Thread by @I_VG

Time for Part 5. Part 4 is here:

https://twitter.com/I_VG/status/1593546265173938176?s=20&t=za2fs5MjpiOqaFMn6Qy2Rg

and talk a bit more about time, life and death in #Neolithic #Malta - the link between above & below is more than just location.

So, there was a time in the 1970s in #archaeology when we tried to make sense of things by testing hypotheses. Not a bad idea, but it doesn't always work & here's why (aside the fact that humans don't behave in a linear, ordered way).

Colin Renfrew decided to map locations of #megalithic sites & figure out land & territory. Sounds logical right? Especially back then. But the research question itself isn't divorced from our context in the present. To Renfrew it made sense that...

these tiny islands had too many big buildings too close to each other. And when you're busy being a revolutionary studying chiefdoms well... you can see why he liked the idea. And let's be clear, the work itself was very rigorous. But...

things like distance and concepts of too many or too few are rooted in our culture in the present. If you grew up with rolling hills in a large country, then #Malta feels awfully small and crowded. Which it is esp now but... distance is very context-specific. But we can't assume

same for #Neolithic. Equally, we can't dismiss old work b/c constantly asking questions is what helps us formulate new ways of thinking. Any researcher knows this - & it's far harder than taking e.g. one conspiracy & spending a lifetime just repeating it.

So, Reuben Grima took a fresh look at all this & noticed that these sites are located in specific places, near quarries & sources of fresh water now gone, within a certain view of each other etc etc. Fascinating & very detailed. See alt text for one example.

It's not about chiefdoms sensu Renfrew (let's not get started on that, not now at any rate). And there was no need for sites to be equidistant, rather the focus was on the contours of the landscape, as in Gozo. In the present it's really hard to see this & this isn't just a 21st

century problem. Take Saflieni & Tarxien, the 3rd element would be Kordin, once 3 temples & not much survives, look at the location. Kordin started in 3600 & grew over time. Now in a heavy urban setting it used to be on a promontory with a great view of the area + sea

The present landscape was formed in 1848, when
the British inaugurated the first dry dock in Vittoriosa Creek. The change was dramatic, so we need to always remember that the landscape context has to be investigated.

But there's more. Temples were locales of constant activity. The heavy touristification completely neglects 'peripheral' areas used for keeping animals & doing all the jobs needed to keep the sites functioning. Even in the 'main' temples we find tons of stone tool debris, for ex

and tons of pottery, clearly made elsewhere. Temple conjures images of worship & ritual & it doesn't quite capture the soul of these places. I suppose a functional term is aggregation site but let's be honest, it's a clunky term.

If you lived in Late #Neolithic #Malta, the #megalithic landscape was part of your daily existence. You would see it as you went about your daily life. You would've understood & read the landscape in a v. particular way. So no there aren't "too many" temples.

Let's look at the figurines, for we do in fact have one of the most stunning range of #Neolithic ones. Full details here, sorry for crappy PDF: researchgate.net/publication/35… & Spanish version too: researchgate.net/publication/34…

So, there's lots of babble about "obese" images & fertility and all that. Please read the paper to get a sense of it all, b/c it's too long to explain for Twitter but I will show you some highlights. Check out alt text.

Quick note, when I say male or female I'm simply referring to secondary sexual characteristics. It's just shorthand. More details in paper. Anyway, the ones which are neither have this space at the top, where you can insert different heads. In fact we find many such heads!

This example from Saflieni was found with TWO different heads, with different faces and that moved in different ways. More info on this & the different physical scales of figurines here: researchgate.net/publication/30…

So we find images both above & below ground. They represent many many things - check out the linked papers & feel free to ask questions. There is a wonderful diversity of bodies, faces, gestures etc. I just can't understand why some ppl will focus on just one tiny thing.

And these were just one part of things going on in a temple. Let's take this large dish from Mnajdra. It speaks of communal eating & or drinking - of people coming together. We find many open dishes, not all look like this but all are part of group activities.

All pieces of pottery attest to a community, more importantly a community of practice. We see this in how people made pots, the tools & motor actions used in the process - & it's a reminder that everything in Neolithic Malta, from a flint to a megalith...

...is the result of community effort, one that definitely changed over time & in the process heavily invested in maintaining memory while moving forward. So don't come at me with nonsense that these appeared out of nowhere.

If Twitter is still standing tomorrow, I'll talk more about the fascinating burial rituals & get into the details. For now, thank you once again for joining me.