An Enduring Form: The Cruciform Figures of Chalcolithic Cyprus

In the modern imagination, the prehistoric art of Cyprus is often distilled into a single, striking image: a schematic human figure carved from a smooth, greenish stone, with arms outstretched and legs bent, forming a cross. This cruciform figure, now minted on the island’s Euro coins, has become an emblem of Cypriot antiquity [2, p. 13; 12, p. 25]. Yet its familiarity belies a deeper archaeological puzzle. These objects, which flourished during the Chalcolithic period (c. 3900–2500 BC), represent a highly localised and culturally specific tradition that appears unique in the prehistoric world [1, p. 36]. They are a product of a society undergoing significant transformation, marked by population growth, social change, and the first use of copper [4, p. 55]. This article will explore the cruciform figures in their totality. It will begin by examining their physical properties, the materials and methods used in their creation, and their distinct geographical distribution. It will then analyse the evidence for their use in the lives and deaths of the Chalcolithic Cypriots, before addressing the complex and often contradictory interpretations of their meaning. Finally, it will place this singular artistic tradition within its chronological and cultural context, assessing its relationship to wider regional developments and its abrupt disappearance at the close of the Chalcolithic period.

The Material Object: Form and Manufacture

Cruciform figures are defined by a remarkably standardised visual grammar [3, p. 326]. They are andromorphic figures with outstretched, bar-like arms, a long neck, and an elliptical head that is typically tilted back [8, p. 158; 9, p. 16]. The legs are sharply drawn up at the knees in a squatting position [18, p. 34]. Despite this overall uniformity, which suggests a shared symbolic system, scholars have identified four distinct varieties based on stylistic nuances [2, p. 350]. These are named the Kythrea, Salamiou, Mylouthkia, and Kissonerga varieties, each distinguished by subtle differences in proportion and rendering [2, p. 350]. The term ‘cruciform’ itself is generally applied to figures that closely adhere to this cross-like shape, though some researchers have used it more broadly for other Chalcolithic figures with elongated necks and outstretched arms [2, p. 290].

The vast majority of these objects, particularly the classic cruciform pendants, were carved from picrolite, a soft, green-blue serpentinite rock indigenous to Cyprus [2, p. 289; 8, p. 158]. While picrolite was used for ornaments from the earliest periods of human settlement on the island, its exploitation reached a zenith during the Chalcolithic, becoming almost synonymous with the production of these figures [14, p. 1; 12, p. 25]. Less than three percent of known cruciform pendants were made from other materials, such as shell or bone, highlighting the strong preference for this specific stone [2, p. 358].

Picrolite is not a uniform material; it varies in quality, colour, and purity [2, p. 351]. Peltenburg developed a typology for picrolite from the Souskiou-Vathyrkakas cemetery based on these visible characteristics, identifying four types ranging from fine, homogenous, pale green-blue stone (Type 1) to a coarser material with extensive mottling and veining (Type 4) [3, p. 297]. This classification is significant because it is based on qualities that would have been apparent to the prehistoric artisans, suggesting they made conscious choices about the material they used [3, p. 297]. Indeed, the correlation between pendant and picrolite types in some tomb groups suggests that artisans deliberately selected matching pebbles to produce distinctive sets of objects, a practice with potential implications for understanding relationships between carvers, suppliers, and consumers [3, p. 360]. The highest quality picrolite was seldom used, especially for larger figures, which may indicate the rarity of suitably sized, high-grade specimens [2, p. 351].

The procurement of this valued material remains a subject of investigation. Primary deposits of picrolite are found in serpentinite bodies within the Troodos Mountains, often in veins or small lenses [3, p. 297]. The stone also erodes and is carried downstream by rivers, where it can be collected as smooth pebbles [17, p. 23]. The Kouris and Karyotis rivers are considered the "exclusive picrolite carriers," with pebbles of excellent quality and size found in their lower reaches [2, p. 300]. However, pinpointing the exact sources exploited in prehistory has proven difficult. Geochemical analyses and X-ray diffraction studies have so far failed to produce conclusive results that would allow artifacts to be traced to specific primary or secondary deposits [2, p. 299]. While some assume the Kouris river deposits were the main, if not only, supplier for southwest Cyprus, evidence from sites like Souskiou Laona suggests some material may have been quarried directly from the Troodos Mountains [2, p. 299, 300]. This leaves open the question of whether raw material was gathered locally near production sites, distributed through a wider network, or acquired through a combination of strategies [2, p. 300]. In either case, the procurement of picrolite required more time and labour than obtaining clay or other stones used for contemporary figurines, contributing to its perceived value [3, p. 351]. The material was not used for ordinary items like vessels, further suggesting it held a particular significance [3, p. 300].

Evidence for the manufacture of cruciform figures has been found at several Chalcolithic settlements, including Kissonerga Mosphilia, Lemba, and Erimi [2, p. 300]. The most compelling evidence comes from the West Ridge of Souskiou Laona, where the discovery of raw material, wasters, and unfinished items, including a partly finished cruciform, points to a workshop specializing in their production [2, p. 300; 20, p. 49]. The manufacturing process involved shaping the stone with sharp tools, evidenced by fine parallel striations often left visible on the finished objects [10, p. 246; 2, p. 289]. Experimental archaeology and microwear analysis suggest that artisans used rotary drills, such as bow or pump drills, to create the hourglass-shaped perforations for suspension [10, p. 246]. The careful selection of raw material and the specialised techniques required for carving suggest a developed craft industry [11, p. 9].

Context and Use: Figures in Chalcolithic Society

The distribution of cruciform figures is one of their most telling characteristics. They are overwhelmingly a phenomenon of southwestern Cyprus, with the vast majority of provenanced examples originating in the Paphos District, particularly from the cluster of sites including Kissonerga, Lemba, and Souskiou [3, p. 392; 4, p. 55]. A much smaller number have been found in the Limassol District [3, p. 392]. Finds from further afield, such as two examples from an Iron Age context at Ayia Irini, are considered imports to the region, likely originating in the Paphos District based on their style [3, p. 349]. Crucially, cruciform figures have not been discovered in any other prehistoric culture outside of Cyprus [1, p. 36]. This highly restricted geographical range indicates that they were part of a regional belief system or social practice, not an island-wide one, and argues against the existence of a long-distance trade in these objects across the island [3, p. 349].

Evidence from the objects themselves and their find contexts shows that they were not made solely for funerary purposes but had a function during life [3, p. 340]. Signs of wear, such as smoothed surfaces from handling and worn suspension holes, are found on numerous examples [1, p. 38; 3, p. 337]. This indicates they were handled or worn for some time before being deposited [1, p. 38]. The primary function for most was as a personal ornament, likely serving as the centerpiece of a necklace [3, p. 340]. The clearest evidence for this comes from Grave 563 at Kissonerga Mosphilia, where a large cruciform figure (10.1 cm) was found in the chest area of an infant, along with dentalium shell beads [3, p. 340]. The necklace was too large for the infant, suggesting it belonged to an adult and was placed in the grave as a secondary deposit [3, p. 340].

While most figures are small enough to be worn, six examples are exceptionally large—the biggest being a fragment from Kissonerga Mosphilia with a preserved height of 16.3 cm—and appear too cumbersome to have functioned as pendants [3, p. 323, 340]. It has been suggested these larger specimens may have served as "dwelling-based charms," propped up against a surface to be viewed, though their archaeological contexts provide no direct evidence for such a use [3, p. 340].

Although cruciforms were deposited in tombs, they were not standard grave goods [3, p. 349]. At the extensive cemeteries of Souskiou Vathyrkakas and Laona, with over 100 burial facilities each, only a fraction of the interred individuals were buried with cruciform figures or pendants [3, p. 349]. For instance, of the approximately 100 tombs at Vathyrkakas, only seven contained a total of nine cruciform figures [3, p. 349]. At Kissonerga Mosphilia, only one of 73 burials contained a cruciform figure, and at Lemba, the ratio was one out of 60 interments [3, p. 349]. This restricted distribution implies that ownership or use was limited to certain members of society, perhaps signifying a particular status or role [3, p. 349]. The fact that these figures are often found with children, but were clearly items of adult use, has been interpreted as a marker of ascribed status within the community [13, p. 117].

The Enigma of Meaning

For decades, the interpretation of cruciform figures was dominated by the idea that they represented a female in a birthing posture [3, p. 327; 4, p. 55]. The squatting stance was seen as an explicit reference to parturition, leading many scholars to view them as fertility symbols or birthing charms [1, p. 16; 15, p. 7]. However, this interpretation has been challenged on several grounds. The figures consistently lack clear indicators of pregnancy, such as a swollen belly or pendulous breasts, and they are devoid of incised vulvas or pubic triangles [8, p. 160]. Furthermore, the general absence of wear marks or discolouration from prolonged contact with skin on many pendants argues against their use as protective charms worn throughout a pregnancy [2, p. 386].

The core of the interpretive problem lies in the profound sexual ambiguity of the figures [1, p. 17]. Every feature that has been proposed as a gender marker is open to multiple interpretations. The protrusion on the neck, prominent on the Kythrea variety, could be a male Adam’s apple, a female trait associated with thyroid dysfunction, or a non-sex-specific medical condition like a goiter [3, p. 327]. The small bosses found on the chest of a minority of figures (less than 8%) have been widely interpreted as female breasts [3, p. 315]. However, their rendering is small and curiously shaped, unlike the more prominently modelled breasts seen on contemporary pottery and stone figures [3, p. 315]. An alternative suggestion is that on double figures, where a smaller figure is held horizontally, these bosses may in fact represent the hands of the larger, vertical figure [3, p. 315]. Even the elongated neck has been interpreted by some as a phallic element, adding another layer of complexity [1, p. 78; 19, p. 5].

This pervasive ambiguity has led scholars to reconsider the focus on a simple male/female binary [6, p. 27]. It is possible that the blending of characteristics was intentional, or that sexual differentiation was simply not the primary concern of the artisan or user [3, p. 327; 16, p. 12]. This view is supported by a few key examples. One figurine of the Mylouthkia variety from the Pierides Museum possesses a small but distinct penis, combined with feminine, well-rounded hips, providing a clear instance of mixed gender attributes [3, p. 323]. Another from the same variety has a projection that was initially identified as an erect penis, though others have argued it could represent labia by analogy with Cycladic figures—a comparison that is not entirely convincing due to differences in anatomical position and scale [3, p. 323]. Ultimately, there is not a single cruciform figure that is unequivocally and exclusively marked as female [3, p. 322]. The majority are sexually indeterminate, suggesting that if sex was a key aspect of their identity, it would have been rendered more clearly, as it was on other Chalcolithic figurine types [3, p. 327].

This has opened the door to alternative interpretations. Rather than representing deities or specific genders, the figures may have functioned as "logo-like symbols" or markers of group affiliation or status [8, p. 158; 3, p. 327]. The standardization of the form combined with the stylistic variations could have conveyed complex social information within the communities of southwestern Cyprus.

Chronology and Cultural Context

The production and use of cruciform figures and pendants is a chronologically bounded phenomenon. While picrolite was used earlier, the cruciform style first appears in the mid-fourth millennium BC [3, p. 389]. Its florescence was during the Middle Chalcolithic, from roughly 3200 to 2900 BC, when the figures were common in the archaeological assemblages of the southwest [3, p. 389]. By the Late Chalcolithic, their numbers decrease sharply, and those found in later contexts are often from general habitation layers, making their precise dating uncertain [3, p. 389]. Some of these later examples appear to be crudely reworked, suggesting a "breakdown of the style and transformation of earlier symbols" [3, p. 389]. The different classical varieties (Kythrea, Salamiou, Kissonerga) appear to be contemporaneous, suggesting they represent regional styles or functional differences rather than a chronological evolution [3, p. 347].

The cruciform tradition appears to be a wholly indigenous Cypriot development [1, p. 16]. Despite occasional comparisons to stylised imagery from Anatolia or the Aegean, there are no direct parallels, and the cruciform type itself is not found anywhere else [1, p. 36; 5, p. 244]. During the Chalcolithic, the material culture of Cyprus seems to have developed in relative isolation, with little evidence for foreign influence [3, p. 404; 9, p. 12]. This contrasts sharply with the succeeding Bronze Age, when Cyprus became deeply integrated into the cultural and economic networks of the eastern Mediterranean, and its figurative art shows clear external connections [7, p. 209].

At the end of the Chalcolithic period, the cruciform tradition, and the symbolic system it represented, came to an abrupt end [12, p. 25]. The subsequent Philia phase and Early Bronze Age are marked by a near-total absence of representational art, and when figurines reappear at the end of the third millennium, it is within a radically different social and economic framework [10, p. 335]. The plank figures of the Early and Middle Bronze Age, for example, are stylistically very different from the cruciforms, being flat, rectangular, and typically made of clay [1, p. 44]. While some have argued for an evolutionary link between the two traditions, this remains a point of debate [1, p. 17]. For now, the evidence suggests a significant hiatus in the figurine record and a discontinuity of the symbolic world embodied by the cruciforms [7, p. 102].

Conclusion

The cruciform figures of Chalcolithic Cyprus remain a compelling and distinctive class of prehistoric artifact. Their creation from a carefully selected and socially valued material, picrolite, combined with a standardized form and evidence of specialized craft production, points to their importance within the communities that made them. Their highly localized distribution in the southwest of the island suggests they were part of a regional identity, not a pan-Cypriot one, and their relative scarcity in funerary contexts indicates they were not available to all, but were instead markers of a particular status or role held by a select few.

The long-held interpretation of these figures as exclusively female fertility symbols has given way to a more nuanced understanding that acknowledges their profound sexual ambiguity. The scholarly debate has shifted from assigning a definitive gender to asking whether gender was a relevant category for these objects at all. Their androgynous appearance may have been a deliberate choice, allowing them to function as flexible symbols within a complex social landscape.

The disappearance of the cruciform tradition at the end of the Chalcolithic marks a significant cultural rupture. What replaced it is unclear, but the rich symbolic system tied to these objects did not survive into the Bronze Age. Future research, particularly more advanced chemical analyses to pinpoint picrolite sources, may yet clarify the economic and social networks that governed their production and exchange [2, p. 299]. Furthermore, the full publication of key sites like the Souskiou Laona cemetery may provide new contextual data to refine our understanding of their function [3, p. 340]. For now, the cruciform figure stands as a powerful, silent object from a vanished world, its simple form containing complex questions about identity, society, and belief in prehistoric Cyprus.