GENDERING FIGURINES, ENGENDERING PEOPLE IN EARLY AEGEAN

PREHISTORY

Anthropomorphic figurines have always attracted the attention of archaeologists,

anthropologists and art historians. The interest is even greater, however, when they come
out of prehistoric contexts when symbolic artifacts have been used to provide insights
into past societies in the absence of other cultural indicators. In the case of Aegean early
prehistory the study of anthropomorphic figurines has not followed a uniform strategy of
study. Instead, there is a distinct dichotomy between the way in which Neolithic and
Early Bronze Age figurines have been approached and interpreted. In both cases, the
methodological route and the obvious biases have hindered the understanding of past
societies and their people as attested by anthropomorphic figurines.

Even though little interest has been expressed specifically in the study of Aegean
figurines and only a few systematic works have been conducted, I will give you a brief
review of the main lines of thought as a way of placing their study in the wider academic
context.

The first wave of works relating to anthropomorphic figurines dates mainly to the period
of the fifties and sixties and all have argued for the existence of the Mother-Goddess cult
in a matrilineal society, with the exception of Peter Uckos work in 1968. In these models
Neolithic culture was equated with the earliest stages of development, while later
patriarchal societies were viewed as a product of more complex formations. Also in the
sixties with the advent of feminism a number of archaeologists following a gynocentric
argument attempted to exclude men from the past and argued for a natural biological
superiority of women over men. In the 1970s and 1980s a new wave of androcentric
interpretations counteracted the previous theories by relating female figurines to mens
sexual gratification. What they all have in common, however, is that their main
weaknesses lie in the fact that the evidence was used selectively, as a way of structuring
the arguments, according to individual archaeologists biases and expectations from the
archaeological record.

Moving on to the Early Bronze Age period, the attention that especially Cycladic
figurines have attracted is far greater than that for the Neolithic ones. As Gill &
Chippindale (1993) have pointed out, most of the studies (see Getz-Preziosi 1987a,
1987b; Renfrew 1991, Thimme 1977) have concentrated on establishing typologies,
tracing Masters and compiling glossy museum catalogues which resulted in elevating
figurines to a high aesthetic status. With the high demand for Cycladic figurines in the art
market, we have reasons to believe that figurines without provenance may be products of
forgery. Academics, however, have conducted research on such unprovenanced Museum
pieces despite the invalidity that such actions cast on their work. Moreover, the majority
of these studies impose modern perceptions concerning the artists place in his/her
society, as well as an invented set of rules that the artist was believed to have followed as
in the Classical period (Gill & Chippindale 1993). Apart from the aesthetic appreciation
expressed in many of the works, figurines have occasionally been linked to the later
Greek pantheon and some androcentric ideas about womens place in a patriarchal
society. It is evident, therefore, that on this side of the fence as well, works which do not
relate in any way to Neolithic figurines have also followed the same argument that the
Neolithic expresses the animus, while the more complex Early Bronze Age provided the
basis for the later patriarchal, rational social order.

Recent works mainly on Neolithic figurines of South-East Europe show a clear separation
from the earlier interpretations (see Bailey 1994a, 1994b, 1996; Hamilton 2000;
Hitchcock 1997; Kokkinidou & Nikolaidou 1997; Langdon 1999; Lee 2000; Talalay
1987, 1991, 1993, 2000). On the other hand, systematic and extensive works on Aegean
Early Bronze Age figurines and their meaning are missing. Taking into account the
studies carried out so far on early Aegean anthropomorphic figurines there is a clear
distinction between those of the Neolithic and those of the Early Bronze Age. Even
though in both cases the same class of evidence is analysed, there has been no attempt to
contrast and compare the use and meaning of figurines throughout the early Aegean
prehistory. There is an artificial boundary that is maintained and keeps apart the studies
of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age figurines. The existence of such a dichotomy
perpetuates the separation in the way figurines have been and continue to be approached.

Concerning the Neolithic, in the context of new figurine studies conducted on Balkan and
Anatolian anthropomorphic figurines, there has also been a turn in the way they are
approached in the Aegean. With the case of Cycladic figurines, however, there is an
unwillingness to challenge existing studies and methods of approach.

I will now turn to my area of research that focuses on the study of Neolithic and Early
Bronze Age Aegean figurines from a gender perspective, which I consider useful and
fruitful in a number of ways.

My decision to apply a gender approach to the study of anthropomorphic figurines serves

my research at two levels. On one level, I need to be explicit about my own research
agenda and interests which have influenced my decision to approach my data from this
perspective, because I believe that being aware of the political interests which form our
interpretations, and more importantly making them known to our audience, can lead to
fewer uncritical hypotheses. My opinion, therefore, is that the past is often interpreted by
imposing our own social preconceptions on how prehistoric societies may have been
organised and thus trapping gendered actors in our own social models. In the case of the
early Aegean prehistory what soon became apparent to me is that what is lacking from
many interpretations of Aegean society, and what has in turn shaped my theoretical
concerns, is that we need to make not only women visible in the archaeological record,
but also to include in our interpretations a number of gender and age-related experiences
lived by prehistoric individuals. Through a gender approach, men can also be potentially
viewed beyond the long-held stereotypes which trap them exclusively in the roles of
hunters, warriors, or exploiters and prevent us from seeing the cultural roles that men
would have played in their societies and in relation to other genders.

On a different level, applying a clear theoretical framework on both sets of data we take
the first step in ensuring that no conscious preconceptions colour our interpretations. The
perspective of gender archaeology provides us with a uniform theoretical context in
which we can begin to approach anthropomorphic figurines as the same class of material
which is in continuous use in early Aegean prehistory. Moreover, a gender approach with

the specific questions it raises gives shape to the issues that need to be discussed and
moulds a very clear set of methodological rules. The methodology resulting from a
gender perspective guards against assumptions that are not based on a systematic study of
anthropomorphic figurines. Bearing in mind that most interpretations have been based on
biases concerning gender, following a methodology tailored for gender theory allows a
critical view on previous works and exposes any preconceptions and unfounded
assumptions. The construction of a methodology resulting from gender archaeology,
therefore, focuses on a number of formal attributes which provide us with a list of points
against which we can begin to base our understanding of the object represented in the
form of an anthropomorphic figurine. Specific to my research, I have compiled a detailed
database in which I record the presence or absence of anatomical characteristics, use of
colour and material, detailed break-down of decorative motifs, posture, as well as a list of
categories referring to the chronology, context and site of these figurines of both periods.
When all these categories are then filtered electronically, patterns begin to emerge which
link the represented gender in association with the cultural, economic and chronological
context. Such analysis in turn provides us with a systematically sound basis on which we
can start to build the next stage of interpretation.

Applying a uniform gender perspective allows me also to bridge the artificial gap
between Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Aegean figurines and to detect changes and
continuing patterns in their representational form through early prehistory. As the first
results of my analysis begin to show, the patterns of figurine use which characterise the
Early Bronze Age period are already emerging at the end of the Late Neolithic and
through the Final Neolithic which suggests that we are not justified in studying them
separately. Moreover, the typological form of Early Bronze Age figurines does not
appear abruptly; instead we need to trace the first signs of change in the transitional
period and also include all those figurines which do not follow the common Cycladic
repertoire. The anthropocentric character of a gender approach, therefore, and its uniform
application allows us to focus on how the human body is rendered through time in terms
of its anatomy and cultural identity.

Gender archaeology also concentrates our attention on the symbolism of the represented
human body. Concentrating, therefore, on specifically selected attributes means that my
study of Cycladic figurines moves away from previous typological schemes and an
aesthetically loaded terminology. Such systematic approaches treat figurines as symbolic
objects the meaning of which can be found in aspects that surpass aesthetic evaluation
and art history canons.

In addition, gender archaeology is an anthropocentric perspective which is ideal for the

study of a class of material in the form of human, sexed bodies. A gender approach will
not only aid me in rectifying previous gynocentric and androcentric interpretations, but
will also allow me to bring into discussion the important parameter of gender which
played a major role in the construction of social identities. Starting from the obvious
point that Aegean anthropomorphic figurines are deliberately and clearly marked as to
distinguish mainly male from female figurines, we can then realize that a gender
approach is not arbitrarily imposed but instead is ideally suited to such type of data in a
number of ways. The most obvious point is that the physical body is represented in the
shape of a figurine and the area of research on the body is discussed explicitly in the
framework of gender archaeology. The physical body is tightly linked to gender theory
because it is involved in the construction and performance of gender with foundations on
both biological experiences and cultural factors. Since the majority of anthropological
studies have shown that the physical body is the main template on which gender
categories are built, we can then begin to realize just how vital is the study of the
represented body as expressed through figurines for the understanding of gender and
social identity in general.

Moreover, the study of figurines through the gender spectrum also allows us to
understand how the physical and social identity is perceived and experienced by a
member of a prehistoric society as a social actor but also as the manufacturer of such type
of artifacts. The deliberate presence or absence of anatomical features on the figurines is
one indicator that the manufacturer was making a conscious choice on the way he or she
wished to communicate gender through the physical body and its decoration, clothing or

hair style. Considering that symbolic objects can be actively manipulated as a way of
perpetuating or challenging social order, the choices of the manufacturer as they change
through time in terms of the represented subject matter can offer an insight into the social
process of early Aegean prehistory.

Finally, a more holistic understanding of the meaning of figurines needs to explore the
ideas concerning the gender of the figurine manufacturer as a way of addressing the
implications which relate to who was using figurines, how they were used and for what
reason. A particularly useful approach developed by Srensen (1996), however, brings to
the surface the fact that the answers often lie in the way we ask our research questions.
The methodological device she suggests is that by approaching technology and gender by
trying a number of alternative models on the basis of artefactual evidence we will
eventually come to the conclusion that some scenarios are more likely and better
supported by our data. By enriching our interpretation with ethnographic analogues and
by including men and women in the process of figurine production, we can overcome the
established preconceptions and understand better the meaning of figurines in terms of
their possible uses in their cultural context.

It has become apparent, I hope, that a gender perspective is ideally suited to the study of
anthropomorphic figurines. The systematic analysis of figurines creates the precondition
for us to start deciphering the meaning of such symbolic objects without the burden and
obstacle of art history typologies and aesthetic evaluation. In addition to providing us
with a sound theoretical and methodological framework, a gender analysis of figurines
guards against unfounded assumptions and brings to life the social actors of the
prehistoric Aegean. It also allows us an insight into the minds of the figurine makers and
how they perceived gendered individuals through their eyes and in their specific cultural
context. Moreover, a gender approach to figurines has great implications for our
understanding of Aegean prehistory but may also lead us to review the already existing
interpretations of social organization and order.

We often conduct detailed studies on past societies in an abstract way with faceless
people that do not live in a physical body which moulded and dictated their social
actions. That is why gendering anthropomorphic figurines in the prehistoric Aegean
means we can engender real people and social actors with lived bodies, experienced
choices through their daily negotiation in their cultural context.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank both my supervisors, Prof. R. Whitehouse and Dr C. Broodbank, for
their useful comments, but also all those who worked hard to organise the successful
SOMA 2003 conference in London.

Bibliography

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 & R Haaland and P Ucko,
Viewpoint: Can We Interpret Figurines?, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6, 291-295.

Getz-Preziosi, P, 1987a. Early Cycladic Art in North American Collections. Richmond,

Virginia: Virginia Museum of Fine Arts.

Getz-Preziosi, P, 1987b. Sculptors of the Cyclades : Individual and Tradition in the Third
Millennium B.C. USA: The University of Michigan Press.

Gill, D W J & C. Chippindale, 1993. Material and Intellectual Consequences of Esteem

for Cycladic Figures, American Journal of Archaeology 97, 601-647.

Hamilton, N, 2000. Ungendering Archaeology: Concepts of Sex and Gender in Figurine

Studies in Prehistory, in M Donald & L Hurrombe (eds), Representations of Gender from
Prehistory to the Present, 17-30. London: MacMillan Press.

Hitchcock, L A, 1997. Engendering domination: a structural and contextual analysis of

Minoan Neopalatial bronze figurines, in J. Moore & E. Scott (eds), Invisible People and
Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology,

113-130.

London: Leicester University Press.

Kokkinidou, D & Nikolaidou, M, 1997. Body imagery in the Aegean Neolithic:

ideological implications of anthropomorphic figurines, in J Moore & E Scott (eds)
Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European
Archaeology, 88-112. London: Leicester University Press.

Langdon, S, 1999. Figurines and Social Change: Visualising Gender in Dark Age Greece,
in N L Wicker & B Arnold (eds), From the Ground Up: Beyond Gender and
Archaeology Conference, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, October 1998,

23-29.

England: The Basingstoke Press.

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.

Renfrew, C, 1991. The Cycladic Spirit: Master-pieces from the Nicholas P. Goulandris
Collection. London: Thames and Hudson.

Srensen, M-L, 1996. Women as/and Metalworkers, in A Devonshire & 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.

Talalay, L E, 1987. Rethinking the function of Clay Figurine Legs from Neolithic
Greece: An Argument by Analogy, American Journal of Archaeology 91, 161-169.

Talalay, L E, 1991. Body Imagery of the Ancient Aegean, Archaeology 44, 46-49.

Talalay, L E, 1993. Deities, Dolls, and Devices: Neolithic Figurines from Franchthi
Cave, Greece. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Talalay, L, 2000. Archaeological Ms.conceptions: Contemplating Gender and Power in

the Greek Neolithic, in M Donald & L Hurrombe (eds), Representations of Gender from
Prehistory to the Present, 3-16. London: MacMillan Press.

Thimme, J (ed), 1977. Art and Culture of the Cyclades: Handbook of an Ancient
Civilisation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

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.

Gender approach to anthropomorphic figurines and the implications

for our interpretation of Aegean prehistory
2. Representation of
gender through figurines
1. Perception of the
manufacturer

3. Activated
gender
symbolism

Insights into the

minds and lived
experiences of
prehistoric people

Fuller understanding
of Aegean social
and economic
order

Review of gender
assumptions in
Aegean prehistory

Real people
central in
Aegean
narratives

Women included
in interpretations
of Aegean prehistory