SITUATING GENDER

IN EUROPEAN ARCHAEOLOGIES

Edited by
Liv Helga Dommasnes, Tove Hjrungdal, Sandra Montn-Subas,
Margarita Snchez Romero, and Nancy L. Wicker

BUDAPEST 2010

Front Cover Illustration

Gold foil from Rogaland in western Norway showing a man and a woman,
often interpreted as the Nordic Vanir god Freyr and his wife Gerd
from the family of Giants. 7th8th century AD.
(Photo: Svein Skare. Bergen Museum, University of Bergen, Norway.)

Back Cover Illustration

Dama Elche (Museo Arqueolgico Nacional, Madrid)

ISBN 978-963-9911-15-4
HU-ISSN 1216-6847

ARCHAEOLINGUA Foundation
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, digitised, photocopying,
recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.

2010
ARCHAEOLINGUA ALAPTVNY
H-1250 Budapest, ri u. 49
Copyediting by Nancy L. Wicker
Desktop editing and layout by Rita Kovcs
Printed by Prime Rate Kft

Contents
Preface ................................................................................................................ 7
PART ONE
LIV HELGA DOMMASNES NANCY L. WICKER
Situating Gender in European Archaeologies: Introduction ......................... 11
SANDRA MONTN-SUBAS
Maintenance Activities and the Ethics of Care ............................................ 23
LISBETH SKOGSTRAND
Prehistoric Hegemonic Masculinities .......................................................... 35
LIV HELGA DOMMASNES
Situating Standpoints:
A Gendered Approach to Norwegian Research History .............................. 51
NANCY L. WICKER
Situating Scandinavian Migration Period Bracteates:
From Typology and Iconography to Gender, Agency,
and Visual Culture ........................................................................................ 67
CHRISTINE MORRIS
Thoroughly Modern Minoans:
Women and Goddesses between Europe and the Orient ............................. 83
NONA PALINCA
Living for the Others: Gender Relations in Prehistoric and
Contemporary Archaeology of Romania ..................................................... 93
VESNA MERC
Looking behind the Dead Objects:
Gender and Archaeology in Slovenia ......................................................... 117
ANA VALE
Translating Materials into Activities and Activities into Persons:
The Persistence of Gender Prejudices in Past Narratives
in the Iberian Peninsula .............................................................................. 137

PART TWO
SANDRA MONTN-SUBAS MARGARITA SNCHEZ ROMERO
Situating Gender in European Archaeologies: Case Studies ..................... 157
NATALIA BERSENEVA
Child Burial during the Middle Bronze Age
of the South Urals (Sintashta Culture) ....................................................... 161
IRINA SHINGIRAY
Gender, Identity, and Display: Variations in Materiality among
Different Groups of the North-Western Caspian Region
during the Early Middle Ages .................................................................... 181
LOURDES PRADOS
Gender and Identity in Iberian Funerary Contexts (5th3rd century BC) ... 205
MARIA MINA
In Search of the Cycladic Hunter-warrior: Evidence and Implications
for the Understanding of Gender Construction and Roles
in the Early Bronze Age Aegean ................................................................ 225
GITTE HANSEN
New Pathways for Women in Twelfth-century Bergen, Norway? ............. 245
EVA ALARCN GARCA MARGARITA SNCHEZ ROMERO
Maintenance Activities as a Category for
Analysing Prehistoric Societies ................................................................. 261
ALMUDENA HERNANDO
Gender, Individual, and Affine/Consanguineal Relationships in
Egalitarian Societies: The Aw-Guaj Case ........................................... 283
Biographies .................................................................................................... 308

In Search of the Cycladic Hunter-warrior: Evidence and

Implications for the Understanding of Gender Construction
and Roles in the Early Bronze Age Aegean
MARIA MINA
The present article focuses on the study of anthropomorphic figurines from the
Cyclades, an island group in the Aegean archipelago (Fig. 1). Although the
Cyclades constitute one of the core areas for the production of Early Bronze Age
(EBA) figurines in the Aegean, their stylistic influence was also felt in figurine
traditions of surrounding areas. Chronologically, the study concentrates on the
EBA period, which in the Aegean spans approximately between 3100 and 2000
BC (MANNING 1995).
The present article discusses the available evidence for Cycladic male hunterwarrior figurines that hold a prominent place in Aegean figurine studies, but it
also explores the resulting implications for the understanding of gender identities
and roles in the early prehistoric Aegean. An appraisal of the evidence serves to
deconstruct some of the widely accepted ideas surrounding the roles performed
by men in the EBA, as has been proposed based on figurine evidence. Cycladic
figurines and other evidence are brought together in an attempt to reconstruct
gender identities, roles, and social dynamics in the context of the EBA Cyclades
with implications for the wider Aegean.

Cycladic figurines: past and present

The field of Aegean EBA anthropomorphic figurines has developed largely in an
art historical context with a special emphasis on aesthetics, typology, chronology,
and aspects of manufacture (FITTON 1989; GETZ-GENTLE 2001; GETZ-PREZIOSI
1987a, 1987b, 1994; RENFREW 1969, 1977, 1991). Furthermore, the art market
value attached to Cycladic figurines has led to the addition of pieces of questionable
authenticity to museum collections around the world. This in turn creates a
vicious circle that feeds into academic works with reference to Cycladic figurines
of dubious provenance (BROODBANK 1992; GILL CHIPPENDALE 1993).

226

Maria Mina

Fig. 1. The Aegean, showing the sites and regions mentioned.

The male hunter-warrior in Aegean figurine studies

The study of EBA Aegean figurines largely lacks approaches to gender.
Nevertheless, numerous comments touching on issues of gender roles, status, and
social organisation are made in the literature. In broad terms, female figurines
have been interpreted as representations of female divinities (FITTON 1989;
HCKMANN 1977, 3752; WARREN 1972; ZERVOS 1957), female concubines or
nursemaids (FITTON 1989; GETZ-PREZIOSI 1987b, 33), substitute brides (FITTON

In Search of the Cycladic Hunter-warrior

227

1989), symbols of fertility (BARBER 1984; GETZ-PREZIOSI 1987b, 33), or forms

of soft pornography (SHERRATT 2000). Furthermore, female figurines as divine
representations have also been read as expressions of womens nurturing and
protective role (GETZ-PREZIOSI 1987b, 33). Behind such statements lies the
hypothesis that gender relations in the EBA Aegean are characterised by power
asymmetries with women assuming a subordinate position whereby they are
exchanged between men as no less than silver drinking cups or livestock
(SHERRATT 2000, 135136). Frequent references are also made in relation to
female figurines passive postures and nudity as supporting evidence for womens
inferior position (GETZ-PREZIOSI 1987b, 22; SHERRATT 2000, 152).
Cycladic male figurines, on the other hand, have attracted great attention
from scholars, especially those representing musicians or hunter-warriors,
despite their low numbers. The hunter-warriors are represented with the baldric,
a belt occasionally associated with a penis sheath, and dagger all attributes
taken to represent military insignia. Although the authenticity of most of these
pieces poses methodological problems, they nevertheless hold a prominent place
in Aegean figurine studies and have been interpreted as symbols of virility and
strength, as protectors and in general as expressions of special male roles (GETZPREZIOSI 1987b, 22, 33).
Concern has already been expressed in relation to the authenticity of male
hunter-warrior figurines (GILL CHIPPINDALE 1993, 627628). Nevertheless,
a drawing in the British Museum depicting a male hunter-warrior figurine is
considered genuine (FITTON 1984). Another point concerns the representation of
hunter-warrior figurines with breasts. Scholars resistance even to acknowledge
the existence of hunter-warrior figurines representing female or ambiguous bodies
should be regarded as a symptom of modernist assumptions. The presence of
modelled breasts is either silenced, thus classifying the figurine as a male hunterwarrior (ZERVOS 1957), or it is dismissed on the grounds that female figurines
were hastily transformed into males with the addition of a penis sheath and
baldric (GETZ-PREZIOSI 1987b, 23).
Summing up, the traditional approaches dominating Cycladic figurine studies
perpetuate androcentric assumptions about Aegean prehistoric society. It is not
uncommon for archaeologists to apply modernist gender roles with the confidence
that the discussed subject is presumed to be familiar, with no challenges or
surprises in store.

228

Maria Mina

Cycladic hunter-warrior figurines: a reappraisal

Sample
The discussion about male hunter-warrior figurines has largely revolved around
pieces that lack a secure provenance (GILL CHIPPINDALE 1993, 618619). When
the author was faced with the dilemma regarding selection criteria, a decision was
made to incorporate stray finds recorded before the year 1900 (MINA 2008), six
decades before forgery had reached its peak in the 1960s (CHIPPINDALE GILL
1995). Applying these selection criteria leaves us with a limited sample of the
following hunter-warrior figurines:
(a) a drawing in the British Museum of a now lost figurine (FITTON 1984)
(Fig. 2),
(b) a figurine believed to be from Syros (RENFREW 1969, 21; ZERVOS 1957,
Pl 253) (Fig. 3a)1.
(c) a figurine found on the surface of modern road filling at Agia Eirene on Kea
(CASKEY 1974, 7779, K72.18) (Fig. 3b).
The limited available sample undoubtedly restricts the conclusions we can
draw regarding hunter-warriors in the prehistoric Aegean. At the same time, it
reveals the flimsy basis onto which interpretations of gender roles have been
proposed in earlier studies.
The modelled body and representation of gender
Recent debates have highlighted the problems of correlating the physical body to
gender, a link which assumes a universal correspondence between sex and gender
(MOORE 1994, 222237). It is widely accepted, however, that the physical body
holds a central place in the processes of prescription and relational internalisation
of gender identity through everyday practices (AALTEN 1997). The strategy

1 There has been some dispute over the recovery context of this particular figurine now
kept at the National Museum of Athens. ZERVOS (1957, no. 253) considers it to have
been recovered from excavation contexts on Syros, and Renfrew also lists it among
the finds of the excavations conducted by Klon Stephanos at Chalandriani on Syros
(RENFREW 1969, 12). Others consider it to have been found on Syros (GETZ-PREZIOSI
1980, no. 27; GILL CHIPPINDALE 1993, 618, Table 7).

In Search of the Cycladic Hunter-warrior

Fig. 2. Drawing of now lost

hunter-warrior figurine
in the British Museum
(after FITTON 1989, Fig. 69).

229

Fig. 3a (left). Hunter-warrior figurine believed to be

from Syros (after ZERVOS 1957, Pl 253).
Fig. 3b (right). Hunter-warrior figurine from Kea
(after CASKEY 1974, Pl 11).

proposed in the present study (see also MINA 2007; 2008) concentrates on the
following aspects:
(a) the represented primary and secondary anatomical attributes of figurines,
(b) the modelled posture,
(c) added insignia relating to body manipulation and attire,
(d) symbolic dimension of pigment traces (if they survive) in relation to the
body.

Cycladic hunter-warrior figurines: the evidence

The following discussion concentrates mainly on the three hunter-warrior
figurines that comprise the sample under study. The remaining five known

230

Maria Mina

Cycladic hunter-warrior figurines are not included in the discussion on the

grounds of questionable authenticity.
Chronological context
At least 75% of all provenanced figurines have been recovered at EB II sites
(BROODBANK 2000, 267). While typological schemata have been criticised for
relying on a proportion of excavated figurines that is considered too small to
support a chronological progression (GILL CHIPPINDALE 1993, 627628),
reference is made here as a rough chronological guide.
The sketched figurine (Fig. 2) represents a Chalandriani variant (EB II, c.
23002200 BC) with unusual traits that place it among a late group of figurines.
The figurine believed to be from Syros (Fig. 3a) follows the Dokathismata variety
(EB II, c. 24002300 BC). Finally, the figurine from Agia Eirene on Kea (Fig. 3b)
also exhibits traits of the Dokathismata variety, again pointing to an EB II date.
Thus, the discussed sample tentatively dates to EB II and later.
Context of use
The drawing of the figurine in the British Museum as well as the piece believed
to be from Syros lack information on provenances. Nevertheless, if we accept
that the latter figurine was among the finds of the excavations conducted by
Stephanos at Chalandriani on Syros (RENFREW 1969, 12), we can assume that
it was recovered from the cemetery site excavated by Tsountas and Stephanos
(HEKMAN 2003, ii). The figurine from Kea was recovered from the surface of
a modern road filling, north of the site (CASKEY 1974, 78), but it should be
associated with the substantial settlement of Agia Eirene on Kea, as no EB II
cemetery is known (BROODBANK 2000, 218).
Technical aspects, associations and implications for use
Marble is the material par excellence used for the production of Cycladic figurines.
The repetitive form of Cycladic figurines, the relatively restricted agency on the
part of the manufacturer, and the control over their circulation imply that figurines
promoted social norms that were firmly prescribed.

In Search of the Cycladic Hunter-warrior

231

Representation of the physical body

(a) Drawing in the British Museum:
The figurine does not bear modelled breasts. However, the position of the
hands on both sides of the chest could be interpreted as intentionally concealing
the upper torso, possibly creating a deliberate sense of ambiguity. A clearly
modelled penis is visible. Secondary attributes include the modelling of a
square, angular torso and narrow hips with de-emphasised buttocks. The
figurine represents a male anatomical body.
(b) Figurine believed to be from Syros:
This figurine clearly displays a pair of modelled breasts. The lower body
poses great interest as it bears a modelled penis sheath attached to a belt.
The angular torso resembles that of the previous figurine, although the hips
and upper thighs are more rounded. On the grounds of the represented body,
this figurine could be classified as female or ambiguous. We cannot know
whether the penis sheath should be interpreted as an anatomical feature thus
representing an actual or mythical hermaphrodite, or whether it should be
viewed as added male apparel on an anatomically female body. In a social
context which sanctioned flexible gender construction, physical bodies may
have been deliberately associated with insignia of another gender category.
(c) Figurine from Agia Eirene, Kea:
This figurine is fragmentary, so we can comment only on the preserved
torso. This piece also exhibits widely separated breasts and is classified as
representing an anatomical female body.
On the grounds of the modelled body, therefore, hunter-warrior figurines do
not represent exclusively male bodies. In fact, even four of the excluded hunterwarrior figurines bear modelled breasts (GETZ-PREZIOSI 1980, nos. 26, 28, 30,
31), a feature which Getz-Preziosi dismisses by arguing for a hasty transformation
of female figurines into male hunter-warriors with a rudimentary addition of
military insignia and modelled penis (GETZ-PREZIOSI 1987b, 23).
Representation of the posture
(a) Drawing in the British Museum:
The figurine is depicted with the arms bent at elbow level, hands resting on
either side of the upper torso, and the legs are modelled straight and parallel.

232

Maria Mina

(b) Figurine believed to be from Syros:

The right arm rests on the abdomen, parallel to the modelled belt. Unlike the
usual posture for folded-arm figurines with both arms resting on the abdomen,
the left arm is instead bent at elbow level and rests diagonally on the chest.
The legs are modelled straight and parallel.
(c) Figurine from Agia Eirene, Kea:
This fragment resembles the posture featured by the figurine believed to be
from Syros. The right arm rests horizontally on the abdomen, parallel to the
modelled belt. The left arm is bent at elbow level and rests diagonally across
the chest.
The figurine depicted in the drawing in the British Museum differs from the
other two, as demonstrated by the placement of the hands on the upper torso.
The other two figurines feature a similar posture of the upper body. A point of
interest is that the pieces from Syros and Kea partially follow the posture of
folded-arm Cycladic figurines with the arms folded and resting on the abdomen
in a parallel arrangement. As the folded-arm posture is strongly associated with
Cycladic figurines representing female bodies (MINA 2008, Fig. 6.39), interesting
questions are raised about adapted notions of gender embodiment.
Represented features
All three figurines bear attributes that are recognised as insignia of hunterwarrior status. They are all rendered with a modelled baldric running diagonally
from the right shoulder to the left side of the waist. The sketched figurine of the
British Museum is even modelled with a carved dagger on the left side of the
abdomen. Although it is modelled with a penis, it does not feature a penis sheath.
Instead of a dagger, the figurines from Syros and Kea have a belt around the
waist, attached to the baldric and parallel to the flexed right arm, which is also
associated with the use of weaponry. The belt on the figurine from Syros also
supports a penis sheath. Regrettably, the figurine from Kea is only preserved to
waist level, but it bears faint traces of a diagonal band intersecting the baldric.
Further, its head is modelled with hair pulled back tightly and tied together at
the nape of the neck, a style of hair modelling which does not parallel other
Cycladic figurines of safe provenance; thus it cannot allow inferences regarding
gender embodiment. Furthermore, traces of pigment and ghost marks detected
on some Cycladic figurines (HENDRIX 1998, 79) suggest that Cycladic figurines

In Search of the Cycladic Hunter-warrior

233

were vividly decorated with motifs that, on the one hand, ensured an effective
communication of the represented theme to the prehistoric audience and, on the
other, denoted notions that adhered to the identity of the represented subject.
Finally, the modelling of the baldric is also featured on a schematic Early Minoan
figurine from Knossos (EVANS 1928, Fig. 13). The figurine in question does not
bear any secondary sex characteristics and is likely to have represented a clothed
figure.

Tracing warfare and hunter-warriors in the

Early Bronze Age Cyclades
Evidence indicating warfare practices in the Cyclades is available throughout
the EBA, with an increased intensity in EB II. A number of sites were fortified,
ranging from elaborate complexes (such as walls with bastions) to rudimentary
formations simply limiting access (BROODBANK 2000, 314; DOUMAS 1990, 90).
The turbulent times are attested at Kastri on Syros and Panormos on Naxos where
a number of grooved pebbles, interpreted as sling-stones, have been recovered
outside the fortification walls (DOUMAS 1990, 90). From Korphari ton Amygdalion
on Naxos traces of fire, possible sling-stones, a spearhead, and abandoned whole
vases witness the occupants fleeing after an attack on the citadel (DOUMAS 1990,
92). Evidence of fortifications have also been detected on the mainland (Askitario,
Thebes, and Lerna), possibly Manika on Euboia and Kolonna on Aegina (DAVIS
2001, 38, 111; KONSOLA 1986, 919).
Hunting activities are attested on rock-peckings from Korphi tAroniou on
Naxos, which depict hunting scenes with animals and schematic human figures
holding objects that could be interpreted as clubs (TELEVANTOU 1990, Figs 8081).
Furthermore, the material lexicon of Cycladic material repertoire, weaponry
included, is also attested in other parts of continental and insular Aegean (KOUKA
2008, 276).
The performance of warfare is further supported by the recovery of weaponry
and warrior burials in the Cyclades and beyond. In the EBA, the new technology
of metallurgy produced a new range of objects, weapons included. In particular,
weaponry types included spears, possibly bows and daggers (DOUMAS 1990,
161162), similar to the one modelled on the figurine believed to be from Syros
(RENFREW 1969, 21). A depiction of a dagger can also be discerned on a rockpecking from Korphi tAroniou (BROODBANK 2000, Fig. 23). It depicts two figures
in a small canoe an animal and a person who holds a pointed, almost triangular

234

Maria Mina

object in his or her right hand. The appearance of such warfare-related material
dates mainly to the end of EB II, thus coinciding with a period characterised by
general upheaval (DOUMAS 1990, 90).
Other than weapons, a whole range of new metal forms, such as jewellery
and toilet articles, also makes its appearance in the EBA (DOUMAS 1990, 162;
RENFREW 1972, 320324), marking an emphasis paid to modification of the
physical body and status identity (BROODBANK 2000, 248249; CARTER 1994,
127144; NAKOU 1995, 23).
The association between individuals and metal is not limited to a utilitarian
use in combat alone but was enveloped in ideological symbolism while also
constituting prestige objects. Moreover, weapons appear to have been repaired
successively, possibly as a way to preserve their connections with the glorified
past or heroic individuals, which in turn attributed status to their inheritor (NAKOU
1995, 13). Other metal objects, such as diadems and grooming utensils, need
to be viewed in association with the growing emphasis on social and personal
identity (NAKOU 1995, 13).
The limited number of metal objects as well as their restricted circulation
further supports the distinct social standing of hunters or warriors, especially as
poorly furnished graves constituted the norm in the Cyclades (DOUMAS 1977,
60). Nevertheless, the ornate appearance of some of the weapons (BROODBANK
2000, 253; NAKOU 1995, 12) suggests that there may have been a thin line
between actual fighting/hunting duties and a status symbolism associated with
such activities.
The impetus behind Cycladic warfare may have been the acquisition of
prestige goods, animals, or crops (BROODBANK 2000, 253). Warfare also needs
to be connected with seafaring activities. Apart from the rock-pecking depicting
a person holding a dagger in a canoe (BROODBANK 2000, Fig. 23), longboats
and large canoes have been recognised as high-status seacraft employed in
warfare, raiding, and possibly prestigious voyaging (BROODBANK 2000, 215).
We can postulate, therefore, that individuals of warrior status would also have
been involved in seafaring, an activity also associated with the movement of
goods and the control of maritime traffic (BROODBANK 2000, 258). Longboat
activities played a part in the prosperity and survival of Cycladic communities,
while at the same time they provided the social arena in which seafarers/warriors
could have achieved their status through glorification (BROODBANK 2000, 253).
The association between representations of longboats and exceptionally rich

In Search of the Cycladic Hunter-warrior

235

graves also indicates the role of seafaring in the attainment of high social status
(BROODBANK 1989, 335).

The Cycladic hunter-warrior: the action man of the Aegean?

After establishing the practice of warfare and hunting activities in the EBA
Aegean, how does the available evidence link to gender and the existence of a
male hunter-warrior in particular?
The provenanced sample of Cycladic hunter-warrior figurines has provided
us with evidence for one anatomically male hunter-warrior and two female or
ambiguous ones. Though GETZ-PREZIOSI (1987b, 23) dismissed the presence
of breasts on Cycladic hunter-warrior figurines as nothing more than a hasty
transformation of a female figurine into a male, I would argue that such
explanations oversimplify the intentions of the prehistoric manufacturer but also
underestimate the perception of the audience. While conventional representation
of anatomical attributes constitutes the norm among Cycladic figurines, we cannot
overlook the presence of anatomically ambiguous figurines. Two figurines from
Amorgos (MARANGOU 1990, Pl 173A-B; SHERRATT 2000, 197199) and Thera
(SOTIRAKOPOULOU 1998, Pls 13a-d, 16a-d) bear a set of breasts and a penis.
Their posture is typical of female figurines with arms resting on the abdomen,
and it is particularly interesting that exactly the same posture is also featured on
nearly identical figurines exhibiting male genitalia and a flat torso. The modelling
of ambiguous figurines, therefore, appears to have been deliberate.
The intentional modelling of anatomically ambiguous Cycladic figurines
urges us to consider the possible existence of third-gender individuals.
Admittedly, a third gender occurs rarely cross-culturally (HERDT 1994, 80). Even
if hunter-warrior figurines communicated an idealised imagery of gender roles,
we need to recognise the prehistoric audiences endorsement of female-related
attributes in connection with a hunter-warrior status. In the light of the available
evidence, I argue that the representation of hunter-warriors with ambiguous and
possibly female bodies was intentional. We can entertain, therefore, four possible
explanations:
(a) third-gender individuals existed and could even assume a special role in
relation to warfare/hunting activities,
(b) ambiguous hunter-warrior figurines represented mythical beings,

236

Maria Mina

(c) the modelling of female anatomical bodies and warrior insignia was compatible in the minds of the prehistoric audience recognising actual or mythical
female hunter-warriors,
(d) women were transformed into men by crossing over from one gender to
another, possibly in connection with age, status, or lineage.
Although the depiction of one hunter-warrior figurine with male attributes
indicates the link between men and a warrior status, the connection is not as
unproblematic as often presented in the literature. Apart from the deliberate
element of ambiguity discussed above, the rock-peckings depicting seafaring and
hunting activities do not include the representation of any clear secondary sex
characteristics (TELEVANTOU 1990, Figs 8081). It is possible that either such
activities were not exclusively male, or they did not constitute a salient element
in the construction of masculinities in the prehistoric Cyclades. A frying pan (a
flat, round ceramic vessel of unknown purpose, characteristic of the Keros-Syros
culture, c. 27002300 BC) that depicts a longboat in association with a female
vulva (BROODBANK 2000, Fig. 81B) may perhaps express a connection between
women and seafaring at a symbolic or actual level.
Let us now turn to the burial record in order to explore possible connections
between weapons and skeletal evidence. Unfortunately, heavy looting in the
Cyclades combined with a paucity of sexed skeletons from Early Cycladic
cemeteries confuse the possibility to detect gender-related practices that
may have been expressed through the construction or orientation of the grave
or through grave good associations (MINA 2008, 78, 80). Nevertheless, the
skeletons of the Manika cemetery on Euboia have been sexed (SAMPSON 1988)
and, based on Cycladic influences, one could cautiously extrapolate patterns of
practices possibly followed in the Cyclades. However, the Manika cemetery has
not yielded weaponry. The only conclusion we can draw is that silver artefacts
of undefined type were found in association with both male and female skeletons
(SAMPSON 1988). The Phourni cemetery on Crete also has not provided evidence
that would indicate a connection between weapons, hunter-warrior figurines,
and sexed skeletons (MAGGIDIS 1998). Furthermore, there does not seem to be
an association between weapons and the represented sex of Cycladic figurines
contained in the same grave. Tomb 468 on Syros, for example, contained among
other things three swords and an asexual figurine (TSOUNTAS 1899).
In Cycladic graves a connection is noticeable between weapons and bone
tubes containing pigments (DOUMAS 1977, Tomb 468), which in the Manika

In Search of the Cycladic Hunter-warrior

237

cemetery are predominantly associated with female skeletons (SAMPSON 1988).

Frying-pans, on the other hand, appear to be strongly connected with male
skeletons in Manika (SAMPSON 1988). Given the association of frying-pans
and male skeletons (at least in Manika), as well as their decoration representing
maritime and seafaring themes (BROODBANK 2000, Fig. 81a), we could draw a link
between men in maritime activities and in warfare, as suggested by the association
of longboats and raiding activities (BROODBANK 2000, 215). Alternatively, the
connection between female skeletons and bone tubes often containing blue
azurite may also be read as a symbolic association between women, the water,
seafaring, and celestial bodies (see CHAPMAN 2002, 51; WALISEWSKA 1991, 39).
Nevertheless, in the light of ambiguous figurine evidence, asexual figures in rockpeckings, and the lack of associations between weapons and sexed skeletons, we
are obliged to refrain from generalising statements.
If warrior status was reserved exclusively for one gender, we should be
able to identify power asymmetries between genders. Nevertheless, EBA burial
practices in the Aegean do not reveal an exclusive association between distinct
social statuses and gender (MINA 2008, 124). The inclusion of male and female
skeletons in Early Minoan tholoi (COSMOPOULOS 1995, 2627) does not indicate
a differential treatment of genders. In addition, most of the rich, unplundered
Cycladic graves did not contain weapons, thus implying that warriors of either
gender did not have a monopoly on high status. Interesting insights are also
provided by seated Cycladic and other Aegean figurines that feature male and
female anatomical attributes. The seated posture is considered an expression of
distinct social status (WASON 1994, 105) offering further support to the hypothesis
against gender asymmetries.
A final aspect that needs to be addressed is the involvement of men and women
in seafaring activities that appear closely connected with warfare activities. As
has already been discussed, iconographic material from the Cyclades does not
indicate an association between vessels (longboats and canoes) and one specific
gender. Regarding labour organisation, Cyprian BROODBANK (2000, 94) has
proposed that long-range voyaging in particular was restricted seasonally in the
Aegean between May and September. As voyaging overlapped with seasonal
agricultural activities, it has been suggested that agricultural duties may have
become gender- or age-specific (BROODBANK 2000, 96). In either case, seafaring
is unlikely to have constituted a year-round specialist activity. Those involved
in voyaging, therefore, must also have been involved in agricultural activities.
Furthermore, approaching labour domains as organised around the contribution

238

Maria Mina

of different genders at different stages and to different degrees proves to be an allencompassing and productive approach (SRENSEN 1996, 4551; WRIGHT 1991,
195). Moreover, not only anthropological models supporting a gender labour
division (RICE 1991, 440; WRIGHT 1991, 198, 195) but also the assumption that
women are bound throughout their lives with child-rearing activities (LEVY 2006,
229) have been extensively criticised on a number of grounds. Regardless of
which gender or age group contributed more to seafaring activities, voyaging is a
venture that could not have been carried out unless it was founded on reciprocal
negotiations and concessions at a social and economic level.

Conclusion
Tracing the social identity of the hunter-warrior, however, has produced more
questions than answers. The lack of exclusive associations between weapons
and gender as well as the absence of social asymmetries between genders from
habitational or funerary contexts do not support an unequivocal correlation
between men and warfare/hunting.
The picture becomes even more complex with the detection of anatomically
ambiguous or possibly female hunter-warrior figurines, the existence of which
has been silenced or dismissed in earlier accounts. In view of such gender
ambiguity and overlap, I wonder whether a polarised approach in identifying
the hunter-warrior is indeed the most appropriate path. Possibly age, descent,
and ancestry, rather than gender, may have been the underlying parameters for
the establishment of distinct social status in the EBA Cyclades. Accepting the
intersection between socially meaningful layers, we should also acknowledge that
distinct social status might not have been necessarily linked to one gender (JOYCE
2008, 7273). If such a scenario holds true, heterarchy rather than hierarchy
proves to be an all-encompassing perspective that acknowledges the complex
web of social identity as a synthesis between gender, age, and social status, while
recognising multiple genders or individuals of dual gender identity (LEVY 2006,
233). It is also possible that such individuals may have crossed gender boundaries
or combined elements of both genders, thus representing a third gender, similar to
berdaches (PRINE 2000, 197), or individuals of transgender and temporary gender
identity (HOLLIMON 2000, 181).
Even though it has not been possible to offer definite answers, highlighting
the problematic basis onto which androcentric scenarios have been proposed for
the EBA Aegean has opened up a new sphere for discussion. The reservations

In Search of the Cycladic Hunter-warrior

239

expressed in the present article do not stem from an a priori denial to accept men
in hunter-warrior roles. The readiness, however, with which some archaeologists
are eager to embrace traditional role models on limited and ambiguous evidence
brings to the surface the problems stemming from the projection of modern-day
values on prehistoric societies. A further point that surfaces from this discussion
is the association often drawn by archaeologists between increased social
and technological complexity in prehistory and male dominance through the
marginalisation of women. What is proposed instead is the need to view gender
roles and the construction of social identity in the EBA Aegean as a much more
complex process than has been presumed. By opening up the discussion to a wider
array of social parameters and processes, while accepting the agency exercised
by prehistoric agents, we can glimpse the complexity of the social fabric in the
EBA Cyclades.

Works Cited
AALTEN, A. 1997
Performing the Body, Creating Culture. In: Davis, K. (ed.), Embodied
Practices: Feminist Perspectives on the Body. 4158. Sage Publications,
London.
BARBER, R. L. N. 1984
Early Cycladic marble figures: some thoughts on function. In: Fitton, L. (ed.),
Cycladica: Studies in Memory of N. P. Goulandris. 1047. British Museum
Publications, London.
BROODBANK, C. 1989
The longboat and society in the Cyclades in the Keros-Syros culture.
American Journal of Archaeology 93, 319337.
BROODBANK, C. 1992
The spirit is willing. Antiquity 66, 542546.
BROODBANK, C. 2000
An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
CARTER, T. 1994
Southern Aegean fashion victims: an overlooked aspect of Early Bronze Age
burial practices. In: Ashton, N. David, A. (eds), Stories in Stone. 127144.
Lithics Studies Society, London.

240

Maria Mina

CASKEY, J. L. 1974
Addenda to the Marble Figurines from Ayia Irini. Hesperia 43, 7779.
CHAPMAN, J. 2002
Colourful Prehistories: The Problem with the Berlin and Kay Colour
Paradigm. In: Jones, A. MacGregor, G. (eds), Colouring the Past: The
Significance of Colour in Archaeological Research. 4572. Berg, Oxford.
CHIPPINDALE, C. GILL, D. 1995
Cycladic figurines: art versus archaeology? In: Tubb, K. W. (ed.), Antiquities:
Trade or Betrayed: Legal, Ethical and Conservation Issues. 131142.
Archetype in conjunction with UKIC Archaeology Section, London.
COSMOPOULOS, M. 1995
Social and Political Organization in the Early Bronze 2 Aegean. In: Laffineur,
R. Niemeier, W. D. (eds), Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze
Age. 2332. University of Texas Press, Austin.
DAVIS, J. L. 2001
The Islands of the Aegean. In: Cullen, T. (ed.), Aegean Prehistory: A Review.
American Journal of Archaeology Supplement 1. 1976. Archaeological
Institute of America, Boston.
DOUMAS, C. 1977
Early Bronze Age Burial Habits in the Cyclades. Paul strms Frlag,
Gteborg.
DOUMAS, C. 1990
Weapons and Fortifications. In: Marangou, L. (ed.), Cycladic Culture: Naxos
in the 3rd Millennium BC. 9092. Nicholas P. Goulandri Foundation Museum
of Cycladic Art, Athens.
EVANS, A. 1928
The Palace of Minos at Knossos, vol 2:1. MacMillan, London.
FITTON, J. L. 1984
Perditus and Perdita: Two Drawings of Cycladic Figurines in the Greek and
Roman Department of the British Museum. In: Fitton, J. L. (ed.), Cycladica:
Studies in Memory of N. P. Goulandris; Proceedings of the Seventh British
Museum Classical Colloquium, June 1983. 7687. British Museum Press,
London.
FITTON, J. L. 1989
Cycladic Art. London, British Museum Press.

In Search of the Cycladic Hunter-warrior

241

GETZ-GENTLE, P. 2001
Personal Styles in Early Cycladic Sculpture. University of Wisconsin Press,
Madison.
GETZ-PREZIOSI, P. 1980
The Male Figure in Early Cycladic Sculpture. Metropolitan Museum Journal
16, 532.
GETZ-PREZIOSI, P. 1987a
Early Cycladic Art in North American Collections. University of Washington
Press, Seattle.
GETZ-PREZIOSI, P. 1987b
Sculptors of the Cyclades: Individual and tradition in the third millennium
BC. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
GETZ-PREZIOSI, P. 1994
Early Cycladic Sculpture: An introduction. J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu.
GILL, D. CHIPPINDALE, C. 1993
Material and Intellectual Consequences of Esteem for Cycladic Figures.
American Journal of Archaeology 97, 601659.
HEKMAN, J. J. 2003
The Early Bronze Age cemetery at Chalandriani on Syros (Cyclades, Greece).
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen.
HENDRIX, E. 1998
Painted Ladies of the Early Bronze Age. The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Bulletin 55, 415.
HERDT, G. 1994
Introduction: Third Sexes and Third Genders. In: Herdt, G. (ed.), Third Sex,
Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History. 2181.
Zone Books, New York.
HCKMANN, O. 1977
Cycladic Religion. In: Thimme, J. (ed.), Art and Culture of the Cyclades.
3752. C. F. Mller, Karlsruhe.
HOLLIMON, S. E. 2000
Archaeology of the Aqi: Gender and sexuality in prehistoric Chumash
society. In: Schmidt, R. A. Voss, B. L. (eds), Archaeologies of sexuality.
179196. Routledge, London.
JOYCE, R. A. 2008
Ancient Bodies, Ancient Lives: Sex, Gender, and Archaeology. Thames and
Hudson, London.

242

Maria Mina

KONSOLA, D. 1986
Stages of Urban Transformation in the Early Helladic Period. In: Hgg, R.
Konsola, D. (eds), Early Helladic Architecture and Urbanization: Proceedings
of a Seminar Held at the Swedish Institute in Athens, June 8, 1985. Studies in
Mediterranean Archaeology 76. 919. Paul strms Frlag, Gothenburg.
KOUKA, O. 2008
Diaspora, Presence or Interaction? The Cyclades and the Greek Mainland
from the Final Neolithic to Early Bronze II. In: Brodie, N. Doole, J.
Gavalas, G. Renfrew, C. (eds), Horizon: A colloquium on the prehistory
of the Cyclades. 271279. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
LEVY, J. E. 2006
Gender, Heterarchy, Hierarchy. In: Nelson, S. M. (ed.), Handbook of Gender
in Archaeology. 219246. AltaMira, Lanham.
MAGGIDIS, C. 1998
From Polis to Necropolis: Social Ranking from Architectural and Mortuary
Evidence in the Minoan Cemetery at Phourni, Archanes. In: Branigan, K.
(ed.), Cemetery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age. Sheffield Studies in
Aegean Prehistory 1. 87102. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
MANNING, S. W. 1995
The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: Archaeology,
Radiocarbon and History. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
MARANGOU, L. 1990
Anaskaphi Minoas Amorgou. Praktika tis en Athenais Archaioligikis
Etaireias 145, 236270.
MINA, M. 2007
Figurines without Sex: People without Gender? In: Hamilton, S.
Whitehouse, R. Wright, K. (eds), Archaeology and Women: Ancient and
Modern Issues. 263282. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.
MINA, M. 2008
Anthropomorphic Figurines from the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Aegean:
Gender Dynamics and Implications for the Understanding of Early Aegean
Prehistory. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1984. John
and Erica Hedges, Oxford.
MOORE, H. L. 1994
A Passion for Difference: Essays in Anthropology and Gender. Polity Press,
Cambridge.

In Search of the Cycladic Hunter-warrior

243

NAKOU, G. 1995
The cutting edge: a new look at early Aegean metallurgy. Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology 8, 132.
PRINE, E. 2000
Searching for third genders: towards a prehistory of domestic space in Middle
Missouri villages. In: Schmidt, R. A. Voss, B. L. (eds), Archaeologies of
Sexuality. 197219. Routledge, London.
RENFREW, C. 1969
The Development and Chronology of the Early Cycladic Figurines.
American Journal of Archaeology 73, 135.
RENFREW, C. 1972
The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third
Millennium BC. Methuen, London.
RENFREW, C. 1977
The Typology and Chronology of Cycladic Sculpture. In: Renfrew, C. (ed.),
Art and Culture of the Cyclades. 5970. C. F. Mller, Karlsruhe.
RENFREW, C. 1991
The Cycladic Spirit. Thames and Hudson, London.
RICE, P. M. 1991
Women and Prehistoric Pottery Production. In: Walde, D. Willows, N. D.
(eds), The Archaeology of Gender: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual
Chacmool Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of
Calgary. 436443. University of Calgary, Calgary.
SAMPSON, A. 1988
Manika II: o Protoelladikos oikismos kai to nekrotapheio. Ekdosi Dimou
Chalkidion, Athens.
SHERRATT, S. 2000
Catalogue of Cycladic Antiquities in the Ashmolean Museum: The Captive
Spirit. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
SRENSEN, M. L. S. 1996
Women as/and Metalworkers. In: Devonshire, A. Wood, B. (eds), Women
in Industry and Technology from Prehistory to the Present Day: Current
Research and the Museum Experience. Proceedings from the 1994 WHAM
Conference. 4551. Museum of London, London.

244

Maria Mina

SOTIRAKOPOULOU, P. 1998
The Early Bronze Age Stone Figurines from Akrotiri on Thera and their
Significance for the Early Cycladic Settlement. Annals of the British School
at Athens 93, 167184.
TELEVANTOU, C. 1990
Dress Jewellery Adornment. In: Marangou, L. (ed.), Cycladic Culture:
Naxos in the 3rd Millennium BC. 57. Nicholas P. Goulandri Foundation
Museum of Cycladic Art, Athens.
TSOUNTAS, C. 1899
Kykladika II. Archaiologiki Ephimeris, 74134.
WALISEWSKA, E. 1991
Archaeology of Religion: Colors as Symbolic Markers Dividing Sacred from
Profane. Journal of Prehistoric Religion 5, 3641.
WARREN, P. 1972
Myrtos: An Early Bronze Age Settlement in Crete. The Alden Press, Oxford.
WASON, P. K. 1994
The Archaeology of Rank. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
WRIGHT, R. 1991
Womens Labor and Pottery Production in Prehistory. In: Gero, J. M.
Conkey, M. W. (eds), Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory.
194223. Blackwell, Oxford.
ZERVOS, C. 1957
Lart des Cyclades du dbut la fin de lge du bronze, 2,5001,100 avant
notre re. Cahiers d Art, Paris.