AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY · American Journal of Archaeology 106 (2002) 525–50 525 Painted Ladies: Early Cycladic II Mourning Figures? GAIL L. HOFFMAN Abstract The function

AMERICAN JOURNALOF ARCHAEOLOGY

THE JOURNAL OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA

Volume 106 • No. 4 October 2002

American Journal of Archaeology 106 (2002) 525–50525

Painted Ladies: Early Cycladic IIMourning Figures?

GAIL L. HOFFMAN

AbstractThe function and meaning of Early Cycladic figures

has long been debated. With many sculptures lackingclear archaeological contexts and the ever-present con-cern about forgeries, any significant advance in our un-derstanding of these works has seemed unlikely. By focus-ing on paint traces, a rarely-studied detail of the sculp-tures, this article suggests that a small group of folded-arm figures (FAFs), preserved with red vertical stripespainted on their cheeks, represent mourning figures usedin funerary ritual. Combining close observation of theFAFs and their one assured context (in graves), ancientGreek evidence about figure use and funerals, as well asethnographic study of figure uses, it is argued that Cycladicfigures had a use-life before burial and that figures wouldbe painted multiple times and with different motifs toreflect their changing roles in such events as initiations,marriages, and funerals. Finally, the Cycladic figures mayreflect the development of ancestor ritual in Early Cycladicsociety in part as a response to scarce natural resources.*

The importance of proper mourning for the deadis evident in fifth-century Greek art and literature,where women’s roles in funerals were especially crit-ical. Much earlier, ca. 2500 B.C., women’s roles asmourners were probably equally central to society.At that time, I will argue, important individuals weremourned through the display during a funeral cer-emony of painted marble sculptures which were thenleft as offerings in the deceased’s grave. The detailsof public funerals and their functions within societychange through time; however, close examination

of the actual expressions and gestures of grief aswell as women’s central role in mourning show thatthese elements of the funeral remain remarkablyconsistent over the millennia separating fifth-centu-ry Athens from the Early Bronze Age Cyclades.

Since their discovery in the early 19th century,Cycladic marble figures have provoked speculationabout their possible uses and meanings.1 A full un-derstanding of the functions of Cycladic figures inEarly Cycladic society is limited by a lack of cleararchaeological contexts,2 while an understandingof their meanings is hampered by the absence oftextual evidence and the roughly 4,500 years sepa-rating us from the culture that made them. Al-though from such a distance we can only hypothe-size about the rituals and ideology of Early Cycladicislanders, a frequently overlooked feature of thefigures—traces of painted decoration—may offer away to refine our interpretations of their functions.

Perhaps because paint is easily visible on rela-tively few figures (and is poorly preserved) little in-depth consideration exists about its significance.A recent dissertation by Hendrix provides the full-est corpus to date of painted figures.3 In some cas-es, purely anatomical features are rendered, thoughin others, decorative patterns are drawn on the fig-ures’ surfaces. Commentators have suggested thesepatterns signal a practice of tattooing or body paint-ing in Early Cycladic culture.4 A few have gone fur-

* I would like to acknowledge the many people who havehelped and encouraged me with this article, especially Pat Getz-Gentle, Elizabeth Hendrix, Arthur W. Hoffman, and Joyce L.Hoffman; Gregory Nagy and the Center for Hellenic Studies,especially their librarians who worked tirelessly to acquire re-search materials for me; J.J. Pollitt, Lauren Talalay, and Gor-don Williams. I would like to thank the two anonymous AJAreaders whose comments and suggestions were very construc-tive and helpful. And I would also like to thank audiences ofYale alumni and at lectures at Boston College, George Wash-ington University, Miami of Ohio, Rice, Wesleyan, William andMary, and Yale.

1 On the distinction between use or function and meaning,see Talalay 1993, 38.

2 Nearly all who discuss the figures lament the loss of archae-ological contexts. On this catastrophe, see esp. Gill and Chip-pindale 1993. There are also some who argue scholarly workon the figures should be limited because of the lack of prove-nance and because it serves to encourage the market for these

objects. On the debate, Broodbank 2000, 58–65; 1992; Sher-ratt 2000, 137–8; Renfrew 1991, 21–4; 1993; Cherry 1992, 140–4; Elia 1993.

3 Hendrix 2000. For a brief discussion, see Hendrix 1997–1998, 4–15.

4 Given the variety of materials dedicated to paint prepara-tion and application that have been found (pigment, jars withstored pigment, bowls for grinding, palettes for paint prepara-tion, bone and bronze tubes for application), certainly bodypainting must have been an important part of Cycladic culture.Renfrew 1991, 122; Getz-Preziosi 1985, 55; Zervos 1957, 44.Tattooing may also have been practiced. Bonn 1996; Brood-bank 2000, 248 (where he observes that copper needles foundin graves could serve for tattooing); Sherratt 2000, 43–5. Cin-nabar would be toxic if used for tattooing (ibid. 117–8). Carter1994, 136–7 suggests that obsidian and metal blades found ingraves were used for shaving, however, such implements mightalso be suitable for cicatrization (scarification) or even in somecases, tattooing. On metal use, see Nakou 1995.

GAIL L. HOFFMAN526 [AJA 106

ther, proposing that these decorations “may reflectthe way the faces of the dead were painted for buri-al,”5 even stating, “It is tempting to think that theskin of the deceased owner of a figure (and per-haps his mourners as well) would have been paint-ed with the same patterns as part of the funeralpreparations.”6 I take this observation further toargue that some Cycladic figures were painted atthe time of the funerary ritual with red vertical stri-ations on their cheeks intended to reproduce theeffect of facial laceration. These figures were thencarried as representations of mourners during thefuneral before finally being placed as images ofmourners in some graves. Also, because a variety ofdifferent patterns are painted on the figures, theiruse as mourners reflects only one among a numberof possible functions. Other decorations may pre-serve evidence for the figures’ use in puberty, initi-ation, or marriage rituals. An answer to why suchelaborate figures were created at all may be linkedto practices of prestige display and perhaps theexistence of ancestor ritual, which is a common fea-ture of early village societies. In the Cyclades, an-cestor ritual may also have developed, in part, as aresponse to scarce natural resources.

cycladic figuresSculptures with Painted Vertical Striations

There are three Cycladic heads and two (per-haps three) full figures that preserve traces of redpainted vertical striations on the cheeks. One head,said by Wolters to be from Amorgos, is now in theAthens National Museum (fig. 1).7 Unusually large,it measures 29 cm. Since the largest preserved com-plete statue has a smaller head (ca. 25 cm) and atotal height of about 1.48 m,8 if we had the bodybelonging to the Athens head, it would presum-ably constitute a nearly life-size sculpture. In addi-tion to its unusual size, the sculpted ears and mouthare also atypical—most Cycladic heads lack both

features.9 The surface of the head is abraded, yetthe traces of paint are visible in natural light: fourvertical red strokes on the statue’s left cheek andfaint horizontal marks on the forehead remain, asdo traces of the left eye and a probable vertical markon the nose. A drawing from the 1890s (fig. 2)records painted remains of vertical striations on theright cheek as well as further traces of painted eyes.A second head, in the Copenhagen National Mu-seum, is only slightly smaller, measuring 24.61 cm(fig. 3).10 The painted vertical red marks on bothcheeks are well-preserved, four on either side, as

Fig. 1. Athens N.M. inv. no. 3909. Cycladic head, 29 cm,said to be from Amorgos. (After Renfrew 1991, pl. 72,with permission from the Ministry of Culture, NationalArchaeological Museum in Athens)

5 Getz-Preziosi 1987, 53; see also Goodison 1989, 11; Dou-mas 1968, 52.

6 Getz-Preziosi 1987, 107. Similar statements can be foundin Preziosi and Weinberg 1970, 11; Zervos 1957, 44; Hendrix2000, 158. Renfrew (1984, 29; 1991, 117) suggests paint wouldhave provided specific attributes; Broodbank (2000, 63–4; 1992,544) says paint probably provided crucial social messages.

7 Athens N.M. inv. no. 3909. Prakt (1888, 62–3) where it islisted as stone 4270; Wolters 1891, 46–7; Renfrew 1984, 29(where it is mistakenly numbered 3903); Renfrew 1991, 117,pls. 72, 113; Papathanassopoulos 1981, figs. 112–6; Zervos 1957,figs. 177–8.; Hendrix 2000, 38–9 no. 11.

8 Wolters 1891, 47, where it is listed as Archaeological Soci-ety stone 4223. This is probably the same piece now numberedAthens N.M. inv. no. 3978. Renfrew 1991, pl. 104; 1984, 29;Zervos 1957, fig. 297. Measurements vary from 148.3 cm to

153 cm. For a list of sculptures over 70 cm, see Gill and Chip-pindale 1993, 620, table 8.

9 Other sculptures with ears: Preziosi and Weinberg 1970, 7n. 16, 10 n. 36. On the lack of mouths, perhaps having sepul-chral symbolism: Getz-Preziosi 1987, 53. See, however, Hen-drix 2000, 95–7, table 1 for a list of figures with painted mouths.

10 Copenhagen National Museum no. 4697. Getz-Preziosi(1987, 100) proposes an original statue height of 98 cm forthis figure, noting it is of an “unusually grand scale.” Getz-Prez-iosi 1987, 100, 105 fig. 42h, 106, pl. 7d, 160 no. 36; Copen-hagen Nationalmuseet 1950, 48 no. 2 (where the facial marksare described as tattooing) and pl. 11; Thimme 1977, pl. 5a,468; Getz-Preziosi 1987, 160 (Goulandris Master) no. 36, pl.7d, fig. 42h; Renfrew 1991, pl. 71; 1969, pl. 8a; Hendrix 2000,80 n. 50.

EARLY CYCLADIC II MOURNING FIGURES 5272002]

are horizontally-placed markings on the forehead.There are traces of a red vertical mark on the noseand also perhaps of strokes on the neck (fig. 4).11 Athird smaller head (now in a private collection)measuring 13.4 cm has red vertical marks on thecheeks (traces of three on either side), as well ashorizontal marks on the forehead (fig. 5).12 Twocomplete statues show traces of red vertical markson the face. Goulandris Collection 253, measuring14.8 cm, is illustrated by Hendrix with at least fourvertical red strokes on the lower cheeks (fig. 6).13

Finally, a large complete statue, Goulandris Collec-tion 280, measuring 74.5 cm, carries many paintedstripes (fig. 7). In addition to traces of four redvertical striations on the right cheek, there are ver-tical marks on the nose, neck, chest, forearms, andabdomen (fig. 8).14

Five pieces (maybe six)15 preserved with redpainted striations is a small corpus. Possibly otherEarly Cycladic II statues with red vertical stripes onthe nose or chest should also be classed as mourn-ers,16 and some Early Cycladic I Plastiras figures alsohave red stripes on their cheeks and necks.17 Still,

Fig. 2. Drawing of Athens N.M. 3909. (After Wolters 1891, 46)

Fig. 3. Copenhagen National Museum 4697. Cycladic head24.61 cm. (Courtesy of the Department of Classical andNear Eastern Antiquities, National Museum of Denmark)

11 Getz-Preziosi 1987, 106.12 Getz-Preziosi 1987, 160 n. 32 (with other references),

106 fig. 42f; Hendrix 2000, 155 n. 161; Getz-Gentle 2001, 163n. 32.

13 Goulandris Collection no. 253. Hendrix 2000, 62 no. 32where she also cites Doumas 1983. Hendrix mentions mark-ings on the right cheek in her text, though her drawing showsmarkings on both cheeks. Doumas 2000, 149 n. 216 indicatesred vertical parallel lines on the cheeks.

14 Goulandris Collection no. 280. Hendrix 2000, 71–3 n. 43.Doumas 1968, 132; 1979, 131; 2000, 158 (where he describesthree red stripes on each cheek); Renfrew 1991, pls. 74, 98right; Preziosi and Weinberg 1970, 8 n. 24.

15 Getz-Gentle mentioned to me (pers. comm.) that sherecalled vertical striations on the lower cheeks of another com-plete statue Goulandris Collection 251, measuring 33 cm. Getz-Gentle (2001, 161 n. 2), where she states red-painted verticalstrokes on the forehead, lower cheeks, and forearms. Doumas2000, 146 n. 212 describes only red pigment on the crown ofthe head. The statue’s surface is heavily encrusted, and I have

not examined the piece myself. Hendrix does not include itin her list. Doumas 1979, n. 42; Getz-Preziosi 1984, figs. 14–16a; 1987, 99, 101, 104, 159 n. 2, pls. 34[2], 36[2], 37[2], figs.47a, c; Renfrew 1991, pls. 70, 100.4.

16 Other figures with striations include: neck, I.M. CohenCollection N.Y. (unpublished) Preziosi and Weinberg 1970, 8n. 24; Hendrix 2000, ns. 43, 50; nose, Indiana University ArtMuseum, Bloomington, 76.25, Getz-Preziosi 1987, 106 n. 25;University of Missouri Museum of Art and Archeology 76.214,Getz-Preziosi 1987, 106 n. 31; Hendrix 2000 lists many addi-tional statues with striations on the nose; chest, Getz-Preziosi1987b, n. 57; Getz-Gentle 1996, fig. 100; Hendrix 2000, ns.47, 58, 59, 63, 65, fig. 21.

17 Getz-Preziosi 1987, 53, pls. 1b, 7a. Preziosi and Weinberg(1970, n. 18) mention two such Plastiras figures from Akrotiri,Naxos, citing Doumas (1963, 278), while Renfrew (1969, 6)mentions four figures from a single grave at Plastiras, Paros,two with red coloring on the face and cites Doumas (1963, 283).Hendrix 2000, n. 4.


the total number of figures preserved with suchmarks would not exceed a dozen, hence these fig-ures stand out as special.18 Not only is their painteddecoration unusual, but their size distinguishesthem as well. Four out of the five figures in thiscorpus would be larger than 70 cm if the completestatues were preserved.

AuthenticityBecause of the popularity of Cycladic sculptures

on the art market and the consequent production offorgeries, the authenticity of any Cycladic sculpturemust always be considered. The head from the Ath-ens National Museum was first reported in 1888 aspart of the collection of the Archaeological Societyin Greece (4270), it eventually became part of theNational Archaeological Museum’s collection

(3909). Wolters claimed that it came from Amorgos,and, indeed, in the late 1880s, Tsountas excavated anumber of other figures from graves on that island.19

The early date of its appearance (before the sculp-tures were especially popular with collectors—Wolters described it as “repulsively ugly”) and itsaccession directly into a museum collection give it(of all the pieces listed here) the best claim to au-thenticity.20 The Copenhagen National Museumhead was also acquired early (at the beginning ofthe 20th century), well before the most active periodof Cycladic forgery production (the 1960s). Of lesscertain antiquity are the head in a private collection(fig. 5) or the Goulandris pieces (figs. 6–7). The twosculptures with the best claim to authenticity (theAthens and Copenhagen heads), however, preservethe paint traces most completely.21 Since at the time

Fig. 4. Drawing of Copenhagen 4697. (After Getz-Preziosi1987, fig. 42h, with permission from The University ofMichigan Press)

18 Hendrix 2000, 145–6 calls the pattern “stripes” and notesthat it is an infrequent motif. Hendrix’s dissertation includes65 figures with paint traces, approximately 53 of these havesome type of nonanatomical decoration. However, Hendrix(2000, 8) has drawn over 400 figures, just under half with painttraces.

19 Tsountas 1898, 154–5. See Athens National Museum 3978for an example excavated by Tsountas from Amorgos.

20 Renfrew (1985–1986, 141) states that the Athens NationalMuseum head’s authenticity is “unimpeachable.” Gill and Chip-pindale (1993, 628) question the authenticity of all large fig-ures, though they also note (656 n. 405) that paint traces onfigures found before paint was generally recognized as part ofthe figures might prove useful in establishing authenticity.

Sherratt (2000, 131 n. 14) argues against paint as a sign ofauthenticity. She also (2000, 126) says the statues were “muchsought after by collectors from the nineteenth century . . . tothe present day.” Certainly the display of the Louvre head inthe early 20th century and the interest generated amongmodern artists affected the popularity and perception of thesculptures (Rubin 1984; Sachini 1984).

21 Preziosi and Weinberg (1970, 11): “it seems impossiblethat such subtleties as paint ghosts would have been part ofthe forger’s craft more than twenty years ago.” Hendrix (2000,1–5) reviews discussion of paint traces in the publications onthe figures and notes that it has been observed by some schol-ars from the start.

Fig. 5. Drawing of head in private collection, 13.4 cm. (AfterGetz-Preziosi 1987, fig. 42f, with permission from TheUniversity of Michigan Press)


of their acquisition paint would probably not haveadded to a statue’s value, and by the 1960s painttraces might have adversely affected a statue’s mar-ketability,22 the Athens and Copenhagen heads aremost likely genuine, and the other painted figuresare probably authentic as well.

TypologyThe high point for figure production occurred

during the Early Cycladic II period when the major-ity of the figures are nude forms with folded arms,hence the acronym FAF (folded-arm figure). Thinand abstract in rendering, the only other carved de-tails frequently are a triangular nose, small breasts,and an engraved pubic triangle. Although the FAFsare almost always termed female, in fact, the sexualcharacteristics are not always explicit. Those figuresthat include breasts and engraved pubic trianglesare female. There are numerous FAFs, however, with-out engraved pubic triangles and since the breastsare often small or lacking, one might question thesexual identity of these pieces.23 Paint traces may becrucial here, too, since the pubic area was often paint-ed blue. Their heads tilt back slightly, their kneesare bent, and their feet point down and turn out,making it impossible for them to stand on their own.Hence, most conclude that they were intended torecline, to be propped against a wall, or to be carriedfor display.24 The figures range in size from less than10 cm to about life-size, although the majority arearound 30 cm.25 Occasionally they are depicted preg-nant or show what scholars sometimes identify as post-partum marks.26 Male FAFs are exceptionally rare.27

Indeed, when male figures occur they generally be-long to unusual sculptural types such as musicians

(lyre or pipe-players), seated drinkers, or multiplefigure groups.28 Alongside these more “naturalistic”forms, schematic figures were also produced.29

Although the separation of figures into groups isdebated and the attribution of figures to sculpturalhands is highly controversial,30 Renfrew has proposeda typology for the figures, and Getz-Gentle (believ-ing that a system of proportions was used in theircreation) has attributed some works to specific carv-ers.31 All of the sculptures described above would

Fig. 6. Goulandris Collection 253, 14.8 cm, drawing of facialmarkings. (Drawing courtesy of E. Hendrix)

22 Sherratt (2000, 131 n. 14) says the Ashmolean figureswere most assiduously cleaned during the 1960s.

23 Knapp and Meskell (1997, 185–7, 190, 193–5, 197) com-ment on the frequent assumptions made in figure studies aboutsex and gender.

24 Getz-Gentle 2001, 33–6; Getz-Preziosi 1987, 25, 32; Dou-mas 1968, 89–90 (where he notes a schematic idol was exca-vated placed upright in a grave); Fitton 1989, 40, 67; Goodison1989, 8; Thimme 1965, 78, 80. Contra, Renfrew 1991, 74, 92–4. For later visual evidence of figures carried for display, infran. 185.

25 Renfrew 1991, 74, 154.26 Getz-Gentle 2001, pregnancy: 10, 12, 21, 36, 51, 61–2,

102, 104, 118–9, 137 n. 74, 144 n. 181; abdominal grooves: 10,22, 30–1, 43, 51–2, 56–7, 61–2, 64, 132 n. 19, 133 n. 28; Getz-Preziosi 1987, pregnant: 49, 57, 67, 90, 109, 115, 117, 121, fig.26; abdominal grooves: 49, 51, 71, 78, 126–7, 129, fig. 27;Renfrew 1991, 103, pls. 64–5. The abdominal grooves are dif-ficult to interpret, though it may be of interest that some Af-rican societies mark women on the lower abdomen at puberty.

27 Renfrew 1991, pl. 97; Getz-Preziosi 1987, 20.28 On the male types in general, Getz-Preziosi 1980. Also

Getz-Preziosi 1987, 20–3, pls. IIB,C, III, VIII; Renfrew 1991,162-5, pls. 107–8. Slightly later than the FAFs, male hunters orwarriors are produced, Getz-Gentle 2001, 52–6; Getz-Preziosi1979; 1987, 20, 23, 61, 67–8. Broodbank 2000, 253 and fig. 83where he sees the male warrior as an emerging status domainin EC II; Sherratt 2000, 133 links the male types to elite activ-ities.

29 Höckmann 1968, for the schematic figures. Barber (1984,10) considers the chronological and possible functional rela-tionship of schematic and naturalistic figures. Also, Sherratt2000, 126–8.

30 Getz-Gentle’s work has received strong criticism, evencondemnation. Renfrew, too, has been chastised for contrib-uting to a market for the figures, supra n. 2. Comments aboutattribution to sculptors’ hands: Sherratt 2000, 136–9; Brood-bank 2000, 60, 62; 1992, 543; Renfrew 1991, 115–6; Cherry1992; Morris 1993; Gill and Chippindale 1993.

31 For the typology of the figures, Renfrew 1969; 1991, 74–94; Getz-Gentle 2001, 3–60, fig. 1; Sherratt 2000, 126–7. Onthe attribution to specific carvers and systems of proportional-ity, Getz-Preziosi 1977, 1987; Getz-Gentle 2001.


belong to the figure type known as FAFs. In Ren-frew’s typology all but the Athens National Museumhead (fig. 1) would belong to a group designated“Spedos” figures.32 In addition, Getz-Gentle has at-tributed the Copenhagen head and the head in aprivate collection (figs. 3–5), based on the overallcontour of the head and the semi-conical shape andplacement of the nose on the head, to the Goulan-dris sculptor, apparently the most prolific Early Cy-cladic II carver.33

Folded Arm GestureThe most characteristic feature of the Early Cy-

cladic II sculptures is their folded-arm gesture; itsinterpretation has puzzled scholars. Some proposethat it should be associated with death, that is, thefolded arms combined with a reclining posture in-dicate that the figures mimic the posture of acorpse. Although an apparently attractive explana-tion, this proposal ignores what we do know of Cy-cladic burial practice, that bodies were buried in acontracted posture with hands turned upward infront of the body (not across the body), a posturequite unlike that of the FAFs.34 Getz-Gentle had ar-gued that the folded-arm gesture held no signifi-cance with respect to the use or meaning of thefigure, but rather was to be explained by sculptorsgravitating toward a form that minimized the risk ofbreakage and also eased manufacture. Other schol-ars concurred, citing the limitations of working inmarble and of sculpting techniques.35 More recent-

ly, however, Getz-Gentle suggests that the gesturemay reference childbirth.36 Renfrew believes thegesture is critical to the sculpture’s function andsignals respect when found on the smaller figures(which he considers votaries) and then a gestureof epiphany when found on the larger figures(which he argues are divinities).37 If these figuresserved multiple purposes during the course of theiruse, perhaps this gesture was created because of itspotential for multiple interpretations. (For exam-ple, in ancient Egypt, cradling the breasts was anaccepted way to depict mourning. In a modern con-text, however, crossed arms can express either re-pose or great pain and distress.)38

PaintSome (perhaps most) of these sculptures were

painted with blue (azurite) and red (cinnabar)color.39 Generally, however, all trace of paint hasdisappeared, although occasionally the blue paintleft a faint relief ghost where it temporarily pro-tected the stone from abrasion and corrosion.Where paint traces do remain, eyes, eyebrows, andhair have been observed (rarely, ears and nostrils).The pubic area was often colored. There are alsodecorative patterns (primarily stripes or dots)painted on the cheeks, foreheads, and chins ofsome figures as well as zigzags and non-anatomi-cal eyes painted on the body. Some figures pre-serve indications of jewelry, such as necklaces,bracelets, and perhaps diadems.40

32 On the amorphous character of this large group and theproblem of typological hybrids, Sherratt 2000, 126.

33 Getz-Preziosi 1987, 102; Getz-Gentle 2001, 84–93 for thebasic features of the Goulandris sculptor’s works. Getz-Gentlenow prefers the term sculptor to master. On the Spedos vari-ety, Getz-Gentle 2001, 38–49, 161–6 for a checklist of pieces,esp. no. 36 (Copenhagen head) and no. 32 (head in privatecollection).

34 The contracted burial posture would require that thecorpse either be set in it immediately after death or that themuscles and tendons be cut and the body bound. Höckmann(1977, 40) indicates that some corpses were trussed. Fountou-lakis (1987, 29–32) notes marks on bones from EBA Manikasuggestive of cutting muscles and tendons. It has also beenproposed that some figures may have been consciously brokenat neck and knee before placement in the grave. Höckmann(1977, 30) citing Wolters (1891, 47) about the breakage ofthe nearly life-size figure in the Athens National Museum. Infran. 50 for intentional breakage of figures.

35 Getz-Preziosi 1981, 5–32; Doumas 1968, 90; Davis 1984,16; Getz-Preziosi 1987, 13–4, 17, 47, 49.

36 Getz-Gentle 2001, 31–3.37 Renfrew 1984, 29; 1991, 102.38 Arm placement changes subtly over time on the Cyclad-

ic figures. In Early Cycladic I, the Plastiras figures have fin-gertips just meeting over the abdomen below the breasts,while the Louros figures have only stumps for arms. In the

Early Cycladic II, the canonical figure has arms folded overthe body (almost always left above right), still placed highunder the breasts (in fact recalling to me a posture taken whenone is in abdominal pain or great emotional distress). Thispoint was also made by numerous ministers in one of my lec-ture audiences. In some cases the arms are placed so highthat they actually push up or almost cradle the breasts. It isinteresting, then, that Ucko mentions Egyptian texts whichstate that holding the breasts was an accepted way to depictmourning. Ucko 1968, 418; Leclant 1951, 123–7. In late EarlyCycladic II and Early Cycladic III, the gesture changes yet againwith more freedom introduced in the arm placement. A sim-ilar gesture appears on figurines from Oaxaca, Mexico whereit is interpreted as a sign of obeisance. Marcus 1996, fig. 6.For possibly related gestures on figures from the Near East,Sherratt 2000, 129–30, where she observes the posture is in-stinctively adopted by mothers cradling their babies. Perhapswith the Cycladic figures the empty arms signal a hope forfertility? Sherratt also observes folded arms on some laterEgyptian ushabtis.

39 Hendrix 2000, 120–38 for a discussion of pigment type;Carter (forthcoming) on the use of cinnabar. Oustinoff (1987,99) suggests hematite was also used to create red.

40 Hendrix 2000; Renfrew 1991, 117–23; Fitton 1989, 67;Getz-Preziosi 1987, 53–4, 85, 87, 104–7, 135, figs. 29, 42–5;1985, 55; Preziosi and Weinberg 1970, 11; Sherratt 2000,131–2.


Facial features—eyes, eyebrows, hair—are mostoften colored blue, as is the pubic area. Hendrixproposes such painting might be applied as partof finishing the figure, that is, by the sculptor ora close associate.41 On the other hand, many dec-orative features (especially stripes and dots) werepainted in red. Some of these patterns show signsof hasty or repeated application, leading Hen-drix to propose that they may have been appliedby unskilled hands during specific rituals.42 Shefurther proposes that such motifs may have beenremoved during the use-life of the figure, whileother motifs may have been repainted to refreshvisibility and/or “powers.”43 Other scholars havesuggested that these pigments served apotropa-ic or magico-religious purposes44 and observe thattattooing or body painting was probably an im-portant part of Cycladic culture.45 Getz-Gentle re-marks on the frequent use of red coloring in fu-neral rituals from the Neolithic onward, while twoCycladic graves preserved blue pigment distrib-uted on the body and floor of the tomb duringburial.46

41 Hendrix 2000, 151–2, 155.42 Hendrix 2000, 152, 158–9.43 An intriguing passage in the Agamemnon (ll. 1327–9)

describes paint that can be removed by a wet sponge. “O sadmortality! when fortune smiles, a painted image; and whentrouble comes one touch of a wet sponge wipes it away.” Alex-iou 1974, 113.

44 Zervos 1957, 44; Preziosi and Weinberg 1970, 11, n. 46(with other references). On the importance of color and col-or ritual in African contexts, Turner 1967, 59–92, esp. 86–91on its interpretation in the archaeological literature.

45 Supra, n. 4. There is little published on body painting ortattooing in Aegean cultures, though it is a topic that wouldrepay further work. Bonn (1996) collects some of the BronzeAge evidence from Crete and the Cyclades (Thera). Verlin-den (1984) notes engraved marks on the body of Cretanbronze figures. There is the famous plaster head from Myce-nae with so-called cosmetics marks on its face. Little work hasbeen done on the practice in the Near East. Joffe et al. 2001,11–3. One of the anonymous readers suggests that J. Youngeris at work on a project about body modification in the ancientAegean. Otherwise, Zimmerman (1980) on tattooed Thraciansand their depiction in Greek vase painting; Jones (1987) onGraeco-Roman tattooing and branding; Svenbro 1993, 137;Arist. Poet. 1454b. With the rise of the state, tattooing frequentlymoved from serving a positive, integrative social role to becom-ing a mark of social outcasts. Thévoz 1984, 20–1.

46 Getz-Preziosi 1987, 54; Broodbank 2000, 249; Kontoleon1972, 153. On red color: Carter (forthcoming); Sherratt 2000,117–8 (describes use as adornment for dead, applied to statuesas paint and its sources in Anatolia); Kurtz and Boardman 1971,71, 217, 318, 330; Duhn 1906; Ebert 1927–1928, 161–3; Hägg1965, 137 (from Kurtz and Boardman); Hendrix (2000, 3)mentions yellow pigment found around graves at Naxos andParos, ibid., n. 9 for references.

47 Gill and Chippindale 1993, 608–24.

48 Getz-Preziosi 1987, 130, 141.49 Davis (1984, 160) carefully examines the evidence for

figures found in settlements serving non-funereal purposes.He notes that such a notion rests on the presence of figurefragments in settlement debris and the existence of damagedand repaired statues from graves. Davis proposes additionalarchaeological work to determine the accuracy of this evidenceand its interpretation. Getz-Preziosi 1983 and Broodbank 2000,223–30 about the “Keros hoard.” Höckmann 1977, 48 wherehe cites the cases of Phylakopi and Ayia Irini. Renfrew 1969,25ff.; 1984, 25–6; Caskey 1971. Many suggest a use prior toburial: Renfrew 1977, 70; 1991, 98–9, 101–2; Doumas 1968,92–4; 1977, 62–3; Caskey 1971, 125; Barber 1984, 11, 13; Davis1984, 16 (where he observes this has become a common as-sumption). Although Getz-Gentle had argued for their prima-ry, if not exclusive, funerary use (Getz-Preziosi 1985, 9), latershe allowed a possibility of non-sepulchral use, while indicat-ing this was not yet demonstrated (Getz-Preziosi 1987, 26, 31).In her most recent work (Getz-Gentle 2001, 35–6, 137 ns. 68,69), however, she believes that the figures were in use prior toburial, as do Broodbank (2000, 218, 262–3) and Sherratt (2000,126).

50 The issue of broken figures has generated much discus-sion, not only about whether this is evidence for use beforeburial. Indeed, partial figures are found offered in graves (Ren-frew 1977, 70; 1984, 25–6; 1991, 98; Getz-Preziosi 1987, 32)and also perhaps in cemeteries but outside graves (Renfrew1991, 101, n. 16). This has occasioned speculation that thebreakage might be intentional and part of ritual. Getz-Gentle2001, 78; Getz-Preziosi 1987, 32–3 where she referencesMellink (1967, 254) on this practice in Anatolia. Höckmann1977, 39; Renfrew 1991, 101. On the intentional breakage ofprestige items Broodbank 2000, 230, 268; in Late Bronze Agecontexts, Preziosi and Hitchcock 1999, 138, also Hamilakis1998.

ContextUnfortunately, evidence about the figures’ ar-

chaeological contexts is limited. Beginning in the1950s and 1960s, their growing popularity on theart market resulted in the illicit removal of over1,000 sculptures from the islands and, hence,caused the loss of original provenance. In addition,this popularity stimulated the production of forg-eries, making even authentication problematic.47

Perhaps 1,200 FAFs are currently known, yet only145 of these derive from scientific excavation ofgraves.48 Of those that were excavated, nearly allwere found in burials; recent archaeological work,however, has lent some support to a notion that fig-ures were also used in settlements. In addition, thebreakage and repair of some statues found in graveshas caused many to suggest that the figures wereused prior to their deposition in graves.49 It is pos-sible, then, that the statues performed some func-tion in daily life before becoming part of a burialrite.50 (This may now be further supported by evi-dence of repainting found on some statues.) It hasbeen proposed that female figures could be offered


in either male or female graves, though this has notyet been demonstrated through controlled excava-tion.51 Barely one-tenth of the graves contained fig-ures, so they were not an essential part of the funer-al, rather they may have been a mark of some socialdistinction.52 All discussions about the use andmeaning of the figures consistently mention spe-cific details of the sculptures and their context—the folded arm gesture, the pointed toes of most(assuring that the figures must recline, be held orpropped), the gender (mainly female), the size(ranging from about 10 cm to 150 cm), the relative-ly permanent material (marble), the existence ofbroken, partial, and repaired figures, and their onecertain context, in graves.

Figure InterpretationA plethora of explanations for the Cycladic fig-

ures exists in the scholarly literature.53 It has beensuggested that the figures were (1) similar to Egyp-tian ushabti figures;54 (2) substitutes for human sac-rifice;55 (3) guides to the underworld;56 (4) protec-tive guardians;57 (5) images for ancestor worship;58

(6) depictions of heroes or nymphs;59 (7) deitiesor worshipers;60 (8) the Great Mother in her guise

as a goddess overseeing birth and death;61 (9) ithas even been suggested that they were simplytoys.62 There have been trenchant criticisms of manyof these hypotheses, primarily on the grounds thatthey do not fit the little we do know about EarlyCycladic society and the figures themselves.63 Thatthese sculptures were toys seems belied by the sizeand quality of the materials, the effort that wentinto their production,64 and the apparent lack ofassociation with children’s graves.65 Likewise, giv-en the village structure of Early Cycladic society itseems doubtful that its rituals included visual rep-resentations of nymphs, heroes, or guides to theother world.66 The Great Mother hypothesis hasbeen challenged because many Cycladic figures arebroken, fragmentary, and sometimes crushed be-neath other deposits, seemingly inappropriatetreatment for a divinity. In addition, the figures donot have exaggerated breasts, a characteristic fre-quently associated with Great Mother representa-tions.67 Finally, identification of Cycladic figures asslaves for the afterlife or as apotropaic devices rais-es questions about why the figures appear in onlysome graves.68 One could argue that only the wealthywere able to afford such help or protection, but

51 Renfrew 1984, 26 (cites a lack of data and one possibleassociation of figures with a “male” grave identified as suchbased on the presence of a dagger); Getz-Preziosi 1985, 10(says there is no evidence either way); Höckmann 1977, 41–3 (suggests found in both male and female graves); Barber 1984,13 (lack of detailed information); Lambrinoudakis 1990, 101(accompanied both male and females indiscriminately). Hen-drix (2000, 15–6) notes, even in controlled excavations, skel-etons have rarely been sexed by scientific criteria.

52 Broodbank 1992, 545; Renfrew 1984, 26; 1972, 374; Getz-Preziosi 1983, 41; 1985, 10; Barber 1987, 82, 131; Doumas 1977,62; Fitton 1989, 67; Höckmann 1977, 40. Though with so manyof the graves looted prior to excavation, any number here isjust a guess. Infra, n. 68. Broodbank 2000, 262–3 where hedescribes a complex of prestige items.

53 Doumas (1968, 88–94) provides an excellent overviewwith commentary on many of the early hypotheses, which isupdated by Marangou (1990, 140–2). Also, Broodbank 2000,172–3, 253; 1992, 543; Sherratt 2000, 132–6; Renfrew 1991,95–105; 1985–1986, 141; 1984, 24–30; Goodison 1989, 4–11;Getz-Preziosi 1987, 31–3; Ekschmitt 1986, 99–106; Barber1984, 10–4; Davis 1984, 15–21; and Höckmann 1977, 42–4.The variety of proposed interpretations has no doubt increasedwith the lack of clear contextual information about the fig-ures’ use in Cycladic society.

54 Hogarth 1927, 57–60; Picard 1930, 103. Originally ushab-tis were thought to function as slaves in an afterlife. More re-cently, however, it has been argued that these figures servedto help the dead reconceive themselves sexually. Roth 2000,198 with other references. Hence, they are now sometimesreferred to as “Brides of the Dead.” Bianchi 1998, 22.

55 Nilsson 1950, 294.56 Sakellariou and Papathanasopoulos 1970, 64; Zervos 1957,

45; Thimme 1965, 78–81; Renfrew 1991, 95.57 I.e., they served an apotropaic function. Mylonas 1934,

275; 1959, 140. Mylonas also suggested that they representeddivine nurses or attendants who cared for the dead in theirjourney to the underworld. For a similar view, see Nilsson 1950,307.

58 Doumas 1968, 88; Zervos 1957, 44; Broodbank 1992, 543.59 Schefold 1965, 87–90.60 A view especially championed by Renfrew, 1991, 102,

105; 1985–1986, 141; 1984, 28. Barber (1984, 14 n. 33) isin substantial agreement with Renfrew stressing the figureswere used in ceremonies and perhaps also had significanceas spirit figures.

61 Thimme 1965, 72–86; Zervos 1957, 43, 46; and Doumas1968, 181 n. 96 for other references.

62 Doumas (1968, 88) mentions this without further refer-ence, though Ucko (1968) considered such a possibility.

63 See esp. Doumas 1968, 89–91; Marangou 1990, 141–2.64 Oustinoff 1984, 1987; Renfrew 1984, 25.65 Renfrew 1984, 25. FAFs were certainly offered in adult

graves. There is one instance in Anatolia which Mellink (1967,254) suggests shows an exclusive association between marbleidols and child graves.

66 Doumas 1968, 89; Marangou 1990, 141.67 Doumas 1968, 89–91; Nilsson 1950, 292; Renfrew 1984,

25; 1991, 96; Ucko 1968, 417–9; Talalay 1993, 27.68 Figures appear in less than 1/10 of the graves. Getz-Prez-

iosi 1983; 1987, 27; Davis 1984, 18 proposes at Ayia Irini only1.2% of the burials contained figures. Aplomata has an un-usually high concentration with 42 figures discovered in 27graves. Getz-Preziosi 1982, 41; Broodbank 1992, 545; 2000,220. Supra, n. 52.


figures in less expensive materials would then beexpected for offering in less sumptuous graves.69

Fig. 7. Goulandris Collection 280, 74.5 cm. (After Renfrew1991, pl. 74, with permission from the N.P. GoulandrisFoundation, Museum of Cycladic Art)

69 It has been suggested that the schematic figures mightbe less expensive versions of the FAFs (Barber 1984, 11) orthat figures may have been produced in perishable materials,e.g., wood. Barber 1984, 11; Getz-Preziosi 1987, 9–10, 31, 40–1. It has also been suggested that the marble figures might be

imitations of metal, i.e., silver figures. Sherratt 2000, 133–4citing Renfrew 1969, 31.

70 Renfrew 1984, 26.71 Renfrew 1984, 25–9; 1991, 98–103.

Fig. 8. Drawing of Goulandris Collection 280. (Drawing byE. Hendrix)

More recent discussions of the figures’ possibleuses and meanings have attempted to incorporateincreasing evidence about Early Cycladic society aswell as theoretical consideration of figure use andethnographic parallels. For example, Renfrewclaims the standardization of the Early Cycladic IIFAF argues against use as an emblem of status ormembership in a specific group, proposing insteadthat figure use must be seen in the context of “reli-gious belief and perhaps ritual.”70 Renfrew recon-structs a domestic or household cult in which fig-ures were used as votives, votaries, and (the largestfigures as) cult images. Noting that prehistoric com-munities rarely place cult figures in graves, Ren-frew suggests this practice indicates a personal as-sociation with cult on the part of the buried indi-vidual, for instance, as priest or shaman. Further,Renfrew proposes painted details may originallyhave provided attributes with which to indicate iden-tity and use of individual figures.71

Barber emphasizes aspects of the figures that hebelieves are significant for their interpretation in-stead of proposing an overarching explanation of


their meaning. For instance, he argues the stan-dardization of the FAF, the features chosen for em-phasis,72 production in durable materials perhapsby specialist craftsmen,73 the restricted chronologi-cal range (essentially late Early Cycladic I and EarlyCycladic II), and their disappearance in Early Cy-cladic III all require explanation. By consideringearlier and later figure use in the Aegean as well asanthropological evidence, Barber proposes that thefigures were important to community ritual andprobably represented deities as well as votaries. Theunusual figure types (musicians, cup bearers, war-riors) represent participants in ritual, while themajority type (the FAF) emphasizes “the fundamen-tal role of women as the source of life and renewalin the community.”74 The figures could be used inrituals to mark important life-stages, at times of com-munity crisis, or at significant moments during theyear. Upon the death of the individual who origi-nally dedicated a figure, it was placed in their grave,perhaps as a spirit figure.

Like Barber, Sherratt focuses on specific aspectsof the figures that are noteworthy.75 Puzzling overthe folded arm gesture, she notes its similarity to apose “instinctively adopted by mothers cradlingtheir babies” wondering whether the gesturemight be intended as a promise of future fertili-ty.76 The consistent white or pale color of the sculp-tural materials (primarily marble, but also shell,bone, ivory, and lead), she proposes, may indicate“an ideal of pale skin as a distinctive mark of fem-inine status.”77 She further observes a shift in em-phasis from steatopygia in Neolithic figures to thenubile form of slim, reclining figures with smallbreasts. Drawing together these observations, Sher-ratt interprets their function in the context of ex-ogamy where the acquisition of women from other

islands (whether by exchange or force) was a partof elite male ideology.78

Broodbank, critiquing earlier interpretations ofthe figures, proposes “an association with the ac-quisition and movement of high status women (andless commonly, men) within and between the nec-essarily exogamous communities of the Cyclades.”79

He further notes, “The range of tattooed motifs andhair arrangements attested . . . may indicate thatthe painted surface records crucial messages . . .”80

and the unusual size of a few figures is likely “anoutcome of status-driven competitive emulation.”Further, he speculates “some of the figures . . . mayrepresent individuals and have played a part indefining a person’s identity or marked a stage intheir life” noting that “a funeral would provide anopportunity to . . . mourn for an adult or child whosedeath could easily spell the demise of an entiresettlement.”81

cycladic culture

The earliest permanent settlement of the Cycla-des began near the end of the Neolithic periodwhen people (perhaps from the coast of Asia Mi-nor or mainland Greece) paddled to the islands.82

A harsh environment with limited fresh water ortillable soil, the primary resources were stone andmetals scattered throughout the islands.83 Settle-ment was sparse,84 varying from a few villages in theNeolithic, to dispersed farmsteads in Early Cyclad-ic I, to dispersed farmsteads combined with a fewvillages in Early Cycladic II. Subsistence consistedof a mix of farming, sheep and goat herding, andsome fishing.85 Formal cemeteries appear early inthe Cyclades (already at the end of the Neolithic)86

and are one of the primary sources for informationabout Early Bronze Age Cycladic society.87

72 Barber (1984, 11) sees these as the sexually distinctivecharacteristics. Although many of the figures do have tinybreasts and engraved pubic triangles, other scholars considerthe folded-arm gesture or the elongated neck and tilted headas more distinctive.

73 On the issue of specialist craftsmen in Early Cycladicmetallurgy and obsidian work, Nakou 1995, 20; Carter 1994,137–8.

74 Barber 1984, 14.75 She consistently stresses parallels with Near Eastern, es-

pecially Anatolian metal figures, e.g., likening the painteddecoration of Cycladic figures to the metal attachments on NearEastern statues. Sherratt 2000, 129–30.

76 Sherratt 2000, 130, 135.77 Sherratt 2000, 134.78 Sherratt 2000, 135, 136 n. 35.79 Broodbank 1992, 543; 2000, 173.80 Broodbank 1992, 544; 2000, 63–4.

81 Broodbank 2000, 173–4.82 Broodbank 2000, 36. Saliagos dates to Late Neolithic (fifth

millennium) and Kephala to early Final Neolithic (first half offourth millennium). These were the first sites recognized—Evans and Renfrew 1968; Coleman 1977. Now add LN sites onMykonos, Paros, Naxos, Amorgos, and Thera as well as FN siteson Andros and Siphnos. Broodbank 2000, 117–43, fig. 34, 144–66; 1999; Davis 1992; Cherry 1990, 158–74. There is evidencefor sporadic visits to the islands, especially Melos, by 8000 B.C.to obtain obsidian. On the Cyclades in general, Broodbank 2000and Davis 2000; 1992. Earlier discussions in Renfrew 1972, esp.chs. 9, 11; 1991, 39–51; Marangou 1990, 16–20; Getz-Preziosi1987, 3–34.

83 Broodbank 2000, 76–80.84 Broodbank 2000, 86–7, 145–56, 177–80.85 Broodbank 2000, 81–5, 144–53.86 Broodbank 2000, 150; Talalay 1993, 73.87 Doumas 1977, 1987.


BurialLocated near the settlements, burial was in small

trapezoidal-shaped cists. In Early Cycladic II, thesecists were often lined on three sides with stone slabswhile the fourth side was made of a dry stonewall.The body lay on its side (often the right side) in acontracted fetal position, arms in front, hands up-turned; the head was sometimes placed on a stonepillow. Although single inhumation predominat-ed, occasionally multiple burials occurred within atomb.88 When a second burial was made, the de-cayed remains of the earlier burial would bebrushed aside, except for the skull, which was leftin place.89 When multiple burials were made in atomb, a second story might be added with the up-per level used for inhumation and the lower levelserving as an ossuary. Grave goods were generallyfew and simple. An occasional wealthy grave, how-ever, contained a variety of objects, such as potteryvessels and so-called frying pans, bronze and obsid-ian weapons and tools, bone and stone jewelry, leadmodels of ships,90 and marble vessels and figures.Some items appear to be daily-use objects (i.e., per-sonal possessions) while others may have been madespecifically for the grave.91 There were stone offer-ing platforms with pottery on the tops of graves orwithin the cemeteries. The care taken with the ar-rangement of the body and offerings in the grave,the treatment of the skull in multiple burials,92 theprobable offering of daily-use and specifically fu-nerary objects, and the presence of offering plat-forms in cemeteries suggest a ritual at the time ofburial as well as the probability of ongoing atten-tion to the deceased.93

A substantial increase during Early Cycladic II inthe quantity of metal and obsidian found in graveshad previously been explained in terms of devel-

oping technologies and economic change, thus,these offerings were viewed as wealth indicative ofthe status of emergent leaders.94 Recent analyses,however, note that the metal and obsidian found ingraves appear limited to standardized types (espe-cially daggers and prismatic blades and cores).95 Inaddition, although there is no evidence for restrict-ed access to the raw materials, it seems likely thataccess to production skills was controlled.96 The risein the quantity of metal and obsidian in graves dur-ing Early Cycladic II, then, may not indicate thatthe technical “know how” or the absolute amountof metalwork or obsidian increased, but rather thatemergent social groups appropriated productionand symbolic use of these materials creating a “newdepositional strategy [offering in graves] . . . whichmarked membership.”97 It has been proposed that“formalized entry into a corporate group, age-gradeor status may have necessitated the acquisition orawarding of a standard weapon,” such as a metaldagger,98 whereas the obsidian blades (perhapsserving as razors) may have been part of a toilet kitnecessary for shaving, which might be associatedwith rites of passage.99 A similar argument might bemade for the iconographic evidence of body modi-fication, the appearance of jewelry (especially dia-dems), and the use of marble figures.100

Although Renfrew had proposed Early CycladicII culture reached the level of “chiefdoms,”101 Brood-bank more recently argues for an essentially “egal-itarian” community.102 In an egalitarian community,social roles, authority, and prestige would be per-sonal, achieved, and temporary. The term chief-dom, however, implies ascribed status and an officeof a chief who coordinated social, political, and re-ligious functions within society. Differential wealth,size, construction, and location of graves all indi-

88 Doumas 1977, 55–8; Broodbank 2000, 178.89 Doumas 1977, 31–4, 54–8.90 Broodbank (2000, 97 n. 4) observes the authenticity of

the ship models has been questioned. The main objection isthat the higher end of the models must be the prow, however,on boat representations from frying pans many believe the highend is the stern. For a full discussion of this debate, Sherratt2000, 100–2.

91 Weinberg 1965, 192–3; Coleman 1985, 191–204; Barber1987, 82; Doumas 1977, 62; Getz-Preziosi 1987, 31–3. Againsta purely funerary use, Lambrinoudakis 1990, 102–4. On thewide variability of practice site to site in the Cyclades, see Brood-bank 2000.

92 Specialized treatment of skulls is known especially fromthe Neolithic in the Near East and is also a prominent featureof many ethnographically documented ancestor rituals. Park-er Pearson 1999, 159–61; Bienert 1991.

93 Broodbank 2000, 170–4, 262–7; Höckmann 1977, 40;

Doumas 1977, 54–64.94 Renfrew 1972, 338, 319–20, 340–61, 483–5; 1986.95 Nakou 1995; Carter 1994.96 Carter 1994, 137–8; Nakou 1995, 17–8.97 Nakou 1995, 23, 2; Carter 1994, 138.98 Nakou 1995, 13.99 Carter 1994, 137. For shaved heads as indicators of initia-

tion rituals and age in the Late Bronze Age Cyclades, Marina-tos 1986, 43; Karageorghis 1990; Davis 1986. It is also possiblethat the blades could have been used for cicatrization, butch-ery, or cutting of the corpse’s tendons. Carter 1994, 137; Foun-toulakis 1987. On the use of the obsidian blades for shavingand cutting hair, Carter 1997.

100 Nakou 1995, 13.101 Renfrew 1972, 364–5 for a definition; also, Renfrew 1991,

46–8.102 Broodbank 2000, 86.


cate at least rudimentary social distinctions withinthe community. Evidence of interest in body adorn-ment and modification, expansion of figure typesand size, and the beginnings of craft specializationall suggest there is some form of social differentia-tion in Early Cycladic II society.103

RitualWe know very little about the rituals of the Cy-

cladic islanders, and much of what we supposehas been extrapolated from the figures and otherobjects in the burials. So far, there are no knownsites, buildings, or household settings specifical-ly for ritual activity, though Renfrew and Höck-mann have both speculated on their existence.104

Other scholars, however, have questioned wheth-er Early Cycladic II culture would require special-ized locations for such activity, proposing, instead,that its rituals would emphasize the basic cosmicpowers of creation and regeneration by celebrat-ing significant life transitions—birth, puberty,marriage, childbirth, death.105 Goodison observesthat Early Cycladic II symbolic display suggests an“animistic tradition,” in which “Spirits or super-natural forces [could be] immanent in plants, an-imals, stones . . . and that these may be developedinto a schema of ideas about the cycles of changein human life.”106

More recently, Broodbank has proposed the sym-bolic display (including depictions of canoes, fish,stars or sun motifs, birds, and spirals interpretedas representations of waves) “can be read as sym-bols of the sea and are indicative of burgeoningmaritime prowess.” In some instances, he even pro-poses more specific interpretations. For example:“In the combination of a longboat or star with fe-male genitalia on the frying pans from Chalandri-ani . . . it is not hard to discern an association be-tween raiding or long-range navigation and bio-logical reproduction or sexual gratification.”107

Sherratt also notes the association of female vul-vae, celestial motifs, and marine symbolism, likewiseproposing an ideology linking the sea and sexuality.She further observes the similarity of this group ofsymbols to those of eastern deities, for instance theLevantine imagery of Astarte as maris stella; hence sheposits the existence of a goddess to protect and guideseafarers as well as to provide sexual gratification.108

All analyses of ritual and symbolic display andfigure use among Early Cycladic II islanders mustremain speculative. Additional sources of informa-tion, however, may help to assess the hypothesis thata small group of Early Cycladic II figures preservedwith red-painted facial striations served as imagesof mourners. For instance, comparative evidencefrom Mediterranean cultures and ethnographical-ly documented groups, as well as theoretical con-structs can provide useful insights.

comparative evidenceTheory

Although theoretical constructs for the analysisand interpretation of figures found in burials mightbe pertinent (e.g., theories about the archaeologyof death109 and mortuary analysis,110 figure use,111

the body and body adaptation,112 and the individu-al,113 to name a few), their application seems im-practicable because of the severely limited evidenceboth about the burials themselves and the contextsof figure use in Early Cycladic II society. Marcussummarizes the problem: “a theoretical framework. . . cannot be successfully applied to poorly collect-ed archaeological data . . . context is crucial to stud-ies of both ritual behavior and socially constructedgender roles, and context cannot be reconstructedfrom museum collections that lack good prove-nience.”114 It is to be hoped that future discoveriesmay improve this situation and that other scholarswill then take up the work of applying these theo-ries to the Cycladic figures.

103 For a consideration of “incipient” and “emergent” socialcomplexity in Cyprus, see Knapp 1993, 85–95; also, Manning1993.

104 Renfrew 1984, 27–8; 1991, 50, 101, 186; Höckmann1977, 37–9. Renfrew speculates the Keros hoard might indi-cate a sanctuary. Contra, Getz-Preziosi 1983; Broodbank 2000,223–30 where he argues at length for a cemetery.

105 Doumas 1968, 91–2; Nilsson 1950, 291–2; Zervos 1957,44; Goodison 1989, 7–11; Lambrinoudakis 1990, 99.

106 Goodison 1989, 10. Höckmann (1977, 37) suggestsbelief in “a divine protective power over plant and animalfertility.”

107 Broodbank 2000, 249–56.108 Sherratt 2000, 197–200.

109 Parker Pearson 1999; Cavanagh and Mee 1998; Camp-bell et al. 1995; Metcalf and Huntington 1991; Chapman et al.1981; Humphreys and King 1981.

110 Branigan 1998; O’Shea 1984; Parker Pearson 1982; Pee-bles and Kus 1977; Brown 1971.

111 Marcus 1998, 1996; Knapp and Meskell 1997; Bailey 1996;Bolger 1996; Haaland and Haaland 1996; Hamilton 1996; Ucko1996, 1968; Talalay 1993.

112 Various articles in Rautman 2000; Knapp and Meskell1997, 183–7; Brain 1979, 105–21 “The Symbolic Body”; Dou-glas 1966, 1970.

113 Knapp and Meskell 1997, esp. 188–90; Bailey 1994.114 Marcus 1998, 4; 1996.


EthnographyAlthough its use in archaeological analysis is vocif-

erously debated,115 comparative ethnographic evi-dence can provide models for figure use relativelyfree of ethnocentric bias and models of behavior dif-ficult to deduce by logic alone, and it can demon-strate varied and heterogeneous causes for figureuse.116 Ethnographic analogues cannot be applieddirectly to archaeological materials, but as Marcusobserves, “the discovery of strong worldwide patternsincreases the likelihood that one’s ethnographic anal-ogies are on solid ground.”117 Further, the specificcultural circumstances of use and the cosmologicalviews of the people using the figures will determinetheir meanings in individual cases.118 Thus, ethno-graphic evidence may provide useful parameters with-in which to consider Cycladic figure use, even thougha fuller understanding of this use will require moreknowledge about their specific cultural contexts.

Figure Use. Ucko and Talalay, in their work on Med-iterranean Neolithic figurines,119 observed that theevidence for figurine use in ethnographically docu-mented societies indicates a wide array of purposes:ancestor images, surrogate chiefs, protective spiritsor household deities, charms, hexes, fetishes, illus-trations to enliven storytelling, teaching devices dur-ing initiation rituals about sexual matters, marriage,value systems, in divination and curing rites, and asmourners.120 In many instances, the figurines aresmall, disposable, and made from perishable materi-als. Ancestor images, however, tend to be larger, some-

times made in more durable materials, and generallyreceive more care and attention (both in productionand preservation). Figurines are only rarely kept andburied with an individual.121 These exceptional casesprovide the best parallels for Cycladic figures.

In ethnographic examples of tomb use, figurinesalmost never represent deities and “[were] buriedfor specific and often practical purposes.”122 Thatis, the figurines found offered in or near graveswere generally used by the deceased in pubertyrites, were received as initiation gifts or as spiritfigures, were intended to commemorate dead an-cestors,123 or were representations of mourners.124

All of these possibilities are pertinent to the presentdiscussion of Early Cycladic II FAFs.

Body Decoration. Some ethnographic studies offigure use address the possible relationship be-tween figure and body decoration.125 In general,body marking is related to taboos, rituals, and be-liefs in a society (though primarily aesthetic func-tions have also been described).126 While tattooingor cicatrization127 tend to mark a permanent changein status resulting from completion of a rite, non-permanent markings such as body paint are moreoften used for special occasions or to indicate tran-sient states.128 Frequently, body decoration takesplace in the context of rituals, especially those de-scribed in the anthropological literature as “ritesof passage”—festivals to mark puberty and initia-tion into adulthood, marriage, childbirth, anddeath.129 Women often become primary bearers of

115 Talalay 1993, 40 for discussion and references to thisdebate; Marcus 1998, 17–23; Ucko 1996, 301–2.

116 Talalay 1993, 40; Ucko 1962, 45.117 Marcus 1998, 17 citing Ember and Ember 1995.118 Marcus 1998, 29.119 Ucko and Talalay have proposed that specific kinds of

evidence must be considered when interpreting figurines: (1)the figurines themselves; (2) the archaeological context ofthe figurines; (3) the socioeconomic matrix of the communi-ty producing and using the figurines; and (4) ethnographicparallels. They also emphasize that figurines frequently servedmore than one function within a society and even individualfigurines could serve multiple purposes over the course of theiruse. Talalay 1993, 38; Ucko 1968, 427; 1962, 38.

120 Talalay 1993, 40–4.121 Talalay 1993, 43–4; Ucko 1962, 46; 1968, 425–9.122 Talalay 1993, 44; Ucko 1962, 46.123 Talalay 1993, 74 and n. 60 for additional references.124 Barber 1984, 13; Ucko 1968, 426, 429.125 Talalay 1993, 70–1; Roberts 1985, infra n. 133.126 Talalay 1993, 71; Bonn 1976, 10. See Faris 1972; Ebin

1979, 74; and Brain (1979, 42) on the primarily aesthetic useof body enhancement among the Nuba.

127 Tattooing most often occurs among light skinned peo-ple, cicatrization (a term preferred by some as more neutral

than scarification) is most common among darker peoples ofsub-Saharan Africa, south Asia, Melanesia, and Australia. Somespeculate that this is simply a function of visibility. Rubin 1988,15, 19; Brain 1979, 70; Thévoz 1984, 43.

128 Talalay 1993, 71; Brain 1979, 51; Ebin 1979, 27, 59;Thévoz 1984, 36, 38, 44; Rubin 1988, 16. In ethnographicallydocumented cultures, a triad of colors (white, red, and black)is most often used for body decoration. Although these colorssymbolize specific ideas, their significance varies from cultureto culture and even within a culture their meaning can varyfrom event to event. Brain 1979, 114; Thévoz 1984, 54; Turn-er 1967, 59–92; Gröning 1997, 114; Goody 1962, 58. For ex-ample, in many western cultures black is the color of mourn-ing, whereas in China and parts of Africa, white is the color ofmourning. In the present context, the fact that ancestors areoften considered white and initiates in the liminal phase oftheir rite are often dusted white is perhaps suggestive. Grön-ing 1997, 116.

129 Often these passages are also accompanied by trials ortests. In some cases these have been likened to a symbolic deathand rebirth (Ebin 1979, 59, 62) or a symbolic return to thewomb and rebirth (Haaland and Haaland 1996, 298). VanGennep (1960) divided such rituals into three stages, separa-tion, marginality, and aggregation. Ebin 1979, 42.


such marks as a result of their critical role in theselife transitions. This seems especially true of nu-bile girls, who had marks added to the face, breasts,or belly in recognition of their future biologicalrole.130 Like the ethnographically known uses of fig-urines, then, body decoration serves a variety ofpurposes: marks to indicate tribal affiliation; statusor age-grade within a group; identification marksto secure a place in the spirit world; cures for pain;protective signs; good luck and love charms; mech-anisms for preserving youth; and as signs of mourn-ing.131 Also, like figure use, the meaning or signifi-cance of body decoration must be determined with-in specific cultural contexts.132 Examples are knownof body decoration mimicked in patterns found onfigurines.133 Most often this occurs on ancestor fig-ures where the figure’s decorative patterns matchthose of the person represented, not necessarilywith the intent of portraiture, but rather to memo-rialize the individual’s social persona.

Ancestor Ritual. In village societies, ritual servedimportant roles in social integration. Especially ifthe organizational principle of the society was mem-bership in lineages or descent groups, ancestor rit-uals played a part in creating social cohesion.134

Worldwide, some agricultural groups, believing thatthe dead continue to affect the living, celebrateancestor rituals.135 Still, as a group, the dead arevariously imagined. Some cultures consider ances-tors to be beneficent,136 while others consider themessentially maleficent.137 Although conceptualiza-tion of the dead varies from culture to culture, theyoften belong to a “faceless” group possessing spe-

cial political or juridical status within the commu-nity.138 Because ancestors might continue to affectthe living, they can be consulted or placated; how-ever, in order for the ancestors to respond, a tangi-ble object had to exist for them to inhabit.139 Suchobjects take a variety of forms, such as memorialtablets, stools, and standardized figure types thatwere often stylized with elongated necks and gen-eralized facial features.140 These tangible forms wereregularly anointed with oil, egg, and blood beforebeing brought to participate in important societalevents, such as initiations, weddings, and funer-als.141 In addition, ancestor figures might serve injuridical proceedings as guarantors of truth142 or asevidence of continuous habitation supporting spe-cific land claims.143 When not in use, these ritualobjects were kept in a shrine or memorial, some-times with the remains of the deceased person withwhom they were associated.

Ethnographic comparison thus allows a numberof useful observations. Figure use has been wide-spread and has served many purposes. Figures of-fered in or near graves tended to represent funeralparticipants, initiation gifts, or ancestors. Larger fig-ures in more permanent materials most often wereancestor figures. Ancestor figures were tended,specially decorated, and brought to participate inimportant rites of passage. Markings on ancestorfigures generally related to the social persona (age-grade, marital status, social rank) of an individual,however, the figures themselves were often gener-ic in form.144 When the importance of women’s bio-logical role was emphasized by a community, wom-

130 Brain 1979, 50, 70; Rubin 1988, 16, 19.131 Talalay 1993, 71; Brain 1979, 23 and the illustration

on 25 depicting a North American Indian widow who paint-ed her face with four vertical lines below the eyes symboliz-ing tears. Idem, 170, “A common sign of mourning through-out the world is the daubing of paint . . . on the bodies ofwidows and children.”

132 Thévoz 1984, 578; Brain 1979, 111–2. Idem. 26 on NorthAmerican Indians, “[the] elaborate system of painting [in-volved] their social life, their cosmology, and their symbolism.”Gröning 1997, 12, “the form and meaning of body decorationis always the expression of a particular culture.”

133 Talalay 1993, 70; Maurer and Roberts 1985, 130; Brain1979, 73, “on African carving [of ancestor figures] the marksare often reproduced with great care since they indicate theprecise status . . . of the person portrayed.” Also, Gröning 1997,81, 167. Although ancestor figures often indicate status byreproducing the actual markings of the deceased, stools usedas ancestor memorials also marked an individual’s social perso-na through iconographic details. Fiawoo 1976, 266.

134 On the question of terminology, ancestor “worship” vs.“ritual,” see Marcus 1998, 19–20; Fortes 1976, 1–3.

135 Marcus 1998, 17–23; Goody 1962, 412; Fortes 1965;Kopytoff 1971; Newell 1976; McAnany 1994.

136 E.g., China, Japan, America. Ahern 1973; Ooms 1967;Marcus 1998, 17.

137 E.g., parts of Africa. Fortes 1965. On the dichotomy ofgood/bad ancestors, see Newell 1976; Kerner 1976, 207–8.Marcus (1998, 17) proposed that in Formative Oaxaca recentancestors might be helpful, while more remote ancestors couldbecome dangerous.

138 China and Japan: Newell 1976, 22. Africa: Middleton1960, 33; Kopytoff 1971, 129; Marcus 1998, 17–9, 21.

139 Marcus 1998, 15, 19; Fortes 1976, 7–8.140 Tablets: Yonemura 1976, 178–9; Matsuzono 1976; stools:

Fiawoo 1976, 266–7; figures: Marcus 1998, 19; Himmelheber1960, esp. 73, 123–4, 167–8; Lem 1948, esp. 20, 25; Bacquart1998. Figures were sometimes clothed with perishable materi-als. Maurer and Roberts 1985, ills. 7, 36.

141 Goody 1962, 391; Gröning 1997, 87.142 Fiawoo 1976, 279. For an illustration of ancestral fig-

ures “presiding” over such a proceeding, Maurer and Roberts1985, ill. 9.

143 Burials and cemeteries also might serve this purpose.Glazier 1984 on the development of such usage in response tocolonial pressures in Africa.

144 Marcus 1998, 19.


en often became the primary bearers of body mark-ings. In all cases, specific figure uses, meanings,and forms of decoration were directly related tothe cosmological ideas of a particular group.

Archaeology of Figure UseEgypt. Archaeologically preserved decorated fig-

ures found in tombs provide additional sources ofcomparative evidence. The earliest known exam-ple linking body markings and decorated figuresplaced in graves comes from Egypt. Amunet (apriestess of Hathor at Thebes during Dynasty XI,ca. 2160–1994 B.C.) was tattooed with a series ofdots and dashes creating an abstract geometric pat-tern on her body. Closely related patterns appearon contemporary faience figures often labeled“brides of the dead.”145 These small figures wereplaced in the graves of both men and women ap-parently to arouse the dead to procreate themselves,hence permitting their rebirth into the afterlife.146

This use underscores how intimately linked figureuse is with a specific culture and its ideology.

Oaxaca, Mexico. The Early and Formative period(1800–500 b.c., uncalibrated) Oaxaca figures stud-ied by Marcus are important because the precisecontexts, down to the specific room within a build-ing, for all the excavated figures were recorded.Such full contextual information combined withan indigenous ethnographic record permit de-tailed interpretation of production, uses, and mean-ings. Marcus argues that, in the early village peri-od, men’s and women’s rituals differed and tookplace in distinct locations. Men’s rituals involved

bloodletting, the use of narcotic plants, and per-haps contact with remote ancestors; occurred inspecial “Men’s Houses”; and probably were attend-ed only by initiates.147 In contrast, women’s ritualsfocused on water divination,148 healing, and con-sulting recently deceased ancestors; took placewithin the household; and were apparently attend-ed by all women.149

Small terracotta figurines were made to facilitatecommunication with recent ancestors.150 Althougha few specially costumed male figurines151 as well asanimal figurines occurred, the majority of the fig-ures were simple standardized female types withhighly generalized facial features,152 occasionally afemale figure was shown pregnant.153 The only dis-tinctive attributes were a variety of detailed hairdosthat Marcus links to indications of age-grade, mari-tal status, or rank.154 Marcus explains the large num-ber of figures as well as their primary excavated con-texts (in residences, in burials, and arranged inscenes in households) as the result of their beingcreated for each occasion.155 After use, the figurineswould be discarded, frequently broken or defaced(perhaps to prevent their reuse),156 hence, theirmost frequent secondary contexts is in householdmiddens.157

Though Marcus provides no detailed explana-tion of burial use, she observes that multiple figu-rines appear in female graves and might representeither unused production buried with their ownerfor disposal or burial gifts offered by mourners.158

These figure types and burial evidence in someways mirror that in the Cyclades.159 The predomi-

145 There were two other female mummies preserved withsimilar tattoos. Bianchi 1988, 21–3; 1985. Other figures withzigzag patterns have been identified as fecundity figures,Thévoz 1984, 62. Other tattoos (e.g., Bes figures) are foundon representations of women (dancers, musicians, and courte-sans) in later Egyptian art, Bianchi 1988, 24–6.

146 Bianchi 1988, 22; Desroches-Noblecourt 1985. For aninteresting discussion of how this would work for female dead,Roth 2000, 198–200.

147 Marcus 1996, 288–9.148 “Water divination” consisted of filling a shallow basin with

water, casting maize kernels onto the surface, and then count-ing the number that floated. Marcus 1998, 4, 12–5. One won-ders whether the dove bowls or the frying pans found in EarlyCycladic II deposits could also have served for water divinationwith grain.

149 Marcus 1998, 2; 1996, 288.150 The number of figures rose dramatically around 1400 b.c.

(Marcus 1998, 15) perhaps contemporaneous with a rise in thecomplexity of Oaxacan society.

151 Especially between 1150 and 850 b.c. when seated orbundled males as well as figures dressed perhaps for the ballgame appeared. Marcus 1998, 47, 50.

152 Marcus 1998, 21. For a neighboring area 92% were fe-

male and 3% male, roughly the same percentage as in theOaxaca Valley.

153 Marcus 1998, 3, 5, she suggests that the pregnant fig-ures represent women who died in childbirth rather than fer-tility figures.

154 Marcus 1998, n. 25, where she mentions also body posi-tion and jewelry as sometimes indicating special attributes.Marcus 1996, 290, fig. 6 shows two figurines from San JoséMagote with the same folded arm gesture as EC II statues.Marcus 1998, 47–8, 3 on the variety of figures.

155 Marcus 1998, 25.156 Marcus 1998, 5, 25.157 Marcus 1998, 3.158 Marcus 1998, 25–8.159 Marcus notes a great elaboration of figure types concur-

rent with the development of hereditary ranking in Oaxacaand speculates the fancier figures belonged to an emergingelite. Marcus 1998, 50. The eventual disappearance of figu-rines from the archaeological record, she proposes, would beexplained by the rise of the Zapotec state in which the ances-tors of “uninfluential people” became less important in com-parison to the ancestors of nobility and royalty. These groups,then, coopted the use of ceramic sculptures, which were nowmade of craft-specialist quality. Marcus 1998, 21, 29.


nant figure type is a standardized, apparently fe-male, form; a few pregnant figures exist. Male fig-ures are rare and belong to special, probably ritual,types. Figures appear in only a small percentage ofthe graves.160 Yet, graves containing any such offer-ings often contained multiple figures. As societybecame more complex, figure types expanded toinclude larger, more elaborate forms probably pro-duced by specialists.161

Cyprus. Cyprus, geographically close to the Cy-clades, has an especially long and complex tradi-tion of human figural representations, includingindividual figures, groups or scenes with fig-ures,162 and vessels with figural attachments. Dur-ing the Neolithic, so-called stump figures predom-inate; in the Chalcolithic, cruciform figures aremost common; while in the Early Bronze Age(roughly contemporary with the Cycladic FAFs) themost prevalent form is the plank figure.163 Al-though in some instances the figures have goodarchaeological contexts allowing complex inter-pretations of function,164 more often, especially inthe case of the Early Bronze Age plank figures,they are unprovenanced.165

The plank figures, mostly made in clay, are high-ly schematized forms with little indication of sex.However, their bodies and faces are often coveredwith incised patterns. Some scholars consider thefacial markings as evidence of tattoos or bodypaint.166 Though mainly unprovenanced, their oneassured context is in burials.167 These figures ap-pear in fewer than 10% of the known burials and

have been viewed as valued possessions or special-ized grave goods.168 It has been suggested that shiftsin Bronze Age figure types occur along with theemergence of complex society as indicated espe-cially by increases in metallurgy and exchange ofprestige goods.169 Although there appear to be sim-ilarities between Cypriot and Cycladic figures (bothare schematized forms with added skin markings,some are placed in graves, and figure types shift asevidence of specialized skills and prestige goodsappear), the lack of good contextual informationfor the Cypriot figures limits their interpretive andcomparative potential.170

Greek Funerary RitualSince the meaning of figures and their decora-

tion will be specific to the culture in which they areused, it is appropriate to examine what is knownabout figure use in graves and body marking inGreek society. Further, since the argument present-ed here is that the vertical striations on some fig-ures represent marks of mourning, this practice inGreek culture must also be explored. While wehave no written texts to tell us about the funeralceremonies of 2,500 B.C.,171 we do know somethingabout such practices from fifth-century B.C. Greektexts and visual arts.172 At the funeral prothesis orwake, women of the family wailed and groaned alament, the góos, while other mourners (sometimesprofessionals) sang a dirge, the thrênos, perhapsaccompanied by a reed-pipe, the aulos.173 Associat-ed with the moaning and verbal anguish of the fam-

160 In the Cyclades an estimate of 10% of the graves con-tained figures. At Tlatilco of 214 excavated burials, 37 containedfigures. This is roughly 17%. Marcus 1998, 27–8.

161 Especially the hollow, white-slipped figures, which areoften 40–50 cm tall. Marcus 1998, 50, 28–9.

162 For Bronze Age figural scenes from tombs, Morris 1985,264–90; Karageorghis 1991, 139–45. For discussion with bib-liography of a scene from a tomb at Vounous, Bolger 1996,370–1.

163 Morris 1985, 135–62; Karageorghis 1991, 49–94, 127–38, 170–2; a Campo 1994, 98–113, 164–9.

164 E.g., a special Middle Chalcolithic deposit from Kissoner-ga that Bolger (1996, 367–9) interprets as a representation ofa birthing ritual. On the deposit, Goring 1991.

165 The Cypriot plank figures were popular on the art mar-ket. Bolger 1996, 369; Knapp and Meskell 1997, 195.

166 Knapp and Meskell 1997, 196.167 Bolger 1996, 369; Knapp and Meskell 1997, 195–8.168 Knapp and Meskell 1997, 195; Webb 1992, 90 with oth-

er references. For discussion of the meanings of plank figures,Morris 1985, 114–6, 162; Karageorghis 1991, 51.

169 Bolger 1996, 370; Knapp 1993; Manning 1993.170 On figure interpretation in the Chalcolithic Near East,

Joffe et al. 2001. I thank Ellen Herscher for this reference.

171 Although one can debate whether Bronze Age Cycladicculture is linked to later developments in Greece, during theEarly Bronze Age at least it is culturally most closely tied tomainland Greece and Crete.

172 On fifth-century funerary practices: Shapiro 1991; Gar-land 1985; Kurtz 1984; Sourvinou-Inwood 1981; Humphreys1980; Vermeule 1979; Alexiou 1974; Kurtz and Boardman 1971;Andronikos 1968; Boardman 1955; Reiner 1938; Zschi-etzschmann 1928. The question of whether Early Cycladicculture can be considered a precursor to later Greek culture isdifficult. Recent work on Late Bronze Age ritual areas in theCyclades (especially at Kea and Phylakopi) has proposed linksbetween Early Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age Cycladic cul-ture. Also, the extent to which Greek tragedy reflects actualburial ritual is debatable, e.g., Foley 1993.

173 The wailing, groaning, termed góos, describes the out-bursts of the kin while the thrênos, a sort of sung dirge wasperformed by professional mourners. On the distinction be-tween góos and thrênos (largely lost by the Classical period)see Alexiou 1974, 11–3. Also van Wees 1998, 5 where the Musessing a dirge for Achilles, while Thetis and her sisters wail andlament. I thank Greg Nagy for bringing this distinction to myattention.


ily were specific gestures—striking the head, tear-ing out the hair, beating the breast, and scratchingthe cheeks until blood ran.174

Laceration. The practice of facial laceration is de-scribed in sources from Homer on. In the fifth cen-tury B.C., Aeschylus’s Choephoroi provides an arrest-ing description of this action when the chorus, com-posed of mourning women, first speaks: “I came inhaste out of the house to carry libations, hurt by thehard stroke of hands. My cheek shows bright rippedin the bloody furrows of nails gashing the skin.”175

Many other passages describe this practice,176 andthere are also recorded attempts to limit such dis-play at funerals (most notable are the reforms attrib-uted to Solon).177 Although facial laceration was prac-ticed by women in fifth-century Greece, this is a longway from the third millennium B.C., when the Cycla-dic figures were made. Also, the practice of lacerat-ing the cheeks as part of the funeral is different thanplacing figures painted to represent mourners ingraves. Archaeological evidence exists, however, formourning figures with painted facial striations de-posited in graves fairly continuously from at least theLate Bronze Age to the fifth century (see below). Itshould also be remarked that funerary customs, es-pecially in regard to expressions of grief, are bothespecially conservative and widespread, encompass-

ing disparate cultures and times. For example, Al-exiou has documented a close resemblance of fifth-century B.C. Greek funeral laments in the lamentsof women in rural villages of Greece today (some2,500 years later), even though these laments areused in different religious contexts.178 What is strik-ing is that while their context of use is different, themodes for expressing grief have survived nearly un-changed for two and a half millennia. Likewise, lac-eration of the face has a long history and is wide-spread among cultures in the Mediterranean andbeyond. There are repeated references to attemptsto discourage or outlaw this practice, beginning inthe Archaic period and continuing through the Byz-antine era.179 If the lament and laceration character-istic of fifth-century B.C. mourning practice can besustained for 2,500 years, might not the practice al-ready have been two millennia old in Aeschylus’sday?

In the visual arts, the tradition of representingthe prothesis, mourners, and facial laceration is equal-ly long. Vermeule has noted, “The unbroken conti-nuity of funeral imagery . . . between the BronzeAge and the classical world is very clear in the artis-tic documents . . . surviving all the cultural and eco-nomic vicissitudes of the Dark Age as the most sta-ble tradition in art, save scenes of war.”180

174 On laceration, Vermeule 1979, 14, n. 26 (where shenotes these customs in Egypt, the Levant, and the Mycenae-an world); 1991; Alexiou 1974, 6; Sourvinou-Inwood 1983, 47;Cavanagh and Mee 1995, 58; van Wees 1998. Although faciallaceration is vividly described in literature, is sometimes ren-dered in art, and must surely have been arresting in actualpractice, surprisingly little comment in later scholarship is madeabout this practice beyond its existence. Sourvinou-Inwood(1983, 38) suggest that the “self-wounding . . . expresses asymbolic, partial identification with the deceased.” Aristotle (fr.101 Rose, ap. Athen. 675a) apparently suggested a similar in-terpretation, that is, it is in homeopathy with the dead thatmourners disfigure and defile themselves. Seaford 1994, 86with discussion of some of the anthropological literature.

175 Aesch. Cho., 21–5, translated by R. Lattimore.176 Hom. Il. 10.78, 406; 19.276–300; 22.405 ff.; 24.711; Aesch.

Cho. 22–31; Soph. El. 89–91; Eur. Supp. 71 ff, 826–7; 977–9;1160; Alc. 86–92, 98–104; Andr. 825–35; Hel. 1089, 370–4;Phoen. 1485–92; For other ancient passages describing mourn-ing practices, Alexiou 1974, 6 n. 27; Garland 1985, 141–2; Foley1993, 110–1; van Wees 1998, 17–8 and n. 25.

177 Plut. Vit. Sol. 12b, 21; Garland 1989, 1–15; 1985, 22, 29;Kurtz and Boardman 1971, 143, Alexiou 1974, 14–5; Vermeule1979, 3; Fantham et al. 1994, 44–50, 76–80; Foley 1993, 103–8; Seaford 1994, 74–85. Apparently the practice of lacerationcontinued into Roman times when another attempt was madeto legislate against it. Sheedy 1985, 119 and n. 7 cites Cic. Leg.2.25.64.

178 Alexiou 1974, esp. 36–51; Vermeule 1979, 12 where shecites Schmidt (1926) on continuity of tradition. On modernfunerary practices in rural Greece, see especially, Danforth

1982; Seremetakis 1991, Caraveli 1986.179 For Archaic Greek and Roman attempts at restrictive leg-

islation, supra n. 177. For attempts in the fourth century A.D.,Alexiou 1974, 27–9 and again in the later Byzantine period ofthe 15th century A.D., see Alexiou 1974, 27–9, 34. These at-tempts were unsuccessful and in some places the practice oflaceration was incorporated into the epitáphios—the Virgin’slament for Christ. “And saying these words, she scratched herface with her nails and beat her breast.” (Tischendorf, 283)from Alexiou 1974, 68. The practice continues in modernGreece (ibid., 41). “The ritual character of the scene at thewake is further emphasized by the rhythmical movements ofwomen, who beat their breasts, tear their cheeks, and pull theirloosened hair. . .” Fermor 1984, 59 mentions the practice inthe Mani.

180 Vermeule 1979, 63, 2, 12, 69–70. Many other scholarshave noted this as well, Shapiro 1991, 629, “the essential con-servatism of funerary iconography is remarkable.” Kurtz andBoardman 1971, 27, “there is one aspect of funerary proce-dure common to both prehistoric and historic Greece whichwe can investigate from the representational evidence—thelament for the dead.” Cavanagh and Mee 1995, 98, “we arefaced with a ritual apparently unchanged over half a millenni-um . . . the practice of self-mutilation.” Also, Iakovides 1966,43, 45, 50; Vermeule 1991; van Wees 1998, 19. Although vanWees notes the persistence of the female mourner in the ar-tistic tradition from the Bronze Age on, he questions the con-tinuity of facial laceration, even proposing that it could be anoriental borrowing in the seventh century. Van Wees 1998,26 ff. and 45.


Indeed, one of the first human representationsin art following the Dark Age is a mourning wom-an.181 In the Geometric period, huge ceramic ves-sels serving as aristocratic tombstones carry depic-tions of the funeral prothesis, including mourningwomen.182 In the Late Bronze Age, terracotta sar-cophagi have scenes of mourning painted on theirsides, the most famous series being the Tanagralarnakes.183 One of these coffins, now in Kassel,depicts mourners with hands to head and blood-ied cheeks (fig. 9).184 While facial laceration is ar-resting in its verbal description and probably evenmore so when actually seen in practice (fig. 10), itsdepiction does not transfer well to small-scale rep-resentations (though it is often included). In suchinstances, a gesture of hand to head more easilysignals mourning. Another intriguing scene on aTanagra sarcophagus depicts a person carrying a

figure in a funeral context (fig. 11).185 This is theonly preserved evidence that I know to indicate thatfigures might actually have been carried and dis-played during a funeral. Vermeule, however, hasproposed that a Bronze Age head-rhyton of un-known provenance, with painted vertical gashes onits face, might also have been used as part of a fu-neral ceremony.186 This visual material providesadditional evidence about funeral participants andactivities, including the fact that standing and seat-ed mourners attended, as did warriors and musi-cians (both aulos and lyre-players). In addition, sac-rifice and libation were likely part of the ritualsperformed.

Mourning Figures Placed in Graves. Of even greaterimportance for the present concerns are the sculp-tures of mourners deposited in graves in mainlandGreece, the Cyclades, and Crete from at least the

181 Coldstream 1968, 21. Other Geometric representations,Rombos 1988, 77–91, 337–47; Ahlberg 1971.

182 Representations of mourning at the prothesis are fre-quent on vessels from the Late Geometric through classicalperiod. Ahlberg 1971, 25–239; Zschietzschmann 1928; Kurtz1984; Shapiro 1991; Boardman 1955; Vermeule 1979, 12 n. 16for additional bibliography.

183 Vermeule 1965, 123–48; Immerwahr 1990, 154–8; 1998,109–21.

184 Vermeule 1979, 65; 1965, pl. 25a; Iakovides 1966, 48,fig. 3; Immerwahr 1998, 110 fig. 7.1e.

185 Immerwahr 1998, 116, n. 46 for references, fig. 7.5b.Others have considered the figure might be floating, appear-ing as an epiphany as, e.g., on Minoan and Mycenaean goldrings. Cavanagh and Mee 1995, 46. Another fragmentary ex-ample of a figure carried in procession (not probably in a fu-

nerary context) may come from the Tiryns frescoes. See Bou-lotes’ reconstruction in Hampe and Simon 1980, fig. 16.

186 Vermeule 1988, 300, pl. 39. I would like to thank LaurenTalalay for sending me this reference. The intriguing rhytondepicts a dead person (identified by the closed eyes with apainted pattern resembling stitches) with vertical red lines oneach cheek. Often considered male because of a painted chinband interpreted as a beard, it is unusual to find male figureswith laceration marks and I wonder if the band on the chinmight render the cloth tie often used to keep the mouth of adead person closed. It is also interesting that this rhyton pro-vides evidence that a dead person might carry marks of mourn-ing. In this regard a Hellenistic epigram describing a womanwho died in the birth of twins along with one of the babies isprovocative. Upon reaching Hades, the dead woman tears hercheeks. (53 Gow-Page; Anth. Pal. 7.646).

Fig. 9. Mourners with lacerated faces on Kassel sarcophagus. (After AJA [1966] 48, fig. 3)


Late Bronze Age down to the fifth century B.C. Smallsixth-century B.C. terracotta figures (both freestand-ing and attached to vessels) displaying a mourninggesture of hands raised to the head have been ex-cavated in graves from such sites as Arkades in Crete,Thera in the Cyclades, and the Kerameikos in Ath-ens. Although these figures are identified as mourn-ers above all by their gesture (hands raised to head,presumably tearing their hair), some also have paint-ed laceration marks on their faces (cheeks and fore-head).187 In the seventh century B.C., an interest-ing variation appears with the placement in gravesof terracotta and painted scenes of figures frozen at

the moment of scratching their cheeks.188 In theLate Geometric period (ca. 750 B.C.), small terra-cotta mourning figures come from graves at Vrokas-tro in Crete and the Kerameikos. Again, some ofthe figures have their “hands on the head andblood running down the scratched cheeks and fore-head as indicated by red paint.”189 Stretching backeven earlier, during the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1500B.C.), terracotta mourning figures (identified bythe gesture of hand raised to head) are also offeredin graves from Perati in Attica, Rhodes, and Nax-os.190 They include both freestanding figures andfigures designed for attachment to the rim of a bowl.

187 Sheedy 1985, 119 and ns. 9–12 about sixth-century Ker-ameikos figures, “These figures are invariably covered withwhite slip relieved only by dashes of brown paint on the face.”Iakovides 1966, 45 and ns. 16–20, e.g., from Arkades, Thera,Kerameikos, and Anagyrous. See also Cavanagh and Mee 1995,51 esp. n. 46.

188 Vermeule 1991, 104, figs. 11–12; van Wees 1998, 23, 26,29, figs. 1.10–15.

189 Iakovides 1966, 45, pl. 6, fig. 8 for the Vrokastro figure;Sheedy 1985, 119 n. 8 for Attic LG examples now in the Lou-vre; Kurtz and Boardman 1971, 64, pl. 6 Agora T 807 from anoffering deposit at a grave is especially interesting since it is amourning figure with a painted mourning figure on its chest.“Although clay figures are not numerous in Geometric graves. . . female figures . . . look like successors to the Mycenaean

mourning figures and precursors of the Archaic.” For threefigures possibly of LMIIIC-PG date, Cavanagh and Mee 1995,51 and n. 44.

190 Iakovides 1966, 44 where he says, “Among the potteryfound in excavations of the LH IIIC cemetery at Perati . . .are two groups of vases and figurines which add to our knowl-edge of Late Bronze Age mourning customs, and at the sametime show that a well-attested funeral practice observed inGreece during the historical period originated in Mycenae-an times, if not earlier.” Rhodes—Maiuri 1923–1924, 174 no.13, fig. 101, nos. 15–7, fig. 99, 181 no. 59, Mee 1982, 42–4,pl. 40.4–5; Naxos—Orlandou 1960, 191, figs. 216–7. For oth-er references to these figures, Cavanagh and Mee 1995, 51esp. ns. 38–41.

Fig. 10. An Azeri woman whose cheeks bleed after she clawed them with her nails. (AFP photo/DavidBrauchli, with permission from Agence France-Presse)


While these sculpted mourning figures are foundoffered in graves, it would be misleading to suggestthat they are common. In fact, they are quite rare(perhaps comparable in rarity to the FAFs in EarlyCycladic II graves). As a group these terracotta fig-ures document a practice of offering sculpted fe-male mourning figures in graves.191 Other figuretypes are also offered in graves; most are femaleand some, such as the phi and psi figures, are knownfrom settlement and sanctuary sites as well.192 Notall Late Bronze Age or Geometric figures deposit-ed in graves represent mourners, thus suggestingthat the deposition of figures can have a variety ofmeanings, including the representation of mourn-ing women.

Even earlier, in the Neolithic, figure uses seemequally varied, though in Greece, it is uncommonfor Neolithic figures to be deposited in graves.However, one intriguing instance of Neolithic fig-ures (dating to ca. 3500 B.C.) associated with buri-als comes from the Cyclades. At Kephala on theisland of Kea, seven of eight terracotta figures dis-covered derived from the area of the cemetery.193

Coleman published the excavation results, specu-lating that “they [were] used in funerary ceremo-nies,” though none was definitely associated with askeleton in the grave.194 These are remarkable in anumber of ways. First, the heads are roughly similarin shape and stylization to later Cycladic figures,

with flattened triangular faces that slope backwardand carry as their only sculpted detail a projectingknob-like nose. Second, this is a rare sepulchraluse of Neolithic figures. Such a practice is essen-tially unknown in the Neolithic culture of the Greekmainland,195 yet it becomes absolutely typical of lat-er Cycladic culture. Third, one of the figures wasvery large for the Neolithic, about 50 cm.196

Discussing Greek Neolithic figures, Talalay ob-serves that while Kephala is the only Neolithic sitein southern Greece where figures appear associat-ed with burial, it is also the earliest example of aformal cemetery. Citing anthropological parallels,she notes that cemeteries can serve to “publiclyidentify . . . collective or corporate identity.”197 Sincesedentary agriculturalists are tied to fixed resourc-es, when resources are scarce, competition for con-trol of them may result. In such struggles, establish-ing rights to territory is critical, and cemeteries serveto legitimize claims because they establish ances-tral precedents.198 Ancestor rituals are also oftenimportant in such contexts as shown by ancestorfigures offered in and around burials in other soci-eties—both ancient and modern.199 Further, ances-tor images are frequently large and lavish in con-trast to other figure types. So, I suggest that theNeolithic Kephala figures may signal the begin-ning of ancestor ritual in the Cyclades, that they aredirectly linked to Early Bronze Age developments

Fig. 11. Tanagra sarcophagus with person carrying a figurine (after BCH [1975] 644, fig.118) and detail of person carrying figurine. (After Immerwahr 1998, fig. 7.5b)

191 Roughly a millennium separates the LBA figures fromthe EC II FAFs. Some scholars, however, have made argumentslinking EBA and LBA ritual practice in the Cyclades (Barber1984, 13, 12). For an attempt to link Mycenaean and Geomet-ric mourning practices, Cavanagh and Mee 1995.

192 French 1971, 101, 107–8; 1981; French in Renfrew 1985,211–36; Renfrew 1984, 27; 1985, 413–25; Moore 1988.

193 Coleman 1977, 99, 101, 103, 105–8, nos. 127, 128, 160,196–8, 202, 43 no. 96b for large figure head (12 cm) fromsettlement, pls. 26, 71d–73.

194 Coleman 1977, 8.195 Coleman 1977, 103–7; Talalay 1993, 74.196 Coleman 1977, 43, 196, no. 96b, this is the one figure

not found in the cemetery area.197 Talalay 1993, 74.198 Broodbank 2000, 153 arguing this for EBA I (Grotta-

Pelos) culture and 150 referencing Talalay’s idea.199 Talalay 1993, 74, n. 60 for African and Idonesian exam-

ples; 1991. Glazier 1984.


in the islands when larger, more lavish statues werecreated for individuals of higher status in society.

conclusions

Drawing together the disparate comparative evi-dence for figure uses and meanings into a specificinterpretation of the Early Cycladic FAF is not yetpossible. Still, the available evidence suggests gen-eral parameters within which to consider Early Cy-cladic figure use. Given the frequency with whichancestor rituals occur worldwide in early village soci-eties and the more culturally immediate and sug-gestive evidence of the Kephala Neolithic figurines,I propose that the Early Cycladic II FAFs were part ofancestor rituals practiced by Cycladic islanders. Onepurpose of such rituals would be to integrate variousisland groups that would need to maintain ties forexogamy.200 Another purpose could be to allow lin-eages or other groups to stake claims to territory, es-pecially necessary in marginal agricultural land orwhere inheritance rights for land were important.201

The generalized and standardized form of the FAFseems in keeping with a common conceptualizationof the ancestors as faceless and belonging to a dis-tinct category of being. Indeed, when other culturesproduced ancestor figures they were often highly styl-ized with elongated necks and generalized faces.When the sex is clearly indicated, it is nearly alwaysfemale, though the tiny breasts and slim profile ofthe figure might suggest a nubile form. The prepon-derance of female figures may imply that women inCycladic society were the primary bearers of ritualmarkings. The large size and more permanent mate-rials, as well as their use in some burials, also appearsin keeping with what is known about ancestor fig-ures. The painted markings, then, are likely indica-tive of the social persona of the individual ancestorand of the ritual in which the figure participates.

I wonder whether it is possible that some of thesefigures would have been produced at puberty. The

figure, then, might have been used in various rites ofpassage. At such events, the figure and its ownerwould both receive appropriate decoration. Largerfigures would be made for wealthier individuals, anda number of figures might be acquired over a life-time. Although during Early Cycladic II the mostprevalent figure type is the FAF, schematic or violin-shaped figures probably continued to be made andmight represent a less expensive version.202 In addi-tion, during Early Cycladic II, other types of figures,especially warriors and musicians, occur. These fig-ures might be associated with male social personae,as has also been suggested by recent considerationof daggers and obsidian blades from graves. The in-crease in size and quality of the primary figure typeas well as the proliferation of other figure types seemsin keeping with developments observed in othercases and associated with a rise in social complexity.Still, the vast majority of the canonical Cycladic fig-ures are female and probably reflect an importantritual role for women in Cycladic culture,203 whilethe presence of figures painted as mourners maypoint to a preeminent role for women in funeraryritual (a role similar to that which women played andcontinued to play in Greek funerals). Women at allperiods in Greek culture carried primary responsi-bility for mourning at funerals (as well as for washingand preparation of the corpse).204

At death figures could be placed in the grave.The markings on the figure, then, might reflectsomething about status at death. For instance, anunmarried individual might be dressed in weddingattire and an FAF might receive similar decoration,much in the way that in later Greece, “women whowere unmarried or recently married at death wouldbe decked out on the bier as brides, often wearingcrowns.”205 Indeed, in the Archaic period, a largefemale statue dressed as a bride was placed as amarker over the grave of an aristocratic woman(Phrasikleia) who died unmarried.206 Painted dia-

200 Sherratt 2000, 136 n. 35 notes the uncharacteristic ex-istence of formal ties of epigamia or mutual concession of cit-izenship by right of marriage that existed between Cycladicislands in the seventh century B.C. Broodbank 1992, 543 pro-poses associating the figures “with the acquisition and move-ment of high status women . . . within and between the tiny,necessarily exogamous communities of the Cyclades.”

201 Kenna (1976) indicates that still today in the Cycladesthe person with responsibilities for tending a grave is the indi-vidual who inherited land rights. Ahern 1973 argues this forancestor cults in the Far East, also, Fortes 1976, 9.

202 Scholars have proposed both that the FAF and schemat-ic figure types served basically the same purpose (Barber 1984,11) and that the figure types should be understood as essen-

tially different in function (Sherratt 2000, 128).203 Doumas 1968, 93.204 E.g., in the Iliad, where it is so important to have women

for this role that foreign women (Briseis and other captives)mourn at Patroklos’s death (Il. 19.244–309). Shapiro 1991, 644and elsewhere, noting that this is true from Homer into thefifth century.

205 Shapiro 1991, 637; Garland 1985, 23.206 The inscription below Phrasikleia’s statue reads “Phrasikle-

ia’s grave. I shall always be called maiden, for the gods gave methis name instead of marriage.” Svenbro 1993, esp. 9–13; Al-exiou 1974, 105. On the continuation of this practice today,Danforth 1982, 13, 79–80; Alexiou 1974, 120 (ancient andmodern custom) and n. 63.


dems have been observed on some FAFs, and sil-ver diadems (thought to be purely for funeraryuse) have been found in Cycladic graves. Couldthe inclusion of crowns on the figures and dia-dems offered in the graves also indicate that thedeceased was unmarried? Certainly, as Broodbankhas observed, the loss of a high status woman priorto marriage and childbirth would be an occasionof great lamentation for a society as close to themargins as was Early Cycladic society.207 A womandying during pregnancy or childbirth might re-ceive a pregnant figure offered in her grave.208 If itis true that larger figures were made for higherstatus individuals, it is intriguing that the redpainted facial striations seem to occur dispropor-tionately on this group. (Four of the five preservedstatues with painted facial striations were over 70cm.) The death of a high status person might oc-casion great public grief. Hence, symbols and signsassociated with mourning might be more pro-nounced. The marks of mourning, then, would beadded to the figure as well as perhaps to the corpse;while participants in the funeral might actuallylacerate their faces.

Many questions remain unanswered, but with-out fuller contextual evidence for the figures andbetter excavation of settlements there is little hopeof answering them. Still, it is possible to inch for-ward by studying carefully the evidence of painttraces preserved on the figures. (For instance,could the nonanatomical eyes be intended as pro-tective signs; that is, to ward off the evil eye? Arethe zigzag patterns perhaps related to fertility ashas been suggested for Egyptian figurines?) Giv-en that in most recorded instances, figures servedmultiple functions within a culture relating to itssocial structure and cosmological views, it mightalso prove useful to consider other symbolic evi-dence from the Early Cyclades (e.g., anthropomor-phic and zoomorphic vessels, and painted andincised decorations on pottery, including fryingpans). With judicious use of ethnographic evi-dence and, where feasible, theoretical constructsabout figure use, we may be able to expand ourunderstanding of these figures’ uses and mean-ings within Cycladic society.

department of classical studiesboston collegechestnut hill, massachusetts [email protected]

Works Cited

a Campo, A.L. 1994. Anthropomorphic Representations inPrehistoric Cyprus: A Formal and Symbolic Analysis of Fig-urines ca. 3500–1800 B.C. Jonsered: Paul Åström.

Ahern, E.M. 1973. The Cult of the Dead in a Chinese Village.Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Ahlberg, G. 1971. Prothesis and Ekphora in Greek GeometricArt. SIMA 32. Göteborg: Paul Åström.

Alexiou, M. 1974. The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Andronikos, M. 1968. Totenkult. ArchHom 3W. Göttin-gen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

Bacquart, J.-B. 1998. The Tribal Arts of Africa. New York:Thames and Hudson.

Bailey, D. 1994. “Reading Prehistoric Figurines as Indi-viduals.” WorldArch 25:321–31.

———. 1996. “The Interpretation of Figurines: TheEmergence of Illusion and New Ways of Seeing.” CAJ6:291–5.

Barber, R.L.N. 1984. “Early Cycladic Marble Figures:Some Thoughts on Function.” In Cycladica: Studies inMemory of N.P. Goulandris, edited by J.L. Fitton, 10–4.London: British Museum Press.

———. 1987. The Cyclades in the Bronze Age. Iowa City:University of Iowa Press.

Bianchi, R.S. 1985. “Tätowierung.” In LÄ 6, edited by W.Helck and E. Otto, 146. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz.

———. 1988. “Tattoo in Ancient Egypt.” In Marks ofCivilization: Artistic Transformations of the Human Body,edited by A. Rubin, 21–8. Los Angeles: Museum ofCultural History, UCLA.

Bienert, H.-D. 1991. “Skull Cult in the Prehistoric NearEast.” JPR 5:9–23.

Boardman, J. 1955. “Painted Funerary Plaques and SomeRemarks on Prothesis.” BSA 50:51–66.

Bolger, D. 1996. “Figurines, Fertility, and the Emergenceof Complex Society in Prehistoric Cyprus.” CurrAnthr37:365–73.

Bonn, E.B. 1996. “The Art of Body Painting and Tattoo-ing on the Cycladic Islands and Crete During theAegean Bronze Age.” B.A. thesis, Harvard University.

Brain, R. 1979. The Decorated Body. London: Hutchinson.Brain, R., and A. Pollock. 1971. Bangwa Funerary Sculp-

ture. Toronto: Toronto University Press.Branigan, K., ed. 1998. Cemetery and Society in the Aegean

Bronze Age. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.Broodbank, C. 1989. “The Longboat and Society in the

Cyclades in the Keros-Syros Culture.” AJA 93:319–37.———. 1992. “The Spirit is Willing.” Antiquity 66:542–6.———. 1999. “Colonization and Configuration in the

Insular Neolithic of the Aegean.” In Neolithic Society inGreece, edited by P. Halstead, 15–41. Sheffield Studiesin Aegean Archaeology 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-demic.

———. 2000. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, J.A., ed. 1971. Approaches to the Social Dimensionsof Mortuary Practices. Memoir of the Society for Amer-ican Archaeology 25. Washington, D.C.: Society forAmerican Archaeology.

207 Broodbank 2000, 173–4; 1992, 543. 208 Marcus 1998, 22.


Campbell, S., and A. Green, eds. 1995. The Archaeology ofDeath in the Ancient Near East. Oxbow Monograph 51.Oxford: Oxbow.

Caraveli, A. 1986. “The Bitter Wounding: The Lamentas Social Protest in Rural Greece. “ In Gender andPower in Rural Greece, edited by J. Dubisch, 169–94.Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Carter, T. 1994. “Southern Aegean Fashion Victims: AnOverlooked Aspect of Early Bronze Age Burial Practic-es.” In Stories in Stone, edited by N. Ashton and A.David, 127–44. London: Lithic Studies Society.

———. 1997. “Blood and Tears: A Cycladic Case Studyin Microwear Analysis. The Use of Obsidian Bladesfrom Graves as Razors?” In Siliceous Rocks and Culture,edited by A. Ramos-Millán and M.A. Bustillo, 537–51.Granada: Universidad de Granada.

———. Forthcoming. “Cinnabar and the Cyclades: BodyModification and Political Structure in the Late EB IAegean.” In The Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic andEarly Bronze Age, edited by H. Erkanal.

Caskey, J.L. 1971. “Marble Figurines from Ayia Irini inKeos.” Hesperia 40:113–26.

———. 1974. “Addenda to the Marble Figurines fromAyia Irini.” Hesperia 43:77–9.

Cavanagh, W., and C. Mee. 1995. “Mourning Beforeand After the Dark Age.” In Klados: Essays in Honour ofJ.N. Coldstream, edited by C. Morris, 45–61. BICS Sup-pl. 63. London: Institute of Classical Studies.

———. 1998. A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece.SIMA 125. Jonsered: Paul Åström.

Chapman, R., I. Kinnes, and K. Randsborg, eds. 1981.The Archaeology of Death. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Cherry, J. 1990. “The First Colonization of the Mediter-ranean Islands: A Review of Recent Research.” JMA3:145–221.

———. 1992. “Beazley in the Bronze Age? Reflectionson Attribution Studies in Aegean Prehistory.” InEIKON: Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Meth-odology, edited by R. Laffineur and J.L. Crowley, 123–44. Aegaeum 8. Liège: Université de Liège.

Coldstream, J.N. 1968. Greek Geometric Pottery. London:Methuen.

Coleman, J.E. 1977. Kephala: A Late Neolithic Settlementand Cemetery. Princeton: American School of Classi-cal Studies.

———. 1985. “‘Frying-pans’ of the Early Bronze AgeAegean.” AJA 89:191–204.

Copenhagen Nationalmuseet Antiksamlingen. 1950.Guides to the National Museum: Department of Orientaland Classical Antiquity. Copenhagen: Bianco Luno.

Danforth, L.M., and A. Tsiaras (photographer). 1982.The Death Rituals of Rural Greece. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Davis, E.N. 1986. “Youth and Age in the Thera Frescoes.”AJA 90:399–406.

Davis, J.L. 1984. “A Cycladic Figure in Chicago and theNon-Funereal Use of Cycladic Marble Figures.” InCycladica: Studies in Memory of N.P. Goulandris, editedby J.L. Fitton, 15–23. London: British Museum Press.

———. 1992. “Review of Aegean Prehistory I: The Is-lands of the Aegean.” AJA 96:699–756.

———. 2000. “Review of Aegean Prehistory I: The Is-lands of the Aegean.” Rev. ed. In A Review of AegeanPrehistory, edited by T. Cullen, 19–94. AJA Suppl. 1.

Boston: Archaeological Institute of America.Desroches-Noblecourt, C. 1953. “Concubines du Mort.”

BIFAO 53:7–47.Douglas, M.T. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of

Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Praeger.———. 1970. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology.

London: Barrie and Rockliff, Cresset.Doumas, C. 1963. “Kyklades.” ArchDelt B’2 Chronika

18:273–85.———. 1968. The N.P. Goulandris Collection of Early Cycla-

dic Art. Athens: J. Makris S.A.———. 1977. Early Bronze Age Burial Habits in the Cyclades.

SIMA 48. Göteborg: Paul Åström.———. 1979. Cycladic Art: Ancient Sculpture and Ceramics

of the Aegean from the N.P. Goulandris Collection. Wash-ington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art.

———. 1983. Cycladic Art: Ancient Sculpture and Potteryfrom the N.P. Goulandris Collection. London: BritishMuseum Publications.

———. 1987. “Early Cycladic Society: The Evidence fromthe Graves.” In THANATOS: Les coutumes funeraires enégèe à l’âge du bronze, edited by R.Laffineur, 15–8. Ae-gaeum 1. Liège: Université de Liège.

———. 2000. Early Cycladic Culture: The N.P. GoulandrisCollection. Athens: N.P.Goulandris Foundation, Muse-um of Cycladic Art.

Duhn, F. von. 1906. “Rot und Tot.” ArchRW 9:1–24.Ebert, M. 1927–1928. “Rote Farbe in Totenkult.” RLV

11:161–3.Ebin, V. 1979. The Body Decorated. London: Thames and

Hudson.Ekschmitt, W. 1986. Kunst und Kultur der Kykladen. Teil I:

Neolithikum und Bronzezeit. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.Elia, R.J. 1993. “A Seductive and Troubling Work.” Ar-

chaeology 46:64–9.Ember, M., and C.R. Ember. 1995. “Worldwide Cross-

Cultural Studies and Their Relevance for Archaeolo-gy.” JAR 3(1):87–111.

Evans, J.D., and C. Renfrew. 1968. Excavations at Saliagosnear Antiparos. BSA Suppl. 5. London: Thames andHudson.

Fantham, E., H.P. Foley, N.B. Kampen, S.B. Pomeroy,and H.A. Shapiro. 1994. Women in the Classical World:Image and Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Faris, J. 1972. Nuba Personal Art. London: Duckworth.Fermor, P.L. 1984. Mani: Travels in the Southern

Peloponnese. London: Penguin.Fiawoo, D.K. 1976. “Characteristic Features of Ewe An-

cestor Worship.” In Ancestors, edited by W.H. Newell,263–82. Hague and Paris: Mouton.

Fitton, J.L. 1989. Cycladic Art. London: British MuseumPress.

Foley, H. 1993. “The Politics of Tragic Lamentation.” InTragedy, Comedy, and the Polis, edited by A. Sommer-stein, J. Henderson, and B. Zimmermann, 101–44.Bari: Levante.

Fortes, M. 1965. “Some Reflections on Ancestor Wor-ship in Africa.” In African Systems of Thought, edited byM. Fortes and G. Dieterlen, 122–42. London: OxfordUniversity Press.

———. 1976. “An Introductory Commentary.” In Ances-tors, edited by W.H. Newell, 1–16. Hague and Paris:Mouton.

Fountoulakis, M. 1987. “Some Unusual Burial Practicesin the Early Helladic Necropolis of Manika.” In THA-


NATOS: Les coutumes funeraires en égèe à l’âge du bronze,edited by R. Laffineur, 29–32. Aegaeum 1. Liège: Uni-versité de Liège.

French, E. 1971. “The Development of Mycenaean Ter-racotta Figurines.” BSA 66:101–87.

———. 1981. “Mycenaean Figures and Figurines, TheirTypology and Function.” In Sanctuaries and Cults inthe Aegean Bronze Age, edited by R. Hägg and N. Mari-natos, 173–8. Lund: Paul Åström.

Garland, R. 1985. The Greek Way of Death. Ithaca, N.Y.:Cornell University Press.

———. 1989. “The Well-Ordered Corpse: An Investiga-tion into the Motives Behind Greek Funerary Legisla-tion.” BICS 36:1–15.

Getz-Gentle, P. 1996. Stone Vessels of the Cyclades in theEarly Bronze Age. University Park: Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press.

———. 2001. Personal Styles in Early Cycladic Sculpture.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Getz-Preziosi, P. 1979. “The Hunter/Warrior Figure inEarly Cycladic Sculpture.” In Papers in Cycladic Prehis-tory, edited by J.L. Davis and J.F. Cherry, 87–96. LosAngeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of Cali-fornia, Los Angeles.

———. 1980. “The Male Figure in Early Cycladic Sculp-ture.” MMAJ 15:5–33.

———. 1981. “Risk and Repair in Early Cycladic Sculp-ture.” MMAJ 16:5–32.

———. 1983. “The ‘Keros Hoard’: Introduction to anEarly Cycladic Enigma.” In Antidoron Jürgen Thimme,edited by D. Metzler and B. Otto, 37–44. Karlsruhe:C.F. Muller.

———. 1984. “Five Sculptors in the Goulandris Collec-tion.” In Cycladica: Studies in Memory of N.P. Goulan-dris, edited by J.L. Fitton, 47–71. London: BritishMuseum Press.

———. 1985. Early Cycladic Sculpture: An Introduction.Malibu, Calif.: Getty Museum Publications.

———. 1987. Sculptors of the Cyclades: Individual and Tra-dition in the Third Millennium B.C. Ann Arbor: TheUniversity of Michigan Press.

———. 1987b. Early Cycladic Art in North American Collec-tions. Richmond: Virginia Museum of Fine Arts.

Gill, D.W.J., and C. Chippindale. 1993. “Material andIntellectual Consequences of Esteem for Cycladic Fig-ures.” AJA 97:601–59.

Glazier, J. 1984. “Mbeere Ancestors and the Domestica-tion of Death.” Man 19:133–48.

Goodison, L. 1989. Death, Women, and the Sun. BICS Sup-pl. 53. London: Institute of Classical Studies.

Goody, J. 1962. Death, Property, and the Ancestors. Stan-ford: Stanford University Press.

Goring, E. 1991. “The Anthropomorphic Figurines.” InA Ceremonial Area at Kissonerga, edited by E. Pelten-burg, 39–60. Göteborg: Paul Åström.

Gröning, K., ed. 1997. Decorated Skin: A World Survey ofBody Art. London: Thames and Hudson.

Haaland, G., and R. Haaland. 1996. “Can We InterpretFigurines? Levels of Meaning in Symbolic Objects.”CAJ 6:295–300.

Hägg, R. 1965. “Geometrische Gräber von Asine.” OpAth6:117–38.

Hamilakis, Y. 1998. “Eating the Dead: Mortuary Feastingand the Politics of Mourning in the Aegean BronzeAge Societies.” In Cemeteries and Society in the Aegean

Bronze Age, edited by K. Branigan, 115–32. SheffieldStudies in Aegean Archaeology 1. Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press.

Hamilton, N. 1996. “Can We Interpret Figurines? ThePersonal Is Political.” CAJ 6:282–5.

Hampe, R., and E. Simon. 1980. Tausend Jahre früh-griechische Kunst: 1600–600 v.Chr. München: Hirmer.

Hendrix, E. 1997–1998. “Painted Ladies of the EarlyBronze Age.” Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin:4–15.

———. 2000. “The Paint Motifs on Early Cycladic Fig-ures.” Ph.D. diss., New York University.

Himmelheber, H. 1960. Negerkunst und Negerkünstler. Bib-liothek für Kunst- und Antiquitätenfreunde XL.Braunschweig: Linkhardt and Biermann.

Höckmann, O. 1968. “Zu Formenschatz und Ursprungder Schematischen Kykladenplastik.” BerlJV 8:45–74.

———. 1977. “Cycladic Religion.” In Art and Culture ofthe Cyclades in the Third Millennium B.C. edited by J.Thimme, P. Getz-Preziosi, and B. Otto, 37–52. Chica-go: University of Chicago Press.

Hogarth, D.G. 1927. “Aegean Sepulchral Figurines.” InEssays in Aegean Archaeology, Presented to Sir Arthur Evans,edited by S. Casson, 55–62. Oxford: Clarendon.

Holst-Warhaft, G. 1992. Dangerous Voices: Women’s Lamentsand Greek Literature. London and New York: Routledge.

Humphreys, S. 1980. “Family Tombs and Tomb Cult inAncient Athens.” JHS 100:96–126.

———. 1983. The Family, Women, and Death. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Humphreys, S.C., and H. King, eds. 1981. Mortality andImmortality: The Anthropology and Archaeology of Death.New York: Academic Press.

Iakovides, Sp.E. 1966. “A Mycenaean Mourning Custom.”AJA 70:43–50.

Immerwahr, S. 1990. Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age.University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

———. 1998. “Death and the Tanagra Larnakes.” InThe Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule,edited by J.B. Carter and S.P. Morris, 109–21. Austin:University of Texas Press.

Joffe, A.H., J.P. Dessel, and R.S. Hallote. 2001. “The ‘Gi-lat Woman’ Female Iconography, Chalcolithic Cult,and the End of Southern Levantine Prehistory.” NEA64 (1–2):8–23.

Jones, C.P. 1987. “Stigma: Tattooing and Branding inGraeco-Roman Antiquity.” JRS 77:139–55.

Karageorghis, V. 1990. “Rites de passage at Thera: SomeOriental Comparanda.” In Thera and the Aegean WorldIII, vol. 1, edited by D.A. Hardy, C. Doumas, and J.Sakellarakis, 67–70. London: The Thera Foundation.

———. 1991. The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus. Vol. 1,Chalcolithic-Late Cypriot I. Nicosia: A.G. Leventis Foun-dation.

Kenna, M.E. 1976. “Houses, Fields, and Graves: Proper-ty and Ritual Obligations on a Greek Island.” Ethnolo-gy 15:21–34.

Kerner, K. 1976. “The Malevolent Ancestors: AncestralInfluence in a Japanese Religious Sect.” In Ancestors,edited by W.H. Newell, 205–18. Hague and Paris:Mouton.

Kontoleon, N.M. 1972. “Anaskaphoi Naxou.” Prakt:143–55.

Kopytoff, I. 1971. “Ancestors as Elders in Africa.” Africa41:129–41.

Knapp, A.B. 1993. “Social Complexity: Incipience, Emer-


gence, and Development on Prehistoric Cyprus.”BASOR 292:85–106.

Knapp, B., and L. Meskell. 1997. “Bodies of Evidence onPrehistoric Cyprus.” CAJ 7:183–204.

Kubler, K. 1970. Die Nekropole des späten 8. bis frühen 6.Jahrhunderts. Kerameikos 6.2 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Kurtz, D.C. 1984. “Vases for the Dead: An Attic selec-tion, 750–400 B.C.” In Ancient Greek and Related Pottery,edited by H.A.G. Brijder, 314–28. Amsterdam: AllardPierson Museum.

Kurtz, D.C., and J. Boardman. 1971. Greek Burial Cus-toms. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Lambrinoudakis, V. 1990. “Religion.” In Cycladic Culture:Naxos in the 3rd Millennium B.C., edited by L. Ma-rangou, 99–104. Athens: N.P. Goulandris Foundation.

Leclant, J. 1951. “Le rôle du Lait et de l’Allaitementd’après les Textes des Pyramides.” JNES 10:123–7.

Lem, F.H. 1948. Sculptures Sudanaises. Paris: Art et MétiersGraphiques.

Long, C.R. 1974. The Ayia Triadha Sarcophagus. SIMA 41.Göteborg: Paul Åström.

Maiuri, A. 1923–1924. “Jalisos.” ASAtene 6–7:83–341.Manning, S. 1993. “Prestige, Distinction, and Competi-

tion: The Anatomy of Socioeconomic Complexity inFourth to Second Millennium B.C.E. Cyprus.” BASOR292:35–58.

Marangou, L., ed. 1990. Cycladic Culture: Naxos in the 3rdMillennium BC. Athens: N.P. Goulandris Foundation.

Marcus, J. 1996. “The Importance of Context in Inter-preting Figures.” CAJ 6:285–91.

———. 1998. Women’s Ritual in Formative Oaxaca: Figu-rine-Making, Divination, Death, and the Ancestors. Pre-history and Human Ecology of the Valley of Oaxaca11; Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, Uni-versity of Michigan 33. Ann Arbor: University of Mich-igan Museum of Anthropology.

Marinatos, N. 1986. Minoan Sacrificial Ritual: Cult Practiceand Symbolism. Stockholm, Göteborg: Paul Åström.

Matsuzono, M. 1976. “A Note on the Enshrinement ofAncestral Tablets at Zamami Island, Okinawa.” InAncestors, edited by W.H. Newell, 231–40. Hague andParis: Mouton.

Maurer, E.M., and A.F. Roberts. 1985. TABWA: The Ris-ing of a New Moon: A Century of Tabwa Art. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Museum of Art.

McAnany, P. 1994. Living with the Ancestors. Austin: Uni-versity of Texas Press.

Mee, C. 1982. Rhodes in the Bronze Age: An ArchaeologicalSurvey. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.

Mellink, M.J. 1967. “Excavations at Karatas-Semayük inLycia, 1966.” AJA 71:251–67.

Metcalf, P., and R. Huntington 1991. Celebrations of Death:The Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Middleton, J. 1960. Lugbara Religion: Ritual and Religionamong an East African People. London: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Moore, A. 1988. “The Large Monochrome TerracottaFigures from Mycenae.” In Problems in Greek Prehistory,edited by E.B. French and K.A. Wardle, 219–28. Bris-tol: Bristol Classical.

Morris, C. 1993. “Hands Up for the Individual! TheRole of Attribution Studies in Aegean Prehistory.”CAJ 3:41–66.

Morris, D. 1985. The Art of Ancient Cyprus. Oxford: Phaidon.

Mylonas, G.E. 1934. “Excavations at Haghios Kosmas(Preliminary Report).” AJA 38:258–79.

———. 1959. Aghios Kosmas: An Early Bronze Age Settle-ment and Cemetery in Attica. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Nakou, G. 1995. “The Cutting Edge: A New Look atEarly Aegean Metallurgy.” JMA 8:1–32.

Newell, W.H. 1976. “Good and Bad Ancestors.” In An-cestors, edited by W.H. Newell, 17–29. Hague and Par-is: Mouton.

Nilsson, M.P. 1950. The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion andIts Survival in Greek Religion. Lund: Gleerup.

Ooms, H. 1967. “The Religion of the Household: A CaseStudy of Ancestor Worship in Japan.” ContemporaryReligions in Japan 8 (3–4):201–334.

Orlandou, A.K. 1960. “Anaskaphai A’ 31. Naxos.” Er-gon:185–92.

O’Shea, J. 1984. Mortuary Variability: An ArchaeologicalInvestigation. New York: Academic Press.

Oustinoff, E. 1984. “The Manufacture of Cycladic Figu-rines: A Practical Approach.” In Cycladica: Studies inMemory of N.P. Goulandris, edited by J.L. Fitton, 38–47.London: British Museum Press.

———. 1987. “The Early Cycladic Sculptor: Materialsand Methods.” In Early Cycladic Art in North AmericanCollections, by P. Getz-Preziosi, 90–102. Richmond: Vir-ginia Museum of Fine Arts.

Papathanassopoulos, G. 1981. Neolithic and Cycladic Civi-lization. Athens: Melissa.

Parker Pearson, M. 1982. “Mortuary Practices, Society,and Ideology: An Ethnoarchaeological Study.” In Sym-bolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by I. Hodder,99–113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. CollegeStation: Texas A&M University Press.

Peebles, C., and S. Kus. 1977. “Some ArchaeologicalCorrelates of Ranked Societies.” AmerAnt 42:421–48.

Picard, C. 1930. “Notes d’archéologie grecque I. ‘Oush-abti’ Égéens?” REA 32:103.

Prakt. 1888. “Archaia Agorasthenta, Lithina.” 62–72.Preziosi, D., and L.A. Hitchcock. 1999. Aegean Art and

Architecture. London: Oxford University Press.Preziosi, P.G., and S.S. Weinberg. 1970. “Evidence for

Painted Details in Early Cycladic Sculpture.” AK13:4–11.

Rautman, A.E. 2000. Reading the Body: Representations andRemains in the Archaeological Record. Philadelphia: Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Press.

Reiner, E. 1938. Die Rituelle Totenklage der Griechen:Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 30. Berlin:W. Kohlhammer.

Renfrew, C. 1969. “The Development and Chronologyof the Early Cycladic Figurines.” AJA 73:1–32.

———. 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cycladesand the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C. London:Methuen.

———. 1977. “The Typology and Chronology of Cycla-dic Sculpture.” In Art and Culture of the Cyclades in theThird Millennium B.C., edited by J. Thimme, P. Getz-Preziosi, and B. Otto, 59–71. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

———. 1984. “Speculations on the Use of Early Cyclad-ic Sculpture.” In Cycladica: Studies in Memory of N.P.Goulandris, edited by J.L. Fitton, 24–30. London: Brit-ish Museum Press.

550 G.L. HOFFMAN, EARLY CYCLADIC II MOURNING FIGURES

———. 1985. The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary atPhylakopi. BSA Suppl. 18. London: The British Schoolof Archaeology at Athens.

———. 1985–1986. “The Goulandris Museum of Cycla-dic and Ancient Greek Art: The Early Cycladic Col-lection.” AR:136–41.

———. 1986. “Varna and the Emergence of Wealth inPrehistoric Europe.” In The Social Life of Things: Com-modities in Cultural Perspective, edited by A. Appadurai,141–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1991. The Cycladic Spirit. New York: Harry N. Abrams.———. 1993. “Collectors are the Real Looters.” Archae-

ology 46:16–7.Roberts, A.F. 1985. “Social and Historical Contexts of

Tabwa Art.” In TABWA: The Rising of a New Moon: ACentury of Tabwa Art, edited by E.M. Maurer and A.F.Roberts, 1–48. Ann Arbor: University of MichiganMuseum of Art.

Rombos, T. 1988. The Iconography of Attic Late Geometric IIPottery. SIMA-PB 68. Jonsered: Paul Åström.

Roth, A.M. 2000. “Father Earth, Mother Sky: AncientBeliefs about Conception and Fertility.” In Readingthe Body: Representations and Remains in the Archaeologi-cal Record, edited by A.E. Rautman, 187–201. Philadel-phia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Rubin, A., ed. 1988. Marks of Civilization: Artistic Transfor-mations of the Human Body. Los Angeles: Museum ofCultural History, UCLA.

Rubin, W., ed. 1984. “Primitivism” in 20th-Century Art:Affinity of the Tribal and the Modern. New York: Museumof Modern Art.

Sachini, A. 1984. “Prehistoric Cycladic Figurines andTheir Influence on Early Twentieth-Century Sculp-ture.” M.Litt. diss., University of Edinburgh.

Sakellariou, A., and G. Papathanasopoulos. 1970. Na-tional Archaeological Museum: A’ Prehistoric Collections.Athens: Department of Antiquities and Restoration.

Schefold, K. 1965. “Heroen und Nymphen in Kykladen-gräbern.” AK 8:87–90.

Schmidt, B. 1926. “Totengebräuche und Gräberkultusim heutigen Griechenland.” ArchRW 24:281–318.

Seaford, R. 1994. Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Trag-edy in the Developing City-State. Oxford: Clarendon.

Seremetakis, C.N. 1991. The Last Word: Women, Death,and Divination in Inner Mani. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Shapiro, H.A. 1991. “The Iconography of Mourning inAthenian Art.” AJA 95:629–56.

Sheedy, K.A. 1985. “Of Moulds and Mourners.” BICS32:118–24.

Sherratt, S. 2000. Catalogue of Cycladic Antiquities in theAshmolean Museum: The Captive Spirit. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1981. “Death in Greece: Homer,Before and After.” In Mirrors of Mortality: Studies in theSocial History of Death, edited by J. Whaley, 15–39. Lon-don: Europa.

———. 1983. “A Trauma in Flux: Death in the 8th Cen-tury and After.” In The Greek Renaissance of the EighthCentury B.C.: Tradition and Innovation, edited by R.Hägg, 33–48. Stockholm: P. Åström.

Svenbro, J. 1993. Phrasikleia: An Anthropological Readingof Ancient Greece. Translated by J. Lloyd. Ithaca, N.Y.:Cornell University Press.

Talalay, L.E. 1991. “Body Imagery of the Ancient Ae-gean.” Archaeology 44:46–9.

———. 1993. Deities, Dolls, and Devices: Neolithic Figurinesfrom Franchthi Cave, Greece. Franchthi 9. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.

Thévoz, M. 1984. The Painted Body. New York: Rizzoli.Thimme, J. 1965. “Die religiöse Bedeutung der Kyklad-

enidole.” AK 8:79–86.———. 1975. “Ein monumentales Kykladenidol in

Karlsruhe.” Jahrbuch der Staatlichen Kunstsammlungenin Baden-Würtenburg 12:7–20.

Thimme, J., P. Getz-Preziosi, and B. Otto, eds. 1977. Artand Culture of the Cyclades in the Third Millennium B.C.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tsountas, C. 1898. “Kykladika.” ArchEph:136–211.Turner, V. 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu

Ritual. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Ucko, P.J. 1962. “Interpretation of Prehistoric Anthro-

pomorphic Figurines.” JRAI 92:38–54.———. 1968. Anthropomorphic Figurines of Predynastic Egypt

and Neolithic Crete with Comparative Material from the Pre-historic Near East and Mainland Greece. London: An-drew Szmidla.

———. 1996. “Mother Are You There?” CAJ 6:300–7.van Gennep, A. 1960. The Rites of Passage. London: Rout-

ledge and Kegan Paul.van Wees, H. 1998. “A Brief History of Tears: Gender

Differentiation in Archaic Greece.” In When Men wereMen: Masculinity, Power, and Identity in Classical Antiq-uity, edited by L. Foxhall and J. Salmon, 10–53. Lon-don and New York: Routledge.

Verlinden, C. 1984. Les statuettes anthropomorphes crétoisesen bronze et en plomb, du IIIe millénaire au VIIe siècle av. J.-C. Archaeologia Transatlantica 4. Belgium: Louvain-la-Neuve.

Vermeule, E. 1965. “Painted Mycenaean Larnakes.” JHS85:123–48.

———. 1979. Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry.Berkeley: University of California Press.

———. 1988. “A Mycenaean Dead Head?” RDAC pt.1:299–300.

———. 1991. “Myth and Tradition from Mycenae toHomer.” In New Perspectives in Early Greek Art, editedby D. Buitron-Oliver, 99–121. Studies in the Historyof Art 32; Center for Advanced Study in the VisualArts Symposium Papers 16. Washington, D.C.: NationalGallery of Art.

Webb, J.M. 1992. “Funerary Ideology in Bronze AgeCyprus: Towards the Recognition and Analysis of Cyp-riote Ritual Data.” In Studies in Honour of Vassos Kara-georghis, edited by G.C. Ioannides, 87–99. Nicosia: A.G.Leventis Foundation.

Weinberg, S.S. 1965. “Ceramics and the Supernatural:Cult and Burial Evidence in the Aegean World.” InCeramics and Man, edited by F.R. Matson, 187–201.Chicago: Aldine.

Wolters, P. 1891. “Marmorkopf aus Amorgos.” AM16:46–58.

Yonemura, S. 1976. “Dôzoku and Ancestor Worship inJapan.” In Ancestors, edited by W.H. Newell, 177–204.Hague and Paris: Mouton.

Zervos, C. 1957. L’Art des Cyclades du debut à la fin de l’âgedu bronze, 2500–1100 avant notre ère. Paris: Editions“Cahiers d’art.”

Zimmermann, K. 1980. “Tätowierte Thrakerinnen aufgriechischen Vasenbildern.” JDAI 95:163–96.

Zschietzschmann, W. 1928. “Die Darstellungen der Pro-thesis in der griechischen Kunst.” AM 53:17–51.

Documents

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY · American Journal of Archaeology 106 (2002) 525–50 525 Painted Ladies: Early Cycladic II Mourning Figures? GAIL L. HOFFMAN Abstract The function