I. THE PROBLEM OF THE USE OF FIGURINES AND THE BASIC INTERPRETATIONAL THEORIES
The use of figurines was initially based on the interpretation of Palaeolithic material, especially the so-called ‘Venuses’, which have been considered as a kind of portable shrine of a fertility divinity, as implied by the rendering of voluminous breasts and buttocks.
Henceforward, many interpretative attempts have been made, treating figurines as phenomena in a tight geographical or chronological frame. These interpretations are summed up below:
a) Dolls b) Instructive objects c) Bearers of sympathetic magic
(Pumpelly 1908, Kenyon 1956, Ucko 1968 et al.)
3. OBJECTS SERVING THE DEAD
(Hogarth 1927, Myres 1930 et al.)
4. SYMBOLS OF WISHES
(Broman 1958, Theocharis 1973)
5. PRIMITIVE MEANS OF SOCIAL COMMUNICATION
(Chourmouziadis 1973 et al.)
6. NEOLITHIC PANTHEON RELATED TO THE CYCLE OF LIFE
(Parrot 1960, Gimbutas 1974 et al.)
7. PORTRAYALS OF THE DEAD
( Karageorghis 1977)
8. SYMBOLS OF IDENTITY AND TOKENS OF A DEAL
(Talalay 1983)
9. AMULETS WHOSE POWER IS NOT RELATED TO THE SEX OF
THE DIVINITY REPRESENTED
(Papachatzis 1987 et al.)
II. II. AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF NEOLITHIC FIGURINES
Μeticulous study of Greek figurine material and its comparison to that of its neighbouring areas in the broadest sense, has prompted a reassessment of the scientific approach of figurine art in view of its interpretation.
In my opinion, interpretation of figurine art should be based on how often, among various types of figurines, a naturalistic or a schematic type is steadily repeated.
I believe that the interpretative approach outlined extensively for the first time in the present volume and which may be called ‘Theory of Repetition’, is possible to be applied to any figurine material regardless of date, which should no longer be considered a major obstacle in the interpretative process.
