recent years, as
this book clearly shows. We have moved on from questions of what, where and
when to how and why. It is, however, worth remembering that this would not have
been possible without the framework provided by that earlier work.
A general impression first. There is here, throughout the twelve chapters, a
very commendable questioning of long-held assumptions, many, though not all,
now to be abandoned. However, it is rarely possible to put any firm conclusions
in their place, as the various authors readily admit. Whatever interpretation
any expert offers, another will immediately contradict it, or at least claim
that his or hers is better. Uncertainty may be preferable to false ‘certainty’,
but is still not very satisfying. Frequently the main problem is a matter of
definition of terms, like ‘the Mediterranean region’, ‘trade’, ‘state’, ‘sex
and gender’, ‘elite’, ‘settlement and community’.
The editors in their opening chapter face up to that first problem. We all have
a fairly clear idea of what we mean by ‘the Mediterranean region’ without
worrying too much about where its boundaries lie. Should we define it by
political frontiers, topographical, climatic or vegetational factors, or admit
that precise definition is neither necessary nor possible? To take just one
illustrative example, how many of France’s 5305 museums (Fig.12.1) should count
as Mediterranean? The basic discussion is the old debate of whether seas in
general, or this one in particular, serve more to unite or divide sites and
regions on their shores. Both factors clearly apply to a greater or lesser
extent, often at the same time. It is good to see the matter carefully
discussed in the prehistoric context, though I am puzzled by ‘connecting’ being
coupled with ‘corrupting’ in the chapter heading.
The main point made, very fairly, by Robb and Farr is that ‘trade’ is too often
envisaged in modern commercial terms, when all we really mean is the movement
of material goods, by whatever means, and of which only a very small proportion
will have survived in the archaeological record anyway. Obsidian figures
largely in this discussion of course, being so well documented, but the
mechanisms of its movement are still highly debatable. One question discussed
by both these authors and later ones in the volume is what the obsidian
actually meant to its eventual owners.
Less problematic, though still useful, is Barker’s chapter on landscape and its
exploitation, from foraging to agriculture and pastoralism, at first at the
subsistence level, later in more complex economies. Controversy rears its head
again over the decline and collapse of the Aegean palaces, and whether or not
agricultural problems lay behind them.
Chapman’s discussion of social relations makes little headway in the face of
what different scholars understand by the term ‘state’. At least we thought the
distinction between sex and gender, biological and social, was clearcut, but
then Talalay admits it ‘is in fact, no longer well supported’ and ‘may forever
defy clarification’, which seems to pull the rug from beneath the feet of her
whole contribution.
Blake tackles the evidence for cult and ritual, practices to some extent
recoverable, beliefs much less easily. Recent thinking emphasises that sacred
and profane blended much more imperceptibly in the past, without the ‘clear
delimiting of space’ she would like to see. I was surprised to see no mention
of La Muculufa in Sicily in this context (Holloway 1991).
Kolb expresses scepticism of the suggestion that monuments are characteristic
of small, but not too small, islands. While there may be some doubt - why
Sardinia and Corsica but not Sicily? - the coincidence seems too great to
dismiss out of hand. There is a certain circularity in the argument that a
religious elite was responsible for the Maltese temples, when the temples
themselves provide the only evidence.
Much of Karimali’s chapter on lithics would apply anywhere, not just round the
Mediterranean. She raises the same point as Robb and Farr on the obsidian, the
relative importance of its utilitarian and symbolic appeal. Her map, Fig.8.1,
is over-reduced, and omits several major flint sources, even those mentioned in
the text. The same over-reduction is visible in items 9, 11 and 12 in Fig. 8.3,
where they are barely visible at all.
Kassianidou and Knapp show that on archaeometallurgy we have come a long way
from both the Three Age System and the view that all metal-working can be
traced back to the Near East. While in our region Anatolia still holds its
priority, they point out that the evidence for independent origins in both the
Balkans and Iberia is increasing. This chapter provides the clearest example of
change through time, even if the switches from stone to bronze to iron are now
impossibly blurred.
I found Sollars’s discussion of settlement and community unsatisfactorily
vague, particularly when he later introduces the concept of an “imagined”
community, his inverted commas.
On the other hand, Manning and Hulin give a very balanced view of the problems
in the terms ‘trade’ and ‘commerce’, while pointing out how frequently experts
in this field dispute with each other. We should consider much more carefully
the role of both the producer and the consumer in this activity, as opposed to
the middlemen and their possible elite employers. But even with these, the
authors have some very pertinent observations to make.
In many ways, Skeates’s survey of museums of Mediterranean prehistory is the
most straightforward in the book, mainly because the task he has set himself is
the factual one of assessing the present position in this field, and how it has
arisen, a fascinating story. Admittedly, he does discuss the differing aims
museums in the various countries have set themselves, but since they are all
valid in their own way, thoughts on what museums ought to be doing can be
offered without polemics.
The book is beautifully produced. I found no single typographical error, unless
‘Kalavossas’ on p.123 was such. References are particularly generous, averaging
over six pages per chapter, and so nearly a quarter of the book, allowing one
to follow up the evidence for any controversial intepretations.
All in all, the unspoken theme throughout is, ‘take nothing for granted’. If
that leaves us wondering whether we can believe any interpretation, now or
ever, that is perhaps just as well.
David Trump
Cambridge
Reference
Holloway, R.R., 1991. The Archaeology of Ancient Sicily, pp.24-6.
London: Routledge.
Review Submitted: August 2005
The views expressed in
this review are not necessarily those of the Society or the Reviews
Editor.
|