Session: #456

Content:

In archaeology, imitations can be discussed from various angles. Most often the discussions are framed either as imitations vs. imports (with impact on discussions about chronology) or as imitations in the context of new materials and technologies. Although these two approaches are extremely interesting, imitations in archaeological record can be a much more versatile topic.

What if neither the materials, nor the technologies involved are new? What about the imitations inside the same cultural and/or chronological framework? What does this type of imitation tell us? Can we always say which is the model and which is the copy? Are imitations copies or fakes of the time? Can miniaturization be considered a type of imitation? Do imitations fulfill a functional or a symbolic role?

In short, we identified so far:
- imitations that preserve the functional role (e.g. marble vs. Spondylus beads and bracelets, deer canine beads vs. their correspondent in other materials, stone/obsidian blades vs. flint ones, etc.) and others that are merely symbolic, such as dummy stone axes in graves (stones imitating the shape of an axe)
- imitations at the same scale, but in different materials (marble vs. Spondylus beads and bracelets, deer canine beads vs. their correspondent in other materials, stone/obsidian blades vs. flint ones)
- imitations at a smaller scale in the same (such as miniature vessels) or in different material (such as miniature houses, stools, etc., figurines); can we look at these last examples as imitations of reality?

Starting with cases from the archaeological record, we would like to expand the discussion beyond the surface, and to look at what can be defined as imitation and why, and also for the reasons and purposes that led to the existence of particular cases of imitations. We invite contributions from all periods and areas across Europe.

Session: #456

Theme & Session Format

Title & Content

Organisers