Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T05:23:20.193Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can We Interpret Figurines?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Naomi Hamilton
Naomi Hamilton
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EHI ILZ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Figurines—miniature human representations modelled in clay or stone — are one of those key categories of prehistoric material which no archaeologist who finds one can ignore. Whether working in central America or southeast Europe, or in any of the many other contexts in which figurines abound, they form a central class of material which generates a heightened level of interest and attention. But however numerous and how-ever intriguing, prehistoric figurines have another crucial quality — that of ambiguity. Without the help of textual evidence, can prehistoric figurines be confidently interpreted or understood? Can we ever hope to know what an individual figurine was meant to represent, or why it was modelled in the way it was? Yet the challenge of interpretation can hardly be refiised. For figurines illustrate self-awareness, which is a unique human characteristic. It is this dilemma — the impulse to interpret, but the difficulty of doing so convincingly — which is the focus of the present Viewpoint.

Figurines are found in many (though not all) regions and periods of prehistory. The earliest — the female forms once referred to as ‘Venus figurines’ — date back to the Upper Palaeolithic. At the other end of the scale, figurines are still in active production today, in the form of dolls, models and statues. In a prehistoric context, figurines have multiple dimensions of interest and meaning. In first place, there is the issue of sex and gender. Many figurines are clearly female, yet their gender significance, in both social and cognitive terms (rather than in simplistic notions of Mother Goddess or sex object), has only recently begun to be considered in a serious and critical way. Then there is the aspect of human self-awareness which the figurines so vibrantly express. Figurines also encode important cognitive elements in the modelling and representation of the human form, their makers frequently exaggerating some features or concealing others. Nor, ultimately, can we avoid the question of belief, and the ritual context in which so many figurines were made or used.

The contributors to this Viewpoint feature all believe that figurines can indeed be interpreted. But they also lay stress on the vital importance of context and definition. Prehistoric figurines cannot be understood as isolated artefacts, but must be seen as products of particular societies. How far we can penetrate into their meanings — and into the minds of their prehistoric makers — is the fundamental question which underpins this discussion. Can we interpret figurines? And if so, how should we go about it?

Type
Viewpoint
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , October 1996 , pp. 281 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, B., 1992. Egyptian archaeology in the Petrie Museum, London.KMT 3, 8–21,70.Google Scholar
Franch, J. Alcina, 1993.Calendario y Religión entre los Zapotecos. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico.Google Scholar
Ardener, S., 1973. Sexual insult and the female militancy. in Man 8(3), 422–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ardener, S., 1975. Sexual insult and female militancy, in Perceiving Women, ed. Ardener, S.. London: Malaby, 29–54.Google Scholar
Bachofen, J.J., 1967. Myth, Religion and Mother Right: Selected Writings of J.J Bachofen. Translated by Mannheim, Ralph. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bahn, P.G., 1986. No sex please, we're Aurignacians. Rock Art Research 3, 99–120.Google Scholar
Bahn, P.G., 1996. Comment on ‘Self-representation in Upper Paleolithic female figurines’ by McDermott, L.. Current Anthropology 37(2), 248–9.Google Scholar
Bahn, P.G. & Vertut, J., 1988. Images of the Ice Age. Leicester: Windward.Google Scholar
Bailey, D.W., 1990. The living house: signifying continuity, in The Social Arcliaeology of Houses ed. Samson, R.. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 19–48.Google Scholar
Bailey, D.W., 1991. The Social Reality of Figurines from the Chalcolithic of Northeastern Bulgaria: the Ex-ample of Ovcharovo. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bailey, D.W., 1994. Reading prehistoric figurines as individuals. World Archaeology 25(3), 321–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, D.W., 1995. The representation of gender: homology or propaganda. Journal of European Archaeology. 2(2), 215–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, D.W., 1996. The life, time and works of House 59, Tell Ovcharovo, Bulgaria, in Neolithic Houses of North-west Europe and Beyond, eds. Darvill, T. & Thomas, J.. Oxford: Oxbow, 143–56.Google Scholar
Barley, N., 1994. Smashing Pots: Feats of Clay from Africa. London: British Museum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth, F., 1987. Cosmologies in the Making: a Generative Approach to Cultural Variation in Inner New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth, F., 1993. Balinese Worlds. Chicago (IL): Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Bateson, G., 1972. Redundancy and coding in Steps to-wards an Ecology of Mind, ed. Bateson, G.. New York (NY): Ballentine Books.Google Scholar
Bolger, D., 1996. Figurines, fertility and the emergence of complex society in prehistoric Cyprus Current Anthropology 37, 365–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broman, V.L., 1958. Jarmo Figurines. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Radcliffe College, Cambridge (MA).Google Scholar
Calverton, V.F., 1931. Modern anthropology and the theory of cultural compulsives, in The Making of Man, ed. Calverton, V.F.. Westport (CT): Modern Library/Greenwood.Google Scholar
Caplan, P., 1987. Introduction, in The Cultural Construction of Sexuality, ed. Caplan, P. London: Tavistock, 1–30.Google Scholar
Chang, K.C., 1983. Art, Myth, and Ritual: the Path to Political Authority in Ancient China. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childe, V.G., 1958. Valediction. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 1, 1–8.Google Scholar
Clark, G., 1946. From Savagery to Civilisation. London: Cobbett Press.Google Scholar
Conkey, M.W., 1983. On the origin of Palaeolithic art: a review and some critical thoughts, in The Mousterian Legacy: Human Biocultural Change in the Upper Pleistocene, ed. Trinkhaus, E.. (British Archaeological Reports International Series 164.) Oxford BAR, 201–27.Google Scholar
Conkey, M.W, 1987. New approaches in the search for meaning? A review of research in ‘Paleolithic art’. Journal of Field Archaeology 14, 413–30.Google Scholar
Conkey, M.W. & Tringham, R., 1995. Archaeology and the goddess: exploring the contours of feminist archaeology, in Feminisms in the Academy: Rethinking the Disciplines, eds. Stewart, A. & Stanton, D.. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Córdova, , de, J., (1578) 1942. Vocabulario en lengua zapoleca, Mexico: Pedro Charte & Antonio Ricardo.Google Scholar
Cruz, P., 1960. Usos, Costumbres, Religión: Superstición de los Mayas. 2nd edition. Yucatán, México: Mérida.Google Scholar
Davis, E.G., 1971. The First Sex. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Troncoso, F. del Paso y, 1905. Relaciones Geográficas de Oaxaca. (Papeles de Nueva España: Segunda Serie, Geografía y Estadística IV.) Madrid: Sucesores de Rivadeneyra.Google Scholar
Drennan, R.D., 1976. Religion and social evolution in formative Mesoamerica, in Flannery, (ed.), 345–64.Google Scholar
Engels, F., 1902 (1884). Vie Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State. Translated by Untermann, Ernest. Chicago (IL): Charles H. Kerr & Co. Co-operative.Google Scholar
Evans, J.D. & Renfrew, C., 1966. The fat lady of Saliagos. Antiquity 40, 218–19.Google Scholar
Flannery, K.V., 1976. Contextual analysis of ritual paraphernalia from Formative Oaxaca, in Flannery, (ed.), 333–45.Google Scholar
Flannery, K.V. (ed.), 1976. The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Flannery, K.V. & Marcus, J., 1994. Early Formative Pottery of the Valley of Oaxaca. (Memoir 27.) Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freud, S. (1912–13) 1986a. Totem and taboo. Some points of agreement between the mental lives of savages and neurotics, in The Origins of Religion, ed. Dickson, A.. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 53–224.Google Scholar
Gamble, C.S., 1982. Interaction and alliance in Palaeolithic society. Man 17, 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Y., 1994. Ritual burial of cultic objects: the earliest evidence. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4(2), 159–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geertz, C., 1993. Thick description: towards an interpretative theory of culture, in The Interpretation of Cultures, ed. Geertz, C.. London: Fontana Press, 3–33.Google Scholar
Gell, A., 1993. Wrapping in Images: Tattooing in Polynesia Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimbutas, M., 1977. The first wave of Eurasian steppe pastoralists into Copper Age Europe. Journal of Indo-European Studies 5, 277–339.Google Scholar
Gimbutas, M., 1980. The Kurgan Wave 2, c. 3400–3200 BC. Journal of Indo-European Studies 8, 273–317.Google Scholar
Gimbutas, M., 1982. The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe 6500–3500 bc: Myths and Cult Images. 2nd edition. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Gimbutas, M., 1989. The Language of the Goddess: Unearthing Hidden Symbols of Western Civilization. London: Thames & Hudson; San Francisco (CA): Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Gimbutas, M., 1991. The Civilization of the Goddess: the World of Old Europe. San Francisco (CA): Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Goring, E., 1991. The anthropomorphic figurines, in Lemba Archaeological Project, vol. 11:2:Google Scholar
a Ceremonial Area at Kissonerga, ed. Peltenburg, E.. (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology LXX.3.) Göteborg: Paul Åströms, 39–60.Google Scholar
Guthrie, R.D., 1979. Ethological observations from Palaeolithic art, in Le contribution de la zoologie el de l'ethologie a l'interpretation de l'art des peuples chasseurs prehistoriques, eds. Bandi, H.-G., Huber, W., Sauter, M.-R. & Sitter, B.. (3rd Colloque de la Société Suisse des Sciences Humaines.) Société Suisse des Sciences Humaines, 35–74.Google Scholar
Haaland, G., 1984. Fur, in Muslim People: a World Ethnographic Survey, ed. Weeks, R.W.V.. Greenwood Press, 264–9.Google Scholar
Haaland, G., in press. Beer, blood and mothers milk. Sudan Notes and Records.Google Scholar
Haaland, G. & Haaland, R., 1995. Who speaks the Goddess's language: imagination and method in archaeological research. Norwegian Archaeological Review 28, 105–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haaland, R., 1995. Sedentism, cultivation and plant domestication in the Holocene Middle Nile region. Journal of Field Archaeology 23, 157–73.Google Scholar
Hamilton, N., 1994. A fresh look at the ‘seated gentleman’ in the Pierides Foundation Museum, Republic of Cyprus. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4(2), 302–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, N., in press a. Ungendering archaeology: concepts of sex and gender in figurine studies, in Gender and Material Culture: Representations of Gender from Prehistory to the Present, eds. Donald, M. & Hurcombe, L.. Exeter: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hamilton, N., in press b. Figurines, clay balls, small finds and burials, in On the Surface: Çatalhöyiik 1993–95, ed. Hodder, Ian. (McDonald Institute Mongraphs.) Exeter: Short Run Press.Google Scholar
Hawkes, J., 1968. The proper study of mankind. Antiquity 62, 255–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutton, R., 1996. The Neolithic Great Goddess: a Study in Modern Tradition. Unpublished ms.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, M., 1994. The Real Facts of Life: Feminism and the Politics of Sexuality c. 1850–1940. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Johnson, M., 1987. The Body in the Mind: the Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago (IL) & London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M., 1993. Moral Imagination. Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics. Chicago (IL) & London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Karageorghis, V., 1981. Ancient Cyprus. Baton Rouge (LA) & London: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Laqueur, T., 1990. Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Leach, L., 1973. Communication and taboo in primitive art, in Primitive Art and Society, ed. Forge, A.. London & New York (NY): Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1958. La fonction des signes dans les sanctuaires paléolithiques. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 40, 307–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lothrop, S.K., 1937. Coclé, part I. (Memoir VII.) Cambridge (MA): Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology, Harvard University.Google Scholar
McDermott, L., 1996. Self-representation in Upper Palaeolithic female figurines. Current Anthropology 37(2), 227–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, J., 1978. Archaeology and religion: a comparison of the Zapotec and Maya. World Archaeology 10(2), 172–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, J., 1983. Rethinking the Zapotec urn, in The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, eds. Flannery, K. V. & Marcus, J.. New York (NY): Academic Press, 144–8.Google Scholar
Marcus, J., 1989. Zapotec chiefdoms and the nature of Formative religions, in Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, eds. Sharer, R.J. & Grove, D.C.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 148–97.Google Scholar
Marcus, J., 1993. Men's and Women's Ritual. Paper presented at Dumbarton Oaks symposium (organized by D.C. Grove & R. Joyce), Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Marcus, J., in prep., Figurines and Women's Ritual in Formative Oaxaca. (Memoir.) Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.Google Scholar
Marcus, J. & Flannery, K. V., 1994. Ancient Zapotec ritual and religion: an application of the direct historical approach, in The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, eds. Renfrew, C. & Zubrow, E.B.W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, J. & Flannery, K.V., 1996. Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico's Oaxaca Valley. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Marshack, A., 1972. The Roots of Civilisation: the Cognitive Beginnings of Man's First Art, Symbol and Notation. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Marshack, A., 1996. Comment on ‘Self-representation in Upper Palaeolithic female figurines’ by McDermott, L.. Current Anthropology 37(2), 259–63.Google Scholar
Merpert, N.Y., Munchaev, R.M. & Bader, N.O., 1981. Investigations of the Soviet expedition in Northern Iraq 1976. Sumer 37, 22–54.Google Scholar
Meskell, L., 1995. Goddesses, Gimbutas and ‘New Age’ archaeology. Antiquity 69, 74–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, S.F., 1996. Developing a Form Typology for Eneolithic Pottery from the Settlement Mound at Ovcharovo, Northeastern Bulgaria. Unpublished B.A. dissertation, University of Wales, Cardiff.Google Scholar
Montserrat, D., 1996. Sex and Society in Graeco-Roman Egypt. London: Kegan Paul International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, L.H., (1877) 1964. Ancient Society. Cambridge (MA): Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morphy, H. (ed.), 1989a. Animals into Art. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Morphy, H., 1989b. From dull to brilliant: the aesthetics of spiritual power among the Yolngu. Man 24, 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, D., 1985. The Art of Ancient Cyprus. London: Phaidon/Cape.Google Scholar
Nilsson, M.P., 1927. The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion. London: Humphrey Milform.Google Scholar
Obeysekere, G., 1990. The Work of Culture. Chicago (IL) & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Orphanides, A.G., 1983. Bronze Age Anthropomorphic Figurines in the Cesnola Collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Göteborg: Paul Åströms.Google Scholar
Pearson, M. Parker, 1982. Mortuary practices, society and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological study, in Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, ed. Hodder, I.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrie, W.M.F., 1924. Religious Life in Ancient Egypt. London: Constable & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Poovey, M., 1988. Uneven Developments: the Ideological Work of Gender in Mid-Victorian England. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K.R., 1977. Part 1, in The Self and its Brain, by Popper, K.R. & Eccles, J.C.. Berlin, Heidelberg, London & New York (NY): Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, J.J., 1982. New perspectives on Mother worship, in Mother Worship: Theme and Variations, ed. Preston, J.J.. Chapel Hill (NC): University of North Carolina Press, 325–45.Google Scholar
Rappaport, R.A., 1979. Ecology, Meaning, and Religion. Richmond (CA): North Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
Renfrew, A.C., 1986. Varna and the emergence of wealth in prehistoric Europe, in The Social Life of Things, ed. Appadurai, A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 144–68.Google Scholar
Sandars, N.K., 1985. Prehistoric Art in Europe. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, S., 1984. Gender Definition and Material Remains: Predynastic Egypt as a Test Case. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Washington State University.Google Scholar
Sontag, S., 1973. On Photography. New York (NY): Farrer, Strauss & Giroux.Google Scholar
Stone, M., 1976. The Paradise Papers: the Suppression of Women's Rites. London: Virago.Google Scholar
Strathern, M., 1988. The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taçon, P.S.C., 1991. The power of stone: symbolic aspects of stone use and tool development in western Arnhem Land, Australia. Antiquity 65, 192–207.Google Scholar
Talalay, L.E., 1987. Rethinking the function of clay figurine legs from Neolithic Greece: an argument by analogy. American Journal of Archaeology 91, 161–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, T., 1996. Discovering the prehistory of sex. British Archaeology 15, 8–9.Google Scholar
Todorova, H., 1978. The Eneolithic in Bulgaria. (British Archaeological Reports S 49.) Oxford: BAR.Google Scholar
Todorova, H., 1986. Kammeno-mednata Epokha v Bulgariya. Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo.Google Scholar
Todorova, H., Ivanov, S., Vasilev, V., Hopf, M., Quitta, H. & Kohl, G., 1975. Selishtnata Mogila pri Golyamo Delchevo. (Razkopki i Prouchvaniya 5.) Sofia: Bulgarskata Akademiya na Naukite.Google Scholar
Turner, V., 1968. Betwixt and between: the liminal period of rites of passage, in Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual, by Turner, V.. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press, 93–111.Google Scholar
Ucko, P.J., 1968. Anthropomorphic Figurines of Predynastic Egypt and Neolithic Crete with Comparative Material from the Prehistoric Near East and Mainland Greece. (Royal Anthropological Institute Occasional Paper 24.) London: Szmidla.Google Scholar
Ucko, P.J., 1970. Penis sheaths: a comparative study. Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland for 1969, 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ucko, P.J. & Rosenfeld, A., 1972. Anthropomorphic representations in Palaeolithic art, in Adas del Symposium lntemadonal de Arte Rupestre 1970, eds. Almagro, M.B. & Guinea, M.A. Garcia. Santander: Patronata de las Cuevas Prehistoricas, 149–211.Google Scholar
van Gennep, A., 1960. The Rites of Passage. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Voigt, M., 1983. Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran: the Neolithic Settlement. Philadelphia (PA): University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Westermarck, E., 1891. The History of Human Marriage. London: Macmillan & Co..Google Scholar
Whalen, M., 1981. Excavations at Santo Domingo Tomaltepec: Evolution of a Formative Community in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. (Memoir 12.) Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wobst, H.M., 1977. Stylistic behavior and information exchange, in Papers for the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, ed. Cleland, C.E.. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar