Anthropomorphic Figurines from the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Aegean: Gender Dynamics and Implications for the Understanding of Early Aegean Prehistory 9781407302416, 9781407334035

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2. SETTING THE BACKGROUND
Chapter 3. THE STUDY OF GENDER THROUGH ANTHROPOMORPHIC FIGURINES: A THEORETICAL DISCUSSION
Chapter 4. GENDER ARCHAEOLOGY THROUGH ANTHROPOMORPHIC FIGURINES: A METHODOLOGY
Chapter 5. NEOLITHIC ANTHROPOMORPHIC FIGURINES: DATA AND ANALYSIS
Chapter 6. EARLY BRONZE AGE ANTHROPOMORPHIC FIGURINES: DATA AND ANALYSIS
Chapter 7. BODIES OF INFERENCE: FIGURINES, GENDER DYNAMICS AND SOCIETY IN THE EARLY PREHISTORIC AEGEAN
APPENDICES
REFERENCES

Citation preview

BAR  S1894  2008   MINA: ANTHROPOMORPHIC FIGURINES FROM THE NEOLITHIC & E. B. A. AEGEAN

Anthropomorphic Figurines from the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Aegean Gender Dynamics and Implications for the Understanding of Early Aegean Prehistory

Maria Mina

BAR International Series 1894 B A R

2008

Anthropomorphic Figurines from the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Aegean

Anthropomorphic Figurines from the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Aegean Gender Dynamics and Implications for the Understanding of Early Aegean Prehistory

Maria Mina

BAR International Series 1894 2008

ISBN 9781407302416 paperback ISBN 9781407334035 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407302416 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

For my parents

i

ii

Contents

Map

page

i

List of figures

v

Acknowledgments

vii

List of abbreviations

ix

1 Introduction

1

2 Setting the background

3

3 The study of gender through anthropomorphic figurines: a theoretical discussion

12

4 Gender archaeology and the study of anthropomorphic figurines: a methodology

25

5 Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

31

6 Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

71

7 Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

110

Appendices

129

References

185

iii

iv

Figures

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 5.30 5.31 5.32 5.33 5.34 5.35 5.36 5.37 5.38 5.39 5.40 5.41 5.42 5.43 5.44 5.45 5.46 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

Example of (a) Neolithic Female figurine from Thessaly and (b) EBA Female figurine from Euboia Example of (a) Neolithic Female form figurine from Macedonia and (b) EBA Female form figurine from Lesbos Example of (a) Neolithic Male figurine from Thessaly and (b) EBA Male figurine from the Cyclades Example of (a) Neolithic Asexual figurine from Macedonia and (b) EBA Asexual figurine from Euboia Example of (a) Neolithic Ambiguous figurine from Thessaly and (b) EBA Ambiguous figurine from the Cyclades Percentage of figurine categories Area breakdown by count of recorded figurines Percentage of figurines by provenance Breakdown of regional samples by figurine categories Percentage of figurines by chronological phases Breakdown of regional samples by chronological phases in percentage Breakdown of figurine categories by chronological phases Percentage of figurine categories by chronological phases Breakdown of the sample according to type of recovery site Breakdown of chronological phases by type of recovery site in percentage Figurine categories and distribution by type of recovery site Breakdown of the sample by known context and region of recovery Breakdown of the sample by known recovery context and chronological phases Breakdown of recovery context by chronological phases in percentage Figurines and other finds: in-situ association Features associated with figurines Known recovery context and figurine categories Associated finds and figurine categories Associated features and figurine categories Breakdown of figurine material by region Breakdown of the sample by material Breakdown of chronological phases by material based on typology in percentage Figurine material according to type of site The modelled body in relation to material Breakdown of material by figurine categories in percentage Dimensions of figurines Breakdown of complete and almost complete figurines by dimensional ranges in percentage Breakdown of dimensional ranges of complete figurines by figurine categories Figurine categories over 20cm in relation to chronological phases and area of recovery Range of figurine postures Breakdown of postures by geographical provenance Breakdown of postures by chronological phases and type of recovery site Breakdown of postures by figurine categories Percentage of decorated and undecorated figurines Breakdown of regional samples by percentage of decorated and undecorated figurines Proportion of decorated and undecorated figurines by chronological phases and breakdown of decorated sample by regional provenance in percentage Breakdown of figurine material by presence or absence of decoration Breakdown of surface treatment method by figurine categories Percentage of decorated figurines by figurine category Breakdown of motif colour by figurine categories Breakdown of surface colour (paint or slip) by figurine categories Use of colour by chronological phases Use of colour on select anatomical parts only in relation to chronology and figurine categories Decorative motifs and suggested meanings Motifs and attributes shared between figurine categories Use of motifs: meaning, figurine categories, chronology and region Percentage of figurine categories Percentage of figurines by provenance Breakdown of regional samples by figurine categories Percentage of figurines by chronological phases

v

28 28 29 29 30 45 45 45 45 46 46 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 48 48 48 49 49 49 50 50 50 51 51 51 51 51 52 52 54 56 57 58 58 59 59 59 59 59 59 99 59 60 61 67 91 91 91 91

List of figures 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22 6.23 6.24 6.25 6.26 6.27 6.28 6.29 6.30 6.31 6.32 6.33 6.34 6.35 6.36 6.37 6.38 6.39 6.40 6.41 6.42 6.43 6.44 6.45 6.46 6.47 6.48 6.49 6.50 6.51 6.52 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13

Breakdown of regional samples by chronological phases in percentage Breakdown of figurine categories by chronological phases Breakdown of the sample by recovery site Breakdown of recovery site type by chronological phases Distribution of figurine categories by type of recovery site Breakdown of regional samples by type of recovery site Context of recovered figurines according to region Breakdown of the sample by known recovery context and chronological phases Breakdown of recovery context by chronological phases Figurines and other finds: in-situ association Select finds and their associations with figurines from unplundered burials (single storey, single burials) in the Cyclades and Euboia Features associated with figurines Known recovery context and figurine categories Figurine categories and associated finds Figurine categories and associated features Available sexed skeletal evidence from EBA Aegean burial sites Grave goods in association with sexed skeletons from Manika Cemetery Grave goods in association with sexed skeletons of multiple burials from Aghios Kosmas cemetery Grave goods in association with anthropologically analysed skeletons of multiple burials from Phourni Cemetery (Burial Building 19) Cycladic graves containing figurines: association with other grave goods Cretan burials containing figurines: direct association with other grave goods Breakdown of the sample by material Breakdown of figurine material by regional provenance Breakdown of chronological phases by material based on typology Figurine material according to type of site The modelled body in relation to material Breakdown of material by figurine categories Dimensions of figurines Breakdown of complete and almost complete figurines by dimensional ranges in percentage Breakdown of dimensional ranges of complete figurines by figurine categories Figurine categories over 20cm in relation to chronological phases and area of recovery Range of figurine postures Breakdown of postures by geographical provenance Breakdown of postures by chronological phases and type of recovery site Breakdown of postures by figurine categories Percentage of decorated and undecorated figurines Breakdown of regional samples by percentage of decorated and undecorated figurines Breakdown of figurine material by presence or absence of decoration Breakdown of surface treatment method by figurine categories Percentage of decorated figurines by figurine category Breakdown of motif colour by figurine categories Breakdown of surface colour (paint or slip) by figurine categories Use of colour by chronological phases Use of colour on select anatomical parts only in relation to chronology and figurine categories Decorative motifs and suggested meanings Motifs and attributes shared between figurine categories Use of motifs: meaning, figurine categories, chronology and region Motifs and attributes shared between Neolithic and EBA figurines EN Female figurine from the Peloponnese with postural emphasis on the breast area EN seated Male figurine from Thessaly EN seated Ambiguous figurine from Thessaly MN Female figurine exhibiting body decoration motifs LN Male figurine from Thessaly with emphasised genital area LN Female seated kourotrophos from Thessaly LN Asexual figurine from Thrace modelled as pregnant LN Ambiguous figurine from Macedonia modelled as pregnant EBA Female figurine from the Cyclades modelled as pregnant EBA Female seated figurine from the Cyclades EBA Female figurines modelled as hunter-warriors from the Cyclades EBA Asexual figurine from the East Aegean represented as clothed EBA Female figurine from the East Aegean bearing jewellery motif

vi

92 92 92 92 93 93 93 93 94 94 94 94 94 95 95 95 96 97 97 97 98 98 98 98 98 99 99 99 99 99 100 100 101 102 102 103 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 105 105 105 106 107 126 126 126 126 126 126 127 127 127 127 127 127 128

Acknowledgements

Recognition is due to many people who offered their expertise for the production of this monograph. Firstly, I wish to thank Professor Ruth Whitehouse for her keen interest in my research and stimulating insights on Gender Archaeology. I am indebted also to Dr. Cyprian Broodbank who kept his promise to ‘turn me into an Aegeanist’. His knowledge, advice, critical thinking and encouragement greatly enriched the development of my research. I am also indebted to Dr. John Chapman and Ms. Leslie Fitton whose critical comments and advice have helped improve this work. I am also grateful to Professor Shennan for his help with the statistical tests, Dr. Jeremy Tanner and the late Professor Peter Ucko for sharing their thoughts with me on art and figurines, Dr. Paul Halstead, Dr. Valasia Isaakidou and Dr. Peter Tomkins for their constructive comments on aspects of the analysis. Many thanks to Phillip Judge for drawing the map on p. i. All of the above have helped with their advice and comments, and any errors are entirely my own. I am grateful to Professor John Evans for granting me permission to study the unpublished figurines from the 1969-1970 excavations at Knossos, which helped confirm the patterns already detected in the analysed sample. A long overdue thanks is also owed to Dr. Yvonne Marshall, whose lectures on gender archaeology when I was an undergraduate inspired me to embark on this exciting voyage of discovery. A note of appreciation is owed to the collaboration of staff at the libraries of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, Institute of Classical Studies (University of London), British Library, British School at Athens and School of Oriental and African Studies (University of London). I would like to thank both my parents, Konstantinos Minas and Kalliopi Mina, who provided me with moral and financial support that enabled me to devote my undisturbed energy to academic research. Further thanks are owed to my siblings Niki and Minas who have and will continue to encourage and inspire me. Finally, I am grateful to Dr. Simon Phillips for proofreading the final version of the text, for his patience, love and encouragement.

vii

viii

Abbreviations

Chronological periods: Cont EBA EB (I, II, III) EC (I, II, III) EH (I, II, III) EM (I, II, III) EN FN LBA LM LN MBA MN PPNA PPNB

site of continuous (Neolithic or Early Bronze Age) use Early Bronze Age Early Bronze (I, II, III) Early Cycladic (I, II, III) Early Helladic (I, II, III) Early Minoan (I, II, III) Early Neolithic Final Neolithic Late Bronze Age Late Minoan Late Neolithic Middle Bronze Age Middle Neolithic Pre-pottery Neolithic A Pre-pottery Neolithic B

Figurine-related classification: A Amb F Ff M na PA PF Pff PM

Asexual Ambiguous Female Female form Male non-applicable Probably Asexual Probably Female Probably Female form Probably Male

ix

x

Chapter 1 Introduction

The present work focuses on the study of gender in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (EBA) periods in the Aegean. More specifically, it seeks to explore the ways in which gender was dynamically constructed, enacted and negotiated through daily interactions and practices in early prehistoric communities of the Aegean. The proposed interpretation relies on the systematic analysis of anthropomorphic figurines of the Neolithic and EBA Aegean. The present study critically reviews earlier interpretations, but more importantly, explores the resulting implications for the understanding of the Neolithic and EBA societies of the Aegean.

For the purpose of analysis and interpretation, the discussion on the Neolithic is presented according to an earlier and later phase corresponding roughly to the periods ca. 6800-5300 cal. B.C. and ca. 5300-3200 cal. B.C. respectively. The continuous development of the EN and MN phases (Demoule and Perlès 1993, 368), as well as trends from the LN for changes at a socio-economic level suggest a differentiation between earlier and later Neolithic phases (Tomkins 2004, 57), also paralleled in the sample under study. The EBA period is subdivided into the following phases in cal. BC: EB 1: 3100/3000 - 2700/2650 EB 2: 2700/2650 - 2200/2150 EB 3: 2200/2150 - 2050/2000 (Manning 1995).

The geographical and chronological parameters that demarcate the field of the present study are as follows. The regions discussed coincide with the borders of the modern state of Greece, consisting therefore of its geographical divisions of mainland (Thrace, Macedonia, Epirus, Thessaly, Central Mainland [Attica and Boeotia] and the Peloponnese) and insular (Ionian Islands, isles of the North and East Aegean, the Sporades, Euboia, the Cyclades, the Dodecanese and Crete) districts. Even though the data is presented following the municipal district system of modern Greece, the results are nevertheless discussed in relation to similar or differing cultural traits across regions. I have not assumed cultural homogeneity for the areas under investigation, thus avoiding the supposition that the Aegean as a whole can be studied as a uniform cultural unit. I am also aware of the artificial separation that has been imposed on the data by delineating modern Greece from the surrounding Balkan and Anatolian prehistoric cultures, but practical constraints often call for pragmatic decisions. I would note, however, that data from peripheral areas of the Aegean, appear to echo patterns that characterise the bordering Balkan and Anatolian cultures, affording thus an insight into patterns of figurine use and meaning in the wider cultural environment of the region.

Figurines have been selected as the medium for the study of gender roles and relations in the Neolithic and EBA Aegean mainly because of their anthropomorphic character. Moreover, their unbroken usage spanning both periods, as well as their quantity and distribution over most of the Aegean, provided me with an ideal basis for diachronic analysis. The studied sample comprises 1,660 published figurines in total, though comparison with unpublished material, which has not been included in the sample, so far confirms the general detected pattern. The results of the analysed sample have been weighed against other types of evidence from the same archaeological and cultural context to ensure figurines are not studied in a vacuum. The adopted theoretical perspectives and methodological strategies, explained in more detail elsewhere, have enabled me to approach figurines of both periods as a unified corpus. As mentioned earlier, the aim of the present study is to explore gender in the prehistoric Aegean. More specifically, gender is being examined in terms of construction, performance and negotiation. The present study intends on one level to detect fluctuating patterns of gender dynamics in the Neolithic and EBA periods respectively. On a second level, the observations are compared diachronically in order to investigate rhythms of social development or episodes of stasis in societies taken to represent different cultural traditions. Ultimately, the findings serve to reassess social models that have been proposed for the explanation of the Neolithic and EBA periods in the Aegean in terms of unilinear or fluctuating rhythms of social development.

Regarding chronology, I have followed the schema conventionally used in Aegean prehistory. For Neolithic Crete specifically I have opted for the dating scheme proposed by Peter Tomkins (2001) which enables a synchronised analysis with the rest of the Aegean. The Neolithic chronology used for the mainland and insular Aegean, and its sub-phases in cal. B.C. is as follows: Aceramic: ca. 6800 - 6500 Early Neolithic: ca. 6500 - 5800 Middle Neolithic: ca. 5800 - 5300 Late Neolithic: ca. 5300 - 4500 Final Neolithic: ca. 4500 - 3200 (Demoule and Perlès 1993).

The present study addresses a number of explicit research questions, a summarised list of which is presented below:

1

Introduction

1. How was gender categorised and constructed in Neolithic and EBA Aegean society based on anthropomorphic figurine representations? 2. What are the implications regarding the meaning and use of anthropomorphic figurines? How were figurines actively involved in the construction and negotiation of gender in the Neolithic and EBA Aegean? 3. What can we infer about the role and status of gender categories in the early prehistoric Aegean? 4. How do the results of figurine analysis fit with patterns of the archaeological record and what are the implications concerning the dynamics between genders? 5. What conclusions can we draw from the study of figurines and associated evidence concerning gender and socioeconomic organisation in the transition from the Neolithic to EBA society in the Aegean? 6. How does gender archaeology inform our understanding of early prehistoric Aegean society? In the chapters that follow, the reader is provided with detailed information regarding the analysis and interpretation of anthropomorphic figurines. Chapter 2 opens the discussion by drawing the cultural backdrop of the Neolithic and EBA Aegean against which figurines and gender are discussed. Chapter 3 explains the theoretical framework in which the analysis is carried out, and introduces the main terms and key issues concerning the present study. Chapter 4 summarises the methodological strategies adopted for the purposes of the study. Chapters 5 and 6 present the analysis of the Neolithic and EBA samples respectively. In Chapter 7 a synthesised interpretation is proposed for both periods under investigation. Finally, appendices 1-4 provide the reader with additional information that illustrates and supports the points raised in the body of the main text through the use of statistical tests, lists if sites, drawings and a concordance of the analysed sample.

2

Chapter 2 Setting the background

This chapter intends to provide the backdrop against which the analysis, results and proposed interpretation are discussed. It is divided into three sections: the first section presents a historical and critical review of earlier interpretations of Neolithic and EBA Aegean anthropomorphic figurines in terms of methodological and theoretical approaches. The second part provides a critical appraisal of earlier studies of figurines and gender in the wider field of prehistoric Mediterranean, Balkan and Aegean archaeological studies. Finally, the third section presents a summarised discussion of the Neolithic and EBA Aegean culture with a special focus on social organisation and gender.

theory, such as Nilsson (1927), Crawford (1957), von ClesReden (1960), Vermeule (1964) and Hawkes (1968). The work by Ucko represents the first systematic study of Aegean figurines as expressions of material culture, with a clear agenda to dispel the matrifocal myth for Neolithic society. Through an anthropological approach, Ucko proposed an array of possible uses for these figurines, as opposed to the ritual usage that was being suggested up to that point. A number of systematic studies of Neolithic figurines were conducted in the last three decades, represented mainly by the works of Hourmouziadis (1973), Talalay (1983), Marangou (1992) and Orphanidi (1998). Such works have provided useful information regarding the form, circulation and manufacture of figurines. The main representative of a critical and theorised discussion of Aegean Neolithic figurines is Talalay. Her later published work (1987, 1991, 1993, 2000, 2005) is concerned with the involvement of figurines in processes of social organisation and negotiation, economy, power and gender. The works by Orphanidi (1992) and Kokkinidou and Nikolaidou (1993, 1997) also belong to the new wave of studies that emerged in the early nineties which explored the link between female figurines and the place of women in Neolithic Aegean societies. More recent works by Nanoglou (2004, 2005) have also placed an emphasis on figurines’ dynamic involvement in processes that underpin the construction of social subjects.

2.1 The study of Neolithic and EBA Aegean anthropomorphic figurines: past and present 2.1.1 Neolithic figurines The study of Aegean Neolithic figurines has been systematised in the last twenty years. The earliest references (apart from casual mentions in excavation reports as finds of special interest) can be found in illustrated catalogues of early prehistoric Aegean art and culture. Such is the case with the two volumes by Zervos (1957, 1962) which emphasised the skills required for the production of figurines and their expressed aestheticism, but lacked a systematic approach and critical discussion of the meaning and use of figurines. A similar line of approach was followed by Thimme (1977) who also included figurines in an exhibition catalogue of distinctive finds from the prehistoric Cyclades.

In summary, since the early nineties, and as gender archaeology opened up a new avenue for the understanding of social organisation, prehistoric figurines from the Balkans, Anatolia, Cyprus and Italy were interpreted as material culture that offered valuable insights into the organisation of early societies (see a Campo, 1994; Bailey 1994a, 1994b, 1996, 2005; Bolger 1996, 2003; Chapman 2000, 2001; Frankel 1997, Gallis 2001, Hamilton 2000, Hitchcock 1997, Holmes and Whitehouse 1998, Langdon 1999, Lee 2000, Whitehouse 2001). It is precisely in this academic context that we need to place the new wave of Aegean figurine studies. I am optimistic that critical works will continue to be produced and throw light on some of the fundamental issues regarding the social organisation and ideology of the early inhabitants of the Aegean.

A different line of approach aimed to integrate figurines in the wider interpretation and understanding of Neolithic culture. Neolithic Aegean figurines became central in studies advocating the Mother-Goddess theory, widely promoted through the works of Gimbutas (1982, 1989). In summary, Gimbutas interpreted Neolithic female figurines of ‘Old Europe’ [extending from the Aegean and Adriatic, mainland and insular, as far north as Czechoslovakia, southern Poland and the western Ukraine (Gimbutas 1974, 17)] as testimonies for the existence of a female-based cult, in turn evidence for a matrifocal past. Since the Aegean was part of ‘Old Europe’, Greek Neolithic figurines were also interpreted in the same light, as in the case of the Achilleion assemblage (Gimbutas 1989). A reaction to the Mother-Goddess hypothesis was expressed through the work of Ucko (1968), which predated the main works by Gimbutas, but was contemporary and later to the works of other proponents of the Mother-Goddess

2.1.2 EBA figurines The trajectory followed for the study of Aegean EBA figurines differs markedly from that of their Neolithic counterparts. Starting with the differences, EBA figurines have been

3

Setting the background

approached largely from an art historical perspective with an emphasis on their aesthetic attributes. Cycladic figurines, in particular, have received the attention of most of the researchers. This bias has resulted from the artistic value that Cycladic figurines have been loaded with and the tendency to interpret them as a diachronic expression of human art rather than archaeological finds (see Doumas 2002, 13, 91). Cycladic figurines have also been declared as the first form of European art and a greatly contributing force to Art in general (see Papathanassopoulos 1981, 181; Petrasch 1977, 9; Renfrew 1977a, 30; Renfrew 1977b, 70; Renfrew 1991, 187; Thimme 1977, 11). Such attitudes, coupled with the art market value that has been attached to figurines, has further hindered their study. Moreover, the emphasis placed on Cycladic figurines has divorced them from figurine assemblages of the wider archaeological and cultural context, causing therefore a fragmentation in the field of figurine studies of the EBA Aegean.

Neolithic. In addition, no attempts have been made to bridge the gap between Neolithic and EBA figurines, with the exception of C. Marangou (1992) whose work included a LN and EBA corpus. While the study of Neolithic Aegean figurines is characterised by critical awareness, EBA figurines are still kept outside current debates developing in theoretical, social archaeology and cultural anthropology. The recent works by Broodbank (2000, 58-65, 247-275), Hoffman (2002) and Papadatos (2003) mark a new trend, though the gap between Neolithic and EBA figurines still remains to be bridged. Indeed, one of the aims of the present study is to unify a class of artefacts that was being continually produced from the Aceramic Neolithic and through to the EBA. The opportunity for such a diachronic study enables us to trace material, but also social changes that shaped human agents and societies in the early prehistoric Aegean.

2.2 Figurines insinuations

As mentioned earlier, EBA figurines have been approached mainly through an art historical perspective with an emphasis on typology. Though such approaches can contribute to our understanding of figurine production, they nevertheless do not suffice to explain their use in a social context. An art historical approach characterises the works by Getz-Preziosi (1987a, 1987b, 1994; Getz-Gentle 2001), Renfrew (1977b, 1991) and Zervos (1957). Other works by Renfrew (1969) and SapounaSakellaraki (1983) proposed a typological schema for the development of figurines, an attempt that has been criticised, mainly because of its evolutionary approach and selective use of specimens (Broodbank 1992, 545; Gill and Chippindale 1993, 627-8). In other works, comments on the social dimension of figurines are implied and limited, with little reference to their cultural context. Such works have been produced by Fitton (1984b, 1989) and C. Marangou (1992, 1996, 1997a, 1997b). Finally, a common tactic in the studies of EBA figurines has been the inclusion of unprovenanced figurines (and thus potentially forged) in the discussion of typologies and meaning. A reaction to such approaches has been expressed by Broodbank (1992) and Gill and Chippindale (1993) who have urged archaeologists for a cautious study of the Cycladic corpus, away from aestheticism and modernist ideas that treat figurines as art objects. More recent works by Broodbank (2000, 58-65; 2000, 247-275), Hoffman (2002) and Papadatos (2003) indicate a move away from the traditional approaches to EC figurines and express a concern with figurines as part of social processes.

and

gender:

suggestions

and

2.2.1 Neolithic figurines in the Aegean and beyond As already mentioned, two lines of approach have influenced the study of Neolithic figurines of Europe, and of the Aegean in particular, that of the Mother-Goddess theory and its polemics. In the first case, Gimbutas stands as the main proponent for the existence of a Mother-Goddess cult in the Neolithic, allegedly also indicated by the predominance of female figurines. Gimbutas and other scholars (Nillson 1927, Vermeule 1964), therefore, have interpreted figurines as representations of the Mother-Goddess, alluding to a matriarchal (or matrifocal) Neolithic past, when women held an especially elevated social status. On the other hand, the work of Ucko (1968) and more recent studies have followed a different interpretative line whereby figurines do not support the practice of a Mother-Goddess cult and hence the existence of a matriarchal/matrifocal past. Neolithic figurines from the Aegean and other parts of SE Europe have been interpreted in terms of their representation and meaning which imply either a preoccupation with women’s social and economic role (Hamilton 1996, 2000; Kokkinidou and Nikolaidou 1993, 55-63; 1997; Orphanidis-Georgiadis 1992; Whitehouse 2001), or involvement in processes of gender construction and negotiation (Bailey 1994a, 1996). The fragmented state of figurines has been interpreted as an intention from the part of prehistoric people to emphasise elements of maleness, femaleness or bisexuality, thus revealing changes of the figurine’s represented gender, but also of material culture and its gender associations (Chapman 2000, 78, 79). Regarding the use of Neolithic Aegean figurines, a number of suggestions have been put forward on the basis of ethnographic evidence, including their employment as dolls (Bailey 2005, Kokkinidou and Nikolaidou 1997, Talalay 1993, Ucko 1968), ancestral images or portraits (Bailey 2005, Gallis

In conclusion, the study of Aegean EBA figurines largely lacks a critical theorisation and is still very much part of the art historical tradition, which has resulted in the exclusion of figurines from discussions on social organisation. Moreover, modern biases regarding art and gender relationships have coloured the interpretations of EBA figurines and have led to a number of unfounded androcentric assumptions. A result of androcentric biases has been the implied acceptance of Gimbutas’ interpretative scenario by advocating the rise of male dominance, following the matriarchal/matrifocal

4

4

Setting the background

2001, Kokkinidou and Nikolaidou 1993, 60; 1997; Talalay 1993), protective charms (Talalay 1993), votives (Bailey 2005; Gallis 2001), pedagogic tools (Kokkinidou and Nikolaidou 1993, 60; 1997; Ucko 1968) or objects of sympathetic magic (Kokkinidou and Nikolaidou 1993, 60; 1997; Ucko 1968). Alternatively, figurines have also been interpreted as a form of contracts that forged social contacts between communities (Talalay 1987), or secured rights over land resources and community territories (Talalay 1991). More recently, Chapman (2000, 2001) has proposed that the fragmented state of figurines and their deliberate deposition and circulation in the Balkans indicates their use in the process of ‘enchainment’, whereby relations are maintained between the living and the dead, but also between the living members of the same or distant communities.

is also apparent in other works, but because the figurines in question do not have a safe provenance, they have been excluded from the present discussion. It is characteristic, however, that, as in the case of the Vix burial (Arnold 1991), there is a resistance to acknowledge powerful female representations that challenge the existing model of gender roles in past societies. Another strand of androcentric interpretations have produced conclusions unsupported by the evidence with implications for the status of women. Such works have suggested (among other possibilities) that figurines represented female concubines (Fitton 1989, Morris 1985 and Orphanides 1982 on Cypriot figurines), indicating thus the passive role of women in a maledominated society (see also Bolger 1996 for discussion of Early Cypriot figurines). Susan Sherratt has argued that female figurines support a general scenario, whereby “the acquisition of women from other island communities by exchange (and perhaps even sometimes by force) forms an important part of elite male ideology and lifestyle in an environment in which male and female social and economic roles are likely to have been increasingly differentiated, and in which women - no less than silver drinking cups or livestock - can be seen in their own right, with the ability to confer status on their possessors…” (2000, 135-136). The suggestion even includes the possibility that female figurines were handled like forms of soft pornography: “the collection of Early Cycladic figurines sometimes appears almost as a form of soft pornography though, in a way, this may indeed reflect at least some aspect of the ideas originally embodied in them” (2000, 152), a scenario highly reminiscent of Guthrie’s (1977) suggestion proposing a pornographic use for Palaeolithic female figurines. Broodbank has also argued for women’s passive role concerning male-lead piracy tactics and exogamous necessities in the small island communities of the Cyclades (2000, 253). Reactions have been expressed towards androcentric interpretations of EBA society through the study of figurines. Frankel (1997) has criticised Bolger’s (1996) interpretation of Early Cypriot figurines as indication for the emergence of patriarchal EBA society. Barber (1984) in her discussion of Aegean figurines has attempted to give women a central role in EBA Aegean society, though the focus was placed on a biological, rather than socio-economic level.

2.2.2 EBA figurines in the Aegean and beyond There is no explicit discussion of EBA Aegean figurines in terms of gender or social organisation. Only casual suggestions have been expressed about figurines and gender as a sideline to prehistoric religious systems. At the same time there is a tendency to fit gender-related suggestions into a preconceived model of a male-dominated EBA society. I have been able to distinguish two main lines of thought, the more common proposing that female figurines represent divinities or religious symbols, without further discussion concerning the implications for gender. Others have gone further to suggest that figurines indicate a status differentiation between men and women, with the latter being subordinate. There is a lack of critical awareness on how the evidence might support such statements or what implications result from such androcentric conclusions. The interpretation of figurines and gender in EBA Aegean society almost follows along the lines of Morgan’s (1877) and Engels’ (1884) evolutionary stages, marking a shift from the matriarchal Neolithic to the emergence of patriarchy with the advent of the EBA (an argument which has also been supported by Gimbutas in her Mother-Goddess theory). As mentioned earlier, a number of interpretations have proposed figurines as representations of female divinities (see Fitton 1989, Gesell 1985, Höckmann 1977, SapounaSakellaraki 1983, Warren 1973, Xanthoudides 1918, Zervos 1957). There is no elaboration, however, on the implications for the understanding of gender in the EBA Aegean. Other works have proposed that figurines (mainly Cycladic or of Cycladic type) indicate a power and status differentiation between men and women. Such interpretations have been based on the discussion of unprovenanced pieces (hunterwarrior figurines), or on selected specimens, while excluding their female or asexual parallels (see Getz-Preziosi 1987a, 1994; Zervos 1957). Other interpretations are characterised by an unwillingness to acknowledge representations that have been traditionally viewed as signs of male power. As a result, figurines that are obviously marked anatomically as female, have been interpreted as male warriors (e.g. Zervos 1957), or as seated male divinities (e.g. Marinatos 1933). The same trend

Finally, regarding the use of Aegean figurines, they have been interpreted mainly as expressions of the prevailing system of beliefs. Their funerary associations suggest a concern with the after-life (Fitton 1989, Getz-Preziosi 1987a, 1987b, 1994; Höckmann 1977, Renfrew 1984, Zervos 1957), while the discussion regarding the use of figurines in Cycladic settlements has been divided between those supporting their employment in a public context (Getz-Preziosi 1982, Renfrew 1991) or domestic sanctuaries (Davis 1984 for the Cyclades; Marangou, C. 1997b for the North-East Aegean; Warren 1973 for Crete) and those arguing against figurines’ use in public cult places (Broodbank 1992, 2000; Gill and Chippindale 1993).

5

5

Setting the background

Even today, the prevailing art historical approach largely restrains the study of EBA Aegean figurines, while no attempts have been made to explore their association with gender. The Aegean figurine assemblage remains fragmented and calls for a re-examination through a material culture approach that can offer us valuable insights into EBA social organisation. A promising avenue for analysis is suggested by the work of Whitehouse (2001) on Italian figurines, which placed them in their general material and cultural context and then compared them with other types of evidence as a way of drawing information regarding gender.

and the surrounding quarters coincide with the boundaries that may have existed at a social level between people and performed roles or activities (Halstead 1995, 14; Kotsakis 1999, 71). Such separation between settlement areas suggests that the settlement was organised according to a mental order that restricted and controlled the physical movement of people inside the site (and not necessarily a central authority; see Kotsakis 1996). In the FN period, the presence of larger and many small sites clearly suggests that a clear hierarchy existed between settlements. In the period of the FN and EB I, two trends become apparent: some Neolithic sites continue to be occupied, while new sites were also founded. A higher density of population was reached in the Aegean as a whole and new agriculturally marginal regions were exploited. The settlement pattern of central Macedonia, however, is characterised by stable residence in the form of tell villages (Halstead 1994, 200). At the same time, fortified coastal sites make their appearance for the first time, as in the case of Pefkakia (Andreou et al 1996, 547). The differences from the earlier Neolithic period became even more prominent in the EB II phase when significant sites located in coastal areas became involved in maritime activities and the control of goods. At the same time (EH II) sites on the mainland demonstrate complex structures in the form of Corridor Houses or the Round structure at Tiryns, but also an early stage of urbanisation, which, however, does not continue in the EH III (Konsola 1986). An interesting level of urbanisation was also reached in parts of the east Aegean (Troy, Poliochni, Thermi, Emborio) with evidence for special function buildings, town planning and fortifications, also indicating their role as primary centres in the wider region (Cosmopoulos 1995, 30). In the Cyclades, however, the evidence suggests a more balanced settlement pattern with no apparent hierarchy, though in the Kastri phase (late EB II) there is a decrease in the number of sites and a move away from the coast to more remote locations (Cosmopoulos 1995, 30-31). Evidence also suggests discontinuity of the central EB II sites in the EB III, leading to the emergence of new nucleated patterns (Broodbank 2000, 335, 348). Finally, the situation on Crete shows an increase of population as indicated by the increase in settlements overall and the existence of large sites (Branigan 1995, 35). More specifically, farmsteads and hamlets played a central role in the settlement pattern alongside the larger nucleated sites (such as Knossos, Mallia, A. Triada, Phaistos) (Branigan 1995, 34). Evidence for monumental architecture has also emerged from EM II Palaikastro and EM III Knossos (Branigan 1995, 34).

2.3 Neolithic and EBA Aegean culture This following section summarises the Neolithic and EBA Aegean culture and the changes that this transition entailed on a socio-economic level. This review intends to draw a general picture of early Aegean prehistory, which provides the backdrop against which we need to place the analysis and interpretation of figurines.

2.3.1 Settlement In the early stages of the EN, evidence indicates an abrupt expansion of settlements, followed by stability in the EN2 phase. The overall settlement pattern is characterised by dispersal in a variety of environments, though Thessaly demonstrates a much higher density of sites than other Aegean regions (Perlès 2001, 150-1). Following the EN2 and EN3 phases, evidence suggests abandonment of a quarter of sites for the whole of the duration of the MN, possibly linked to environmental transformations (Perlès 2001, 148-150). For most of the Neolithic period, however, the Aegean was not densely populated until the LN when evidence suggests an expansion into regions that were settled systematically for the first time. Prior to the LN, the general pattern shows that the sites preferred for permanent settlement were concentrated in fertile lowlands and in proximity to water sources (i.e. primarily Thessaly, but also Macedonia). In the LN period of expansion the areas of SE and SW mainland and eastern Macedonia became populated (Halstead 1994). The same model also applies on Crete, while other regions, such as most of the Aegean islands, and the Cyclades in particular, are inhabited permanently for the first time (Broodbank 2000, 144; Davis 1992). Population levels show a growing trend in community size, reaching 50 to almost 300 per settlement by the last Neolithic phases (Halstead 1995).

2.3.2 Economy

The Neolithic Aegean is not characterised by uniformity in the organisation or form of the occupation sites. We can discern, however, three main types, which are flat open-air settlements, tells and caves. It is not until the LN, however, that we see a higher degree of sophistication in the way settlements were organised and planned. This trend characterises mainly two Thessalian sites (Dimini and Sesklo), where the demarcation between activity areas and the division between the acropolis

i. Subsistence economy Neolithic subsistence economy was mainly based on smallscale agriculture, stable gardening and animal husbandry (Halstead 1981). The hypothesis of ‘social storage’ that has been proposed by Halstead (1989) explains the strategy that

6

6

Setting the background

Neolithic households would have followed at times of crisis. Social storage provided a net of interdependence as households exchanged their stored surplus to ensure survival. The situation changed in the LN when competition over production (a result of population increase) and elite control over agricultural surplus, labour and exchange disturbed the social symmetry between households (Halstead 1989, 1995). The evidence for expansion into new agricultural zones (Broodbank 2000, 1459; Davis 1992) is indicative of the competition over land resources and inequalities between households of different regions.

In the EBA, a higher complexity is evident as suggested by specialisation, intensified trading activities and the movement of raw materials and finished products. The circulation and processing of metals in EB II led to the emergence of certain sites that dominated metal extraction, working and trading. New material forms resulted from the new technology, such as weaponry, jewellery, tools and toilet articles (Renfrew 1972, 320-4, 328-9, 333-6). Those involved in metallurgy, craftspeople and traders, would have formed a new class of specialists, although the seasonality of seafaring would not have allowed them to be occupied all year round (Broodbank 2000, 287). Other products, such as stone vases, marble figurines and pottery (Mirabello and Vasiliki on Crete) also indicate further specialisation. Finally, the use of seals and sealings also indicates a higher level of economic complexity and suggestions have been expressed about their use as evidence for redistribution or ownership (Pullen 1994b, Weingarten 1997, Wiencke 1989).

In the EBA period, agriculture and herding for mixed-purpose household needs play a major role in subsistence economy with some indication of possible specialisation in animal husbandry (Halstead 1996, 27, 33). The possibility that vines and olives were first cultivated in this period has also been proposed by Renfrew (1972) and Halstead (1981), a debate that lies behind attempts to explain the transition from the Neolithic to the EBA period (for the transition debate see Gilman 1981 and 1991, Halstead 1995, Hamilakis 1996, Hansen 1988, Pullen 1992, Runnels and Hansen 1986, Sherratt 1981 and 1987, Stager 1985, van Andel and Runnels 1988,). The general picture, however, suggests that the closed arrangement of cooking facilities in the FN and EBA periods reflects less sharing between households (Halstead 1994, 207). Furthermore, eidoloplastic evidence from Tsoungiza implying ploughing has been interpreted as a sign of intensified agriculture, further indicating social and economic inequalities, since oxen as traction animals would not have been owned by every household (Pullen 1992). As a result of intensified production, households in a more advantageous position expanded their wealth through social storage and ensured their position as economically and politically powerful groups (Halstead 1989).

iii. Trade and exchange Commodities that circulated in the Neolithic included fine goods, exotic raw materials, stone tools, pottery, seals, occasionally figurines and metal objects in the FN (Halstead 1994, 207; Nakou 1995, Renfrew 1972, 444-8). In addition, limited evidence has been interpreted as showing contact between Crete and Anatolia and the Cyclades (Branigan 1974). The EBA, despite the uneven circulation of products throughout the whole period, exhibits a wider repertoire of exchanged objects namely raw materials and metal objects, pottery, marble bowls and figurines (Renfrew 1972, 451, 454). The origin of the objects that circulated and the regions in which they have been recovered indicate the following trade or exchange routes: North Aegean and the Pontic region (Nakou 1995), the Cyclades and Crete, mainland and Crete through the Cyclades (Rutter and Zerner 1984), as well as Crete and Egypt (Krzyszkowska 1981). As far as Cycladic material culture is concerned, its distribution within the Aegean may be linked to exportation and emulation or even migrations of Cycladic populations to northern Crete (Day et al 1998; Hood 1990). We should not assume, however, that Cycladic objects were used in the same cultural context in regions outside the Cyclades (Branigan 1970, Carter 1998). An explanation offered for the wider distribution of materials and long-distance interaction between regions of the Aegean suggests that they reflect the formation of alliances necessary at difficult economic times (Halstead 1994, 207).

ii. Craft production and circulation of products In the Neolithic, evidence for substantial EN and MN production in terms of quantity and variety, as well as the level of technical knowledge, suggest the existence of specialists from an early stage (Perlès and Vitelli 1999, 97, 98, 100). Concerning the procurement of materials, we know that exotic raw lithic materials were used at Aegean sites and they may have come from long distances. These materials circulated either in the form of cores, or as finished products which indicate a certain degree of expertise in the domain of lithic technology, but also a differentiation between specialised activities (Perlès and Vitelli 1999, 97, 100). Furthermore, the fact that raw materials have been recovered from LN sites, suggests some level of organisation of procurement and production (Perlès and Vitelli 1999, 97, 100). Other manufactured products in the Neolithic include figurines, shell and stone ornaments, stone vases and seals, as well as metal objects from the LN to FN period (see Branigan 1974, Coleman 1977, 3, 5 for stone and metal objects; Demoule and Perlès 1993, Stos-Gale 1989).

2.3.3 Burials The burial evidence for the Neolithic period is scanty and indicates that there was no uniformity of funerary customs across the Aegean. The known burial practices included child burials under house floors (Evans 1964), inhumations inside rock shelters (Davis 1992), cremations contained in urns (Andreou et al 1996), as well as dismembered inhumations

7

7

Setting the background

scattered inside settlements (Andreou et al 1996). The first burials that indicate intentional care paid to the dead date to the LN and FN phases and have been found at the grave cemeteries of Kephala (Coleman 1977) and the cave of Aghia Triada on Euboia (Davis 1992, 96), while interments inside caves were still practised also on Crete (Pendlebury and Money-Coutts 1939a, Tzedakis 1966, Vagnetti and Belli 1978). The objects found in association with burials included figurines and ceramics.

early Neolithic society is still described as effectively egalitarian (2001, 284). Moreover, evidence for some craft specialisation and the knowledge of distant places for the procurement of obsidian and honey-coloured flint could have operated on the level of status differentiation (Perlès 2001, 284-5). However, Perlès does not argue for a hierarchical society; rather the demographic factor in the densely populated areas of Thessaly and Macedonia is seen as the instigator of “increased heterarchy” (2001, 290).

A very different picture is presented by the EBA funerary evidence, which indicates greater attention and emphasis placed on burials as expressed through expended labour for architecturally visible burials. Such structures took the form of burial chambers of varied types (Sampson 1988b, Table 6), tholoi (Branigan 1970, 122), house tombs (Soles 1988, 59), burial tumuli (Rutter 1993, 761), ossuaries (Sampson 1988b, 48), while interments were also contained inside pithoi (Sampson 1988b, 48) and caves (Branigan 1988, 152). In some cases, grave goods accompanied the dead, although this did not constitute the norm (Branigan 1970, 84; Branigan 1993, 112; Doumas 1977, 58; Pullen 1994a, 127). Richly furnished burials, however, indicate another departure from Neolithic burial practices, that of wealth associated with the dead (see Branigan 1993, 71-5 for the range of prized grave goods; Renfrew 1972, 371), and an increased emphasis on social status. Some interpretations have proposed that burials expressed social differentiation (Branigan 1988; Soles 1988), though in the case of tholoi it is likely that they may have conveyed community identity and ties between kinship members (Blackman and Branigan 1973; Branigan 1998, 23), while at the same time they also served as territorial markers (Murphy 1998). It is not clear what level of social differentiation had been reached in the EBA. The evidence suggests, however, a very different treatment of the dead and a far more complex social nexus organised according to lineage ties, while the manipulation of social statements constituted a practice for the expression of wealth differentiation (Broodbank 2000, 267-272).

On the level of social relationships between community members, evidence seems to indicate a peaceful existence with a reliance on neighbouring households and alliances with households outside their community (Halstead 1989, 1999). The need for exogamy would have consolidated alliances and links between households from other settlements as a way of ensuring survival at times of economic crisis (Halstead 1989, Perlès 2001, 219). Regarding personal status, burials not only suggest social equality between households, but also indicate equality in terms of gender status between men and women, though children may have been considered a separate social category (Perlès 2001, 284). The limited mortuary record, therefore, suggests that Neolithic society was not organised hierarchically and that age may have played an important role in the categorisation of individuals (Perlès 2001, 284). Personal status, however, was differentiated in early Neolithic societies as suggested by the unequal distribution and restricted circulation of personal ornaments and stamp-seals in Macedonia and Thessaly which imply modification of external appearance (Perlès 2001, 288). In reference to gender roles, Perlès (2001, 301-302) has argued that evidence suggests a differentiation between gender (women’s roles tied to their lifegiving power and men’s high status expressed by the “enthroned” male figurines), but not necessarily a predominance of one over the other. On the other hand, Vitelli (1995) has postulated (at least for the earlier part of the Neolithic) that ceramic production was carried out by women, the knowledge and virtuosity of whom were probably perceived as a source of symbolic power. As I discuss later on, however, such inferences need to be carefully examined and should not be used with such readiness to explain labour organisation in prehistoric societies. A similar argument for women’s central role in the economy of Neolithic society, as a result of their marked contribution to subsistence, has been put forward by Chapman (1991, 157) in reference to SE Europe on the basis of an ethnographic correlation between figurines representing deities and women’s role in society’s economy.The assumption, however, that predominantly female figurines represent deities is problematic on many levels.

2.3.4 Neolithic social organisation and implications for gender The earlier part of the Neolithic (EN, MN) does not show signs of social inequality; rather the estimated size of the population is more indicative of egalitarian societies where sharing of resources played an important role in the process of social cohesion with the family constituting the main social unit (Halstead and O’Shea 1982, Halstead 1995). An alternative interpretation for the MN suggests that the biased distribution of pottery in two spatially distinct sectors of Sesklo indicates social inequality (Maniatis et al 1988), though Demoule and Perlès (1993, 384) have warned against such conclusions in the lack of sufficient evidence. A slightly more complex picture for the earlier Neolithic has been drawn by Perlès (2001) which recognises degrees of social inequality, such as achieved personal status, rather than institutionalised inequality, though

In the later Neolithic (LN, FN) the picture of social equilibrium changes with the beginning of the LN when architectural and spatial evidence indicates a shift from sharing to hoarding causing unequal accumulations of resources (Halstead and O’Shea 1982, Halstead 1995, Kotsakis 1999). Such evidence suggests the emergence of elite households through the mechanisms of social storage and the subsequent nucleation of populations around such elite households (Halstead and

8

8

Setting the background

O’Shea 1982, Halstead 1995). It is from this point that evidence indicates competition between households over surplus at times of crisis, while alternative routes for the formation of alliances through marriage or exchange ensured a safety nexus between elite households from different communities (Halstead 1989, 1999). In addition, the walls demarcating parts of LN and FN sites have been interpreted as an expression of inequality (Kotsakis 1999, 71) which may have even become institutionalised, as suggested by Halstead (1989, 76). Despite the lack of evidence for complex, large sites, this pattern intensified in the FN period when the production of copper objects became centrally controlled and replaced fine pottery in the strategy of social storage (Halstead 1989 contra Demoule and Perlès 1993, 406). The mortuary evidence, however, does not suggest status differences, though gender differences may be reflected by the two different types of burial at Plateau Magoula Zarkou (Demoule and Perlès 1993, 396-7).

non-institutionalised inter-personal relationships (see Giddens 1984, 1987; Miller and Tilley 1984), it is difficult to explore the issue any further based on the available data. For this reason, I have chosen to focus on power differences as expressed through rank. Mortuary evidence from late cemeteries provides limited indications for hereditary status or elaboration (Papathanassopoulos 1996), suggesting that as a rule rank differences were not greatly marked. It is possible, therefore, that status was generally constructed on a basis other than economic resources (Wason 1994, 85). Furthermore, mortuary evidence does not indicate that men and women held unequal social positions in Neolithic society. In addition, the evidence does not show an unequal representation of one sex, which would imply a differentiation of status based on gender (see Brown 1981, 29). A similar idea has been put forward for Çatal Hüyük where again the evidence (despite its wealth in comparison to Aegean sites) indicates a very low level of ranking with an equal status between men and women (Wason 1994, 178). On the other hand, the Aegean mortuary record suggests a distinction between children and adults (see Broodbank 1992, 60). Such distinct attitudes towards one segment of the population indicates that age played an underlying role for the attainment of full personhood and gender status among community members (Lucy 2005, 63). Furthermore, distinct treatment towards age groups also indicates the stage at which individuals were recognised as economic contributors (Derevenski 1997, 887; Scott 1999, 99).

As far as gender is concerned, the available literature does not provide any suggestions on social transformations in the later phase of the Aegean Neolithic, apart from Gimbutas who argued for the existence of a matrifocal system. As I have already argued, however, the work of Gimbutas and her followers is based on selective use of the evidence, which renders their interpretation problematic. Chapman (1991), in his discussion on social transformation in South-East Europe has suggested that the advances in subsistence economy, and the free time that was created as a result, led women to occupy themselves with other crafts. From this follows that the increased contribution of men to subsistence activities elevated their status in the Balkan Copper Age and thus allowed men to exert power over women through the ideological and political spheres (Chapman 1991, 164-5). A point to note, however, is that though in the Aegean there is an emerging emphasis on formalised burial practices, we have no evidence that could parallel that of the exceptional Varna cemetery, which has been taken to reflect social differentiation in terms of wealth and power. Moreover, the noted increase of male figurines in the Copper Age and Chapman’s assumption that they represented male divinities is again problematic, because it does not explain why the analogous evidence for female figurines is not used to support the reverse pattern for female domination over men in the earlier part of the Neolithic. I would propose that the increasing wealth and status differentiation emerging in the Copper Age did express a more complex pattern for the construction and communication of social identity, although that should perhaps be seen at the level of social group rather than personal demarcated status.

In summary, the Neolithic Aegean can be largely characterised as an egalitarian social order. At the same time, however, we need to acknowledge the relative complexity that characterised these communities, but also the interplay between the individual and group identity in relation to social status. Figurines representing individuals of a special position, funerary evidence for individual interments (Coleman 1977) and for unusually furnished adult and infant burials (Papathanassopoulos 1996) suggest that individuals were recognised as entities in their own right. At the same time, there is evidence for the performance of communal funerary rites (Triantaphyllou 1999), communal ossuaries (Papathanassopoulos 1996) and clearly delineated cemeteries that attest to collective group identity. The interplay between individual and group identity characterised social relationships at the level of gender and social status, as individuals became increasingly engrossed in the politics of social competition.

2.3.5 EBA social organisation and implications for gender In the explanatory models for the transition from the Neolithic to the EBA society, there has been an emphasis on emerging (relative) complexity, which was marked by a change from an effectively egalitarian society to a ranked system of social organisation. Whether the intensification of production (Gilman 1981, Halstead 1995, Pullen 1992, Sherratt 1981, 1987) and the emergence of “polyculture” (Renfrew 1972, Sherratt 1987) or increased trade (Gilman 1981, Nakou 1997, Runnels and Hansen 1986, Sherratt and Sherratt 1991, 1993;

The available evidence, therefore, suggests that there seems to be an increase in relative complexity in the later Neolithic, as marked by architectural and spatial arrangements, the introduction of new material forms, and the new emphasis placed on formalised burials. One way of approaching the social organisation of later Neolithic society is to explore the degree to which evidence indicates rank differences. Although power differences can take more subtle forms at the level of

9

9

Setting the background

van Andel and Runnels 1988) were regarded as the impetus behind socio-economic changes, the EBA has been interpreted as a period of marked hierarchy and status, as well as competition over resources (Halstead 1995, Pullen 1992, Renfrew 1972, Runnels and Hansen 1986, Sherratt 1981, van Andel and Runnels 1988). I believe that the degree and nature of the emerging complexity is an issue that requires careful discussion, but the evidence from the EBA nevertheless does show significant differences, though traces of the changing social landscape can already be detected from the FN (see Halstead 1995, Tomkins 2004).

two main forms: (a) single inhumations in demarcated burial spaces associated with a settlement, and (b) collective burials in one or more tombs belonging to a single community. The overall pattern concerning social status, as revealed through burial evidence (architectural construction, position in a cemetery or tomb and grave goods), indicates a marked differentiation between rich and poor graves which in turn is taken to correspond to higher and lower social rank. Though such limited evidence can be detected in the Neolithic (Papathanassopoulos 1996), the recurring pattern of the EBA suggests that society was characterised by an increased complexity in the way identities were constructed and communicated at a social level. Data that illustrate this point are available from cemeteries from western Greece (Branigan 1975, 42-3), the southern mainland (Pullen 1994a), Euboia (Sampson 1987, 1988), the Cyclades (Broodbank 2000, 262272; Doumas 1977, 1987; Renfrew 1972, 371) and Crete (Maggidis 1998, Soles 1988).

Starting with settlements, the available data from the southern mainland, Crete, the Cyclades and the NE Aegean suggest differentiation between households (Branigan 1988, Haggis 1999, Halstead 1994, Marthari 1997, Pullen 1994b, Wiencke 1989) indicating the existence of local elites which successfully exercised some form of control over the production and/or circulation of wealth. The larger architectural forms that make their appearance in extensive settlements on the southern mainland indicate that we should envisage a special status held by specific social groups (see Wason 1994, 112). Though the above picture serves to point out the obvious differences from the Neolithic period, we should bear in mind that not all EBA sites expressed the same degree of social complexity. The existence of a hierarchy of settlement types in the Aegean (Broodbank 2000, 86; Whitelaw 1983) implies a social organisation ranging from simple, egalitarian rural communities to the more formally ordered societies of larger sites (Whitelaw 1983).

If we now translate the available burial evidence into social action, we can begin to envisage an overlap, but also a sense of conflict, between personal identity and the survival of the community as a whole. Starting with the close association between burial places and their communities, as well as the care expressed through burial customs (construction of graves or communal tombs, associated rituals, grave goods), we can conclude that Aegean EBA society placed a conspicuous emphasis on lineage, association with the ancestors and assimilation into the community (Blackman and Branigan 1973; Murphy 1998). It is in this context, however, that we also need to discern a differentiation between social units and individuals that comprised a community. In the Cyclades, the clusters of single burials, later replaced by multiple inhumations, can be interpreted as evidence for a society organised on the basis of family or other social grouping (Doumas 1987, 17). A more powerful argument can be put forward for the EM tholoi of Crete, the contemporary use of which suggests that the associated communities were organised according to a clan or other kin system (Branigan 1988, Haggis 1999, Maggidis 1998). A similar suggestion has also been put forward for the burials from the mainland as the same graves were used successively over long periods of time (Pullen 1994a). Even though a considerable degree of variety characterised burial practices in the EBA Aegean, the overall pattern of the mortuary record suggests that communities were organised based on kin, clan or other extended family units. The coexistence of such groupings in one community would have been characterised by a degree of competition over resources, their acquisition and circulation, possibly the cause behind the detected patterns of differentiation between burials of the same cemetery.

In terms of population size, there is no uniform pattern across the Aegean. The settlement hierarchy also reflected both the density of population and the relative degree of complexity in terms of social organisation. At one end of the scale, therefore, we can classify sites such as Knossos with an estimated population of 1,290-1,940 (Whitelaw 1983, 339), as well as other settlements of the central mainland, the Peloponnese, Euboia and Aigina that demonstrate some level of embryonic urbanisation especially in the EB II phase (Konsola 1986). The existence of smaller sites of a rural character, however, also needs to be addressed. The situation is clearly exemplified by the farmsteads and hamlets located in the Cyclades with an estimated population of 5-10 and 11-50 accordingly (Broodbank 2000, 86). Even the largest Cycladic villages did not exceed 300 people per site (Broodbank 2000, 86), also suggested for the population of average nucleated settlements which would have reached several hundreds (Halstead 1995, 15-6). Exogamy would have been a necessity in such restricted communities, as it would have ensured the survival of a community through the mobility of people and the establishment of alliances (Broodbank 2000, 88-9).

Let us now turn our attention to personal status and the increased complexity in the way personal identities were constructed, as expressed by the differential burial type and association with grave goods. Such attempts may be revealing an intention of certain individuals to carve out a special position for themselves within their own community. However,

In the mortuary sphere, the LN and FN trend for formalised burial practices became the norm in the EBA period. Burial practices differed from area to area, but the increased emphasis placed by the community on their ancestors is a common theme throughout the Aegean. The burial practices of the EBA take

10

10

Setting the background

whether such attainments were the result only of achieved status is debatable, since the recovery of child burials from Phourni on Crete (Maggidis 1998, Figure 6.30, Skull no. 174) and Manika on Euboia (Sampson 1988, Table 14, Grave no. 69, 81, 134) in association with prestige objects is an indication often taken to suggest inherited status. Admittedly, care needs to be taken when drawing such conclusions when the associated prestige objects do not also constitute office markers. Nevertheless, achieved status may have acted as a parallel and alternative way in which individuals and their associated groups could have negotiated their position within their community, especially in the seafaring context of the Cyclades (Broodbank 2000, 86).

those spheres (Broodbank 2000, 96), would have allowed women to play an important economic role in replacing men in the previously predominantly male tasks (Sørensen 2000), though it would be simplistic to assume complete gender exclusion from labour domains. It is in fact in this context of new opportunities for women to enhance their status (Sørensen 2000) that we should explain the rich female burials from Manika (Sampson 1988, Table 14, Grave no. 37, 60, 62, 69, 78, 82, 103, 134, 150), as well as burial evidence that does not point to a differential treatment between men and women in the Aegean overall (Cosmopoulos 1995, 26). In conclusion, I would argue that the EBA archaeological record indicates an increased complexity in the way social groups identified themselves in relation to the Neolithic. The emergence of new material forms associated with personal identity (e.g. marble vessels, marble figurines, metal weapons, metal jewellery) would imply in turn a social complexity in the way status was marked emblematically in the EBA society (see Wason 1994, 115). The accumulation of wealth, as expressed through a greater variety of artefacts in quantitative and qualitative terms (Wason 1994, 116, 126) suggest social ranking, with a trend for increasing hierarchy (see Brown 1981, 29). Moreover, there is reason to believe that social status may have also been hereditary, even though the military element associated with high status markers is a strong indication that rank may have been dependent on achievement (Wason 1994, 85). Collective burials containing high status individuals, as in the case of Crete, implies that though society was organised on the basis of kin, achieved status could also be attained by individuals (see Wason 1994, 90). We can conclude, therefore, that as the social fabric and mechanisms defining social status changed from the Neolithic to the EBA period, we should also expect that gender, a structuring category of equal importance, would not have remained unaffected by the new order.

Other evidence that throws more light on the place individuals held in their communities is the increased variety of artefacts related to personal modification in the form of jewellery, hair and attire accessories, weaponry, as well as tattooing equipment, metal tweezers and obsidian flakes serving as razors, especially in EB II (Broodbank 2000, 248-9; Carter 1994). In the EBA context, the use of metal was employed in the construction of personal identity in EBA Aegean society (Nakou 1995, 23). Furthermore, the association between the sex of the skeleton and particular types of grave goods (Maggidis 1998, 91; Sampson 1988, 58) suggests that an increased emphasis on gender identity had developed in EBA society. In the absence of extensive sexed burial evidence from the Aegean, the work by Sørensen on central and western Europe of the EBA suggests a strong polarity between men and women, especially marked by the association between men and weaponry and women and jewellery (1991, 1997, 2000). As will become apparent, however, such straightforward associations are not evident in the Aegean. Regarding labour division, musculoskeletal stress markers from EB I southern Levant suggest that, at least in comparison to the earliest Neolithic, there is for the first time a marked division of labour between men and women with diminishing male activity levels (Peterson 2002, 145). A suggested ethnographic scenario would see women as playing an increasing role in the production of dairy products and the processing of wool, while men and young boys would be more active in the herding of animals (Peterson 2002, 146). Though gender labour domains may have become more clearly defined in the EBA Aegean, it is more realistic to think about degrees of gender involvement in a labour domain, rather than gender exclusion or inclusion (Sørensen 1996).

A final point that I would like to mention is that the varying sizes of settlements and estimated populations of much smaller and “poorer” EBA sites suggest that it would not be unreasonable to envisage such rural communities operating more on the level of largely egalitarian Neolithic societies in terms of social status and gender. In fact, the estimated population for EN and MN villages in Thessaly ranges between 50-300 people (Halstead 1995, 12) and 70-150+ for the longlived sites of the Saliagos culture (Broodbank 2000, 145-6), which overlaps with the population estimates of EC villages. Even EBA farmsteads and hamlets would have consisted of fewer households than some of the Neolithic Thessalian settlements. Accepting that there is a correlation between population density of a site and the social complexity that characterised its community, should warn us against an automatic equation between the EBA and greater social inequality. The diversity that characterises the population and settlement patterns in the EBA Aegean, as well as the overlap with certain features of Neolithic demography, caution us against simplistic inferences that at times have been linked with scenarios proposing the rise of a patriarchal social order.

Regarding performed roles, it has been proposed that a new distinct male identity emerged in the EBA (Gilman 1981, Treherne 1995). We need to bear in mind, however, that for the EBA Aegean, (a) not all cemeteries contained weaponry, (b) weaponry was associated with high social status which not all men could achieve or inherit, and (c) many such weapons would have had a ceremonial rather than a practical use, which questions the existence of a military authority, though military metaphors must have been associated with male lives. The introduction of metallurgy and the activity of seafaring in the EBA Aegean, as well as the increased involvement of men in

11

11

Chapter 3 The study of gender through anthropomorphic figurines: a theoretical discussion

between the Middle to Later period of barbarism. Bachofen, whose work Myth, Religion and Mother Right was selectively published in 1967 following an earlier German edition (1926), examines the emergence of Mother-Goddess worship. Bachofen placed the advent of her worship in the phase before the Classical period (termed as the pre-Hellenic period) which was also organised as a matriarchal society. In his work, Bachofen drew a link between matriarchy and the mysterious element of religion, but also between women, the supernatural and irrational behaviour. Following the work of Morgan, Engels wrote The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884). Engels accepted Bachofen’s proposal that human society developed through the successive stages of sexual promiscuity, matriliny and patriliny. Engels’ work, however, was heavily influenced by Morgan’s evolutionary model in his Ancient Society (1877). In the same line of thought, Engels also placed matriliny in an early chronological stage which was later replaced by patriliny, reaching its peak in the form of the Roman family.

3.1 The study of prehistoric anthropomorphic figurines: past and present Prehistoric anthropomorphic figurines have a long history of study in the field of European, Anatolian and Aegean archaeology. This section summarises and reviews the main trends in terms of their theoretical perspective and proposed interpretations.

3.1.1 Neolithic figurines

a. 1900-1980s: formative period Neolithic figurines and anthropomorphic figurines in general, have been a popular subject of research for almost a century. They have attracted great interest (not only from archaeologists), and a number of interpretations have been suggested. Their form was valued mainly aesthetically and their obvious representation of the human body was viewed as a direct insight into prehistoric societies. The formative era started at the beginning of the 1900s and continued until the 1980s, with the exception of the original work conducted by Ucko (1968). Early work of the formative period, carried out until the late 1960s, was based on a number of unfounded assumptions. These preconceptions that impeded the study of prehistoric figurines led as a result to weak arguments. In brief, there are four main strands that have characterised earlier works: i. Matriarchy ii. Mother-Goddess theory iii. Androcentric biases iv. Gynocentric biases

ii. Mother-Goddess theory The Mother-Goddess theory can be traced back to the work of Bachofen. It has become, however, synonymous with the name of Gimbutas, though earlier scholars also developed similar hypotheses. A number of archaeologists (Crawford 1957, Hawkes 1968, Nilsson 1927, Vermeule 1964, von Cles-Reden 1960) have argued for the existence of the Mother-Goddess cult which they dated to Palaeolithic-Neolithic period. According to these theories, her worship spread from the Middle East to Europe and finally came to a violent end with the advent of patriarchy in the Bronze Age. It was Gimbutas, however, who popularised the idea of the Mother-Goddess in archaeology. Gimbutas’ hypothesis was based on the acceptance of a matrifocal past, but also attempted to correct the previous androcentric interpretations by elevating matrifocal societies and women’s roles to the sphere of idealism. Gimbutas’ (1982) argument was constructed on the basis that images of the Mother-Goddess were being used over a long period of time in an extensive area, proof that her cult lasted over 20,000 years, from the Palaeolithic, Neolithic and beyond, and extended over the whole of “Old-Europe” (covering the Aegean, Adriatic and extending as far as Czechoslovakia, southern Poland and the western Ukraine). Gimbutas also associated the worship of this goddess (or goddesses) with shrines, sacred places, house platforms or graves.

i. Matriarchy The hypothesis of matriarchy in archaeology has its origins in the main pioneering works of evolutionary theory and anthropology of the post-Enlightenment period that attempted to explain biological, sexual and mental differences. Morgan in his work Ancient Society (1877) constructed an evolutionary model that explained the development of human society through the stages of savagery, barbarism and finally civilisation. Morgan placed the advent of matriliny (as distinct from matriarchy) in the range of the Middle period of savagery through to the Older period of barbarism. It was later succeeded by the state of patriliny that developed in the period

12

12

The study of gender through anthropomorphic figurines: a theoretical discussion

iii. Androcentric interpretations

favoured hypothesis. These interpretations lacked the required dialectic relationship between the available evidence and the questions asked by the researcher. In addition, as a result of a preconceived interpretative line, figurines were studied outside their cultural and archaeological context. Consequently, archaeologists of the formative era failed to study figurines in a systematic way that would have provided them with insights into past socio-political organisation, ideologies and gender identities. As Hamilton (1996) has pointed out, archaeologists’ lack of consensus on how they should study figurines, led to a number of interest groups hijacking figurines to serve their own political agenda. The early works of Talalay (1983, 1987), however, that were conducted in a systematic manner stand as exceptions in relation to other studies produced in the 1980s. Developing a systematic approach, therefore, as well as a generally accepted methodological framework, allows us to interpret figurines in a controlled and effective way, but also to minimise the effects of our own prejudices on the archaeological record.

Beyond the interpretations associated with matriarchy and biological determinism, mainstream archaeological analyses in the 1970s and 1980s continued to be influenced by androcentric biases. Guthrie (1977), with reference to Palaeolithic art and representations of female bodies, argued that they were produced by men for their pleasure, similar to pornographic images today. Orphanides (1982) and Morris (1985), on the other hand, have interpreted prehistoric figurines found in burials as representations of female servants, concubines or goddesses of sexual nature. iv. Gynocentric interpretations In the late 1960s, influenced by the feminist movement, a number of archaeological works aimed at replacing androcentric views of the past by excluding men from their interpretations, Gimbutas’s theory indeed being one of these. Such attempts (see Davis 1973, Murray 1963, Stone 1977) intended to elevate women to a higher status in prehistory, as a reaction to the biased hypotheses expressed by male scholars. These gynocentric interpretations explained the MotherGoddess cult in early matriarchal prehistory as a result of women’s biological superiority over men. Based on the assertion that women are superior to men biologically, it was argued that women’s contribution to civilisation was greater than that of men’s. It should be stressed, however, that such interpretations were popular mainly outside the field of Archaeology.

c. 1990s: the introduction of new trends With the exception of Ucko’s thesis, published in 1968, and his first methodical recording and categorising of anthropomorphic figurines, it was not until the late 1980s that Neolithic figurines became again a field of systematic research. In the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s there was a revival of interest in studies of early prehistoric figurines from SE Europe including evidence from Greece and the rest of the Balkans, as well as Anatolia and Cyprus. Such trends also reflect the optimism of archaeologists for the interpretation of figurines, which sprang from a new theorisation on how they should approach their analysis. All these new attempts should be viewed in the light of recent developments in theoretical archaeology, including the emergence and increasing popularity of gender archaeology, a field of research which has provided new scope for the interpretation of socially meaningful processes and their material products. The validity of these recent interpretations lies in the systematic way figurine analysis has been conducted, but also in the appreciation of their dynamic role in social processes.

b. Interpretations of the formative period: an appraisal The interpretations outlined above have been criticised for their poor scholarship, their lack of theoretical grounding, their weak methodology and clear androcentric or gynocentric biases (Conkey and Tringham 1995, Meskell 1995, Tringham and Conkey 1998). A line should be drawn, however, between earlier interpretations arguing for the Mother-Goddess cult with a latent political agenda, and the later theories by Gimbutas and other scholars who were more polemic and politically conscious. A number of positive points, however, can be pointed out in the work of Gimbutas, such as the discussion of manufacturing techniques, the fragmentation patterns of figurines through empirical observation (Chapman 2000, 69) and the systematic recording and inclusion of anthropological references in her work. Moreover, Gimbutas paid attention to the detailed study of certain aspects of figurines, such as their shape and decoration that were ignored in previous Mother-Goddess approaches. Finally, Gimbutas was also one of the first to use C14 dating in Balkan sites, which in turn provided a secure chronological base for the analysis of figurines.

The era of new interpretations of prehistoric figurines has its roots in the pioneering work of Ucko (1968) who argued against the Mother-Goddess theory, placed figurines in their context and examined the representation of their sex, questioning thus the assumption that all Neolithic figurines were female. Following Ucko’s work, new interpretations of prehistoric figurines from southern and eastern Europe (Italy, Balkans, Aegean) and Anatolia (including Cyprus) were produced in the late 1980s, 1990s and later (see a Campo, 1994, Bailey 1994a, 1994b, 1996, 2005; Bolger 1996, Chapman 2000, 2001; Gallis 2001, Hamilton 2000, Hitchcock 1997, Holmes and Whitehouse 1998, Kokkinidou and Nikolaidou 1993, 55-63; 1997; Langdon 1999, Lee 2000,

Nevertheless, the main weakness of earlier interpretations lies in the selective use of evidence in an attempt to bolster their

13

13

The study of gender through anthropomorphic figurines: a theoretical discussion

Nanoglou 2004, 2005; Orphanidis-Georgiadis 1992, Talalay 1987, 1991, 1993, 2000, 2005).

1994), Renfrew (1977b, 1991) and Zervos (1957), though other scholars have also followed a similar line of approach (Marinatos 1933; Papathanassopoulos 1981). The criticism is not directed against the formulation of typologies (since they prove particularly useful for the establishment of chronology or stylistic zones), but against the unwillingness of archaeologists to study figurines beyond their formal attributes. More specifically, Getz-Preziosi’s central preoccupation with the attribution of Cycladic figurines to specific Masters and their workshops, and the consideration of artistic canons that allegedly render them as objects of high artistic value, has obstructed the understanding of EBA Aegean figurines as a meaningful category of prehistoric material culture on two levels. On one hand, the interpretation has been limited to the discussion of typological categories, and on the other, modern ideas about the artist and his/her place in society have coloured the proposed interpretations (Chippindale and Gill 1995, 134). A similar strategy concerning the attribution of Cycladic figurines to specific Masters has also been followed by Renfrew, though his attempts to establish a typological schema through the available EC figurines (1969, 1977b) should be recognised as a genuine attempt to bring order in the otherwise limited and poorly preserved archaeological record. However, attempts to detect specific Masters and the formulation of evolutionary typological schemata have been rightly attacked because they relied heavily on unprovenanced, and hence possibly forged pieces, which automatically undermine the validity of their results (Chippindale and Gill 1995, 133). On an ethical level, the study of questionable collections, the naming of Masters after collectors or Museum collections, and the expressed aesthetic appreciation, further perpetuate the looting and illegal trading of Cycladic figurines (Broodbank 1992, Gill and Chippindale 1993).

Though recent interpretations vary in their methodological routes, they all consider figurines in their archaeological and cultural context. Moreover, figurines have been studied for their style, form, decoration, depiction and iconography (e.g. Kokkinidou and Nikolaidou 1997), or even gestures (Hitchcock 1997) and fragmentation patterns (Chapman 2000). In certain cases ethnographic evidence has been employed analogically for the formation of arguments (e.g. Chapman 2001, Kokkinidou and Nikolaidou 1997, Talalay 1993). There is a clear distinction, therefore, between earlier interpretations and the wave of recent figurine studies. This lies not only in the fact that figurines are seen as part of their cultural and archaeological context, but also in that archaeologists are now conscious of their theoretical approaches and the implications of their suggested hypotheses. It has also been recognised that gender is a crucial parameter in figurine analysis, while the plurality of the proposed interpretations also reflects archaeologists’ intention to depart from earlier monolithic explanations.

3.1.2 EBA figurines

a. The tyranny of aesthetics The study of EBA Aegean figurines has followed a very different trajectory from their Neolithic counterparts. One of the factors that brought on the rift between the two fields of study is the aesthetic appreciation that Cycladic figurines attracted above all other EBA artefact classes. The appeal of their form has been so influential that a number of scholars have advocated that they represent the origin of European art: “For many of us today these Cycladic marble maidens mark the birth of Western Art” (Renfrew 1977a, 70); they “constitute the Cycladic Civilisation’s greatest and most precious contribution to Art, a contribution unprecedented, unique and unrepeated…” (Papathanassopoulos 1981, 181). Furthermore, Cycladic figurines have been loaded with modernist ideas and aesthetic criteria, articulated through links with works of modern art (Broodbank 1992, Gill and Chippindale 1993): “Cycladic sculpture of the third millennium B.C. achieves what many artists in our century have sought to emulate the art of refining complex forms while retaining the quality of presence that pervades all great works of art” (Renfrew 1991, 185). As a result of the prevailing aesthetic and art historical perspective, EBA figurine studies have failed to throw light on aspects of prehistoric social processes in which figurines were implicated.

The problems arising from the approaches discussed above and the call for awareness expressed by Broodbank (1992) and Gill and Chippindale (1993), will hopefully lead to more careful and systematic research on EBA Aegean figurines. Another issue that also requires correction is the isolation of Cycladic figurines from other EBA Aegean figurines. We can remedy this bias by adopting a holistic approach, which will encompass the Cycladic assemblage in the wider eidoloplastic and material repertoire of the EBA period.

b. Androcentric biases The largely untheorised way in which EBA figurines have been approached has also left room for the development of androcentric biases that have further hindered their study. Scholars working on EBA figurines, inside and outside the Aegean, appear to espouse unintentionally the point raised in the Mother-Goddess theory that the matrifocal Neolithic was followed by patriarchy. The objection raised here is not based on the grounds of political correctness. Instead is directed against interpretative models that suggest supremacy of men over women, despite the lack of supportive evidence.

Another point of departure from the field of Neolithic figurines is archaeologists’ preoccupation to establish typological schemata for EBA figurines, which is again rooted in the principles of art history. The most representative studies of this category include the works by Getz-Preziosi (1987a, 1987b,

14

14

The study of gender through anthropomorphic figurines: a theoretical discussion

Furthermore, in attempts to explain and justify gender inequality present in modern society today, the EBA period has been selected by some scholars as the time of women’s incipient subordination. The proposed scenario for the EBA Aegean employs unprovenanced figurines as supporting evidence, while at the same time certain features of female and even male representations have been ignored or distorted. I do not believe that such shortcomings were generated intentionally. They resulted, however, mainly from the awkwardness of scholars when faced with evidence that challenged the widely accepted social model.

fact, void of anatomical attributes, which calls for a cautious interpretation. The reluctance of scholars to attribute a more dynamic role to women is also attested by the “misinterpretation” of distinct figurines as male when, in fact, they represented anatomically female or ambiguous models.

c. The way forward As has become apparent, the study of EBA Aegean figurines largely remains outside recent theoretical debates in archaeology. In contrast to Neolithic figurines whose study has been characterised by innovative trends, the analysis of EBA figurines is mostly fragmented and static. We can isolate, however, the promising works by Oustinoff (1984) on the experimental aspect of figurine manufacture and its implications, Hoffman (2002) and Papadatos (2003) which linked figurines with the lives of real people. In addition, the recent article by Talalay (2005) offers a positive and encouraging view on the scope for a gender approach to Mediterranean iconographic evidence. Furthermore, the work by Whitehouse (2001) on Copper Age and EBA Italy illustrates how we can incorporate complementary data to the study of figurines, as a way of drawing a holistic interpretation of social processes. Along with the methodology and theoretical perspective that the more recent works on Neolithic figurines have to offer, the works by Hitchcock (1997) and PilaliPapasteriou (1989) on Middle Minoan anthropomorphic figurines also open a promising avenue for unveiling the embodiment of social personae as expressed through figurines. Despite the delay of EBA Aegean figurine studies in catching up with the latest trends in archaeology, I believe that the recent studies mentioned above signal a move towards theorised approaches, which I hope will lead to more such works being produced in Aegean archaeology.

Some works have argued for the emergence of patriarchy already from the Final Neolithic (Bolger 1996, Orphanides 1982 and Morris 1985 on Cypriot Chalcolithic figurines). Moreover, female figurines from burials have been interpreted as servants, concubines and goddesses of sexual character (Morris 1985, Orphanides 1982), betraying thus androcentric biases. The same idea has also been put forward for the explanation of Aegean figurines by Fitton (1989) and Sherratt (2000). Sherratt has taken female Cycladic figurines to indicate women’s subordinate position to men in an environment in which they represented nothing more than possessions that conferred status to their male possessors (2000, 135-6). Some of the suggested interpretations for Cycladic figurines included representations of goddesses, votaries, mortal wives and concubines (Sherratt 2000, 135-6). Sherratt has even assumed a pornographic role for female Cycladic figurines, reflecting women’s passive and submissive role in an androcentric society (2000, 152, note 76). Androcentric biases have also been expressed with reference to the thematic modelling of EBA Aegean figurines, which has been interpreted as reflecting social dominance of men over women. The arguments mainly revolve around the modelling of male hunter-warriors that embodied the male ideal, as opposed to the passive and subordinate women. Interestingly, all hunter-warrior figurines that are often evoked as supporting evidence in the proposed scenarios have already been discussed in terms of their unsafe provenance (Gill and Chippindale 1993). The only secure example we have is in the form of a drawing depicting a male hunter-warrior figurine, kept at the British Museum (Fitton 1984b).

3.2 An anthropological approach to figurines When Hamilton et al addressed the question “Can we interpret figurines?” in their 1996 article, optimism was expressed about the new avenues that were opening for the understanding of figurines. Over ten years later, and though we are confident we can interpret anthropomorphic figurines, there is still no consensus about the way we should carry out such an undertaking. The fragmentation of approach is already apparent in the study of Aegean prehistoric figurines.

Proposing the social model of “man the hunter-warrior” has resulted in an automatic association of women with passive and inferior social roles (servants, concubines, exchangeable commodities). In a similar line of argumentation, it is assumed that seated figurines represent only men, thus expressing male authority (see Getz-Preziosi 1987b, 20, 22-23). As discussed later on, however, an almost equal number of male and female figurines were modelled as seated, which again exposes the scholars’ unwillingness to move away from traditional gender models. In addition, all Cycladic musician figurines have been taken to represent men, again believed to express the special place held by men in EC society (Getz-Preziosi 1987b, 22). Evidence, however, demonstrates that a number of them are, in

The main approach proposed for the present study derives from anthropology, as opposed to art history, and aims, among other things, to bridge the gap between Neolithic and EBA figurine studies. The following discussion centres around three main ideas, which illustrate how an anthropological approach can aid us in our understanding of figurines. Firstly, we begin from the premise that, according to the principles of anthropology, art products are approached as everyday objects, and as such, they are capable of exercising agency. Secondly, because agency

15

15

The study of gender through anthropomorphic figurines: a theoretical discussion

connects together material and human agents, the study of art objects offers us an insight into the mind and intention of those behind their manufacture. Thirdly, since art objects as agents exist in a dynamic relationship with human agents, unveiling agency ultimately reveals how meaning is constructed.

mind is also contained in material things. In fact, Gell, using the term “the distributed person”, has proposed that a person’s mind is also attested through one’s biographical events, the sum of material traces and objects which all together mark the chain of agency and patienthood occurring during a course of life (1998, 222). As discussed later on, agency is exercised through agent-patient relationships whereby the agent assumes an active role in relation to the patient who is in turn affected by the agent’s action (Gell 1998, 22). Put differently, it is through indices attributed to a person that we can understand his/her mind and life episodes. One such category of objects that is particularly telling for the operation of agency from the part of human actors is that of art objects, the distribution of which attests to personhood (Gell 1998, 223).

Let us start by asking what is recognised as art in the anthropological perspective. Gell in his influential book Art and Agency: an Anthropological Theory views art as “a system of action, intended to change the world rather than encode symbolic propositions about it” (1998, 6). Gell divorced himself from the semeiotic approach, whereby objects are perceived as texts, and instead placed emphasis on the action emanating from art objects. According to Gell’s approach, there are no preset criteria about what constitutes art and that is because the function of art objects is tied in with the social matrix in which they operate (1998, 7). In fact Gell substitutes the word art with index, a term borrowed from semeiotics. It is proposed, therefore, that an art object is the material index, which allows the abduction of social agency, rendering index therefore as the instrument and result of social agency (Gell 1998, 13-15).

A similar fusion of mental and material world is also advocated by Knappett who has argued that “the mind is embodied and the mind is extended” (2002, 99). In other words, we cannot understand objects without drawing a link with animate agents, but similarly we cannot grasp the mind without referring to its material traces. It follows, therefore, that the mind and objects are co-dependent through the web of agency in such a way that cognition and behaviour is also contained in artefacts (Knappett 2002, 100). Any artefact is loaded with agency instilled from the part of the producer at the time of its manufacture. As such, an artefact is considered an index of the producers’ labour, cultural ideals and intention (Knappett 2002, 101).

It becomes apparent, therefore, that Gell’s term for art allows the inclusion of a wide range of objects, encompassing even those that we would classify as utilitarian. So, what are we to make of objects that we have come to recognise traditionally as art? Even Gell distinguishes between agency emanating from indices which are recognisable works of art (that can also be classified as art) and their cruder counterparts. Such objects are viewed as the result of special technical skills and creative imagination, which tap into the psyche of humans through visual perception (Gell 1998, 68). In other words, special attention is paid to the production of their form which underlies the effective operation of their agency. The importance of form and aesthetics of objects in the way they affect humans at a sensory and emotional level has also been acknowledged by Gosden as the source of their social power (2005, 198).

Knappett has suggested two ways through which the mind extends into the material world: networking and layering (2006, 240). According to the process of networking, the mind extends beyond the body through contact with objects which in turn are instilled with intention from the part of the producer. It is at the point of contact with the producer that the object is moulded by mindful action, while at the same time the qualities of the raw material interfere with the intention of the producer (Knappett 2006, 240). Social and material agents, therefore, become involved in networks whereby agency is distributed in such a way that we cannot draw a distinction between humans and materials (Knappett 2006, 243).

With reference to Aegean prehistoric figurines, we can recognise the technical skills required for their production, as well as the imagination that may have inspired at least some of these forms. Moreover, figurines do not appear to have been restricted to a utilitarian, mediatory use. We can also infer that attention to the aesthetic qualities of figurines (evident in their modelling and decoration) enhanced their appeal to the senses, which in turn ensured their effectiveness. Though an anthropological approach is favoured for the interpretation of figurines, it is equally important to acknowledge the effect of figurines’ aesthetic qualities on humans at a sensory but also mental level.

While the mind crosses the boundary of the body through contact with materials in the process of networking, layering allows the mind to implicate objects in practices performed by the body (Knappett 2006, 243). Through the process of layering, the body extends beyond the skin through the employment of objects that blur the distinction between the body and materials, as in the case of clothes or implements closely connected to the person or deliberately distributed away from it (2006, 241-2). As Knappett explains, the idea of layering parallels that of the “distributed person” expressed by Gell, whereby a person is understood as the sum of indices and dispersed material attributed to it, and through biographical events (1998, 222). It is also important to acknowledge the affect that cultural context has on social agents. Economic, political, ideological and historical factors influence the way

3.2.1 Recovering ancient mind As noted earlier, an integral part of agency is the idea that humans and objects are interconnected and for that reason

16

16

The study of gender through anthropomorphic figurines: a theoretical discussion

people think and in turn, their intentions behind the production of art objects (Washburn 1983, Wolff 1993).

their own affect on the figurine producer. In reference to the process of layering, agency is attested through evidence for the curation, handling and repair of figurines which mark the biographies of figurines and through them personhood. Finally, careful examination of the stylistic canons that pertained to figurine production can point to stylistic groups that we should see as corresponding to cultures (see Gell 1998, 155). Deconstructing the system of principles that held together figurines belonging to the same stylistic unit, can reveal the cognitive norms that bound together people as part of social groups. Applying an anthropological perspective, therefore, goes beyond the aesthetic values of figurines and proposes ways that we can grasp the ancient mind and intention by exploring their involvement with social agents.

We can also gain insights into the collective mind at the level of culture through the study of style of artworks. Style is an inherent part of art, which Hodder has explained as “a particular way of doing things”, “thinking, feeling, being” (1990, 45). Ideas expressed in archaeology have pointed out the ability of stylistic forms to communicate ideas intentionally as a way of shaping social reality (Conkey and Hastorf 1990; Hodder 1990). Gell, referring to how style operates, has proposed that artworks are part of categories of artworks which depend on the relations between objects and categories of objects, as well as between categories of objects themselves that also belong to the same stylistic whole (1998, 153). Gell, more crucially, draws the link between style and culture (1998, 153, 156) and units of style are seen as corresponding to cultures (1998, 155). Referring to the idea of synecdoche, Gell explores how artworks stand for culture as a whole. Because objects bearing the same attributes belong to a stylistic group and relate to each other through synecdoche, any given artwork epitomises the stylistic principles of the material culture that it belongs to (Gell 1998, 161). Artworks operate at a cognitive level through their cooperation on the common basis of style and for that reason we believe that the codes that link together objects of the same formal attributes also parallel the common cognitive principles that hold people together in social groups (Gell 1998, 163). Rather than seeing culture as determining the style of artefacts, Gell has argued that the axes of coherence (the connection and relationships between objects belonging to the same stylistic group) that operate as systems parallel other systemic properties of culture (1998, 167, 216). As Gell has eloquently expressed, “artworks are like social agents, in that they are the outcome of social initiatives which reflect a specific, socially inculcated sensibility” (1998, 220).

3.2.2 The art of agency and the construction of meaning As mentioned earlier, following an anthropological approach, which stresses the importance of agency, in effect enables archaeologists to explore the ways in which meaning is constructed. Because agency is exercised between human and non-human entities, an anthropological perspective allows us to investigate how figurines also assumed an active role in relation to human agents. By understanding agency we begin to deconstruct the ways in which intention and cause operate behind actions that eventually lead to result and transformation (Gell 1998, 6). In other words, social agency is manifested whenever an event takes place as a sequence of actions, which in turn is caused as a result of the intention from the part of a human or non-human agent. An index is a result of such agency (Gell 1998, 17). Let us now see how social agency is manifested between humans and things and how things themselves can exercise agency. As Gell has proposed, things and humans form together social relations (1998, 17). He has drawn the distinction, however, between primary and secondary agents, whereby humans with expressed intentions belong to the former category, as opposed to artefacts the agency of which becomes effective as intention is channelled into them by primary agents (Gell 1998, 18). A fundamental point regarding agency is the fact that it involves agent-patient relationships whereby the agent assumes an active role in relation to the patient that is affected by the agent’s action (Gell 1998, 22). Passive agents, however, may resist from their part, which means that they should also be considered as potential active agents (Gell 1998, 23). By deconstructing how these agentpatient interactions operate, we can start thinking about how social agents and art works distribute agency bilaterally. Applying the same principles, the artists/producers need to be considered as agents because it is through their agency that art works are rendered as an affect, assuming therefore a patient position as indices (Gell 1998, 23). The audience can either assume a patient position as art works exercise an affect on it, or they may act as agents if art works were created for it (Gell 1998, 33-34). A similar agent-patient relationship may also

Let us now consider how the above mentioned points are of relevance for the understanding of prehistoric anthropomorphic figurines. Figurines, as in fact any class of artefacts, constitute material traces of prehistoric people. Figurines, therefore, following Gell’s terminology, can be termed as indices of the prehistoric people who produced them. More precisely, prehistoric figurines would fit into the category of iconic idols that Gell has defined as indices that bear resemblance to a prototype, be it a human being or even a divinity whose resemblance is mediated through the artist (1998, 97). As indices, figurines were also involved in agent-patient relationships. The agency distributed in these relationships is what allows us to recover the ancient mind. The production and distribution of figurines that are attributed to prehistoric people, as well as the sum of other material traces, attest to related life episodes, events and ultimately personhood. Figurines, like any other material category, were also interlaced in the web of agency that drew humans and objects together. At the stage of production, figurines were inculcated with the mind of the producer and his/her intention, at the same time as the qualities of the raw material itself, be it clay or stone, had

17

17

The study of gender through anthropomorphic figurines: a theoretical discussion

have existed between the prototype and the artwork, in which case the represented entity is perceived as causing the production of the object, or may be believed to be receiving the affect of the artwork, as in the case of volt sorcery (Gell 1998, 26). The producer of artworks, the object and the audience can also be linked together hierarchically in a chain of agentpatient relationships, whereby the producer is the agent, the artworks the patient, and in turn the agent in relation to the audience (Gell 1998, 51).

creates boundaries on the basis of social differentiation (Beaudry et al 1991, 155). Material culture can also have an overturning effect through the inherent quality of materiality (non verbal) to often contradict social behaviour (verbal) and it is through this source of ambiguity and the collision of the two systems that new meanings are created (Fletcher 1989, 38). Turning our attention to figurines, it becomes evident that deconstructing their agency in effect allows us to explore their meaning. In accordance with the ideas expressed by Gell (1998), prehistoric anthropomorphic figurines are bound together with humans in social relations. Figurines are obviously the result of the producer’s agency, but at the same time, they assumed an active role in relation to the audience on which they exercised their effects. The agency that may be exercised by figurines may have been political, spiritual, aesthetic and even physical (Gell 1998, 31). Figurines may have exercised an effect on the audience through their appearance and through the created perception that provoked internalisation and thus imitation, causing in turn alienation or identification from the part of the recipient (see Gell 1998, 31). Figurines may also have exercised their effect on social agents through touch and in fact archaeological evidence does suggest that figurines were at times heavily handled. Gell has suggested that often touching an index gives us the impression that it has an agency of its own (1998, 32). The agency of anthropomorphic indices, as is the case with figurines, may have been even more apparent to the audience, who may have seen it as originating from the entity they were intended to represent. Another form of invisible agency may be seen as being generated from figurines. For instance, prehistoric figurines may have been regarded as making the crops grow, or ensuring the sun’s rise (see Gell 1998, 128).

The active role of material objects has also been acknowledged among archaeologists. Gosden, influenced by Gell’s thesis, has also emphasised the agency that lies inherent in objects. Moreover, he stressed the particular form and biographies of objects, which dictate their use by human agents and affect them at a sensory level. It has been advocated, therefore, that artefacts can exercise social power and can also have social affects on people (2005, 193). In reference to corpora of objects defined according to similar stylistic principles, Gosden has also proposed that humans are socialised according to the pre-existing material world (2005, 196-7). Finally, it has been proposed that detecting diachronic changes in the forms of artefacts that we study as archaeologists, can reveal modes and transformations in the way objects may have effected people and social relationships (Gosden 2005, 197). Knappett, also following a similar theoretical path, has argued that agency is distributed in networks that are themselves made up of human and material agents (2002, 100). The agency exercised by the artefact depends on the way it relates to other nodes in these networks. Therefore, as an artefact moves between networks of production and consumption, it generates different connections and so multiple agency may be exercised (Knappett 2002, 101). Additionally, Sofaer has proposed a fusion between social agents and objects since human bodies are also material in a similar way that objects are social (2006, 85). It follows, therefore, that people are created as their physical bodies and objects are implicated in the construction of social identity (Knappett 2006, 84). The dynamic ability of material culture to construct social identity has also been recognised by other scholars. Beaudry et al have argued that material culture expresses social identity at a group level and a socio-economic consciousness which sets classes of people apart from others belonging to the same society (1991, 154). For Tilley, material culture is in a dialectic relationship with social conditions (1999, 76), implying thus a mutually shaping dependency between materiality and social behaviour in the wider sense. Things “are active rather than passive and dialectically related to their social conditions of existence” (Tilley 1999, 76). Material culture, therefore, is perceived as a shaping agent that constructs individuals and norms with the potential to either maintain or challenge a social system (Tilley 1989, 189). One of the ways material culture can play a challenging role is when in the context of power relationships authority is negotiated among interest groups in the process of cultural hegemony (Beaudry et al 1991). Under such circumstances material culture forms power relationships and

Following the principle that agency is exercised through agentpatient relationships, we can start exploring a number of possibilities regarding prehistoric figurines and the way they related to other agents. Thinking about the way figurines and social agents exercised agency bilaterally, we can also discern the hierarchical chain of agent-patient relationships that Gell has referred to (1998, 51). We have already seen how the producer’s agency results in the modelling of figurines, which hold the patient position. The recipients, however, may also act as agents in relation to the figurines. In such cases, the audience may have constructed figurines through their perceived image, in accordance with theories of perception (Gell 1998, 33). Also the entity that a figurine is believed to represent (the prototype) may be regarded as the agent in relation to the figurines, or even the patient in cases of volt sorcery (Gell 1998, 26). Though anthropological approaches to art place emphasis on the active role of material culture by exploring agency, intention and causation, acknowledging its symbolic dimension need not be contradictory. Symbolism would have found room for expression in figurine production in their modelling, representation and even use. In addition, the effects of

18

18

The study of gender through anthropomorphic figurines: a theoretical discussion

prehistoric figurines as material agents on social agents may also be attributed partly to their inherent symbolic qualities that may have been expressed in a number of possible ways. The physical human body is known to constitute a common metaphor through which people order and understand the world around them – the social body (Tilley 1999). The representation of embodied identities, therefore, may be the result of human preoccupation with important events such as conception, birth, growth and death, which are often explained through parallelisms linking the physical functions of the human body with natural cycles and phenomena, such as the changing seasons or celestial movements (Haaland and Haaland 1996). Symbolic ideas may also have been expressed in figurines through the applied decoration or modelled posture and through the social and ideological meaning that these communicated to a prehistoric audience. Stages of manufacture (chaîne opératoire) constitute other loci for symbolic discourse and negotiation of gender identities, as has been demonstrated in relation to pottery production in Sub-Saharan Africa (Gosselain 1999). Similarly, the fundamental role of figurines in the symbolic construction of social identities and order is evident in the special status of those who make figurines in relation to rituals, in the metaphorical link between giving birth and shaping a figurine from clay and in their relationship to human experience and rites of passage. Symbolic meaning generated by figurines may also have been expressed through prohibition on the involvement of certain gender and age categories in their production, the pyrotechnical aspects of manufacture and symbolic associations with fire, ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ activities and things (see Gosselain 1999), and through the parallel treatment of the clay and physical body as in the application of decoration.

In summary, an anthropological perspective takes us beyond the appearance of figurines and enables us to deconstruct their use and meaning by exploring their active role in relation to social agents. We may not be able to offer definitive answers. We can start, however, to think about the possible ways in which anthropomorphic figurines connected with social and material agents and created meaning through daily interactions. At the same time, recognising the symbolism surrounding prehistoric figurines as part of their production or representation, presents a wider spectrum for the understanding of the dynamic processes between human and material agents.

3.3 Studying gender in early Aegean prehistory through anthropomorphic figurines Despite notable exceptions, the prevailing situation in Aegean figurine studies shows a limited research interest in gender. It is this inadequacy that the present study hopes to rectify by proposing a gender approach, which aims to remedy gender biases that have coloured earlier interpretations. Moreover, a gender approach creates a uniform epistemological context that allows us to bridge the disparity in the way Neolithic and EBA anthropomorphic figurines have been approached in Aegean studies. As gender holds a central place in the present study, the main focus is on those aspects of agency and cognition that are particularly informative about the construction and performance of gender. In relation to the anthropological approach proposed earlier, the adopted gender perspective focuses on the way prehistoric figurines as agents would have affected the shaping of gender identities and the relationships between gendered actors. At the same time, we seek to understand the agency that human agents instilled in figurines at the time of their production, with the intention to explore past cognition and behaviour. The process of figurine manufacture demonstrates the self-awareness of the manufacturer in terms of gender identity through the daily interaction with other gendered people. In addition, a gender approach is anthropocentric, which suits the study of eidoloplastic representations of the human body. The modelling of anthropomorphic figurines involved gendered actors as a representative theme, but also at the stage of production and consumption, and for that reason figurines are ideally suited to the research interests of gender archaeology.

We will never be able to know with certainty what Aegean prehistoric figurines represented, be it portraits, ancestors or divinities. What we can assume, however, is that these figurines were loaded with ideas that surrounded gender, general social identity and ideology. Though parallelisms between figurines and religion are regarded with suspicion, following the Mother-Goddess hypothesis, we nevertheless need to remember that in simpler societies the boundaries between the secular and ritual domains were blurred (Insoll 2004, 152-3). Given the indistinguishable line between the sacred and the profane in prehistoric societies, a belief system would have been authorised to structure social life, relationships and gender (Insoll 2004, 152-3). Figurines, therefore, may have served as active means of acculturation whereby ideology became interwoven with social norms. Even more so in non-literate societies where ideology became effective through practices that involved the employment of objects and the performance of rituals that would have left a memorable impact on the senses. Objects in fact are considered more effective than oral traditions in triggering unconscious memory traces by enabling a direct evocation of past experiences (Rowlands 1993, 144). In thinking about figurines’ agency, therefore, we also need to consider the possible contexts in which figurines were involved.

3.3.1 Gender archaeology: a political agenda Feminist and gender archaeology are considered by some to represent synonymous terms, though the scope of the two strands differs. Feminist perspectives have their origin in the 1960s when feminism influenced the work of anthropologists. Gender archaeology, on the other hand, only emerged in the 1980s and, among other objectives, turned archaeologists’ attention to androcentric biases which had shaped our perceptions of the past. Though feminist archaeology intended to give women a place in history, it often resulted in the type of

19

19

The study of gender through anthropomorphic figurines: a theoretical discussion

gynocentric biases discussed earlier. Feminist archaeology serves the specific political agenda of giving women a central place in history and generates a critical awareness of how the past is constructed. Gender archaeology, however, explores the way gender assumes an active and dynamic role in the construction and manipulation of social identities (Dobres 1995), but also the way gender is involved in socio-political and economic processes. Gender archaeology, therefore, is obviously concerned with women’s place in history, although, in contrast to feminist archaeology, it is also inclusive of men and is concerned with the way genders are constructed through interactive relationships in daily life (the latter also being a research interest of feminist archaeologists). Gender archaeology also requires critical thinking of how the past has been interpreted in terms of gender and how we could overcome our modern-day preconceptions in the explanatory models we propose. In addition, gender archaeology includes the development of a methodological and theoretical framework, suitable for the purposes of gender analysis.

‘natural’ roles of motherhood and fertility, resulting in their exclusion from socio-political and economic action. Moreover, such accounts generalise male experiences for society as a whole. We conduct studies on status, class and power struggles in past societies, but the actors shaping and being shaped by these conditions remain faceless and abstract, as we fail to realise that gender is actually involved in all spheres of socio-political and economic negotiations (Gibbs 1987, 1998). For that reason, we need to make not only women visible in the archaeological record, but also to include in our interpretations a spectrum of gender and age related experiences. A gender approach, therefore, contributes to a heightened awareness of the socio-political factors that influence our interpretations, and urges us to confront our inescapable assumptions and limitations.

3.3.2 Gender and sex in gender archaeology: theory and application

Gender is not a concept that archaeologists project or impose on the archaeological record. Gender was and is a category that holds central place in societies and can manifest itself in a multiplicity of ways. Gender is a social parameter tightly linked to, not divorced from, the social arenas of power, status, wealth, control, ideology, economics and politics. It is grounded not only in the abstract realm of ideology, but also in our quotidian activities and social relationships. As Conkey and Spector (1998) argue, the reason why women or other gender categories are invisible archaeologically is not that the task of recognising them is impossible or idealistic, but that it is instead related to archaeologists’ belief that the criteria they employ for the definition of gender identities are objective and applicable across time and culture. Gender, therefore, has the potential to be studied and traced in all spheres of economic, ideological and political activity as long as we adapt and widen our methodological approaches. Approaching prehistoric figurines in the context of gender archaeology contributes new information to our understanding of Aegean Neolithic and EBA societies regarding social identity and organisation.

Two of the central terms in gender archaeology are sex and gender. As with other terms in archaeology, no consensus has been reached and their meaning and use are still under construction. For that reason it is necessary to explain at this point how the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are employed in the present study. Initially, we need to realise that the terms sex and gender have changed through time, reflecting among other things the changes in morality attached to the idea of sexuality. Caplan (1987, 24) has argued, therefore, that our understanding of sexuality is formed under specific cultural and economic circumstances and, depending on the historical context, it also serves specific political purposes. Because the notions of sex and gender are culturally situated, they do not have a universal explanation; such terms vary across time and space and they are the products of specific cultural and economic conditions (Gilchrist 1999, Meskell 1995, Moore 1994). In western societies, for instance, since the 1960s it is believed that sex refers to the biological and anatomical characteristics of the body, while gender is the sociological term used to explain the cultural expression of one’s sexual behaviour and identity. The emergence of such observations created new academic and political movements which advocated that gender is associated with sexuality which in turn is tied to biological sex. We have been led to believe that sex is the objective, scientific truth, as opposed to the cultural and subjective understanding of gender. A different opinion has been expressed by Nordbladh and Yates (1990), as well as Lesick (1997) and Gilchrist (1999) who have argued that biology is more political than we think and that the distinctions between the two sexes, therefore, are not as unquestionable. In addition, evidence for the cultural nature of biological sex is offered by a number of societies where gender is not associated with sexual features, but rather

In terms of my personal research agenda and interests, applying a gender archaeology approach has been a conscious decision. On one hand, the present study seeks to review the proposed interpretations of prehistoric social organisation in the Aegean, and on another to contribute to the ongoing dialogue among archaeologists on gender in the Aegean and beyond. Archaeologists often interpret the past by imposing their own social preconceptions on how prehistoric societies may have been organised. This discrepancy is often caused by the fact that it is sometimes overlooked that gender is not necessarily a bi-polar concept with a one-to-one correlation to biological sex. We tend to forget that gender is a complex construct, which is often related to age, possibly also encompassing multiple gender categories. Aegean prehistory specifically has been largely based on accounts that have favoured men over any other social category. Women are often equated with their

20

20

The study of gender through anthropomorphic figurines: a theoretical discussion

with behaviour as moulded through social processes (see Gilchrist 1999, Moore 1994, Yates 1993).

Returning to the present study, sex is a term that is being used as a shorthand label for the representation of the anatomical attributes on figurines, or the lack of them (Asexual) and should be viewed only as a heuristic term for the categorisation of figurines according to their represented anatomy. Emphasis is paid on the recording of the represented anatomy of the figurines because it is known anthropologically that the body often underpins the categorisation of gender. The rare occurrence of third gender classificatory categories crossculturally reflects the strong tendency for a close association between biological reproduction and gender (Herdt 1994, 80). I do not wish to suggest, however, a pre-determined reading of gender based on “sexed” figurines. For that reason, the use of the term ‘gender’ at the level of interpretation consists of the correlation between the following factors: the represented anatomy of figurines, the applied decoration, aspects of embodiment expressed through posture, as well as contextual associations. Meaningful patterns observed in other categories of material culture also serve to draw a more holistic understanding of gender enactment in prehistoric Aegean societies. This way we avoid imposing contemporary gender categories on early Aegean prehistory and we rely instead on the observed relational patterns between figurines themselves and other types of evidence that can throw light on social organisation.

The implication of the deeply political and cultural dimension of sex-gender terminology is that the use of biology for the legitimisation of our conclusions is not as neutral as we would like to believe (Nordbladh and Yates 1990). For that reason, we cannot apply our western perceptions of bi-polar sex and gender on the study of gender that was constructed in cultures which differ in time and space. We need to realise, therefore, that, in contrast to western cultural models, gender is not only tied to our corporeal “fate”, but is also the result of a series of daily interactions with the others and of expected and accepted social roles that shape our gender identities (Moore 1994; Yates 1993). The fact that our gender is not determined by our sexed bodies is also illustrated by the cases of third genders, which though admittedly very rare, may include persons belonging to both genders (Fowler 2004, 25). Moreover, gender is not always a permanent category; it can be temporary and changing and various social strategies can produce deliberately ambiguous and changing gender identities (Fowler 2004, 25). The way to approach the study of gender without equating the body with universal identities, as suggested by Moore (1994) and Meskell (1996), is to realise the variety and uniqueness in which individuals experience embodied practices in their cultural context. For example, age plays a crucial role in the construction of gender and the point at which a person reaches the attainment of full personhood varies cross-culturally (Fowler 2004, 26). Granted there are a number of biologyrelated parameters which can be considered as potentially common shaping factors for the construction of gender, such as pregnancy and birth-giving for women. How gender behaviour is enacted, however, needs to be interpreted in a given historical and cultural context without imposing our own assumptions.

3.3.3 Gender and the body Theories concerning the body are also of relevance for the present study, since figurines were modelled in the shape of human bodies. The mindful intention from the part of the producers, therefore, included notions of corporeality, social identity and embodied behaviour as experienced and performed in daily interactions through the body. How then is the lived (and, in this case, represented) body involved in the construction and performance of gender? As we have already discussed, in a number of theories, the body has been equated with sex and the indisputable scientific “truth” that determined its nature universally. The same trend has also characterised liberal and Marxist feminist perspectives, which relied on the biology/ideology distinction by overlooking the way social values become embedded in human bodies (Gatens 1992, 295). Recent debates, however, have illustrated that while biology determines one’s sex on the basis that the physical body constitutes an unquestionable category, it is now becoming evident that such categorisations are deeply political and moralistic. We can no longer think, therefore, of the body (sex) as the opposite of social identity (gender) with the respective notions of objective “truth” and subjective culture. Though we need to be careful when we explain universal experiences through the body, we should also acknowledge that gender is an identity which has its foundations on both biological experiences and cultural factors. As Gatens has argued from a deconstructive-feminist perspective, we need to challenge the idea that the biological body can account for

Recent work moves towards a reconciliation between biological sex and cultural gender which constitute a cause for tension between osteoarchaeological and interpretative archaeology. Sofaer sees the body as more than biological sex and proposes that skeletal remains are as much shaped by culture, as any other form of material culture (2006, 105). Bodies and gender, therefore, are viewed as material constructs (Sofaer 2006, 85, 105). Factors that leave a mark on the physical body include, among other things, labour tasks and diet practices (Sofaer 2006, 105-113). Recognising the shaping effect that gender has on the physical body allows us to make inferences about the way gender operated in past societies. At the same time, acknowledging the variation in the way bodies may have been shaped in terms of activities and lifestyle, allows a pluralist understanding of gender. In viewing gender as a material construct we can bridge the dichotomy between bodies and culture and reinstate the study of skeletal remains as a valid domain of research for the understanding of gender (Sofaer 2006, 114-116).

21

21

The study of gender through anthropomorphic figurines: a theoretical discussion

universal capacities and needs (1992, 295). Instead, we should realise how the body is grounded in historical conditions and how the cultural environment moulds the body through particular tasks (Gatens 1992, 298). Consequently, gender needs to be understood as the way in which power constructs the bodies, and not as an ideological effect (Gatens 1992, 299). From the points raised above, therefore, becomes evident that the biological body should not be perceived as a universal surface upon which we can presume its nature (masculine, feminine) cross-culturally, or predict gender-related behaviours.

of symbolic meanings in a social space (1994, 320). The body can also prove a powerful medium of resistance in the way it interacts in the course of daily activities and deliberate actions by interpreting and re-interpreting dominant discourses in a symbolically loaded space (Moore 1994, 325).

3.3.4 Gender and the body in archaeology The theorisation of the body in other disciplines has spurred a discussion in archaeology and has influenced the way archaeologists have recently approached issues concerning the construction and performance of gender and social identity. Ideas on embodiment have found application primarily in the field of gender archaeology in an attempt to encompass the body in our understanding of gender roles.

The body plays an instrumental role in the way gender roles are expressed and performed. As Gatens has argued, the history of the body and the environment in which it operates have a great impact on the body and that is how we should also attempt to understand how men and women were created as categories and the particular tasks they performed (1992, 298). Gender identity, therefore, is internalised by and prescribed for the individual as a result of social conditioning (Aalten 1997). Aalten has demonstrated her ideas by concentrating on the study of the bodies of ballerinas which, in accordance with accepted notions of femininity, perform dance movements as an expression of their graceful, fragile femininity, unlike the bodies of male dancers which express masculinity and virility. Aalten, who is opposed to the binary ideas of sex and gender, suggests an alternative approach through her case study which demonstrates that gender has a great impact on our bodies which, in turn, internalise their social identity through our actions, interactions, movements and performances in the daily “choreography” of our social lives. In the words of Gatens, gender “is constructed by discourses and practices that take the body both as their target and as their vehicle of expression” (1992, 299).

One aspect that has concerned archaeologists is the way the body enacts gender through the manipulation of its appearance, and how it communicates and perpetuates the social position in society. The employment of material culture plays a central role in this shaping and communicative process, which has significant implications for archaeology. One such study has been conducted by Treherne (1995) who concentrated on the advent of warrior aristocracy in Bronze Age Europe. Treherne examined how the new class performed their social status through the use of a new class of objects that were used to beautify and decorate the body (textiles, tweezers, razors, combs, mirrors and tattooing instruments), mark their warrior status (weapons or wheeled vehicles) and enhance their lifestyle (including serving vessels for the consumption of alcohol). The physical body was central in the experience and performance of social status through the employment of the material culture mentioned above. Treherne argued, therefore, that the body does not act as a social metaphor in prehistoric societies; instead, the body in association with material culture actively performed and experienced its social identity at a physical level through a lived sense of the self. Treherne does not accept the clinical dichotomy between mind and body because the body should be studied as a medium through which individuals learned their world and placed themselves in their social context through a constant process of physical experience and performance in a didactic tradition.

Lindemann (1997) has also argued from a similar perspective and does not accept that bodies are born with a gender on the basis of a universal sex; rather the body is moulded to fit gender categories which are shaped and constructed by the social context. Lindemann adds that the way gender is internalised is through the perception of others and through the realisation of others’ gender identities. MacRae (1975) also accepts that the body performs social identities through lived experiences and argues that it is in turn used as a social metaphor and analogy in the way we theorise our social cosmology in our daily lives. At this point it is necessary to remind ourselves of Bourdieu’s (1970) Berber house and Moore’s (1986) study of the Marakwet of Kenya which clearly demonstrate how the understanding of the body shapes and orders the use and construction of domestic and settlement space by giving it a symbolic dimension.

In a similar vein, Sørensen (1997) also concentrated on the body and dress in the Danish Bronze Age. Her arguments are based on the idea that appearance, as constructed through dress and other fittings, communicates social status and gender identity which, being highly visible and expressive, marks identity even before any real contact with other members of that cultural system. Dress and general appearance are so powerful and communicative that they can naturalise one’s social position and behaviour, or create illusions regarding social status. What communicated and reflected social status, therefore, were not just the objects themselves, but the association of attire to real bodies. Finally, Sørensen has also referred to gender and how the type of dress and ornamentation

Finally, the human body also has a more openly active role in the way it can generate social meaning. Moore (1994) has suggested that the body assumes a dynamic part in social processes through daily interaction and the activities of social actors, in accordance with Bourdieu’s ideas on the generation

22

22

The study of gender through anthropomorphic figurines: a theoretical discussion

worn by men and women (permanent in the form of tattoos or scarring, pieces of clothing such as buttons or pins sewn onto the fabric, or removable, such as belt ornaments or swords) indicated the extent to which gender identities were fixed, rigid or more flexible. Gender is constructed and manipulated on the level of appearance as expressed through one’s body. The body “wears” the gender status and social position and that enables the individual to realise him/herself in relation to other social members. The lived body also places individuals in socially accepted categories through the experience and performance of their given gender and wider social identity.

emblems that may have served as mnemonic and didactic means in their cultural context, if we assume that figurines represented lived bodies. A complementary viewpoint considers society and, hence the category of gender, as an agent that shapes and moulds the physical body which, in turn, reflects and performs the expectations and idealised images that are imposed by culture. One such study by Izzet (1998) has demonstrated how the body may be moulded to reflect the socially accepted expression of gender. The case study refers to mirrors and gender identity in Etruria between 530 BC and 470 BC. Izzet has argued that mirrors with their engraved images were tools used by men and women to construct a corresponding ideal image which appeared as natural and objective. While women’s engraved images reflected their passive role to appear beautiful to men, men’s representations expressed their dedication to athleticism, warfare and physical exercise taking place in the public sphere. Again we see the body as being a surface upon which society visibly carves gender identities as a way of naturalising them. At the same time, the body is also active in the sense that it experiences the behaviour and status that is attached to it. Such depictions of the body, and ideal images of how it should appear and behave, perpetuate gender roles and create an ideal image against which gendered people measure themselves.

In a Meso-American case study, Joyce (2002) has combined different sets of data, figurines and material culture related to beautification from burials, in order to explore how gender was performed among the living, but also how it was denoted through representative media. Joyce found that in both domains there was a corresponding categorisation between the beautified and accentuated body in relation to anatomical sex and age, with a particular focus on the stage of mating between men and women and reproduction. In this case, Joyce has provided us with a methodologically valuable model for associated sets of data which demonstrate how the body (lived and represented) and its manipulation were central and instrumental in the performance of gender roles and in the operation of communities.

Gender, therefore, emerges as a parameter that is tightly connected with the body, though not in the way sex has been linked with gender. The body is the outer, highly visible surface upon which society constructs gender identities and roles. They appear neutral and objective, an ideal image that social members aspire to in their wish to become socially accepted. On the other hand, the body is not simply an expression of social order; it is also active because it is through the body that individuals can carry out their daily activities and perform their roles. Moreover, through the body individuals can mould and manipulate their appearance in order to achieve the socially expected identity. The body and its appearance is what enables individuals to gain a sense of themselves which is lived, performed and experienced physically. Sofaer has referred to the materiality of the physical body and the form it acquires through its moulding by prevailing social norms and practices (2006, 76-77). In archaeology the combination of additional aspects, such as patterns related to corporeality (labour-related strains), performance and symbolism (attire, jewellery, implements of body modification, symbolic representations on various media), as well as their associations and distribution in space (of the living and the dead), can offer a more rounded understanding of gender categories.

Similarly, Turner (1995), studying the body from an anthropological point of view, emphasised the way it acts as the surface upon which social identity can be written and performed. The modification of its appearance, as well as the employment and circulation of associated valuable materials (such as jewellery, clothes) serve to mark social status and communicate social identity in small scale societies. In the case of the Kayapo, an Indian tribe living in the Rain Forest of Brazil, Turner found that social identity was based on concrete and lived bodily experiences and the combination of the social body and the embodied subject are active in the processes of social organisation, but also take the form of that organisation. “The embodied subject thus plays a dual role in productive activity: both as producer and product, agent and object” (Turner 1995, 166). On a community level, the physical body can serve a stabilising and preserving role in society. Rainbird (2002) in his study of tattooing and Pohnpei petroglyphs of Oceania has shown how tattooed bodies preserved community lineage, ancestry and important events on the bodies of its members. Bodies, therefore, acted as living testimonies of the history of their community. In a metaphorical way, rocks were also engraved with similar symbols, “embodying” thus the “truth” of the importance of the place. Rainbird concludes that the body cuts across many social layers of meaning and can also be employed for the preservation of information, the communication of ethnicity and other identities and the assertion of land rites. In a similar vein, the decorative motifs on anthropomorphic figurines can also be interpreted as

Turning our attention back to anthropomorphic figurines, the idea of embodiment informs us on the cognition, embodied experience and intention from the part of the producer surrounding gender identity and performance. At the level of the user, who may or may not be the same as the producer, ideas about embodiment and gender roles that figurines were inculcated with are also of relevance, as figurines would have

23

23

The study of gender through anthropomorphic figurines: a theoretical discussion

exercised agency on social agents. The effects may have been of a didactic and prescribing nature, although attempts to overturn such socially embedded models should not be dismissed.

24

24

Chapter 4 Gender Archaeology through anthropomorphic figurines: a methodology

Female: clear presence of female genitalia and/or breasts and possible secondary female attributes (accentuated hips and/or accentuated buttocks and/or pregnant abdomens) (see fig. 4.1). Probably Female: unclear modelling or partial weathering does not allow the secure identification of the preserved figurine as definitely Female. Female form: absence of female genitalia and/or breasts, but accentuated presence of secondary attributes (hips and /or buttocks) (see fig. 4.2). Probably Female form: the same criteria apply as for Female form, but the fragmentary state of preservation does not allow a secure classification as Female form. Male: clear presence of male genitalia and, according to the general Aegean stylistic convention, absence of breasts (see fig. 4.3). Probably Male: unclear presence of male genitalia, due to unclear modelling or weathering. Asexual: definite absence of male or female genitalia, breasts and secondary female attributes (accentuated hips and/or accentuated buttocks) (see fig. 4.4). Probably Asexual: asexual upper or lower body fragments which cannot be categorised with certainty as Asexual because of their partial state. Ambiguous: dual modelling of genitalia bearing male and female traits, or presence of prominent breasts and male genitalia on the same figurine (see fig. 4.5). Non-applicable: figurine fragments whose partial state does not allow their classification under any of the above categories.

4.1 Data: criteria for selection and recording strategy Both sets of data (Neolithic and EBA) comprise recorded figurines from published sources. No figurines have been included, however, for which no sketch or photograph was provided that could allow personal visual observation of the modelled features. Part of the selection process also aimed at ensuring that the studied corpus does not include forged pieces for the reasons already discussed in Chapter 3. For Neolithic figurines, such risk is minimal, as opposed to their EBA counterparts, especially those of Cycladic origin. For that reason, Cycladic and Cycladic-type figurines included in the sample have been recovered predominantly from actual excavations. Cycladic figurines reported as casual finds, however, have been limited only to those that were found up to and including the year 1900 and no later, to ensure that no forged pieces are included in the sample. Forgery of Cycladic figurines is known to have reached its peak particularly in the period of the 1960s (Chippindale and Gill 1995, 132).

4.2 Documenting the physical body i. Anatomical attributes Apart from the recording of formal attributes, a methodological strategy was devised to serve the study of gender through anthropomorphic figurines. The human body holds a central place in the analysis as it allows us to explore aspects of prehistoric cognition, gender embodiment, construction and gender-related symbolisms.

On the level of interpretation, the formulation of the above labelling schema, as well as observations on aspects of embodiment and symbolism (posture, motifs, use of colour) serve to establish the association between the represented anatomical body and gender categories, nonetheless not always with a one-to-one correlation.

The initial stage of analysis involves the categorisation of figurines according to the modelled anatomical attributes, since the physical body often plays a structuring role in the construction of gender. The analysis has focused on the presence and absence of prominent anatomical characteristics, such as genitalia and breasts (not always a definite indication of sex), as well as secondary features, such as distinctly swollen abdomens (taken to denote pregnancy), accentuated hips and accentuated buttocks primarily associated with the female body. It is important to stress here that the following categories of the represented sex have been devised heuristically as shorthand conventions for the easy identification of the modelled body, and are not intended to impose an a priori reading of sex as gender. This is why the interpretation offered for figurines belonging to the same anatomical category may vary depending on the stylistic conventions and cultural context of a given period.

ii. The human form and stylistic conventions In addition to anatomical categories, a typological schema, specifically designed for the recording of the physical body, has been developed for the present study. It serves as a categorising method that allows us to detect patterns in the modelling of the human body. A body-based typology goes beyond stylistic trends and cultural norms to reveal social ideals behind the modelling of gender imagery. In brief, the general rendering of the human body for both periods take the following forms. Abstract, summary figurine bodies have been termed as amorphous or schematic (the latter being less abstract than the amorphous type). More articulated bodies have been categorised on the basis of their

The devised anatomical categories are the following:

25

Gender archaeology through anthropomorphic figurines: a methodology

proportions as proportionate (slender), corpulent and steatopygous. In addition to the categorisation according to the general proportions (i.e. proportionate, corpulent, steatopygous), the technical effect is also noted (e.g. corpulent, schematic). The same applies for those figurines with a clear body typology that fall under the category of zoomorphic, representing thus a hybrid category of human and animal features (e.g. proportionate, zoomorphic). When necessary, reference is also made to certain forms borrowed from the conventional typological schemata, which enable us to readily recall their body form, as in the case of the Saliagos and violin types (see Renfrew 1969).

The systematic analysis of figurine decoration has provided a promising avenue for the understanding of aspects relating to gender construction, embodiment and symbolism. Moreover, the association between applied motifs and classes of figurines allows me to explore the overlap or differentiation between figurines of the same anatomical category, in an attempt to overcome the constraints of sex-gender dichotomies. Furthermore, the way the body was adorned, covered or exposed has important implications for the understanding of gender embodiment and status as expressed through figurines. Finally, the comparative analysis of decoration for both Neolithic and EBA figurines, allows us to detect changes in the way gender was constructed and communicated diachronically.

iii. Posture: embodiment and gender The central role played by the body in the internalisation and enactment of gender has already been discussed. Correlating the modelled posture with the represented sex can inform aspects relating to gender embodiment and performance. Special attention has been paid to the general posture of the body (i.e. standing, kneeling, etc.), the position of the arms and hands and finally the legs. Reference is also made to general postural themes, such as kourotrophoi (modelled with one or more children), musicians or hunter-warrior figurines.

4.3 Deconstructing symbolism

decoration:

meaning

ii. Plastic attributes: coiffure and headdress as social markers Closely associated with the subject of attire, modification of the body, and the embodiment of personal and social identity in general, is also the modelling of headdress or coiffure. For this reason, such attributes have been treated methodologically in much the same way as applied motifs. Ethnographic studies have established that headdresses communicate the ethnic and group affiliation of those belonging to the same cultural community (Pilali-Papasteriou 1989, 100), and social rank (Wason 1994, 105). Headdresses can also be considered as markers of gender, which through the modification of personal appearance denoted a shared social identity and differentiation from other gender groups. Associations between headdresses, gender, social status and ethnic identity may reveal which gender was bestowed with the continuity of cultural traditions and the communication of social status. Similar arguments can also be put forward for the study of coiffure styles and the way they are linked to the process of gender, social and ethnic identity performance and communication. Finally, the comparative analysis of such Neolithic and EBA patterns enables us to detect cultural similarities and differences regarding the role and status of gender across time and space.

and

i. Applied decorative motifs Careful analysis of decoration has allowed me to deconstruct the representation and meaning behind the rendered motifs, relate them to the modelled body and explore implications for the understanding of gender. The analysis involved breaking down decoration into the thematic sections that together comprise the whole synthesis. For example, the motif that denoted a necklace was recorded separately from the motif marking a band/belt around the waist of the same figurine and so on. The analysis was further refined by recording the anatomical part on which motifs were marked. This additional information has allowed me to differentiate between random motifs (such as those representing tattoos or body painting) appearing on different parts of the body, and those denoting attire, which tend to appear on the same anatomical parts. Associating motifs with the body parts on which they occurred, I was then able to distinguish between decoration representing body decoration (tattoo, body painting, scarring), clothing, body decoration or clothing (when both interpretations are equally feasible) and jewellery (see figures 5.44 and 6.49). Recording the method in which the motif was marked (incised, painted etc.) also has relevance for the understanding of what the motif was intended to denote (for instance, body scarring was probably marked with incisions or ‘pinched’ motifs). Finally, the colour of the pigment or nature of colouring material has also been considered, information that is relevant for the understanding of possible gender-related symbolisms.

iii. Use of colour and symbolism The application of colour on figurines is likely to have played a strong communicative role. Pigment was often used for the rendering of motifs or was applied to the whole surface of the figurine as paint or slip. Associating colour with the body part on which it occurs also has significant implications for the understanding of gender construction and performance. Colour deserves special attention as it may have operated independently from motifs, adding thus another layer of meaning. The use of colour as part of body decoration and attire plays a communicative role since it can express social (Turner 1995, 146) and cultural identity (David et al 1988, 378; Hodder 1982). It can also serve to preserve and “write” lineage history on the body (Rainbird 2002, 237), but also mark the stages of maturity in ceremonial occasions (Joyce 2002, 15-25). On a symbolic level, ethnography has indicated that certain colours tend to relate to specific

26

Gender archaeology through anthropomorphic figurines: a methodology

substances, materials and symbolic notions (Chapman 2002, Walisewska 1991) and often reflect the way people categorise themselves and the world around them (Chapman 2002, 52-53). References to such ethnographic paradigms can serve as possible suggestions for the interpretation of pigment applied on figurines. Caution needs to be exercised, however, not to assume universal readings for colour-related symbolism.

difficult area of analysis. Behind the understanding of who manufactured figurines lies a series of implications, which relate to who was using figurines, how and for what reason in the context of gender relations and dynamics. I do not think, however, that using anthropological analogies will provide answers to the question about technology and gender, especially as such models have proven problematic on a number of levels (Rice 1991, 440; Wright 1991, 198, 195). In addition, even though certain crafts are dominated by one gender that does not exclude the possibility that a variety of gender combinations were involved in different production stages (Nelson 1997, 106; Sørensen 1996; Wright 1991, 195). If we consider, therefore, that activities and their end-products are the result of a chaîne operatoire, we should then envisage that more than one gender may have been involved at different stages of production.

Turning back to the subject of gender, the association between colour and the represented sex, as well as between colour and the meaning of motifs can reveal aspects related to the way gender was embodied and conceptualised symbolically.

4.4 Manufacture and use: hypothesis and analogy

Sørensen (1996) has made some useful suggestions on the subject of technology and gender attribution with reference to women and metalworking in the European Bronze Age. Sørensen has proposed that we need to rise above our modern-day preconceptions about gender labour division. We should not exclude, therefore, men or women from occupations that in our modern society are gender-exclusive. Sørensen resists the hypothesis that men were the metalworkers in the European Bronze Age. She explains that very often the weaknesses in analysing gender and technology lies in the way we structure and order our research aims: “women and/as metalworkers” affords a more productive avenue for research than “women and metalworkers” because it avoids a negative answer that would exclude women from metalworking due to limited evidence. By recognising both groups (women and metalworkers), Sørensen is interested in the way women were influenced by metalworkers and how women’s lives were affected by the various processes involved in the social and material aspects of metal-working. Sørensen tests a number of alternative models based on artefactual evidence, in order to explore different resulting scenarios. The detour suggested by Sørensen ensures that women are not excluded from the sphere of technology and that they remain central to our research questions.

Exploring who may have been responsible for the manufacture of figurines could provide answers for some of the basic issues that this study seeks to explore. The question of figurine production, however, and its attribution to one or the other gender is admittedly a difficult one to address and requires careful methodological consideration. Gender archaeology appears to be divided between those who believe that we should not be concerned with gender attribution, and others who argue that it is imperative for archaeologists to provide answers to such questions. Bailey (1994a), following the first line of thinking, has argued that we cannot be preoccupied with attributing labour tasks to gender because gender is not limited to technology, but is instead a construct which is formed through the process of social interaction and formation of meaningful relationships. On the other hand, one of the most dedicated supporters of gender attribution in the study of craft production is Costin (1996) who has argued that it is critical that we discuss gender and labour division because the organisation of labour also affects the organisation of gender roles in other social and economic domains. In brief, Costin suggests that we can think about attributing technology to gender through the study of cross-cultural analogy, mortuary context and figurative representations.

Sørensen’s work can also prove very useful for the understanding of figurine production. By formulating hypothetical alternative models for figurine manufacture, some of the suggestions will emerge as more plausible on the grounds of artefactual evidence. Even though we may not be able to draw concrete conclusions, figurine production is examined as a social and dynamic process that involved and influenced gendered actors in multiple ways.

Dobres (1995), unlike Costin, does not believe that we need to make explicit hypotheses about gender and specific labour tasks. Instead, Dobres postulates that it would be more fruitful for archaeologists to interpret how the end-products and their manufacture fit in the wider socio-economic and cultural context, rather than link genders to specific tasks. The analysis suggested by Dobres would involve a microscale approach to production, which should also examine how gender was actively taking part in craft production. Dobres has suggested that the analysis of patterns relating to the technical aspects of the end-products is suitable for the understanding of the social processes which structure production.

Finally, the use and occasions in which figurines were being employed is also an issue of concern for the role played by figurines in gender construction. Contextual evidence can provide possible scenarios for the occasions that involved the use of figurines. Alternatively, ethnographic and anthropological models concerning figurine use can aid us in formulating our hypothesis by analogy. We are likely to be faced with a number of possibilities, though that should not necessarily be considered problematic. It is plausible that

From my part, I would also argue that technology is not divorced from the dynamics of social, political, economic and ideological processes. We cannot, therefore, ignore the organisation of production, even though it is admittedly a

27

Gender archaeology through anthropomorphic figurines: a methodology

figurines had more than one use and were employed actively in a range of contexts.

4.2 Example of (a) Neolithic Female form figurine from Macedonia and (b) EBA Female form figurine from Lesbos

Figures 4.1 Example of (a) Neolithic Female figurine from Thessaly and (b) EBA Female figurine from Euboia

(a)

(b)

(a)

(after Renfrew et al 1986, fig. 9.92)

(b)

(after Lamb 1936, pl. XXI)

(after Orphanidi 1998, pl. 34)

(after Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1991, pl. 7)

28

Gender archaeology through anthropomorphic figurines: a methodology

4.3 Example of (a) Neolithic Male figurine from Thessaly and (b) EBA Male figurine from the Cyclades

(a)

(after Orphanidi 1998, pl. 33)

(b)

(after Zervos 1951, pl. 79a)

4.4 Example of (a) Neolithic Asexual figurine from Macedonia and (b) EBA Asexual figurine from Euboia

29

(a)

(after Renfrew et al 1986, fig. 9.32)

(b)

(after Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1991, pl. 3)

Gender archaeology through anthropomorphic figurines: a methodology

4.5 Example of (a) Neolithic Ambiguous figurine from Thessaly and (b) EBA Ambiguous figurine from the Cyclades

(a)

(after Hourmouziadis 1973, pl. 9)

(b)

(after Sotirakopoulou 1998, fig. 10)

30

Chapter 5 Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Conclusion: Figure 5.3 shows that the sample points to an unequal recovery of figurines from the discussed regions. It would have been useful to establish through statistical analysis whether we are detecting an unequal production of figurines across the Aegean. Nevertheless, the lack of consensus in the way excavations have been recorded and published does not allow a comprehensive comparison of the extent of excavation and number of recovered figurines per region. The fact that Thessaly, Macedonia and Crete dominate the sample may be linked to the choice of area for excavation where Neolithic sites are expected to be found. Nevertheless, the results coincide with the foci of Neolithic settlement in the Aegean, situated in fertile lowlands, as indicated by the geographical distribution of sites. It is only in the later part of the Neolithic that insular and more agriculturally marginal areas are settled (Broodbank 2000, 144; Davis 2001, 23), a pattern also confirmed by the recovery of anthropomorphic figurines. The recovery of figurines from the majority of known settlements suggests that figurines were obviously an integral part of the Neolithic way of life. Whether the level of figurine production is actually linked to demographic factors and/or relative social complexity is an aspect that cannot be established with any certainty.

5.1 An introduction to the Neolithic sample The following section presents a general introduction to the Neolithic corpus with a discussion on figurine categories present in the sample their provenance. The Neolithic corpus consists of 1,093 published figurines.

5.1.1 A breakdown according to the represented sex Out of the whole sample, I have been able to identify a percentage of 73.5 on the basis of their represented sex (see 4.2.i). Figure 5.1 shows that Female figurines represent the highest proportion, which with Female-related figurines (Probably Female, Female form) show an overall predominance, amounting to over 50% of the whole sample. The second highest percentage is held by Asexual and Probably Asexual figurines, with Male representations accounting for only 2.1% of the whole sample. Ambiguous figurines constitute the smallest proportion (0.7%) represented in the sample. Statistical analysis has also confirmed that not all sex categories were preferred equally and that the modelling of Female figurines, followed by Asexual forms, was favoured over other types (see App. 1, statistical test 1.1).

5.1.3 Figurine categories and provenance

Conclusion: The results suggest that Neolithic people were particularly preoccupied with the portrayal of women’s bodies and aspects related to women’s life cycles. One has to acknowledge, however, the considerable proportion of Asexual figurines represented in the sample. The complexity of the figurine record is further attested by the presence of Ambiguous specimens indicating that a multi-level process of gender construction operated in Neolithic Aegean society. Finally, a point to note is the striking under representation of Male figurines.

Let us now examine how categories of the represented sex are associated with geographical provenance, in order to assess whether the patterns are linked to a regional and cultural bias. Figure 5.4 clearly demonstrates that Female and other Femalerelated figurines dominate the assemblages of most areas. The exact percentage of Female figurines varies regionally, but in almost all areas (except Crete), they account for over 40% of the sample. Also note that in the Dodecanese, only one (Female) figurine has been recovered, which is why the chart presents a somewhat misleading impression.

5.1.2 Provenance of the sample

Not all regions have produced Female form figurines, with the notable exception of Thrace, C. Mainland, and the Peloponnese, which may be indicative of female gender construction in their particular cultures, as shall be discussed later on. The second most common category is Asexual and Probably Asexual figurines. Again, the actual percentage does vary regionally, but Asexual figurines seem to represent a considerable proportion of the total sample in all regions. As with the case of the Dodecanese, the high percentage of Asexual and Probably Asexual figurines in the Sporades and the East Aegean are due to the paucity of evidence. Male

The areas represented in the Neolithic sample include the wider regions of the mainland and insular Aegean: Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaly, Central Mainland (Boeotia and Attica), the Peloponnese, the Sporades, Euboia, the Cyclades, Isles of the South Aegean (Samos), the Dodecanese (Karpathos) and Crete. In fig. 5.2, a detailed breakdown of the sample is presented by area. The relative proportions of figurines from the different areas are shown in percentages in fig. 5.3 and detailed list of site names can be found in Appendix 2.1.

31

31

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

figurines, on the other hand, represent a low proportion overall. They are present in the regions of Macedonia, Thessaly, the Cyclades and Crete, but are absent from the samples of Thrace, Euboia and the Peloponnese, in addition to the regions of the Sporades, South Aegean and the Dodecanese. Finally, the category of Ambiguous figurines occurs in the four regions of Macedonia, Thessaly, C. Mainland and Crete and amounts to less than 5% of the sample. The parameter of chronology is brought into the equation at a later stage and it provides possible explanations for the emerging patterns discussed here.

they were in use for a number of generations, presumably either as representations of the ancestral past or as curiosities.

5.2.2 Temporal and geographical variables This section focuses on the chronological breakdown of the figurine sample according to the area of recovery, as indicated by the proportional results in fig. 5.6. All specimens from Thrace date to the LN phase. In Macedonia where figurine production begins in the earliest phase, the vast majority of figurines date to the LN phase, followed by a dramatic decrease in the FN period. The resulting pattern for Macedonia may be linked to archaeologists’ difficulty in detecting FN settlements. For Thessaly, the EN and MN phases are comparable in terms of production, though a declining trend is apparent in the LN and FN phases. The neighbouring Sporades show a pattern of gradual increase for figurine production from the EN to the MN phases, though no figurines dating to the LN and FN phases were recovered. In the C. Mainland figurine production shows an increasing trend from the EN to the LN phase, which decreases dramatically in the FN. A similar pattern is also echoed by the evidence from the Peloponnese. The Cyclades and Euboia present a similar pattern with a lack of figurines in the EN and MN periods. The vast majority of figurines from both areas date to the LN period, followed by a marked decrease in the FN phase. The limited evidence from the South Aegean and the Dodecanese suggests a pattern similar to the other islands. For Crete, the pattern is similar to that of Macedonia and the Peloponnese with an increase of figurines from the EN to the LN period, which also represents the highest proportion in comparison to all other phases. The FN phase again represents a dramatic decrease in figurine production. Very few specimens are known to have come from the Ionian islands (only from Corfu) and the Dodecanese (Rhodes and Karpathos) (Orphanidi 1998), but the available evidence is not adequate to allow meaningful conclusions.

Conclusion: Female representations with their variations are the most common eidoloplastic theme across the Aegean in the Neolithic period. The striking disparity in relation to the production and circulation of male models is evident across the Aegean and is not therefore the result of regional biases. In fact, a comparable breakdown according to the represented sex categories is evident in the samples of Macedonia, Thessaly and Crete, regions that have yielded the main corpus of figurines, thus implying that the detected pattern characterised most of the Aegean. In summary, the wide production and circulation of female representations suggests a deep preoccupation of people living in the Neolithic Aegean with womanhood and aspects related to women’s lives. Finally, special attention needs also to be paid to sexless representations, which may imply a complex and socially negotiable construction of gender.

5.2 Neolithic figurines in their context of circulation, deposition and recovery 5.2.1 A chronological breakdown of the Neolithic sample Figure 5.5 shows the proportion of figurines represented in each broad Neolithic phase. The sample under study indicates a steady increase of figurine production, followed by a drop in the FN. It is difficult to establish whether the fluctuations in production are the result of real unequal production levels or if they are linked to biases in the archaeological record. Statistical analysis could not be performed to explore further this pattern of disparity, given the difficulty of assessing the extent of the excavated sites per chronological phase and the excavated volume of soil per site.

Conclusion: The breakdown of figurines shows that the areas of Macedonia, Thessaly, C. Mainland, the Peloponnese and Crete have produced figurines throughout the Neolithic period. Regions that have yielded figurines dating to the LN phases are those where systematic occupation dates later than in other parts of the Aegean. As mentioned earlier, it is difficult to establish whether the differential patterns across space and time reflect genuine fluctuations in figurine production. We can propose, however, that the pattern supported by the sample parallels the model of population dispersal for the Neolithic Aegean. Figurines, for example, coincide with permanent occupation, as attested in the case of the Cyclades (Broodbank 2000, 145-9; Davis 1992, 672). Putting aside biases in the choice of excavation locations, it is also possible that the high number of figurines dating to the LN period is the result of demographic rise and subsequent settlement expansion into new areas, such as eastern Macedonia, Thrace, the Cyclades

Nevertheless, there are certain points we can raise. The two Aceramic figurines present in the sample (one from Thessaly and one Aceramic/EN from Crete) suggest that figurine making is evident as a very early expression of Neolithic culture and ideology at two geographically distinct areas of the Aegean. The Aceramic, therefore, marks the beginning of a cultural trend that continues uninterrupted throughout the Neolithic. Regarding the circulation of Neolithic figurines, they seem to have been manufactured and used in the same broad phase, as indicated by the comparison of contextual and typological dates. A number of Neolithic figurines, however, suggest that

32

32

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

and the South-East and South-West parts of the mainland (Halstead 1994). The dispersing population from core habitation regions to more marginal areas in the LN and FN could also explain the lower proportion of figurines in Thessaly. The changes at the level of social organisation in the FN, which are discussed later on, are likely also to have affected figurine production.

Conclusion: Representations of female bodies are the most common theme throughout the whole of the Neolithic. Depictions of male bodies, on the other hand, consistently account for a very small percentage, while Asexual figurines represent a considerable proportion. We cannot know with certainty what Asexual figurines represented, but shared features with Female figurines (as discussed later) could be interpreted as portrayals of age-related stages. Ambiguous figurines are an uncommon category, but are, nevertheless, present up until the LN phase, posing interesting questions about gender plurality or the symbolic construction of gender. Nevertheless, the common and continuing repertoire of Female representations suggests a consistency in the preoccupation of Neolithic people with ideas relating to the female body and the social or symbolic aspects relating to it. Even though the depositional patterns for figurines change from the LN, the dominant thematic subject persisted throughout the Neolithic. It would be reasonable to assume, therefore, that the producers of figurines, the expressed ideas, and the social group to which figurines were relevant ideologically, may have remained unchanged throughout the Neolithic period.

5.2.3 Figurine categories and chronology Possible shifts in the preference of one figurine category over another can be examined through their association with different chronological phases. Figure 5.7 presents the available data in numeric form and links the figurine categories to the chronological phases of EN, MN, LN, FN and FN/EBA. Figure 5.8 shows the ratio of figurine categories per chronological phase. In fig. 5.8, the results of FN and FN/EBA columns from fig. 5.7 have been merged to enable a meaningful comparison. In the EN phase, there is a clear predominance of Female figurines, further augmented with the inclusion of Femalerelated categories of Probably Female and Female form, which in total amount to almost 75% of the sample. The situation is very different for the Male and Probably Male figurines that together represent a percentage of only 2%. Asexual figurines are the second highest category reaching just above 10%. Almost 1% of the assemblage is represented by a few Ambiguous figurines.

5.2.4 Figurines and the range of recovery sites Figure 5.9 presents a breakdown according to the type of site and the number of recovered figurines. The range of sites include open-air settlements (OS), cave sites (CS), burial sites (BS), non-secure burial sites (BS?). ‘Nk’ refers to figurines whose known provenance is limited only to the broad geographical region.

In the MN phase, the overall proportion of Female and Female-related figurine representations stays almost the same. The proportion of Male figurines is just under double that of the previous period. Similarly, Asexual and Probably Asexual figurines increase in proportion. The MN phase, therefore, shows a slight shift of the overall pattern from the earlier phase, with some decrease of Female representations, and an increase of Male and Asexual categories.

The results show that the vast majority of Neolithic figurines have been recovered from open-air settlements. Figurines found in open-air settlements tend to be recovered from domestic contexts and general habitational strata with evidence for ordinary settlement activities. Cave sites have yielded a much smaller proportion of figurines. Though Neolithic caves have sometimes been associated with burials (e.g. Franchthi, Alepotrypa, Spelaio tou Eurypide and Spelaio Sarakenou), they are generally considered to have served as seasonal or permanent occupation sites and that is why evidence from Theopetra cave points to activities also attested in open-air settlements (Kyparissi-Apostolika 1999). The fact that none of the figurines is associated in situ with any of the burials inside the caves, coupled with evidence for everyday activities, suggests that figurines recovered from cave sites were used in contexts similar to those of open-air settlements. Burial sites have yielded the lowest proportion of figurines. The secure burial sites represented in the sample are Plateia Magoula and Soufli Magoula in Thessaly (EN) and the Cycladic site of Kephala (LN-FN). Other figurines that are said to have come from burial sites originate from Thessaly, Euboia and the Cyclades.

In the LN phase, the overall proportion of Female and Femalerelated figurines remains almost the same as in the MN period. The ratio of Male figurines to other figurine categories is slightly lower than in the MN phase. There is a considerable increase of Asexual figurines, however, in comparison to both previous periods. Finally, Ambiguous figurines continue to be present in the LN phase. The FN and FN/EBA samples have been grouped under the FN phase to present a more meaningful and less fragmented picture. The results show that there is not a great difference in the relative proportions of figurine categories compared to the previous phases. The Female and Female-related proportions, as well as the Male category stay very much at similar levels. Asexual figurines increase slightly, while Ambiguous ones are not at all represented in the sample.

Conclusion: The vast majority of figurines have been recovered from open-air settlements. A similar range of recovery contexts

33

33

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

also present in cave sites suggests that figurines accompanied their owners into their cave dwellings, possibly following the seasonal cycles of activities. The abundance of figurines in the living spaces of Neolithic inhabitants indicates that anthropomorphic figurines constituted an integral part of Neolithic culture in the Aegean.

practices may be pointing to a growing distance between the realms of ideology and everyday life.

5.2.6 Recovery sites and figurine categories Figure 5.11 shows that open-air settlements have produced all figurine categories: Female, Female-related, Male, Asexual and Ambiguous figurines. Cave sites have yielded Female, Male and Asexual. No Ambiguous figurines are associated with cave sites, but given the low proportion of such figurines in the sample, this should be expected. The main figurine categories are again present in secure and probable burial sites. The specimens are few, but at least suggest that Female, Male and Asexual figurines were all associated with funerary rites.

The few EN figurines found in cremation sites represent a restricted practice, suggesting that figurines occasionally bridged over from the sphere of the living to the sphere of the dead. The site of Kephala is of special interest as it falls in the broad transitional period between the Neolithic and the EBA, and for the first time marks a funerary practice that became systematic in the succeeding EBA period. Though figurines from Kephala have not been found in direct association with any of the burials, they nevertheless mark a trend suggesting shift in use, if not meaning, that largely characterised the following EBA period.

Conclusion: The distribution of all figurine categories in the three main site types of the Neolithic Aegean suggests that there is no correlation between the represented sex of figurines and their use in a given type of site. Furthermore, the small sample from secure and probable burial sites also suggests the same pattern of use for figurine categories as in habitational contexts, carrying with them the same gender associations they had among the living. We can exclude the possibility, therefore, that the variation of figurine form may have been dictated by the use of figurines in particular contexts.

5.2.5 Recovery sites and chronology Open-air settlements have consistently yielded the majority of figurines throughout the Neolithic, as indicated by fig. 5.10. In fact, there is very little variation in the proportion of figurines recovered from open-air settlements in the EN, MN and LN phases. The FN period, however, shows a slight decrease in the number of figurines recovered from open-air settlements, a pattern that could be associated with the archaeologically attested abandonment of certain sites in Macedonia and Thessaly (Halstead 1994). More importantly, however, the decreasing proportion of figurines from open-air settlements is replaced in the FN period by figurines recovered from burial sites.

5.2.7 Recovery contexts in relation to region and relevant chronology As shown in fig. 5.12, figurine recovery contexts have been divided into three main categories: (a) Habitational/Domestic, (b) Funerary, and (c) Ritual.

Cave sites, similar to open-air settlements, have yielded figurines throughout the Neolithic, although at a markedly lower proportion. The highest proportion of figurines from cave sites dates to the MN phase. Caves appear to have served the same use throughout the Neolithic and they do not present, therefore, a shift in the use of figurines.

Unfortunately, detailed contextual information is not available for many of the figurines. The available results, however, reveal that the majority of figurines were used in a habitational/domestic context (fig. 5.12), coinciding with the recovery of figurines from open-air settlements. More specifically, fig. 5.12 indicates that figurines have been found in general activity areas, houses and courtyards. The activity areas were used for food or material processing as suggested by the presence of tools and implements. Other contexts include hearths and ovens (occasionally with a platform) in the courtyard area. Houses and general domestic contexts have also produced figurines. A few figurines have been unearthed from fills or pits where they were discarded with other materials. Finally, cave sites have also produced habitational contexts, as suggested by figurines’ association with the same range of artefacts as in open-air settlement areas. Curated figurines have also turned up in habitational strata.

Lastly, the few figurines recovered from burial sites date to the EN and LN, but mainly to the FN phase. The deposition of figurines in funerary contexts in the EN period is restricted to Thessaly, and occurs again in the Cyclades in the LN and FN phases. The same chronological pattern is also supported by figurines said to have been recovered from burial sites, with the majority dating to the LN and FN phases. Conclusion: Open-air settlements have yielded the majority of figurines throughout the Neolithic, which would suggest that figurines were part of the everyday activities of Neolithic inhabitants, indicating that quotidian life and ideology were inseparable. Even if LN and FN figurines deposited in funerary contexts retained the same meaning, shifts in depositional

In terms of proportional analysis, the majority of figurines have been found in general habitational strata. A considerable number of figurines have been recovered from houses, including two-room structures. Figurines have also been found

34

34

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

in courtyard areas, where they were associated with general activity areas, ovens, hearths or fire-pit platforms. Figurines found on platforms imply that at least some of them would have held a prominent position in space. Gimbutas (1986), in reference to the two-room structures at Achilleion, has argued for the existence of shrines inside settlements. The interpretation has been based on associated “cult” artefacts, decorated pottery being the main type. Such pottery types, however, are likely be expressing social inequalities (see Maniatis et al 1988 for Sesklo) rather than serving a ritual function. Moreover, the remaining associated finds do not differ greatly from the usual domestic contexts of one-room Neolithic houses. In terms of chronology (fig. 5.13), the recovery of figurines from habitational/domestic contexts spans the whole Neolithic period. Geographical correlation also shows that the predominant pattern for figurine use in habitational contexts is evident across the Aegean (fig. 5.12).

same “social cluster”. It is not until the LN that figurines are found in greater numbers in association with the dead, a shift suggesting changes in ideological practices involving figurines. Finally, there is no evidence in the Neolithic Aegean that could support the Mother-Goddess cult hypothesis. Even the possible ritual setting of Nea Nikomedeia does not conform to the ritual contexts in which Gimbutas placed the so-called goddesses.

5.2.8 Finds and features associated with figurines Figure 5.15 presents the range of artefacts that have an in-situ association with figurines. When figurines are not found in isolation, they tend to be associated with one or more other figurines of a human or animal form. Tools (for the processing of materials or food), utensils (food-related implements) and pottery are also regularly recovered in association with figurines, confirming the use of figurines in living spaces. Artefacts from similar contexts include obsidian blades or cores, as well as spinning and weaving equipment. Other associated objects are ornaments, which also occur alongside the usual finds from habitational strata, such as tools and pottery. Marble vessels associated with figurines come from EN living spaces and the so-called grave group from the Cyclades. Cultic equipment (clay phalloi and miniature furniture) is also associated with figurines in living areas. Two stamp seals have also been found with figurines in MN domestic deposits of Achilleion. Finally, human bones associated with figurines have been recovered in Achilleion in a refuse pit and at Franchthi cave. In Franchthi cave, human burials were disturbed and mixed with habitational strata and figurines are unlikely, therefore, to be related with human burials.

The limited funerary contexts (fig. 5.12) have yielded two figurines found in association with cremations (Plateia Magoula Zarkou), one figurine probably associated with a grave (Kephala) and nine figurines said to be from grave groups (Thessaly, Euboia, Cyclades). Seven figurines have also been found in the general cemetery area, but not directly associated with the graves, all from Kephala. Finally, one figurine has been recovered from cremation debris at Soufli Magoula. An association between funerary contexts and chronology (fig. 5.14) closely resembles the results presented in fig. 5.10, with the majority of figurines dating to the LN and FN phases. Figure 5.10 also shows a synchronous decrease of figurines recovered from LN open-air settlements. It is evident from the results presented in figures 5.10 and 5.14, therefore, that we can detect a shift in the deposition (if not use) of figurines, which began in the LN phase, but continued throughout the FN and succeeding EBA period.

Figure 5.16 presents the range of features associated with figurines. The associated features again suggest that figurines circulated in domestic and living spaces in connection with houses, activity areas, hearths and ovens.

The final category of recovery context refers to possible EN ritual contexts. Two figurines from Nea Nikomedeia (Macedonia) were found in what Rodden (1964, 114) termed “ritual” structure and which Pyke in a more recent publication describes as an unusually large structure of a possible ritual character (1996, 48-9). Its unusual large size exceeds by far the average for other structures in Nea Nikomedeia (Pyke 1996, 48), though no other finds or features associated with the figurines allow us to define their context as securely ritual.

Conclusion: The associated finds and features confirm the use of figurines predominantly in living contexts, alongside everyday activities. The inseparable line between quotidian life and ideology suggests that the agency exercised from the part of figurines on social agents may have been highly effective through figurines’ masking as a trivial part of life.

5.2.9 Figurine categories and their contextual associations Conclusion: The majority of figurines was used in the living spaces of houses and courtyard areas and accompanied Neolithic people in their daily activities. Courtyards have been interpreted as areas that defined the confines in which a group of one main house and subordinate groups living in smaller buildings coexisted, thus setting them apart from other “courtyard groups” within the same site (Halstead 1995, 14). The presence of figurines in such contexts could imply a possible communal use perhaps among groups belonging to the

Figures 5.17, 5.18 and 5.19 present the contextual associations of figurines with finds and features. The number of figurines whose represented sex can be identified and have been found in direct association with finds and features is limited. The presence of any one type of represented sex category in relation to particular archaeological contexts, however, can reveal meaningful patterns.

35

35

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

The sample shows that almost all figurine categories are present in the habitational contexts of open-air settlements and cave sites, including Female, Female form, Asexual and Male figurines. The fact that there is no exclusive association of one figurine category with living contexts suggests that we cannot propose a differential use or symbolic connection of any figurine categories with particular areas or occasions.

5.20). The presence of marble figurines on Crete is of particular interest since Crete is known to have limited marble sources (Warren 1969, 134-5). The use of stone other than marble seems to echo the trends for marble on a lower scale. Finally, a few bone and shell specimens are represented in the sample, which do not allow any meaningful conclusions.

An interesting case is presented by figurines found inside house models, implying that figurines may have constituted iconic representations of the occupiers of the house. The fact that most of the figurines found inside these model houses represented women could be suggesting a link (though not necessarily an exclusive one) between domestic space and female presence. Male elements, however, were also associated with living areas, as indicated by the circulation of Male figurines and clay phalloi in the same spaces that were dominated by Female figurines.

5.3.2 Use of material according to broad chronology Clay was widely used for the production of figurines throughout the Neolithic period until the Neolithic-EBA transitional stage. From the LN phase, other materials such as marble and other stone start being used in greater quantities (fig. 5.22). In the FN period, the use of marble increases (13.7% as opposed to 11.6%), a pattern evident in most regions. The fact that contextual and typological dating seem to coincide would suggest an actual shift in manufacture towards marble and other stone. Such changes in manufacture are more than mere stylistic; they imply changes in the way figurines would have affected social agents and relationships (Gosden 2005, 197). Finally, as is known to us ethnographically, figurines can also be made of wood and we should not dismiss the possibility, therefore, that perishable materials may also have been employed for the production of figurines.

In funerary contexts, Female figurines are predominantly associated with cemeteries and burials, as expected from the high proportion they represent. However, the presence of Male and Asexual specimens suggests that the association between Female figurines and funerary contexts was not exclusive. Finally, two Female figurines were found in a possible EN ritual context (a large structure in Nea Nikomedeia, Macedonia). The fact, however, that such occurrences are limited, does not allow us to assume an exclusive link between female representations and ideological practices.

5.3.3 Use of material and recovery sites We need to examine whether the choice of material would have been dictated by the type of site in which figurines may have been used. Figure 5.23 shows that clay figurines predominated in open-air settlements, a trend that appears stronger before the FN. Clay figurines have also been recovered from cave sites, with no apparent chronological correlation. Clay figurines found in funerary contexts date mainly to the LN, FN and FN/EBA phases and have been recovered from the cemetery of Kephala (Cyclades). The presence of clay figurines in all site categories in proportions that match the percentage of clay figurines in the sample overall suggests that the use of clay for the manufacture of figurines was not determined by a given type of site.

Conclusion: There does not appear to be a differentiation between Female, Female form, Male or Asexual representations and their contexts of use. We cannot assume, therefore, that any one category of figurines expressed particular gender associations with distinct domains or social occasions.

5.3 Neolithic figurines and aspects of manufacture 5.3.1 Use of material regionally

Marble and other stone figurines also present a similar picture. Marble and (other) stone figurines are present in open-air settlements, but at a much lower level than clay ones (7.77% and 5.92% accordingly, as opposed to 85.80%). The number increases in the LN, a trend that is apparent at open-air settlements across most of the Aegean. The use of marble and stone figurines in cave sites is limited, which parallels the proportion of marble figurines represented in the sample overall. All such specimens date to the LN and FN phases and have come from sites that contained burials and were located in the south (two in the Peloponnese, one on Salamina and one said to be from Thessaly). The limited available evidence in funerary contexts, as well as the presence of clay figurines,

Figure 5.21 shows that the material widely preferred for the manufacture of figurines is clay, followed by marble, other kinds of stone, bone and finally shell. Furthermore, statistical analysis confirms that not all materials were equally preferred for the manufacture of figurines, with clay being more widely used than other materials (see App. 1, statistical test 1.2). The results show (fig. 5.20) that clay is the preferred material for the production of figurines in all regions, with the exception of the Cyclades. Marble is the second highest category of material used for figurines, representing a proportion considerably lower than for clay (9.63% as opposed to 83.97%) (fig. 5.21). Marble appears to have been preferred mainly in the Cyclades and Euboia (fig.

36

36

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

does not indicate an exclusive connection between marble or stone figurines and cemeteries.

figurines contained in the sample are made of clay, but their number is too low to allow meaningful conclusions in relation to material.

Conclusion: All three main materials are used in open-air settlements mainly during the EN, MN and LN periods with clay dominating the assemblage. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a correlation between one type of material and a particular type of site or context. Even when we consider chronology, clay and marble are used alongside each other in funerary contexts. The shift from clay to marble, therefore, appears to be connected to chronology and trends for stylistic changes, rather than the use of figurines in specific contexts.

Conclusion: The fact that almost all figurine categories were shaped in clay, but also in harder materials, suggests that the qualities of the material did not interfere with the manufacturer’s intention to produce the preferred human form.

5.3.6 Dimensions and figurine categories Figure 5.26 presents the available data in ranges of 10cm. The first column presents the dimensions from the sample of complete or almost complete figurines, the second column of surviving torso and torso-upper lower body fragments, and the third of surviving lower bodies only. Figure 5.27 shows that over 60% of complete figurines are of small dimensions, ranging between 1 and 10cm. This pattern is also supported statistically, confirming that not all size ranges were preferred equally (see App. 1, statistical test 1.3). A proportion of 10% measures between 11 and 30cm, just over 10% range between 31 and 40cm, while a smaller proportion is represented by figurines ranging between 50 and 60cm. Notably, figurines measuring over 60cm are very rare. The tendency for small figurines suggests that figurines were not intended to be monumental in character. Moreover, a number of figurines were also worn as amulets, as indicated by perforations. The small size of figurines also implies that they could be transported in “pockets” or “bags” and thus accompany their owners in their everyday activities.

5.3.4 Material and the modelling of the physical body In this section, the typology of human form is linked to material in order to explore whether there was a mutual dependency between the choice of material and the form of the modelled body (fig. 5.24). The majority of clay figurines represent relatively naturalistic bodies in a corpulent or proportionate form, with a smaller proportion shaped as steatopygous. Interestingly, Neolithic craftspeople also chose to model clay abstract, schematic, even amorphous human forms that one would expect from the use of a more restrictive material, such as stone. On the contrary, marble and other stone figurines represented mainly naturalistic bodies. The choice of hard materials, however, tended to denote a schematic effect, as indicated by the cases of “corpulent, schematic”, “proportionate, schematic” and “steatopygous, schematic” figurines.

Figure 5.28 presents the dimensions of figurines in relation to the represented sex. Female figurines are present in all size ranges. Male figurines, on the other hand, are not represented among the highest size ranges, though that should not necessarily be taken as evidence for differential modelling of Male figurines, given their limited sample. Statistical analysis has indicated that figurines measuring over 20cm did not represent equally all sex categories (see App. 1, statistical test. 1.4). In fact, Asexual and Female form categories produced more tall figurines, suggesting that despite the high production of Female figurines, their appearance was not enhanced through distinctive dimensions.

Conclusion: The modelled human form does not appear to have been dictated by the choice or material, nor was the material selected according to a preconceived human form. I would conclude, therefore, that the rendering of the human body in a given form reflects stylistic but also cognitive choices of Neolithic people, and was not dictated by the qualities of materials.

5.3.5 Material and figurine categories As discussed earlier, clay was widely used throughout the Aegean and for the greatest part of the Neolithic. Figure 5.25 shows that Female and Female-related figurines dominate the clay assemblage. They are followed by Asexual and Probably Asexual figurines, while Male and Probably Male figurines together comprise around 5% of the total clay assemblage. Interestingly, all Ambiguous figurines were made of clay.

Figure 5.29 concentrates on figurines exceeding 20cm in height, which are examined in relation to the broad chronological and geographical context. The table includes complete, but also fragmented figurines whose surviving dimensions indicate a high stature. The breakdown shows that Cretan figurines measuring over 20cm are more numerous than those from other regions. The fact that Male and Female figurines over 20cm come from the same area also indicates that there may not have been a distinction on Crete regarding dimensions of Female and Male representations. Finally, the majority of figurines measuring over 20cm date mainly to LN phase, although this is likely to result from the predominance

Female figurines also predominate among the marble and other stone assemblages. The presence of Male, Female form and Asexual figurines in the marble and other stone corpus suggests that there is no exclusive association between the choice of material and the modelling of the human body. All Ambiguous

37

37

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

of LN figurines in the sample. Nevertheless, the results show that tall figurines of a late date was not a geographically restricted trend, as indicated by their recovery from Thessaly, Macedonia, Euboia, the Cyclades and the Peloponnese.

Conclusion: It is difficult to establish with certainty whether the differential distribution of postural variation represents real stylistic differences or a bias in the sample. Nevertheless, the sample does show that a considerable number of postures were shared across the Aegean. Interestingly postures drawing an emphasis to the breast and abdomen area (likely to be linked to notions of fertility and the embodied expression of gender) are widely distributed. The fact that figurine producers were modelling similar postures in different parts of the Aegean (as far away as Macedonia and Crete) suggests a shared vocabulary regarding the embodiment of gender and social identity.

5.4 Posture and the body as figurine language i. Range of postures Figure 5.30 summarises the repertoire of the main postures and the frequency in which they occur. The results are shown in groupings of the general posture, arm/hand and leg postures to allow the detection of meaningful patterns.

iii. Posture variation in relation to chronology and type of recovery site

It becomes apparent that there is a predominance of standing figurines, followed by the seating, squatting and kneeling varieties. Less often, they are represented as sitting on stools or chairs. The arms and hands are employed in the postures and they tend to rest on areas of the torso, such as the breasts, chest, abdomen and waist. Worth mentioning are the five examples of kourotrophoi which represent figurines engaged with children (carrying or holding a child or, in one case, children). Two figurines are also modelled in the birth-giving posture with the legs pulled up and the vulva exposed. Moreover, a few figurines suggest that their concave lap may have been used to rest small rounded objects or carry small quantities of liquid (termed as bearers).

At this stage of analysis, we seek to explore whether the modelled postures are linked to chronological trends and whether they were related to the use of figurines in particular types of sites (see fig. 5.32). Standing figurines appear to have represented a common posture throughout the Neolithic. Moreover, the use of standing figurines in open-air settlements, cave sites or burial sites indicates that there was no association between the modelled posture and the type of site or context of use or deposition. The same is true for the seated figurines. On the other hand, figurines seated on chairs or stools have been recovered only from open-air settlements and are attested throughout the Neolithic. Though the number of figurines seated on chairs or stools is too small to allow meaningful conclusions, we could imply that such figurine postures were particularly relevant in the settlement context where social dynamics were being played out. Squatting figurines are attested throughout the Neolithic in open-air settlements and burial sites, but not in cave sites. All the postures relating to the position of the arms and hands are present throughout the Neolithic, with no meaningful association with the type of site. The distinct category of kourotrophoi is present in EN open-air settlements, but also in possible LN burials.

ii. Posture variations in relation to geographical area The data in fig. 5.31 show that the general standing posture seems to be present throughout the Aegean. Seated figurines, on the other hand, are more common in Thessaly, Macedonia and the Peloponnese. Figurines seated on chairs represent only Thessalian examples. Figurines seated on stools are attested in Macedonia, Thessaly, the Peloponnese and Crete. The seated posture on chair or stools implies the existence of special status individuals in a number of regions in the Neolithic Aegean. The kneeling, reclining and birth-giving postures are restricted numerically and geographically. The posture of raised arms is found mainly in Thessaly and Macedonia. Extended arms occur in most assemblages, while figurines with the hands on the breasts are in their vast majority found in Thessaly. The posture of hands meeting on the breast area is more widely spread and the same is true for hands meeting below the breasts or hands meeting on the chest. Very common postures throughout the Aegean represented figurines with the hands resting on the abdomen or waist. Only two figurines with the hands covering their pubic area are attested in Macedonia and Thessaly. Two more Male figurines from Thessaly and the Cyclades are portrayed with their hands on their penis. Figurines represented as bearing objects (perhaps baskets of some sort) are common in Thessaly and kourotrophoi seem to be mainly a south-central tradition.

Conclusion: There does not seem to be a link between the type of site in which figurines were used or deposited and their modelled postures. Regarding chronology, the more common postures do not indicate chronological restrictions. Unfortunately, the least common postures do not allow us to establish with certainty whether there was a correlation with the type of site or chronology. iv. Posture in relation to the represented sex Figure 5.33 shows that many of the basic postures are shared between Female, Male and Asexual figurines. Interestingly, the postures employing the hands to draw attention to the breasts and breast area are restricted to Female and Female-related figurines (with the exception of one Probably Asexual figurine). Figurines with their hands resting on the abdomen

38

38

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

represent figurines of the Female, Female-related and Asexual variety. The category of kourotrophoi represents mainly Female figurines. Their limited number, however, does not allow an exclusive association with female representations, as also suggested by the Asexual kourotrophos.

despite their underplayed role in traditional narratives, men would have held positions of demarcated status in Neolithic society. Female and Asexual figurines are also modelled as seated on chairs or stools suggesting that high social positions were not gender exclusive. Ambiguous figurines seated on chair or stool can be interpreted either as an indication of third gender individuals reaching high status, or as a deliberately subversive imagery that was intended to erode established gender dynamics through ambiguous messages.

Overall, despite some general postures shared across various figurine categories, there is an overlap between Female and Female-related categories and to a lesser degree between Female and Asexual figurines. Note also that many of the postures associated mainly with Female and Female-related figurines drew emphasis to the breast and abdomen area, possibly expressing a preoccupation with aspects of reproduction, though we cannot possibly know whether the reproductive and sensual/sexual body in the Neolithic were considered as distinct concepts. Similarly, the postures displayed by Male figurines drew emphasis to their pubic area with the hand resting on the penis. More Male figurines are shown as seated on chairs, whereas more Female and Asexual figurines are represented as seated on stools. Other postures, on the other hand, such as the kneeling, squatting, reclining, hands on the breast or abdomen area, are not displayed by Male figurines. This differentiation in postural repertoire may be indicative of distinct modes of gender performance.

5.5.1 Decoration and its use This section focuses on how decoration is related to Neolithic figurines in general and to the represented sex in particular. By decoration, I should explain that I refer to added painted, moulded or engraved features that altered the otherwise plain surface of figurines. The application of decoration improved the appearance of figurines aesthetically, but more importantly, it served to render its appeal more effectively. The examination of decoration in relation to the represented sex that follows is intended to explore aspects of embodiment and symbolism as expressed through anthropomorphic figurines. i. Decoration and figurines: some general comments

Conclusion: The modelled postures are likely to have represented socially prescribed ways of embodied performance, which would have served, intentionally or not, to emboss socially accepted gender behaviour. A number of points emerge from the correlation of postures in relation to the represented sex. Firstly, we can detect a pattern by which (more often than not) the modelled postures correlate with the represented sex. Such an association suggests that gender in the Neolithic Aegean may have been constructed along a corporeal axis. For instance, Female figurines exhibiting postures that drew an emphasis to the breast and abdomen areas may be expressing a preoccupation with reproduction as a central part of women’s lives. Figurines modelled as pregnant offer support to this point. Similarly, Male figurines have also been modelled with the hand on the penis, suggesting again a focus on corporeality as part of male gender status. In addition, the degree of overlap between Female and Female form figurines implies that the latter may have represented variations related to age stages in a woman’s life, such as the pre-pubescent or post-reproduction phase. Furthermore, the shared postures between Asexual and other figurine categories (especially Female figurines), suggests that they may not have been intended to represent genderless people (Mina 2007). It is possible that they too represented an age-related gender category.

Of the total 1,093 figurines, 468 are decorated, while 625 are undecorated. Figure 5.34 shows that the percentage of undecorated figurines is higher than that for decorated by 14%. A considerable proportion (43%) of Neolithic figurines in the Aegean, however, was decorated. If we now examine the proportion of decorated versus undecorated figurines for each region with a sizable sample, we find that undecorated figurines outnumber decorated ones in most cases (fig. 5.35). The exceptions are the areas of Macedonia and the Peloponnese where decorated figurines exceed the proportion of undecorated ones. Turning now to chronology, fig. 5.36 shows how the ratio of decorated to undecorated figurines relates to each other. The LN phase is characterised by the higher proportion of decorated figurines, while the FN by the lowest. In terms of diachronic patterns, it is important to establish whether the number of figurines attributed to each phase affects the proportion of decorated figurines also corresponding to each chronological phase. A comparative analysis reveals that the proportion of EN (18.9%) and MN (22.2%) decorated figurines parallels the expected numbers based on their overall percentage in the sample (19.9% and 21.2% respectively). LN decorated figurines (53.2%), however, exceed the expected proportion (48.3%), suggesting that we are likely to be detecting a real increased preference for decorated figurines. Conversely, FN and FN/EBA decorated figurines (5.6%) are underrepresented given their overall proportion in the sample (10.6%). The FN trend for undecorated figurines is also paralleled by greater schematisation and abstraction in form.

Corporeality, however, was not the only underlying factor that constructed gender identity. Attaining a distinct position in the social arena was equally important. Figurines modelled as seated on chairs or stools represented such socially successful individuals or idealised images. It is particularly noteworthy that Male figurines display such postures, indicating that

39

39

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

ii. Use of material and degree of decoration

excluded from this section and are discussed at a later point separately.

Figure 5.37 shows that undecorated figurines outnumber decorated ones in all material categories. The relative proportion of clay decorated figurines, however, is higher than for any of the other materials. Marble, stone, and even bone, show a comparable level of decoration and demonstrate a much higher bias towards undecorated figurines than their clay counterparts. We can assume, therefore, that the use of material did affect the degree of decoration applied on figurines. Clay, being more malleable and soft, would have allowed more freedom to the producer to decorate figurines in a plastic or incised way. The choice of material, however, is also likely to have affected the degree to which decoration would have survived on the surface of figurines, with hard non-porous surfaces being less likely to retain traces of decoration. “Ghost” marks surviving on EC marble figurines (Hendrix 1998, 7-9) imply that their Neolithic counterparts may also have been painted in bright colours.

i. Decoration in relation to the represented sex It is safe to suggest that decoration was aimed at enhancing the appearance of figurines, and more importantly, its application was intended to communicate effectively the social and gender identity of the represented subject. Interestingly, statistical analysis (see App. 1, statistical test 1.5) has revealed a significant association between represented sex categories and decoration. It is probably correct to assume, therefore, that the degree of decoration corresponding to figurine categories related also to the added insignia that were considered necessary for the representation of specific gender and social identities. ii. Use of colour in relation to the represented sex Figure 5.40 shows that black, red and white (with their variations) were the main colours applied on Neolithic figurines in that order of preference. Painted motifs concentrate mainly on Female, Female-related and fewer Asexual figurines. Given the small sample of Male figurines, it is difficult to establish with certainty whether they were decorated with painted motifs. Statistical analysis that has indicated an association between decoration and the represented sex, however, could explain the evident lack of painted motifs on Male figurines as symptomatic of a differential ornamentation treatment. Figure 5.41 presents the application of colour as slip in relation to the represented sex. Again, there is a similar preference for colours and the majority of figurines with evidence for slip or overall paint represented Female, Female-related and Asexual types.

iii. Surface treatment of figurines in relation to the represented sex The methods of surface treatment attested for Neolithic figurines are burnishing and slip/paint. Under the term slip/paint I have included figurines with an applied slip, but also those described as painted, since there is no unanimous differentiation between the two methods in publications. Surface treatment was intended to improve the quality of the figurine, its durability and visual appearance. The application of surface treatment, therefore, may be indicative of the time and effort from the part of the producer to enhance technically and visually the finished product. Relating the methods and frequency of surface treatment to the represented sex of figurines (fig. 5.38), aims at examining whether more labour was invested on any particular type of figurine. Unfortunately, the number of figurines with any traces of surface treatment is too low to allow us to detect meaningful patterns.

Conclusion: The use of pigment aimed at emphasising parts of the modelled body, but also at expressing associated symbolisms through the use of colour, as attested ethnographically (Chapman 2002, Walisewska 1991). Moreover, the application of a similar palette of colours on figurines and pottery suggests that an analogous symbolic vocabulary operated also in other spheres of life, extending beyond that of figurine production.

Finally, we cannot but note the overlap between the methods employed for the treatment of ceramics and figurine surfaces. Though ethnographic studies point to women as the main gender behind pottery production (Berns 1993, 136; Murdock 1973, 207), we have already discussed the problems resulting from such oversimplifications of labour organisation. I would propose that the gender/genders involved in the stages of surface treatment on ceramics would have shared the same knowledge as those who treated the surface of clay figurines.

iii. Use of colour in relation to anatomical parts, chronology and the represented sex This section explores the correlation between colour, its application on parts of the modelled body and chronology. Figure 5.42 summarises the range of colours detected on select anatomical parts of figurines in relation to the broad chronological phases. A more complex colour scheme appears to emerge in the LN phase in terms of the range and combinations used, than in the earlier two phases. In the FN period, new colours make their appearance, such as green and blue, which may be reflecting a new material and social order. The introduction of new colours has been proposed as

5.5.2 Use of colour and decorative motifs: embodiment, symbolism and gender implications The following discussion focuses on the application of paint, motifs (painted or incised) and plastic attributes adorning figurines. The modelling of headdresses or hairstyles have been

40

40

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

indicating new modes of self-categorisation and emerging identities associated with new forms of material culture (Chapman 2002, 52-3).

iv. Decorative repertoire, decoded meanings and implications for gender construction Appendix 3 presents a comprehensive catalogue of Neolithic and EBA decoded motifs that have been grouped and categorised on the basis of their representative theme and occurrence on select anatomical parts. The catalogue also includes plastic, painted and incised variations of headdress and hairstyles. As I have already explained, decoration would have served to enhance the appearance of figurines aesthetically, thus rendering their effects on the senses more effective. Furthermore, decoration denoted features associated with the identity that the modelled figurine was intended to represent. These features related to the manipulation of the body through modification practices (tattooing, body painting or piercing) or attire (garments, jewellery). Examining these decorative features in association with the represented sex serves to explore aspects of the embodied and performed gender.

Figure 5.43 presents how colour has been applied on specific anatomical parts in relation to the represented sex and broad chronological phases. A deliberate decision was taken to restrict the analysis on those body parts that I consider as being more likely to be associated with gender construction, such as the chest, breast, abdomen, pubic area and buttocks. In the EN, but mainly MN phases, colour applied on reproduction or sexuality-related body parts is restricted mainly to Female figurines. Red was used to emphasise the breast and pubic area, while black was applied on the abdomen and pubic area. White seems to have been restricted to the pubic area. Note also, that no Male figurines are present in the sample, though we cannot be certain whether this is the result of a bias in the sample. In the LN phase, figurines with emphasised sexual and reproduction-related parts are more common, but also new colour combinations make their appearance (red on white) and, the use of white became much more prolific. As with the two earlier periods, Female figurines exhibit a far wider range of colours being applied on a wider array of anatomical parts than other figurine categories. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing emphasis on the abdomen and chest area, as opposed to the earlier phases when the focus was placed on the pubic region. Moving to the FN period, the new colours blue (not included in fig. 5.43 because it marked the shoulder of a Female figurine) and green are introduced. While the use of some of the basic colours continues (see fig. 5.42), there seems to be less emphasis on sexual and reproduction-related anatomical parts. It is worth bearing in mind, however, that the results may have been affected by the smaller size of the sample and the increasing use of harder, less porous materials, thus lowering the survivability of pigment on figurines.

Figure 5.44 presents decorative motifs according to the suggested thematic categories they were intended to represent. The first column lists those motifs believed to have denoted bodily adornment in the form of body painting, scarring or tattooing. The second column includes motifs considered to represent garments, fabric and other worn accessories, such as belts. The third column contains ambiguous motifs that could be interpreted as either body decoration or clothing. Finally, the last column lists motifs that are likely to have represented jewellery. It is evident, therefore, that decorative motifs allow us insights into aspects of gender embodiment as expressed through the manipulation of external appearance. Figure 5.45 shows repeated motifs and their variations, as well as plastic attributes (headdress and hairstyles), that are shared between figurines. It also provides information about the parts of the body marked by the motifs in question, the colour that may have been used and the method in which decoration was applied. A summary of the thematic repertoire shows that the most common motifs represented the following categories: attire-related gear (“belts” adorning the hips and waist), body decoration, clothing and particularly fabrics. Similarities are also found in the way headdresses and hairstyles were rendered.

Conclusion: Colour is often used in societies as a classificatory medium through which the material and social world is ordered. Following Chapman’s argument (2002, 52-3), the new colour palette from the LN phase onwards may be reflecting a new material culture vocabulary and an increasing complexity in the classificatory categories at the level of society. Regarding the use of pigment, we can assume that colour was often employed to emphasise parts of the anatomical body associated with the construction of gender throughout the Neolithic. Female figurines emerge as the main category on which pigment was applied on areas that imply an accentuation of the reproductive and/or sexual/sensual body. Moreover, the growing elaboration of colour palette, range of pigments and array of selected decorated parts of Female figurines in the later part of the Neolithic suggests an increasing gender differentiation expressed through embodied performance and associated symbolisms. The detected overlap between Female, Female form and Asexual figurines may be reflecting intersecting gender categories, possibly differentiated on the basis of age.

Figure 5.45 also shows how motifs relate to the represented sex of figurines. A number of motifs appear exclusively on the bodies of Female figurines with the intention to highlight parts of the female anatomy, such as breasts (motifs ch2+ and ch4). In addition, pubic triangles would often be painted and highlighted, thus drawing emphasis to that part of the female anatomy (pa8, pa9, pa10, pa11, pa19). Similarly, motifs also marked the abdomen of three Female figurines (s1+), perhaps related to the theme of fertility. Other motifs represented body painting or tattooing on Female figurines (motifs ch17+ and dpl21). Of great interest are motifs representing a cluster of points (pu2+ and pu6) which are almost exclusively related to

41

41

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Female figurines and which concentrate mainly on the shoulders. The punctured way in which they have been marked could be indicative of the tattooing practice (paint was also applied in the cavities) or scarring. If we assume that such motifs represented forms of body decoration, it is possible they were applied on female bodies to mark life-stages or rites of passage. A similar argument could also be proposed for motif cpl5+. Motifs pu15+ and pu16+ also most probably indicate tattooing (infilled with paint) or scarring. Other body painting motifs may have been intended to mark parts of the body that were cured, treated or scarred, as in the case of spl15 and spl16 detected on the abdomen area of two Female figurines. Such motifs may have been linked to pregnancy episodes or fertilityrelated rites.

is represented as wearing a similar garment, suggesting therefore that if anatomical attributes were considered important for the modelling of the figurine, they would have been rendered. Other motifs on Asexual figurines may be representing either body decoration or part of a garment (buttons?), as is the case with pu1ii and pu1iii. A motif most probably representing body painting or scarring is vpl1. It marks the chests of Asexual figurines, similar to vpl4+ found on Female, Female-related and Asexual categories. Other motifs may be interpreted as representing body decoration or clothing. A number of them also appear to be shared between Female and Female-related categories and Asexual figurines, possibly indicating an overlap in the gender represented by the figurines. One such motif is c1+ that either demarcated the breast area, or represented a woven or painted motif on a worn garment. Other shared motifs that denoted dress or body decoration include dpl22+, hpl1+, hpl22, s8+, vpl16+, vpl18+, vpl19, z1+, z2, z3+, z5, and dpl1+. Repeated motifs also include ch11+, dpl23+, hpl16+ or z4, which represented the lower half of a worn garment or body decoration. The fact that such types of decoration are not detected on Male figurines would suggest that (at least some) Female form and Asexual figurines coincided with Female ones, the dress or body decoration of which communicated a similar gender identity to a Neolithic audience. The same is also true for cpl1+, dpl8+ and vpl4+, which most likely represented the upper half of a garment worn by Female, Female-related and Asexual figurines. Other shared motifs representing garments are hpl6, rs5, vrl1+ with vpl7+ being the most frequently shared motif resembling a long cape-like, possibly colourful garment. Another widely repeated motif, likely to have represented necklaces or “ribbons” worn around the neck, has been detected on Female, Female form and Asexual categories (rd2+, rm5+, rs1+, sch2+). Shared motifs between Female, Female form and Asexual figurines also included representations of bracelets (rm7, rs3+). Other shared motifs most likely represented body decoration (painted or tattooed) as suggested by d2, d3, d8, pu13+, pu14+. Some of the shared motifs may have demarcated one part of the body, as in the case of spl1+ and spl21 detected on upper arms of figurines, and possibly represented tattoo or scarring markings. Other motifs may have been intended to mark cured body parts or parts of the body under strain, as in the case of spl14, which marks the knee or the chest area on two figurines.

Another group of motifs associated with Female figurines denoted jewellery (e.g. motifs d1+ and d9). Dress-related gear in the form of “belts” are suggested by motifs dil1 and dil9i, although dil1 could also be interpreted as body painting. Other motifs resemble brace-like bands that may have been worn on the torso and may have been attached to the garment worn on the lower body (vpl8+). Woven garments worn on the upper half of female bodies are expressed by motifs dil2, dil3, dil4, dil5 and hpl2+. Suggested trouser-like dress with multiple fabric folds is represented by motif drl1+. A different style of garments is represented by motifs pu24, rm4+, rs4 and s6+. Regarding hairstyles, Female figurines are represented with longer (fhd34, vpl11+) or shorter locks of hair (fhd35) or pulled up at the base of the neck (fhd36). Headgear was also modelled on Female figurines (hd4, hd7+). Unfortunately, due to the fragmented state of figurines on which the same styles of hairstyles and headdress are modelled, we cannot draw further conclusions regarding their represented sex. A number of motifs are shared between Female and Femalerelated figurines, which may indicate an overlap of the gender categories they were intended to represent. Motifs rd1+ and rm9 suggest body painting on the legs, perhaps even forms of anklets (rd1ii, rd1iv, rs2). In addition, the spiral motif, which has been detected exclusively on Female abdomens, also occurs on the buttocks of Female-related figurines (s2+). A spiral-like motif (s5), most likely representing body painting around breasts, is again shared between one Female and one Probably Female figurine. Other motifs, such as sch4+ and sch5+, most probably represent multiple strings of necklaces worn around the neck and covering the breasts, or could alternatively be interpreted as textile depictions. An interesting piece of dress in many variations and which is found only on Female and Probably Female figurines is a type of wide “belt” from which strings or ribbons hang over the hips and upper legs (vpl-hb2, vpl-hb3, vpl-hb4+).

Certain motifs are shared across all figurine categories. They could be interpreted as marks on the body representing scarring, wounds or ritual markings. Interestingly, the motif representing a single cross (c4) is in all cases found on the abdomen. Occasionally, motifs represented gear, such as “belts” worn around the waist and hips, with the simplest styles adorning Male figurines (b4vi). Motifs representing necklaces or amulets are also shared across all figurine varieties with a bias towards the Female-related varieties (sch1+, sch3).

Some motifs have been detected only on Asexual figurines. Two of them are ch8+ and ch9+ and most probably represented worn garments. Asexual figurines, therefore, were intended to represent clothed bodies, but I do not think that this would justify the omission of anatomical features. A Female figurine

Conclusion: Decoration, through the employment of colour and

42

42

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

symbolically loaded motifs, served to express aspects of Neolithic ideology interwoven with social identity. More importantly, decoration was employed as an effective way to represent gender and social identity in the form of figurines. As we have seen, decoration represented corporeal modification (body painting, scarring, tattooing) or dress and jewellery. The manipulation of appearance is also attested through modelled pierced ears and hairstyles. Figurines, therefore, embodied and communicated gender, age, social or even cultural group identity, since we know that they occasionally circulated outside their area of production.

v. Deconstructing decoration in relation to the represented sex, broad chronology and region Figure 5.46 shows how Neolithic motifs relate to the represented sex, broad chronology and region of recovery. Motifs representing body decoration appear more frequently on Female figurines. Regarding chronology, such motifs concentrate mainly in the LN phase, though we cannot be certain to what extent this relates to a bias in the sample. The geographical distribution of figurines also suggests that the application of body decoration motifs was a practice followed in most regions of the Aegean.

Other motifs offer a glimpse into bodily biographies and life experiences. Such motifs possibly marked areas under strain or body parts that have undergone treatment. Small tattooed motifs on the Iceman’s body have in fact been interpreted as marks indicating treated parts on his body (Spindler 1994). Such information allows insights into the elaborate construction of gender and personal identity, consisting of interwoven layers of body modification (tattooing, painting, scarring, piercing, hair-styles), modification of appearance (garments, related fittings, textile patterns, headdress, jewellery) and life episodes (motifs denoting treatment or healing treatments). The fact that most of the motifs concentrate on Female figurines, not only distinguishes them from other represented identities, but also indicates that female bodies were mainly involved in such processes. This pattern contrasts mainly against Male figurines, which do not display the same complexity of adornment in the form of body decoration or attire, despite the fact that over 50% of them were decorated. Perhaps the embodiment of male identity was less reliant on processes of corporeal modification and manipulation.

Figurines bearing attire-related motifs represented mainly Female, Female-related and Asexual forms. The absence of Male and Ambiguous figurines may be an indication that not all figurine categories were marked equally with attire-related motifs. Furthermore, the sharing of motifs between Female, Female-related and Asexual figurines suggests an overlap of the social identities represented by figurines. Regarding chronology, motifs denoting attire date mainly to the LN phase, with only a very small proportion of EN figurines. The trend appears to characterise mainly Macedonian and Thessalian figurines, possibly suggesting that elaboration of gender embodiment may not have been equally central to all Aegean communities. Finally, figurines decorated with jewellery motifs dated mainly to the later part of the Neolithic and show a much wider geographical distribution than in earlier phases, though Cretan figurines are not present. Even though Asexual figurines are present in a considerable proportion, Female and Femalerelated types dominate the sample. The absence of Male and Ambiguous figurines may be an indication that jewellery motifs were not applied equally on all figurine categories.

Interestingly, the overlap of motifs between Female and Female-related and Asexual categories may imply that the two last categories represented a variation of Female figurines, possibly in relation to age. As we have already discussed, posture also indicated a similar overlap. Motifs shared by all figurine categories constituted representations of more “neutral” fittings, such as plain “belts”, simple amulets or possible healing scars.

Conclusion: As we have already discussed, the proportion of decorated figurines increased in the LN phase. Moreover, the use of motifs indicates a higher degree of elaboration of figurines themselves, and a more intricate way in which gender identity was demarcated on the body mainly in the LN phase. Such increased elaboration of social identity and the emphasis placed on the modification especially of the female body can also be taken to indicate an intensified polarisation between genders in the need of Neolithic communities to attribute specific social and economic roles. This emphasis on the modification of external appearance also suggests an increasing complexity in the way Aegean society was organised in the LN. The uneven geographical distribution of such motifs, however, implies that certain regions may have followed more conservative paths of social development, as indicated by Crete (Mina 2008). The decreased proportion of decorated FN figurines could be interpreted as an indication for a shift from gender to an overarching communal identity.

The results have afforded us some insights into the embodiment of social and gender identity, but also into cognitive aspects of figurine producers. Anthropomorphic representations of the Neolithic Aegean were grounded in the conceptions and living experiences of their manufacturers. The cognitive aspects regarding gender and social identity were projected onto figurines, which in their turn perpetuated, communicated, prescribed and possibly overturned norms that governed Neolithic societies.

43

43

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

also constitute evidence for equal access by men and women to positions of distinct social status in Neolithic society. The limited modelling of such seated figurines may imply that they represented actual people (community heads or important ancestors), only a small number of which would have attained such positions of distinct status.

5.6 Concluding remarks The analysis has revealed some interesting aspects regarding the production, meaning and use of figurines. Regarding production, it becomes evident that the representation of the physical body held central place as indicated through the interplay between emphasised, underplayed or omitted anatomical attributes. Furthermore, the fact that selected decorative motifs and posture often correlated to represented sex categories reveals the craftsperson’s intention to represent bodies of a recognisable gender identity. Moreover, the clear modelling of anatomical attributes related to female and male bodies, as well as postural emphasis placed on reproductionrelated anatomical parts highlight the significance of the physical body for gender construction. As we have already discussed, the modelling of Female figurines drew emphasis to reproduction-related body parts. A similar link can also be suggested for Male figurines drawing attention to their genitalia, also expressed through the modelling of clay phalloi recovered from living spaces. Overall, the distinct modelling of female and male bodies reveals that men’s and women’s bodies constituted distinct classificatory categories, implying a differentiation between male and female gender. The existence of Ambiguous figurines, however, suggest that social organisation of the Neolithic Aegean may not have been based on a bi-polar gender order.

Anthropomorphic figurines were an integral part of society in the Aegean throughout the Neolithic period. There is no indication that figurine production or circulation stopped at any point in the Neolithic. Moreover, there is a strong link between figurine use and living spaces of Neolithic settlements. Their presence in habitational contexts, however, does not contradict the fact that figurines would have been enveloped in processes related to ideology, inseparable in those early societies from secular life. The modelling of figurines with animal features further suggests a symbolic link behind humanity and the natural phenomena. As has already been suggested by Ucko (1968), figurines may have accompanied their owners as protective guardians or spirits. It is also possible, however, that figurines contained a degree of self-projecting elements drawn from real-life experiences, thus representing actual individuals, such as ancestors, community or lineage heads. More importantly, however, anthropomorphic figurines were instilled with ideas about personal, social and gender identity that perpetuated or challenged social norms. It is not until the end of the Neolithic that evidence indicates stylistic changes in the production and deposition of figurines. The underplayed modelling of anatomical parts and diminishing degree of decoration imply a departure from earlier processes of gender embodiment. The neutrality expressed through figurines may be coinciding with an increased consolidation regarding gender classifications and prescribed ways of performance. At the same time, communal identity may have gained prominence in a continually expanding Neolithic landscape, at a time when alliances between old and colonising communities may have been of vital importance.

The employment of decoration has revealed an added layer of gender construction, as indicated by motifs representing body decoration and attire associated with the represented sex. The physical body, therefore, constituted the surface upon which gender was constructed through temporary markings (body painting) or permanent modification (tattooing, scarring and piercing) or manipulation of external appearance (attire, jewellery, hairstyles). Moreover, figurines have revealed a more elaborate external appearance associated with female bodies, especially in contrast to male ones. The decorative motifs, colours and patterns represented on figurines suggest that we should envisage prehistoric women dressed in strikingly colourful woven garments. Body decoration motifs also suggest that female bodies were covered in impressive intricate patterns. Such body markings would have signalled gender, but may also have been related to a woman’s life or status. On the other hand, Male figurines suggest that men must have also worn certain types of accessories, but their limited range and simple style does not indicate the same multi-layered construction of gender identity as for women. Embodiment of gender was also expressed through the modelling of posture. We have already discussed the emphasis drawn to reproduction-related anatomical parts for both Female and Male figurines expressed through modelled postures. Study of figurine postures, however, has also revealed that gender and social status were also negotiated in the social arena. Female and Male figurines were represented as seated on chairs or stools, suggesting that other parameters apart from corporeality synthesised social identity. Male seated figurines

44

44

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

5.3 Percentage of figurines by provenance

Figures

5% d an nl ai .M 0% C e es an 1% ec h od out 1% D S ce ra Th

5.1 Percentage of figurine categories

C te re

Th ly sa

% 10

es 45

1%

C

%

11%

yc d la es 3% Eu i bo a

18%

1%

47%

F PF Ff

1% 2% 1%

Pff

ac M

M

ed ia on

PM

26

A

%

6%

8% e es nn po lo Pe 0% an ge Ae 0% S. es ad or Sp

PA Amb

13%

*N=822. The graph excludes indeterminable figurines (“na”).

5.4 Breakdown of regional samples by figurine categories 100%

5.2 Area breakdown by count of recorded figurines Area

90% 80%

Total

70%

Thrace

12

Macedonia

283

Thessaly

481

50%

Sporades

4

40%

Central Mainland

57

30%

Euboia

11

20%

Peloponnese

91

10%

Cyclades

34

0%

60% Amb PA

Ff

Total

Crete

Dodecanese

S. Aegean

Cyclades

Euboia

Sporades

F

Peloponnese

109

South Aegean*

PF

C. Mainland

Crete

Pff

Thessaly

1

M

Macedonia

2

Dodecanese

PM

Thrace

East Aegean

A

8 1,093 * The graph excludes indeterminable figurines (“na”).

*Possibly of southern Aegean provenance, based on typological grounds.

45

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

5.5 Percentage of figurines by chronological phases

100

EN 20%

FN/EBA 3%

FN 8%

5.8 Percentage of figurine categories by broad chronological phases

90 80

Amb 70

PA

60

A PM

50

M

MN 21%

40

Pff

30

Ff PF

20

LN 48%

F 10 0

*N=1,030. The graph excludes figurines of unknown date.

EN

5.6 Breakdown of regional samples by chronological phases in percentage

* The graph excludes indeterminable figurines (“na”).

100

MN

LN

FN & FN/EBA

5.9 Breakdown of the sample according to type of recovery site

90

BS BS? 1% 1% Nk

80 70

CS 3%

6% 60 50 40 30 FN

20

LN

10

MN EN

Crete

Dodecanese

E. Aegean

Cyclades

Peloponnese

Euboia

C. Mainland

Sporades

Thessaly

Macedonia

Thrace

0

OS 89%

*Figurines of unknown date or secure provenance have been excluded (e.g. South Aegean). 5.10 Breakdown of chronological phases by type of recovery site in percentage

5.7 Breakdown of figurine categories by broad chronological phases Figurine categories

EN

MN

LN

FN

FN/EBA

F

87

68

180

33

6

PF

24

27

45

3

1

Fform

5

4

37

3

2

Pff

1

-

4

-

-

M

2

4

8

1

1

40

PM

1

1

2

1

-

30

A

17

19

93

13

4

20

BS

PA

15

20

39

7

1

10

CS

Amb

2

1

3

-

-

0

Total

154

144

411

61

15

100 90 80 70 60 50

OS

EN

*Indeterminable figurines (“na”) and figurines of unknown date have been excluded.

MN

LN

FN & FN/EBA

* The graph excludes figurines of unknown recovery context or figurines of unknown date. ** Phases FN and FN/EBA and site types BS with BS? have been merged to enable meaningful comparisons.

46

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

5.11 Figurine categories and distribution by type of recovery site Figurine categories

OS

CS

BS

BS?

F

323

13

4

6

PF

94

4

-

-

Fform

44

1

-

2

Pff

5

-

-

-

M

13

1

2

-

PM

6

-

-

-

A

141

2

2

1

PA

83

3

-

-

Amb

6

-

-

-

Total

715

24

8

9

B. Funerary Context

Region: No of figurines

Total

Burials¹

Th:5, Eu:3, Cy:4

Cemetery²

Cy:7

12 7

Cremation debris

Th:1

1

¹ Includes possible burials. ² Figurines found in a cemetery context, but not directly associated with burials or cremation debris. C. Ritual Context Ritual

Region: No of figurines

Total

Mc:2

2

*The graph excludes indeterminable figurines (“na”), and figurines of unknown recovery context.

5.13 Breakdown of the sample by known recovery context and chronological phases

5.12 Breakdown of the sample by known context and region of recovery

*The tables exclude figurines of unstratified, disturbed, mixed and unknown (“nk”) context, occasional and surface finds and figurines of unknown provenance or chronology.

*The tables exclude figurines of unstratified, disturbed, mixed and unknown (“nk”) context, occasional and surface finds and figurines of unknown provenance. Key: Thr= Thrace Mc= Macedonia Th= Thessaly Sp= Sporades CM= Central Mainland Eu= Euboia

A.

Pel= Peloponnese Cy= Cyclades EA= East Aegean Do= Dodecanese Cr= Crete

Region: No of figurines

EN

MN

LN

FN

FN/ EBA

Activity area (all)

4

2

2

-

-

Courtyard (all)

27

12

3

-

-

Courtyard activity area

3

1

2

-

-

Courtyard hearth area

6

3

1

-

-

Courtyard oven area

18

1

-

-

-

Domestic ¹

-

4

-

-

-

Fill

-

1

1

1

-

Hearth (all)

6

4

5

-

-

Context

A. Habitational/domestic

Context

Habitational/domestic

Total

Activity area (all)

Mc:2, Th:5, Cr:1

8

Courtyard (all)

Mc:3, Th:39

42

Courtyard activity area

Mc:1, Th:5

6

Courtyard hearth area

Th:10

10

Courtyard oven area

Th:19

19

Domestic ¹

Th:4

4

House ²

7

33

7

19

1

Fill

Th:3

3

HS

59

28

61

19

14

Hearth (all)

Mc:1, Th:10, Pel:2, Cy:2

15

House ²

69

HS/BS (cave sites)

-

-

4

2

-

176

Pit

7

19

2

-

-

HS/BS (cave sites)

Mc:8, Th:59, Pel:1, Cr:1 Mc:42, Th:88, CM:1, Eu:1, Pel:15, Cy:3 Thr:1, CM:1, Eu:1, Pel:3

Platform (all)

-

16

-

-

-

Pit

CM:1, Pel:2, Cr:2

5

Platform (all)

Th:6

6

Wall

-

-

-

-

1

Well

1

-

1

-

-

Curation (all)

-

1

1

-

4

138

125

90

41

20

HS

6

Wall

Th:1

1

Well

Th:1, CM:1

2

Curation (all)

Mc:15, Th:2, Pel:3

20

¹ Excludes habitational strata. ² Includes 2-room structures, 2-room structure platforms and floors.

Total

¹ Excludes habitational strata and structures. ² Includes 2-room structures, 2-room structure platform and floors.

47

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

B.

5.15 Figurines and other finds: in-situ association

Funerary

EN MN LN FN FN/EBA Context Burials¹ 1 9 2 Cemetery² 1 5 1 Cremation debris 1 2 10 7 1 Total ¹ Includes possible burials. ² Figurines found in a cemetery context, but not directly associated with burials or cremation debris.

C.

General Categories Bones, human Bones, animal Cremation vessel “Cultic” equipment Utensils Figurines, anthropomorphic Figurines, zoomorphic Marble vessels Obsidian Organic remains Ornaments

Ritual

Context Ritual Total

EN

MN

LN

FN

FN/EBA

2 2

-

-

-

-

Pottery 5.14 Breakdown of recovery context by chronological phases in percentage

Refuse Spinning and weaving equipment Stamp seal

100 90 80

Tools

70 60

Description of finds

clay phallus, miniature chair ladle, spatula

No of associated figurines 4 1 2 5 13 56 5

kandila, bowl knives, blades molluscs (edible), land snails beads, bracelets, pendants utilitarian, decorated, painted jars, bowl, carinated vessels, tripod legs and bowls, large open vessels discarded material whorls, loom weights

Weapons

40

EBA

30

FN

32 3 5 2

awls, knives, celts, axes, querns, chisels, points, grinding hammerstones, drills, needles, punch, grinders, endscrapers

Debitage

50

5 7 3 4

37

1 arrows

1

*The table excludes figurines that have no direct association with other finds.

LN

20

MN

10 EN

5.16 Features associated with figurines

0 Habitational/Domestic

Funerary

Ritual

Features Architectural remains Bins Burial Cooking area Fire pit Floor Food preparation area Hearth House Two-room structure Oven Paving Pit Platform Refuse area Room Tool concentration area Tool preparation area

*The graph excludes figurines of unstratified, disturbed, mixed and unknown (“nk”) context, occasional and surface finds and figurines of unknown chronology.

Number of figurines 1 12 2 18 23 23 26 1 1 1 1 18 6

*The table excludes figurines that have no direct association with specific features.

48

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

5.17 Known recovery context and figurine categories

5.18 Associated finds and figurine categories

* The tables exclude indeterminable figurines (“na”) and figurines of unknown context. ** The tables exclude figurines of unstratified, disturbed, mixed and unknown (“nk”) context, occasional and surface finds.

General Categories

Figurine categories: No of figurines

Bones, human

PF:2

2

A. Domestic/habitation

Bones, animal

F:1, M:1, A:2, PA:1

5

Cremation vessel

A:2

2

F:3, A:3, PA:1

7

Total

Context

Figurine categories: No of figurines

Activity Area (all)

M:1, A:1

2

“Cultic” equipment

Courtyard (all)

F:2, PA:2

4

Utensils

F:1, PF:1, A:2, PA:1

5

Figurines (anthrop.)

F:13, PF:6, Ff:3, M:2, A:10, PA:3

37

Figurines (zoom.)

F:2, PF:1, A:1

4

Marble vessels

F:2, A:1

3

Obsidian

F:1, PF:1, A:1

3

Organic remains

F:2

2

Ornaments

F:2, PF:3, A:3

8

Pottery

F:9, PF:6, M:2, A:5, PA:3

25

Refuse

PF:1

1

Spinning and weaving equipment

F:2, A:1

3

Tools

F:9, PF:7, Ff:1, M:1, A:5, PA:3

26

Courtyard Activity Area Courtyard Hearth Area Courtyard Oven Area

Total

F:1, PF:1

2

F:5, PF:1

6

F:3, PF:3, A:1, PA:2

9

Domestic ¹

F:2

2

Fill

PF:1

1

Hearth (all)

F:1, PF:1, PA:1

3

House ² HS & HS?

F:18, PF:6, M:1, PM:1, A:12, PA:11 F:54, PF:18, Ff:7, M:3, PM:2, A:18, PA:15

49 117

HS/BS (cave sites)

F:3, PA:1

4

Pit

F:3, PF:2, M:1, A:4, PA:1

11

Platform (all)

F:1, PF:1, A:1

3

Well

F:1

1

Curation (all)

F:6, PF:2, Ff:1, A:2, PA:2

13

*The table excludes indeterminable figurines (“na”) and figurines with no associated finds.

5.19 Associated features and figurine categories Features

¹ Excludes habitational strata and structures. ² Includes 2-room structures, 2-room structure platform and floor.

PF:2, PA:2

4

Food preparation area

F:4, PF:4, A:1, PA:1

10

Hearth

F:5, PF:3

8

Total

House

F:4, PF:3, A:2, PA:3

12

Oven

F:3, PF:3, A:1, PA:2

9

Pit

PA:1

1

Platform

PA:1

1

F:2, PF:2, A:1

5

F:2, PF:2, PA:1

5

Context

Figurine categories: No of figurines

Burials ¹

F:6, Ff:2, A:3

11

Cemetery ²

F:4, M:2

6

¹ Includes possible burials. ² Figurines found in a cemetery context, but not directly associated with burials or cremation debris.

Tool concentration area Tool preparation area

C. Ritual

Ritual

Total

Fire pit

B. Funerary

Context

Figurine categories: No of figurines

Figurine categories: No of figurines

Total

F:2

2

*The table excludes indeterminable figurines (“na”) and figurines with no associated features.

49

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

5.20 Breakdown of figurine material by region

Region

Clay

Bone

Marble

5.22 Breakdown of chronological phases by material in percentage

Shell

Stone other

Total

100

12

90

Thrace

12

-

-

-

-

%

100

-

-

-

-

Macedonia

266

1

5

-

9

94.66

0.35

2.29

-

3.20

411

1

42

1

25

85.62

0.20

8.75

0.20

5.20

% Thessaly %

4

-

-

-

-

%

100

-

-

-

-

C. Mainland

44

1

6

-

6

77.19

1.75

10.52

-

10.52

Sporades

% Euboia % Peloponnese

7

-

3

-

1

63.63

-

27.27

-

9.09

77

-

5

-

9

84.61

-

5.49

-

9.89

South Aegean

2

-

6

-

-

%

25

-

75

-

-

Cyclades

12

1

19

-

2

36.36

3.03

57.57

-

6.06

2

-

-

-

-

100

-

-

-

-

Dodecanese

-

-

-

-

1

%

-

-

-

-

100

%

% E. Aegean %

Crete %

78

1

19

1

11

70.90

0.90

17.27

0.90

10

80

281

70

480 60

4

50 40

57

Shell Bone

30

Stone other

11

20

91

Marble Clay

10 0

8

EN

MN

LN

FN & FN/EBA

33 * Phases FN and FN/EBA have been merged to enable a meaningful comparison. **The graph does not include figurines of unknown date.

2 1 110

5.21 Breakdown of the sample by material 5.23 Figurine material according to type of site

5.77%

Site type OS % CS % BS % BS? %

0.18% 0.45%

9.63%

Bone 4 0.40 1 3.22 -

Clay 840 85.80 25 80.64 11 100 -

Marble 75 7.66 4 12.90 8 88.88

Stone (other) 58 5.92 1 3.22 1 11.12

Shell 2 0.20 -

*The table does not include figurines of unknown context (“nk”) or provenance.

bone clay 83.97%

marble stone other shell

50

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

5.24 The modelled body in relation to material Body shape Amorphous Corpulent

5.26 Dimensions of figurines

Bone

Clay

Marble

Stone

Shell

-

12

-

1

-

-

147

7

7

1

Corpulent?

-

1

-

-

-

Corpulent, schematic

-

55

4

4

-

Corpulent, (zoomorphic)

-

3

-

-

-

Na (non-applicable)

-

199

16

13

-

Na (zoomorphic)

-

13

-

-

-

Proportionate

-

173

6

2

-

Proportionate, Saliagos

-

-

2

-

-

Proportionate, schematic

2

92

17

11

-

Proportionate, violin

-

-

1

-

-

Proportionate, (zoomorphic)

-

7

-

-

-

Schematic

3

46

7

7

-

Steatopygous

-

76

14

11

-

Steatopygous, Saliagos

-

-

11

1

-

Steatopygous, schematic

-

55

16

4

1

Steatopygous, violin

-

-

2

-

-

cm

Complete

Lower body fragments 86

Total

70

Upper body fragments 198

1-10 11-20

7

2

1

10

21-30

7

1

1

9

31-40

13

-

-

13

41-50

5

-

-

5

51-60

8

-

-

8

61-70

1

-

-

1

71-80

2

-

-

2

354

*The table does not include figurines of unknown dimensions.

5.27 Breakdown of complete figurines by dimensional ranges in percentage 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1-10cm 11-20cm 21-30cm 31-40cm 41-50cm 51-60cm 61-70cm 71-80cm

Steatopygous 8 (zoomorphic) *Question mark refers to fragmented figurines, whose modelled body cannot be securely identified.

*The graph does not include figurines of unknown dimensions.

5.28 Breakdown of dimensional ranges of complete figurines by figurine categories 100%

5.25 Breakdown of material by figurine categories in percentage

90% Stone other

80% F PF

Shell

70%

Ff

60%

Pff Marble

Amb

M

50%

PA

PM

A

40%

A

Clay

PA

PM M

30%

Amb

Pff

Bone

20% 70

80

90

100

PF

10%

F

*The graph does not include unidentifiable figurines (“na”).

1-10cm

0% 71-80cm

60

61-70cm

50

51-60cm

40

41-50cm

30

31-40cm

20

21-30cm

10

11-20cm

0

Ff

*The graph includes only complete figurines and excludes unidentifiable figurines (“na”).

51

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

5.29 Figurine categories over 20cm in relation to chronological phases and area of recovery Figurine category

Date

Area

22

2MN 1LN

Thessaly:2/ Crete:1

3

Ff

1MN 7LN

Thessaly:1/ Crete:7

8

M

1LN

Crete:1

1

F

PF

A

1EN 3MN 8LN 3FN 1FN/EBA

Crete:1/ Thessaly:2 Crete:1/ Macedonia:6 Crete:2/ Macedonia:3 Crete:1

*The following tables exclude figurines of indeterminable posture. **Question mark refers to postures, which are not securely identified.

Total

Thessaly:2/ Thessaly:1 Crete:4/ Thessaly:2 Cyclades:2 Dodecanese:1 Crete:7/ Euboia:1 Peloponnese:2

2EN 5MN 12LN 3FN

5.30 Range of figurine postures

Basic posture Standing

16

* The table excludes unidentifiable figurines (“na”) and figurines of unknown provenance, date and dimensions.

Basic Posture Seated

Arm(s)/ Hand(s) (all arm/hand postures) bearer, i.e. holding object kourotrophos?, i.e. holding, carrying child arm on side/hand on abdomen arms extended & arms extended? arms raised embracing figurine hand(s) on breast area/hands on breasts hand around breast hands below breasts, breast area hands meet below breasts hand(s) on chest & hands on chest? hands meet on chest hand(s) on abdomen hands meet on abdomen hands on waist hands meet on waist hand on abdomen, hand holds object on head hand on hip hands on pubic area hand on penis hand(s) on thighs

Arm(s)/ Hands(s)

Legs

218 3 1 2 37 3 2 open wide (all)

12 1 18 4 11 3 23 6 75 3

1 3 1 1 2

Legs

Total

bearer

1

kourotrophos

1

(not preserved)

54

arm(s) extended (all)

open wide

hand on breast hands below breasts hands below breasts (all) hands on chest

52

Total

4 1 3

crossed

3 1

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Basic Posture Seated

Arm(s)/ Hands(s) arms folded on abdomen hands on abdomen (all) hands meet on abdomen hands meet on chest hands on waist (all) hands meet on waist hands on thighs (all)

Legs

Total 1

hands on abdomen (all)

10

hands on waist

16

crossed

8

hand on pubic area

1

crossed

5

hands on thighs

1

extended

1

hands on knees

crossed

3

crossed, drawn up

2

drawn up, wide

5

hands on knees

Arm(s)/ Hands(s)

Basic Posture

drawn up

Legs

1

holding object on lap hand on thigh, hand on chin

1

(not preserved)

folded

1

(not preserved)

open wide

1

Arm(s)/ Hands(s)

Basic Posture

1

Birth-giving

by the body

Legs drawn up

Posture of upper body fragments only Basic Posture

Seated on chair

Total 3

by the body

Reclining

1

Arm(s)/ Hands(s)

Legs

Total

Total 2

Total

Arm(s) raised

11

kourotrophos

1

Arm raised, arm on breast area

1

hands on thighs

4

Arms extended

18

Arms folded

1

Arms attached to torso

1

Basic Posture

Arm(s)/ Hands(s)

Seated on stool

(all arm/hand postures) *

14

Arm extended, hand on breast

1

hand(s) on thighs

4

Arm raised, hand below breast

1

hands on breasts

1

Arm raised, hand on abdomen

1

Arm on abdomen

1

Hands on breasts

9

Hand(s) on breast area

7

Hands meet on breast area

1

Legs

hands on abdomen hand on penis, hand supports the head * Includes specimens with fragmented arms.

Basic Posture Kneeling

Basic Posture Squatting

Arm(s)/ Hands(s)

Total

1 1

Legs

Total Hands below breasts

(not preserved)

1

hands on waist

1

Arm(s)/ Hands(s)

Legs

Hands below breast area

3

Hand(s) on chest

7

Hand on chest, hand on waist

1

Hand(s) on abdomen

14

Hand on abdomen, hand on waist

1

Hands on waist

27

Total

(all arm/hand postures)

54

kourotrophos

3

arms raised

2

arm(s) extended (all) hand on breasts, one hand on abdomen hands on breast area arms folded on chest

8

7 2 3 1

53

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

5.31 Breakdown of postures by geographical provenance Posture

Standing

Seated

Seated on chair

Seated on stool

Kneeling

Squatting

Region Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete

Posture

Total 4 117 132 19 6 39 6 14 1 1 34 32 43 1 13 5 6 5 11 10 1 1 1 1 18 50 2 2 2 27

Reclining

Birth-giving

Arms raised

Arms extended

Hand around breast

Arms raised

54

Region Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete

Total 1 2 2 4 8 1 18 24 2 9 13 1 4 8 1 -

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Posture

Arms extended

Hand around breast

Hands on breasts

Hands (meet) on breast area

Hands (meet) below breasts

Hands (meet) on chest

Region Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete

Total 18 24 2 9 13 1 3 15 3 8 1 1 5 1 15 2 11 4 3 9 1 1 2 12

Posture

Hands (meet) on abdomen

Hands (meet) on waist

Hands on pubic area

Hands on penis

Legs crossed

Legs drawn up

55

Region Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete

Total 10 42 6 1 6 4 4 3 31 48 5 7 1 7 29 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 5 1 4 1 1 1

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Posture

Region Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete Thrace Macedonia Thessaly Sporades C. Mainland Euboia Peloponnese South Aegean Cyclades E. Aegean Dodecanese Crete

Bearer

Total 1 5 2 1 2 -

Posture

Site Type

OS Squatting

BS & BS?

Date EN, 38 MN, 20 LN, 30 FN, 4 FN/EBA, 1 EBA, 1 LBA, 1 EN, 1 LN, 2

CS

EN, 1 MN, 2 EN, 2 EN, 3 MN, 2 LN, 4 FN, 2 FN/EBA, 2 LBA, 1 FN/EBA EN, 3 MN, 7 LN, 49 FN, 6 EBA, 1 MN, 1

Hand around breast

CS

LN, 1

5.32 Breakdown of postures by chronological phases and type of recovery site

Hands on breasts

OS

*Tables exclude figurines of indeterminable posture, unknown date or provenance. ** Question mark refers to possible recovery sites.

Hands (meet) on breast area

Kourotrophos

Posture

Site Type

OS

Standing CS

BS & BS?

OS

Date EN, 54 MN, 49 LN, 221 FN, 25 FN/EBA, 13 EBA, 7 EN, 2 MN, 4 LN, 6 FN, 2 EN, 2 LN, 2 FN, 2 FN/EBA, 1 EN, 16 MN, 21 LN, 46 FN, 4 FN/EBA, 1

BS? Seated on chair

OS

Seated on stool

OS

Kneeling

OS

MN, 1 LN, 1 LN, 2 FN, 1 EN, 2 MN, 2 LN, 1 EN, 3 MN, 5 LN, 11 FN, 1 EBA, 1 EN, 2

OS

Birth-giving

OS

Arms raised

OS

BS

Arms extended

OS

62

1 1

Hands on penis

BS OS?

FN LN

1 1

OS

OS

BS?

90 OS Hands (meet) on waist CS 3

56

1

1

7

Hands (meet) on abdomen

2

14

EN, 1

14

22

2

OS

OS

BS? Hand(s) (meet) on chest

5

3

BS

Hands (meet) below breasts

2

3

Hands on pubic area

OS

CS

369

91

EN, 10 MN, 3 LN, 4 EN, 7 MN, 3 LN, 4 FN, 1 MN, 1 LN, 1 EN, 5 MN, 7 LN, 8 FN, 1 FN/EBA, 1 LN, 1 EN, 4 MN, 4 LN, 11 EN, 20 MN, 14 LN, 18 FN, 1 LN, 1 FN, 2 EN, 12 MN, 14 LN, 67 FN, 15 FN/EBA, 1 EBA, 1 LBA, 1 MN, 1 LN, 2 FN, 1 FN, 3

Total

Seated CS

Reclining

Total

17

15

2

22

1 19

45

3

106

4 3

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Posture Legs crossed

Site Type OS BS?

Legs drawn up

OS

Bearer

OS

Kourotrophos

OS BS?

Date E, 1 M, 1 L, 6 L, 1 E, 1 M, 1 L, 1 F, 2 N/E, 1 E, 3 M, 2 L, 1 E, 2 L, 1 L, 2

Total

Posture

8 1 Squatting 6

6 3

Reclining

2

5.33 Breakdown of postures by figurine categories •

Birth-giving

The table excludes unidentifiable figurines (“na”) and figurines of indeterminable posture. Posture

Standing

Seated

Seated on chair

Seated on stool

Kneeling

Figurine Category F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb

Total 202 42 45 3 7 1 104 14 1 14 26 2 8 12 8 3 1 3 1 2 2 1 9 3 1 1 1 -

Arms raised

Arms extended

Hand around breasts

Hands on breasts

Hands (meet) on breast area

57

Figurine Category F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb

Total 44 9 5 1 20 19 1 2 1 2 7 1 2 4 35 1 7 1 2 14 6 1 17 1 1 3 5 2 5 -

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Posture

Hands (meet) below breasts

Hand(s) (meet) on chest

Hands (meet) on abdomen

Hands (meet) on waist

Hands on pubic area

Hands on penis

Legs crossed

Legs drawn up

Figurine Category F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb

Total 34 12 2 2 1 2 2 1 48 5 3 3 2 72 4 13 1 1 2 26 8 1 1 2 7 5 3 1 2 -

Posture

Figurine Category F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb F PF Fform Pfform M PM A PA Amb

Bearer

Kourotrophos

Total 2 3 3 1 1 -

5.34 Percentage of decorated and undecorated figurines

43%

57% Decorated Undecorated

5.35 Breakdown of regional samples by percentage of decorated and undecorated figurines Crete Dodecanese E. Aegean Cyclades South Aegean Peloponnese C. Mainland Euboia Sporades Thessaly Macedonia Thrace

0

20

40

60

80

100 Decorated Undecorated

58

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

5.40 Breakdown of motif colour by figurine categories

MN

LN

FN & FN/EBA

5.36 Proportion of decorated and undecorated figurines by chronological phases and breakdown of decorated sample by regional provenance in percentage

Colour

F

PF

Ff

Fff

M

PM

A

PA

Amb

Σ

Black

22

Blue

1

9

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

32

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

Green

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Red

15

4

1

-

-

-

1

-

-

21

White

8

3

1

-

-

-

3

1

-

16

White on red

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

EN

5.41 Breakdown of surface colour (paint or slip) by figurine categories

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Thrace Sporades South Aegean E. Aegean Undecorated

50%

60%

70%

Macedonia C. Mainland Peloponnese Dodecanese

80%

90%

Colour

F

PF

Ff

Fff

M

PM

A

PA

Amb

Σ

Black

5

2

1

-

1

-

1

1

-

11

Buff

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

Cream

1

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

-

-

1

-

3

2

-

11

-

-

-

-

1

1

-

8

100%

3

Red

Thessaly Euboia Cyclades Crete

4

White

2 2

-

5.42 Use of colour by broad chronological phases EN

MN

LN

FN

5.37 Breakdown of figurine material by presence or absence of decoration

black

black

black

black

red

red

Material

white

Decorated

Undecorated

Bone

1

4

Clay

429

488

Marble

20

85

Stone

15

49

Shell

1

1

Date

MN

5.38 Breakdown of surface treatment method by figurine categories F

PF

Burnishing

25

Slip/Paint

17

Ff

M

PM

A

PA

Amb

Total

11

3

2

-

2

2

-

45

9

4

-

-

8

6

-

44 LN

5.39 Percentage of decorated figurines by figurine category 100 80 60 40 20

Undecorated Decorated

0

F

PF

Ff

Pff

M

PM

A

PA

blue green

white

white

5.43 Use of colour on select anatomical parts only in relation to chronology and figurine categories

EN

Method

red red on white

Amb

59

Body part abdomen pubic area chest pubic area breasts breasts pubic area pubic area pubic area pubic area chest abdomen pubic area pubic area chest chest chest chest breasts breasts abdomen abdomen abdomen pubic area pubic area chest chest chest

Colour black black black black red red red red red white black black black black red red red red red red red red red red red white white white (on red)

Category F PF F F F F F F F F PF F F PF F F F F F F F F F F F F F F

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Date

Body part chest chest breasts abdomen abdomen abdomen pubic area pubic area

FN

Colour white (on red) white white (on red) white white white white green

Category F A F F F F Ff F

5.44 Decorative motifs and suggested meanings *The cross indicates a motif with its variations. Body decoration

Clothing

Body decoration or clothing

Jewellery

Body decoration

Clothing

dpl19

dpl15

Body decoration or clothing hpl10

dpl20

drl1+

hpl11

dpl21

dpl16

hpl13

dsl2

dpl3

hpl14

dsl3

dpl4

hpl22

dsl5

dpl5

hsl1

fhd3

dpl6

pa3

fhd13

dpl8+

pa5

fhd15+

dpl17

pa10

fhd16

dpl23+

pa11

fhd17

dpl24

pu1+

dpl25

pu10 pu11

c2

b4+

b12+

b1a

fhd23

c3

b5

b14+

b2

fhd26+

drl1+

c4

b6

c1+

b3

fhd39

dsl4

pu12

dsl6

pu15+

fhd29

pu16+

c5

b7

c2

b16

fhd41

c7

b8

c6

d1i

fhd46

ca1

b9

cb1

d9

fhd48

g2

pu18

ga3

pu21

ga4

rd1+

ca2

b10

ch1

la1

fhd49

cav2

b11

ch6

rd2+ (?)

fhd6

cc1

b12+

ch7

rm1 (?)

fhd8

ga9

spl5

ga11

spl10

cc2

b13

ch18

rm5+

ga1

cc3

b14+

ch19+

rm7 (?)

ga2

ga12

spl27

ch2+

b16

ch16+

rm8

ga6

ga15

tm1

ch3

b18

cpl4

rs1+

ga7

ga20

vpl5

ch4

c17+

cpl5+

rs2

ga8

ga22

vpl14+ vpl16+

ch5

ch8+

cpl6+

rs3+

ga18

ga23

ch13

ch9+

cpl10

sch1+

ga19

ga24

vpl17

ch14

ch10+

cpl11

sch2+

ga21

ga25

vpl18+

ch15

ch11+

d4

sch3

ga26

ga28

vpl19

ch17+

ch12

d5

sch4+ (?)

hpl5

ga29

vpl20

cpl7

cpl1+

dil1

sch5+ (?)

hpl7

ga30

z1+

cpl8

cpl2

dil7

sch6

hpl8

ga31

z2

cpl9

cpl3

dil14

ssl1(b)

d1+

cpl6

dpl1+

d2

d6

dpl7

d3

d7

dpl10

d8

dil2

dpl22

dil2

dil3

dpl26

dil3

dil4

dpl27

dil6

dil5

dsl1

dil10

dil8

ga19

dil11

dil9+

ga5

dpl2

dil12

ga6

dpl9

dil13

ga7

dpl10

dpl3-6

ga8

dpl11

dpl8+

hpl1+

dpl18+

dpl12

hpl7

60

hpl9

hdl1+

z3+

hpl12

hpl2+

z4+

hpl15

hpl4

z5

hpl19

hpl6

z6

hpl24

hpl16+

z7

hsl2+

hpl20+

z13

hsl8

hpl21

pa3

hpl23

pu2+

hsl6

pu3

la1

pu4

la2

pu5

m1

pu6

pa7

pu7

pa8

Jewellery

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

pu8

pa9

5.45 Motifs and attributes shared between figurine categories

pu9

pa13

pu13+

pa16

Key: ca=carved dr=drilled inc=incised

inf=infilled p=painted pl=plastic

pu14+

pa17

rm2

pa18

rm7

pa19

Motif

Body Part

rm9

pu22

s1+

pu24

b4ii b4iii

waist waist

s2i, ii

pu25

b4iv b4vi

waist waist

pu=punctured

Bands decorating the waist

s3

rm4

s5

rm6

s7

rm10

b12i

waist

Colour

black 1red, 1white black

Method

Figurine Category

Count

p inc, inc/p, c inc inc, p, c

1F 3F, 1PF, 1PM, 1A 6F, 1A 5F, 4PF, 3Ff, 1M, 1A, 1Amb 1PF

1 6

inc

7 15

1

s8+

rm11

b12ii

waist

inc

1A

1

spl1+

rs4

b14i

waist

inc/pu

1Ff

1

spl2

rs5

b14ii

waist

pu

1A

1

spl3

s2ii

spl4

s4

Mirror crosses c1i neck

inc

2A

2

spl6+

s6+

inc

1F

1

spl11

s9

spl12

spl8

spl13

spl17

2

spl23

inc, inc/inf

2A

spl14 spl15

vpl2

spl16

vpl4+

inc

4

spl20

vpl7+

2F, 1M, 1A

spl21

vpl8+

spl25

vpl12+

2PF 1PF

2 1

spl26

vpl13+

ssl1

vpl22

ssl2

vpl24

inc

3F

3

ssl3

vpl26

inc

1F

1

inc

1F

1

inc

1F

1

1A

1

1A

1

1A

1

2A

2

ssl4

vpl27

ssl5

vpl-hb1

ssl6

vpl-hb2

vpl1

vpl-hb3

vpl25

vpl-hb4+

vrl3

vpl-hb5

vsl3

vpl-hb6

c1ii

breast areaabdomen

Set of double crosses c2 shoulder: left Single cross c4 abdomen: side

Concentric circles, similar to spiral motif (s) cc1 abdomen, white, inc, lower white inc/inf, back inc, inc/inf Mirror single chevrons ch2i breast area, breasts ch2ii breasts ch2iii ch4

breast area breast

Multiple or single chevron(s) forming a zigzag band ch8i torso: inc front & sides ch8ii torso: inc front & sides ch8iii torso: inc front & sides ch8iv torso: inc front & sides, lower body: front & sides

vrl+ vrl2 z8 z10 z11 z12 z14 z15

61

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Multiple chevrons in side arrangement forming horizontal band(s) (see also ch10 and ch11, ch 12) Motif

Body Part

ch9i

lower body: front & back lower body: front

ch9ii

ch9iii

lower body: front

Colour

white

cpl1iv

Method

Figurine Category

Count

inc

1A

1

cpl1v

ch11iv

Multiple random chevrons ch15 legs ch16i legs ch16ii legs

1

inc

1F

1

1A

1

inc/inf

1A

1

Parallel curvy lines in a horizontal arrangement cpl5i legs black inc, p cpl5ii

inc

inc

inc inc inc

Multiple parallel chevrons forming a ring band ch17i legs: black p upper ch17ii legs: inc ankles ch17iii legs: black p upperlower Large chevrons on side arrangement ch19i waistblack lower legs: front, sides ch19ii waistlower legs: front

1A

inc

Multiple large chevrons forming a vertical stack (see also ch9, ch10 and ch12) ch11i body white inc ch11ii body: inc/inf front inc & back lower body: front lower body: front body: front & back

inc

Mirror sets of parallel lines in a diagonal arrangement cpl2i torso: white inc, 1F, waist inc/inf 1Ff level

Multiple chevrons in upright arrangement forming horizontal band(s) (see also ch9 and ch11, ch12) ch10i lower inc 1F, 1A 2 body: front ch10ii lower inc 1A 1 body: front

ch11iii

back:mid -base shoulders -chest

p

inc

1PF 1PA 1F

Diamond d1i d9 d1ii d9

2 2

1A

1A 2PF 1PF

1

abdomen

d3

abdomen back: lower abdomen: back

1 2 1

1F

1

1PA

1

1F

1

1F

1PA

Mirror sets of double curvilinear lines in diagonal arrangement cpl1i torso: inc 1F, 1PF, shoulder 1A -chest cpl1ii torso: red inc 1Ff sides -waist cpl1iii torso: inc 1Ff shoulder -waist

X motif on the torso dil1 torso: shoulderwaist dil9i torso: shoulderwaist, back: shoulder -waist

1

inc

chest neck: front back: upper back: neck -waist

d2

d8

1F

legs

1F,1PF, 1na 1na

1

1

1

62

1

inc

1F

1

p

1F

1

red

1F

1

black

inc, inc/inf p

1F

1

white

inc/inf

1F

1

inc

1A

1

inc

1F

1

black

p

1F

1

black, red, black

inc, p

5F, 1PA

6 (both on torso & back)

Three diagonal parallel straight lines (see dpl21) dpl18i leg: inc front & back dpl18ii leg: inc knee-base

3

3

red

Intersecting diagonal parallel bands in “woven” arrangement dil2 torso: black (2) p 2F upper -mid, back: upper -lower dil3 torso: black p 2F, 1PA upper, back: upper -mid dil4 back: black p 1F lower dil5 back: black p 1F uppermid

1

2

2

3

1 1

1na

1

1F

1

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Mirror sets of diagonal parallel lines Motif

Body Part

Colour

Method

Figurine Category

Count

dpl1i

back: shoulder

red

inf

1F

1

dpl1ii

shoulder: front

red

dpl1iii

shoulder: front

fhd15ii

Mirror sets of double straight lines dpl22i torso: sideswaist, back: sideswaist dpl22ii torso: front Diagonal intersecting parallel lines dpl23i lower black body: buttockslegs lower body: front

2F

2

inc

1PA

1

Modelled hair: long plastic strands fhd34 crownmid back

3F

3

Modelled hair: shorter plastic bands fhd35i crownshoulder

2F

2

1na

1

inc

1ni

1

inc, inc/p

2na

pl

5

pl

1F, 3na

4

fhd35ii

crownshoulder

pl

2na

2

fhd35iii

crownshoulder

pl

1F

1

2F, 3na

5

inc

2na

2

inc

1PA

1

inc

1A

1

inc

1PA

1

1A

1

Modelled hair: pulled up above the neck base fhd36 crown pl

p

1F

1

Three diagonal lines fhd46 face: cheeks Random diagonal short lines hdl1i neck

1A

hdl1ii

1

hdl1iii

p

2F, 2A

neck: back back: neck-mid

Painted crown: hair or cap (see hd4, hd7) hd1 crown p black

4

2

1F, 1PF, 1PA, 2na

inc

inc

Diagonal long straight lines dpl8i back: black (2) shoulderwaist, torso: shoulderwaist dpl8ii back: black neckwaist dpl8iii torso: black neck-mid dpl8iv back black

black, red

inc/inf

inc

p

chin

Diagonal lines fhd17 face

Multiple diagonal parallel straight lines (see dpl18) dpl21 legs red p

dpl23ii

Short straight line fhd15i chin

2na

2

Plastically modelled square crown representing cap (see hd1, hd7) hd4 crown pl, inc/pl 1F, 1PF, 8 6na p

1F

1

p

1F

1

p

1na

1

dpl8v

back

?

p

1F

1

dpl8vi

torso: neckwaist

?

p

1F

1

Parallel straight lines in radiating arrangement drl1i hips-legs: inc front, hips-legs: front & back drl1ii legs: inc upperlower: front drl1iii as above inc

1F, 1Ff, 2F

4

2F

2

1F

1

Plastically modelled rounded crown representing cap, some decorated (see hd4 and hd1) hd7i crown pl 2F, 7na 9 hd7ii

crown

inc/pl

1na

1

hd7iii

crown

pl

1na

1

Mirror single or double set decoration/clothing) 1red, hpl1i shoulder 1white, blades, 1red/white shoulder hpl1ii shoulder blades hpl1iii shoulder blades hpl1iv shoulder blades

63

of

short

parallel

lines

(body

inc/inf

3A, 7F

10

inc

1F

1

inc

1PF

1

inc

1PF

1

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Multiple horizontal lines (clothing)

torso

Motif

Body Part

Colour

Method

Figurine Category

Count

hpl2i

torso: sides -centre: upper torso: sides -centre: upper torso: sides -centre: whole torso: sidescentre: upper torso: sidescentre, back: sidescentre

white

inc/inf

1F

1

hpl2ii

hpl2iii

hpl2iv

hpl2v

black

inc

1F

1

p

1F

1

inc

inc

1Ff

1F

Three horizontal parallel lines hpl14 thighs: white upper: front

inc, inc/inf

Parallel multiple lines in horizontal arrangement hpl16i lower inc body: frontsides hpl16ii lower inc, body: inc/inf front, hips hpl16iii lower b: inc front, lower b: front & back hpl16iv mid inc torsobase hpl16v lower b: inc front & back hpl16vi neck-base inc

Horizontal line hsl2i waist (front or back or both) hsl2ii waist: back

dark

1white, 1red, 1black

Vertical line of multiple punctures pu1i neck: front pu1ii neck – black upper

inc, p

1

pu6

pu14i 2

1PF

1

3

1

1PF

1

6F, 4A, 1Ff, 1PF

inc

1F

torso: chestwaist torso: breast area

red/white

Multiple small circles pu24 torso: sides

2

1Ff

c, inc, inc/inf, p

1

pu/inf

1F

1

pu

1F

1

pu

1PF

1

pu, pu/inf

1F

2

pu/inf

1F

1

pu

1F

1

1 3

pu

1Ff

1

pu

1F

1

Cluster of multiple punctures in rectangular formations pu15i back: red/white pu/inf 1F upperlower pu15ii back pu 1PF

pu16ii

1F, 1A

back: lower

pu14ii

pu16i

1PA

white

1A

abdomen

3

1F, 1A

hips, neck neck

pu

Set of 2 or 3 punctures in horizontal arrangement pu13i back: pu 1PF lower pu13ii back: pu 1F, 1PF, lower, 1A back: upper

1

1PF, 1PA 1na

3F

neck: front

Cluster of punctures (3 or more) pu2i shoulder: red front pu2ii shoulder: front pu2iii shoulder: back pu6 shoulder white pu6

Short parallel horizontal lines forming vertical band hpl6 torso: inc 1F, 1A sides, body: sides

Two parallel lines hpl22 back

pu1iii

Single, double or multiple rings rd1i leg: lower rd1ii leg: lower rd1iii leg: upper rd1iv leg: red lower

1

1

pu/inf

1F

1

pu

1PF

1

pu

2F

2

inc

1Ff

1

inc

1PF

1

inc

1PF

1

p

1F

1

inc, inc/inf

1PF, 1na

2

inc, p, c

1F, 1PF,1Ff, 1Amb

4

inc, inc/inf, p inc, c pu inc

6F, 1Ff, 2A, 2PA,1na 2A 1F 1PA

12

inc

2F

2

1 rm9

leg: mid, leg: lower

rs2

ankles

2

white

12 Single, double or multiple rings red, white, rs1i neck red/white, black

1

pu, dr

2na

2

rs1ii rs1iv rs1v

pu

1A

1

rs1vi

64

neck neck torso: upper torso: upper

2 1 1

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Motif

Body Part

rd2i

neck

rd2ii

neck

rd2iii

neck

Colour

Method

Figurine Category

Count

red, black

inc, p, inc/p

7F, 3A,1PA, 2na,1ni 1A

14

inc ?

inc, p

1F, 1na

neck

black

p

1na

neck

black, red

p

2na

2

1F

1

4F, 3A, 4PA, 1na 1F

12

rm5ii

neck: back neck

rm5iii

neck

black red, red/white ?

p inc, inc/inf, p p

Multiple curvilinear parallel lines around shoulders rm4i upper inc 2F torso rm4ii upper inc 1F torso Single or Multiple rings rs3i wrist (s) rs3ii

red

inc, p

wrist

s8iii

2

rm3

1

2 1

4

3F, 1Ff

4

1

inc rm7

wrist inc

Curvilinear motif representing “skirt” line rs4 lower white inc, body: inc/inf front & back Ring motif encircling shoulders rs5 shoulder white area: front & back, front, back Spiral variation s1i abdomen

inc, inc/inf

2F

4PF, 2A

2

1F

1

s1ii

abdomen

black

p

1F

1

s1iii

abdomen

black

p/pl

1F

1

s2i

s2ii

s7

buttocks, legs: front & back buttocks, leg: front

white

buttock

Horizontal double spiral s5 chest, torso

?

inc

1PF, 1na

2

inc, inc/inf

PF

2

inc

Ff

1

p, inc/pu

1F, 1PF

1

white

inc/inf

1F

1

1A

1

white

inc inc, inc/inf

shoulder

1F, 1A

2

3F,1PF, 2Ff, 2A, 1PA,1na

10

3F, 2PF, 2Ff,1M, 3PA, 2na

13

1F

1

2F

2

1Ff

1

1F

1

2F,1Ff, 2A,1PA

6

1F,1A

2

1F

1

1na

1

1F

1

2F, 1M, 1A

4

1F

1

1F

1

Suspended double chevron representing amulet sch2i neck: red, white inc, front, inc/inf neck: front & back sch2ii neck: black inc, p front, neck: front & back sch2iii neck: black p front sch2iv neck: black p front sch2v neck: inc front

6

inc

1F

Suspended chevron representing amulet sch1i neck: black inc, p, ca front & back, back: neck, chest sch1ii neck: white inc, inc/p, front, inc/inf, c neck: back, neck: front & back sch1iii neck: inc front sch1iv neck: black p front, back: neck sch1v back: inc neck -mid sch1vi neck: inc/pl front

1

1F, 1PF, 1A, 1na 1PF

inc

Single spiral s8i, s8ii shoulder

1

rm2

rm5i

Mirror spirals s6i lower body: front lower body s6ii

Suspended long chevron representing amulet sch3 neck: c, inc front, torso: neckwaist, back: neck -waist Suspended multiple chevron representing amulet sch4i back: red p neckwaist sch4ii neck: red p front & back

2

65

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Motif

Body Part

sch5i

neck: front, neck: back neck: front chestabdomen back: upper -lower

sch5ii sch5iii sch5iv

Colour

red

Short parallel lines (horizontal) spl1i arm: front & back, arm: back arm: front, spl1ii

Method

Figurine Category

Count

vpl7i

back

inc

1F, 2PA

3

vpl7ii

p

1F

1

vpl7iii

back: upperlower back

inc

1PF

1

vpl7iv

back

inc

1F

1

inc

1PF, 1PA

2

inc

2PA

2

arm: upper, hips

inc

1F, 1A

2

Short parallel lines (vertical) spl6i legs: upper spl6ii knees white

inc

1A

1

inc, inc/inf

1F, 1A

2

spl16

abdomen

inc

1F

1

spl14

knee, chest: left

inc

1Ff, 1PA

2

Vertical long parallel lines (beard?) spl7 neck

inc

2PM, 1F

3

Two short parallel vertical lines vpl1 chest

inc

2A

2

inc, inc/inf

2F

2

vpl3

torso: chest-mid

red

Multiple parallel vertical lines vpl4i chest, 3white, neck1red chest, /white chestabdomen, chestbase, back: neckupper, back: upperlower, abdomen vpl4ii chest

inc

17F, 1PF, 1Ff, 6A

Parallel lines (along sides of torso) vpl14i torso: midwaist: sides vpl14ii torso: upperwaist: sides Mirror vertical lines (“braces”) vpl8i, torso/ vpl8ii back: shoulderwaist vpl8iii torso/ black back: shoulderwaist Wavy multiple vertical lines vpl11i back: red upperlower vpl11ii back: black upperlower vpl11iii neck: black front & back

25

3

p

1F, 1A, PA 1F

vpl4iii

chest

vpl5

back: uppermid

inc

1F

1

vpl6i

back: uppermid torso: neckwaist

inc

1Ff

1

inc

1PA

1

vpl6ii

red

inc, inc/inf

2red, 3white, 1black white

inc, inc/inf inc

6F, 2A

8

1F

1

inc, inc/inf

6F, 1Ff, 8A

15

inc/inf

1F

1

1A

1

3A, 1PA

4

1F

1

inc

2PF

2

inc

1PF

1

inc

1F

1

p

1F

1

p

1PF

1

p

1F

1

p

1F

1

2F, 1PF

3

1F

1

1F

1

1F

1

Vertical parallel lines in radiating arrangement vrl1i torso: inc neckbase vrl1ii back: inc necklower/ base, chest, torso: neck-mid vrl1iii back: inc neckwaist

arm: back

spl21

white/red

Vertical parallel lines (from the waist down) vpl12i torso: 1red, 1? inc, p chestwaist, back: mid-waist vpl12ii back: red p mid-waist vpl13i lower red p body: front: waistthighs vpl13ii lower inc body: front

1

66

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Motif

Body Part

vpl16i

vpl16ii vpl16iii vpl16iv

vpl16v vpl16vi

vpl16vii

vpl16viii

Colour

Method

Figurine Category

Count

abdomenleg, buttockthigh (side)/leg, legs: front & back

3red, 1brown, 1black

p

3F, 3PF

6

buttocksleg, leg buttocksleg hip-leg, hip-thigh, leg(s), legs: front, thigh: front leg: front waistlower leg: sides & back buttockslegs

black

p

1PF, 1na

2

black

p

1PF

1

1red, 3black

inc, p

3F, 2PF, 1A, 1na

7

red red

p p

1F 1F

1 1

lower body: front & back

vpl17

leg, legs: front

vpl18i

leg: upperlower legs: waistfeet leg

vpl18ii

vpl18iii vpl19

leg-thigh

Zigzag lines (on lower body) z3i waistbase: front z3ii legs: front & back, leg: upper

4

inc

1A

1

inc, inc/inf

1F, 1A

2

A. Body Decoration Body Part face face face face face face face face face

Figurine Category na na na na F na na na na

Date

Region

MN MN LN LN LN LN LN LN FN

Thessaly Thessaly Macedonia Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Macedonia Peloponnese C. Mainland

1

black

p

1F

1

inc

1F, 1na

2

fhd46 fhd46 fhd23 fhd26vi fhd39 fhd41 fhd48 fhd6 fhd26iv

?

p

1F

1

ch4 ch2ii

breasts breasts

F F

EN LN

Thessaly Macedonia

black

p

1F

1

black

p

1na

1

red

p

1F

1

s1iii ssl1 pu14ii cc1 c4 hsl8 spl4 cc1 s1ii ssl4 ch5 z1iii d8 ga26 dil11 spl16 s5 vpl1

abdomen abdomen abdomen abdomen abdomen abdomen abdomen abdomen abdomen abdomen abdomen abdomen abdomen abdomen abdomen abdomen abdomen abdomen

F PF F PF F F F PF F A F F F F F Ff F A

EN EN EN MN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN

Thessaly Thessaly Macedonia Crete Crete Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Thessaly Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Thessaly Macedonia Macedonia Thessaly Macedonia

spl26 c3 vpl1 c7 hpl5

chest chest chest chest chest

PA F A F PF

MN LN LN LN LN

Thessaly Crete Macedonia Macedonia Thessaly

hpl12 c5 rm9

hips hips hips

PF PF na

LN LN LN

Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia

pa3

pubic area

F

LN

Macedonia

waist-mid leg

black

white

p

p

1F

1

1F

1

inc/inf

1A

1

inc

1F

1

inc/inf

1F

1

waist: front abdomen

inc

1na

1

inc

1PF

1

z1vi

hips: front

inc

1A

1

z5

torso

inc/inf

1A

1

z1v

1PF, 1na

1F

vpl-hb3

z1iv

red

inc

p

?

z1iii

lower body: front

1

red

buttockslegs

waist: front abdomen

z4

Motif

vpl-hb2

z1ii

legs: upper

1F

5.46 Use of motifs: meaning, figurine categories, chronology and region

Vertical parallel lines hanging from “belt” (from the waist down) vpl-hb4i buttocksinc 1PF 1 thighs vpl-hb4ii hipsinc 1PF 1 thighs

Zigzag (on chest) z1i chest

z2

inc

white

black

67

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

B. Clothing (general attire) Motif

dil9i

Body Part torso torso torso torso torso torso torso torso torso torso torso torso torso torso torso torso torso torso torso torso torso

Figurine Category na F F PA Ff F F F F F F F F F F F F A A A A

Date

Region

MN MN MN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN

Peloponnese Peloponnese Peloponnese Thessaly Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Peloponnese Macedonia Macedonia Thessaly Thessaly Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Thessaly Thessaly Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia

PA Ff F Ff F F F F F F F F F F F F A A A A A A F

EN EN MN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN

C. Mainland Thessaly Peloponnese Macedonia Thessaly Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia

vpl4i

chest chest chest chest chest chest chest chest chest chest chest chest chest chest chest chest chest chest chest chest chest chest chest & back chest-base

A

LN

Macedonia

cpl1i

breast area

F

LN

Crete

ch8ii

body: sides body: sides

A

LN

Macedonia

A

LN

Macedonia

vpl4i

abdomen

PF

LN

Macedonia

dil1

shoulderswaist shoulders shoulders shoulders shoulders

F

LN

Peloponnese

PF PA F F

LN LN LN ?

Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Crete

F

EN

Thessaly

F

MN

Peloponnese

PA

LN

Thessaly

dpl6 dil2 dil9i dil3 cpl1ii cpl1iii cpl1v d4 dil9i dil9i dpl8i dpl8i hpl2i hpl2ii hpl2iii vpl4i vpl4i ch8i ch8iii cpl1i vpl4i vpl4i hpl2iv vpl4iii vpl4i dil9i vpl4i vpl4i vpl4i vpl4i vpl4i vpl4i vpl4i vpl4i vpl4i vpl4i vpl4i vpl4i vpl4i vpl4i vpl4i vpl4i vpl4ii vpl4i

ch8iv

cpl1i dpl1iii dpl1i dpl1ii dpl8ii, iii dpl4 dil9i

torso & back torso & back torso & back

torso & back torso & back torso & back

F

LN

Macedonia

F

LN

Thessaly

F

LN

Macedonia

dil2 dil3 dpl8iv cpl1iv dil3 dil4 dil5 dpl8i dpl8i vpl4i vpl7i vpl7i vpl7i vpl7i vpl7i vpl7i vpl7i vpl7i vpl7ii vpl7iii vpl7iii vpl7iii vpl7iii vpl7iii vpl7iii vpl7iii vpl7iii vpl7iii vpl7iii vpl7iii vpl7iii vpl7iii vpl7iii vpl7iii vpl7iv vpl7iv ch6

back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back back: shoulders

F F na A F F F A A F F A F F F F A F F A A A F A A Ff A F F F F F F A A F A

MN MN MN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN

Peloponnese Peloponnese Peloponnese Macedonia Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia

ch11i ch11i ch10i ch11iii s6i s6ii z4 ch9i ch9ii ch9iii ch10i ch10ii ch11ii ch11iv ch11iv z4 ch8iv d6

lower body lower body lower body lower body lower body lower body lower body lower body lower body lower body lower body lower body lower body lower body lower body lower body lower body lower body

PF PA F F F F F A A A A A A A A A A A

LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN FN

Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia

dpl8v, vi hpl2v

68

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

C. Body Decoration or Clothing Motif

Figurine Category F

Date

Region

chl

Body Part breasts

LN

Macedonia

z1i pu16i

chest chest

A F

LN LN

Macedonia Crete

z1v ga6 z1iii de1 c1ii

abdomen abdomen abdomen abdomen abdomen

PF PF F A F

MN LN LN LN LN

Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia

hpl10 z1vi

hips hips

PF A

LN LN

Macedonia Macedonia

pa10 pa11 pa10 pa10(b) pa5

pubic area pubic area pubic area pubic area pubic area

F F F F F

MN MN MN LN LN

Thessaly Peloponnese Peloponnese Peloponnese Peloponnese

fhd26+ fhd26+

ears ears

na na

LN LN

Cyclades Macedonia

sch5+ sch5+ sch5+ sch5+ sch5+ sch5+

chest chest chest chest chest chest

F PA F PF F PA

MN MN LN LN LN LN

Peloponnese Thessaly Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia

d1

abdomen

F

LN

Macedonia

neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back

Ff

EN?

Macedonia

na

EN

Thessaly

PA

EN

Thessaly

F

EN

Thessaly

F

EN

Macedonia

F

MN

Peloponnese

na

MN

Thessaly

PF

MN

Thessaly

F

MN

Thessaly

PA

MN

Thessaly

PA

MN

Thessaly

A

MN

Thessaly

sch1+

sch1+

rd2+ rd2+ rd2+ rd2+ rd2+ rd2+ rd2+ rd2+ rd2+ rd2+ rd2+ rd2+ rd2+ rd2+ rm5+ rm5+ rm5+ rm5+ rm5+ rm5+ rm5+ rm5+ rm5+ rm5+ rm5+ rm5+ rm5+ rm5+ rm5+ sch1+

D. Jewellery

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

69

neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back

PA

MN

Macedonia

na

MN

Peloponnese

F F A na A F F PA F F F F na na F A PA na F F F PA F PA PA A F A F F

LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN LN

Thessaly Thessaly Macedonia Thessaly Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Thessaly Thessaly

Ff

LN

Cyclades

A

LN

Macedonia

PF

LN

Macedonia

PF

LN

Macedonia

Ff

LN

Macedonia

F

LN

Peloponnese

na

LN

Macedonia

F

LN

Macedonia

F

LN

Macedonia

na

LN

Macedonia

F

LN

Peloponnese

Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Motif sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

sch1+

rd2+ sch1+

rd2+

Body Part neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck: chest & back neck neck: chest & back legs

Figurine Category A

Date

Region

LN

Macedonia

F

LN

Macedonia

A

LN

Macedonia

F

LN

Macedonia

A

LN

Macedonia

A Ff

FN FN/EBA

Macedonia South Aegean

F

LN

Peloponnese

70

Chapter 6 Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

6.1 EBA figurines: strategies for analysis

evidential

constraints

however, we merge the Female with the Female-related (Probably Female, Female form, Probably Female form) figurine percentages, representations of the female body predominate (53%). The three remaining categories (Male, Probably Male, Ambiguous) account for only 1% each, with Probably Asexual accounting for 6% of the total. Statistical analysis (see App. 1, statistical test 1.6) confirms that not all figurine categories were preferred equally in the EBA period and that, in fact, Asexual forms were preferred over other types, which contrasts to the predominance of Female figurines in the Neolithic period.

and

The issue of authenticity and safe provenance of EC figurines has affected the strategy for analysis followed in the present study. In order to protect the sample from forged pieces, a decision has been taken to adopt a selective recording strategy (see also 4.1), especially as the recovery of a significant number of EC figurines was the result of looting activities. Moreover, Cycladic figurines are known to have been forged in considerable numbers from the 1950s onwards (Gill and Chippindale 1995, 132). Though there is a known corpus of 1,600 EC figurines (Gill and Chippindale 1995, 132), the studied sample represents almost a sixth of that corpus as a result of selective recording. The sample consists, therefore, of 253 EC figurines, that is those excavated and thus with a secure provenance, as well as those that “surfaced” before the year 1900. Finally, looting activities are responsible for the limited contextual information that we have available for figurines that “surfaced” from burial sites before 1900. Finally, the recovery of EBA figurines mainly from funerary contexts calls for a slightly modified approach, which has otherwise been applied in a uniform way on both sets of data. A separate section, therefore, is devoted to the discussion of the mortuary record in relation to skeletal remains, grave good assemblages and the represented sex of figurines.

Conclusion: The modelling of the female body remained relevant for EBA Aegean communities, in sharp contrast to male models, which continued to be underrepresented. Asexual representations, however, hold a central place in the EBA sample. Asexual figurines may have represented summary human shapes for reasons that are discussed in more detail later on. Statistical analysis comparing figurine categories in both periods (see App. 1, statistical test 1.7) suggests that the variations in the modelling of the represented sex between the two samples is linked to chronology. In the EBA, therefore, the modelling of the female body was not as central as in the Neolithic period, which was largely replaced by Asexual forms. Male models, on the other hand, continue to account for only a fraction of the overall sample.

6.2 An introduction to the recorded sample

6.2.3 Provenance of the sample The area covered by the sample includes parts of the mainland and insular Aegean, closely coinciding with regions that yielded Neolithic figurines. Figurines have been recovered in Macedonia, Thessaly, Boeotia and Attica (Central Mainland) and the Peloponnese. The insular Aegean is represented by islands of the North and East Aegean, Euboia, the Cyclades and Crete. A detailed list of site names is contained in Appendix 2, fig. 2.2.

6.2.1 Size of the recorded corpus At first sight, the number of Neolithic figurines exceeds that of EBA figurines (1,093 as opposed to 567). We need to bear in mind, however, that the recorded EBA sample has been affected by the decision to exclude a considerable number of known EC figurines on the grounds of their unsafe provenance. Given our limitations, therefore, to compare the number of figurines yielded by both periods, we are unable to draw safe conclusions regarding the volume of figurine production in the Neolithic and EBA periods.

Figure 6.2 shows a clear predominance of Cycladic figurines, representing over 50% of the whole assemblage. Next, Cretan figurines amount to less than half of the proportion of the Cycladic assemblage (22%). East Aegean contexts have produced a proportion of 11%, while 16% is comprised of figurines from the Central Mainland, Euboia, Macedonia, the Peloponnese and Thessaly. The Cyclades would stand out even more as a central area for figurine production, if we also

6.2.2 A breakdown according to the represented sex Results in fig. 6.1 show that Female and Asexual figurines account for a comparable proportion of the whole sample. If,

71

71

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

consider the excluded number of unprovenanced Cycladic figurines, not all of which presumably would have been forged.

Cycladic figurines) shows a strong preference for Asexual figurines. The common trend for all regions, however, is the striking underrepresentation of Male figurines. Though further discussion follows later on, the EBA eidoloplastic evidence shows a shift from predominantly Female figurines in the Neolithic to more schematic, Asexual forms in the EBA.

Conclusion: The Cyclades, Crete and the East Aegean are the main areas that have yielded EBA figurines. Interestingly, Neolithic focal areas for figurine production have produced a limited proportion of figurines in the EBA period, as in the case of Macedonia and Thessaly. It is difficult to estimate whether the detected patterns reflect real differences in figurine production, given the fragmented excavation record. Nevertheless, we may be right in assuming the centrality of the Cyclades in figurine production, especially if we consider that the largest Cycladic settlements would be at the lower demographic end of EBA Aegean, with a population that would not have exceeded 300 members (Broodbank 2000, 86). Moreover, the exportation and emulation of Cycladic figurines implies that the production of figurines in the Cyclades held a central place in the Aegean in terms of ideology and prestige values.

6.3 EBA figurines in their context of use, deposition and recovery 6.3.1 Temporal and geographical variables i. Chronology, the contextual use of figurines, emulation and contact Figure 6.4 shows a general trend for increasing numbers of figurines from EB I and a decreasing tendency from EB II-III until the end of the EBA period. EB II is the phase that has produced the highest proportion of figurines. Problems relating to the fragmented excavation record, systematic looting and the recovery of unprovenanced figurines, however, do not allow us to explore whether the observed trend is also confirmed statistically.

Any correlation between population level and figurine production in the EBA seems unlikely, as implied by the relatively low number of recovered figurines from the larger sites on Crete (Whitelaw 1983, 339) and the mainland (Konsola 1986). Finally, areas that in the Neolithic period held a peripheral place in figurine production, now dominate the EBA sample, as in the case of the Cyclades and the East Aegean, not only as a result of demographic expansion. Areas that have yielded the majority of Neolithic figurines, such as Thessaly and Macedonia, have yielded figurines at a much lower scale. The low number of figurines in Macedonia, however, may be the result of the limited number of excavated sites in the region.

The application of both contextual and suggested typological date has revealed the possibility of curated figurines (see Mina 2005, Vol. II, fig. 11). Apart from occasions where there is discrepancy between the typological and contextual date, the general pattern suggests that many figurines continued to circulate in phases after their production, possibly as heirlooms. In the period covering the EB II and III phases, possible curated figurines were present at Cycladic and East Aegean sites. In the later part of the EBA, figurines dating earlier than their context of recovery were present at East Aegean, Cycladic and Cretan sites, in some cases even dating to the earlier part of the EBA.

6.2.4 Figurine categories and provenance Figure 6.3 shows that Asexual figurines predominate in most regions over any other category. In ascending order, this pattern is true for the assemblages of the North Aegean (75%), Crete (65%), Thessaly (64%), C. Mainland (41.20%) and the Peloponnese (37.75%). Only the Cyclades have yielded a majority of Female figurines (47.90%). In Euboia and the East Aegean, however, the proportion of Female and Asexual figurines is almost equal. Interestingly, Male figurines are present only in the assemblages of the Cyclades (1.70%) and the Peloponnese (5.6%) and account for a very small percentage. Probably Male figurines have been recovered in Euboia (6.25%) and Crete (1%). Finally, Ambiguous figurines account, in general, for a small percentage and they are present in the East Aegean (1.90%), the Cyclades (1.70%) and Crete (1%).

Emulated and imported figurines also turn up in different parts of the Aegean. In the period spanning EB I and II, figurines following the Anatolian tradition (“spade” and “pebble” parallels) have been found on the mainland and Crete. In EB II Cretan type figurines (Porti, Agios Onouphrios parallels) were also recovered from Cycladic sites. In the later part of the EBA imported figurines have been found at Cretan sites. Two of these belong to the early Anatolian forms of Troy I and “spade”, while nine figurines are of the Cycladic tradition (folded-arm figurines). More figurines, which cannot be securely dated in relation to their context, show a link between Euboia and the Cyclades in EC II, and offer more support for the contact between Crete and the Cyclades throughout the EBA, but also with Anatolia.

Conclusion: There is an overall preference for Asexual, schematic figurine forms, with the exception of the Cyclades where Female figurines dominate. Euboia seems closer to the Cycladic pattern, while Crete (despite production of emulated

72

72

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

ii. Temporal and geographical variables

6.3.2 Figurine categories and chronology

The breakdown of figurines in relation to chronology and provenance is presented proportionately in fig. 6.5. Most regions show a continuous production of figurines throughout the EBA, with the exception of Thessaly. Areas that show a predominance of EB I-II figurines are Macedonia, the East Aegean and Thessaly. In fact, Thessaly has not produced figurines that date after EB II. The regions that show a higher proportion of figurines dating to EB II and III are the Cyclades and C. Mainland, the Peloponnese and Crete.

Figure 6.6 presents how figurine categories proportionately to the chronological phases.

relate

Female figurines reached their highest proportion in the II and II-III phases. This trend is related to the fact that the Cycladic assemblage, which is dominated by Female figurines, also dated predominantly to the same phases. For all other phases, however, Female figurines represent a lower proportion in comparison to the Asexual category. Female form figurines are more numerous in EB I, in fact higher in percentage than their Female counterparts. Male figurines are present for most of the EBA, though low in proportion throughout. Phase III numbers more Male figurines. Asexual figurines represent a considerable proportion throughout the EBA. Finally, Ambiguous figurines date mainly to phases II and II-III and they have been recovered from the East Aegean, the Cyclades and Crete.

Conclusion: Analysis has revealed that figurine production is present throughout the EBA period in most parts of the Aegean, with Thessaly being the notable exception. The number of figurines appears to decrease in EB III, though we cannot be certain whether we are detecting a real drop in figurine production. The movement of actual figurines in the EBA implies that, apart from Anatolian and Near Eastern influences, there was also a high degree of sharing of ideas between regions of the Aegean. More specifically, Cycladic figurine tradition had a strong influence on Crete and Euboia, while Cretan forms also influenced Cycladic types, as in the case of the Agios Onouphrios and Drios forms (Branigan 1971).

Conclusion: It is difficult to draw clear conclusions regarding the chronological use of figurine categories due to partial available information, unclear stratigraphy, method of recovery and possibilities for curation. The results seem to suggest, however, that the chronological trends may also have been linked with regional and stylistic zones. Cycladic Female figurines, for example, reflect the preference for female models in the Cyclades, but were also recovered in EB II and EB II-III, the phases to which most Cycladic sites date. We can note, however, an overall predominance of Asexual figurines, while Female form figurines represent a considerable proportion. Male figurines remain constantly low throughout the EBA period.

It seems likely that a considerable number of figurines continued to be used in phases postdating their period of production. Moreover, the fact that many figurines of that period show signs of mending suggests that figurines were considered as prized objects that were passed on from one generation to the next [e.g. from Siphnos (Tsountas 1899, pl. 28), Kimolos (Zervos 1957, pl. 56), “Amorgos” (Sherratt 2000, pl. 143-5), Ayia Eirini (Caskey 1971b, pl. 17), Akrotiri (Sotirakopoulou 1998, pl. 14a-d, 16a-d, 21a-d, 22a-d, 23a-d), Agios Kosmas (Mylonas 1959, fig. 163), Koumasa (Xanthoudides 1924, pl. XXI; see also Getz-Preziosi 1982)].

A brief comparison with Neolithic patterns shows that Female and Female-related figurines dominated the sample throughout the Neolithic period. In the EBA, however, though Female figurines continued to be produced in considerable numbers, Asexual forms were represented at a much higher proportion than in the Neolithic. Female form figurines also became more common in the EBA, possibly paralleling the trend for figurines lacking prominent anatomical features. Regarding Male and Ambiguous figurines, they represent equally low percentages in both periods.

A brief comparison between the geographical patterns in the Neolithic and EBA suggests some differences concerning the production and circulation of figurines. Though data indicate a drop in figurine production in the FN, data from EBA sites point to a continuation and unbroken tradition of manufacture, especially in the areas of Macedonia, Thessaly, C. Mainland, Euboia, the East Aegean islands, the Peloponnese, the Cyclades and Crete. Regions that yielded figurines in the Neolithic phase, but have not produced any evidence in the EBA are Thrace, the Sporades and the Dodecanese, most probably the result of limited excavations. Interestingly, figurine production in the Neolithic core areas (Thessaly and Macedonia in LN) lost their central place in the EBA. Finally, evidence suggests that the EBA appears to have been characterised by a higher level of curation. EBA figurines also reveal greater sharing of ideas related to figurines as indicated by imported and emulated pieces.

6.3.3 Categories of site type i. Range of site types and recovered figurines Figure 6.7 presents the categories of sites that yielded figurines in the EBA. The types of site include secure and possible openair settlements (OS and OS?), open-air settlements interpreted also as later sanctuaries (OS/sanctuary), cave sites with habitational use (CS), secure and alleged burial sites (BS and BS?), caves used as burial sites (BS/CS) and sites with evidence for settlement and burial activities (BS/OS). A

73

73

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

proportion of figurines have also been found at sites that cannot be securely identified (“nk”, i.e. not known).

evidence suggests a continuous use of the cave throughout the EBA period.

Open-air and probable open-air settlement sites yielding figurines are situated across the Aegean. The majority of figurines recovered from a settlement context come from the C. Mainland, North Aegean, the Peloponnese and Thessaly. Fewer were recovered from Crete, Euboia and Macedonia. Figurines found in open-air settlements in the Cyclades belong to a LBA context (Akrotiri, Thera and Koukounaries, Paros and Agia Eirini on Kea), although one figurine from Kato Poli at Amorgos (Marangou, L., 1990) may have originally come from an open-air settlement context. The figurines from the OS (OS/sanctuary?) of Phylakopi (Cyclades) lack detailed enough information to elucidate the nature of their context (Davis 1984, 17), although Renfrew has suggested that we may be in fact detecting evidence for the use of figurines in a domestic cult context (1984, 27). One cave site with habitational usage is located in the C. Mainland (Sarakenou cave).

Conclusion: As discussed earlier, the main types of sites that have yielded figurines are open-air settlements and burial sites. Figure 6.8 illustrates that the use and deposition of figurines in settlement and burial sites was chronologically parallel. The recovery of figurines from open-air settlements and burial sites coincide mainly with the prevailing traditions for figurine use in different regions of the Aegean. It is important to remember, however, that a limited number of figurines have been recovered from habitational contexts in the Cyclades and evidence for surface wear suggest a use in life prior to the deposition in burials. The comparison of the Neolithic and EBA periods has revealed that the main change regarding the deposition of figurines is the shift from primarily open-air settlements to mainly burial sites. The deposition of EBA figurines in distinct cemetery areas implies a greater separation between secular life and ideology than in the Neolithic period. It is possible, therefore, that ideology in the EBA period was characterised by a higher degree of formal organisation. As the use of figurines constituted part of ideological practices, their production in the EBA may also have come under tighter control than in the Neolithic period.

The vast majority of burial sites with separately defined cemeteries and said to be burial sites that have yielded figurines are situated in the Cyclades. Crete and Euboia have also yielded figurines from cemeteries. Caves were also used for burial purposes as in the case of Trapeza on Crete where figurines have also been unearthed. The site of Daskaleio in the Cyclades has been associated with unusual burial practices (Broodbank 2000, 230).

6.3.4 Figurines and the range of recovery sites Conclusion: The number of open-air settlements and burial sites yielding figurines represent almost equal proportions. However, when we take into account the regional setting of these sites, we observe a clear geographical bias towards one type of site over another. This is clearly illustrated by the East Aegean and Thessaly exhibiting a bias for open-air settlements and the Cyclades for burial sites. Macedonia, the Peloponnese and the North Aegean also show a bias towards figurine use in settlements. Areas that show an overlap of figurine use in both burial and settlement sites are the C. Mainland, Euboia and Crete. Regarding figurine use, therefore, different local traditions appear to have co-existed at particular sites, but also in the Aegean as a whole.

Figure 6.9 shows that the proportion of Female figurines is higher in burial sites and said to be burial sites. Asexual figurines, on the other hand, represent the majority at open-air settlements (and possible open-air settlements), burial sites, but also at cave sites of a funerary use (Trapeza). Figure 6.10 shows that burial sites were concentrated mainly in the Cyclades and Crete, the regions that have yielded predominantly Female and Asexual figurines respectively (see fig. 6.3). The majority of open-air settlements are located again in regions that have produced mainly Asexual figurines (Thessaly, C. Mainland, the Peloponnese, East Aegean and Crete) (see fig. 6.3). The predominance of Asexual figurines in the funerary context of the cave site of Trapeza (Crete) again confirms the relationship between figurine categories and the preferred forms in a particular regional tradition. The correlation, therefore, suggests that figurine categories reflect regional stylistic preferences, rather than a pan-Aegean pattern of figurine form dictated by contextual use.

ii. Recovery sites and chronology Regarding open-air settlements, 75% are dated between EB I and II phases with a proportion below 10% dating to EB III. The sample of cave sites is too small to reveal meaningful patterns in terms of chronology. Burial sites that have yielded figurines date mainly to EB II (especially in the Cyclades), though evidence also suggests a continuous use for cemeteries that have produced figurines. A much smaller proportion of figurines on Crete have been found in burials that were in use from EB II to the earlier part of the MBA. Moreover, figurines that are said to have been recovered from burial sites also date to EB II and III. Finally, figurines found in caves containing burials cannot be defined easily chronologically, since

Conclusion: As in the Neolithic, the correlation between figurine categories and range of site does not reveal a link between the represented sex of figurines and their use in specific types of site.

74

74

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

ii. Burials

6.3.5 Figurines and their contextual relationships: recovery contexts in relation to region and relevant chronology

The category of funerary context includes figurines that have been found, or are said to have been found, in general funerary contexts. EBA figurines have been found or are said to have been found in direct association with individual burials or tombs. A few figurines have also been found in the general funerary area, but were not contained inside burials. Figurines have also been recovered from pits belonging to the funerary area. The Cyclades, Crete and Euboia have yielded the highest proportion of figurines from funerary contexts. C. Mainland has produced figurines from habitational and funerary contexts. According to Marangou (C., 1997b, 338, Table 26b), a similar situation is presented by the Peloponnese and one site of the North Aegean (Protesilaos) (not contained in the sample due to incomplete information). Macedonia, Thrace and Thessaly have not produced figurines from funerary contexts.

The known contexts of recovery have been divided into three main categories: habitational/domestic, funerary and ritual (fig. 6.11). The results reveal the range of contexts that have yielded figurines, although in a number of cases we lack detailed excavation information. i. Settlements In habitational/domestic contexts, figurines have been found in association with living spaces inside houses or general habitational strata of settlements. Figurines recovered from house and general living contexts have been found in Macedonia (Marangou, C., 1997b, 651, Table 1), Thessaly, the C. Mainland, Euboia, the East Aegean, the Peloponnese, the Cyclades and Crete. Notably, the Cyclades have produced very little evidence for figurines from settlement contexts (fig. 6.11). Four (Phylakopi, Ayia Irini, Skarkos, Koukounaries) out of 31 Cycladic sites produced figurines from domestic contexts or possible habitational strata. The figurines found at Ayia Irini and Koukounaries belong to contexts dating to the LBA period and cannot therefore elucidate the contextual associations of EBA Cycladic figurines.

iii. Ritual context Though figurines associated with funerary rites can be argued to have represented ritual contexts, one figurine has been recovered from a particularly unusual context. It was found in a room at Myrtos (Crete) in association with low benches and traces of fire (hearth between the benches), while other related finds included a burnt skull, baking plate, hand lamp, pestle and weight (Warren 1972, 83, 219). The unusual context of this figurine is regarded here as an indication of ritual activity. In the present study, figurines from Phylakopi have been considered as belonging to habitational contexts, since I am reluctant to accept the suggestion for a public sanctuary context (contra Getz-Preziosi 1982 and Renfrew 1991).

Interesting information also comes from the N. and East Aegean and Troy. Figurines from Troy have been found in houses that show evidence for material processing, other than the material that the figurines were made of, which suggests that figurines accompanied craftspeople who were not figurine specialists (Marangou, C., 1997b, 660). Figurines found inside houses in the North Aegean reveal a pattern which suggests that one figurine corresponded to one house and one hearth of the same cultural phase, though exceptions are known of figurine groupings from a single house, and houses containing no figurines (Marangou, C., 1997b, 658). The association between figurines and hearths is also supported by fire marks found on figurines from the North Aegean (Marangou, C., 1997b, 660). Figurines from Troy and Poliochni have also been found in streets, crossroads or squares and uncovered spaces near the entrance of the town (Marangou, C., 1997b, 660). It has been suggested that they were used either in uncovered spaces or they were discarded as waste material (Marangou, C., 1997b, 660).

Figures 6.12 and 6.13 show the recovery contexts in relation to the chronological periods. The majority of figurines that have been recovered from habitational and funerary contexts date mainly between EB I and II. This pattern is linked to the fact that the majority of figurines also date to EB II. Nevertheless, fig. 6.13 shows that figurines used and deposited in habitational and funerary contexts overlap chronologically, thus indicating that the two traditions existed at the same time in different regions of the Aegean.

6.3.6 Finds associated with figurines

Furthermore, figurines found in settlement contexts have also been recovered from pits and refuse areas in the East Aegean, Crete and the Peloponnese. In Zakros a figurine was found in the pit of a building that has been described as the “powerful structure” (Kontoleon 1972). Another figurine from Crete has been found built into a wall (the typological and the contextual date coincide) (Zois 1974) and, if it was not used haphazardly as building material, it could be an indication of figurine ritual use.

Figure 6.14 presents the list of finds and a description of what each class includes, as well as the number of associated figurines. The most frequent association occurs between figurines and other figurines. In fact, in the Cyclades figurines were often the only type of offering placed in graves. At a much lower level, obsidian, personal ornaments, pottery, marble vessels, pyxides, fine pottery and tools have also been associated with figurines. Fewer figurines have been found in relation to metal implements and tools, human bones in secondary deposition,

75

75

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

organic remains, ivory objects, marble palettes, metal weapons and vessels. Stone vessels, sauceboats and weaving equipment are rarely associated with figurines. Pebbles (occasionally coloured) contained in burials were also associated with figurines. Regarding the arrangement of figurines inside burials, they were often thrown in a haphazard way into the burial, often crushed under the weight of marble vases or blocking stones (Doumas 1977, 63). In two cases, however, figurines have been found in special niches constructed inside burials (Doumas 1977, 63), which may indicate how figurines may have also been arranged inside houses. The majority of buried offerings were previously used in settlement contexts, as attested by repaired figurines, surviving parts of vessels and utensils (Doumas 1977, 61). The fact that figurines have been recovered from settlement strata (Phylakopi and Skarkos in the Cyclades) suggests that before their interment, they accompanied their owners in life (Doumas 1977, 63). Other artefacts also reveal a loose association with figurines. Most of them represent grave goods from communal burials on Crete where it has been impossible to draw direct links between figurines and specific categories of finds, except on typological grounds. In general, figurines found in communal burials on Crete parallel the prevailing funerary tradition of the Cyclades regarding the range of offerings.

prestigious grave goods (stone vessels, fine pottery, metal weapons and ornaments) at a time when the majority of graves were poorly furnished (Doumas 1977, 60). It is possible, however, that figurines may also have been made of perishable materials, such as wood, which is why they have not been recovered from the poorer graves (Barber 1984, 11). We should also envisage figurines as being part of the everyday lives of people, before they were placed inside burials (Doumas 1977, 63). Regarding the use of figurines in regions that lack funerary associations, as I have already discussed, the general recovery pattern indicates a use of figurines alongside quotidian activities in a domestic context where they may also have had an apotropaic use (Marangou, C., 1997b, 663 for figurines in settlement contexts of Troy and Poliochni, Lesbos). Finally, the association of marble figurines with other grave goods was not a practice limited only to the Cyclades. The actual style of figurines (imported, imitations or hybrids), the use of material, but also structural similarities of the graves and associated grave goods, suggest that Cycladic funerary behaviour finds its parallels at the sites of Agios Kosmas and Tsepi in Attica, Manika on Euboia, Iassos in Asia Minor and Ayia Photia on Crete (Doumas 1977, 65-69). Even where the link with the Cyclades is not as prominent, stylistic similarities of figurines found on the southern mainland and Crete with those from the Cyclades suggest that there was a certain degree of consensus on the ideas and themes expressed through figurines. The exception is represented by the sites in the North and East Aegean, which follow mainly the Anatolian stylistic tradition and patterns of figurine use.

In comparison to other offerings, figurines were not a common type of grave good. Gill and Chippindale (1993) estimate that in the Cyclades there was a correspondence of one figurine for every ten graves. Reference to the results by Doumas (1977) helps to test how often figurines furnished graves in the Cyclades in a sample of unplundered burials only. Out of 188 unplundered burials, only 55 of those contained figurines, while 133 did not. In fact, the majority of Cycladic burials were poor and only a few could be characterised as richly furnished (Doumas 1977, 60). When burials contain offerings, most of them are not associated with figurines, pottery being the most common type of grave good (Doumas 1977, 60). Figure 6.15 shows a list based on unplundered, single burials from the results presented by Doumas (1977) and Sampson (1988) as a checklist against which we can test the frequency with which certain categories of finds are associated with figurines. The second column shows the number of burials in which the listed artefacts are not found with figurines and the third one presents the finds from Cycladic and Euboian unplundered burials that show associations with figurines. Stone or marble vessels and palettes, frying-pans and metal implements more often furnished burials that did not contain figurines. The remaining categories of grave goods suggest a closer connection with figurines.

A brief comparison with the Neolithic indicates that the production and circulation of EBA figurines (at least those from funerary contexts) may have come under tighter control, as suggested by their inclusion in rich burials. Anthropomorphic figurines, therefore, crossed between ideology and social processes by conferring status to their owners. We must not forget, however, that figurines in the EBA also constituted part of everyday activities, suggesting that though the context in which they were deposited changed, their meaning may have remained the same.

6.3.7 Features associated with figurines Figure 6.16 presents figurines with a direct association with known features. Unfortunately, the sample is too limited to produce meaningful patterns. Overall, the available associated features are of a funerary character. An interesting case is presented by one figurine placed in a double burial in Tomb 1 at Avdheli on Naxos (Doumas 1977), presumably belonging to members related by blood or marriage. Finally, the figurine from Myrtos has been found in association with a bench and a hearth (Warren 1972, 83, 219).

Conclusion: Grave good associations of figurines in rich burials and the limited inclusion of figurines in graves suggest that they were regarded as prized possessions at least in the Cyclades, Euboia and Crete (for Crete see Maggidis 1998). Moreover, the use of figurines in the Cyclades was interwoven with the status of the individual, as suggested by their rare occurrence in burials and their associations with other

76

76

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

6.3.8 Figurine categories and their contextual associations

6.4 Figurines and the mortuary record

In domestic contexts (fig. 6.17) both Female and Asexual figurines have been found inside houses, though Asexual figurines are more numerous. The evidence follows the pattern we have already discussed whereby Asexual forms predominate in settlement sites. The absence of Male figurines is expected given the low proportion they represent in the overall sample. In funerary contexts, all figurine categories are present with a predominance of Female figurines. The proportion of Asexual figurines is mainly accounted by the predominance of Asexual figurines contained in tombs on Crete. The single Female figurine found in a ritual context does not suffice to draw conclusions regarding possible associations with other figurine categories in such contexts. In summary, I would argue that there does not appear to be an exclusive link between figurine categories and recovery contexts.

In this section, special attention is paid to the EBA mortuary record in order to explore possible associations between gender and the use of figurines. In contrast to the Neolithic, a considerable proportion of EBA figurines has been recovered from funerary contexts, which affords us the opportunity to investigate possible connections between figurines and the identity of the individuals they accompanied. This issue is explored by examining whether a link can be established between the gender of the interred and grave good assemblages on one hand, and between figurine categories and genderrelated material culture on the other.

6.4.1 Skeletal evidence EBA burial sites in the Aegean are numerous, many of which, unfortunately, have been heavily looted and consequently disturbed. Moreover, burials from only four sites have been sexed anthropologically, namely those of Manika on Euboia (Sampson 1988), Agios Kosmas in Attica (Mylonas 1959), Phourni, Archanes on Crete (Maggidis 1998), and Antiparos in the Cyclades (Doumas 1977). Note that only three of those burials are situated in the Cyclades. Any patterns that may emerge from the association between sexed skeletons and associated artefacts, therefore, will need to be extrapolated from non-Cycladic sites and then tested against the available evidence from the Cyclades.

Figure 6.18 presents how figurine categories relate to classes of artefacts that have been found in association with figurines. I should stress at this point that, due to secondary deposition taking place in Minoan tombs, it has been particularly difficult to draw neat associations between figurines and other finds. The analysis, therefore, relies heavily on evidence from the Cyclades, Euboia, the North and East Aegean and mainland sites. A brief look at fig. 6.18 shows that there is a considerable overlap between Female and Asexual figurines and the associated classes of artefacts. The underrepresentation of Female form, Male and Ambiguous figurines is most likely related to their low proportion in the general sample, rather than to cultural biases. The relatively strong association between Male figurines and metal utensils should be mentioned, however, especially if we consider the small percentage they represent overall. Of interest is also the association between two Asexual figurines and metal weapons, especially given the predominance of Female figurines in funerary contexts. As shall be discussed later on, however, a link between women and metals may also be drawn, as implied by female representations and associated evidence.

Figure 6.20 summarises the available published information on EBA skeletal evidence. Note that some of the male skeletons from Manika have not been sexed with a high degree of certainty, which is why they are marked with a question mark. Most of the burials in Manika are single interments, although a few joined burials have also been included. At Agios Kosmas the skeletal material is contained in multiple burials, which complicates the correlation between sexed skeletons and grave goods. Burial Building 19 at Phourni (Archanes, Crete) represents a structure used for communal burials. Unfortunately, the osteoarchaeological information has not been published in detail, but also the continual and communal use of the structure renders the link between grave goods and actual skeletons difficult. Of Cycladic burials, only three skeletons in total have been sexed. Though I have tried to trace the particular graves in the original excavation reports, I have been unable to identify them and have not therefore been able to progress with the analysis any further.

Figure 6.19 shows how figurine categories relate to associated features. Unfortunately, the number of known figurines with a direct association with particular features is too low to allow meaningful conclusions. Conclusion: The association between figurine categories and the context of recovery, as well as the associated finds and features, do not indicate an exclusive link between the two variables. In comparison with the Neolithic, the picture looks very similar in the sense that the use of figurine categories in both periods does not show an exclusive link with particular contexts.

6.4.2 Gender differentiation in burial: grave type, position, orientation of grave and body Manika burials do not reveal an exclusive pattern that would suggest different gender-related burial customs for male and female skeletons. The shape, the orientation of the grave and the position of the skeleton seem to have been shared between

77

77

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

male and female sexed skeletons. The fact that men and women were buried in the same graves at Agios Kosmas does not indicate a differential treatment between genders. Information is not available concerning the position of the body, especially as many of the skeletons had been moved around in order to accommodate new burials. The communal burial building at Phourni included skeletons belonging to both sexes, but, due to the continual use of the structure, we cannot be certain of the orientation of the bodies. The identified group of skeletons placed around an altar in Burial Building 19, however, included male, female, as well as children’s skeletons in-situ, which would imply that men and women were not placed in different sectors of the structure.

assume that bodies were placed in the same position (contracted) inside the grave, as suggested by a number of excavators (Bosanquet 1895, 141-2; Dussaud 1910, 86; Stephanos 1903, 55; 1904, 58; 1905, 217; Tsountas 1898, 148, 164). It is possible, however, that distinctions between genders were marked in EBA Aegean burials, which are not detectable in the surviving evidence. Bodies contained in burials on Syros, for instance, were positioned on the right or left side (Bosanquet 1895, 141-2), an arrangement that is commonly explained as an indication of gender differentiation.

6.4.3 Single and collective EBA burials: problems and opportunities for gender archaeology

So far, I have attempted to discern a pattern between sexed burials and features of the grave, as well as treatment of the body, as possible indicators for gender-related burial practices. As the results discussed above do not indicate differential treatments, I have also decided to follow an alternative exploration of the mortuary data. Vida Navarro (1992) in her analysis of gender and burials paid special attention to the processes in which patterns can be detected from intra-site evidence, even when the skeletal material is not informative. For the EBA Aegean, numerous burials are known from the Cyclades, even though we lack sufficient anthropological analysis. The known information regarding the shape and orientation of the graves (Doumas 1977) has not yielded differential patterns that could possibly be explained through gender. Even when the same type of grave is preferred for all the known graves of the same cemetery (Avdheli, Kapsala, Krassades, Pyrgos, Zoumbaria, Syros), the missing information on the orientation has not allowed me to proceed with the analysis any further. When more than one type of graves is present in the same cemetery (Akrotiri, Plastiras, Rhodinadhes, A. Anargyroi, Lakkoudhes A, Panayia, Livadhi and Akrotiraki), they belong to different chronological phases [Pelos-Lakkoudhes (EC I), Keros-Syros (EC II)] and the distinction, therefore, cannot be explained exclusively through gender. Moreover, in most cases, the orientation of the grave is not known, which again limits our attempts to explore whether different patterns expressed socially differentiated status. We know, however, that single and multi-storeyed graves existed alongside, probably a pattern related to lineage patterns. Lakkoudes is the only cemetery where the preferred grave shape may have related to the gender of the interred (types A, B¹, C¹; see Doumas 1977, 41-49 for grave types), especially as their use also coincides chronologically (Pelos-Lakkoudhes, EC I).

As has already become apparent, burial practices and customs were not uniform in the EBA Aegean as several regions followed different traditions regarding the type of graves, treatment of the body, and number of the buried individuals (single or communal burials). Single burials were preferred mainly in Euboia and the Cyclades (although multiple burials are also known). Tholoi and burial buildings accommodating multiple burials, on the other hand, represented the prevailing tradition on Crete. Such regional differences limit the extent to which we could extrapolate gender-related patterns from one region that could apply to another, especially considering the limited available sample of sexed skeletons for the EBA Aegean. Communal burials also limit our attempts to associate skeletons directly with grave good assemblages (Crete, Agios Kosmas and to a lesser extent Manika and the Cyclades). Specifically, despite the known osteoarchaeological information for the cemetery of Agios Kosmas, the use of graves for multiple burials, but also post-depositional activities and the continual use of graves have not allowed a secure association between grave goods and male or female skeletons. Moreover, only some of the skeletons have been sexed, leaving open the possibility that the remaining unsexed ones belonged to a different sex. The same also applies for communal burials from Crete, apart from rare in-situ associations between skeletons and grave goods, as is the case of Phourni, Burial Building 19 (Maggidis 1998).

6.4.4 Gender-related material culture and the mortuary record A more promising avenue for gender analysis is afforded to us through single burials, which allow us to compare grave good assemblages known to belong to individual burials against grave good assemblages of other single burials in an attempt to trace gender-related patterns in a funerary context. As Vida Navarro (1992) has demonstrated, such an exercise is also possible independent from the availability of reliable sexed skeletons, particularly useful in the case of Cycladic single, unplundered burials. An even more direct link can be drawn

Conclusion: The evidence so far does not indicate a different treatment between genders at least at the three sites for which we have osteological data. Regarding Cycladic burials, the vast majority of cemeteries have not provided us with discernible gender-related patterns in the construction and orientation of the grave. Additionally, the fact that the exact position of the body in Cycladic burials is not known to us has also created limitations in the analysis of the available evidence. We could

78

78

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

with the evidence from the cemetery of Manika where single and sexed burials are available for research. Moreover, considering the level of Cycladic imports and Cycladic-type material culture present at the cemetery of Manika (see Sampson 1988), we could cautiously extrapolate from genderrelated patterns detected in Euboia for practices followed in the Cyclades.

Bearing in mind the difficulties mentioned above, we will next examine whether the combination of specific artefacts found together in the same grave can throw more light on the existence of “male” and “female” assemblages accompanying the dead in Manika. Firstly, frying-pans were commonly associated with male skeletons. The only repeated pattern of objects found together included frying-pan(s) with a colourpalette (occasionally with metal items). Colour palettes, however, were also contained in female graves. Note also, that no frying-pans have been recovered from female burials. Female burials are often associated with bone tubes, but not in particular arrangements that may have been preferred over other ones. Interestingly, the only male and female burials that included figurines were associated with a frying-pan and bone tube respectively.

The exercise entails two stages of analysis. The first one involves the association between sexed skeletal evidence and grave good assemblages in an attempt to isolate patterns of artefact assemblages that can be attributed to gender categories. Secondly, after exploring possible associations between grave good assemblages and sexed burials, we will then examine how figurines fit into the pattern of gender-related material culture. Figure 6.22 summarises the known sexed skeletal evidence from Manika with associated grave goods according to single and multiple male or female burials, and child burials. The results do not show any mutually-exclusive patterns that could be explained in terms of gender. Frying-pans, however, seem more likely to have been associated with men than women. Bone tubes, on the other hand, show a strong association with female than male burials. All other artefact categories, however, are shared to a greater or lesser degree between male and female burials. Figurines are equally uncommon in both types of burial, but we can assume that they were contained in burials of both sexes. It is also interesting that spinning implements, often traditionally taken to mark female burials (also by Sampson 1988, see fig. 6.24), were contained in two male burials in Manika. Metal objects also furnished both types of burials, but unfortunately the publication does not provide a detailed description of what they represented (jewellery or implements). Reference is made only to two occurrences of metal jewellery (bronze and bronze and silver), both of which furnished female burials. The association between cups and women, however, suggested by Sampson (1988, see fig. 6.21), cannot be supported with any certainty by the available data, since cups also furnished one male burial (burial 70) and two multiple male and female burials (burials 65 and 71). Finally, Sampson (1988) has argued that knives were contained in both male and female burials. The results of his analysis, however, indicate that the two knives were found in two unsexed burials (148 and 167). It is apparent, therefore, that there are discrepancies between the published data (presented in fig. 6.21) and the conclusions Sampson has drawn regarding the connection between grave goods and gender. We are left to assume that either the excavator has based his interpretations on information he has not included in the published catalogue and tables, or that he has presumed gender-related categories on the grounds of traditionally constructed gender roles. In addition, the lack of detailed description of some of the general artefact categories (metal objects), does not allow a more indepth examination of grave goods in relation to the sexed skeletons.

A look at multiple male and female burials from Manika shows the combination of frying-pan and colour-palette repeated twice, accompanied by spinning implements in one case. Bone tubes are also included among joined burials on three occasions, in one case also associated with spindle whorls. No joined burial, however, contains both “male” and “female” artefacts, i.e. frying-pans and bone tubes, which would suggest the interment of two people belonging to different genders. Two of the three joined burials containing a child (39 and 54) follow the “male” and “female” pattern of grave good assemblages (frying-pan and colour-palette in 39 and bone tube in 54). Since it is not clarified in the publication which of the two skeletons belonged to a child, perhaps the evidence indicates the burial of two adults (male in 39 and female in 54) accompanied by their children. Finally, one child burial (81) was furnished with a figurine, possibly belonging to a boy, as suggested by the associated frying-pan. Finally, the inclusion of one figurine in a child burial, as well as the rare occurrence of figurines in general, suggests that children were accompanied with objects that conferred distinct social status. Burials from Agios Kosmas reveal an even more limited association between grave goods and sexed skeletons. The problems stem from the small available sample, the inclusion of male and female skeletons in the same grave and postdepositional activities that would have disturbed the original arrangement of objects in association with the bodies. Moreover, in most cases, skeletal evidence was partially sexed, thus leaving open the possibility that the remaining material may have belonged to individuals of the opposite sex. The publication does not allow us to discern whether the in-situ association is between grave goods and the sexed skeletons or grave goods and the unsexed skeletal material included in the same grave. I have nevertheless summarised and presented the results in fig. 6.22. The only conclusion we can draw is that though a similar range of material culture was included in the burials as in Manika, frying-pans and bone tubes are absent. It becomes apparent, therefore, that a different gender-related vocabulary operated in different regions of the Aegean.

79

79

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

For Phourni (fig. 6.23) we can note that jewellery accompanied male and female burials equally. The main distinction between men and women was expressed through obsidian blades on one hand and cooking pots on the other (as suggested by Maggidis 1998, fig. 6.23), although one male skeleton (188) also included two vessels of the same type as those found in association with a female one (168). Interestingly, one stone vase has been found in association with a female skeleton. In addition, the fact that children’s burials were associated with metal jewellery is also an indication that social status may have also been inherited by children on Crete, as on Euboia. Maggidis’ analysis also implies that at least one family was set apart from the others included in the same burial structure, as suggested by their placement around an altar and the special value of their accompanying grave goods (1998, 94-5). Such evidence generates implications for the understanding of social status across gender, and the blood or marriage ties holding together men and women in the same social or lineage group.

gender. Two points can be raised nevertheless. Firstly, figurines were contained in high status burials, as suggested by the range of prestige grave goods. Secondly, the presence of figurines in an array of grave good combinations, coupled with the absence of intrinsic detectable gender-related patterns, may imply that figurines were used across gender categories, but in connection to social status. Figure 6.25 summarises data from Cretan burials containing figurines in direct association with other grave goods. At Archanes, figurines are often accompanied by obsidian blades and jewellery. In one case, an associated dagger and metal pin have also been found. Jewellery is contained in male and female burials (Maggidis 1998). Obsidian blades have been suggested by Maggidis (1998) to represent male artefacts. I do not think, however, that the funerary data are sufficient for Crete to discern a clear pattern between grave good assemblages and gender. If the dagger is taken to be associated with one gender only, then the presence of figurines in assemblages that lacked weaponry may imply that figurines accompanied both women and men in life and death. Finally, as with the Cyclades, figurines on Crete were also part of relatively rich assemblages. The placement of one figurine on an altar in association with a high status burial encompassing a number of individuals and connected prestige grave goods (Maggidis 1998, 94-5) can be taken as supporting evidence.

6.4.5 Grave good assemblages and figurines The association between figurines and other grave goods is explored with the intention to establish whether there is a link between figurines and gender-related material culture. Figure 6.24 presents a summary of figurines from known Cycladic cemeteries.

Conclusion: The fragmented mortuary record in terms of stratigraphic resolution, the partial information regarding the associations of grave goods, the nature of some of the burials (communal, multiple), the looting of many Cycladic graves, as well as the lack of sexed skeletal material limit our attempts to explore connections between figurines and gender-related material culture. The limited evidence from both Crete and the Cyclades, however, would imply that figurines may have not been restricted to one gender only. Furthermore, the association of figurines with rich burials suggests that figurines may have been restricted for use among individuals that belonged to groups of distinct social status, irrespective of their gender.

An examination of the array of grave goods shows that, though certain combinations of grave goods are repeatedly found with figurines, it is not possible to discern patterns in grave good assemblages that can be explained through gender. For that reason, we need to turn to Manika, a cemetery particularly rich in Cycladic imports and Cycladic-type artefacts, possibly sharing similar grave good associations as those of Cycladic burials. At the cemetery of Manika frying-pans have demonstrated a close association with male burials. Figure 6.24 shows that the only frying-pan present in the sample was accompanied by figurines, a pyxis, marble vessel, tools, obsidian blades, metal drills and pottery. If we assume that ‘frying-pans’ were also associated with male burials in the Cyclades, it follows that figurines accompanied men. Regarding bone tubes, which in Manika were strongly associated with female burials, they have not been found in association with figurines in the Cycladic sample, which could reveal possible links between women and figurines. The only bone tube in the sample, however, is associated with tools, metal drills and needle, a fibula (part of the general attire) and a sword. The only other sword in the sample has been found with obsidian blades and figurines. If we assume again that weaponry was associated with women, as suggested through its connection with the “female” bone tube, it may be implied that figurines also accompanied women.

6.4.6 Figurine categories and burials: associations and implications For this section, we examine whether there is a link between the represented sex of figurines, the associated sexed skeletons and accompanying grave good assemblages. The only burials that would be suitable for such an exercise are those of Manika. Figurines at the cemetery at Manika are known to have accompanied both men and women and children. Though the available evidence is limited, it appears that figurines were not exclusively associated with one gender or age group. It would also have been particularly useful to examine the link between the represented sex of figurines and sexed skeletons, but the available data from Manika do not allow such analysis. Alternatively, we can examine whether

Though it is worth exploring the hypotheses generated through the comparison with Manika, actual data from the Cyclades do not reveal concrete associations between grave goods and

80

80

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

there is an association between the represented sex of figurines and artefacts that have demonstrated an association with sexed skeletons. Two frying-pans in a grave in Manika (tomb 2) are associated with one Female and one Asexual figurine (Papavasileiou 1910). Tomb 168 in Manika also contains frying-pans and one Asexual figurine (Sampson 1988). It becomes apparent, therefore, that though frying-pans are associated with male skeletons in Manika, the represented sex of the figurines did not coincide with the sex of the individual they accompanied in life and/or death. Unfortunately, there is no available evidence from Manika that would allow us to examine the association between bone tubes (strongly associated with female skeletons) and the represented sex of figurines.

Figure 6.27 shows the use of material in different regions. In broad terms, there is a distinction between parts of the Aegean where marble and other stone is preferred over clay (mainly Cyclades and Crete), and those regions where clay predominates over marble (East Aegean, Thessaly and the Peloponnese). Figurine studies also suggest a similar pattern of material use in the North Aegean, as in the East Aegean (with the exceptions of Troy and Skala Sotiros on Thassos where stone is preferred to clay) (Marangou, C., 1997b). The use of shell, ivory and alabaster coincides with regions where harder materials predominate. Finally, one metal figurine has been recovered from the Cyclades, also known from Troy (Marangou, C., 1997b). Conclusion: In the EBA there is an overall shift from clay to marble and stone, which I would argue is connected to cultural traditions and not to the availability of the used material. For the North Aegean, Marangou (C., 1997b) has noted that when two materials (bone and clay) were equally available, there was a shift from one to the other. Admittedly, marble is abundant in the Cyclades, but clay figurines were in use at the LN-FN Cycladic site of Kephala. Moreover, areas which in the Neolithic yielded predominantly clay figurines (e.g. Crete, Thessaly, the Peloponnese and C. Mainland), in the EBA produced a considerable proportion of marble and stone figurines. This trend is further supported by the fact that, though marble figurines dominate the Cretan assemblage, marble sources are limited on the island (Warren 1969, 134-5), suggesting thus that there was a deliberate shift to marble, possibly linked to the emulation of Cycladic figurine tradition.

Drawing comparisons and looking for parallels in the Cycladic mortuary record is highly speculative. It is worth noting, however, that frying-pans in Tomb 26 at Louros (Papathanassopoulos 1963) were accompanied by Asexual, Female form and Probably Female figurines, again suggesting a separation between the represented sex of figurines and the sex of the interred. Special mention should also be made to Tomb 468 in Syros, which contained a bone tube, three swords and one Asexual figurine among other finds (Tsountas 1899), suggesting again a disassociation between the represented sex of figurines and the sex of the person they accompanied. Conclusion: The limitations of the EBA Aegean mortuary record do not allow us to explore the association between the represented sex of figurines, the sexed skeletons and associated grave goods extensively. On the basis of the available mortuary evidence, however, there does not appear to be a connection between the represented sex of figurines and the sex of the individuals they accompanied.

Regional patterns, however, indicate a distinction between traditions prevailing in different parts of the Aegean, mainly demonstrated by the Cyclades and Crete on one hand, and the East Aegean, Thessaly and the Peloponnese on the other. Interestingly, the two groups also shared other cultural practices regarding figurine use, as indicated by the type of site and context from which the figurines were recovered. The continuation of Neolithic traditions for figurine manufacture and deposition, as illustrated by the second group of regions, may indicate a higher degree of conservatism regarding ideological practices than other regions of the Aegean.

6.5 EBA figurines and aspects of manufacture 6.5.1 Use of material regionally Figure 6.26 shows that marble ranks highest (59%), while clay, the preferred material for figurine manufacture in the Neolithic, now accounts for only 21% of the sample. The third material is stone other than marble and pebbles that represent 13% of the whole (calculated together for fig. 6.26). Bone (3%) and shell (1%) are two other materials that were rarely used for the production of figurines and which together represent a proportion of 4%. Other rare materials include alabaster, crystal, ivory and metal, each amounting to 1% or less of the sample and their use is mainly restricted to Crete (with the exception of metal). Statistical analysis (see App. 1, statistical test fig. 1.8) has shown that not all materials were equally preferred for the manufacture of figurines and that marble was, in fact, the most widely used material, suggesting a break from Neolithic figurine production.

6.5.2 Use of material according to chronology Figure 6.28 summarises the use of materials throughout the EBA. For figurines that have been recovered from curation or mixed contexts, a chronology has been suggested based on typology. In the period covering the end of the Neolithic and EB I, clay predominates, continuing the Neolithic tradition. In the early part of the EBA a new trend emerges whereby marble and stone largely replace clay. Throughout EB I and II marble continues to dominate the sample, with clay and other materials together ranging between 30% and 40%. The EB III period

81

81

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

displays greater variety in the materials used, though marble and other stone continue to dominate the sample.

6.5.5 Material and figurine categories Figure 6.31 presents how the use of material relates to the represented sex of figurines. Marble, which accounts for the majority of EBA figurines, is dominated by Female representations, followed by Asexual and Female form. As has already been mentioned, Female figurines coincide predominantly with the Cyclades, a region that has produced mainly marble figurines. Though one would expect a similar pattern to be reflected in the assemblage of other stone, we find that Asexual figurines predominated. The clay corpus includes mainly Asexual and secondly Female figurines. The few Male and Ambiguous figurines are made of marble and clay. The number of figurines made of other materials is too small to reveal any meaningful patterns.

Conclusion: In the EBA marble and other stone predominate throughout. In comparison to the Neolithic period, the EBA in general shows a preference for harder materials, which also coincides with stylistic changes. Other changes resulting from the shift to marble concern the production process with more stages intervening between the procurement of the raw material and the final ownership and use of the finished figurine. The same would not have applied, however, to simpler and smaller figurines, which would have been produced from beach pebbles in an estimated time of five hours (Oustinoff 1984, 39).

6.5.3 Use of material and recovery sites Conclusion: There does not appear to be a connection between the use of material and the represented sex of figurines. This point is illustrated mainly by the fact that all figurine categories are represented in the clay and marble assemblages that account for the highest proportion of figurines. The increase of Asexual figurines in the EBA, therefore, was not the result of the shift to harder materials and the inability of the manufacturer to denote anatomical details. This is further supported by the fact that (a) Asexual figurines account for the highest proportion in the clay assemblage, and (b) marble, a relatively hard material, was used mainly for the modelling of clearly marked female bodies.

Figure 6.29 shows the array of materials used for figurines that have been recovered from a range of contexts. As a higher proportion of figurines has been recovered from funerary contexts, it is expected that a wider range of materials is also associated with burial sites. Marble, however, which is the most commonly used material in EBA, is attested across all recovery contexts, suggesting that marble figurines were not exclusively intended for funerary deposition. Let us not forget also that signs for mending and weathering indicate the prior use of marble figurines in living contexts. Clay figurines, on the other hand, show a striking preponderance in open-air settlements. Rather than interpreting this pattern as indicating predetermined technological choice related to figurine use in a given category of site, we need to realise that these are regions where clay is preferred over other materials.

It is important to remember, however, that the majority of marble and Female figurines have been recovered from the Cyclades. Interestingly enough, the same tradition seems to be followed in the case where Cycladic-type marble or stone figurines were manufactured outside the Aegean, as in Euboia and Crete. Similarly, the use of clay and the modelling of Asexual figurines coincide with the regions of the East Aegean, Thessaly and the Peloponnese. We could argue, therefore, that though the use of material did not determine the represented human form, regional traditions dictated the choice of material for the production of figurines.

6.5.4 Use of material and the modelling of the physical body In this section, we examine whether the use of material determined the form of figurines or whether their typology was the result of cultural choices. Figure 6.30 presents how the typology of body form relates to the choice of material. As with Neolithic figurines, the choice of material did not determine the general shape of figurines. This point is illustrated by the use of clay (along with harder materials) to model the schematic variations of figurines. Moreover, harder materials (e.g. stone and marble) are used alongside clay to render the comparatively more naturalistic forms of figurines.

6.5.6 Dimensions and figurine categories Figures 6.32 and 6.33 show the number and proportion of figurines in ranges of 10cm. Figure 6.33 presents the dimensions of complete or almost complete figurines and the results show that over 60% range between 1 and 10cm. Figurines between 11 and 20cm form a considerably lower proportion and account for almost 20% of the assemblage, while those between 21 and 30cm make up around 18%. A very low proportion measures over 30cm and these figurines obviously constitute the exception rather than the norm. Notably, figurines over 60cm are not included in the assemblage and we should not expect, therefore, that the manufacture of oversized figurines was a common practice in the EBA Aegean. The above pattern is also supported by the

Conclusion: The form of anthropomorphic figurines was the product of cultural choices prevailing in EBA Aegean. The limited range of corporeal forms in comparison to the Neolithic also suggests that prescribed norms may have operated more closely over the performance and embodiment of social roles, also reflected in figurine production.

82

82

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

second and third columns of fig. 6.32 which contain measurements of fragmented figurines that in a complete state we should expect them to range between 3 and 20cm. Very few fragmented figurines measure over 10cm (four in total), and these, as discussed later, represent mainly Cycladic specimens.

posture, arm/hand and leg postures to allow the detection of meaningful patterns. The majority of figurines were modelled in the standing position. It has been proposed that Cycladic figurines in the same posture with the arms folded on the abdomen were modelled as reclining (Getz-Preziosi 1987b, 52; Gill and Chippindale 1993, 655-656). Nevertheless, the erect position of Cycladic figurines in niches inside burials (Doumas 1977, 63), as well as seated Cycladic figurines with folded arms over the abdomen have led me to consider these figurines as standing.

Figure 6.34 shows that the highest proportion of figurines measuring between 1-10cm represents mainly Asexual forms, followed by Female form and Female figurines. Notably, no Male figurines are included in this group. Figurines measuring from 10cm and over in their majority represent Female models, followed by Asexual ones. Interestingly, the only two figurines that range between 50 and 60cm are both Female. A statistical test (see App. 1, statistical test 1.9) examining whether all figurine categories measured equally between 1 and 10cm has revealed that there was a bias towards Asexual figurines. The statistical test performed for figurines measuring over 20cm (see App. 1, statistical test 1.10), however, indicates a bias for Female figurines.

Few figurines were modelled as sitting on a stool, and even fewer sitting on a chair. In the majority of cases, the arms were folded on the abdomen or below the breasts, and less often extended, a pattern closely related to regional traditions, as will be discussed later. More variations of the arm and hand position, though limited in frequency, can be seen in fig. 6.36. Legs and feet were always modelled attached to each other with no variation, in contrast to the more fluid Neolithic models. Finally, three postures are of particular interest, one of which has already been noted in the Neolithic, that of the kourotrophos. Two other thematic postures are new and characteristic of the EBA period and they represent musicians holding an instrument (one standing flautist and six seated harpists), as well as two sets of double figurines. Finally note that the kneeling or squatting stances which were common in the Neolithic period are absent from the EBA sample.

If we also consider the area of recovery, figurines over 20cm in the sample (fig. 6.35) were mainly of Cycladic origin (see also Renfrew 1984, 29). Larger figurines, however, were also produced outside the Cyclades, as indicated by a few sizeable figurines from Crete, Euboia and the C. Mainland. A menhirtype figurine is also known from Skala Sotiros on Thassos (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1988, 1991). Regrettably, the available sample of figurines measuring over 20cm is too limited to reveal any correlations between the represented sex and chronology.

A comparison with the Neolithic period shows a higher degree of formality, rigidity and standardisation in the EBA, which implies an increased control over the production of figurines. More importantly, the increased standardisation suggests that more closely prescribed social norms and a greater consensus surrounding gender embodiment were exercised over social agents in the EBA. Moreover, there is far less postural emphasis on the represented sex or reproduction-related parts of the body. In fact, the birth-giving posture or the emphatic modelling of genitalia is altogether absent from the EBA sample. Such detachment from reproduction-related aspects may be signifying the construction of gender as a process reliant mainly on social negotiation. The newly introduced postures of the musicians may be indicative of the interwoven way in which gender and social identity were connected. In summary, the rigidity characterising EBA figurines should be viewed as symptomatic of more fixed gender embodiment in comparison to the greater fluidity characterising Neolithic models.

Conclusion: The fact that the majority of figurines measured below 10cm suggests that they could have been easily carried around by their owners in the course of their daily activities. Their portable size may even imply that figurines were intended to be used as personal possessions, as also indicated by their association with individual burials. A brief comparison with the Neolithic shows that there was a shift from a preference for Asexual and Female form figurines measuring over 20cm, to exclusively Female ones in the EBA period. The trend for Female figurines of a higher stature has a number of implications. It is possible that the entity embodied by such figurines may have represented prominent female ancestral figures or protective spirits. Aspects of female lives may have held a central place in EBA cosmology, though that should not be equated with a matriarchal or gynaecocratic social organisation.

6.6 Posture and the body as figurine language

ii. Posture variations in relation to geographical area

i. Range of postures

Figure 6.37 shows that standing figurines represent the most widely modelled posture across the Aegean. Seated postures and their variations concentrate primarily in the Cyclades, followed by Euboia, Crete and the Peloponnese. As has already been noted, Euboia and Crete show signs of emulation in the

Figure 6.36 summarises the repertoire of the main postures modelled by EBA figurines and the frequency in which they occur. The results are shown in groupings of the general

83

83

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

manufacture of Cycladic-like figurines, also reflected in the seated and folded-arm postures. Postures representing figurines as musicians are restricted to the Cyclades. The two double sets of figurines have been found in the Cyclades and Crete. Finally, less common postures that occur in the Cyclades and other parts of the Aegean include the modelling of raised or extended arms.

Conclusion: The modelled postures of EBA figurines reveal a connection with regional stylistic choices, but not with the type of site in which they were used or deposited. Postures, for instance, which are characteristic of Cycladic figurines, were not modelled intentionally for the placement of figurines in burials, especially as we know they were used in living spaces prior to their deposition in graves. Regarding chronology, a wider range of postures is attested for the EB II phase. The fact, however, that the majority of figurines date to EB II may explain the relatively extensive repertoire of postures exhibited by figurines.

Conclusion: A degree of regionalism is reflected in the distribution of modelled postures. The Cyclades, therefore, show stronger affinities with Crete and Euboia and to a lesser extent with the Peloponnese and the C. Mainland. Figurine manufacture on Crete, however, exhibits elements resulting from the emulation of Cycladic figurines and idiosyncratic developments encompassing traditions from both regions. The North and East Aegean, on the other hand, differs markedly from other regions in terms of the postural repertoire. Interestingly, Thessaly and the C. Mainland display a degree of similarity with earlier Neolithic forms.

iv. Posture in relation to the represented sex Figure 6.39 shows how the range of postures breaks down in relation to figurine categories. Examining postures in relation to the represented sex can reveal aspects of gender embodiment and performance. The standing pose was widely shared between all figurine categories. Figurines seated on chairs belonged to the Male and Female variety and figurines seated on stools represented Female, Male and Asexual types. There is no evidence, therefore, to support the argument that only male figurines were seated, thus indicating distinct social status (see GetzPreziosi 1987b, 20, 22-23). There is also no discussion in the literature about female seated figurines, which I believe reveals uneasiness from the part of archaeologists to acknowledge female imagery that goes against preconceived social models. A similar case of androcentricism is also evident in the way musician figurines have been approached. Though Male figurines are represented as harpists, archaeologists have overlooked the considerable number of Asexual harpists, which questions the unequivocal connection between male imagery and musician models (Getz-Preziosi 1987b, 22).

The regional patterns regarding figurine postures do not simply reflect stylistic similarities. More importantly, postures embodied social norms regarding the performance of gender roles. Similarities and differences, therefore, between figurine assemblages of different regions indicate akin or distinct aspects of social organisation regarding the performance and embodiment of gender roles. Finally, the standardisation of EBA figurines is present across the Aegean, implying a comparable degree of social prescription over gender performance that was not regionally confined. iii. Posture variation in relation to chronology and type of recovery site At this stage of analysis, we seek to explore whether the modelled postures are linked to chronological trends and whether they were related to the use of figurines in particular types of site. Where no contextual date is available, chronology has been suggested on typological grounds in order to place figurines in a broad chronological frame.

Raised or extended arms do not show an exclusive association with any figurine categories, though they are more often featured by Asexual figurines. Figurines with arms folded on the abdomen or below the breasts are strongly associated with anatomical female representations. Asexual and Ambiguous figurines have also been modelled in this fashion, possibly revealing a degree of overlap between Female, Asexual and Ambiguous figurines regarding aspects of embodied gender identity or performance. A similar argument can also be proposed for figurines with hands meeting on the chest or the abdomen, a posture shared mainly between Female and Female-related figurines, but also Asexual and Ambiguous representations. Finally, figurines modelled in double arrangements represented the same sex (Female and Asexual) with their arms folded on the abdomen.

Figure 6.38 shows that the majority of standing figurines have been recovered from all types of sites and throughout the EBA. All seated figurines on chairs or stools have been recovered from burial sites, or said to be burial sites, and they date mainly to EB II. Figurines modelled with raised and extended arms come mainly from open-air settlements and date to EB II. Figurines with arms folded on the abdomen or below the breasts have been recovered primarily from funerary contexts of EB II chronology. Figurines with hands meeting on the chest or abdomen are also associated primarily with burial sites with no exclusive chronological association. Figurines with hands on their waists concentrate mainly in open-air settlements and span the EB I and II phases. The kourotrophos was recovered from an open-air settlement site. All figurines representing musicians have been recovered from funerary contexts dating to EB II and the same is true for double figurine sets.

Conclusion: Standing and sitting postures do not reveal an exclusive association with Female or Male figurines. The fact that Female figurines are also represented sitting on chairs and stools, challenges interpretations that have argued for an elevated status of men in EBA society. A similar critical

84

84

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

approach is also required for the interpretation of musician figurines, since they do not represent male models exclusively. It is possible that Asexual musicians expressed an overlap with Male figurines regarding gender embodiment. Alternatively, the omission of anatomical features may be suggesting that the rendering of gender was inconsequential to the modelling of a musician’s distinct social role.

suggests a more balanced ratio between decorated and undecorated figurines. As I have already pointed out, however, it is difficult to judge the degree of decoration applied on Cycladic marble figurines, since we cannot be certain about the extent to which decoration has survived on marble surfaces. Conclusion: The majority of EBA figurines did not bear any marks of decoration and the proportion of EBA decorated figurines appears to be lower than that of the Neolithic assemblage. We need to bear in mind, however, that many of the Cycladic and Cycladic-type marble figurines would have been more colourful than their white surface suggests today (Broodbank 1992, Gill and Chippindale 1993).

The modelling of figurines with folded arms is associated strongly with anatomical female representations. The systematic modelling of such postures and the rigidity expressed by Female figurines imply the operation of prescribed norms regarding gender embodiment and performance. Furthermore, the static repetition of postures on all figurine categories, suggests that men and women were equally subject to social codes that imposed accepted ways of conduct. Distinct social roles may have also gained prominence in the EBA, as suggested by the modelling of figurines as musicians. In particular, the modelling of male models as musicians suggests that men may have held a social position as “entertainers” or as individuals performing activities on religious or special occasions of collective character. Men’s warrior status remains to be substantiated, as discussed in detail in the following section.

ii. Use of material and degree of decoration Figure 6.42 shows that clay decorated figurines represent a proportion of just over 30%. Marble figurines were also decorated, but at a lower level (around 19%). The preferred method of decoration on marble figurines was the application of paint, rather than engraving or incising, which suggests that evidence for decoration was less likely to survive on marble than clay surfaces. The same could also be argued for stone figurines. Figurines made of other materials are too few to reveal meaningful patterns.

Finally, the fact that certain postures occur across the Aegean indicates that accepted ways of gender conduct were shared to a certain degree between cultural groups. Moreover, the restricted range of postures suggests that tighter social control operated over the construction and performance of gender identity in the EBA, than in the Neolithic period. The limited ways in which the human body was modelled also suggests that there was greater consensus over social behaviour in the EBA than in the earlier Neolithic period.

Conclusion: I would argue that the degree of decoration on figurines was not dictated by the use of material. The choice of material, however, has affected the degree to which decoration has survived on the surface of figurines. Painted decoration, therefore, tends not to survive on marble figurines. Finally, the comparison between the EBA and Neolithic sample indicates that a higher proportion of Neolithic figurines was decorated. I would argue that this difference could partly be explained through the shift from clay to marble, which would have affected the preservation of decoration. To demonstrate this point I have isolated the materials of clay and marble and have compared the proportion of decorated to undecorated figurines in both periods. The results show that the proportion of decorated to undecorated clay figurines in the Neolithic is 46.93%, as opposed to 31.50% in the EBA. Marble decorated to undecorated figurines account for 19% in the Neolithic and 19.20% in the EBA period. Though a higher degree of decoration is indicated for clay figurines in the Neolithic, the marble assemblage of decorated figurines is comparable in both periods.

6.7.1 Decoration and its use i. Decoration and figurines: some general comments Figure 6.40 shows the proportion of decorated and undecorated figurines. The vast majority (almost 80%) are undecorated, while only 21% bears any signs of added decoration. There is evidence to suggest, however, that Cycladic figurines were covered in painted motifs or details that rarely survive (Broodbank 1992, 544; Fitton 1989, 17; Getz-Preziosi 1970, 10-11; Gill and Chippindale 1993, 656; Hendrix 1998, 8, 9, 11; Renfrew 1969, 23). Surviving traces indicate that such motifs denoted and emphasised details such as locks of hair or eyes. Surviving decoration on unprovenanced figurines suggests that painted motifs may have represented jewellery, body paint or tattoo marks.

iii. Surface treatment of figurines in relation to the represented sex Figure 6.43 presents the limited number of figurines that bear traces of surface treatment, such as burnishing and the application of slip, methods that also suggest an overlap with pottery manufacture. Unfortunately, the limited sample does not allow us to detect meaningful patterns between figurine categories and surface treatment.

Figure 6.41 shows the proportion of decorated figurines in relation to their regional provenance. In most regions decorated figurines represent a low proportion (just below or just above 20%), with the exception of the Peloponnese where evidence

85

85

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

preservation of pigment on marble and stone surfaces. The available evidence indicates that colour was applied on EBA figurines, as in the Neolithic, as a way of highlighting certain parts of the represented anatomy or attire. Dark paint on Cycladic figurines was used to denote locks of hair or almondshaped eyes. Less often, traces of colour surviving on the incisions or other parts of figurines suggest that colour had been applied to represent body decoration (with an emphasis on the face), clothing or even jewellery. The application of colour, therefore, emphasised anatomical parts or added features (attire or body decoration) that played an important role in communicating effectively the gender and social identity represented by figurines. More than just enhancing the appearance of figurines, however, colour is known ethnographically to express symbolic ideas (Chapman 2002, Walisewska 1991) suggesting that pigment also encapsulated ideological meanings and notions.

Conclusion: In the EBA, methods used for the manufacture of ceramics continued to be in use in regions where clay was still employed for the production of figurines (i.e. East Aegean, Thessaly, Peloponnese). Certain regions, therefore, may have continued Neolithic practices in the sphere of ideology, possibly indicating a greater degree of conservatism. It is also possible that an overlap between those involved in the manufacture of ceramics and figurines continued in these regions. On the other hand, the shift from clay to marble and stone suggests a break in figurine-making traditions, especially for the regions of the Cyclades, Euboia and Crete. Such innovations imply that the organisation behind the manufacture of figurines, but also the people involved, may have changed in the EBA period for a large part of the Aegean.

6.7.2 Decorative motifs: embodiment, symbolism and gender implications

Finally, the limited surviving evidence does not allow us to argue for possible exclusive correlations between colour and the represented sex. Nevertheless, the preserved traces do indicate that at least the female body was decorated with the intention to highlight anatomical or cultural aspects. The shared use of red between Female, Female form and Asexual figurines may imply an overlap of symbolic aspects related to gender.

i. Decoration in relation to the represented sex Figure 6.44 presents the proportions of decorated to undecorated figurines according to the represented sex. It becomes clear that decorated figurines represent a low proportion for all figurine categories, with Female form decorated figurines amounting to just over 30% and Male decorated figurines around 10%. Statistical analysis (see App. 1, statistical test 1.11), however, has shown that differences between figurine categories are due to sampling error and that there is no relationship between the use of decoration and the represented sex.

iii. Use of colour in relation to anatomical parts, chronology and the represented sex This section explores the correlation between colour, its application on parts of the modelled body and chronology. Figure 6.47 presents the use of colour according to chronology. In comparison with the Neolithic, a narrower range of colours and colour combinations has been detected in the EBA sample, a pattern most likely related to the survivability of pigment on marble and stone figurines. A number of similarities, however, can be noted for both periods. The colours black, red and white, for instance, continue to be used for most of the EBA. A colour that deserves special mention is blue (azurite). Though blue is not included in the tables discussed, it is known to have been used to emphasise facial features and the pubic areas of some unprovenanced figurines (Hoffmann 2002, 531). Blue pigment was also contained in bone tubes recovered from graves, which have been associated with the practice of body painting or tattooing (Broodbank 2000, 248-9; Carter 1994). Though blue is absent from secure figurines, evidence for definite use of blue azurite in other contexts suggests it constituted part of the EBA colour repertoire. Moreover, the use of blue copper mineral (azurite) already from the LN and FN phases, which coincides with the advent of embryonic metalworking, should perhaps be viewed in the general context of the emergent technology and related symbolisms at social level. The proliferated use of blue pigment in the EBA period, at a time when there was a dramatic increase of metalworking and metal objects, may be indicating the central role played by metals and metalworkers at an economic, social and

Conclusion: The results demonstrate a difference from the Neolithic period, when the degree of decoration was associated with the represented sex of figurines. We cannot argue, therefore, that the application of decoration implies a differential focus placed on external appearance as part of gender embodiment. ii. Use of colour in relation to the represented sex Unfortunately, the limited preserved traces of colour surviving on EBA figurines do not allow us to draw concrete conclusions. Figures 6.45 and 6.46 present the patchy available evidence for pigment use on figurines in the form of motifs, slip or paint. The use of pigment in the EBA period is compared against the same range of known colours employed in the Neolithic sample. Analysis has shown that pigment has survived in the form of motifs on Female and Female form figurines. Pigment used as slip or paint has survived on Female, Probably Female and Asexual figurines. Furthermore, the EBA palette included the colours brown, black, red and cream. Conclusion: The comparatively limited range of colours used in the EBA is possible to have resulted from the limited

86

86

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

ideological level. Furthermore, the association of bone tubes containing blue pigment on Euboia with female burials opens up implications regarding the associations between female gender, body painting, and metalworking.

pins associated with the practice of tattooing or even lumps of ochre suggest that the manipulation of external appearance was of central importance for prehistoric inhabitants of the Cyclades (Broodbank 2000, 249) and even Crete or Euboia.

Figure 6.48 summarises the range of colours detected on select anatomical parts of figurines according to chronological phases. We can cautiously suggest that colour in the EBA period does not appear to have been used emphatically on parts of the body related to sexuality or reproduction (e.g. breasts, abdomen, pubic area), as in the Neolithic.

Motifs representing clothing show a wider range of repeated motifs that were shared between different figurine categories. Modelled features denoted caps worn on the crown of the head in a variety of styles. The majority of figurines modelled with caps represented Asexual models. Figurines modelled with a cap have been recovered in areas outside the Cyclades, which suggest regional stylistic traditions. Another motif (g1) represented a garment that is restricted to Asexual figurines from Crete, again implying that figurines reflected regional traditions of attire. A common motif also represented bands worn around the waist or hips resembling belts (b4+, b16, b17, hsl6), a feature shared mainly between Female, Female form and Asexual figurines. Such similarities may be expressing an overlap across figurine categories in the way gender and social identity was embodied. A similar overlap between Female, Female form and Asexual figurines is also expressed through the motif in the shape of intersecting double diagonal band (dil9i, dil9ii). The motif in question occurs mainly on figurines from the North and East Aegean, but also occasionally from the Peloponnese and the Cyclades. Finally, another motif that is shared between Female, Female form and Asexual figurines represents a diagonal band worn on the torso (dpl24), possibly indicating a baldric. The presence of the modelled baldric on Cycladic figurines has been interpreted as an emblem of hunter-warrior status (Fitton 1989, 65, 88; Getz-Preziosi 1987, 20). More importantly, the motif that has been interpreted in the EBA period as representing the baldric has (unexpectedly) been detected on two Female figurines, both from the Cyclades, which has important implications for the interpretation of gender roles. Moreover, the motif taken to be highly suggestive of male hunter-warriors has not been detected so far on secure Male figurines. One figurine representing a man is marked with the baldric is represented in a sketch from the British Museum (Fitton 1984b).

Conclusion: Overall, the same palette continues to be used from the Neolithic through to the EBA period. Nevertheless, pigment in the EBA does not seem to be used emphatically to demarcate parts of the body associated with sexuality or reproduction, especially on Female figurines. iv. Decorative repertoire, decoded meanings and implications for gender construction This stage of analysis focuses on the decorative repertoire of EBA figurines. In order to draw a comparison between the two sets of data, the range of Neolithic coded motifs are examined against EBA figurines (see App. 3). Figure 6.49 presents the full range of motifs that adorn EBA figurines. As with Neolithic decoration, motifs have been divided according to four explanatory categories: body decoration (body painting, tattooing or scarring), clothing (garments or other forms of general attire, such as belts or caps), clothing or body decoration (when unclear) and jewellery. A comparison with Neolithic motifs shows that EBA figurines exhibit a comparatively limited range. The limited decorative repertoire for EBA figurines may have resulted from the low rate of survivability of decoration on marble and stone figurines. Figure 6.50 presents the motifs that appear repeatedly in the EBA sample. The tables include information such as the coded motif, the adorned body parts, the colour and method in which motifs were denoted, the represented sex of decorated figurines, and finally the frequency with which motifs occur in the sample.

Other attributes denoted modelled hair. Hair was represented as short, occasionally with locks, or pulled up at the back of the head, as it appears on one Female and Ambiguous figurine. Unfortunately, the limited sample and the fragmentary state of figurines do not allow us to draw associations between the represented sex and hairstyles. The varied range of hairstyles featured by Cycladic figurines, however, suggests that they denoted individuals of distinct gender, age and social status.

Motifs that denoted body decoration do not appear repeatedly and so it is not possible, therefore, to trace possible overlaps between figurine categories. As fig. 6.49 reveals, the range of motifs denoting body decoration is limited. Figurines that bear body decoration motifs have largely been recovered from northern parts of the Aegean (Macedonia, Lesbos) and Thessaly. Such motifs have also been detected on one Cycladic and one Cretan figurine. Though there is limited Cycladic eidoloplastic evidence for body decoration motifs, the archaeological funerary record has yielded artefacts that suggest the manipulation of external appearance. Marble palettes related to the processing of colouring substances, metal

All motifs representing jewellery concentrate on the neck and chest. Such motifs (rs+, sch1+, sch2i) denoted simple necklaces worn around the neck or multiple strings that hung from the neck down to the torso. The first two motifs and their variations seem to be restricted to the Cyclades, while the last one decorated figurines from the North and East Aegean. These motifs decorated Female, Female form and Asexual figurines, but also one Male figurine. It is possible that such motifs

87

87

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

occurred in areas involved in the movement of metals and their processing, such as Thermi in the North Aegean and the Cyclades. Curiously, Cretan figurines do not bear such features, despite the fact that jewellery was included in EM burials. Perhaps jewellery motifs were painted (rather than incised) on Cretan figurines, which is why their traces have not survived.

figurines from different regions, suggesting that a shared code of dress is likely to have existed between Aegean communities. Nevertheless, certain motifs show a regional bias, as in the modelling of headdress closely associated with figurines from Crete and the Cyclades. Attire motifs were also modelled throughout the EBA. Furthermore, statistical analysis (see App. 1, statistical test 1.12) has shown that there was no differential production of attire motifs in relation to the represented sex.

Conclusion: Motifs on a first level enhanced the appearance of figurines, thus rendering their appeal to the senses more effective. More importantly, motifs emphasised and communicated the social identity represented by figurines. With the exception of one decorated Male figurine, the majority of motifs are shared between Female, Female form and Asexual figurines. It is possible that the decorative overlap between Female, Female form and Asexual figurines implies an overlap of the represented gender identity.

Lastly, motifs representing jewellery (mainly necklaces) were already in use in the Neolithic period. Jewellery motifs also show a strong bias for Cycladic figurines. Far fewer adorned figurines from Crete and the East Aegean. Such motifs concentrate mainly on Cycladic figurines of the EB I phase. Furthermore, statistical analysis (see App. 1, statistical test 1.13) has revealed that not all figurine categories were equally adorned with jewellery motifs with a clear preference for Female form figurines.

Furthermore, the analysis of figurine decoration has revealed that external appearance was manipulated in the process of gender construction. Evidence for the manipulation of external appearance also comes from living and funerary contexts, which suggests that figurines paralleled practices taking place in everyday life. External appearance also appears to have been subject to regional traditions and styles that prevailed in different parts of the Aegean. Finally, the placement of figurines in burials suggests that they were enveloped in ritual practices, thus rendering their prescriptive character even more effective in a process that disseminates socially acceptable performance. Imagery in ideological systems that do not rely on the use of written codes can effectively perpetuate social values and norms.

Conclusion: A number of motifs continued from the Neolithic period, implying that certain aspects of gender embodiment may have survived through to the EBA. Surviving EBA motifs, however, suggest that less emphasis was placed on sexual or reproduction-related parts especially of the female body, while a higher proportion of figurines was decorated with motifs representing clothing and general attire. vi. Comparison between Neolithic and EBA decorative repertoire: continuation, change and implications for the understanding of gender construction It is essential to compare the decorative repertoire of the two assemblages in order to trace similarities and differences regarding gender embodiment and symbolism. Figure 6.52 shows which motifs are shared between Neolithic and EBA figurines, but also which variations suggest similarities.

v. Deconstructing decoration in relation to chronology and regional provenance As fig. 6.51 reveals, EBA motifs representing body decoration are not restricted to one particular area, suggesting that practices, such as body decoration or tattooing was part of gender embodiment throughout EBA Aegean. Evidence for body painting practices also comes from funerary contexts in the form of bone tubes containing pigment and associated tattooing equipment. It is possible that body decoration was limited only to a certain class of people or gender, as suggested by the restricted inclusion of tattooing implements, marble palettes and pigment in distinct burial assemblages. The limited sample of body decoration motifs, however, does not allow us to draw conclusion regarding their chronological distribution.

Apart from two motifs and their variations that could be interpreted as body decoration or clothing (z1i-vi and vpl6i-ii), there is no evidence to suggest that Neolithic and EBA figurines shared body decoration motifs. On the basis of the surviving evidence, therefore, EBA figurines seem to differ from their Neolithic counterparts in that they do not exhibit the same emphasis on anatomical parts through body decoration. Regarding headgear, the modelling of conical or flat hats continued to be the same from the Neolithic to the EBA period with a bias for mainly Female or Asexual figurines. Moreover, the modelling of hair shows that certain styles (hair pulled up above the neck, short hair, long locks of hair) continued in the EBA period, although the limited evidence does not allow us to draw conclusions regarding the represented sex.

Motifs representing clothing and general attire display a narrower range than in the Neolithic, possibly linked to the low survivability rate of decoration on marble and stone surfaces. Nevertheless, motifs denoting headdress, x-shaped upper body garment and ‘belts’ worn around the waist continued from the Neolithic to the EBA period. The geographical distribution of EBA attire motifs shows that they were not exclusive to one region. In fact, a number of motifs and their variations occur on

Motifs that represent clothing or parts of the general attire suggest more similarities between the two periods. A common motif in a range of variations denoted thin “belts” or bands worn around the waist or hips. Such “belts” appear in a variety

88

88

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

of forms, as fig. 6.52 suggests (b4i-vi, b12i-ii, hsl2i, b17i-ii). There is some overlap regarding the represented sex, but the limited EBA sample does not allow us to draw secure conclusions. Other motifs denoting attire have also continued into the EBA period, such as cpl1i-vi and hpl16i-vi. These motifs indicate either woven patterns of the fabric or its folds as it wraps around the body. Such decoration suggests that garments in both periods were worn on the upper and lower body as a kind of skirt or apron. If we now examine the associated represented sex of figurines, Neolithic specimens are mainly of the Female variety, while their EBA counterparts are mainly Asexual. Another piece of attire in the form of diagonal strings or cross-shaped method of fastening the fabric on the torso is represented by the motifs dil1, dil9i-ii. In this case there is an overlap regarding the association with Female figurines in both periods, though EBA Asexual figurines have also been adorned with the same motif.

almost absent from the Neolithic sample, a model also coinciding with the emerging settlement pattern. EBA figurine assemblage also suggests typological changes, but also the existence of broader stylistic and hence cultural zones than in the previous Neolithic period. Figurine assemblages from different parts of the Aegean suggest that figurine production was higher in certain regions, as in the Cyclades. Moreover, evidence shows that two different traditions of figurine use existed at the same time in the Aegean with figurines being deposited in burials in certain regions. It is possible, however, that figurines may have held the same meaning in both cultural contexts, especially in the light of evidence indicating use of figurines in living contexts prior to their placement in burials. Regarding the form of EBA figurines, an increased level of standardisation is evident throughout the Aegean, to varying degrees. The EBA figurine sample also reveals evidence for the importation of actual figurines, as well as attempts at emulation. There is also evidence that suggests an overlap regarding the form and use of anthropomorphic figurines between different regions of the Aegean. Such similarities expressed a wider sharing of ideas concerning the represented identities and the intention behind the use of figurines. We could infer that norms regarding the construction of gender and performance of gender roles may have become more concrete and widespread in comparison to the Neolithic period.

Motifs representing jewellery and their variations are shared between the two periods, such as rs1i-vi, rd2i-iii, rs3i-ii, rm7, sch1i-vi and sch2i-v. In the majority of cases, this type of decoration denoted amulets or necklaces worn around the neck in single or multiple formations. The associations with the represented sex of figurines have shown that these motifs are not restricted only to one figurine category. The available evidence suggests that mainly Female, but also Asexual and occasionally Male figurines were decorated in this way. The decoration of the body with jewellery in the form of amulets or necklaces, therefore, was consistently practised in both periods.

The choice of material in the EBA also differs from the Neolithic period. The fact that materials such as marble were widely used in the EBA may suggest differences in the groups of people involved in figurine manufacture. Unlike clay, which is a readily available material, marble may not have always been a local material. Moreover, the skills required for the manufacture of the more elaborate marble figurines were different and more specialised (Oustinoff 1984) than those required for the modelling of clay figurines. Such changes suggest a higher complexity in the stages and organisation of labour leading to the finished product, in comparison to the Neolithic. The stylistic and technical traditions (even hybrids and emulated forms as illustrated by the Cretan Koumasa variety) also suggest that the manufacture of EBA figurines came under tighter social control, either exercised intentionally over craftspeople, or as a result of increasing solidified social norms.

Conclusion: Decorative themes related to body decoration do not appear to have continued through time. The main similarities between the two assemblages are expressed through representations of worn attire, garments and jewellery. There is a loose similarity in the two periods regarding the association between motifs and the represented sex with a focus on Female, Female form and Asexual figurines. In comparison, the Neolithic period suggests a higher degree of variety in the way clothing and body decoration were represented. This pattern may be reflecting stronger patterns of regionalism and cultural fragmentation, as opposed to the EBA period when contact between broad cultural groups was more intense and frequent. The EBA Aegean, therefore, may have reached a higher degree of consensus regarding the embodiment and construction of gender identity through the manipulation of external appearance. The standardisation of EBA figurine typology can also explain the narrower range of EBA decorative repertoire.

The modelled themes suggest that, as in the Neolithic, figurines represented gender identities with features of embodiment and symbolism, which were relevant for the ordering of the social and ideological cosmos. Regardless of the ritual role figurines may have played, at the same time they encapsulate information that offers us an insight into aspects related to the construction and communication of social identities through the manipulation of external appearance. In addition, the study of figurine posture has aided our understanding of how gendered actors experienced and performed their identity

6.8 Concluding remarks Figurine manufacture continued unbroken from the Neolithic and into the EBA period, which has allowed us to trace cultural similarities and changes between the two periods. New areas became central in the sphere of figurine production, particularly the Cyclades and the East Aegean which were

89

89

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

through their bodies. Aspects related to the posture and decoration of figurines urge us to critically review earlier androcentric interpretations of the EBA society. The scenario for a male-dominated society where male warriors exercised power over women needs to be re-examined, in the absence of securely provenanced male warrior figurines. In fact, the baldric motif has been detected on two Female figurines. Similarly, not all figurines representing musicians can be classified as male. Finally, female figurines have also been modelled as seated, a posture that suggests distinct social status. Regarding the use of figurines, their recovery from funerary contexts in most Aegean sites suggests an added ritual dimension. Funerary evidence suggests that marble figurines were highly prized objects that would not have been possessed by everyone. It is possible their use was linked to hereditary status, as in the case of Manika where one marble figurine was recovered from a child burial (Marangou, C., 1992, fig. 69, p. 418). I would argue, therefore, that marble figurines may have expressed some kind of social and ideological elitism, although figurines made of perishable materials are likely to have furnished other graves. The fact that marble figurines show signs of handling and mending before they were placed in burials suggests that they also accompanied their owners in life. Their association with the interred could be an indication that figurines represented a protecting spirit, perhaps in the form of an ancestral or religious figure, among other possibilities. The ritual aspect of figurines can be further supported by the repeated and restricted repertoire of postures, suggesting an ordered ideological system. Finally, the considerable proportion of Female figurines especially in the Cyclades, may suggest that women and aspects related to their lives may have played a central role in the shaping of social structures and ideological ordering of EBA society. The summarised results mentioned above have indicated the need to rethink earlier interpretations concerning the position held by genders in the EBA period and the organisation of EBA society at an economic and hierarchical level. A comparison between the two samples suggests shifts from the Neolithic to the EBA period in terms of social and ideological organisation, which are further explored in the following chapter.

90

90

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Figures 6.3 Breakdown of regional samples by figurine categories 6.1 Percentage of figurine categories

100% 90%

1%

6%

80% 70%

35% 60% 50%

F

Amb

PF

38%

40%

PA

Ff

A

30%

Pff

PM

M PM

3%

M

20%

Pff

A

10%

Ff

PA

PF

Amb

Crete

Cyclades

Peloponnese

* N=480. The graph excludes indeterminable figurines (“na”).

E. Aegean

Euboia

C. Mainland

Thessaly

0%

N. Aegean

14%

Macedonia

1%1% 1%

F

*The graph excludes indeterminable figurines (“na”) and figurines of unknown provenance.

6.4 Percentage of figurines by chronological phases 3%

100

C .M ai nl an d

80

C re te

22

%

E. Ae g

ea n

11 %

6.2 Percentage of figurines by provenance

Thessaly 5% Peloponnese 3% Macedonia 1% N. Aegean 1% Euboia 3%

60

40

20

0

EB I

EB I-II

EB II

EB II-III

EB III

C yc la d

es

51 %

* N=512. The graph excludes figurines, which cannot be dated securely.

* N=534. The graph excludes figurines of unknown provenance.

91

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

6.5 Breakdown of regional samples by chronological phases in percentage

6.7 Breakdown of the sample by recovery site

BS/OS Nk 4% BS/CS 1% 2%

100% 90% 80%

BS? 11%

70% 60%

OS 39%

50%

Cont*

40%

III

30%

II-III 20%

II

10%

I-II I Crete

Cyclades

Peloponnese

E. Aegean

Euboia

C. Mainland

Thessaly

Macedonia

N. Aegean

0%

OS? 0% OS/Snctr CS 5% 0%

BS 38%

*Figurines of uncertain date and post-EBA curation contexts have been excluded. **Figurines recovered from continuous contexts of EBA use.

*The graph excludes figurines of unknown recovery context.

6.6 Breakdown of figurine categories by chronological phases

6.8 Breakdown of recovery site type by chronological phases

100% 100% 90% 80% 80%

70% 60% Amb

50%

60%

PA 40%

A

30%

PM

40%

M 20%

PFf

10%

Ff

Cont III

PF 0%

II-III

20%

II

F I

I-II

II

II-III

III

I-II

Cont

I

0% OS

*Figurines of uncertain date and figurines from post-EBA curation contexts have been excluded.

CS

BS

BS?

* N=436. The graph includes only the main categories of recovery site (CS includes all cave sites). **The graph excludes post-EBA curation contexts.

92

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

6.9 Distribution of figurine categories by type of recovery site

B. Funerary

OS & OS?

OS/ snctr?

CS

BS

BS?

BS/CS

BS/OS

Context Burial (?)

F PF Fform

26

11

-

73

43

-

4

2

1

-

5

1

-

-

11

1

-

42

11

-

-

Burial area Burial area/pit Cemetery (?)

Pfform M PM A

3

-

-

1

-

-

-

2

-

-

4

1

-

-

Figurine categories

-

-

-

3

-

-

-

69

-

1

80

14

11

2

PA Amb

17

1

2

9

1

-

-

1

-

-

2

1

-

-

Total

131

14

3

219

72

11

6

Context Ritual

OS/ snctr?

CS

BS

BS?

BS/CS

Total 1

*The tables exclude disturbed, mixed, unstratified contexts and occasional, surface finds and figurines of unknown provenance and chronology. ** The question mark indicates the inclusion of alleged contexts and possible date.

BS/OS

A. Habitational/domestic

Macedonia

6

-

-

-

-

-

-

N. Aegean Thessaly C. Mainland Euboia

4

-

-

-

-

-

-

29

-

-

-

-

-

-

10

-

2

7

-

-

-

1

-

-

13

-

-

-

E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades

63

-

-

-

-

-

-

18

-

-

-

-

-

-

16

31

-

145

66

-

14

Crete

13

-

-

81

1

13

1

160

31

2

246

67

13

15

Total

Region: No of figurines Cr:1

7 3 94

6.12 Breakdown of the sample by known recovery context and chronological phases

6.10 Breakdown of regional samples by type of recovery site OS & OS?

Total 193

C. Ritual

*The table excludes unidentifiable figurines and figurines of unknown recovery context.

Region

Region: No of figurines CM:7, Eu:12, Cy:92, Cr:82 Cy:5, Cr:2 Cy:3 Eu:2, Cy:82, Cr:10

Context House, Structure HS, domestic (?) House: room (?) Pit Structure: curation Refuse area Wall Total

EBA (?)

I (?)

I-II

II

II-III

III

Cont

3

1

12 34

10 30

-

4

3 7

-

-

3

2

2

-

-

-

-

4 -

1

-

1 -

-

3

1

5 58

1 1 45

2

5

10

*The table excludes figurines of unknown provenance and recovery context. B. Funerary 6.11 Context of recovered figurines according to region *The tables exclude disturbed, mixed, unstratified contexts and occasional, surface finds and figurines of unknown provenance. ** The question mark indicates the inclusion of alleged contexts. Key: Mc=Macedonia NA=N. Aegean Th=Thessaly CM=C. Mainland Eu=Euboia

EA=E. Aegean Pel=Peloponnese Cy=Cyclades Cr=Crete

HS, domestic (?) House: room (?) Pit Structure: curation? Refuse area Wall

Region: No of figurines Mc:1, NA:3, Cy:3 Th:3, CM:3, EA:8, Pel:8, Cy:3 Mc:2, Th:22, CM:3, Eu:1, EA:37, Pel:7, Cy:26, Cr:3 NA:1, CM:3, EA:2, Cr:1 EA:1, Pel:1, Cr:4 Cy:1 EA:5, Cr:1 Cr:1

EBA (?)

I (?)

I-II

II

II-III

III

Cont

Burial (?)

10

22

18

71

3

17

53

-

-

-

2

-

-

2 -

Burial area Burial area/pit Cemetery (?)

1

2

2

18

2

-

7

Total

11

24

20

91

5

17

62

C. Ritual Context

A. Habitational/domestic Context Curation? House, Structure

Context

Total 7 25 101 7 6 1 6 1

93

EBA (?)

I (?)

I-II

II

II-III

III

Cont

Ritual

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

Total

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

6.13 Breakdown of recovery context by broad chronological phases

Stone vessels Tools: stone/bone

bowls, bottle-shaped mace-head, palette, querns, grinders, bone tubes, stone pestles, pounders, basalt axes, whetstone

100% 90%

3 23

Weapons: nonmetal *The table excludes figurines that have no direct association with other finds.

80% 70% 60%

6.15 Select finds and their associations with figurines from unplundered burials (single storey, single burials) in the Cyclades and Euboia

50% 40%

CONT 30%

III

20%

II-III

Grave good No of finds without categories figurines Frying-pans 13 Cups 2 Metal Blades 3 Metal implements 15 Obsidian 18 Ornaments 26 Palettes: marble, stone 8 Stone/marble vessels 23 Tweezers 1 Weaving equipment 3 Sources: Doumas 1977 and Sampson 1988.

II

10%

I-II 0%

itu al R

ar y er Fu n

H

ab ita

tio na

l/D

om es tic

I

*The graph excludes figurines of unknown chronology and recovery context.

No of finds with figurines 6 7 3 8 23 23 4 3 2 -

6.16 Features associated with figurines 6.14 Figurines and other finds: in-situ association General Categories Bones, human Crystal Cups Figurines, anthr. Figurines, zoom. Frying-pans Horns Ivory objects Lamps Marble palettes Marble vessels Metal implements

Metal tools Metal vessels Metal weapons Obsidian Ochre Organic remains Ornaments

Pebbles Pottery Pottery, fine Pottery, coarse Pyxides Sauceboats Seals Spinning and weaving equipment Stands

Description of finds secondary deposition, crania clay, marble

boar’s tusks, horn no description given hand, 3-spouted, bowl-type vases, bowls, bottles, kandilae, collared jars bronze/copper tweezers, fibula, br. nail, silver pins, awls, cutters, br. needle spatula, knife, drills, blade, chisel silver plate, silver bowl dagger, knives core, blades fragment sea-shells, oyster shells, fishbones bone/ivory/gold amulets, br/silver/stone beads, silver torque, lead bracelets, gold fragments, ivory earring, gold leaves, perf. silver discs, perf. sea shells, rings coloured (blue), not coloured

whorls/discs

Features Bench Burial structure(s) 2nd burial Grave Hearth Larnaka Pit

No of associated figurines 10 3 11 84 2 10 2 7 3 7 29

Number of figurines 1 9 2 2 1 12 2

*The table excludes figurines that have no direct association with specific features.

6.17 Known recovery context and figurine categories *The tables exclude indeterminable figurines and figurines of unknown context. **The tables exclude figurines of unstratified, disturbed, mixed and unknown (“nk”) context, occasional and surface finds. ***The question mark indicates the inclusion of alleged contexts.

14

12 5 6 39 9

A. Domestic/habitation Context House, Structure Hs, domestic (?) House: room (?) Pit Curation Refuse area Wall

40

4 34 24 4 26 2 1 3

2

94

Figurine categories: No of figurines F:4, A:11, PA:5 F:26, PF:1, Ff:5, Pff:2, A:40, PA:8 F:2, Ff:1, A:4 A:3, PA:2 Ff:1, A:3 Pff:1, A:1, PA:1 F:1

Total 20 82 7 5 4 3 1

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

6.20 Available sexed skeletal evidence from EBA Aegean burial sites

B. Funerary Context Burial (?) Burial area Burial area/pit Cemetery (?)

Figurine categories: No of figurines F:51, PF:3, Ff:33, Pff:1, M:3, PM:2, A:73, PA:4 Ff:1, A:1 F:2 F:53, PF:1, Ff:14, PM:1, A:14, Amb:2

Burial site Manika, Euboia 1

Total 170 2 2 85

C. Ritual Context Ritual

Figurine categories: No of figurines F:1

Total 1

6.18 Figurine categories and associated finds General Categories Bones, human Crystal Cups Figurines, anthr.

Figurine categories: No of figurines PF:1, A:1, PA:1 F:1, A:1 F:7, A:2 F:26, PF:3, Ff:10, M:1, PM:2, A:24, PA:4 A:1, PA:1 F:2, PF:1, Ff:1, A:5 F:1 F:2, A:1 F:5, Ff:1, A:1 F:16, PF:1, Ff:6, M:1, A:4 F:3, PF:1, Ff:1, M:5 F:4, PF:2, Ff:1, A:4 F:2, A:3 A:2, PA:1 F:10, PF:1, Ff:2, A:9, PA:1 F:2, Ff:3, A:2, PA:1 F:8, PF:2, Ff:3, M:1, A:12 A:2 F:8, PF:2, Ff:3, M:1, A:11, PA:1 F:9, PF:1, Ff:3, A:9 F:1, Ff:2 F:13, PF:1, Ff:3, M:1, A:7 F:1 A:1, PA:1

Figurines, animal Frying-pans Ivory objects Lamb Marble palette Marble vessels Metal utensils Metal tools Metal vessels Metal weapons Obsidian Organic remains Ornaments Pebbles Pottery Pottery, fine Pottery, coarse Pyxides Sauceboats Spinning and weaving equipment Stands F:1 Stone vessels F:1, M:1 Tools: stone/bone F:8, PF:1, Ff:2, A:7, PA:1 *The table excludes unidentifiable figurines.

6.19 Figurine categories and associated features Features Bench Burial structure(s) 2nd burial Grave Hearth Pit Larnaca

Figurine categories: No of figurines A:1 F:3, Ff:1, A:2 F:1 F:1 A:1 F:1 A:11, PA:1

95

Grave No 2 3 14 28 31 34 44 45 47 56 58 67 68 70 80 87 95 102 105 110 123 13 22 32 35 37 38 41 51 55 57 60 62 63 69 77 78 79 82 84 103 113 115 120 121 126 134 147 150 4 25 39 54 61 65 71 83 100 30 69 6 16 25 36 40 43

Sex M M? M? M? M M? M M? M? M? M M M M M M M M M M M F F? F F F F F? F F F? F F F F F? F F F F F F F F F F F F F M+F M+F M+F M+F M+F M+F M+F M+F M+F ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Age adult adult adult adult adult adult adult adult adult adult adult adult adult adult child adult adult adult adult adult adult adult adult adult adult adult adult adult adult child adult adult adult adult young adult adult adult adult adult adult adult adult adult adult adult child adult adult adults adult + child adult + child adult + young adult + young adults adults adults adults young young child child child child child child

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Burial site Aghios Kosmas 2, Attica

Phourni, Crete: Burial Bldg 19 3

Zoumparia, Cyclades 4 Antiparos, Cyclades 4

Grave No

Sex

Age

2 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 4 4 8 2 20 20 28 28 28 28 28 22 22

F M M M F M M M M F M F F M M F M M F M M? M F M M F

25 38 17 33 36 27? 43? 38? 36? 25? 49 26 30 39 26 29 33 28 30 29 42 25 26 44 27 34

114 one of skel. 190-3 159 188 141 168 36 174 127 128 140 142 143 144

M

adult

5 10 114

M M M F F ? F ? F ? ? ? ? F M M

6.21 Grave goods in association with sexed skeletons from Manika Cemetery Key: Br=bronze objects Bt=bone tube C=cups Cp=colour palettes F=female skeleton Fg=anthr. figurine(s) Fp=frying-pans

adult adult adult adult adult juvenile child infant? infant? infant? infant? infant? infant? -

Sex

Grave

M

2

Br

Bt

J=jewellery M=male skeleton Se=spinning equipment So=silver objects St=stone objects

C

Cp

Fg

Fp

.

.

.

M?

3

.

M?

14

.

M?

28

M?

34

.

M

44

.

45

.

M?

47

.

M

58

.

M

67

.

M

70

.

M

78

M

87

M

95

M

102

.

M

105

.

M

110

.

F

37

.

F

38

F

51

.

F

62

.

63

F

69*

F

78

Se

St

?

.

M?

F

J

So

.

? .

. .

.

.

.

.

.

?

.

. ? .

. . .

.

F

82

F

103

.

F

134**

.

.

F

150

.

.

.

. .

.

1

Source: Sampson 1988 2 Source: Mylonas 1959 (Table 1) 3 Source: Maggidis 1998 4 Bossert and Erhardt 1965, 117-24 (see Doumas 1977)

M+F

4

M+F

39**

M+F

54**

M+F

61**

M+F

65

M+F

71

M+F

84

M+F

100

(child)

43

(child)

81

. .

.

. . .

. .

.

.

.

?

.

.

. .

.

.

.

. .

.

.

*Young individual. **Child burial. Source: Sampson 1988 (grave good categories as defined by Sampson).

96

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

6.22 Grave goods in association with sexed skeletons of multiple burials from Aghios Kosmas cemetery Key: C=cup(s) Cp=coarse pottery Fg=figurines Fp=fine pottery F=female skeleton Sex

Grave

M

4

F

5

F

8

M+F

2

M+F

3

M+F

20

M+F

22

M+F

28

M=male skeleton P=pyxis Ob=obsidian blades T=tweezers zs=zoomorphic stand

C

Cp

Fg

Fp

•

•

•

•

•

•

P

Ob

T

Zs

•

6.23 Grave goods in association with anthropologically analysed skeletons of multiple burials from Phourni Cemetery (Burial Building 19)

Sex

Skull No.

M

114

M

M=male skeleton Ms=metal sheet N=necklace O=obsidian R=ring Sv=stone vase T=toys

Bp

C

Cp

Ms

N

•

•

•

•

1 of 190-3

•

•

M

159

•

•

M

188

•

F

141

•

•

F

168

•

•

J?

36

Ch

174♀

•

I?

127

•

I

128

•

I?

140

•

O

R

Sv

•

•

142

I?

143

I?

144

Cp

T

Bp

N

•

R

Ms

O

Sv

•

•

Key: bt=bone tube c=cup f=fibula fa=figurine(s) (all types) fp=frying-pan jw=jewellery md=metal drill mn=metal needle mpl=marble palette mp=metal pin ms=metal spatula

Source: Mylonas 1959

Key: Bp=beads pendant C=cup(s) Ch=child Cp=Coarse pottery F=female skeleton I=infant J=juvenile

I?

C

6.24 Cycladic graves containing figurines: association with other grave goods

•

•

Skull No.

Source: Maggidis 1998, 6.5.

•

•

Sex

T

• •

• •

•

Site A. E. Skopelitou A. E. Skopelitou Akrotiri Akrotiri Amorgos

Tomb 20 5 -

Antiparos Antiparos Antiparos Antiparos Aplomata Aplomata Aplomata Aplomata Aplomata Aplomata Avdheli Fyrages Glypha Glypha Kampos Makris Kampos Makris Kapros Krassades Krassades Krassades Louros Plastiras Pyrgos Pyrgos Spedos Spedos Spedos Syros Syros Syros? Thera?

IV XIII XVII XXIII XXVII 1 28 21 24 35 36 D? 112 115 117 26 9 100 103 10 12 16 415 468 -

Thera? Source: Doumas 1977

97

mt=metal vessel mv=marble vessel nl=nail ob=obsidian blades pf=pottery fine pt=pottery general px=pyxis sc=saucepan sv=stone vessel sw=sword tl=tools (grinding, pounding)

-

Date EB II EB II EB II EB II EB IIEB III EB I EB I EB I EB I EB II EB II EB II EB II EB II EB II EB II EB II EB II EB II EB I EB I EB II EB I EB I EB I EB II EB II EB II EB II EB II EB II EB II EB II EB II EB II EB IIEB III EB IIEB III

Grave Goods fa, mv fa, mv fa, jw fa, mpl,, mv, px, jw fa fa fa fa, jw fa fa, mv, px, sv, jw fa, mv, px fa, px c, fa, mv, ob, px, tl fa c, fa, mv, ob, px, tl fa, mpl, ob pf fa, mv, tl mv fa px fa, mt, jw mv fa, jw fa , mv fa, fp, md, mv, ob, tl, pf, px, jw fa, mn, mv, ob, tl fa, mpl, px fa, jw fa, mpl, mv, ob, pf, tl mv, pf fa, ob, sw px bt, fb, md, mn, pf, sw, tl, jw c, fa, ms, mv, pf, px c, fa c, fa

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

6.27 Breakdown of figurine material by regional provenance

6.25 Cretan burials containing figurines: direct association with other grave goods Key: fa=figurine(s) (all types) fb=fibula dg=dagger jw=jewellery mn=metal needles

100%

mp=metal pin ob=obsidian blades p=pottery sl=seal tl=tools (grinding, pounding)

90% 80% 70% 60%

fa

30% 20%

40%

Archanes

burial area

MBA

fa, jw, ob, p, tl

Archanes

burial area

MBA

fa

Archanes

burial area

Cont

EM III

Archanes

F:6

EM III

Archanes

F:7

EM III

Archanes

Gamma

EM III

Archanes

Gamma

EM III

Archanes

Gamma

EM III

Gamma

Archanes

Gamma

EM III EM III

Archanes

Gamma: jiota

EM III

Archanes

Gamma: Gamma

EM III

Archanes

Gamma

MBA

Pyrgos

burial area

EM I-EM II

fa, jw, mn, ob, p

Stone, other

F:4

Shell

Archanes

Metal

EM III

0%

jw, ob

Marble

F:10

10%

jw, p

Ivory

Archanes

Archanes

50%

Cont

Crystal

9, 1b

Clay

Archanes

Grave Goods

Date

Bone

Tomb

Alabaster

Site

fa, fb, jw, ob, tl, jw, ob

Macedonia

N. Aegean

Thessaly

C. Mainland

mn, ob

Euboia

E. Aegean

Peloponnese

Cyclades

jw, ob, tl

Cyclades?

Crete

fa, ob, jw

6.28 Breakdown of chronological phases by material

jw, ob, wh fa, ob, jw jw

100%

Stone, other Shell

80%

Metal Marble

60%

dg, fa, jw, ob, mp

Ivory

fa

40%

Crystal

Source: Branigan 1988.

Clay

20%

Bone/Ivory

6.26 Breakdown of the sample by material 0%

Alabaster NeolEB I

1% 1% 3%

EB I

EB I/II

EB II

EB III

* Figurines of unclear date are excluded.

13% 21%

6.29 Figurine material according to type of site

alabaster bone

Material

clay 0%

crystal

1% 1%

ivory metal marble stone other shell

59%

BS & BS?

BS/ CS

BS/ OS

CS

OS & OS?

OS/ Snct?

Alabaster Bone Clay Crystal Ivory

5 1 2 2 4

5 3 -

-

2 -

4 114 -

-

4 -

Marble Metal Shell Stone (?)

257 1 4 52

1 1

5 1

1 -

32 1 11

31 -

13 7

*Figurines of unknown provenance are excluded.

98

Nk

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

6.30 The modelled body in relation to material Key: A=alabaster B=bone C=clay Cr=crystal I=ivory

6.33 Breakdown of complete and almost complete figurines by dimensional ranges in percentage

M=marble Mt=metal Sh=shell St=stone

100 80 60

Body Shape

A

B

C

Cr

I

M

Mt

Sh

St

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

-

1

8

-

-

8

-

-

14

-

2

8

-

2

177

1

1

17

5

12

59

5

1

47

-

3

28

-

-

8

-

-

29

-

2

11

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

Steatopygous, 3 42 schematic *The table excludes figurines of indeterminable body shape.

-

1

40 20

Corpulent

0

Corpulent, schematic Proportionate Proportionate, schematic Schematic

1-10cm

11-20cm 21-30cm 31-40cm 41-50cm 51-60cm

*The graph does not include figurines of unknown dimensions.

Steatopygous 6.34 Breakdown of dimensional ranges of complete figurines by figurine categories

100% 90%

6.31 Breakdown of material by figurine categories 80% 70%

Clay

Amb

Marble

60%

Stone, other

50%

Alabaster

40%

M

Crystal

30%

Pff

PA A PM

Ff

Bone

20%

PF

10%

F

Ivory Shell

F

PF

Ff

Pff

M

PM

A

PA

100%

Amb

*The graph excludes unidentifiable figurines.

6.32 Dimensions of figurines cm

Complete 216

Upper body fragments 59

Lower body fragments 7

1-10

Total

11-20

63

18

1

82

21-30

33

4

-

37

31-40

8

-

-

8

41-50

4

-

-

4

51-60 61-70

2

-

-

2

-

-

-

-

282

*The table does not include figurines of unknown dimensions.

99

51-60cm

80%

41-50cm

60%

31-40cm

40%

21-30cm

20%

11-20cm

0%

1-10cm

0% Metal

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

6.35 Figurine categories over 20cm in relation to broad chronological phases and area of recovery Figurine Categories Female

Date

Area

Total

2, EB I 1, EB I/II 18, EB II

Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades

44

13, EB II

Cyclades:9, Crete:3, Euboia:1

10, EB IIIII

Cyclades

-

-

-

1, EB I 1, EB II 1, EB II-III

Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades

3

Probably Female Female form

-

Probably Female form Male Probably Male Asexual

Probably Asexual Ambiguous

-

Basic Posture Seated & Seated?

Cyclades

1

1, EB II-III 4, EB I 1, EB I/II 2, EB II 1, EB I 1, EB II-III

Cyclades Crete Crete C. Mainland: 1, Cyclades:1 Cyclades Cyclades

1

Legs

(all seated figurines) arms folded below breasts arms folded on abdomen

Total 5 2 1

Basic Posture

Arm(s), Hands(s)

Seated on chair

(all seated on chair figurines) harpist

2

arms folded below breasts

1

Legs

Total

1

Basic Posture

Arm(s), Hands(s)

Seated on stool

(all seated on stool figurines) harpist

11

arms folded below breasts arms folded on chest arm raised (holding a cup?) arm raised, hand on harp

4

-

1, EB II

Arm(s), Hands(s)

7

Legs

Total

5

1 feet crossed

1 1

2 Posture of upper body fragments only

Total

Arms raised

4

6.36 Range of figurine postures

Arms extended

15

*The following tables exclude figurines of indeterminable posture. **Question mark refers to postures, which are not securely identified.

Arms folded below breasts

2

Arms folded on abdomen

2

Arm between breasts, arm on abdomen

1

Bearer, arms on abdomen

1

Basic posture Standing

Arm(s), Hands(s) (all arm/hand postures)

Legs

Total 433

flautist

1

kourotrophos

1

arms raised

5

arms extended

49

arms folded below breasts arms folded below breast area arms folded on chest arms folded on abdomen arm folded on abdomen arm stumps

25

hand on abdomen, arm raised arm on abdomen, arm on chest arm on abdomen, hand on chest

Thematic postures

Total

Bearer

1

Kourotrophos

1

Flautist

1

Harpist

6

Group arrangement

2

1 4 106 1 1 1 1 1

100

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

6.37 Breakdown of postures by geographical provenance Posture Standing

Seated & Seated?

Seated on chair

Seated on stool

Arms raised

Arms extended

Arms folded below breasts

Region

Total

Macedonia N. Aegean Thessaly C. Mainland Euboia E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades & Cyclades? Crete Macedonia N. Aegean Thessaly C. Mainland Euboia E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades & Cyclades? Crete Macedonia N. Aegean Thessaly C. Mainland Euboia E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades & Cyclades? Crete Macedonia N. Aegean Thessaly C. Mainland Euboia E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades & Cyclades ? Crete

5 4 21 13 14 39 14 326 97 2 1 13 2 2 2 8 1

Macedonia N. Aegean Thessaly C. Mainland Euboia E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades & Cyclades? Crete Macedonia N. Aegean Thessaly C. Mainland Euboia E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades & Cyclades? Crete Macedonia N. Aegean Thessaly C. Mainland Euboia E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades & Cyclades? Crete

Posture Arms folded on abdomen

Arms on abdomen

Hands (meet) on chest

Hands (meet) on abdomen

Hands on waist

-

Bearer

1 8 1 2 2 7 4 20 14 14 3 1 30 3

Kourotrophos & Kourotrophos?

Flautist

101

Region Macedonia N. Aegean Thessaly C. Mainland Euboia E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades & Cyclades? Crete Macedonia N. Aegean Thessaly C. Mainland Euboia E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades & Cyclades? Crete Macedonia N. Aegean Thessaly C. Mainland Euboia E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades & Cyclades? Crete Macedonia N. Aegean Thessaly C. Mainland Euboia E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades & Cyclades? Crete Macedonia N. Aegean Thessaly C. Mainland Euboia E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades & Cyclades? Crete Macedonia N. Aegean Thessaly C. Mainland Euboia E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades & Cyclades? Crete Macedonia N. Aegean Thessaly C. Mainland Euboia E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades & Cyclades? Crete Macedonia N. Aegean Thessaly C. Mainland Euboia E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades & Cyclades? Crete

Total 1 7 1 67 35 1 1 42 3 5 2 8 7 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 -

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Posture Harpist

Group arrangement

Region Macedonia N. Aegean Thessaly C. Mainland Euboia E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades & Cyclades? Crete Macedonia N. Aegean Thessaly C. Mainland Euboia E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades & Cyclades? Crete

Arms folded below breasts

Total 6 1 1

Arms on abdomen

Hands (meet) on chest

OS BS & BS?

II, 1 I/II, 1 II, 30

1 31

OS BS OS/sanctuary?

II, 1 na II, 1

1 1 1

OS BS & BS?

II, 1 I, 38 II, 3 III, 1 I, 1

1 42

II, 6 III, 1 I, 6 I/II, 2 II, 1 III, 4 I, 1

8

OS/sanctuary? Hands (meet) on abdomen

OS BS & BS?

BS/OS 6.38 Breakdown of postures by chronological phases and type of recovery site *Tables exclude figurines of indeterminable posture, unknown date or provenance. Incomplete information regarding chronology explains the discrepancy between the total number of figurines and their chronological breakdown. **Question mark refers to alleged recovery sites and possible date. Posture

Date Neol-I?, 1 I, 19 I/II, 2 I-II, 2 II, 40 III, 8 I, 56 I/II, 18 II, 86 III, 20 I, 2 I/II, 4 III, 7 I, 2 II, 10

Total 107

OS & OS? BS

II, 1 II, 1

2 1

Seated on chair

BS

II, 2

2

Seated on stool

BS & BS?

I/II, 1 II, 10

11

Arms raised

OS

II, 7

9

Arms extended

OS

I/II, 2 II, 27 III, 6 I, 1 I/II, 7 III, 4 -

51

II, 2 I, 1 I/II, 2 II, 66 III, 7 III, 5 II, 6

2 75

Standing

Site Type OS

BS

BS/CS

OS/sanctuary?

Seated & Seated?

BS & BS?

CS Arms folded on abdomen

OS BS & BS?

BS/CS OS/sanctuary?

13

1 7

BS CS

I, 2 I/II, 1 II, 4 II, 1 II, 1

Bearer

BS

na

1

Kourotrophos & Kourotrophos? Flautist

OS

na

1

BS

II, 1

1

BS & BS? BS & BS?

II, 6 II, 2

6 2

Hands on waist

Harpist Group arrangement

OS

1

1 1

212 6.39 Breakdown of postures by figurine categories 13

12

* The table excludes unidentifiable figurines (“na”) and figurines of indeterminable posture. Posture Standing

Seated & Seated?

12

1

Seated on chair

5 6

102

Figurine Category F PF Ff Pff M PM A PA Amb F PF Ff Pff M PM A PA Amb F PF Ff Pff M PM A PA Amb

Total 145 13 67 2 1 2 183 7 6 1 1 1 1 1 -

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Posture Seated on stool

Arms raised

Arms extended

Arms folded abdomen

on

Arms folded below breasts

Arms on abdomen

Hands chest

(meet)

on

Hands (meet) abdomen

on

Figurine Category F PF Ff Pff M PM A PA Amb F PF Ff Pff M PM A PA Amb F PF Ff Pff M PM A PA Amb F PF Ff Pff M PM A PA Amb F PF Ff Pff M PM A P Amb F PF Ff Pff M PM A PA Amb F PF Ff Pff M PM A PA Amb F PF Ff Pff M PM A PA Amb

Total 4 2 1 4 1 6 2 11 1 8 1 32 10 1 78 5 4 17 2 3 34 4 34 7 9 5 5 2 1

Posture Hands on waist

Bearer

Kourotrophos?

Flautist

Harpist

Group arrangement

Figurine Category F PF Ff Pff M PM A PA Amb F PF Ff Pff M PM A PA Amb F PF Ff Pff M PM A PA Amb F PF Ff Pff M PM A PA Amb F PF Ff Pff M PM A PA Amb F&F A&A

Total 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1

6.40 Percentage of decorated and undecorated figurines

21%

79%

Deco rated Undeco rated

103

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

6.41 Breakdown of regional samples by percentage of decorated and undecorated figurines

6.44 Percentage of decorated figurines by figurine category

100

100

90

90

80

80 70

70 60

60 50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20 10

Decorated 0

Decorated

Crete

Cyclades

Peloponnese

E. Aegean

Euboia

C. Mainland

Thessaly

N. Aegean

Macedonia

0

F

Alabaster

Decorated

Undecorated

4

1

Bone

4

11

Clay

37

81

Crystal

-

5

Ivory

2

2

Marble

65

274

Metal

-

1

Shell

-

6

Stone

7

66

Colour Black Blue Brown Brown/red Brown/black Green Grey Orange Red White White/red

F 1 5

PF 2 4

Ff 2 -

M -

PM -

Ff

Pf f

M

PM

A

PA

Amb

A 6 4

PA 2 -

F 2 2 1 5 -

PF -

Ff 2 4 -

M -

PM -

A -

PA -

Amb -

Σ 2 2 2 1 9 -

6.46 Breakdown of surface colour (paint or slip) by figurine categories Colour Black Brown Brown/black Buff Cream Red White

6.43 Breakdown of surface treatment method by figurine categories Method Burnishing Slip

PF

6.45 Breakdown of motif colour by figurine categories

6.42 Breakdown of figurine material by presence or absence of decoration Material

Undecorated

10

Undecorated

Amb -

F 2 2 4 -

PF 1 -

Ff -

M -

PM -

A 1 2 2

PA 1 1

Amb -

Σ 1 2 2 7 3

Total 13 13 6.47 Use of colour by chronological phases EB I red

104

EB I-II red white

EB II black brown red white

EB II-III -

EB III black red white

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

6.48 Use of colour on select anatomical parts only in relation to broad chronology and figurine categories Date EB I EB I-II EB II

EB II-III EB III

Body Part head crown hair nose face head face & head neck chest torso

Colour red black black black red red red red red black

Category Ff na na F na F F F F F

6.49 Decorative motifs and suggested meanings *The cross indicates a motif and all its variations. **Motifs shared between Neolithic and EBA figurines are underlined.

Body decoration

z5

6.50 Motifs and attributes shared between figurine categories Key: ca=carved dr=drilled inc=incised

hsl2+

b4+

pu4

b12+

dil1

rm8

dil9i

pu18

b14+

hpl3+

rs1+

dil9ii

pu21

b16

se1

rs3+

b17+

tm1

sch1+

ssl6

cpl1+

vpl5

sch2+

csl2

vpl6+

dil9+

z9

inf=infilled p=painted pl=plastic

Bands decorating the waist Body Motif Colour Part b4i waist b4iv waist brown waist, b4vi hips b16 waist b17 hips

Clothing

spl18

Jewellery

z1+

Body decoration or clothing csl1

rm7?

Body decoration or clothing

vpl-hb6

Body decoration

Jewellery

Clothing

pu=punctured

Method inc, ca inc, ca, p inc inc ca

Figurine Category Ff 2F, 2PF 1PF, 1Ff, 1A F F

Count 2 4 3 1 1

X motif on the torso torso, 1back torso

1black, 1brown

inc, ca, p inc

5F, 1Ff, 3A, 1PA A

8 1

Diagonal band dpl24

torso: shoulderwaist

2F, 1Ff, 1A

4

pl

1PA, 1na

2

dr, pl, pu

1F, 2na

3

ca/p

F, Amb

2

inc

na

2

p

F

2

ca

A

2

crown

pl

1A, 2PA, 1na

4

crown

inc, ca

2A, 1PF

3

crown

pl

A

3

inc

Ff

2

?

ca, inc, p

Modelled hair: pulled up at the base of the neck

dpl24

fhd25

head

fhd29 fhd45

Modelled hair: short locks fhd26i

g1 hd3

Modelled hair (or cup?): pulled up as a knob

hd5 fhd30

hd8 hd10

head

crownneck

?

Modelled hair: short

hdl1+

fhd40

head

hd12 hd13

Headdress in the form of scarf fhd45

hd14 hd20

g1

hd22

hpl16+

?

Apron-like garment

hd21

hd23

head

waistknees

Modelled cap hd10

hsl6 pa16 pa17

Modelled cap hd11ii

pu25 rs5

Modelled cap

vpl4+

hd14

vpl7+ Set of parallel lines hpl19

105

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Horizontal single line Motif hsl6 csl2

Body Part

Colour

Motif

Method

Figurine Category

Count

inc

1F, 3Ff, 2A

6

cpl1

inc

A

2

dil9+ dil9+ dil9+ dil9+ dil9+ dil9+ dil9+ dil9+ dil9+ vpl-hb6

waist: front, lower body: front waist: front

Single ring rs1i rs1iii

neck neck

inc inc

Ff F

1 5

Ring motif encircling shoulders rs5

inc

shoulder (s)

2F, 1PF, 1A, 1na

5

cpl1

Suspended chevron (“amulet”) sch1i

sch1ii

neck: front, fr & b, neck-waist neck: front, fr & b, neck-pubic area

red

inc, p

2F, 11Ff, 3A

16

inc

10F, 1PF, 8Ff, 3A, 1M

23

dpl24

dpl24

dpl24 Suspended double chevron (“amulet”) sch2i

neck, neck-mid torso

inc

1Ff, 1A

dpl24

2

Body Decoration Motif Body Part pu4 spl18

shoulder shoulder

Figurine Category PA F

pu18

back

A

Neol-EB I?

Thessaly

PA

?

Macedonia

A

EB I/II

Cyclades

F F Ff A A A PF A F A A A na

EB II EB II EB II EB II EB II? EB II EB II EB I/II EB I EB I EB I-II EB I-II EB II

Cyclades Cyclades Peloponnese Crete Crete Crete Crete Cyclades Cyclades Crete Crete Crete Crete

pu21 hsl2

torso: neckwaist waist: front

Clothing (general attire) fhd45 head fhd45 head fhd29 crown hd10 crown hd11+ crown hd11+ crown hd11+ crown hd12 crown hd13 crown hd14 crown hd14 crown hd14 crown hd8 crown

Date

Region

EB II EB II

E. Aegean Crete

b16

neck

F

EB II

E. Aegean

rs5

shoulder

A

EB I-II

C. Mainland

chest chest

A A

EB III EB III

A

EB I

E. Aegean

A A F F F Ff PA A F na

EB II EB II? EB III? EB III? EB II EB I EB II EB II EB II EB II

E. Aegean E. Aegean

A

EB I

E. Aegean

F

EB II

Cyclades

F

EB II

Cyclades

Ff

EB I

Cyclades

A

EB I

Crete

Peloponnese Peloponnese

Cyclades Cyclades E. Aegean E. Aegean E. Aegean Crete

EB II

E. Aegean

b4+ b4+ b4+ b4+ b4+ b4+ b4+ b4+ b16 hsl6 hsl6 hsl6 hsl6 hsl6

waist waist waist waist waist waist waist waist waist waist: front waist: front waist: front waist: front waist: front

A F F Ff Ff Ff PF PF F A A Ff Ff Ff

EB II ? EB I EB I EB I EB I EB II EB II EB II EB III EB III EB III EB III EB III

E. Aegean Peloponnese Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Euboia Euboia E. Aegean Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete

F

EB II

E. Aegean

na

EB I-II

Thessaly

pu25 pa16 pa17 pa17 pa17 pa17

lower body: front lower bodybase: front pubic area pubic area pubic area pubic area pubic area

Body Decoration or Clothing csl1 shoulder hpl3 tm1

vpl5

106

Region

F

hsl6

Crete Crete

Date

abdomenhips

vpl6 csl2 csl2

torso: shoulderwaist torso torso torso torso torso torso torso torso, back torso, back torso torso: shoulderwaist torso: shoulderwaist torso: shoulderwaist torso: shoulderwaist torso: shoulderwaist

Figurine Category

b17 6.51 Use of motifs: meaning, figurine categories, chronology and region *Motifs shared between the two periods are marked in italics.

Body Part

torso: chestwaist torso, back back: uppermid lower bodybase: front

F A A A A

EB II EB III EB III EB III EB III

Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete

F

EB II

Crete

Ff

EB I

Cyclades

PA

?

Peloponnese

PA

EB III?

Macedonia

na

EB I-II?

Thessaly

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Body Part

se1 z9

base base: front

Figurine Category Pff A

Jewellery rs1+ rs1+ rs1+ rs1+ rs1+ rs1+

neck: front neck neck neck: front neck: front neck: front

Ff F F F F F

EB I EB II EB I EB II EB II EB II

Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades

Neolithic variations

neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck neck-pubic area neck neck

A A A A A F F F F F F F F F F Ff Ff Ff Ff Ff Ff Ff Ff Ff Ff Ff Ff Ff Ff Ff Ff Ff Ff M

EB II EB II EB I/II EB I EB I EB II EB I EB II EB I EB II EB II EB II EB I EB I EB I EB I EB II? EB I EB I EB I EB I EB I EB I EB I/II EB I EB I EB I EB I EB II EB I EB I EB I EB I EB II

Crete Crete Crete Crete Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades? Crete Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Cyclades Crete

EBA variations

A

EB I/II

Cyclades

A A

EB II EB II

E. Aegean E. Aegean

sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch1+ sch2+ sch2+

Date: broad EB II EB I/II

Region

6.52 Motifs and attributes shared between Neolithic and EBA figurines

Motif

Crete Crete

Bands decorating the waist Motif b4ii-vi

Body part waist

Shared colour -

b12i-ii

waist

-

b14i-ii

waist

b4i b4vi

waist waist

Horizontal line (“belt”) Motif Neolithic variations

hsl2i hsl2ii

EBA variations

hsl6

Body part waist: front& back waist: back waist: front& back

Figurine category 15F, 5PF, 3Ff, 1M, 1PM, 3A, 1Amb 1PF, 1A

Count

-

1Ff, 1A

2

-

2Ff 2F, 2PF

2 4

28

2

Shared colour -

Figurine category 6F, 4A, 1Ff, 1PF A

Count

-

1F, 3Ff, 2A

6

12 1

Band at hip level Motif Shared Motif Neolithic variations EBA variations

Shared colour -

Figurine category -

Count

-

Body part -

b17ii

hips

-

1A

1

b17i

hips

-

1F

1

-

Mirror sets of double curvilinear lines in diagonal arrangement Motif Shared Motif Neolithic variations EBA variations

cpl1i-iv cpl1vi

Body part -

Shared colour -

torso, back torso

Figurine category -

Count

3F, 1PF, 1Ff, 1A 1A

6

-

1

X motif on the torso Motif Shared motif: Neol. Shared motif: EBA Neolithic variations EBA variations

Shared Colour brown

Figurine category 4F, 1PA

Count

-

3F, 2A, 1Ff, 1PA 1F

7

dil1

Body part torso, back torso, back torso

dil9ii

torso

-

1A

1

dil9i dil9i

5

1

Modelled hair: pulled up above the neck base Motif Shared motif: Neol. Shared motif: EBA Neolithic variations EBA variations

107

Shared colour -

Figurine category 2F, 3na

Count

fhd36

Body part hair

fhd36

hair

-

1na

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Short hair

hpl16v

Motif Shared motif: Neol. Shared motif: EBA Neolithic variations EBA variations

Shared colour -

Figurine category 1F

Count

fhd40

Body part hair

fhd40

hair

-

2na

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Modelled conical hat Motif Shared motif: Neol. Shared motif: EBA Neolithic variations

EBA variations

EBA variations

Figurine category 1PA

Count

hd10

Shared colour -

hd10

crown

-

4

hd3

crown

-

1A, 2PA, 1na 1PA

1

hd7i

crown

-

2F, 6na

8

hd7ii

crown

-

2na

2

hd8

crown

-

1na

1

hd14

crown

-

1na

1

hd19i

crown

-

1na

1

hd21

crown

-

1A

1

hd23 hd8

crown crown

-

1PA 1na

1 1

hd12

crown

-

1A

1

hd14

crown

-

3A

3

hd19ii

crown

-

1na

1

1

Shared colour -

Figurine category 1na

Count

hd11

Body part crown

hd11

crown

-

4

hd5

crown

-

2A, 1PF, 1na 1na

hd20

crown

-

1F

1

hd22 hd13

crown crown

-

1na 1F

1 1

hd17

crown

-

1na

Parallel multiple lines in horizontal arrangement Motif Body Shared Figurine part colour category hpl16ii lower 3F Shared body, motif: Neol. hips hpl16ii buttocks 1PA Shared motif: EBA hpl16i lower 1PF Neolithic body: variations frontsides hpl16iii lower 1F, 1A body: front, front & hpl16iv back 1Ff

hpl16vi

EBA variations

Body part crown

Modelled flat hat Motif Shared motif: Neol. Shared motif: EBA Neolithic variations

1

1

1

1

Count 3

-

Shared motif: EBA Neolithic variations

1PF

1

-

1PA

1

-

-

-

Shared colour -

Count

rs1i

neck

-

rs1ii

neck

-

1A

1

rs1iv

torso: upper

-

1F

1

rs1v

EBA variations

-

Figurine category 6F, 1Ff, 2A, 2PA, 1na 1Ff

12

1

-

1PA

1

rs1vi

torso: upper

-

1F

1

rs1iii

torso: upper neck

-

5F

5

Motif Shared motif: Neol.

rd2i

Body part neck

Shared motif: EBA Neolithic variations

rd2i

neck

-

Figurine category 7F, 3A, 1PA, 2na, 1ni 1na

rd2ii

neck

-

1A

1

rd2iii -

neck -

-

1F, na -

2 -

EBA variations

Single or multiple rings Motif Shared motif: Neol. Shared motif: EBA Neolithic variations EBA variations

rs3i

Shared colour -

rs3i

elbow

rs3ii rm7 -

Shared motif: Neol.

rs5

Shared motif: EBA

rs5

108

Count 14

1

Count

-

Figurine category 1F, 1PF, 1A, 1na na

wrist

-

1PF

1

wrist -

-

3F, 1Ff -

4 -

Shared colour -

Figurine category 4PF, 2A

Count

-

2F, 1PF, 1A, 1na

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ring motif encircling shoulders Motif Body part

Neolithic variations EBA variations

Shared colour -

Body part wrist(s)

-

shoulders: front, back, front & back shoulders: front, back, front & back -

-

-

2

1

lower body: front & back -

Single, double or multiple rings Motif Body part rs1i neck Shared motif: Neol.

1 1

mid torsobase

4 1

6

Early Bronze Age anthropomorphic figurines: data and analysis

Suspended chevron (“amulet”) Motif Body part Shared motif: Neol.

sch1i

sch1ii

Shared motif: EBA

sch1i

sch1ii

Neolithic variations

EBA variations

neck: front, front & back, neck-waist neck: front, back, front & back neck: front, front & back, neck-waist

sch1vi

neck: front, front & back, neck-pubic area neck: front neck: front, back neck: neck-mid

-

neck: front -

sch1iii sch1iv sch1v

Shared colour -

Figurine category 2F, 11Ff, 3A

-

-

-

Count 16

13 3F, 2PF, 2Ff, 1M, 3PA, 2na 3F, 1PF, 2Ff, 2A, 1PA, 1na 10F, 8Ff, 1PF, 1M, 3A

10

23

Multiple parallel vertical lines Motif Body part vpl6i back: Shared uppermotif: Neol. mid vpl6i back: Shared uppermotif: EBA mid vpl6ii torso: Neolithic neckvariations waist See also Neolithic motifs: vpl4i-iii, vpl5, vpl6i-ii, vpl7i-iv EBA variations

-

1F 1F 1Ff

1 1 1

Wavy multiple vertical lines: hair? Motif Body part

-

1F

1

Shared motif: Neol.

vpl11iii

-

-

-

Shared motif: EBA Neolithic variations

vpl11iii

Suspended double chevron (“amulet”) Motif Body part Shared colour sch2i neck: front, Shared front & motif: Neol. back sch2i neck, torso: Shared neck-mid motif: EBA sch2ii neck: front, Neolithic front & variations back sch2iii neck: front sch2iv neck: front sch2v neck: front EBA variations

Figurine category 2F, 1Ff, 2A, 1PA

Count

1Ff, 1A

2

1F, 1A

2

vpl11i

2

1na

1

1F

1

-

-

-

EBA variations

Zigzag (on chest) Motif Shared motif: Neol. Shared motif: EBA

z1vi z1vi

Motif z1i

Vertical long parallel lines, beard ? Motif Body part spl7 neck Shared motif: Neol. spl7 torso: Shared upper: motif: EBA front Neolithic variations EBA variations

Figurine category 1Ff

Count

-

1PA

1

-

1PA

1

-

-

-

Neolithic variations

z1ii

Shared colour -

Figurine category 1F, 2PM

Count 3

z1iii

-

1A

1

z1iv

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

Shared colour black

Figurine category F

Count

black

na

1

-

PF

1

-

F

1

-

-

-

Shared colour -

Figurine category A

Count

-

na

1

Body part chest

Shared colour -

Figurine category 1A

Count

waist: front

-

1F

1

-

1F

1

-

1na

1

-

1PF

1

-

-

-

neck: front & back neck (hair) back: upperlower

vpl11ii

6

2F

Shared colour -

back: upperlower -

Body part hips: front abdomen

1

1

1

abdomen

z1v

EBA variations

109

See also Neolithic motif: z5 -

waist: front abdomen

-

Chapter 7 Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

The chapter is structured as follows: the first section presents a summarised comparison of figurines from the two periods, which provides the basis for the proposed interpretation regarding gender and society following in the second and third sections. The final section explores the resulting implications for the understanding of prehistoric Aegean.

7.1 Comparison of Neolithic and EBA figurines

influence, as suggested by Cycladic imported figurines and attempts at emulation. Moreover, the typological study of figurines and depositional patterns indicate a higher degree of differentiation between regions in the EBA than in the Neolithic, which could imply relatively rigid cultural boundaries. At the same time EBA figurine evidence reveals more extensive cultural zones, as exemplified especially by the intentional emulation of Cycladic figurines, suggesting a more widely shared vocabulary of ideas and norms, than in the Neolithic period.

7.1.1 Size of sample: level of production A comparison of the two samples shows a much higher proportion of Neolithic figurines. Let us not forget, however, that the EBA corpus would have been comparable to the Neolithic, if we assume that some of the unprovenanced proportion may have represented authentic figurines. Nevertheless, making assumptions from the recorded samples on the level of production is not constructive, since a number of factors may account for the recovery of figurines, such as the extent and methods of excavations or looting practices. Hypothetically speaking, statistical analysis could have elucidated the observed differences by calculating the extent of the excavated area and the volume of soil excavated per site. Unfortunately, diverse methods of excavation and recording, and often incomplete published information of excavated sites, does not allow a reliable comparison between the number of excavated figurines and extent of excavations for the two periods. Figurine production, however, remains unbroken throughout both periods, which suggests figurines’ continuous involvement in social processes.

7.1.2 Provenance: regions of production A considerable number of EBA figurines was recovered from new production areas, such as the Cyclades and the East Aegean. On the other hand, areas that ranked high in terms of figurine production in the Neolithic, such as Macedonia and Thessaly, are underrepresented in the EBA sample. It is possible that this pattern reflects a shift in settlement patterns or regional differences in ideological practices. Alternatively, the underrepresentation of certain areas may be linked to gaps in the archaeological record, considering, for example, how little is known about EBA Macedonia. I would argue, however, that the Cyclades must have constituted a focal area for figurine production in terms of volume but also wider cultural

7.1.3 Chronology Analysis of the sample in terms of chronology shows an uninterrupted tradition of figurine production from the earliest phase of Neolithic occupation in the Aegean to the end of the EBA, with some level of fluctuation. As mentioned earlier, the diverse methods of excavation and uneven documentation of excavated sites, does not allow the performance of statistical tests that would elucidate the level of production in relation to chronology. What is clear, however, is that anthropomorphic figurines were an integral part of both Neolithic and EBA society and were closely interwoven with the personal and social lives of prehistoric people. A final point concerns the use and circulation of figurines in the two periods. While in the Neolithic there seems to have been a largely synchronous use of figurines at the time of their manufacture, more EBA figurines appear to have been passed on from one generation to the next as prized possessions. Their value may have been associated with the skills required for their production, their quality as ancestral heirlooms or objects of spiritual power. In the Neolithic, however, the use of figurines appears to have been relatively ephemeral.

7.1.4 Contextual aspects: use and circulation The circulation and deposition of figurines in the two periods shows some striking differences. In the Neolithic, the vast majority of figurines were used in open-air settlement contexts and their recovery from settlement strata, as well as their contextual associations, indicates that their use was part of everyday activities taking place in the confines of settlement life. It is not until the LN-FN period that the trend for systematic deposition of figurines in funerary contexts emerges

110

110

Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

and continues into the EBA period. Though the deposition of figurines in cemeteries in the EBA represents a widespread practice, a parallel tradition operated in parts of the Aegean whereby figurines were exclusively used in settlements and domestic areas. The plotting of these two traditions in the Aegean suggests a closer affinity between certain areas than others, which would imply a lower degree of cultural homogeneity than in the Neolithic. Finally, the association of EBA figurines with particular categories of grave goods implies that the material and perhaps cultural value attached to (at least marble) figurines conferred social status to the owner. Though it is difficult to reconstruct value systems of early prehistoric societies, Neolithic Aegean figurines lack similar material associations.

7.1.6 Representation of sex: implications for gender

7.1.5 Material: workmanship, value and communication of ideas

7.1.7 Posture: embodiment and implications for gender

The main difference between the Neolithic and EBA sample is the shift from the use of clay to marble or other stone, though clay was still in use for EBA figurines in selected regions of the Aegean. This shift opens up a number of implications. Clay was readily available for the production of Neolithic figurines, and the technical skills required for their production would not have been normally of a particularly high level. On the other hand, the level of labour investment for the production of (at least some) EBA figurines (see Oustinoff 1984), the procurement of the raw material and the stages involved suggest a tighter control over the manufacture and circulation of figurines. The fact that figurines were active agents in social processes may lead us to infer that restrictions over their production and circulation in the EBA may be symptomatic of a tighter control exercised over the ideas they communicated. Moreover, the fact that marble Cycladic figurines were imported or even imitated in parts of the Aegean suggests that though such cultural ideals had a Cycladic focus, they were nevertheless meaningful to the wider Aegean. Finally, there is a shift from the Neolithic to the EBA regarding the techniques employed for the manufacture of figurines and their surface treatment. With the shift to marble for figurine production in the EBA, there is already a separation from the technical overlap between ceramic-related skills and the manufacture of clay figurines in the Neolithic. EBA evidence, therefore, suggests that the production of figurines came under the control of a different group that possessed different technical skills. In fact, it has been suggested that the manufacture of figurines and other stone objects, such as vessels, were produced by the same sculptors (Getz-Gentle 1996, xiv, 26, 101-2). Such changes may also imply that a different set of people were involved behind the production of EBA figurines, but also that the organisation of figurine production may have changed from being domestic in nature in the Neolithic to being a specialists domain in the EBA.

One pattern that continued unchanged throughout both periods is the predominance of figurines representing female bodies over male ones, though in the EBA figurines lacking any anatomical features became far more common. Furthermore, the demarcation of anatomical features on figurines was considered important in both periods, suggesting that (a) the body was central to the construction of gender, and (b) gender identity itself played an important role in the shaping of society and economy in the Neolithic and EBA Aegean. Finally, the presence of anatomically ambiguous figurine representations urges us to think beyond a bi-polar gender organisation in both prehistoric societies.

The main difference between the two periods is that Neolithic figurines show more variety in the repertoire of the modelled postures. In the EBA period some postures discontinued, but also the range of postures became more limited and expressed increased formality and rigidity. The implications lead us to assume that in the EBA (a) figurine production, and hence socially accepted gender imagery, came under a tight control, and (b) the expression of gender embodiment reveals a higher degree of standardisation, which may have reflected a greater social consolidation over gender roles. Moreover, the fact that some of these images “travelled” across the Aegean as imported or imitated material culture, suggests that the attached ideas concerning gender identity were widely relevant and meaningful to prehistoric Aegean communities. Another difference relates to the postures preferred in the Neolithic which drew emphasis to anatomical parts that demarcated either sexuality or reproductive aspects of gender (breasts, pubic areas, abdomens that occasionally represented pregnancy). In the EBA, on the other hand, posture is more formalised, without the emphasis on reproduction-related anatomical parts. Perhaps this difference may have resulted from a shift in focus from biology-based gender construction to a more synthetic gender identity, interwoven with additional parameters of social ordering. Finally, the EBA period saw the employment of some new postures (musicians, hunter-warriors), offering us an insight into distinct social roles and the genders associated with them. The EBA eidoloplastic evidence also presents us with a fuzzy distinction between performed gender roles and social status, as indicated by female representations of hunter-warriors, sexless musicians or Female and Male seated figurines. Furthermore, figurine and other evidence do not indicate that women’s status diminished in the EBA in relation to the earlier Neolithic. We should focus our studies, therefore, on the dialectic dynamics between genders that structured the fabric of EBA society.

111

111

Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

7.1.8 Decoration: symbolism and meaning Results have shown a higher proportion of decorated figurines in the Neolithic than in the EBA, as suggested by the application of colour and the wider range of motifs. We need to remember, however, that the survivability of colour on a marble surface is lower than on clay, which is likely to have affected the results. The comparative study of motifs has revealed that very few remained the same in the EBA period, which suggests changes in the forms of general attire or body decoration between the two periods. Personal material culture and figurine evidence, however, suggest that the manipulation of external appearance was fundamental in both periods for the construction of gender identity.

7.2 Neolithic figurines, society and gender: a proposed interpretation At this point we cross over from anatomically defined figurines to gender identities. As I have already pointed out, the anatomical categories have been employed heuristically for the classification of figurines. It is in fact through the synthesis of represented anatomy, posture, decoration, and overlapping and contrasting patterns between figurine classes that a second reading of gender is permitted. On those grounds, Female and Female form figurines are equated for the purposes of discussion with women and femaleness and Male figurines with men and maleness. Asexual figurines are proposed as agerelated variations mainly of women, and Ambiguous figurines as a possible third gender (actual or mythological). Moreover, the archaeological record and analysis of figurines themselves point to a rough division between the earlier and later parts of the Neolithic in the Aegean. The discussion that follows is structured along that chronological axis, with special attention paid to the transitional period of the FN.

7.2.1 Earlier Neolithic (Aceramic-MN) The main trends that characterise the earlier Neolithic indicate that (a) representations of the female body are by far the dominant category, and (b) anatomical categories that continue through to the later part are already present from the EN period. In general, trends that have been detected in the earlier part of the Neolithic seem to continue through into the later part and reveal a differentiation between female and male representations on a number of levels. For instance, the steatopygous form of the female body contrasts with the proportionate male bodies throughout the Neolithic. Similarly, certain postures are strongly associated with one figurine category, as indicated by the postures of Female figurines drawing emphasis to the breasts and abdomen (fig. 7.1). Despite continuing trends, a number of typological features are characteristic of the earlier Neolithic with important implications for the understanding of gender. Regarding

posture, a number of Male figurines were modelled as seated on stool-like furniture (fig. 7.2), in contrast to Female figurines that were often represented in the reclining, squatting and sitting on the ground postures, though one such seated Female example is known. However, the absence of seated Female figurines in a sample in which they predominate (46%), as opposed to Male figurines that represent a proportion of only 1%, suggests that seated Female figurines in the earlier Neolithic were far from common. A curious example of a figurine seated on a stool also belongs to the Ambiguous variety and comes from Thessaly (fig. 7.3). It is modelled with breasts and a swollen abdomen to denote pregnancy, while the area of the genitals follows the typology for Male figurines. Similarly, another Ambiguous figurine from Sesklo represented with breasts, male genitalia and a swollen abdomen (possibly denoting pregnancy) was also modelled seated on a chair (Hourmouziadis 1973, pl. 7). In addition, the birth-giving posture is also known from the earlier Neolithic. Turning now to decoration, analysis of motifs on figurines implies that face decoration or body painting in the form of tattooing was also practised from the earlier Neolithic (fig. 7.4) with a possible association with Female figurines. Additionally, modelled headdresses seem to have been a characteristic of the earlier phases with a strong link with Female figurines. How can we then integrate these patterns into the socioeconomic fabric of the earlier Neolithic and what inferences can we draw regarding gender roles? As has already been discussed, by and large Neolithic society has been interpreted as effectively egalitarian, but with a degree of differentiation on the basis of social and economic roles (Perlès 2001, 305). Such differentiation would have been associated with the acquisition of knowledge of distant raw material sources or craft specialisation (ceramics and other) (Perlès 2001, 284-5), but is also attested by the restricted circulation of artefacts associated with personal modification in association with clothing or ornaments (Perlès 2001, 288). Burials, on the other hand, do not indicate any form of differentiation between genders. Conversely, the fact that children were often buried separately, would suggest that age seems to have played a structuring role in the shaping of social identities. Turning now to eidoloplastic evidence, figurines indicate that Neolithic society acknowledged a differentiation between gender and associated roles, as exhibited by the distinct modelling and disparate production of figurine categories. The predominance of female, as opposed to male representations, suggests by itself a preoccupation of society with femalerelated aspects. Moreover, eidoloplastic evidence indicates a special attention being drawn to women’s reproductive and fertility aspects. The postural repertoire shows an emphasis on breasts and the abdomen. Furthermore, a number of Female figurines from Thessaly were modelled as pregnant and a few were modelled in the act of birth-giving. Paint was also applied mainly in the MN on parts of Female figurines, such as the breasts, chest and pubic area. The colour red has been symbolically associated with blood, menstruation, birth and

112

112

Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

death (Walisewska 1991, 39), as well as minerals, fire and pigment (Chapman 2002, 51), though these should not be viewed as universals. The choice of red to decorate Female figurines and the selection of those particular parts of the body, therefore, may be signifying a symbolic link with fertility, birth-giving and chthonic aspects. On another level, the choice of red may have referred to women’s association with fire and the use of pigments in the sphere of pottery-making. White and black pigment also occasionally decorated the pubic area of Female figurines. White and black ethnographically have been associated with the notions of day and night respectively (Chapman 2002, 51). It is possible that the female pubic area was associated with the cycle of life, reproduction and the life cosmologies of early Neolithic society. Male figurines are markedly underrepresented. Moreover, they do not exhibit an emphasis on male reproduction aspects through their posture or application of paint. Only seven Male models are present in the sample, but even out of that small portion three of them were modelled seated on stool-like miniature furniture. Though we cannot offer definitive answers based on such a small sample, the absence of such seated models from the much larger Female sample is particularly intriguing. Pieces of furniture, such as seats or stools, are considered as status markers (Wason 1994, 105), which implies a special status for men in early Neolithic society, despite the secondary place held by male figurine representations. It is even worth exploring the possibility that such Male figurines may have represented male community heads, which could also explain their low number. If we assume that Male figurines were produced by men themselves, in that case seated Male figurines could be interpreted either as a reinforcement of a widely accepted social position for men in the communities of Thessaly, or as a deliberate attempt by men to convey or carve out social status for themselves in the process of gender negotiation in the earlier Neolithic. Such powerful postures, however, were not limited exclusively to Male figurines. Four Asexual, two Probably Asexual and one Ambiguous seated figurine also belong to the same chronological phase. Given the overlap between Female and Asexual figurines of the MN, we could speculate that women may not have been excluded from such prominent positions. The Ambiguous seated figurine also poses interesting questions about the special status that third gender individuals may have enjoyed, or the significance attached to conceptual gender constructs in earlier Neolithic society. As we have inferred a special status for men on the basis of Male seated figurines, where do women fit in relation to men? Though the limited mortuary data do not point to any status distinctions or differential treatment between men and women, figurines add a different dimension to our understanding of social organisation. Female figurines suggest that women’s special status may have been expressed through the modification of their external appearance in the use of headdresses, which ethnographically often indicate high status (Wason 1994, 105). A similar argument can also be made on

the basis of motifs that adorned Female figurines, since jewellery and clothing can also be read as status markers (Wason 1994, 105). In contrast to Male figurines, Female figurines show an increasing trend for motifs denoting clothing especially from the MN period. Motifs in the form of body decoration (tattooing, painting, scarring, facial decoration) were also applied on Female figurines. Women’s practice of self-decoration, therefore, may have been linked to their role involving the communication of social identity (Turner 1995, 146), cultural identity (David et al 1988, 378; Hodder 1982), lineage history (Rainbird 2002, 237) or even sexual attractiveness and the coming of mating age (Joyce 2002, 1525). On the basis of the above evidence, therefore, the special status of men may have been counter-balanced by women’s special place in society as expressed through the status markers of self-decoration and attire. Though living and funerary contexts present a general egalitarian picture, figurine analysis does reveal social heterarchy at gender and personal level. Figurine evidence suggests that men and women could establish and express their social position through alternative avenues, be it bodily performance (posture) or manipulation of external appearance. The burial record also suggests that age may have operated as a structuring factor in social relationships. Given the overlap detected between Female, Female form and Asexual figurines, it is possible that some of them may have represented agerelated stages that demarcated the cycles of mainly female lives in relation to mating and reproductive stages. Despite the social and economic differentiation on heterarchical grounds (Perlès 2001, 305), evidence suggests that men and women had complementary rather than unequal roles. Concerning labour division, analysis of MSM (musculoskeletal stress markers) from the PPNA and PPNB of the Southern Levant suggests that tasks were shared within households or, at least, men and women performed equally demanding chores (Peterson 2002, 131, 133). I believe that a similar order may have operated in EN and MN Aegean societies which would imply that both men and women contributed equally to the economy of their community. The seated Male figurines portrayed a dynamic role for men in society and together with the evidence of clay phalloi in Thessaly and anthropomorphic bearded vessels in Macedonia (Perlès 2001, 264) attest to male presence in the realm of everyday life and ideological symbolism. Women’s association with aspects of reproduction and fertility could suggest that their contribution to the viability of a community on a biological and economic level (agricultural fertility and prosperity) was of central importance in the minds of Neolithic people, also reflected in the proliferation of female models. Women’s status, however, was not constructed only on the basis of their biology. Figurine evidence suggesting the manipulation of women’s appearance implies that their status was also shaped at a social level. Women may have communicated their gender, lineage and cultural status through the increasing elaboration of their external appearance, which would have also served to preserve emblematically their community identity. The decoration of women’s bodies may

113

113

Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

have been important for the needs of exogamy (Perlès 2001, 219) and the maintenance of permanent links with the community they were born into. Summarising the points raised above, the earlier part of the Neolithic has revealed a number of interesting trends, some of which continue in the later phases. Let us keep in mind the particularly imposing and powerful representations of men as individuals of marked status, largely overlooked in the literature. The other point concerns the preoccupation of Neolithic people with aspects related to women’s biological lives with an equal emphasis paid on the construction of female gender through the manipulation of external appearance. Finally, let us consider the dialectic basis on which male and female genders appear to have been constructed, as expressed through distinct figurine postures and decoration. The earlier Neolithic, however, does not indicate gender polarity. In fact, Ambiguous forms could imply the possibility of a third gender.

7.2.2 Later Neolithic (LN-FN) In the later Neolithic a number of trends that emerged in the MN intensified, especially as in the LN a higher degree of complexity characterised society on all levels. As has already been argued, we can detect a shift beginning in the LN from sharing between households to hoarding, which would have consequently led to an inequality of resources and differentiation between households (Halstead and O’Shea 1982; Halstead 1995; Kotsakis 1999). As a result of the new economic developments, an elite emerged which maintained its position and ensured its survival by creating a nexus of coalitions through alliances with elite groups in other communities (Halstead 1989, 1999). Exogamous marriage partners and exchange would have played a crucial role in these processes, while non-elite groups would have nucleated around the more successful households, forming a mutual relationship of inter-dependence (Halstead and O’Shea 1982; Halstead 1995). In the FN period the new medium of copper, and metallurgy in general, became socially controlled and must have played a defining role in the negotiating mechanisms of knowledge and status, in a way similar to pottery in the MN (Nakou 1995, 21). How then do figurines fit into the new socio-economic conditions of the later Neolithic in the Aegean? Do they echo the changes that would have affected their makers? I would argue that figurines of the later Neolithic do demonstrate some new intricate patterns that should be viewed in the context of a changing and increasingly complex social environment. A distinction, however, is necessary between figurines of the LN and FN as the latter imply a subtle shift at the level of social attitudes, rather than order, a point discussed in further detail later. Let us start the comparison with the earlier Neolithic period by examining the postural repertoire of Male and Female

figurines. A range of postures continued throughout the Neolithic, with Male figurines seated on stools, and Female figurines emphasising their breasts and abdomen with their hands. Regarding Male figurines, however, a lower proportion is modelled seated on a stool, though Male figurines represent a higher percentage of the sample. A posture that is not included in the earlier period and which draws emphasis to the male genital area represents Male figurines with erect phalloi (fig. 7.5). We cannot know with certainty whether we are detecting an actual chronological shift in postural repertoire, or if changes are linked to a bias in the sample. Nevertheless, postures of Male figurines of the later Neolithic imply on one hand a socially defined status, and an emphasis on corporeal aspects on the other. Female figurines continue to exhibit a postural stress on female reproductive aspects (breasts, abdomen). Pregnancy continues to be a common theme in the late Neolithic, along with the subject of kourotrophoi. Female figurines modelled with children are not encountered only in Thessaly, but are also attested in the regions of the Peloponnese and the Cyclades. In addition, Female figurines seated on stools are more common. In fact, one of them represents a kourotrophos, which has implications for the elevated status of motherhood or childrearing (fig. 7.6). As with Male figurines, we cannot explain securely the new trends as a result of real chronological shifts in social attitudes and gender roles. What we can argue, however, is that women were not excluded from high status positions, as suggested by Female seated models. Furthermore, the seated Female kourotrophos dispels the commonly held notion that childrearing should be equated with a loss of social status for women. At the same time, women’s identity continued to be constructed on a corporeal basis, with an emphasis on pregnancy, motherhood and childrearing. Female gender, therefore, was constructed on a dual basis, that of corporeality and socially defined status, in a way similar to male gender. The pregnant Asexual figurine (fig. 7.7) may have indicated a variation of female gender, possibly related to age. The Ambiguous pregnant figurine (fig. 7.8) may be indicating the existence of a third gender, expressing a combination of biological traits and conceptual perceptions of gender. Alternatively, Ambiguous figurines may be interpreted as mythical constructs. Though Ambiguous figurines may have represented a third gender, Asexual figurines represent a proportion that is too high to have corresponded to actual members of a third gender category. In fact, ethnographic evidence has shown that third genders represent a small group, are rare, and difficult to create and maintain socially (Herdt 1994, 22, 55, 80). Asexual figurines, therefore, are likely to indicate the additional dimension of age as a structuring parameter of gender. Regarding the way female and male bodies were rendered typologically, there is a distinction between steatopygous Female figurines and corpulent or proportionate Male ones, a

114

114

Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

trend already apparent from the earlier period. There is a decrease of steatopygous models in the later sample, however, while proportionate forms dominated the Female corpus. At the same time schematic Female forms account for a higher proportion than in the earlier period. We cannot be certain to what extent these differences can be interpreted as a result of actual chronological shifts. The fact, however, that typological trends of the transitional and succeeding EBA period indicate the predominance of schematic forms would imply that there was a gradual move away from corpulent, naturalistic forms of the earlier period. Dismissing these changes on a purely aesthetic basis, would be an oversimplification. On a first level, a shift from obese towards more proportionate female bodies may be implying increasing activity levels of female gender or even a change in women’s dietary patterns. Alternatively, we may be detecting changes in commonly held ideals regarding the embodiment and performance of female gender. Changes are also apparent in the way decorative motifs and paint were applied on Female figurines, while Male figurines remain equally void of such attributes throughout the Neolithic. Regarding the use of pigment in the later Neolithic, (a) more colours and colour combinations decorated Female figurines and (b) more colours and colour combinations emphasised selected parts of the female anatomy. In the late phase, therefore, the trend for colour application on Female figurines intensified with a more frequent use of the basic colours (red, black, white), while new combinations were also favoured (red on white). The colours blue and green, absent from the early sample, have been detected on FN figurines. The more complex ways of applying colour on Female figurines may be indicating the emergence of new gender symbolism, but also a more intensified classification of gender identities. As Chapman has argued, colour is a symbolic category by which humans categorise themselves and the world around them (2002, 52-53). The introduction of new colours coincides with the emergence of a more complex system of social categories by which members of a cultural group defined themselves (Chapman 2002, 52-3). For the Copper Age cemeteries of Durankulak and Varna, Chapman has argued that the introduction of new colours and the increased complexity in colour codification imply the use of new material culture forms, but more importantly, attest to more intricate messages communicated through the symbolic use of colour (Chapman 2002, 67). Let us now see how decoration relates to figurines. In the absence of decorated Male figurines, the relatively wide use of pigment on Female models suggests that the application and symbolism of colour was one of the media through which genders were differentiated. Moreover, the emphatic use of pigment on the breasts and chests of Female figurines, further indicate a sharper demarcation of concepts related to femininity. The use of white on the breast area may have expressed a link with breastfeeding and motherhood. The modelling of the abdomen in a state of pregnancy is more common in the later Neolithic and is also more elaborately

demarcated with the application of the three basic colours red, black and white. Such emphasis on the female abdomen could be read as representations of bodily fluids, or as an expression of a symbolic link with the birth and death-related concepts of blood, life, chthonic and daylight elements. The pubic area was also decorated with red and black, while the pubic area of one Female specimen from the Peloponnese is decorated with green paint (Thimme 1977, fig. 21). This choice of colours may again be taken to symbolise life and death notions linked to womanhood. The colour green may have expressed a symbolic link with nature and agriculture (Chapman 2002, 51; Walisewska 1991, 39-40), possibly alluding to an association between female and agricultural fertility. A FN Female figurine from the Peloponnese decorated in blue deserves special mention. The colour blue has been linked ethnographically with water as a source of life or with the sky (Chapman 2002, 51; Walisewska 1991, 39), which may indicate a celestial or water symbolism for female gender. Such associations hold special meaning in the new period of island colonisation (Broodbank 2000, 144), if figurines took on a protective role as guardians for safe seafaring. The blue pigment may have been marked with the use of azurite, a blue mineral associated with copper deposits, which would point, therefore, to a strong link between figurines and metals. Another link may also be drawn between women and metallurgy, either at an actual or symbolic level, though not to the exclusion of men. Differences from the earlier period are also detected in the application of motifs which intensified in the LN. Decorative motifs were applied primarily on Female and secondarily on Asexual figurines and denoted mainly body decoration, clothing and jewellery. Such motifs are encountered on figurines from Macedonia, Thessaly, the Peloponnese and Crete. Regarding motifs that represented clothing, they indicate that garments covered the upper and lower body. The strong association between women and worn garments becomes stronger in the absence of Male figurines bearing similar traits. Motifs denoting jewellery are also more common, and again decorated mainly Female and Asexual figurines, but no Male ones. From motifs we can infer that jewellery was worn around the neck and chest as amulets or necklaces, on the ears as earrings or less often as rings worn around the lower legs. Such motifs decorated figurines from Macedonia, Thessaly, the Peloponnese, the Cyclades and the C. Mainland. The trend for widespread use of body decoration, clothing and jewellery implies an intensified modification of the external appearance of women. Such evidence implies a more complex way in which female gender identity was being embodied and performed especially in a dialectic relation to men. Moreover, the increased concealment of women’s bodies suggests perhaps that social restrictions may have been imposed on accepted modes of conduct and performance. Furthermore, the intensified and more elaborate way in which the female body was manipulated through costume and jewellery could imply an association between female gender and status markers (see Wason 1995, 105) in the LN. This inference also ties in with

115

115

Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

the seated Female figurines of the same period. On another level, the emergence of more intricate ways of dressing the body would have also served to shape and demarcate cultural and social identity through physical appearance. In such a scenario, women would have been the bearers of such traditions, which has implications for women’s place in society, especially in the context of increased complexity in intra and inter-community relations between social groups. FN figurines exhibit a degree of differentiation from the LN corpus. Elements of abstraction, schematisation and decreasing levels of decoration characterise the way the human body is rendered. At the same time decoration is less common, coupled with a diminishing emphasis on anatomical parts through the employment of colour. It is possible that the underplayed anatomical and cultural bodies of figurines were symptomatic of an ever increasing consensus within Neolithic society regarding gender roles. Perhaps gender identity became more socially bound and less prone to open challenges, possibly as a result of gender identities becoming consolidated, or of communal identity gaining supremacy over idiosyncratic gender experiences. If we also take into account ceramic evidence that indicates homogenisation and regional alliances (Vitelli 1999, 103), then we may envisage gender playing a secondary role in relation to the overarching intercommunity coalitions. Population movement into new areas (Broodbank 2000, 144) and the parallel movement of goods (Halstead 1994, 207; Nakou 1995) may have placed more emphasis on group identity as opposed to gender. Though gender undoubtedly continued to play a structuring role in FN society, the focus may have shifted to social, community or cultural identity.

7.2.3 Some thoughts on figurine production and gender attribution A common assumption expressed in the field of Aegean prehistory has been that women were linked to pottery production (Perlès 2001; Vitelli 1995). Such explanations were influenced by ethnographic models that defined rudimentary pottery production as a predominantly female task (Murdock 1973, 207) and by some attempts to explain gender labour division as a universally predictable phenomenon (Brown 1970). Such predictive ethnographic models, however, are limiting on a number of grounds: their definition of the producer excludes women (Rice 1991, 440; Wright 1991, 198), they have relied on western ideas concerning the separation of labour into distinct spheres (Wright 1991, 195), and the application of capitalist theorisations of labour do not take into account the invisibility of women’s activities in terms of economic return or tangible material evidence, since they are often performed at a small-scale and house-based level (Rice 1991, 440).

organisation of prehistoric societies by proposing a-historical genders which further perpetuate both androcentric and feminist assumptions already present in ethnographic accounts (Gilchrist 1999, 52). It would be much more productive if we focus on tracing differences in gender and labour in their own context and from contrasting chronological periods (Gilchrist 1999, 52). It is also essential to realise that more than one gender may be involved at different stages of the production (Nelson 1997, 106; Sørensen 1996, Wright 1991, 195). A conscious effort to move away from our western understanding of labour would allow us to encompass a more gender-holistic approach to labour and one that would avoid the imposition of modernist models on prehistoric societies. Turning now to the subject of Aegean Neolithic figurines, a number of points can be raised. On a first level, the link between pottery and figurine production reminds us of the chicken-and-egg conundrum. In the Aegean Neolithic, figurines have already been recovered from aceramic levels (Sesklo in Thessaly and aceramic/EN levels at Knossos, Crete), which suggests that we should then be thinking in reverse mode, with figurine production pointing to a link with pottery manufacture instead. As Rice has pointed out, figurine-making came before pottery and there is no reason why the use of fire or other technological skills should be associated with one gender exclusively (1991, 437). The link, therefore, between women and pottery-making, and hence figurine production, needs to be reviewed on the grounds that (a) we cannot know with certainty that women were involved in the moulding of aceramic figurines, and (b) the use of pyrotechnic skills, necessary in both tasks, cannot be viewed as an exclusively male or female knowledge. I do not think we can offer definitive answers regarding figurine production and gender involvement. We can, however, entertain possible scenarios about the involvement of genders in the modelling process of figurines. Thinking about the association of genders with figurine production, also has implications for the understanding of agency and intention behind the modelling of figurines. A striking element in the Neolithic corpus is the predominance of Female figurines, suggesting a preoccupation with aspects of life and symbolisms related to women. Moreover, Female figurines demonstrate a clear emphasis on sexual and reproductive aspects through representation and posture that may imply knowledge of embodied experiences. The moulding of human bodies is also characterised by a variety of forms, shapes and decoration, possibly explained as a result of an element of self-projection operating at the level of figurine production. In such a scenario, we should envisage that all genders were likely to have been involved in figurine production to a lesser or greater degree.

I would argue that, if we continue to apply such models, we run the risk of drawing largely uncritical conclusions on the

116

116

Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

7.2.4 Concluding remarks on gender in Neolithic society through the study of figurines Gender identities appear to have been constructed on a dialectic basis throughout the Neolithic. Emphasis on parts of the body related to reproduction or fertility, decoration denoting modes of external appearance and modelled postures imply distinct gender identities. The physical body also appears to have played an underpinning role, as indicated by the widespread and often emphatic modelling of anatomical features on figurines and the modelling of clay phalloi. The presence of Ambiguous figurines, however, suggests that the physical body may not have had a one-to-one correspondence with gender. Though gender did play a structuring role in Neolithic Aegean communities, assuming a bi-polar gender model would impose our modern western preconceptions on a prehistoric society. Age is also likely to have operated as an additional parameter for the construction of social identity and status, as implied, not only by Asexual figurines, but also by funerary customs of the Neolithic Aegean. A diachronic examination of figurines suggests that the ways in which gender was constructed became more complex from the end of the MN and through the LN period. Evidence suggests greater elaboration in the manipulation of external appearance which together with the postural repertoire implies differentiated social status. Such trends need to be interpreted in the context of increased complexity that characterised Neolithic communities on an economic and social level and which defined relationships between social groups. As LN society imposed more forcefully a set of prescribed social norms in the context of increasing social competition, gender and social status became closely entangled. This emphasis on gender may imply that gender acted as the vehicle through which social norms could be successfully enforced and maintained, possibly along a patrilineal or matrilineal system of descent and/or succession. In the FN the archaeological record indicates that social differentiation continued among communities (Halstead 1989, 76; Kotsakis 1999, 71). Evidence for individual interments from different parts of the Aegean (Davis 1992, 96; Vagnetti and Belli 1978) suggests that the individual might have held a special place in his/her community. We should envisage that this individuality may have been played out against an overriding communal identity. At the same time figurine evidence breaks from the earlier tradition with elements of abstraction and schematisation. It is possible that the underplayed anatomical and cultural bodies of figurines were symptomatic of an ever increasing consensus within Neolithic society regarding gender roles. If we also take into account ceramic evidence that indicates homogenisation and regional alliance (Vitelli 1999, 103), then we may envisage that gender played a secondary role in relation to the overarching intercommunity coalitions. Population movement into new areas (Broodbank 2000, 144) and the parallel movement of goods (Halstead 1994, 207; Nakou 1995) may have placed

more emphasis on group identity as opposed to gender. Though gender undoubtedly continued to play a structuring role in FN society, the focus may have shifted to social, community or cultural identity. Exploring aspects of circulation and use of figurines can also provide us with possible scenarios surrounding their involvement in practices that shaped social identity and relationships. Fowler has argued that personhood can be understood through the interpretation of the transactions taking place between people, between people and things and other entities (2004, 88). Moreover, in the context of partible relations (i.e. in which the partible person is considered as being made up of a number of substances and actions of others) the process of exchange between people means that the part they give away is encompassed by another person and that allows the formation of new relationships (Fowler 2004, 150). In such relationships the transactions of things between people transfer qualities from one person to another (Fowler 2004, 31), parts of persons are removed and exchanged and become parts of others (Fowler 2004, 36). Also it is possible that fractal processes operated in such relationships according to which things can be parts of persons and they can also be persons (Fowler 2004, 43). The case appears even more relevant when the exchanged artefacts represented people. It is possible that such relationships also existed in early prehistoric Aegean, whereby social bonds were maintained with the transference of parts of people through the exchanged objects (enchainment), as suggested by Chapman for the Neolithic and Copper Age of the Balkans (2000, 2001). In such a scenario, the exchange of figurines among people in Neolithic Aegean communities may have served to create and reinforce the social and ideological bonds between individuals and/or social groups. Figurines have revealed the intricate ways in which gender and social relationships were constructed and enacted. Though genders appear to have been differentiated in the Neolithic, neither figurine nor other evidence can support a scenario of gender inequality. On these grounds, it would be more appropriate to envisage differentiated, but complementary gender roles with men and women working alongside each other to ensure the survival of their family or kin group. A fragment of a storage vessel from the cave of Tharounia (Orphanidi 1998, pl. 74) depicting a man and woman side-byside perhaps should be read in this light. We may not be able to offer definitive answers regarding the use of figurines. It is worth considering, however, that in the absence of written religious codes that serve to moderate social ethics, anthropomorphic figurines served to preserve, perpetuate or even challenge socially acceptable ways of gender conduct and performance.

117

117

Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

7.3 EBA figurines interpretation

and

gender:

a

proposed

In this section the discussion is not subdivided chronologically. One of the factors that has inhibited a chronological division is the degree of inconsistency between typological and contextual dates of Cycladic figurines. Moreover, the fact that figurines seem to have been curated for an extended period suggests that their form and meaning were relevant even after the period of their manufacture. If we now add the difficulties caused by unclear provenance of some of the figurines, as well as the continuous use of some of the contexts, the task of delineating figurines in a precise chronological frame becomes even more unrealistic. For all those reasons, the discussion is presented on a thematic basis, while focusing on particular chronological phases when it is necessary to place the discussion in the context of specific socio-economic developments. For the purposes of the interpretation, and as revealed through analysis of decoration and posture, Female and Female form figurines have been equated with women and femaleness, Male figurines with men and maleness, and Ambiguous figurines with a possible third gender. Asexual figurines, in contrast to their Neolithic counterparts, lack a convincing association with any of the above gender categories, which is why for the EBA they are proposed as representations intended to express social or communal status over gender identity.

7.3.1 Figurines and the representation of gender A comparison with the Neolithic corpus shows that Asexual, as opposed to Female, figurines dominate the EBA assemblage. The predominance of Asexual figurines may be revealing a certain shift in norms governing social attitudes and figurine production. Asexual representations reveal a degree of overlap with both Male and Female figurines, unlike Neolithic Asexual figurines that are closely connected with the Female variety. I would argue that the increase of Asexual figurines could be explained as a result of a growing intention to communicate social status rather than gender identity, though age may have also played a part in the construction and hence representation of social status. Note also that the trend for schematisation and abstraction of form was already becoming apparent from the FN, which parallels evidence for a prevalence of communal identity over idiosyncratic gender experiences. Finally, as I have already pointed out, the high proportion of Asexual figurines does not allow us to draw a link with a third gender, since third genders are rarely detected cross-culturally, are difficult to maintain socially and would have also numbered fewer members than other gender categories (Herdt 1994, 22, 50, 80). Two more points have emerged from the comparison with the Neolithic period: on one hand, the continuing production of Female figurines, and on the other, the comparable ratio of Female to Male figurines. The considerable proportion of

Female figurines suggests that notions related to femininity and womanhood continued to play an important role in the social and ideological order of EBA society. At the same time, male life experiences and related concepts continued to hold a marginal place. If, as I propose, Asexual figurines were primarily intended to communicate social status, we could then argue that social or communal identity may have gained prominence over gender identity. The fact that Asexual figurines are not geographically restricted suggests that it is not a typology-related phenomenon, but rather reflects a trend throughout the EBA Aegean. Moreover, the circulation and deposition of Asexual figurines in the same contexts as other figurines does not point to differential use which could explain their distinct modelling. Finally, rare Ambiguous forms were also being produced in the EBA period which may have in fact have represented a third gender, though it is also possible they represented mythological constructs. The existence of Ambiguous figurines, therefore, could imply that EBA society may not have been organised on a bi-polar gender basis, similar to Neolithic social order.

7.3.2 Figurines and the embodied gender The main difference between the two periods in the rendering of the female body is the shift from steatopygous and corpulent to more proportionate models. While in the Neolithic the female body was modelled in a variety of proportions, in the EBA its modelling became more standardised and less idiosyncratic. Apart from implications regarding dietary or aesthetic changes in the EBA, it is more likely we are witnessing a shift from the representation of living individuals to more socially static personae, further distanced from the practicalities and realities of everyday life. The only Thessalian site that covers the FN and EBA period (Pefkakia) and which has produced a considerable number of figurines should be expected to show a continuation of figurine-making typology bridging the strong Thessalian Neolithic tradition with the new material repertoire of the EBA. On the contrary, despite the very distinct tradition of Thessalian naturalistic figurines in the Neolithic, the FN-EBA figurines from Pefkakia took a very different form, much more schematic and abstract, though a few Neolithic elements suggest some overlap. Moreover, the trend for schematisation of figurine bodies further supports the argument that EBA figurines represented a different social identity to that expressed in the Neolithic period. In fact, the increase of standardisation in figurine production reflects a new intention to represent particular social or idealised identities, rather than the variety of form that the anatomical and cultural body takes in real life. Regarding gender identity, therefore, EBA Female figurines seem to be lacking the experiential element of the Neolithic. Instead they embodied a more idealised concept of womanhood, possibly also indicating a disconnection between the gender of the producer and the represented gender of figurines. At the same time, the detected restriction of form may have been the result of gender ‘rigidity’ in the EBA Aegean that would have in turn dictated specific

118

118

Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

ways of representation of female and male bodies, regardless of the producer’s gender. The standardisation in the way the human, and in particular, the female body was modelled also suggests a control over the production of socially accepted female imagery. In turn, the production and form of EBA Female figurines imply that they embodied idealised social personae, relatively divorced from idiosyncratic life experiences, but also that female gender behaviour and role was characterised by a higher degree of formality in the EBA than in the Neolithic period. Turning now to Male figurines, the few that were manufactured were produced exclusively in a proportionate form, again marking a similar shift from corpulent shapes to more stylised ones in the EBA, which suggests a general restriction in the way the human body was modelled. Similar suggestions can also be put forward for Male figurines regarding male gender identity as a social ideal rather than an expression of idiosyncratic experiences. Female form figurines display an overlap with Female figurines in the postural and decorative repertoire. It is likely that Female form models represented a summary form of female bodies, possibly linked to age-related stages. Asexual and Ambiguous figurines also follow the general EBA trend for greater stylisation and standardisation of human shape, implying again relative social rigidity. In fact, as proposed earlier, Asexual figurines may be indicating the intention to express primarily the social or communal identity of individuals, regardless of gender.

7.3.3 Posture and gender embodiment A comparison between the Neolithic and EBA samples has revealed a number of changes. The EBA postural repertoire lacks the emphasis on sexual and/or reproduction-related parts of the female and male body apparent with Neolithic figurines. Neither Female nor Male EBA figurines exhibit such traits. For Female figurines the theme of fertility is expressed through the modelling of pregnancy (fig. 7.9), or post-pregnancy flesh folds. EBA Male figurines, on the other hand, are not modelled with any emphasis on the biological dimension of their identity. The lack of postural emphasis on aspects related to reproduction and sexuality may be indicating a shift in focus from the corporeality of gender towards socially bound identities. Overall, EBA figurines exhibit a distinct postural repertoire. Characteristic is the posture representing figurines with their arms folded below the breasts or on the abdomen mainly associated with Female figurines. The Neolithic emphasis on sexuality and reproduction, therefore, is replaced in the EBA with highly standardised and widely shared modelled postures. Though figurines from the North, East Aegean and Macedonia display a distinct postural range, they too lack an emphasis on reproduction-related body parts. Hoffman has dispelled the possibility that the folded-arm posture was associated with funerary customs, since bodies in the Cyclades were buried in

the flexed position and the arms were not folded across the body (2002, 530). In support of the same argument I would also add that the folded-arm posture is also featured on seated figurines displaying active gestures (one raised arm holding a cup). Since the folded-arm posture is not linked to funerary customs, we can assume that it expressed a socially meaningful corporeal articulation. Moreover, the wide distribution and standardised modelling of the folded-arm posture implies that we may be detecting socially accepted or even prescribed ways of conduct. Though we cannot pretend to understand human experiences across space and time, it would be reasonable to suggest that the folded-arm posture, but also equally standardised postures for Male figurines, implies restriction of movement and static corporeal performance. The association of set postures for all figurine categories, though mainly for Female figurines, suggests socially imposed norms and socially delineated ways of conduct for both men and women. Moreover, the contrast between postures for Female and Male figurines suggests a degree of polarisation in terms of gender performance and socially-constructed ideals for men and women. A posture shared between the Neolithic and EBA periods represented figurines seated on miniature chairs or stools. As has already been argued, such postures imply elevated social status. Though it is often assumed that EBA seated figurines represented men (with the associated implications for social supremacy), analysis has in fact revealed a different pattern. Specifically, of the two seated figurines on chairs, one is Male and the other Female. Furthermore, of the figurines seated on stools, four are Female (fig. 7.10), two are Male and four more are Asexual. On the basis of this evidence, we need to rethink the presumed social supremacy of men over women in EBA Aegean society. Moreover, the modelling of seated Female figurines dispels scenarios for a presumed deterioration of women’s status with the advent of the EBA. Of course, such seated Female figurines did not represent female population in general. They may have represented members of a distinct social group (after all marble figurines accompanied rich burials) or they may have been modelled in the form of lineage head, considering the practice of ancestor worship. Indisputably the same hypothesis must also hold true for seated Male figurines and the proportion of male population they represented. The important point, however, is that figurine evidence indicates that both genders could assume positions of distinct social status. Other types of evidence have also indicated that there is no basis for unequal gender relationships. The comparison between the two samples has also revealed changes at the level of thematic modelling. The modelling of kourotrophoi appears to have been discontinued for Female figurines or figurines of any category for that matter. A new range of postures, however, emerged in the EBA and included the modelling of musicians playing the harp or the flute. Out of a sample of seven musicians, three are Male (one Probably Male) and three more are Asexual. As with seated figurines, an association was assumed in earlier interpretations between

119

119

Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

male representations and the modelling of musicians with implications for a distinct social status of men. The association between the modelling of musicians and Male figurines is evident, especially in the absence of Female specimens. The fact, however, that an equal number represented Asexual figurines, warns us against generalising statements regarding male figurines. Asexual musician figurines may suggest that the rendering of gender was inconsequential to the modelling of a musician’s distinct social role. Nevertheless, the modelling of seated musicians suggests that distinct social roles of elevated status emerged in the EBA. Such postural themes appear to coincide with the trend for socially prescribed roles and conduct, as argued earlier with reference to gender. Moreover, the posture representing a seated Asexual figurine from Manika raising a cup (Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1991, pl. 7) further supports the argument for socially prescribed performances. Cups were contained in both male and female burials (Sampson 1988), suggesting that men and women took part in the conspicuous consumption of liquid substances. It has been argued that wine-drinking (if in fact it was wine) consumed in social-ceremonies bestowed social power (Sherratt 2000). We should envisage, therefore, that both men and women participated in such social occasions, possibly of a communal or commemorative character. A final postural theme that holds central place in the discussion of EBA male figurines with implications for the understanding of male status in Aegean society is that of the hunter-warrior. Gill and Chippindale (1993) have already exposed the problems of authenticity surrounding the hunter-warrior category. Since none of the often discussed male hunterwarrior examples meet the criteria that ensure their authenticity, they have not been included in the analysed sample. Despite concerns surrounding the authenticity of such male figurines, however, an assumed warrior status for men with implications for a powerful social status is often evoked in narratives of Cycladic prehistory. Admittedly, a drawing of a figurine at the British Museum representing a male hunterwarrior can be considered genuine (Fitton 1984, fig. 2). In the analysed sample, however, the only two secure figurines bearing a baldric are Female (fig. 7.11), which calls for a review of our modernist understanding of warrior status in the context of EBA society. Though the partial Female figurine bears an intersecting diagonal band, nevertheless the posture of the arms and the horizontal band suggest the presence of a penis sheath, suggestive of hunter-warrior insignia. An interesting detail visible in fig. 7.11 is the modelling of a penis sheath on an otherwise Female figurine. We cannot be certain whether this model was intended to represent a third gender or women assuming a “male” role. However, I am more inclined to argue for an overlap of military status between genders. If we compare the Female hunter-warrior figurine with the drawing from the British Museum, we see a difference in the placement of hands. The Female hunter-warrior figurine (fig. 7.11) represents a variation of the folded-arm posture, strongly associated with Female figurines and distinct from the posture displayed by the male model (see Fitton 1984, fig. 2). Whether

the suggested warrior status for women was symbolical or actual is not something we can answer with certainty. Moreover, archaeological analysis has revealed that we cannot assume an a priori link between weaponry and men (Lucy 1997; Vida Navarro 1992). Nevertheless, the EBA indicates that weaponry did play an important role in the way gender and social identity was performed and communicated. Though evidence from the Aegean suggests an association between knives, obsidian blades and male burials (Maggidis 1998, Sampson 1988), the available number of EBA sexed burials is too limited to establish an association between female burials and weaponry. The evidence for Female figurines with warrior insignia, however, opens up a new scope for the understanding of female social identity. It is possible that women either participated in warfare and hunting activities, or their perceived warrior status may have been constructed at a ritual level. Such previously overlooked powerful imagery should at least challenge and widen our interpretation of gender roles, social status and organisation of the EBA Aegean. Recapitulating the points raised above, EBA figurines display distinct patterns of modelling and thematic representation. Apart from the implied cultural break from the Neolithic period, the EBA figurine corpus is characterised by the emergence of distinct social roles paralleled by a tighter prescription over social norms. At the same time, the available evidence has also exposed some of the androcentric biases that have coloured interpretations of figurines in relation to gender and social status, indicating more a state of social symmetry rather than inequality between genders.

7.3.4 Decoration, symbolism and implications for the understanding of gender A comparative analysis with the Neolithic period has shown a clear decline in the number of motifs applied to EBA figurines. As I have already argued, however, it is possible that the decreasing level of decoration may be related to the shift from clay to marble as the main material used for the production of figurines. Nevertheless, on the basis of surviving decoration evidence, EBA figurines display a much narrower repertoire of motifs across the categories of body painting and clothing. Often the representation of attire was expressed mainly through the modelling of the outline shape and not through the use of motifs, as in the case of Cretan figurines. The theme of clothing is in fact apparent throughout the Aegean to a higher or lesser degree, with a bias towards Female figurines in the Cyclades and the Peloponnese, while on Crete and in the North and East Aegean clothed figurines represented mainly Asexual shapes (fig. 7.12). Clothing often concealed the torso and pubic area, while the waist and hips were often emphasised with the modelling of a band or “belt” on mainly Female form figurines. Headdresses were also modelled especially on Cycladic and Cretan Asexual figurines. The modelling of headdresses, apart from denoting rank (Wason 1994, 105), may have also expressed social group affiliation (for Middle Minoan figurines

120

120

Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

see Pilali-Papasteriou 1989, 100). Overall, I do not believe that the limited range of motifs depicting clothing in the EBA implies that body manipulation through attire became less important in the embodiment of gender or social identity. On the contrary, the richness of the archaeological record, as indicated by pins used to fasten together fabrics, or loomweights indicating the production of textiles, suggest an elaboration of costume in the EBA. Pigment has survived scantily which is why we need to draw our conclusions with caution. Surviving pigment on unprovenanced figurines suggests that it may have been used to emphasise and outline anatomical features, namely the eyes, eyebrows and hair in dark paint, the female pubic area in blue (Getz-Preziosi 1987b, 54; Hendrix 1998, 11), as well as the nostrils with the use of red and possibly the mouth (GetzPreziosi 1987b, 54; Gill and Chippindale 1993, 656; Hendrix 1998, 8, 11; Renfrew 1969, 23). Other EBA painted motifs represented jewellery, most often worn around the neck as necklaces and rarely as bracelets around the arms. Unprovenanced figurines are also known to bear traces of paint that denoted diadems or necklaces (Birtacha 2003, 270; GetzPreziosi 1987b, 54; Hoffman 2002, 530; Renfrew 1969, 23). Such motifs have been detected in the analysed sample on figurines mainly from the Cyclades, as well as Crete and the North and East Aegean, a largely EB I and II pattern. In the Cyclades jewellery motifs were predominantly associated with Female and Female form figurines and less often with Asexual ones. On Crete, however, mainly Asexual figurines bore such motifs, while jewellery motifs in the North and East Aegean appear to have decorated Male and Female figurines indiscriminately (fig. 7.13). Important implications result from the correlation between jewellery motifs and Cycladic Female and Female form figurines. Jewellery as a category of grave goods has been associated with women (Maggidis 1998, 91; Sampson 1988) and metal jewellery was also contained in rich burials (Maggidis 1998, 91-92; Sampson 1988, 41). The inclusion of jewellery in female burials, therefore, and the modelling of jewellery motifs on female representations imply a distinct social status for women in the EBA Aegean. Finally, jewellery motifs were depicted on figurines from the Cyclades, Crete and the North and East Aegean. Metal objects especially in these areas would have been part of the social mechanisms that structured and expressed social status. In turn, social status interwoven with gender identity gives women a central place in processes that enacted and communicated high social rank. Motifs expressing body decoration or tattooing are far fewer in the EBA, possibly as a result of the differential survival of pigment on clay and marble surfaces. The limited evidence for body decoration motifs suggests that they occur throughout the Aegean, but do not show a bias towards female or male representations. It is also worth mentioning that motifs denoting tattoos have been observed on unprovenanced pieces in linear or abstract forms with a possible ritual meaning (e.g.

eye motif; see Hendrix 1998, fig. 15) and adorned the face, chest or the whole body of the figurine (Getz-Preziosi 1987b, 54; Gill and Chippindale 1993, 656; Hendrix 1998, 8, 9, 11). Such motifs may be indicating the practice of body decoration through body painting, tattooing or scarification (Getz-Preziosi and Weinberg 1970, 11; Papadatos 2003, 286). Such customs appear to have been part of the everyday life, as suggested by finds of the EBA archaeological record (Broodbank 2000, 249), including marble palettes bearing pigment, clay jars with traces of pigment, tattooing needles, as well as obsidian blades which may have served as scarification tools, among other uses. Figurine evidence and objects of the archaeological record, therefore, suggest that the alteration of the outer surface of the body continued to inscribe and communicate social and gender identity in EBA Aegean. In summary, despite the diminishing evidence for decoration on EBA figurines, the recovery of artefacts related to the manipulation of personal appearance in the form of attirerelated accessories, jewellery, tattooing equipment and toiletkits in fact suggest an increased elaboration in the way social and gender identity was embodied and communicated (Broodbank 2000, 248-9). The evidence for painted motifs on figurines and the inclusion of painting matter in burials suggests that there was a parallel symbolism between figurines and humans that was expressed through body decoration (Papadatos 2003, 286). Moreover, the association of colour palettes and bone tubes containing pigment with rich female burials (Sampson 1987, 23) indicates that for women the manipulation of their corporeal surface was central for the embodiment and communication of their gender and social identity. Men of high status may not have been excluded from this practice, albeit in the form of a different socially accepted medium, such as the shaving of hair or scarification (Carter 1994), as suggested by the presence of obsidian blades in male burials (for Phourni see Maggidis 1998, fig. 6.5). The comparison between figurines and other types of evidence, therefore, implies that figurine manufacture was informed by practices of everyday life, even if figurine use may have belonged to the sphere of ideology. Another insightful aspect of decoration is the association between the use of pigment and intended symbolism. In comparison to the Neolithic, there is a slight decrease in the range and combinations of colours used for the decoration of figurines, although that again may be linked to colour survivability on marble surfaces. Unfortunately, the limited available evidence does not allow us to draw secure associations between the use of pigment and the represented sex. Nevertheless, we can discuss the use of pigment in relation to the modelled body. In general, black was used to denote facial features and hair, while red depicted symbolic motifs on the faces and bodies of figurines, as also indicated by unprovenanced figurines (Hendrix 1998, Hoffman 2002). Blue, which in the LN-FN period was linked with the emergence of metallurgy, became much more widely used in the EBA to emphasise the body, facial features and pubic area of figurines

121

121

Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

(Hoffman 2002, 531). White, also used in the Neolithic, is not used as often, though it may have been substituted by the use of white marble for the production of figurines. An association between the use of colour and the represented sex reveals that red most often decorated Female and Female form figurines on the face and forehead, the neck, chest, back and arms, as well as the lower body of Female form models. Black appears to have been restricted to an emphatic use on facial features, at least in the Cyclades. Interestingly, the Peloponnese exhibits a different repertoire regarding the use of colours (more brown and red and brown and cream combinations on Female and Female form figurines), suggesting a different tradition and symbolic vocabulary regarding the marking especially of female bodies.

women’s involvement in seafaring activities. Furthermore, the engraving of female genitalia on ‘frying pans’ depicting long boats (Broodbank 2000, 253) further support the association between women and seafaring. We can speculate about men’s involvement in seafaring and metal trade from the inclusion of frying-pans in male burials in Euboia (Sampson 1988), often decorated with a maritime theme in the Cyclades (Broodbank 2000, 97). The drawing of a male hunter-warrior also offers support for the connection between men and seafaring (Fitton 1984). Following the synthesis of the available evidence, therefore, we could envisage a connection of both genders in maritime activities, metallurgy and the movement of goods, possibly at different stages, varying degrees of involvement or in different modes (actual and/or ritual).

A number of suggestions can be put forward regarding the possible symbolisms associated with the use of pigment. Red has been linked to the ideas of bleeding, life and birth (Walisewska 1991, 39), as well as minerals and pigment (Chapman 2002, 51). The application of red pigment on Female and Female form figurines in the Cyclades may have depicted either body decoration through scarification (hence the bleeding and flesh cuts), mourning customs (Hoffman 2002), the life-related symbolisms, or menstruation. Though red was also used in the Neolithic, EBA evidence does not reveal an emphasis on reproduction-related anatomical parts, possibly suggesting a move away from the biological properties of gender to more socially-bound identities. Limited surviving evidence for pigment does not allow us to establish with certainty whether red was used exclusively on Female and Female form figurines.

In summary, though the available evidence does not allow us to draw exclusive links between the use of decoration and the represented sex, the fact that traces of motifs and colour survive mainly on Female figurines would imply that at least women played a key role in the communication and maintenance of cultural emblems and ideological knowledge (David et al 1988, 378; Hodder 1982). Other suggestions surrounding body decoration practices, as revealed though the association of bone tubes with female skeletons (Sampson 1988) and Female decorated figurines, could imply that women also played a role in the communication of social identity (Turner 1995, 146) possibly interwoven with lineage history (Rainbird 2002, 237) and/or age-related stages (Joyce 2002, 15-25). Evidence for similar corporeal manipulation practices still remains to be inferred from Male figurines, though the association between men and obsidian blades on Crete (Maggidis 1998) allows us to speculate that men may have also employed such implements for shaving and scarification practices (Carter 1994). Moreover, it is also possible that outside Euboia, the use of pigment material may have not been restricted to women.

Blue tends to be linked ethnographically to water and celestial elements (Chapman 2002, 51; Walisewska 1991, 39). I would add that the use of azurite and its association with copper source also point to a connection with metallurgy. The wide use of blue in body decoration practices, but also for the decoration of figurines, lead us to two inferences: (a) that seafaring (water blue) and metallurgy (copper blue) played a fundamental role in the lives of Aegean maritime communities on a social and symbolic level (Broodbank 2000, 249-251) and (b) that Cycladic figurines in particular encapsulated ideological concerns surrounding sea-faring and metallurgy. Though blue pigment has not survived on secure figurines, it has been detected on the pubic area of unprovenanced female figurines (Hendrix 1998, 11). Moreover, bone tubes containing blue pigment have been associated with female burials (Sampson 1987, 1988). Though the same associations between genders and material culture in Euboia may not have applied in the Cyclades, we can cautiously propose that the connection between women and blue pigments may have been expressing an actual and/or symbolic link between women and metallurgy, seafaring and celestial elements. Moreover, the modelling of Female hunter-warriors may indicate a connection between women and seafaring. The rock-pecking from Korphi t’ Aroniou depicting a canoe and a sexless figure holding a dagger (Broodbank 2000, 97-9) leaves open the possibility for

In summary, the study of EBA figurine evidence offers insights at the level of gender embodiment and ideological symbolism. In fact, figurines’ biographical properties (Papadatos 2003, 286) (not contradicting their spiritual quality, since ancestors, lineage heads or heroic individuals may have been elevated to a mythical, religious status) paralleled everyday practices and real life experiences. The representation of body decoration on figurines suggests that the manipulation of the corporeal surface may have served as a mnemonic tool that served to inscribe community history on the physical body (Rainbird 2002, 237). Such motifs may have also stood as cultural markers (David et al 1988, 378; Hodder 1982) signifying valuable affiliations, kin relations, alliances (Rainbird 2002, 237), as well as social status (Turner 1995, 146) for the purposes of exogamy, or endogamy. Apart from the sharing of ideas, the movement of Cycladic imported or emulated figurines may have paralleled demographic movements between the Cyclades, Euboia, the Central Mainland and Crete.

122

122

Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

7.3.5 Suggested use of figurines and implications for the understanding of gender A comparison with Neolithic figurines shows that evidence suggests a change in the use of figurines in the EBA, if not in meaning. Information regarding the recovery context of figurines, however, would suggest that their use may have varied across the Aegean. Aspects regarding manufacture also offer insights into the use of figurines. The larger size of some of the EBA figurines, the time expended for their manufacture and the skills required (Oustinoff 1984) indicate that a higher material and possibly ideological value may have been attached to figurines than in the Neolithic period. In addition, their limited circulation in high status, rich burials in the Cyclades and Euboia indicates that at least marble figurines were associated with a small group of people as prestige objects, as opposed to Neolithic figurines which have been recovered from largely comparable contexts. Moreover, the use of exotic cinnabar to denote red motifs on Cycladic figurines, as well as the difficulty in recovering, processing and application of coarse azurite for decoration purposes, indicate the special value that such objects would have held in EBA society (Birtacha 2003, 263; Hendrix 1998, 8). The fact that the same pigments were also used for the decoration of other prestigious objects, such as marble vessels and containers (Birtacha 2003, 266, 268), further indicate figurines’ status as highly prized objects. Also the wider distribution of similar stylistic forms in the EBA implies compliance to a certain degree with shared ideological and social norms, as opposed to the relatively idiosyncratic Neolithic figurines. A number of inferences can be drawn from the issues raised above regarding gender and social organisation. Evidence suggesting the special value of EBA figurines as prized possessions, as well as their close association with high status individuals, imply a degree of restriction over their production and use. Furthermore, the increased typological standardisation also suggests limited agency from the part of the producer, as well as compliance with principles that governed aspects of ideology and society. It is possible, therefore, that EBA figurines may have represented idealised images in accordance to prescribed norms overriding social and ideological life. The restriction and control over the production of human imagery may have also paralleled closer monitoring of gender roles and identities in the EBA than in the Neolithic period. In addition, EBA evidence indicating a shift from largely domestic to communal rites (i.e. funerary events) involving figurines implies a change from autonomous performance of rites to increased external control over the exercise of ritual traditions, and an intensified collective construction of social identities (see Blake 2005, 110). Moreover, the repetition of form, but also of practices surrounding the use of EBA figurines served to emboss commonly held social values (including those surrounding gender) into the minds and bodies of community members (see Blake 2005, 104).

The ideas of enchainment and fractal processes in partible relations as expressed by Chapman (2000, 2001) and Fowler (2004) have already been explained with regards to Neolithic figurines. It is possible that in the EBA similar exchanges, aiming at the formation and maintenance of social bonds, may have operated in living context as in the case of North Aegean communities, but also in the Cyclades or Crete where evidence for figurines from settlement strata (Doumas 1977, 61) and signs of repair (Doumas 1977, 63) suggest the withdrawal of figurines from circulation and their deposition in burials. The mortuary evidence from the Cyclades and Crete, however, and more specifically the inclusion of fragmented figurines inside graves, may be an indication of enchainment between the living, the dead and the ancestors through the deposition of human imagery, as suggested by Chapman for Hamangian figurines (2000, 79).

7.3.6 Concluding remarks: gender in EBA society through the study of figurines The study of figurine corpus has thrown light on aspects of EBA social organisation and gender construction. Analysis has revealed that EBA society drew gender distinctions between men and women. The differentiated modelling of Male and Female figurines in terms of posture and decoration suggests that EBA society recognised them as distinct gender identities. The overlap between Female and Female form may also be an indication that age played a structuring role in the construction of social identities. Furthermore, the existence of Ambiguous figurines implies that EBA society may have not been organised on a bi-polar basis, suggesting that gender was not constructed solely on a biological basis. Overall, EBA figurines are characterised mainly by a standardisation of form for male and female representations, implying that gender categories may have solidified to a greater degree than in the earlier Neolithic. Furthermore, the neutrality expressed through EBA figurines of Thessaly or the North and East Aegean, the absence of emphasis on reproduction or sexuality related features across the Aegean also imply that gender and social identities in general were mainly expressed through social codes, rather than in connection to biological properties. This move away from the physical dimension of gender identities is also indicated by the predominance of Asexual figurines in the EBA, which have been proposed to indicate a prevalence of social, communal identity over individual gender experiences. The increased abstraction in form and the predominance of Asexual figurines may have resulted from an intensified emphasis on social status or communal identity over gender status. In fact, the repeated and standardised modelling, postures and decoration of figurines suggests that they represented fixed social categories and not idiosyncratic experiences of gender. The emergence of established social categories is also evident by the modelling of distinct figurine forms, such as musicians or hunter-warriors. The production and modelling of figurines, therefore, suggest that they were intended to reiterate social order through the performance of

123

123

Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

prescribed social norms. The standardisation of figurine forms also reveals a degree of consensus on the construction and performance of gender roles. Grave goods and artefacts related to the manipulation of personal appearance also point to a greater elaboration in the way male and female roles were constructed, performed and communicated. In terms of gender roles, women or womanhood played a central role for the maintenance and order of EBA society on a social and ideological level, as suggested by the relative predominance of female imagery. Figurine evidence, but also artefacts related to body painting practices also suggest that the manipulation of women’s external appearance may have been relevant for the maintenance and communication of cultural identity, as suggested on the basis of ethnographic accounts. Also, the equal participation of women in the spheres of wealth and rank in EBA society, as attested through grave goods and figurine evidence implying elevated status, warns us against interpretations that propose an automatic deterioration of women’s status in the EBA. Despite the distinction between male and female gender categories, figurine evidence suggests that equal opportunities were open to both men and women to negotiate and establish socially distinct positions. The emergence of a warrior status and its associations with activities such as fighting or raiding (Broodbank 2000, 253) indicates new social roles in EBA society. The representation of male and female figurines as hunter-warriors challenges our perceptions of passive women and suggests a society in which military prowess (actual or symbolic) was not a sole reserve for men. Regarding gender dynamics, therefore, evidence does not indicate gender asymmetries in the EBA, despite the increased consolidation of gender roles. Powerful imagery of men and women suggests that they participated equally in social processes that conferred social status. The burial record also indicates that gender did not play a part in social differentiation, since both men and women were often buried even inside the same tombs and in a way that does not suggest differential treatment. Though it has been estimated that Minoan tholoi contained more men than women, there is no evidence to indicate that men were buried separately from women (Cosmopoulos 1995, 26-7). Moreover, the lack of any gender-exclusive patterns among more humble groups does not support social asymmetry between men and women. I would argue that evidence for gender inequality should be detected in later phases of Aegean prehistory. Associating the emergence of the EBA, therefore, with the rise of patriarchy is chronologically premature and further perpetuates modern preconceptions in the way we impose modern-day models on prehistoric societies. Finally, we cannot draw secure links between gender and the production of figurines. Nevertheless, EBA figurines indicate a break from earlier traditions of figurine manufacture, not only in the preferred material, but also in the rendering of human form. Furthermore, the association between producers of stone vessels and figurines (Getz-Gentle 1996, xiv, 26, 101, 102) suggests the emergence of new manufacturing traditions in the

EBA, possibly implying a shift in the organisation of figurine production. The diminishing evidence for elements of selfprojection in EBA figurines, coupled with the increased standardisation, imply that there may no longer have been an overlap between the gender of the producer and the gender represented in figurine form, as indicated in the Neolithic period. Such alienation between figurine producers and the figurine product concurs with the suggestion for increased social control over the production of figurines and thus the social values projected onto figurines in the EBA period.

7.4 Opportunities and implications for the understanding of gender in early Aegean prehistory Applying systematic and uniform methods for the study of Neolithic and EBA figurines has allowed us to move beyond existing epistemological boundaries in Aegean figurine studies. Bridging Neolithic and EBA figurines has in turn demonstrated an unbroken tradition of manufacture from the aceramic Neolithic and throughout the EBA period. The correlation and comparison of results from figurine analysis with other types of available evidence have provided the canvas on which has been drawn the broader picture of gender and social organisation in the prehistoric Aegean. Moreover, the application of a uniform methodological tactic for both sets of data has enabled us to detect diachronic changes in social attitudes, the construction and performance of gender. Ultimately, the diachronic study of figurines has allowed us to explore shifts at the level of social and economic organisation and examine the validity of social models often applied on prehistoric societies. Moreover, adopting a material culture perspective has allowed us to consider prehistoric agency, intentionality and social action, not otherwise possible if figurines had remained trapped in the confines of aesthetic appreciation or religion. Behind the production of aesthetically pleasing forms lays the intention of prehistoric people to express their understanding and ordering of their world. Gender is central to the processes that classify and shape society, and unless we include gender as an analytical category in our interpretations, the full spectrum of parameters that influence prehistoric social organisation will be eluding us. The present study has thrown light on aspects regarding gender with wider implications for the understanding of prehistoric social organisation. Analysis has revealed the ways in which gender, social and personal identity was embodied in the Neolithic and EBA Aegean and has stressed the dialectic basis on which gender was constructed and communicated in both periods. Moreover, drawing attention to largely overlooked figurine categories (Female form, Asexual and Ambiguous) has revealed the role played by age and the possibility for third genders, suggesting a complexity in the way gender was constructed and embodied throughout the Neolithic and EBA. Acknowledging the variation in figurine typology has also moved us beyond the overemphasised predominance of female representations and interpretative models proposing a

124

124

Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

dichotomous gender organisation. Figurine analysis has also allowed us to detect changes in the processes through which society prescribed social norms and identities. Nevertheless, the available evidence does not support the scenario for female dominance in the Neolithic or male supremacy in the EBA period, despite evidence for increasing social control. In fact, the dynamics between genders appear to have maintained a relative equilibrium through the Neolithic and EBA periods, as indicated by figurine and other evidence.

fundamental issues that archaeologists seek to understand and explain.

A re-examination of the represented imagery has also exposed androcentric assumptions that have coloured at least some of the earlier interpretations of EBA figurines that have proposed or implied a transition from an earlier matrifocal to a patriarchal social order. Indiscriminate use of unprovenanced figurines, coupled with a biased focus on male representations, have put forward modernist social models in an attempt to pinpoint the birth of social structure as we experience it today. Evidence has shown, however, that gender relationships and dynamics were not characterised by escalating social asymmetries that would have paralleled an evolutionary line of developments, occasionally presumed for prehistoric societies. In fact, gender relationships and roles in the majority of EBA households may have changed very little from the social arrangements of the Neolithic period. Accepting that there is a correlation between population density and social complexity, the diversity that characterises population levels and settlement patterns in the EBA Aegean, as well as the overlap with aspects of Neolithic demography warn us against oversimplified interpretative models. It would not be unreasonable, therefore, to envisage small-scale EBA communities operating more on the level of largely egalitarian Neolithic societies in terms of social status and gender dynamics. At the same time, we need to recognise the idiosyncratic performance of gender identities and possibly roles across different regions and cultural groups of the Aegean. Recent comparative research conducted by the author between Crete and Cyprus (in press) has in fact demonstrated the diverse trajectories and rhythms of social development followed by different regions in the Mediterranean. The implications that result from the present study also affect the way we understand Aegean prehistoric society and economy, since the issues of equality, power, interaction and negotiation reflected through the prism of gender throw light on aspects of social, political and economic order as a whole. The discussion of prehistoric social developments and reexamination of social explanatory models call for a revision of interpretations that propose a shift from a simple Neolithic to a complex and patriarchal social order in the prehistoric Aegean. To paraphrase the words of Ruth Tringham from her influential article, following a gender perspective “allows us to engage in the study of a prehistory ‘with faces’, faces behind which lie gender, age, hopes, fears, aspirations” (1991, 125). The study of the personal, no matter how inconsequential it may seem in the grand scheme of things, can throw light on some of the

125

125

Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

Figures 7.1 EN Female figurine from the Peloponnese with postural emphasis on the breast area

7.4 MN Female figurine exhibiting body decoration motifs

(after Ucko 1968, fig. 121)

7.5 LN Male figurine from Thessaly with emphasised genital area

(after Orphanidi 1998, pl. 75)

7.2 EN seated Male figurine from Thessaly

(after Orphanidi 1998, pl. 53)

7.6 LN Female seated kourotrophos from Thessaly

(after Theocharis 1973, pl. 15)

7.3 EN seated Ambiguous figurine from Thessaly

(after Orphanidi 1998, pl. 52)

(after Hourmouziadis 1973, pl. 9)

126

126

Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

7.7 LN Asexual figurine from Thrace modelled as pregnant

7.10 EBA Female seated figurine from the Cyclades

(after Bakalakis & Sakellariou 1981, pl. 72.4)

7.8 LN Ambiguous figurine from Macedonia modelled as pregnant (after Kontoleon 1976, pl. 137)

7.11 EBA Female figurines modelled as hunter-warriors from the Cyclades

(after Marangou 1997, pl. 67.c)

7.9 EBA Female figurine from the Cyclades modelled as pregnant

(a)

(b)

[(a) after Zervos 1957, pl. 253 and (b) after Caskey 1974, pl. 11]

7.12 EBA Asexual figurine from the East Aegean represented as clothed

(after Thimme 1977, pl. 165) (after Lamb 1936, pl. XX: 31.44)

127

127

Bodies of inference: figurines, gender dynamics and society in the early prehistoric Aegean

7.13 EBA Female figurine from the East Aegean bearing jewellery motif

(after Lamb 1936, pl. XX: 31.23)

128

128

Appendices

1. Statistical Tests 1.1 One-variable, one -tailed χ2: Neolithic figurine categories Frequencies Figurine Categories

Female Probably Female Female form Probably Female form Male Probably Male Asexual Probably Asexual Ambiguous Total

Observed N 396 103 51 5 17 6 150 88 6 822

Expected N 91.3 91.3 91.3 91.3 91.3 91.3 91.3 91.3 91.3

Residual 304.7 11.7 -40.3 -86.3 -74.3 -85.3 58.7 -3.3 -85.3

Test Statistics Figurine Categories Chi-Square(a) 1374.964 df 8 Asymp. Sig. .000 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 91.3. The χ2 value of 1375, DF=8 was found to have an associated probability value of 0.001. This means that if the null hypothesis were true, such a value would rarely occur (once in one thousand). Thus, we can accept that there is a significant difference between the observed and expected frequencies, and can conclude that not all figurine categories were modelled equally. The results presented in the frequency table also indicate that Female figurines were preferred more than other figurine categories. 1.2 One-variable, one -tailed χ2: Neolithic figurine production and use of material Frequencies Material

Clay Marble Stone, other Bone Shell Total

Observed N 918 105 63 5 2 1,093

Expected N 218.0 218.0 218.0 218.0 218.0

Residual 697.0 -113.0 -155.0 -213.0 -216.0

129

Appendices

Test Statistics Material 2819.394 4 .000 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 218.0. Chi-Square(a) df Asymp. Sig.

The χ2 value of 2819.39, DF=4 was found to have an associated probability value of 0.001. This means that if the null hypothesis were true, such a value would rarely occur (once in one thousand). Thus, we can accept that there is a significant difference between the observed and expected frequencies, and can conclude that not all materials were preferred equally for the modelling of figurines. The results presented in the frequency table also indicate that clay was preferred more than other materials. 1.3 One-variable, one-tailed χ2: Neolithic complete figurines only in relation to dimensions Frequencies Dimensions

1-10 cm 11-20 cm 21-30 cm 31-40 cm 41-50 cm 51-60 cm 61-70 cm 71-80 cm Total

Observed N 70 7 7 13 5 8 1 2 113

Expected N 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1

Residual 55.9 -7.1 -7.1 -1.1 -9.1 -6.1 -13.1 -12.1

Test Statistics Dimensions 259.460 7 .000 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 14.1. Chi-Square(a) df Asymp. Sig.

The χ2 value of 259.5, DF=7 was found to have an associated probability value of 0.001. This means that if the null hypothesis were true, such a value would rarely occur (once in one thousand). Thus, we can accept that there is a significant difference between the observed and expected frequencies, and can conclude that not all dimensional ranges were equally preferred for the modelling of figurines. The results presented in the frequency table also indicate that the 1-10 cm dimensions were preferred more than other ranges.

130

Appendices 1.4 One-variable, one-tailed χ2: Neolithic figurines measuring over 20cm in relation to identifiable figurine categories Frequencies Figurine Categories* Observed N

Expected N** Residual 22 28.7 -6.7 3 7.5 -4.5 8 3.7 4.3 2 1.2 .8 17 10.9 6.1 52 *The remaining figurine categories have produced null frequencies and could not therefore be included in the analysis. **The expected frequencies are based on the proportion of figurines categories. For instance, Female figurines (396) account for 55.23% of the identifiable sample, and so we would expect that Female figurines measuring over 20cm would also represent 55.23% of the sample (52), i.e. 28.7. Female Probably Female Female form Male Asexual Total

Test Statistics Figurine Categories Chi-Square(a) 13.178 df 4 Asymp. Sig. .010 a. Two cells (40.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 1.2. The χ2 value of 13.2, DF=4 was found to have an associated probability value of 0.01. This means that if the null hypothesis were true, such a value would rarely occur (once in one hundred chances). Thus, we can accept that there is a significant difference between the observed and expected frequencies, and can conclude that not all figurine categories are represented equally in the modelling of figurines measuring over 20cm. The results presented in the frequency table also indicate that more Asexual and Female form figurines measured over 20cm than expected in relation to their proportion in the sample. 1.5 r x c χ2 test of independence: decoration and Neolithic figurine categories Crosstabs Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Decoration * Figurine Categories

Missing Percent

607

100.0%

N

Total

Percent 0

.0%

131

N

Percent 607

100.0%

Appendices

Decoration * Figurine Categories Cross-tabulation Figurine Categories A Decoratio n

no

yes

Total

Count Expected Count % within Decoration % within Fig. Cat. % of Total Count Expected Count % within Decoration % within Fig. Cat. % of Total Count Expected Count % within Decoration % within Fig. Cat. % of Total

Amb

F

Total

Fform

M

98

3

206

39

7

353

87.2

3.5

221.6

30.8

9.9

353.0

27.8%

.8%

58.4%

11.0%

2.0%

100.0%

65.3% 16.1% 52 62.8

50.0% .5% 3 2.5

54.1% 33.9% 175 159.4

73.6% 6.4% 14 22.2

41.2% 1.2% 10 7.1

58.2% 58.2% 254 254.0

20.5%

1.2%

68.9%

5.5%

3.9%

100.0%

34.7% 8.6% 150 150.0

50.0% .5% 6 6.0

45.9% 28.8% 381 381.0

26.4% 2.3% 53 53.0

58.8% 1.6% 17 17.0

41.8% 41.8% 607 607.0

24.7%

1.0%

62.8%

8.7%

2.8%

100.0%

100.0% 24.7%

100.0% 1.0%

100.0% 62.8%

100.0% 8.7%

100.0% 2.8%

100.0% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value Pearson Chi-Square 13.154(a) Likelihood Ratio 13.449 N of Valid Cases 607 a. Two cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.51.

Asymp. Sig. (2sided) 4 .011 4 .009

df

Directional Measures(a) a. ETA statistics are available for numeric data only.

Symmetric Measures

Value Nominal by Nominal

Phi Cramer's V

.147 .147 607

N of Valid Cases

Approx. Sig. .011 .011

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. Α rxc χ2 was carried out to discover whether there was a significant relationship between decoration and figurine categories. The χ2 value of 13.15 had an associated probability value of 0.05 (reported alpha criterion of significance), DF=3, showing that such an association is extremely likely to have arisen as a result of sampling error (Cramer’s V was found to be 0.12 -thus only 1.5% of the variation in frequencies of figurine categories can be explained by decoration.) It can therefore be concluded that there is not enough evidence of a relationship in this case. 1.12 One-variable, one-tailed χ2: EBA attire motifs according to figurine categories Frequencies Figurine Categories Observed N Expected N* Residual Female 15 18.7 -3.7 Female form 9 7.4 1.6 Asexual 23 20.9 2.1 Total 47 *The expected frequencies are based on the number of figurines per figurine category. For instance, as the number of Female figurines (170) accounts for 39.9% of the whole identifiable sample, we would expect that Female figurines adorned with attire motifs would also represent 39.9% of the sample (47), i.e. 18.7. Test Statistics Figurine Categories Chi-Square(a) 1.290 df 2 Asymp. Sig. .525 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 7.4. The χ2 value of 1.3, DF=2 was found to have an associated probability value of >0.05. This means that there are one in twenty chances that our patterns resulted due to sampling error and thus we accept the null hypothesis of no difference. More specifically, we conclude that we have no evidence to indicate that different figurine categories have proportionally different values of attire motifs.

138

Appendices 1.13 One-variable, one-tailed χ2: EBA jewellery motifs according to figurine categories Frequencies Figurine Categories Observed N Expected N* Residual 15 17.0 -2.0 20 6.7 13.3 7 18.9 -11.9 1 .5 .5 43 *The expected frequencies are based on the number of figurines per figurine category. For instance, as the number of Female figurines (170) accounts for 39.44% of the whole identifiable sample, we would expect that Female figurines measuring adorned with jewellery motifs would also represent 39.44% of the sample (43), i.e. 17. Female Female form Asexual Male Total

Test Statistics Figurine Categories Chi-Square(a) 34.673 df 3 Asymp. Sig. .000 a. One cell (25.0%) has expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is .5. The χ2 value of 35, DF=3 was found to have an associated probability value of 0.001. This means that if the null hypothesis were true, such a value would rarely occur (once in one thousand). Thus, we can accept that there is a significant difference between the observed and expected frequencies, and can conclude that not all figurine categories have produced the same number of figurines adorned with jewellery motifs. The results presented in the frequency table also indicate that the Female form category numbered more figurines with jewellery motifs than expected in contrast to other categories.

139

Appendices

2. List of figurine recovery sites and regions included in the sample 2.1 Neolithic sites Thrace

Paradeisos Paradimi Polystylo

Macedonia

Akropotamos Amphipolis Arethousa Dikili Tash Dimitra Dispilio Makrygialos Mandalo Nea Nikomedeia Olynthus Paliambela Polyplatanon Polystylo Servia

Thessaly

Achilleio Agia Anna Agia Sofia Mag. Argissa Assimochoma Avaitsa Chaeroneia Daudza Dendraki Dimini Domeniko Drachmani Farsala Hassan Magoula Karagyos Magoula Karampairamio Kastri Tyrnavos Krannona Larisa Magoula Karam. Magoula Mat. Magoula Panagou Magoulitsa Makrychori Myrina Nesson Otzaki Otzaki Magoula Paradeisos Paradimi Pazaraki Pefkakia Pefkakia Magoula Plateia M. Zarkou Prodromos Rachmani

Stephanovikio Topouslar Tsangli Tsani Magoula Velestino Zerelia Sporades

Agios Petros

Central Mainland

Acropolis Aigina Athenian Agora Chaeroneia Corycio Antro Elateia Eleusis Eutresis Kitsos Patissia Pyrgos Rafina Spelaio tou Euripidi Salamina Thebes Thespiai Tsoungiza

Euboia

Spelaio Sarakenou Tharounia Varka Psachnon

Peloponnese

Agios Demetrios Akratas Alepotrypa Asea Ayioryitika Corinth Corinth Theatre Franchthi cave Kouphovouno Lerna Malthi Mycenae Nemea Skoura Sparta Tiryns

Cyclades

140

Island Provenance Amorgos Paros Schinousa Sites Ftelia Kephala Saliagos Sangri

Appendices East Aegean

Tigani

Dodecanese

Karpathos

Crete

Geranio Gortyna Kephala Knossos Phaistos Spelaio Pelekiton

Seriphos Siphnos Syros Thera Sites Agros Eud. Skopelitou Akrotiri (Thera) Akrotiri (Naxos) Aphentika Aplomata Avdheli Agia Irini Fyrages Glypha Kampos Makris Kapros Karvounolakoi Kastraki Kato Poli (Amorgos) Koukounaries Krasades Livadi Louros Mandres tou Rousou Phylakopi Plastiras Pyrgos Roon Spedos Zoumparia

2.2 EBA sites Macedonia

Amphipolis Armenochori Gialatzik Mandalo Servia Tsepikovo

North Aegean

Poliochni Skala Sotiros

Thessaly

Pefkakia Sesklo

Central Mainland

Agios Kosmas Aigina Eutresis Lithares Sarakenou cave Thebes

Euboia

Halkida Magoula Manika N. Styra

East Aegean

Island Provenance Samos Sites Emborio Thermi Tigani

Peloponnese

Corinth Kouphovouno Lerna Tiryns Zygouries

Cyclades

Island Provenance Amorgos Antiparos Despotiko Ios Keros Kimolos Kouphonesi Melos Naxos Paros

Crete

141

Agia Triada Agios Onouphrios Archanes Knossos Koumasa Lentas Myrtos Palaikastro Platanos Porti Pyrgos Sampa Siteia Teke Trapeza Vasiliki Ierapetras Zakros

Appendices

4. Concordance of the analysed sample *Question-mark indicates alleged site/area of recovery. **Blank cells correspond to unknown recovery sites/areas. 4.1 Neolithic sample Site/Area of recovery

Publication Code

Source

Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion

36 37 45 60 77 137 185 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 13 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 46 47 48 49 50 51

Gimbutas 1989 Gimbutas 1989 Gimbutas 1989 Gimbutas 1989 Gimbutas 1989 Gimbutas 1989 Gimbutas 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989

157

Appendices

Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion

52 53 55 57 58 59 61 62 63 64 65 66 68 69 71 72 73 74 75 76 78 79 80 81 82 83 98 99 100 101 102 107 109 110 112 113 115 116 118 119 120 122 127 128 130 131 132 133 136 138 139 141 143 144 145 146 147 149 150 151 152 154

Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989

158

Appendices

Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Achilleion Acropolis Agia Anna Agia Sofia Magoula Agia Sofia Magoula Agia Sofia Magoula Agia Sofia Magoula Agia Sofia Magoula Agia Sofia Magoula Agia Sofia Magoula Agia Sofia Magoula Agia Sofia Magoula Agia Sofia Magoula Agia Sofia Magoula Agia Sofia Magoula Agios Demetrios Agios Demetrios Agios Petros Agios Petros Agios Petros Agios Petros Aigina Akratas Akratas Akropotamos Akropotamos Akropotamos Akropotamos Akropotamos Akrpotamos Alepotrypa Alepotrypa Amorgos? Amphipolis Arethousa Arethousa Argissa Argissa Asea Asea Asea Asea Assimochoma, Larissa Athenian Agora Athenian Agora Athenian Agora

155 156 157 158 161 164 165 166 169 170 172 175 176 182 186 188 193 1 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 Π3693 Π3753 99a-b 101 102 21 10 985 1021 149 150 155 1 2 3 52b 16 2 43 68 69 28 29 6 7 8 9 213 220 221 235

Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Gimbutas et al 1989 Broneer 1939 Theocharis 1973 Milojcic 1976 Milojcic 1976 Milojcic 1976 Milojcic 1976 Milojcic 1976 Milojcic 1976 Milojcic 1976 Milojcic 1976 Milojcic 1976 Milojcic 1976 Milojcic 1976 Milojcic 1976 Zachos 1987 Zachos 1987 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Theocharis 1973 Thimme 1977 Talalay 1983 Talalay 1983 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Mylonas 1941 Mylonas 1941 Mylonas 1941 Hauptmann 1971 Talalay 1983 Thimme 1977 Lazarides 1966 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Orphanidi 1998 Wace and Thompson 1912 Holmberg 1944 Holmberg 1944 Holmberg 1944 Holmberg 1944 Orphanidi 1996 Immerwahr 1971 Immerwahr 1971 Orphanidi 1996

159

Appendices

Athenian Agora Avaritsa Ayioryitika Ayioryitika Ayioryitika Ayioryitika Ayioryitika Ayioryitika Ayioryitika Ayioryitika Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Chaeroneia Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth

P13926 22 413 417 418 419 420 421 422 427 60e 60d 60st 141a 141b 141d 141g 141h 141c 140 194 195 196 199 205 209 210 211 212 213 214 IVa IV b 19 5 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19a 19b 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28

Talalay 1983 Thimme 1977 Petrakis 2002 Petrakis 2002 Petrakis 2002 Petrakis 2002 Petrakis 2002 Petrakis 2002 Petrakis 2002 Petrakis 2002 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Zervos 1962 Zervos 1962 Zervos 1962 Zervos 1962 Zervos 1962 Zervos 1962 Zervos 1962 Zervos 1962 Zervos 1962 Zervos 1962 Zervos 1962 Zervos 1962 Kosmopoulos-Walker 1948 Kosmopoulos-Walker 1948 Kosmopoulos-Walker 1948 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987

160

Appendices

Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Corinth Theatre Corycio Antro Corycio Antro Corycio Antro Corycio Antro Corycio Antro Crete Crete Cyclades Cyclades? Cyclades? Cyclades? Cyclades? Cyclades? Cyclades? Daudza Dendraki Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dikili Tash Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini

29 30 32 MF6732 786 2 31 417 418 419 420 421 A 103 1 4 9 20 24 25 4 114 364 25 18 19 H, 3 2 1 2 3 14 92 45 45 57 204 248 546-547 535 536 538 543 544 549 550 551 552 553 554 567 568 571 572 290 220 226 a a a b c-d

Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Phelps 1987 Talalay 1983 Talalay 1983 Weinberg 1951 Phelps 1987 Touchais 1981 Touchais 1981 Touchais 1981 Touchais 1981 Touchais 1981 Branigan 1972 Ucko 1968 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Weinberg 1951 Wace and Thompson 1912 Zervos 1968 Daux 1962 Daux 1968 Daux 1968 Deshayes 1972 Deshayes 1973 Marangou 1986 Marangou 1986 Marangou 1986 Orphanidi 1998 Petrakos 1989 Theocharis and Rhomiopoulou 1961 Theocharis and Rhomiopoulou 1961 Theocharis 1973 Theocharis 1973 Theocharis 1973 Zervos 1968 Zervos 1968 Zervos 1968 Zervos 1968 Zervos 1968 Zervos 1968 Zervos 1968 Zervos 1968 Zervos 1968 Zervos 1968 Zervos 1968 Zervos 1968 Zervos 1968 Zervos 1968 Zervos 1968 Zervos 1968 Karali 1996 Orphanidi 1996 Orphanidi 1996 Skaphida 1992 Skaphida 1992 Skaphida 1992 Skaphida 1992 Skaphida 1992

161

Appendices

Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimini Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dimitra Dispilio Dispilio

c-e d-st e st-theta 36, 1 36, 2 36, 3 38, 1 36, 4 38, 2 36, 5 38, 3 35, 7 36, 6 38, 4 36, 7 38, 5 38, 6 37, 8 38, 7 37, 9 35, 6a and 6b 37, 10 37, 11 37, 12 37, 13 3, 8a and 8b 226 37, 7 431 485 9 10 21 22 MK (6) MK (5) (67:g) MK (3) MK (1) MK 2 MK 5 (66:b) MK 11 MK 13 MK 16A MK 33 MK 56 MK 58 MK 109 MK 164 MK 208 MK 223 MK 224 MK 238 MK 241 MK 243 MK 273A MK 277 MK 285 MK 292 MK 322 - (page 17) 16

Skaphida 1992 Skaphida 1992 Skaphida 1992 Skaphida 1992 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Zervos 1968 Zervos 1968 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Marangou 1997a Kiosse 1999 Orphanidi 1998

162

Appendices

Domeniko Domeniko Drachmani Elateia Elateia Elateia Elateia Elateia Eleusis Eleusis Euboia Euboia? Euboia? Eutresis Farsala Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Franchthi cave Ftelia Ftelia Geranio Geranio Gortyna Hassan Magoula Karagyos Magoula Karagyos Magoula Karampairamio Karpathos Kastri Tyrnavos Kephala Kephala Kephala Kephala Kephala Kephala Kephala Kephala Kephala Kephala Kephala Kephala Kephala Kitsos Kitsos Knossos

234 234 207 1 2 3 4 2 219 14 7 27 28 62 34 FC 4 FC 11 FC 12 FC 28 FC 30 31 FC 42 FC 57 FC 60 FC 68 FC 101 FS 101 FC 112 FC 117 FC 118 FC 122 FC 124 FC 167 FC 190 FC 208 13 14 123 123 102 225 31 32 224 8 219 488 96B 127 128 160 196 197 198 202 82 85 87 88 20 21 51

Orpanidi 1996 Orphanidi 1996 Zervos 1962 Weinberg 1962 Weinberg 1962 Weinberg 1962 Weinberg 1962 Weinberg 1962 Imerwahr 1971 Talalay 1983 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Talalay 1993 Sampson 1997 Sampson 1997 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Ucko 1968 Orphanidi 1996 Milojcic 1976 Milojcic 1976 Tsountas 1908 Fitton 1989 Orphanidi 1996 Caskey 1964 Coleman 1977 Coleman 1977 Coleman 1977 Coleman 1977 Coleman 1977 Coleman 1977 Coleman 1977 Coleman 1977 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Vialou 1974 Vialou 1974 Fraser 1971

163

Appendices

Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos

248 252 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

Rethemiotakis 1996 Rethemiotakis 1996 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968

164

Appendices

Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Knossos Kouphovouno Kouphovouno Kouphovouno Kouphovouno Kouphovouno Krannona Larisa Larisa Lerna Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia Macedonia

63 64 65 66 67 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 83 84 86 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 10 11 68 NM3927 NM3930 NM3931 NM 3932 52 36 41-45 223 1 4 4 8 10 21 22 23 28 34 81 84 88 114 115 129 150 151 153 154

Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1986 Ucko 1986 Ucko 1968 Talalay 1983 Talalay 1983 Talalay 1983 Talalay 1983 Whitley 2003 Hourmouziadis 1973 Papathanassopoulos 1981 Theocharis 1973 Caskey and Eliot 1956 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984

165

Appendices

Macedonia Magoula Karamourlar Magoula Karamourlar Magoula Karamourlar Magoula Karamourlar Magoula Karamourlar Magoula Karamourlar Magoula Mataranga Magoula Panagou Magoulitsa Magoulitsa Makrychori Makrygialos Makrygialos Malthi Mandalo Mandalo Mandalo Mandalo Mycenae Myrina Nea Nikomedeia Nea Nikomedeia Nea Nikomedeia Nea Nikomedeia Nea Nikomedeia Nea Nikomedeia Nea Nikomedeia Nea Nikomedeia Nea Nikomedeia Nemea Nesson Olynthus Olynthus Olynthus Olynthus Olynthus Olynthus Olynthus Olynthus Olynthus Olynthus Olynthus Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula

155 4f 14 201 202 221 247 33 232 189-190 255 223 12 13 I 1 1 3 2 77A 206 1 1 2 2 3 2B 3A 7 18 1 37 1 2 3 4a 4b 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 1 9 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5

Grammenos 1984 Theocharis 1973 Theocharis 1973 Theocharis 1973 Theocharis 1973 Theocharis 1973 Theocharis 1973 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1996 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1962 Orphanidi 1996 Mpesios and Pappa 1998 Mpesios and Pappa 1998 Valmin 1938 Papaeuthymiou-Papanthimou and Pilali-Papasteriou 1987 Papaeuthymiou-Papanthimou and Pilali-Papasteriou 1987 Papaeuthymiou-Papanthimou and Pilali-Papasteriou 1987 Papaeuthymiou-Papanthimou and Pilali-Papasteriou 1987 Talalay 1983 Orphanidi 1996 Rodden 1962 Rodden 1962 Rodden 1962 Rodden 1962 Rodden 1962 Rodden 1964 Rodden 1964 Rodden 1962 Theocharis 1973 Cherry et al 1988 Orphanidi 1998 Mylonas 1929 Mylonas 1929 Mylonas 1929 Mylonas 1929 Mylonas 1929 Mylonas 1929 Mylonas 1929 Mylonas 1929 Mylonas 1929 Mylonas 1929 Mylonas 1929 Hauptmann 1981 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971

166

Appendices

Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Otzaki Magoula Paliambela Paliambela Paliampela Palimabela Paradeisos Paradeisos Paradeisos Paradeisos Paradeisos Paradimi Paradimi Paradimi Paradimi Paradimi Paradimi Paros? Patissia Pazaraki Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia

6 6 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 12 28 144 14 16 5 137 192 37 1 13 2 1 2 3 4 4 706a 706c 712 1 685 706b 26 5 59a 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 6 7 10 11 12 316 316 316 316 316 316 316 316 316 316 316 316

Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Zervos 1962 Hauptmann 1981 Hauptmann 1981 Milojcic-v. Zumbusch and Milojcic 1971 Zervos 1962 Zervos 1962 Orphanidi 1998 www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/A-C/ap/paliambela/finds/figurines.html Grammenos 1984 www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/A-C/ap/paliambela/finds/figurines.html Blennow 1987 Blennow 1987 Blennow 1987 Blennow 1987 Blennow 1987 Bakalakis and Sakellarakis 1981 Bakalakis and Sakellarakis 1981 Bakalakis and Sakellarakis 1981 Bakalakis and Sakellarakis 1981 Bakalakis and Sakellarakis 1981 Bakalakis and Sakellarakis 1981 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Hourmouziades 1973 Christmann 1996 Christmann 1996 Christmann 1996 Christmann 1996 Christmann 1996 Christmann 1996 Christmann 1996 Christmann 1996 Christmann 1996 Christmann 1996 Christmann 1996 Christmann 1996 Christmann 1996 Michaud 1971 Michaud 1971 Michaud 1971 Michaud 1971 Michaud 1971 Michaud 1971 Michaud 1971 Michaud 1971 Michaud 1971 Michaud 1971 Michaud 1971 Michaud 1971

167

Appendices

Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Magoula Pefkakia Magoula Pefkakia Magoula Pefkakia Magoula Pefkakia Magoula Pefkakia Magoula Pefkakia Magoula Pefkakia Magoula Pefkakia Magoula Pefkakia Magoula Pefkakia Magoula Pefkakia Magoula Pefkakia Magoula Pefkakia Magoula Pefkakia Magoula Pefkakia Magoula Peloponnese? Phaistos Phaistos Plateia Magoula Zarkou Plateia Magoula Zarkou Plateia Magoula Zarkou Plateia Magoula Zarkou Plateia Magoula Zarkou Plateia Magoula Zarkou Polyplatanon Polystylo Polystylo Polystylo Prodromos Prodromos Prodromos Prodromos Prodromos Prodromos Prodromos Prodromos Prodromos Prodromos Prodromos Prodromos Prodromos Prodromos Prodromos Prodromos Pyrasos Pyrasos Pyrgos Pyrgos

316 316 316 316 316 316 316 316 227 14 14 15 21 10 11 12 1 2 5 6 8 9 10 11 11 12 17 17 25 21 101 100 20 20 55 55 55 55 7 4 5 6 10 10 11 11 43 44 45 205 207 208 27a 31 40 16 20 34 15 177-8 BE 3028 BE 3029

Michaud 1971 Michaud 1971 Michaud 1971 Michaud 1971 Michaud 1971 Michaud 1971 Michaud 1971 Michaud 1971 Orphanidi 1996 Weishaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weishaar 1979 Weishaar 1979 Weishaar 1979 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Thimme 1977 Ucko 1968 Ucko 1968 Gallis 1980 Gallis 1980 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Rodden 1964 Mylonas 1941 Mylonas 1941 Mylonas 1941 Hourmouziadis 1973 Hourmouziadis 1973 Hourmouziadis 1973 Hourmouziadis 1973 Hourmouziadis 1973 Hourmouziadis 1973 Hourmouziadis 1973 Orphanidi 1996 Orphanidi 1996 Orphanidi 1996 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Theocharis 1973 Theocharis 1973 Theocharis 1973 Theocharis 1973 Zervos 1962 Mpatziou 1981 Mpatziou 1981

168

Appendices

Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Rachmani Rachmani Rachmani Rachmani Rachmani Rachmani Rachmani Rafina Rini Rini Rini Saliagos Saliagos Saliagos Saliagos Saliagos Saliagos Saliagos Saliagos Saliagos Saliagos Saliagos Saliagos Sangri Schinousa? Servia Servia Servia Servia Servia Servia Servia Servia Servia Servia Servia Servia Servia Servia Servia Servia Servia Servia Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo

BE 3030 BE 3035 BE 3036 BE 3037 64a 225 54a 25a 25c 25c 25d 26m 26n 79j 79g 79h 1 292b 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 1 1 7 19 f g i k m NR 134 SF1067 SF145 SF219 SF616 SF708 SF716 SF736 SF852 13 d e f 7 71 36-40 33 29, 30 31, 32 4d 37 39 206 222 32:1 33: 2

Mpatziou 1981 Mpatziou 1981 Mpatziou 1981 Mpatziou 1981 Orphanidi 1998 Tsountas 1908 Orphanidi 1996 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Theocharis 1951 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Evans and Renfrew 1968 Karali 1996 Renfrew 1968 Renfrew 1968 Renfrew 1968 Renfrew 1968 Renfrew 1968 Renfrew 1968 Renfrew 1968 Renfrew 1968 Renfrew 1986 Renfrew 1986 Weinberg 1951 Thimme 1977 Heurtley 1939 Heurtley 1939 Heurtley 1939 Heutrley 1939 Heutrley 1939 Marangou 1992 Phelps 2000 Phelps 2000 Phelps 2000 Phelps 2000 Phelps 2000 Phelps 2000 Phelps 2000 Phelps 2000 Rhomiopoulou and Ridley 1974 Ridley and Wardle 1979 Ridley and Wardle 1979 Ridley and Wardle 1979 Hourmouziades 1973 Hourmouziades 1973 Papathanassopoulos 1981 Papathanassopoulos 1981 Papathanassopoulos 1981 Papathanassopoulos 1981 Theocharis 1973 Theocharis 1973 Theocharis 1973 Theocharis 1973 Theocharis 1973 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908

169

Appendices

Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sesklo Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi

33:1a and 1b 34:1 32:2a and 2b 32:4 34:2 35:1 32:5 34, 3 35:2 32:3a and 3b 33:5 34: 4 35:3 37, 1 33:3a and 3b 33:6 34:5 35:4 37: 2 33:7 34: 6 35: 5 37: 3 34: 7 37: 4 37: 5 37: 6 38: 8 34: 8a and 8b 230:a 230:b 230:c 230:d a b b/sample 2 d/ sample: 2 a/sample 3 e/ sample 3 c/sample 5 129 191 193 219 1/5189a 4/ 5189c 3/ 2628 21/5417 18/4253 17/4002 14/2602 24/4429 23/3920 15/2511 29/4256 30/4265 37/5178 13/1715 31/3943 41/5182 28/3016 35/3730

Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Tsountas 1908 Wijnen 1982 Wijnen 1982 Wijnen 1982 Wijnen 1982 Wijnen 1982 Wijnen 1982 Wijnen 1982 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1962 Zervos 1962 Zervos 1962 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986

170

Appendices

Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi

42/4409 52/5423 34/2823 22/1664 53/ 4007 39/2627 81/5426 82/5425 60/3937 80/4569 99/5424 105/5346 54/2674 106/5163 55/2672 108/5168 20/918 110/5020 102/4460 120/5176 100/4207 129/5416 56/2346 122/5029 122/5029 57/ 2325 117/4459 136/5028 26/914 148/5166 33/1113 150/5023 84/2658 36/1120 171/ 5171 156/4489 86/ 2262 143/3715 140/3592 16/404 145/3551 138/ 3245 169/3927 166/ 3680 144/2947 157/3130 151/2907 161/2988 165/2825 173/2931 27/414 107/1595 226/2821 167/1756 160/ 1632 162/1638 127/1216 185/1751 132/1241 175/1609 123/1074 146/1224

Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986

171

Appendices

Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Sitagroi Skoura Soufli Magoula Soufli Magoula Soufli Magoula Soufli Magoula South South South South South South South South Sparta

153/1276 38/300 98/770 101/769 211/ 1513 133/872 121/771 130/ 767 130/ 767 131/ 768 141/805 128/ 699 163/ 836 159/801 85/ 412 115/458 125/482 32/116 155/498 135/ 382 19/53 212/ 524 168/ 377 25/51 174/271 152/232 172/ 209 149/178 83/90 147/154 158/134 142/82 137/42 203/10 154/6 202/5 164/3 86 88 90 91 93 113 116 223 224 2/5189b 59/2221 237 14 14 4g 274-5 MF8543 L7.46 2 13 14 18 49 1 28

Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al 1986 Renfrew et al, 1986 Rrenfrew et al 1986 Papathanassopoulos 1996 Gallis 1980 Gallis 1980 Theocharis 1973 Zervos 1962 Talalay 1983 Talalay 1983 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Wace 1949 Papathanassopoulos 1981

172

Appendices

Sparta Sparta Spelaio Pelekiton Spelaio Sarakenou Spelaio Sarakenou Spelaio tou Euripidi, Salamina Stephanovikion Tharounia Tharounia Tharounia Tharounia Thespiai Thespiai Thespiai Thespiai Thespiai Thespiai Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly Thessaly? Thessaly? Tigani Tigani Tiryns Topouslar Toroni Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli

17 200 124 64b 64c 10 205 a-b c d 72a 1 2 3 4 5 6 6a 6b 12 14 14 19 22 22 23 32 41 47 233 30 41 42 44 3 6 8 11 15 23 486 12 16 V1 V6 71 38:9 74 27c k 75e 76e 77e 69h 69j 69k 71a 71b 71c 72 73 74b

Theocharis 1973 Theocharis 1973 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Lolos 1997 Theocharis 1973 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Bass 1959 Bass 1959 Bass 1959 Bass 1959 Bass 1959 Bass 1959 Hourmouziadis 1973 Hourmouziadis 1973 Hourmouziadis 1973 Hourmouziadis 1973 Hourmouziadis 1973 Hourmouziadis 1973 Hourmouziadis 1973 Hourmouziadis 1973 Hourmouziadis 1973 Hourmouziadis 1973 Hourmouziadis 1973 Hourmouziadis 1973 Orphanidi 1996 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Orphanidi 1998 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Zervos 1968 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Felsch 1988 Felsch 1988 Talalay 1983 Tsountas 1908 Petrakos 1989 Orphanidi 1998 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912

173

Appendices

Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsangli Tsani Magoula Tsani Magoula Tsani Magoula Tsoungiza Vardina Varka Psachnon Varka Psachnon Vasilika Vasilika Vasilika Vasilika Vasilika Vasilika Vasilika Vasilika Vasilika Vasilika Velestino Zerelia Zerelia Zerelia Zerelia Zerelia Zerelia Zerelia Zerelia Zerelia Zerelia Zerelia

75a 75b 75c 75d 75f 76a 76b 76c 76f 76g 76h 77a 77c 77f 77g 91b 91c 141 253 254 9 91a 91d CCXXI l 376 377 4 7 16 22 23 81 82 83 113 195 103 109e b h i k 109a 109c 109d 109f 109g 110

Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Zervos 1962 Zervos 1962 Zervos 1962 Hourmouziadis 1973 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wright 1999 Heurtley 1939 Sampson 1980 Sampson 1980 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Grammenos 1984 Marangou 1996 Blackman 2002 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912 Wace and Thompson 1912

174

Appendices

4.2 EBA sample

Site/Area of recovery

Island provenance

Publication Code

Source

-

Aigina Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos? Amorgos? Amorgos? Amorgos? Amorgos? Amorgos? Amorgos? Amorgos? Amorgos? Amorgos? Amorgos? Amorgos? Amorgos? Amorgos? Amorgos? Amorgos? Antiparos Antiparos Antiparos Antiparos Antiparos Antiparos Antiparos Antiparos

o A12 A13 A14 A15 A17 A33 A16 A20 3 2 265 47 147 259 1 49 49 49 50 50 50 107 294-5 297 300-1 302 255 293 178 159 161 343 A7 A27 7.3 7.4 7.8 7.15 7.21 7.26 7.28 7.29 7.24 7.31 7.13 7.20 161 182 2 3 8 5 1 84 52 56

Heurtley 1939 Pryce 1928 Pryce 1928 Pryce 1928 Pryce 1928 Pryce 1928 Pryce 1928 Pryce 1928 Pryce 1928 Tsountas 1898 Tsountas 1898 Walter 1981 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Tsountas 1898 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Pryce 1928 Pryce 1928 Sherratt 2000 Sherratt 2000 Sherratt 2000 Sherratt 2000 Sherratt 2000 Sherratt 2000 Sherratt 2000 Sherratt 2000 Sherratt 2000 Sherratt 2000 Sherratt 2000 Sherratt 2000 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Bent 1884 Bent 1884 Bent 1884 Bent 1884 Renfrew 1967 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Zervos 1957

175

Appendices

-

Antiparos Antiparos Antiparos Antiparos Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Despotiko Despotiko Despotiko Despotiko Euboia? Ios Ios Ios Ios Ios Keros Keros Keros Keros Keros Keros Keros Keros Keros Keros Keros Keros Keros Keros Kimolos Kouphonesi Melos Melos? Naxos Paros Paros Paros Paros Paros Paros Paros Paros Paros Paros Paros Paros? Paros? Paros? Samos Samos Samos Seriphos Siphnos Syros

58 58 58 58 B C D G H E F 2 2 37 53 55 56 A25 1 2 4 3 115 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 1 4 2 2 3 334 56 349a 7.7 7.9 140 7 257 94 164 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 7.5 7.6 7.11 4 5 6 145 28 29

Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Branigan 1972 Branigan 1972 Branigan 1972 Branigan 1972 Branigan 1972 Branigan 1972 Branigan 1972 Pendlebury 1939 Pendlebury 1939 Thimme 1977 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Pryce 1928 Arnott 1990 Arnott 1990 Arnott 1990 Arnott 1990 Zervos 1957 Doumas 1964 Doumas 1964 Doumas 1964 Doumas 1964 Doumas 1964 Doumas 1964 Doumas 1964 Doumas 1964 Zapheiropoulou 1968 Zapheiropoulou 1968 Zapheiropoulou 1968 Zapheiropoulou 1968 Zapheiropoulou 1968 Zervos 1957, Getz-Preziosi 1987 Zervos 1957 Zapheiropoulou 1967 Sherratt 2000 Sherratt 2000 Thimme 1977 Bent 1884 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Sherratt 2000 Sherratt 2000 Sherratt 2000 Milojcic 1961 Milojcic 1961 Milojcic 1961 Thimme 1977 Tsountas 1899 Tsountas 1899

176

Appendices

Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Irini Agia Triada Agia Triada Agia Triada Agia Triada Agia Triada Agia Triada Agia Triada Agia Triada Agia Triada Agia Triada Agia Triada Agios Kosmas

Syros Syros Syros Syros Syros Syros Syros Syros Syros Syros Syros Syros Syros Syros? Syros? Syros? Syros? Thera? Thera? Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Kea Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete

30 45 45 244 245 246 247 249 250 251 253 254 248 A24 165 187 189 254 255 7 29 16 18 25 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 12 13 14 9 15 11 5 1 2 3 8 4 10 26 19 37 38 39 40 e f g I j 115 116 117 118 119 121 8

Tsountas 1899 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Pryce 1928 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1971 Caskey 1974 Caskey 1974 Caskey 1974 Caskey 1974 Caskey 1974 Evans 1921 Evans 1921 Evans 1921 Evans 1921 Evans 1921 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983 Mylonas 1959

177

Appendices

Agios Kosmas Agios Kosmas Agios Kosmas Agios Kosmas Agios Kosmas Agios Kosmas Agios Kosmas Agios Kosmas Agios Onouphrios Agios Onouphrios Agios Onouphrios Agios Onouphrios Agros Eud. Skopelitou Agros Eud. Skopelitou Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Akrotiri Amphipolis Aphentika Aplomata Aplomata Aplomata Aplomata Aplomata Aplomata Aplomata

Crete Crete Crete Crete Kouphonesi Kouphonesi Naxos Naxos Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Thera Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos

1 3 2 6 9 4 5 7 2 144 144 144 369 369 6 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 547 16 18 1859 6798 6797 1860 1886 6818 6830 6821 2684 6829 6828 6819 6859 12 6792 1953 6820 6858 6815 6816 11 13 17 43 8833 194b 194b 195 194 194 210 211

Mylonas 1959 Mylonas 1959 Mylonas 1959 Mylonas 1959 Mylonas 1959 Mylonas 1959 Mylonas 1959 Mylonas 1959 Pendlebury 1939 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Zapheiropoulou 1970 Zapheiropoulou 1970 Doumas 1977 Doumas 1977 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Sotirakopoulou 1998 Lazarides 1966 Zervos 1951 Kontoleon 1972 Kontoleon 1972 Kontoleon 1972 Kontoleon 1972 Kontoleon 1972 Kontoleon 1973 Kontoleon 1973

178

Appendices

Aplomata Aplomata Aplomata Aplomata Aplomata Aplomata Aplomata Aplomata Aplomata Aplomata Aplomata Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Archanes Armenochori Avdheli Avdheli Corinth Emborio Eutresis Fyrages Gialatzik Glypha Glypha Glypha Halkida Halkida Halkida Halkida Halkida Halkida Halkida Kampos Makris Kampos Makris Kapros Kapros Kapros Kapros

Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Naxos Naxos Chios Naxos Paros Paros Paros Euboia Euboia Euboia Euboia Euboia Euboia Euboia Naxos Naxos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos Amorgos

211 212 213 137 136 135 134 136 a56 a54 195 285a 284b 288b 288b 288b 288b 288b 288b 285b 286 286 c d 499-500 814 496 498 497 c d 195a-b a-b 1102 136 284b 142 147 a 5 4 41a, 41b 15 3 6140(9) c 11 4 20 5 6 7 9 10 12 13 8830 6140(3) 26 27 28 29

Kontoleon 1973 Kontoleon 1973 Kontoleon 1973 Kontoleon 1974 Kontoleon 1974 Kontoleon 1974 Kontoleon 1974 Kontoleon 1974 Lambrinoudakis 1979 Lambrinoudakis 1979 Lambrinoudakis 1979 Sakellarakis 1972 Sakellarakis 1974 Sakellarakis 1974 Sakellarakis 1974 Sakellarakis 1974 Sakellarakis 1974 Sakellarakis 1974 Sakellarakis 1974 Sakellarakis 1974 Sakellarakis 1974 Sakellarakis 1974 Sakellarakis 1975 Sakellarakis 1975 Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997 Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997 Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997 Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997 Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997 Sakellarakis I. and E. 1997 Sakellarakis I. and E. 1997 Sakellarakis I. and E. 1997 Sakellarakis I. and E. 1997 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Heurtley 1939 Doumas 1977 Doumas 1977 Kosmopoulos-Walker 1948 Hood 1982 Goldman 1931 Papathanassopoulos 1963 Heurtley 1939 Tsountas 1898 Tsountas 1898 Tsountas 1898 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1991 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1991 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1991 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1991 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1991 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1991 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1991 Papathanassopoulos 1963 Papathanassopoulos 1963 Renfrew 1967 Renfrew 1967 Renfrew 1967 Renfrew 1967

179

Appendices

Kapros Karvounolakoi Kastraki Kato Poli Knossos Koukounaries Koukounaries Koukounaries Koukounaries Koumasa Koumasa Koumasa Koumasa Koumasa Koumasa Koumasa Koumasa Koumasa Koumasa Koumasa Koumasa Koumasa Koumasa Kouphovouno Krasades Krasades Krasades Krasades Krasades Krasades Krasades Lentas Lerna Lerna Lerna Lerna Lerna Lithares Lithares Lithares Lithares Lithares Livadi Livadi Livadi Louros Louros Louros Louros Louros Louros Macedonia Magoula Mandalo Mandres tou Roussou Manika Manika Manika Manika Manika Manika

Amorgos Naxos Naxos Amorgos Crete Paros Paros Paros Paros Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Antiparos Antiparos Antiparos Antiparos Antiparos Antiparos Antiparos Crete

Despotiko Despotiko Despotiko Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Euboia

Amorgos Euboia Euboia Euboia Euboia Euboia Euboia

105 6140 7.23 173a-b b 188a 151a 184c 186a 24 24 125 124 122 128 129 135 130 131 525 127 126 123 474 19 1 5 8 9 15 5 459 1734 10 j k j, k zeta heta theta gamma f, g 12 16 18 6140(7) 6140(9) 6140(100 6140(11) 6140(6) 87 n 2 5

Thimme 1977 Papathanassopoulos 1963 Sherratt 2000 Marangou 1990 Evans 1928 Schilardi 1977 Schilardi 1982 Schilardi 1983 Schilardi 1983 Branigan 1970 Branigan 1970 Xanthoudides 1924 Xanthoudides 1924 Xanthoudides 1924 Xanthoudides 1924 Xanthoudides 1924 Xanthoudides 1924 Xanthoudides 1924 Xanthoudides 1924 Xanthoudides 1924 Xanthoudides 1924 Xanthoudides 1924 Xanthoudides 1924 Renard 1989 Tsountas 1898 Tsountas 1898 Tsountas 1898 Tsountas 1898 Tsountas 1898 Tsountas 1898 Tsountas 1898 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983 Banks 1967 Caskey 1953 Caskey 1955 Caskey 1955 Caskey 1955 (Hesperia 24) Tzavella-Evjen 1984 Tzavella-Evjen 1984 Tzavella-Evjen 1984 Tzavella-Evjen 1984 Tzavella-Evjen 1985 Tsountas 1898 Tsountas 1898 Tsountas 1898 Papathanassopoulos 1963 Papathanassopoulos 1963 Papathanassopoulos 1963 Papathanassopoulos 1963 Papathanassopoulos 1963 Thimme 1977 Heurtley 1939 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1991 Papaeuthymiou-Papanthimou and Pilali-Papasteriou 1987 Marangou 1999 Papavasileiou 1910 Papavasileiou 1910 Sampson 1985 Sampson 1988 Sampson 1988 Sapouna-Sakellarakis 1987

A.96 3 2 72b 168.5803 155.5804 5419

180

Appendices

Manika Melos Melos Myrtos Myrtos Myrtos Myrtos Myrtos Myrtos Myrtos Myrtos Myrtos N. Styra Naxos Palaikastro Palaikastro Paros Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Pefkakia Phylakopi Phylakopi Phylakopi Phylakopi Phylakopi Phylakopi Phylakopi Phylakopi Phylakopi Phylakopi Plastiras Platanos Platanos Platanos Platanos Poliochni Poliochni

Euboia Melos Melos Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Euboia Naxos Crete Crete Paros

Melos Melos Melos Melos Melos Melos Melos Melos Melos Melos Paros Crete Crete Crete Crete Limnos Limnos

1 136 117 68 69 1 2 3 6 5 70 4 72b 86 131 113 116 9 8 13 6 12 7 6 18 10 7 8 9 18 22 24 26 11 12 17 18 19 5 23 5 11 2 16 20 1 3 5 7 8 6 2 4 4.1 119 5 2 222 223 225 1 1

Sapouna-Sakellarakis 1991 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Warren 1972 Warren 1972 Warren 1972 Warren 1972 Warren 1972 Warren 1972 Warren 1972 Warren 1972 Warren 1972 Sampson 1985 Thimme 1977 Bosanquet and Dawkins 1923 Dawkins 1923 Thimme 1977 Christmann 1996 Christmann 1996 Weishaar 1989 Weisshaar 1979 Weisshaar 1979 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Weisshaar 1989 Atkinson et al 1904 Atkinson et al 1904 Atkinson et al 1904 Atkinson et al 1904 Atkinson et al 1904 Atkinson et al 1904 Atkinson et al 1904 Atkinson et al 1904 Renfrew and Wagstaff 1982 Thimme 1977 Doumas 1977 Pendlebury 1939 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983 Xanthoudides 1924 Marangou 1997 Marangou 1997

181

Appendices

Poliochni Porti Porti Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Pyrgos Roon Samos Sampa Sarakenou cave Sarakenou cave Servia Sesklo Siteia Siteia Skala Sotiros Spedos Spedos Spedos Spedos Spedos Spedos Spedos Spedos Spedos Spedos Teke Teke Teke Teke Teke Teke Teke Thebes Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi

Limnos Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Paros Paros Paros Paros Paros Paros Paros Naxos Samos Crete

Crete Crete Thasos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos

2 173 172 257 258 256 14 (fig. 14) 14 (fig. 14) 14 (fig. 14) 14 (fig. 14) 14 (fig. 14) 14 (fig. 14) 14 (fig. 14) 14 (fig. 14) 14 17 4 6 7 19 13 8832 3 23 215 215 e 227 83 b e 6195 6140 6140 6140 6140 6140 6140 44 44 108 9 9 9 139 146 145 145 1 30.8 29.9 31.44 29.2 31.37 30.28 31.28 31.27 30.11 31.12 31.16 31.11 30.4

Marangou 1997 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983 Xanthoudides 1918 Xanthoudides 1918 Xanthoudides 1918 Xanthoudides 1918 Xanthoudides 1918 Xanthoudides 1918 Xanthoudides 1918 Xanthoudides 1918 Tsountas 1898 Tsountas 1898 Tsountas 1898 Tsountas 1898 Tsountas 1898 Tsountas 1898 Tsountas 1898 Papathanassopoulos 1963 Milojcic 1961 Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983 Spyropoulos 1973 Spyropoulos 1973 Heurtley 1939 Tsountas 1908 Evans 1921 Renfrew 1964 Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1988 Papathanassopoulos 1963 Papathanassopoulos 1963 Papathanassopoulos 1963 Papathanassopoulos 1963 Papathanassopoulos 1963 Papathanassopoulos 1963 Papathanassopoulos 1963 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Zervos 1957 Marinatos 1933 Marinatos 1933 Marinatos 1933 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Thimme 1977 Andrikou 1998 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936

182

Appendices

Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Thermi Tigani Tigani Tigani Tigani Tiryns Tiryns Tiryns Trapeza Trapeza Trapeza Trapeza Trapeza Trapeza Trapeza Trapeza Trapeza Trapeza Trapeza Trapeza

Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Lesbos Samos Samos Samos Samos

Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete Crete

30.1 29.10 32.26 31.46 32.15 30.41 31.33 30.21 30.54 30.35 31.73 31.98 30.31 32.25 30.17 32.10 29.6b 31.22 31.9 30.49 32.10 30.16 29.1 31.23 31.56 31.4 32.38 32.9 31.80 30.45 30.48 30.26 32.32 31.20 32.22 32.31 30.15 32.32 29.3 29.5 30.42 31.10 31.25 V8 V4 V2 V3 43 43 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13

Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb 1936 Lamb1936 Felsch 1988 Felsch 1988 Felsch 1988 Felsch 1988 Weishaar 1982 Weishaar 1982 Weishaar 1982 Pendlebury and Money-Coutts 1939 Pendlebury and Money-Coutts 1939 Pendlebury and Money-Coutts 1939 Pendlebury and Money-Coutts 1939 Pendlebury and Money-Coutts 1939 Pendlebury and Money-Coutts 1939 Pendlebury and Money-Coutts 1939 Pendlebury and Money-Coutts 1939 Pendlebury and Money-Coutts 1939 Pendlebury and Money-Coutts 1939 Pendlebury and Money-Coutts 1939 Pendlebury and Money-Coutts 1939

183

Appendices

Trapeza Tsepikovo Vasiliki Ierapetras Vasiliki Ierapetras Zakros Zoumparia Zoumparia Zygouries Zygouries Zygouries Zygouries Zygouries Zygouries Zygouries Zygouries

Crete Crete Crete Crete Despotiko Despotiko

308 b 110 245 228 3 2 1 3 4 195 196 197 237 183

Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1983 Heurtley 1939 To Ergon tis Archeologikis Etaireias 1972 Zois 1979 Ergo tis Archeologikis Etairieias 1970 Tsountas 1898 Tsountas 1898 Blegen 1928 Blegen 1928 Blegen 1928 Blegen 1928 Blegen 1928 Blegen 1928 Blegen 1928 Blegen 1928

184

References

a Campo, A. L., 1994. Anthropomorphic Representations in Prehistoric Cyprus: a Formal and Symbolic Analysis of Figurines, c. 3500-1800 B.C. Jonsered: Svenskt tryyck, Surte. Aalten, A., 1997. Performing the Body, Creating Culture, in K. Davis (ed.), Embodied Practices: Feminist Perspectives on the Body, 41-58. London: Sage Publications. Andreou S., M. Fotiadis and K. Kotsakis, 1996. Review of Aegean prehistory V: the Neolithic and Bronze Age of northern Greece, American Journal of Archaeology, 100, 537-97. Andrikou, E., 1998. An Early Helladic Figurine from Thebes, Boeotia, Annals of the British School at Athens, 93, 103-106. Arnold, B., 1991. The Deposed Princess of Vix: The Need for an Engendered European Prehistory, in B. Arnold (ed.), The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Chacmool Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, 366-374. Calgary: University of Calgary. Arnott, R., 1990. Early Cycladic Objects from Ios formerly in the Finley Collection, Annals of the British School at Athens, 85, 114. Atkinson, T. D., R. C. Bosanquet, C. C. Edgar, A. J. Evans, D. G. Hogarth, D. Mackenzie, C. Smith and F. B. Welch, 1904. Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (Journal of Hellenic Studies Supplement 4). London: MacMillan and Co. Bachofen, J. J., 1967. Myth, Religion and Mother Right: Selected Writings of J. J. Bachofen, translated by Ralph Mannheim. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Bailey, D., 1994a. The representation of gender: homology or propaganda, Journal of European Archaeology, 2, 215-227. Bailey, D., 1994b. Reading Prehistoric Figurines as Individuals, World Archaeology, 25, 321-331. Bailey, D., 1996. The Interpretation of Figurines: the Emergence of Illusion and New Ways of Seeing, in N. Hamilton, J. Marcus, D. Bailey, G. and R. Haaland and P. Ucko, Viewpoint: Can We Interpret Figurines?, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 6, 291295. Bailey, D., 2005. Prehistoric Figurines: Representation and corporeality in the Neolithic. London: Routledge. Bakalakis, G. and A. Sakellariou, 1981. Paradimi. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Banks, E., 1967. The Early and Middle Helladic Small Objects from Lerna. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Michigan. Barber, R. L. N. and O. Hadjianastasiou, 1989. Mikre Vigla: A Bronze Age Settlement on Naxos, Annals of the British School at Athens, 84, 63-162. Barber, R. L. N., 1984. Early Cycladic marble figures: some thoughts on function, in J. L. Fitton (ed.), Cycladica: Studies in Memory of N. P. Goulandris, 10-47. London: British Museum Publications. Bass, G. F., 1959. Neolithic Figurines from Thespiai, Hesperia , 28, 344-349. Beaudry, M. C., L. J. Cook and A. Mrozowski, 1991. Artifacts and Active Voices: Material Culture as Social Discourse, in R. H. McGuire and R. Paynter (eds.), The Archaeology of Inequality, 150-191. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Bent, T., 1884. Researches among the Cyclades, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 5, 42-59. Bernabo-Brea, L., 1964. Poliochni città preistorica nell' isola di Lemnos (Monografie della Scuola Archaeologica di Atene e della Missioni Italiane in Oriente I). Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider 1964-1976.

185

185

References

Berns, M. C., 1993. Art, history, and gender: women and clay in West Africa, The African Archaeological Review, 11, 129-148. Birtacha, K., 2003. Chromata kai Chromatismos kata tin Proimi Epochi tou Chalkou stis Kyklades, in A. Vlachopoulos and K. Birtacha (eds.), Argonautes: timitikos tomos gia ton kathigiti Christo G. Douma, 263-276. Athens: I Kathemerini A.E. Blackman, D., 2002. Archaeology in Greece 2001-2002, Archaeological Reports, 48, 1-116. Blackman, D. and K. Branigan, 1973. An Unusual Tholos Tomb at Kaminospilio, S. Crete, Cretika Chronika, 25, 199-206. Blake, E., 2005. The Material Expression of Cult, Ritual, and Feasting, in E. Blake and A. B. Knapp (eds.), The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory, 102-129. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Blécon, J., M. Séfériadès and R. Treuil, 1992. Dikili Tash: Village Préhistorique de Macédoine Orientale. I, Fouilles de Jean Deshayes (1961-1975) (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplement XXIV). Athenes: Ecole Francaise d' Athenes. Blegen, C. W., 1928. Zygouries: a Prehistoric Settlement in the Valley of Cleonae. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Blennow, M.-L., 1987. Terracotta Figurines, in P. Hellström (ed.), Paradeisos: a Late Settlement in Aegean Thrace, 77-82. Stockholm: Medelhavsmuseet. Bolger, D., 1996. Figurines, Fertility, and the Emergence of Complex Society in Prehistoric Cyprus, Current Anthropology, 37, 365-373. Bolger, D., 2003. Gender in Ancient Cyprus: Narratives of Social Change on a Mediterranean Island. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Bosanquet, R. C., 1895. Prehistoric Graves in Syra, Annals of the British School at Athens, 11, 141-144. Bosanquet, R. C. and R. M. Dawkins, 1923. The Unpublished Objects from the Palaikastro Excavations 1902-1906 (Supplement to Annals of the British School at Athens). London: Macmillan and Co. Bossert, A. and S. Erhardt, 1965. Zwei frühbronzezeitliche Gräber von Zoumbari auf Despotikon (Kykladen), Fundberichte aus Schwaben, N. F. 17. Bourdieu, P., 1970. The Berber house, or the world reversed, Social Science Information, 9, 151-70. Bourdieu, P., (1994) 1998. Practical Reasons: On the Theory of Action. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Branigan, K., 1968. Silver and Lead in Prepalatial Crete, American Journal of Archaeology, 72, 219-229. Branigan, K., 1970. The Foundations of Palatial Crete: A Survey of Crete in the Early Bronze Age. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Branigan, K., 1971. Cycladic Figurines and their Derivatives in Crete, Annals of the British School at Athens, 66, 57-78. Branigan, K., 1972. Early Minoan figurines in the Giamalakis Collection, Annals of the British School at Athens, 67, 21-23. Branigan, K., 1974. Aegean Metalwork of the Early and Middle Bronze Age. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Branigan, K., 1975. The Round Graves of Levkas Reconsidered, Annals of the British School at Athens, 70, 37-49. Branigan, K., 1988. Pre-Palatial: The Foundations of Palatial Crete, A Survey of Crete in the Early Bronze Age. London: Adolf M. Hakkert, 2nd rev. edn. Branigan, K., 1993. Dancing with Death in Southern Crete, c. 3000-2000 BC. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.

186

186

References

Branigan, K., 1995. Social Transformations and the Rise of the State in Crete, in R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier (eds.), Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age (Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference), 33-42. Eupen: Kliemo Sa. Branigan, K., 1998. Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press. Broodbank, C., 1992. The spirit is willing, Antiquity, 66, 542-6. Broodbank, C., 2000. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Broneer, O., 1939. A Mycenean Fountain on the Athenian Acropolis, Hesperia, 8, 317-433. Brown, J. A., 1981. The search for rank in prehistoric burials, in R. Chapman, I. Kinnes and K. Randsborg, (eds.), The Archaeology of Death, 25-37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, J. K., 1970. A Note on the Division of Labor by Sex, American Anthropologist, 72, 1073-1078. Calligas, P. G., 1984. Euboea and the Cyclades, in J. L. Fitton (ed.), Cycladica: Studies in Memory of N. P. Goulandris, 88-95. London: British Museum Publications. Caplan, P., 1987. Introduction, in P. Caplan (ed.), The Cultural Construction of Sexuality, 1-29. London: Tavistock Publications. Carter, T., 1994. Southern Aegean fashion victims: an overlooked aspect of Early Bronze Age burial practices, in N. Ashton and A. David (eds.), Stories in Stone, 127-44. London: Lithics Studies Society. Carter, T., 1998. Reverberations of the international spirit: thoughts upon “Cycladica” in the Mesara, in K. Branigan (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age, 59-77 (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Caskey, J. L., 1953. An Early Settlement at the Spring of Lerna, Archaeology, 6, 99-102. Caskey, J. L., 1955. Excavations at Lerna, 1954, Hesperia, 24, 25-49. Caskey, J. L., 1955. The House of the Tiles at Lerna: an Early Bronze Age Palace, Archaeology, 8, 116-120. Caskey, J. L., 1956. Excavations at Lerna, 1955, Hesperia, 25, 147-173. Caskey, J. L., 1964. Excavations in Keos, Archaiologikon Deltion, 19, 413-419. Caskey, J. L., 1971a. Investigations in Keos: Part I: Excavations and Explorations, 1966-1970, Hesperia, 40, 359-396. Caskey, J. L., 1971b. Marble figurines from Ayia Eirini in Keos, Hesperia, 40, 113-126. Caskey, J. L., 1974. Addenda to the Marble Figurines from Ayia Irini, Hesperia, 43, 77-79. Caskey, J. L. and M. Eliot, 1956. A Neolithic Figurine from Lerna, Hesperia, 25, 175-177. Chapman, J., 1991. The Creation of Social Arenas in the Neolithic and Copper Age of S. E. Europe: The Case of Varna, in P. Garwood et al (eds.), Sacred and Profane: Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion, 152-171. Oxford: Oxford Committee for Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology. Chapman, J., 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, places and broken objects in the prehistory of south-eastern Europe. London: Routledge. Chapman, J., 2001. Object Fragmentation in the Neolithic and Copper Age of Southeast Europe, in P. F. Biehl and F. Bertemes, with H. Meller (eds.), The archaeology of cult and religion, 89-105. Budapest: Archaeolingua Alapitvany. Chapman, J., 2002. Colourful Prehistories: The Problem with the Berlin and Kay Colour Paradigm, in A. Jones and G. MacGregor (eds.), Colouring the Past: The Significance of Colour in Archaeological Research, 45-72. Oxford: Berg.

187

187

References

Cherry, J., A. Demitrack, E. Mantzourani, T. Strasser, and L. Talalay, 1988. Archaeological Survey in an Artifact Rich Landscape: A Middle Neolithic Example from Nemea, Greece, American Journal of Archaeology, 92, 159-176. Chippindale, C. and D. Gill, 1995. Cycladic figurines: art versus archaeology? , in K. W. Tubb (ed.), Antiquities: Trade or Betrayed: Legal, Ethical and Conservation Issue, 131-142. London: Archetype in conjunction with UKIC Archaeology Section. Christmann, E., 1996. Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula in Thessalien II: die frühe Bronzezeit (BAM 29). Bonn: Dr Rudolf Habelt. Coleman, J. E., 1977. Keos I, Kephala: A Late Neolithic Settlement and Cemetery. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Conkey, M. and C. Hastorf, 1990. Introduction, in M. Conkey and C. Hastorf (eds.), The Uses of Style in Archaeology, 1-4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Conkey, M. and R. Tringham, 1995. Archaeology and the Goddess: Exploring the Contours of Feminist Archaeology, in A. Stewart and D. Stanton (eds.), Feminisms in the Academy: Rethinking the Disciplines, 199-247. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Conkey, M. and J. Spector (1984) 1998. Archaeology and the Study of Gender, in K. Hays-Gilpin and D. S. Whitley (eds.), Reader in Gender Archaeology, 11-45. London: Routledge. Cosmopoulos, M., 1995. Social and Political Organization in the Early Bronze 2 Aegean, in R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier (eds.), Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age, 23-32. Eupen: KLIEMO SA. Costin, C. L., 1996. Exploring the Relationship Between Gender and Craft in Complex Societies: Methodological and Theoretical Issues of Gender Attribution, in R. P. Wright (ed.), Gender and Archaeology, 111-140. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Crawford, O. G., 1957. The Eye Goddess. London: Phoenix House. Daux, G., 1962. Chronique des fouilles et d'ecouvertes archéologiques en Gréce en 1961, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 86, 629-975. Daux, G., 1966. Amphipolis: Colline 133; Chronique de fouilles 1965, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 90, 881-885. Daux, G., 1969. Chronique des fouilles et des travaux de l' École française d'Athènes en 1968, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 93, 955-1062. Davaras, C., 1971a. An Early Minoan cemetery at Haghia Photia, Athens Annals of Archaeology, IV, 392-397. David, N., J. Sterner and K. Gavua, 1988. Why Pots are Decorated, Current Anthropology, 29 (3), 365-389. Davis, E. G., 1973. The First Sex. London: J. M. Dent and Sons. Davis, J. L., 1984. A Cycladic figure in Chicago and the non-funereal use of Cycladic marble figures, in J. L. Fitton (ed.), Cycladica. Studies in Memory of N. P. Goulandris. Proceedings of the Seventh British Museum Classical Colloquium, June 1983, 15-21. London: British Museum. Davis, J. L., 1992. Review of Aegean Prehistory I; the islands of the Aegean, American Journal of Archaeology, 96, 699-756. Davis, J. L., 2001. The Islands of the Aegean, in T. Cullen (ed.), Aegean Prehistory: A Review, 19-76 (American Journal of Archaeology Supplement 1). Boston: Archaeological Institute of America. Day, P. M., D. E. Wilson and E. Kiriatzi, 1998. Pots, labels and people: burying ethnicity in the cemetery at Aghia Photia, Siteias, in K. Branigan (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1), 133-49. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

188

188

References

Demoule, J.-P. and C. Perlès, 1993. The Greek Neolithic: a new review, Journal of World Prehistory, 7, 355-416. Deshayes, J., 1970. Dikili Tash, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 94, 799-808. Deshayes, J., 1972. Dikili Tash and the origins of the Troadic culture, Archaeology, 25, 198-205. Deshayes, J., 1973. Dikili Tash, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 97, 464-473. Dobres, M.-A., 1995. Gender and prehistoric technology: on the social agency of technical strategies, World Archaeology, 27, 2549. Doumas, C., 1964. Archaiotites kai Mnimeia Kykladon, Archaiologikon Deltion, 19, 409-412. Doumas, C., 1977. Early Bronze Age Burial Habits in the Cyclades. Göteborg, Sweden: Paul Äströms Förlag. Doumas, C., 1987. Early Cycladic society: the evidence from graves, in R. Laffineur (ed.), Thanatos: les coutumes funéraires en Egée à l'âge du Bronze, Actes du colloque de Liège, 21-23 avril 1986, 15-8. Liège: Histoire de l'art et archéologie de la Grèce antique. Doumas, C., 2002. Silent Witnesses: Early Cycladic Art of the Third Millennium BC. New York: Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation. Dussaud, R., 1910. Les Civilisations Préhélleniques dans le bassin de la Mer Egée. Paris: P. Geuthner. Engels, F., (1884) 1972. The origin of the family, private property and the state: in the light of the researches of Lewis Henry Morgan, translated by A. West. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Evans, A., 1921. The Palace of Minos at Knossos, Vol. I. London: MacMillan and Co. Evans, A., 1928. The Palace of Minos at Knossos, Vol. II:I. London: MacMillan and Co. Evans, A., 1931. The Earlier Religion of Greece in the Light of Cretan Discoveries. London: MacMillan and Co. Evans, J., 1964. Excavations in the Neolithic Settlement at Knossos, 1957-1960, Part I, Annals of the British School at Athens, 59, 132-240. Evans, J., 1971. Neolithic Knossos: The Growth of a Settlement, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 37 (2), 95-117. Evans, J. and C. Renfrew, 1968. Excavations at Saliagos near Antiparos. Oxford: University Press. Felsch, R., 1988. Samos II: Das Kastro Tigani: die Spätneolithische und Chalkolithische Siedlung. Bonn: Dr Rudolf Habelt. Fitton, J. L. (ed.), 1984a. Cycladica: Studies in Memory of N. P. Goulandris: Proceedings of the Seventh British Museum Classical Colloquium, June 1983. London: British Museum. Fitton, J. L., 1984b. Perditus and Perdita: Two Drawings of Cycladic Figurines in the Greek and Roman Department of the British Museum, in J. L. Fitton (ed.), Cycladica: Studies in Memory of N. P. Goulandris; Proceedings of the Seventh British Museum Classical Colloquium, June 1983, 76-87. London: British Museum Press. Fitton, J. L., 1989. Cycladic Art. London: British Museum Press. Fletcher, R., 1989. The messages of material behaviour: a preliminary discussion of non-verbal meaning, in I. Hodder (ed.), The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings, 33-40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fowden, E., 1990. The Early Minoan Goddess: Images of Provision, Journal of Prehistoric Religion, III-IV, 15-18. Fowler, C., 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood: an anthropological approach. London: Routledge.

189

189

References

Frankel, D., 1997. On Cypriot figurines and the origins of patriarchy, Current Anthropology, 38, 84-86. Fraser, P. M., 1971. Archaeology in Greece, Archaeological reports for 1970-71, 17, 3-32. Gallis, K., 1980. Kauseis nekron apo tin archaioteri neolithiki epochi sti Thessalia. Athens: E. Kapetanides. Gallis, K., 2001. Tracing the Relation of a Neolithic Figurine to a Specific Individual of the Neolithic Society of Thessaly (Greece), in R. N. Boehmer and J. Maran (eds.), Lux Orientis: Archäologie zwischen Asien und Europa (Internationale Archäologie, Studia honoraria, Band 12), 139-143. Rahden/Westf: Verlag Marie Leidorf. Gatens, M., 1992. Power Bodies and Difference, in M. Barrett and A. Phillips (eds.), Destabilizing theory: contemporary feminist debates, 120-137. Cambridge: Polity Press in Association with Blackwell Publishers. Gell, A., 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gesell, G. C., 1985. Town, Palace, and House Cult in Minoan Crete. Göteborg, Sweden: Paul Äströms Förlag. Getz-Gentle, P., 1996. Stone Vessels of the Cyclades in the Early Bronze Age. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Getz-Gentle, P., 2001. Personal Styles in Early Cycladic Sculpture. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press. Getz-Preziosi, P., 1982. “The Keros hoard”: introduction to an Early Cycladic enigma” in D. Metzler and B. Otto (eds.), Antidoron: Festschrift für Jürgen Thimme, 37-44. Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller. Getz-Preziosi, P., 1987a. Early Cycladic Art in North American Collections. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Getz-Preziosi, P., 1987b. Sculptors of the Cyclades: individual and tradition in the third millennium BC. Michigan: Ann Arbor. Getz-Preziosi, P., 1994. Early Cycladic Sculpture: an introduction. Malibu, California: J. Paul Getty Museum. Getz-Preziosi, P. and S. S. Weinberg, 1970. Evidence for painted details, Antike Kunst, 13, 4-11. Gibbs, L., (1987) 1998. Identifying Gender Representation in the Archaeological Record: A Contextual Study, in K. Hays-Gilpin and D. S. Whitley (eds.), Reader in Gender Archaeology, 231-254. London: Routledge. Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of a Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gilchrist, R., 1999. Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the past. London: Routledge. Gill, D. and C. Chippindale, 1993. Material and Intellectual Consequences of Esteem for Cycladic Figures, American Journal of Archaeology, 97, 601-659. Gilman, A., 1981. The Development of Social Stratification in Bronze Age Europe, Current Anthropology, 22, 1-23. Gilman, A., 1991. Trajectories towards social complexity in the later prehistory of the Mediterranean, in T. Earle (ed.), Chiefdoms: Power, Economy and Ideology, 146-168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gimbutas, M., (1974) 1982. The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, 6500-3500 BC: Myths and Cult Images. London: Thames and Hudson, 2nd edn. Gimbutas, M., 1986. Mythical Imagery of Sitagroi Society, in C. Renfrew, M. Gimbutas and E. S. Elster (eds.), Excavations at Sitagroi: A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece, 1, (Monumenta Archaeologica 13), 225-289,. UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles. Gimbutas, M., 1989. The Language of the Goddess: Unearthing Hidden Symbols of Western Civilization. London: Thames and Hudson.

190

190

References

Gimbutas, M., S. Winn and D. Shimabuku, 1989. Achilleion: a Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6.400-5.600 BC (Series Monumenta Arcaeologica 14). Los Angeles, CA: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Goessler, P., 1927. Die einzelfunde der Ausgrabungen: Die funde der Höhle Choirospelia, in W. Dörpfeld (ed.), Alt-Ithaka: ein Beitrag zur omer-Frage: Studien und Ausgrabungen auf der Insel Leukas-Ithaka, Vol. 1 and 2. München: Verlag Richard Unde. Goldman, H., 1931. Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia. Cambridge, Masachusetts: Harvard University Press. Gosden, C., 2005. What do objects want?, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 12, 193-211. Gosselain, O. P., 1999. In pots we trust: the processing of clay and symbols in Sub-Saharan Africa, Journal of Material Culture, 4, 205-230. Grammenos, D., 1984. Neolithikes Ereunes stin Kentriki kai Anatoliki Makedonia. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Thessaloniki. Guthrie, R. D., 1977. Ethological Observations from Palaeolithic Art, in H.-G. Bandi, W. Huber, M.-R. Sauter and B. Sitter (eds.), Le contribution de la zoologie et de l’ethologie a l’interpretation de l’art des peuples chasseurs prehistoriques, 35-74 (3d Colloque de la Société Suisse des Sciences Humaines). Fribourg: Editions Universitaires. Haaland, G. and R. Haaland, 1996. Levels of Meaning in Symbolic Objects, in N. Hamilton, J. Marcus, D. Bailey, G. and R. Haaland and P. Ucko, Viewpoint: Can We Interpret Figurines?, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 6, 295-300. Hadjianastasiou, O., 1983. Protokykladika antikeimena apo tin Paro, Archaiologika Chronika, 122, 1-4. Haggis, D. C., 1999. Staple Finance, Peak Sanctuaries, and Economic Complexity in Late Prepalatial Crete, in C. Angelos, L. Shaler, J. Cowey and O. Hoover (eds.), From Minoan Farmers to Roman Traders: Sidelights on the Economy of Ancient Crete, 5385. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Halstead, P., 1981. Counting sheep in Neolithic and Bronze Age Greece, in I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond (eds.), Pattern of the Past: Studies in Memory of David Clarke, 307-39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halstead, P., 1989. The economy has a normal surplus: economic stability and social change among early farming communities of Thessaly, Greece, in P. Halstead and J. O’Shea (eds.), Bad Year Economics, 68-80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halstead, P., 1994. The north-south divide: regional paths to complexity in prehistoric Greece, in C. Mathers and S. Stoddart (eds.), Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, 195-219. Sheffield: J. R. Collis Publications. Halstead, P., 1995. From Sharing to Hoarding: The Neolithic Foundations of Aegean Bronze Age Society, in R. Laffineur and W.D. Niemeier (eds.), Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age (Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg), 11-21. Liège: Kliemo Sa. Halstead, P., 1996. Pastoralism or household herding? Problems of scale and specialization in early Greek animal husbandry, World Archaeology, 28, 20-42. Halstead, P., 1999. Neighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece, in P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2), 77-95. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Halstead, P. and J. O’Shea, 1982. A friend in need is a friend indeed: social storage and the origins of social ranking, in C. Renfrew and S. Shennan (eds.), Ranking, Resource and Exchange: Aspects of the Archaeology of Early European Society, 92-99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hamilakis, Y., 1996. Wine, oil and the dialectics of power in Bronze Age Crete: a review of the evidence, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 15, 1-32. Hamilton, N., 1996. The personal is political, in N. Hamilton, J. Marcus, D. Bailey, G. and R. Haaland and P. Ucko, Viewpoint:

191

191

References

Can We Interpret Figurines?, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 6, 282-5. Hamilton, N., 2000. Ungendering Archaeology: Concepts of Sex and Gender in Figurine Studies in Prehistory, in M. Donald and L. Hurrombe (eds.), Representations of Gender from Prehistory to the Present, 17-30. London: MacMillan Press. Hamilton, N., J. Marcus, D. Bailey, G. and R. Haaland and P. Ucko, 1996. Viewpoint: Can We Interpret Figurines?, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 6, 281-307. Hansen, J. M., 1988. Agriculture in the prehistoric Aegean: data versus speculation, American Journal of Archaeology, 92, 39-52. Hauptmann, H., 1971. Forschungsbericht über die Ausgrabungen und Neufunde zur ägälschen Frühzeit, 1961-1965, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 86, 295-419. Hauptmann, H., 1981. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien III: das späte Neolithikum und das Chalkolithikum (BAM 21). Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag. Hawkes, J., 1968. Dawn of the Gods. London: Chatto and Windus. Hendrix, E., 1998. Painted Ladies of the Early Bronze Age, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, 55, 4-15. Herdt, G., 1994. Introduction: Third Sexes and Third Genders, in G. Herdt (ed.), Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History, 21-81. New York: Zone Books. Heurtley, W. A., 1939. Prehistoric Macedonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heurtley, W. A. and C. A. Radford, 1927-1928. Two prehistoric sites in Chalcidice, Annals of the British School at Athens, 29, 117-186. Hitchcock, L. A., 1997. Engendering domination: a structural and contextual analysis of Minoan Neopalatial bronze figurines, in J. Moore and E. Scott (eds.), Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology, 113-130. London: Leicester University Press. Höckmann, O., 1977. Cycladic Religion, in J. Thimme (ed.), Art and Culture of the Cyclades, 37-52. Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller. Hodder, I., 1982. Symbols in action: ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hodder, I., 1990. Style as historical quality, in M. Conkey and C. Hastorf (eds.), The Uses of Style in Archaeology, 44-51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoffman, G. L., 2002. Painted Ladies: Early Cycladic II Mourning Figures?, American Journal of Archaeology, 106, 525-550. Holmberg, E. J., 1944. The Swedish Excavations at Asea in Arcadia. Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag. Holmes, K. and R. Whitehouse, 1998. Anthropomorphic figurines and the construction of gender in Neolithic and Copper Age Italy, in R. Whitehouse (ed.), Gender and Italian Archaeology: Challenging the Stereotypes (Accordia Specialist Studies on Italy 7), 95-126. London: Accordia Research Institute, University of London and Institute of Archaeology, University College London. Hood, S., 1982. Excavations in Chios 1938-1955: Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala, Vol. II. Oxford: Alden Press. Hood, S., 1990. Settlers in Crete c. 3000 BC, Cretan Studies, 2, 151-158. Hourmouziadis, G., 1973. I Anthropomorphi Eidoloplastiki tis Neolithikis Thessalias: Provlimata kataskeuis, typologias kai ermeinias. Volos: Hetaireia Thessalikon Ereunon. Hutchinson, R. W., 1938. Knossos, Crete: Cretan Neolithic Figurines, Jahrbuch für Prähistorische and Ethnographische Kunst, 12, 50-56.

192

192

References

Immerwahr, S. A., 1971. The Athenian Agora: Results of excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. XIII. Germany: J. J. Augustin, Glückstadt. Insoll, T., 2004. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. London: Routledge. Izzet, V., 1998. Holding a mirror to Etruscan gender, in R. Whitehouse (ed.), Gender and Italian Archaeology: Challenging the Stereotypes, 209-227. London: University of London and Institute of Archaeology. Joyce, R., 2002. Beauty, Sexuality, Body Ornamentation and Gender in Ancient Mesoamerica, in S. M. Nelson and M. RosenAyalon (eds.), In Pursuit of gender: Worldwide Archaeological Approaches, 81-91. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. Kampitoglou, A. G. P., 1992. Oi Anaskaphes stin Torone, To Archaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki, 3, 439-450. Karali, L., 1996. Shell, Bone and Stone Jewellery, in G. Papathanassopoulos (ed.), Neolithic Culture in Greece, 165. Athens: Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art. Kilian, K., G. Hiesel and H.-J. Weisshaar, 1982. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1980, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 97, 149-256. Knappett, C., 2002. Photographs, skeuomorphs and marionettes: some thoughts on mind, agency and object, Journal of Material Culture, 7, 97-117. Knappett, C., 2006. Beyond skin: layering and networking in art and archaeology, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 16, 239251. Koehler, U., 1884. Praehistorisches von den griechischen Inseln, Mittheilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institutes in Athen, 156-162. Kokkinidou, D. and M. Nikolaidou, 1993. I Archaiologia kai I koinoniki tautotita tou phylou: prosengiseis stin agrotiki proistoria. Thessaloniki: Vanias. Kokkinidou, D. and M. Nikolaidou, 1997. Body imagery in the Aegean Neolithic: ideological implications of anthropomorphic figurines, in J. Moore and E. Scott (eds.) Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology, 88-112. London: Leicester University Press. Konsola, D., 1986. Stages of Urban Transformation in the Early Helladic Period, in R. Hägg and D. Konsola (eds.), Early Helladic Architecture and Urbanization: Proceedings of a Seminar Held at the Swedish Institute in Athens, June 8, 1985, (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 76), 9-19. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag. Kontoleon, N., 1972. Anaskaphai Naxou, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias 1970, 146-155. Kontoleon, N., 1973. Anaskaphai Naxou, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias 1971, 172-180. Kontoleon, N., 1976. Anaskaphai Naxou, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias 1974, 143-155. Kosmopoulos-Walker, L., 1948. The Prehistoric Inhabitation of Corinth, Vol. 1. Munich: Mümchner Verlag Bisher F. Bruckmann. Kotsakis, K., 1996. The coastal settlements of Thessaly, in G. Papathanassopoulos (ed.), Neolithic Culture in Greece, 49-57. Athens: N. P. Goulandris Foundation. Kotsakis, K., 1999. What Tells Can Tell: Social Space and Settlement in the Greek Neolithic, in P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece, (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2), 66-76. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, C., 1988. Oikismos tis Proimis Epochis tou Chalkou sti Skala Sotiros Thassou, To Archaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki, 1, 389-406. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, C., 1991. Oikismos tis Proimis Epochis Chalkou sti Skala Sotiros Thassou (II), To Arhaiologiko Ergo sti

193

193

References

Makedonia kai Thraki, 2, 421-431. Krzyszkowska, O., 1981. The bone and ivory industries of the Aegean Bronze Age: a technological study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bristol. Kyparissi-Apostolika, N., 1999. The Neolithic Use of Theopetra Cave in Thessaly, in P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Prehistory 2), 142-152. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Lamb, W., 1936. Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lambrinoudakis, B., 1979. Anaskaphi Naxou, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias, 245-308. Lambrinoudakis, B., 1980. Anaskaphi Naxou, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias, 259-262. Langdon, S., 1999. Figurines and Social Change: Visualising Gender in Dark Age Greece, in N. L. Wicker and B. Arnold (eds.), From the Ground Up: Beyond Gender and Archaeology Conference, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, October 1998, 23-29. England: The Basingstoke Press. Lazarides, D., 1966. Amphipolis, To Ergon tis Archaiologikis Etaireias, 28-43. Lee, M. M., 2000. Deciphering Gender in Minoan Dress, in A. E. Rautman (ed.), Reading the Body: representations and remains in the archaeological record, 111-123. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lesick, K., 1997. Re-engendering gender: some theoretical and methodological concerns on a burgeoning archaeological pursuit, in J. Moore and E. Scott (eds.), Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology, 3141. London: Leicester University Press. Lindemann, G., 1997. The Body of Gender Difference, in K. Davis (ed.), Embodied Practices: Feminist Perspectives on the Body, 73-92. London: Sage Publications. Lolos, G., 1997. "Spelaion anapnoen echon eis tin thalassan": To spelaio tou Euripidi sti Salamina (Part B), Dodone, 26, 293-326. Lucy, S. J., 1997. Housewives, warriors and slaves? Sex and gender in Anglo-Saxon burials, in J. Moore and E. Scott (eds.), Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology, 150-168. London: Leicester University Press. Lucy, S., 2005. The Archaeology of age, in M. Díaz-Andreu, S. Lucy, S. Babis and D. N. Edwards (eds.), The Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion, 43-66. London: Routledge. MacRae, D. G., 1975. The Body and Social Metaphor, in J. Benthall and T. Polhemus (eds.), The Body as a Medium of Expression, 59-73. London: Allen Lane. Maggidis, C., 1998. From Polis to Necropolis: Social Ranking from Architectural and Mortuary Evidence in the Minoan Cemetery at Phourni, Archanes, in K. Branigan (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Prehistory 1), 87-102. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Maiuri, A. and G. Iacopich, 1928. Grotta di S. Barbara, Clara Rhodos: Studi e Materiali Pubblicati a Cura dell' Instituto StoricoArcheologico di Rodi, 1, 106-108. Maniatis, Y., V. Perdikatsis and K. Kotsakis, 1988. Assessment of In-site Variability of Pottery from Sesklo, Thessaly, Archaeometry, 30, 264-274. Manning, S. W., 1995. The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: Archaeology, Radiocarbon and History. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Marangou, C., 1984. Evidence for the Early Cycladic period on Amorgos, in J. L. Fitton (ed.), Cycladica: Studies in Memory of N. P. Goulandris, 99-118. London: British Museum Publications.

194

194

References

Marangou, C., 1986. Problemes d’ interpretation des objets miniatures de Dikili Tash (Neolithique recent), in A. Bonnano (ed.), Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean: papers presented at the first international conference on Archaeology of the Ancient Mediterranean, The University of Malta, 2-5 September 1985, 55-61. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner Publishing Co. Marangou, C., 1992. Eidolia: figurines et miniatures du Néolithique récent et du Bronze Ancien de Grèce. (BAR International Series 576). Oxford: BAR. Marangou, C., 1996. Anthropomorphic Figurines: Macedonia-Thrace, in G. Papathanassopoulos (ed.), Neolithic Culture in Greece, 151-152. Athens: Nicholas P. Goulandris, Museum of Cycladic Art. Marangou, C., 1997a. Neolithic Micrography: Miniature Modelling at Dimitra, in C. Marangou (ed.), Neolithiki Makedonia, 227266. Athens: Tameio Archaiologikon Poron kai Apallotrioseon. Marangou, C., 1997b. Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic Figurines of the Early Bronze Age in the North Aegean, in C. Doumas and G. and V. La Rosa (eds.), I Poliochni kai i Proimi Epochi tou Chalkou sto Voreio Aigaio/Poliochni e l’ Antica Etá del Bronzo nell’ Egeo Settentrionale, 649-665. Athens: Panepistimio Athinon Tomeas Archaiologias kai Istorias tis Technis/Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene. Marangou, L., 1990. Anaskaphi Minoas Amorgou, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias, 145, 236-270. Marangou, L., 1999. Marmarino Kykladiko agalmatio apo tin Amorgo, in L. Marangou (ed.), Phos Kykladikon: Timitikos Tomos sti Mnimi tou Nikou Zapheiropoulou, 20-29. Athens: Idryma N. P. Goulandri. Marinatos, S., 1929. Protominoikos tholotos taphos para to chorion Krasi Pediados, Archaiologikon Deltion, 12, 102-141. Marinatos, S., 1933. Funde und Forschungen auf Kreta, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 48, 287-314. Marthari, M., 1997. O kykladikos kosmos stin proïmi epochi tou Chalkou, in L. G. Mendoni (ed.), Poliochni Limni en Amihthaloessii: Ena kentro tis proïmis epochis tou Chalkou sto Voreio Aigaio, 29-34. Athens: Ypourgeio Aigaio IP.PO.-K' Ephoreia Klassikon kai Proistorikon Archaiotiton, Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene. Mee, C., W. Cavanagh and J. Renard, 2003. Report on the Kouphovouno Project, in J. Whitley, Archaeology in Greece 2002-2003, Archaeological Reports for 2002-2003, 49, 1-85. Meskell, L., 1995. Goddesses, Gimbutas and “New Age” Archaeology, Antiquity, 69, 74-86. Meskell, L., 1996. The Somatisation of Archaeology: Institutions, Discourses, Corporeality, Norwegian Archaeological Review, 29 (1), 1–16. Michaud, J.-P., 1971. Chronique des Fouilles et Découvertes Archéologiques en Gréce en 1970, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 95, 95-1067. Miller, D. and C. Tilley (eds.) 1984. Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Milojcic, V., 1961. Samos (Band I). Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag. Milojcic, V., K. Enderle, J. Milojcic and K. Kilian, 1976. Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf Magulen um Larisa in Thessalien 1966 (BAM 19). Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag. Milojcic-v. Zumbusch, J. and V. Milojcic, 1971. Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien: das frühe Neolithikum Teil II (BAM 11). Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag. Mina, M., 2005. Anthropomorphic Figurines from the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Aegean: Gender Dynamics and Implications for the Understanding of Aegean Prehistory. Unpublished PhD thesis, University College London. Mina, M., 2007. Figurines without sex; people without gender, in S. Hamilton, R. Whitehouse and K. Wright (eds.), Archaeology

195

195

References

and Women: Ancient and Modern Issues, 262-282. Oxford: Berg. Mina, M., 2008. Figurin’ Out Cretan Neolithic Society: Anthropomorphic Figurines, Symbolism and Gender Dialectics, in V. Isaakidou and P. Tomkins (eds.), Escaping the Labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in Context, 115-135. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Moore, H. L., 1986. Space, Text and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moore, H. L., 1994. A Passion for Difference. Cambridge: Polity Press. Morgan, L. H., (1877) 1964. Ancient Society. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Morris, D., 1985. The Art of Ancient Cyprus. London: Phaidon/Cape. Mpatziou, A., 1981. Pyrgos: Enas proistorikos doryphorikos oikismos, Anthropologika, 2, 108-120. Mpesios, M. and M. Pappa, 1998. Neolithikos oikismos Makrygialou, 1994, To Archaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki, 8, 137-146. Mpesios, M. and M. Pappa, 1998. Neolithikos oikismos Makrygialou, 1995, To Archaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki, 9, 173-178. Müller, K., 1938. Tiryns (Band IV). München: F. Bruckmann Verlag. Murdock, G. P., 1973. Factors in the Division of Labor by Sex: A Cross-Cultural Analysis, Ethnology, 12, 203-225. Murphy, J., 1998. Ideologies, Rites and Rituals: A View of Prepalatial Minoan Tholoi, in K. Branigan (ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age, 27-40. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Murray, M. A., 1963. The Genesis of Religion. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Mylonas, G., 1929. Excavations at Olynthus (Part I), The Neolithic Settlement. London: Oxford University Press. Mylonas, G., 1934. Excavations at Haghios Kosmas, American Journal of Archaeology, 38 (2), 258-279. Mylonas, G., 1941. The site of Akropotamos and the Neolithic period of Macedonia, American Journal of Archaeology, 45, 557576. Mylonas, G., 1955. Excavations at Ayios Kosmas, Archaiologiki Ephimeris 1952, 117-134. Mylonas, G., 1959. Aghios Kosmas: An Early Bronze Age settlement and Cemetery in Attica. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mylonas, G., 1981. Epidauros, To Ergon tis Archaiologikis Etaireias, 46-48. Nakou, G., 1995. The cutting edge: a new look at early Aegean metallurgy, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 8, 1-32. Nakou, G., 1997. The role of Poliochni and the north Aegean in the development of Aegean metallurgy, in C. G. Doumas and V. La Rosa (eds.), I Poliochni kai I Proimi Epochi tou Chalkou sto Voreio Aigaio, 634-48. Athens: Panepistimio Athinon Tomeas Archaiologias kai Istorias tis Technis. Nanoglou, S., 2004. Ypokeimena kai ylikos politismos sti Neolithiki tis Voreias Elladas: to paradeigma tis anthropomorphis eidoloplastikis tis kentrikis Makedonias kai tis Thessalias. Unpublished PhD thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. Nanoglou, S., 2005. Subjectivity and material culture in Thessaly, Greece: the case of Neolithic anthropomorphic imagery, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 15, 141–56.

196

196

References

Nelson, S., 1997. Gender in Archaeology: Analyzing Power and Prestige. Los Angeles, CA: Altamira Press. Nilsson, M. P., 1927. The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion. London: Humphrey Milform. Nordbladh, J. and T. Yates, 1990. This Perfect Body, This Virgin Text: Between Sex and Gender in Archaeology, in I. Bapty and T. Yates (eds.), Archaeology after Structuralism, 222-237. London: Routledge. Orlandos, A. K. (ed.), 1970. Zakros, To Ergon tis Archaiologikis Etaireias, 172-190. Orlandos, A. K. (ed.), 1973. Archanes-Phourni, To Ergon tis Archaiologikis Etaireias, 118-125. Orlandos, A. K. (ed.), 1973. Vasiliki Ierapetras, To Ergon tis Archaiologikis Etaireias, 113-118. Orlandos, A. K., 1978. Kriti; Archanes, To Ergon tis Archaiologikis Etaireias, 60-62. Orphanides, A. G., 1982. Bronze Age Anthropomorphic Figurines in the Cesnola Collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Göteborg: Paul Åströms. Orphanidis-Georgiadis, L., 1992. Thoughts on the Neolithic Figurines of the Aegean, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici, 30, 165178. Orphanidi, L., 1996. Anthropomorphic Figurines: Thessaly-The Northern Sporades-Central Greece, in G. Papathanassopoulos (ed.), Neolithic Culture in Greece, 153-154. Athens: Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art. Orphanidi, L., 1998. Eisagogi sti Neolithiki Eidoloplastiki; Notioanatoliki Europi kai Anatoliki Mesogeios. Athens: Akademia Athenon, Kentron Ereunas tis Archaiotitos. Oustinoff, E., 1984. The manufacture of Cycladic figurines: a practical approach, in J. L. Fitton (ed.), Cycladica: Studies in Memory of N. P. Goulandris, Proceedings of the Seventh British Museum Classical Colloquium, June 1983, 38-47. London: British Museum. Paliambela, 2002. www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/A-C/ap/paliambela/finds/figurines.html (Internet website) Papadatos, G., 2003. “Ena Palimpsisto, Loipon…”, in A. Vlachopoulos and K. Birtacha (eds.), Argonautis: timitikos tomos gia ton Kathigiti Christo G. Douma, 277-291. Athens: I Kathimerini AE. Papaeuthymiou-Papanthimou, K. and A. Pilali-Papasteriou, 1987. Anaskaphes sto Mandalo, To Archaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki, 1, 173-180. Papathanassopoulos, G., 1963. Kykladika Naxou, Archaiologikon Deltion, 17, 104-151. Papathanassopoulos, G., 1971. Spelaia Derou: ai anaskaphai tou 1970-71, Archaiologika Analekta ex Athenon, IV, 12-26. Papathanassopoulos, G., 1981. Neolithic and Cycladic Civilization. Athens: "Melissa" Publishing House. Papathanassopoulos, G., 1996. Burial customs at Diros, in G. Papathanassopoulos (ed.), Neolithic Culture in Greece, 175-177. Athens: Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art. Papavasileiou, G., 1910. Peri ton en Euboia Archaion Taphon. Athens: P. D. Sakellariou. Pendlebury, J. D. S., 1939. The Archaeology of Crete: An Introduction. London: Methuen and Co. Pendlebury, H. W. and J. D. S. and M. B. Money-Coutts, 1939. Excavations in the Plain of Lasithi I: the Cave of Trapeza, Annals of the British School at Athens, 36, 5-131. Perlès, C., 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece: The first farming communities in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

197

197

References

Perlès, C. and K. D. Vitelli, 1999. Craft Specialization in the Neolithic of Greece, in P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2), 96-107. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Peterson, J., 2002. Sexual Revolutions: Gender and Labor at the Dawn of Agriculture. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. Petrakis, S. L., 2002. Ayioryitika: The 1928 Excavations of Carl Blegen at a Neolithic to Early Helladic Settlement in Arcadia (Prehistory Monographs 3). Philadelphia: The Institute for Aegean Prehistory Academic Press. Petrakos, V. C., 1994. Dikili Tash, To Ergon tis Archaiologikis Etaireias, 41, 52-54. Petrakos, V. C., 1989. Dikili Tash, To Ergon tis Archaiologikis Etaireias, 36, 90-97. Petrakos, V. C., 1989. Torone, To Ergon tis Archaiologikis Etaireias, 36, 73-79. Petrasch, E., 1977. On the Exhibition, in E. Petrasch (ed.), Art and Culture of the Cyclades, 9-11. Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller, Großdruckerei und Verlag. Phelps, W. W., 1987. Prehistoric figurines from Corinth, Hesperia, 56, 233-253. Phelps, W. W., 2000. The Clay Small Finds: The Figurines, in C. Ridlay, K. A. Wardle and C. A. Mould (ed.), Servia I: AngloHellenic rescue excavations 1971-1973 (Supplement to Annals of the British School at Athens 32), 191-206. Oxford: The British School at Athens. Pilali-Papasteriou, A., 1989. Social evidence from the interpretation of Middle Minoan figurines, in I. Hodder (ed.), The Meanings of Things: Material culture and symbolic expression, 99-102. London: Unwin Hyman. Pryce, F. N., 1928. Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities of the British Museum, Vol. I, Part I. London: William Clowes and Sons. Pullen, D. J., 1992. Ox and plough in the Early Bronze Age Aegean, American Journal of Archaeology, 96, 45-54. Pullen, D. J., 1994a. Modelling Mortuary Behaviour on a Regional Scale: A Case Study from Mainland Greece in the Early Bronze Age, in N. P. Kardulias (ed.), Beyond the Site: Regional Studies in the Aegean Area, 113-136. London: University Press of America. Pullen, D. J., 1994b. A lead seal from Tsoungiza, Ancient Nemea, and Early Bronze Age sealing systems, American Journal of Archaeology, 98, 35-52. Pyke, G., 1996. Nea Nikomedeia I: the excavation of an early Neolithic village in northern Greece 1961-1964. London: The British School at Athens. Rainbird, P., 2002. Marking the Body, Marking the Land; body as history land as history: tattooing and engraving in Oceania, in Y. Hamilakis (ed.), Thinking through the Body: Archaeologies of Corporeality, 233-247. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Rambach, J., 2000a. Kykladen I. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt. Rambach, J., 2000b. Kykladen II. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt. Renard, J., 1989. Le site Neolithique et Helladique Ancien de Kouphovouno (Laconie). Liège: chez Bulenners. Renfrew, C., 1964. Crete and Cyclades before Rhadamanthus, Cretika Chronika, 107-141. Renfrew, C., 1967. Cycladic Metallurgy and the Aegean Early Bronze Age, American Journal of Archaeology, 71, 1-20. Renfrew, C., 1968. Excavations at Saliagos Near Antiparos. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

198

198

References

Renfrew, C., 1969. The Development and Chronology of the Early Cycladic Figurines, American Journal of Archaeology, 73, 135. Renfrew, C., 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC. London: Methuen. Renfrew, C., 1977a. The Cycladic Culture, in C. Renfrew (ed.), Art and Culture of the Cyclades, 17-30. Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller, Grobßdruckerei und Verlag. Renfrew, C., 1977b. The Typology and Chronology of Cycladic Sculpture, in C. Renfrew (ed.), Art and Culture of the Cyclades, 59-70. Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller, Großdruckerei und Verlag. Renfrew, C., 1984. Speculations on the Use of Early Cycladic Sculpture, in J. L. Fitton (ed.), Cycladica: Studies in Memory of N. P. Goulandris, Proceedings of the Seventh British Museum Classical Colloquium, June 1983, 24-30. London: British Museum. Renfrew, C., 1986. A Neolithic head from the Cyclades, Antiquity, LX, 134-135. Renfrew, C., 1991. The Cycladic Spirit. London: Thames and Hudson. Renfrew, C. and M. Wagstaff, 1982. An Island Polity; The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Renfrew, C., M. Gimbutas and E. S. Elster (eds), 1986. Excavations at Sitagroi: A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece, 1, (Monumenta Archaeologica 13), 225-289. Los Angeles: UCLA Institute of Archaeology. Rethymiotakis, G., 1996. Anthropomorphic Figurines: Crete, in G. Papathanassopoulos (ed.), Neolithic Culture in Greece, 158. Athens: Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art. Rhomiopoulou, A. and C. Ridley, 1974. Prehistoric Settlement of Servia, Archaiologika Analekta ex Athenon, VII, 351-360. Rice, P. M., 1991. Women and Prehistoric Pottery Production, in D. Walde and N. D. Willows (eds.), The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Chacmool Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, 436-443. Calgary: University of Calgary. Ridley, C. and K. A. Wardle, 1979. Rescue excavations at Servia 1971-1973: a preliminary report, Annals of the British School at Athens, 74, 185-230. Rodden, R. J., 1962. Excavations of the Early Neolithic Site of Nea Nikomedeia, Greek Macedonia, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 28, 267-88. Rodden, R. J., 1964. Recent discoveries from prehistoric Macedonia, an interim report, Balkan Studies, V, 109-124. Rodden, R. J., and K. A. Wardle (eds.), 1996. Nea Nikomedeia I: The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961-1964. The Excavation and the Ceramic Assemblage (Supplement to Annals of the British School at Athens 25). Athens: British School at Athens. Rowlands, M., 1993. The role of memory in the transmission of culture, World Archaeology, 25 (2), 141-151. Runnels, C. N. and J. Hansen, 1986. The olive in the prehistoric Aegean: the evidence for domestication in the Early Bronze Age, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 5, 299-308. Rutter, J. B., 1993. The Prepalatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland, American Journal of Archaeology, 97, 745-797. Rutter, J. B. and C. W. Zerner, 1984. Early Hellado-Minoan contacts, in R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality, 75-83. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag. Sakellarakis, E., 1987. New evidence from the Early Bronze Age cemetery at Manika, Chalkis, Annals of the British School at

199

199

References

Athens, 82, 233-264. Sakellarakis, I., 1974a. Anaskaphi Archanon, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias 1972, 310-315. Sakellarakis, I., 1974b. Anaskaphi Archanon, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias, 310-353. Sakellarakis, I., 1975. Anaskaphi Archanon, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias 1973, 167-187. Sakellarakis, I., 1978. Anaskaphi Archanon, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias, 309-322. Sakellarakis, I., 1979. Anaskaphi Archanon, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias, 342-399. Sakellarakis, I. and E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, 1997. Archanes: Minoan Crete in a New Light, Vol. II. Athens: Ammos Publications. Sampson, A., 1980. I Neolithiki kai i Protoelladiki I stin Euboia. Athens: Etaireia Euboїkon Spoudon. Sampson, A., 1985. Manika: Mia Protoelladiki Poli sti Chalkida. Athens: Etaireia Euboïkon Spoudon, Tmema Chalkidos. Sampson, A., 1987. The early Helladic graves of Manika: contribution to the socioeconomic conditions of the Early Bronze Age, in R. Laffineur (ed.), Thanatos: les coutumes funéraires en Egée à l'âge du Bronze, Actes du colloque de Liège, 21-23 avril 1986, 19-23. Liège : Histoire de l'art et archéologie de la Grèce antique. Sampson, A., 1988. Manika II : o Protoelladikos oikismos kai to nekrotapheio. Athens : Ekdosi Dimou Chalkidion. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E., 1983. To eidolio tou Sampa kai ta amorfa lithina eidolia tis proimis epochis tou Chalkou stin Kriti, Arhaiologiki Ephimeris, 122, 44-74. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E., 1987. New evidence from the Early Bronze Age Cemetery at Manika, Chalkis, Annals of the Britrish School at Athens, 82, 233-264. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E., 1991. Nouvelles Figurines Cycladiques et Petite Glyptique du Bronze Ancien d' Eubée, Antike Kunst, 34, 3-12. Schilardi, D., 1977. Anaskaphes stin Paro, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias, 363-377. Schilardi, D., 1982. Anaskaphi stin Paro, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias, 138, 232-252. Schilardi, D., 1983. Anaskaphi stin Paro, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias, 139, 271-296. Scott, E., 1999. The Archaeology of Infancy and Infant Death. (BAR International Series 819). Oxford: BAR. Sherratt, A., 1981. Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution, in I. Hodder, I. Glynn and N. Hammond (eds.), Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke, 261-305. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sherratt, A., 1987. Cups that cheered: the introduction of alcohol to prehistoric Europe, in W. Waldren and R. Kennard, (eds.), Bell Beakers of the Western Mediterranean: the Oxford International Conference 1986, 81-106. Oxford: BAR. Sherratt, A. and S. Sherratt, 1991. From luxuries to commodities: the nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age trading systems, in N. H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 90), 351-86. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. Sherratt, A. and S. Sherratt, 1993. The Growth of the Mediterranean Economy in the Early First Millennium BC, World Archaeology, 24, 361-378. Sherratt, S., 2000. Catalogue of Cycladic Antiquities in the Ashmolean Museum: The Captive Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

200

200

References

Skaphida, L., 1992. Neolithika Anthropomorpha Eidolia tou Dimeniou, in E. Kypraiou (ed.), Diethnes Synedrio gia tin Arhaia Thessalia sti Mnimi tou Dimitri R. Theochari, 166-179. Athens: Ekdosi tou Tameiou Arhaiologikon Poron kai Apallotrioseon. Sofaer Derevenski, J., 1997. Age and gender at the site of the Tiszapolgár-Basatanya, Hungary, Antiquity, 71, 875-889. Sofaer, J., 2006. The Body as Material Culture: A Theoretical Osteoarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Soles, J. S., 1988. Social Ranking in Prepalatial Cemeteries, in E. B. French and K. A. Wardle (eds.), Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986, 49-61. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. Sørensen, M. L. S., 1991. Gender construction through appearance, in D. Walde and N. D. Willows (eds.), The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, 121-9. Calgary: The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. Sørensen, M. L. S., 1996. Women as/and Metalworkers, in A. Devonshire and B. Wood (eds.), Women in Industry and Technology from Prehistory to the Present Day: Current Research and the Museum Experience Proceedings from the 1994 WHAM Conference, 45-51. London: Museum of London. Sørensen, M. L. S., 1997. Reading dress: the construction of social categories and identities in Bronze Age Europe, Journal of European Archaeology, 5, 93-114. Sørensen, M. L. S., 2000. Gender Archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Sotirakopoulou, P., 1998. The Early Bronze Age Stone Figurines from Akrotiri on Thera and their Significance for the Early Cycladic Settlement, Annals of the British School at Athens, 93, 167-184. Spindler, K., 1994. The Man in the Ice, translated by E. Osers. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Spyropoulos, T., 1973. Spelia Sarakenou Kopaidos, Archaiologikon Deltion, 28, 263-264. Stager, L. E., 1985. The First Fruits of Civilization, in J. N. Tubb (ed.), Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in honour of Olga Tufnell, 172-187. London: Institute of Archaeology. Stephanos, K., 1903. Anaskaphai en Naxo, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias, 52-57. Stephanos, K., 1904. Anaskaphai en Naxo, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias, 57-62. Stephanos, K., 1906. Anaskpahai en Naxo, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias, 86-89. Stephanos, K., 1909. Anaskaphai en Naxo, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias, 209-210. Stone, M., 1977. The Paradise Papers: the Suppression of Women’s Rites. London: Virago. Stos-Gale, Z. A., 1989. Cycladic copper metallurgy, in A. Hauptman, E. Pernicka and G. A. Wagner (eds.), Archäometallurgie der Alten Welt/Old World Metallurgy (Der Anschnitt 7), 279-91. Bochum: Deutschen Bergbau-Museum. Talalay, L., 1983. Neolithic Figurines of Southern Greece: Their form and function. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Indiana. Talalay, L., 1987. Rethinking the function of Clay Figurine Legs from Neolithic Greece: an argument by analogy, American Journal of Archaeology, 91, 161-169. Talalay, L., 1991. Body Imagery of the Ancient Aegean, Archaeology, 44, 46-49.

201

201

References

Talalay, L., 1993. Deities, Dolls, and Devices: Neolithic Figurines from Franchthi Cave, Greece. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Talalay, L., 2000. Archaeological Ms.conceptions: Contemplating Gender and Power in the Greek Neolithic, in M. Donald and L. Hurrombe (eds.), Representations of Gender from Prehistory to the Present, 3-16. London: MacMillan Press. Talalay, L., 2005. The Gendered Sea: Iconography, Gender and Mediterranean Prehistory, in E. Blake and A. B. Knapp (eds.), The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory, 130-155. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Theocharis, D., 1951. Anaskaphi en Arapheni ypo Demetriou R. Theochari, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias, 7792. Theocharis, D., 1956. Nea Makri: Eine grose neolithische Siedlung in der Nähe von Deutschen Archäologischen, Mittheilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institutes Athenische Abteilung, 71, 1-29. Theocharis, D., 1973. Neolithic Greece. Athens : National Bank of Greece. Theocharis, D. and Aik. Rhomiopoulou, 1961. Anaskaphai Ntikili Tas, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias, 81-87. Thimme, J., 1977. Art and Culture of the Cyclades. Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller, Großdruckerei und Verlag. Tilley, C., 1989. Interpreting material culture, in I. Hodder (ed.), The Meanings of Things: material culture and symbolic expression, 185-194. London: Unwin Hyman. Tilley, C., 1999. Metaphor and Material Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Tomkins, P., 2001. The Production, Circulation and Consumption of Ceramic Vessels at Early Neolithic Knossos, Crete. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sheffield. Tomkins, P., 2004. Filling in the ‘neolithic background’: social life and social transformation in the Aegean before the Bronze Age, in J. C. Barrett and P. Halstead (eds.), The Emergence of Civilisation Revisited (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 6), 38– 63. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Touchais, G., 1981. Le matériel Néolithique (L'antre Corycien), Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 105, 771-889. Treherne, P., 1995. The warrior’s beauty: the masculine body and self-identity in Bronze Age Europe, Journal of European Archaeology, 3, 105-44. Triantaphyllou, S., 1999. Prehistoric Makrygialos: a story from the fragments, in P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 1), 128-135. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Tringham, R. 1991. Households with Faces: the Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric Architectural Remains, in J. M. Gero and W. Conkey (eds.), Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, 93-131. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Tringham, R. and M. Conkey, 1998. Rethinking figurines: a critical view from archaeology of Gimbutas, the ‘Goddess’ and popular culture, in L. Goodison and C. Morris (ed.), Ancient Goddesses, 22-45. London: British Museum Press. Tsountas, C., 1898. Kykladika, Archaiologiki Ephimeris, 137-212. Tsountas, C., 1899. Kykladika II, Archaiologiki Ephimeris, 74-134. Tsountas, C., 1908. Ai Proistorikai Akropoleis Dimeniou kai Sesklou. Athens: P. D. Sakellariou. Turner, B., 1995. Body and Society: An Introduction, in M. Featherstone and B. Turner (eds.), Body and Society, 1-12. London: Sage.

202

202

References

Tzavella-Evjen, H., 1984. Lithares. Athens: Tameio Archaiologikon Poron kai Apalotrioseon. Tzavella-Evjen, H., 1985. Lithares: An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Boeotia. Los Angeles, CA: Institute of Archaeology, University of California. Tzedakis, I., 1966. Archaiotites kai mnimia Ditikis Kritis, Archaiolokikon Deltion, 21, 425-429. Ucko, P. J., 1968. Anthropomorphic Figurines of Predynastic Egypt and Neolithic Crete with Comparative Material from the Prehistoric Near East and Mainland Greece. London: Andrew Schmidla. Vagnetti, L. and P. Belli, 1978. Characters and Problems of the Final Neolithic in Crete, Studi Micenei ed Egeo Anatolici, 19, 125163. Valmin, M., 1938. The Swedish Messenia Expedition. Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet. van Andel, T. H. and C. N. Runnels, 1988. An essay on the “emergence of civilization” in the Aegean world, Antiquity, 62, 234-47. Vermeule, E., 1964. Greece in the Bronze Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Vialou, D., 1974. La grotte de Kitsos: La papure, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 98, 743-748. Vida Navarro, M. C., 1992. Warriors and weavers: sex and gender in Early Iron Age graves in Pontecagnano, The Accordia Research Papers (The Journal of the Accordia Research Centre), 3, 67-99. Vitelli, K. D., 1995. Pots, Potters, and the Shaping of Greek Neolithic Society in W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes (eds.), The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, 55-63. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Vitelli, K. D., 1999. Franchthi Neolithic Pottery, Volume 2, The Later Neolithic Ceramic Phases 3 to 5 (Fascicle 10). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. von Cles-Reden, S., 1960. The Realm of the Great Goddess. London: Thames and Hudson. Wace, A. J., 1949. Prehistoric Stone Figurines from the Mainland (Supplement VIII to Hesperia), 423-426. Wace, A. J. and B. Thompson, 1912. Prehistoric Thessaly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walter, H. and F. Felten, 1981. Alt-Aigina (Band III:1). Mainz auf Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Walisewska, E., 1991. Archaeology of Religion: Colors as Symbolic Markers Dividing Sacred from Profane, Journal of Prehistoric Religion, V, 36-41. Warren, P., 1969. Minoan Stone Vases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Warren, P., 1972. Myrtos: An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete. Oxford: The Alden Press. Warren, P., 1973. The Beginnings of Minoan Religion, in P. Warren (ed.), Antichità Cretesi: studi in onore di Doro Levi, Vol. 1, 137-147. Catania, Italy: University of Catania. Washburn, D. K., 1983. Toward a theory of structural style in art, Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 537-564. Wason, P. K., 1994. The Archaeology of Rank. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weinberg, S. S., 1951. Neolithic figurines and Aegean interrelations, American Journal of Archaeology, 55, 121-133. Weinberg, S. S., 1962. Excavations at Prehistoric Elateia, 1959, Hesperia, XXXI, 158-209. Weingarten, J., 1997. Another look at Lerna: an EHIIB trading post?, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 16, 147-166.

203

203

References

Weisshaar, H.-J., 1979. Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula und der beginnder Frühen Bronzezeit in Griechenland, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 9, 385-392. Weisshaar, H.-J., 1989. Das Späte Neolithikum und das Chalkolithikkum (Band 28). Bonn: Dr Rudolf Habelt. Whitehouse, R., 2001. Exploring gender in prehistoric Italy, Papers of the British School at Rome, LXIX, 49-96. Whitelaw, T., 1983. The settlement at Fournou Korifi, Myrtos and aspects of Early Minoan social organisation, in O. Krzyszkowska and L. Nixon (eds.), Minoan Society (Proceedings of the Cambridge Colloquium 1981), 323-345. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. Whitley, J., 2003. Archaeology in Greece 2002-2003, 31-31. Archaeological Reports for 2002-2003, 49, 1-85. Wiencke, M., 1989. Change in Early Helladic II, American Journal of Archaeology, 93, 495-509. Wijnen, M.-H., 1982. The Early Neolithic I Settlement at Sesklo: an early farming community in Thessaly, Greece, Figurines, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, XIV, 45-46. Wolff, J., 1993. The Social Production of Art. London: The MacMillan Press, 2nd edn. Wright, J., 1999. A marble figurine from Tsoungiza, in R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier (eds.), Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as he enters his 65th year, 945-953. Liège: Université de Liège and University of Texas at Austin. Wright, R. P., 1991. Women's Labor and Pottery Production in Prehistory, in R. P. Wright (ed.), Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, 194-223. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Xanthoudides, S., 1918. Megas Protominoikos taphos Pyrgou, Archaiologikon Deltion, 4, 136-170. Xanthoudides, S., 1924. The Vaulted Tombs of Mesara. Edinburgh: T. and A. Constable. Yates, T., 1993. Frameworks for an Archaeology of the Body, in C. Tilley (ed.), Interpretative Archaeology, 31-72. Oxford: Berg Publishers. Zachos, C. L., 1987. Ayios Demetrios: a Prehistoric Settlement in the Southwestern Peloponnesos: The Neolithic and Early Helladic Periods. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Boston. Zapheiropoulou, P., 1967. Archaiotites kai Mnimeia Samou kai Kykladon, Archaiologikon Deltion, 22, 463-467. Zapheiropoulou, P., 1968. Cycladic Finds from Keros, Archaiologika Analekta ex Athenon, 1, 97-100. Zapheiropoulou, P., 1970a. Kouphonesi, Archaiologikon Deltion, 25, 428-430. Zapheiropoulou, P., 1970b. Protokykladika euremata ek Kouphonesiou, Archaiologika Analekta ex Athenon, 3, 48-51. Zervos, C., 1957. L'art des Cyclades du début à la fin de l’âge du bronze, 2,500-1,100 avant notre ère. Paris: Cahiers d' Art. Zervos, C., 1962. Naissance de la Civilisation en Gréce. Paris: Cahiers d'Art. Zois, A., 1974. Anaskaphi eis Vasilikin Ierapetras (1970 kai 1972), Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias, 274-309. Zois, A., 1979. Anaskaphi eis Vasilikin Ierapetras, Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis Etaireias, 440-459.

204

204