Bailey, Douglass W. Prehistoric Figurines. Representation and corporeality in the Neolithic. Routledge. London & New York. 2005. 243 p. text and illustrations.

In the contemporary literature still dominates the symbolic-ritualistic understanding of the prehistoric art (e.g. Clotte, online; Clottes, Lewis-Williams, & Hawkes 1998; Gimbutas 2007).

After series of analytical and theoretical approaches, renowned American anthropologist Douglass W. Bailey introduced in a monograph format a principally new prospective-retrospective view on the prehistoric miniature art by bridging the theory of media with archaeology, psychology, anthropology and other related to them disciplines.

"Prehistoric Figurines" (Routledge, 2005) is a pioneer academic study that showed clearly that the power of prehistory is not in revealing its “primitivism” in compare to the contemporary culture but incorporating it into the world culture. The privilege of Bailey in compare to other writers is that this incorporation is based on deep systematic and academic knowledge of prehistory, and especially on Eurasian prehistory.

The monograph “Prehistoric figurines” (2005) traced a new field of research in which the finds, their context and their multi-media effect from the time of their production to their discoveries and contacts with the contemporary observers create multi-dimensional meaning. The study of this multi-dimensional meaning was provided by a detailed research in depth - see e.g. the analysis of the Ovcharovo group of objects (Bailey 2005: 26-44).

This monograph clearly shows that following the reality / imaginary and encoding / decoding approach, in other words the symbolic-ritualistic understanding of the prehistoric art, would be the weakest interpretation since the art is creative, a result of imaginary and the realistic approach is just one of the aspects of the reproducing abilities of the imaginary – to replicate the reality or reality like-image into a creative form.

One of the most important contributions of Douglass W Bailey is the contextual analysis of the prehistoric art from perspectives of the Eurasian prehistoric expert. The figurines are not only objects (following the pure typological method) or symbolic objects (following the symbolic-ritualistic approach) – they all are essential complex cultural facts. They are a reflection of styles of life of different communities, of local identities and even of the real people.

Bailey offers in his book theses that at some point may look even shocking to the readers, but in fact they mirror the premier level of development of intellectual anthropological thought of the 21st century.

One typical Bailey’s sentence would be: “… the people just did not care about the corporeal remains of a person once they stopped breathing” (2005: 177). The conclusion is based on missing human bone in Southeast European early Neolithic. Such thinking provokes an alternative – the people did not want to be overwhelmed by the corporeal remains of the people since there are burials, although as exceptions in different cultures. It is remarkable: in earlier Neolithic Southeast Europe reach two fundamental contemplations – a reproduction of social memory without cult of the dead body and practicing cremation instead inhumation. None of them was able till today to become dominant. Majority has won although anchored to the cognitively limited mode of inhumation of body.

The main contribution of Bailey in the above case in not in the interpretation that even looks bumpy, but in the fact that like in many other cases, that author has the strength to express thoughts that could be in the mind of many but were never expressed in an academic format for many reasons – absence of strong arguments, fear that they may look harebrained or will be blamed in non-academism.

Early 21st century is characterized by a boom of publications of anthropological books. One of the reasons is that anthropology became an academic discipline with numerous authors employed as university and college instructors, lecturers, readers and professors. All need publications but many of those publications are pure replications or with limited contributions following old methods and models.

However, to be best in anthropology one needs to take the risk of innovation. Douglass W. Bailey took the risk with “Prehistoric figurines” and just showed that it is possible even in the field of anthropology after so written on prehistoric art to have a new academic road secured by an innovative and productive humanistic academic paradigm.

All articles by World Culture Examiner at http://www.examiner.com/x-43946-World-Culture-Examiner