mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== This is G o o g l e's [1]cache of [2]http://www.indiana.edu/~archaeol/franchthi/essays/talalay.html. G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web. The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the [3]current page without highlighting. This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the [4]cached text only. To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:s2jxgpnX1OoJ:www.indiana.edu/~arc haeol/franchthi/essays/talalay.html+figurines+%2Bneolithic+&hl=en&lr=l ang_en Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content. These search terms have been highlighted: figurines neolithic _________________________________________________________________ Prehistoric Figurines from Franchthi Cave by Lauren E. Talalay Kelsey Museum of Archaeology University of Michigan Prehistoric figurines from the Mediterranean have captured the imagination of both scholars and the public for more than a century. Though theories abound, archaeologists are in fact a long way from understanding the role of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic images in these nonliterate societies. The unusual collection of figurines from Franchthi Cave provides an opportunity to begin answering some vexing questions surrounding the production and function of these images in early Greek society. Franchthi Cave has produced the second largest collection, after Corinth, of Neolithic figurines from the Peloponnese. Forty-five possible pieces came to light during excavations, and subsequent study classified 24 animal and human images unequivocally as "figurines." Of those, two are dated to the Early Neolithic, one to an Early/Middle transitional phase, eleven to the Middle Neolithic, six to the Late Neolithic and four to the Final Neolithic. This chronological distribution accords well with what is known from the rest of southern Greece where EN figurines are rare. The pattern stands in marked contrast to the evidence of northern Greece where large and extensive collections of EN figurines are reported. Twenty-two of the Franchthi images are ceramic; the remaining two are carved from stone. Sex, where determinable, is most often [5]female (n=12) and never clearly male. A few pieces may have been intended as "sexless" or "genderless" and could have shifted in and out of gender categories depending on the figures' usage. Franchthi also yielded several examples of [6]figurines and [7]pendants that appear to depict intact but dismembered body parts (e.g., an upper torso, a left buttock, the lower half of the human form). These disembodied representations find almost no parallels in the rest of Greece. The purpose of such curious images remains a mystery, although the ethnographic literature cites numerous cases where the human form, and its connected parts, are viewed as a kind of template or metaphor for organizing everything from cosmologies to political and kinship systems. Perhaps the half-body pendants and disembodied figurines at Franchthi reflect a comparable conceptual framework among these early inhabitants of Greece. Unfortunately, the archaeological contexts of the Franchthi corpus are not especially instructive. Five examples were recovered in trenches opened along the modern shoreline ([8]"paralia"); the remaining 19 were found [9]inside the cave. If this distribution is meaningful, it signals that for much of the Neolithic, activities associated with figurines tended to be enacted inside rather than outside the confines of the cave. Only three examples come from possibly undisturbed units. The remaining pieces are associated with redeposited or secondary fill, postdepositional disturbances, or modern remains. The few images that derive from undisturbed contexts are most often associated with features such as hearths and ashy deposits and with artifacts traditionally linked with domestic activities. The question of who made these images can only be partially answered, though design and computer analyses offer some insights. During the Middle, Late, and Final Neolithic, the clay fabrics, surface treatments, colors, paints and decorations of figurines mimic those of the local pottery. Conceivably, potter and figurine-maker were one and the same, or at least worked in concert (most likely on the household level), routinely exchanging ideas and materials. The overlapping production of these objects was probably motivated by several factors, some practical, some social. Although Franchthi figurine-makers maintained a degree of individualism in the form and design of their images, communications were ongoing or sufficiently regular to ensure stylistic homogeneity among figurines manufactured at many Neolithic sites of southern Greece. During the Middle and Late Neolithic, Franchthi's ties were clearly with the villages of a [10]northeastern Peloponnese. The closest "social distance," as measured by similarities of style, is recorded for Franchthi and Corinth. In fact, some designs and details are remarkably similar, suggesting face-to-face contact among figurine-makers. By the Final Neolithic, stylistic affinities among figurines appear to shift northward and eastward; Franchthi's closest parallels are with sites in Attica and the Cyclades. Although traditional interpretations of Neolithic figurines from Greece and the Aegean cast them as undifferentiated Mother Goddesses, the evidence from Franchthi suggests something quite different. The Franchthi corpus does not appear to be a unifunctional class of objects. More likely, these images served a variety of functions, embodying a complex blend of behavioral and cognitive concerns. Like anthropomorphic and zoomorphic images crafted by individuals in modern nonliterate and nonindustrialized societies, prehistoric figurines inhabited a multi-dimensional world. Some figurines may have been seen as possessing superhuman, magical, or curative powers, others may have served as social or instructional devices. The data from Franchthi suggest that at least some of the images associated with domestic activities were used as dolls or toys. The few [11]zoomorphic examples dating to the end of the Neolithic likely functioned as items of sympathetic magic, used to ensure the health and fertility of herds during the Final Neolithic when the local economy possibly witnessed shifts in herding practices. At least two of the Middle Neolithic images can be classified as a [12]"split-leg" type, which is known also from contemporary sites at Nemea, Lerna, Corinth, Akratas, and Asea. These images appear to have been deliberately designed so that the two attached halves of the legs could be easily separated. Modern analogies indicate that objects designed for intentional splitting or halving frequently serve as contractual devices or identifying tokens between individuals of groups. Whether the split-leg pieces from Franchthi and southern Greece served comparable ends is not known. Such functions, however, would have been eminently useful in Neolithic Greece where regional interaction was extensive but literacy was not yet available to render explicit a range of obligations or ties among separate but interdependent villages. We can well imagine these split-leg images employed as identifying tokens by individual trading partners or messengers between villages, as symbols of future obligations among groups or individuals, as emblems in sodalities or nonresidential family units, or as markers of intervillage marital connections. None of the figures recovered from Franchthi readily suggest associations with beliefs in an afterlife or with cult practices involving the worship of specific deities. This is not to deny the existence of belief by the Franchthiotes in higher, unseen powers. Archaeologically, however, there is nothing associated with the Franchthi figurines -- no special places, no unusual paraphernalia, no remains of feasting, no special investment of wealth in equipment, architecture, or offerings, no suggestive symbols -- to imply the practice of sacred ritual at the site. Lauren E. Talalay Kelsey Museum of Archaeology University of Michigan 434 South State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA [13]talalay at umich.edu [14]RETURN to Franchthi Excavations Home Page. _________________________________________________________________ Suggestions for further reading... * Lauren E. Talalay, Deities, dolls, and devices : Neolithic figurines from Franchthi Cave, Greece (Bloomington, Ind. : Indiana University Press, c.1993). _________________________________________________________________ at 1996 Lauren E. Talalay URL for this document: http://www.indiana.edu/~archaeol/franchthi/essays/talalay.html Created: 22 April 1996 Last Updated: 22 April 1996 References 1. http://www.google.com/help/features.html#cached 2. http://www.indiana.edu/%7Earchaeol/franchthi/essays/talalay.html 3. http://www.indiana.edu/%7Earchaeol/franchthi/essays/talalay.html 4. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:s2jxgpnX1OoJ:www.indiana.edu/%7Earchaeol/franchthi/essays/talalay.html+figurines+%2Bneolithic+&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&strip=1 5. http://www.indiana.edu/%7Earchaeol/franchthi/images/350/Fr01.33.JPG 6. http://www.indiana.edu/%7Earchaeol/franchthi/images/350/Fr01.37.JPG 7. http://www.indiana.edu/%7Earchaeol/franchthi/images/350/Fr01.39.JPG 8. http://www.indiana.edu/%7Earchaeol/franchthi/images/350/Fr01.15.JPG 9. http://www.indiana.edu/%7Earchaeol/franchthi/images/350/Fr01.10.JPG 10. http://www.indiana.edu/%7Earchaeol/franchthi/images/350/Fr01.01.JPG 11. http://www.indiana.edu/%7Earchaeol/franchthi/images/350/Fr01.36.JPG 12. http://www.indiana.edu/%7Earchaeol/franchthi/images/350/Fr01.36.JPG 13. mailto:talalay at umich.edu 14. http://www.indiana.edu/%7Earchaeol/franchthi/franchthi.html