Cruciform Figurines

The Cruciform Figure of Chalcolithic Cyprus: An Insular Enigma

During the 4th millennium BC, a distinctive artistic and symbolic tradition emerged on the island of Cyprus. For a period of several centuries, communities, particularly in the south-west, produced small, stylized human figures with outstretched arms and bent legs, creating a cross-like or cruciform silhouette. Carved primarily from a soft, blue-green stone, these objects have become emblematic of the Cypriot Chalcolithic period, to the extent that one of the most famous examples, the Yalia figurine, was chosen to appear on the country’s modern Euro coins [1, p. 289; 2, p. 158]. Yet despite their modern iconic status, their original meaning and function remain subjects of considerable scholarly debate.

These objects were not merely artistic expressions; they were symbolically charged items with an active role in the lives of the people who made and used them [3, p. 54]. Recovered from both settlements and graves, they offer a direct material link to the social practices and belief systems of the period [4, p. 37]. This article will examine the cruciform figures through the available archaeological evidence. It will investigate the raw materials and manufacturing techniques used in their creation, their geographical and chronological distribution, and their archaeological contexts. Finally, it will explore the complex and often contradictory interpretations of their purpose, moving from early theories of fertility goddesses to more recent considerations of social identity and ritual performance.

Material and Manufacture: The Primacy of Picrolite

The overwhelming majority of cruciform figures and their smaller counterparts, cruciform pendants, were carved from picrolite, a metamorphic rock native to Cyprus [1, p. 295; 2, p. 158]. This soft, blue-green stone, with a hardness of approximately 3.5 on the Mohs scale, was particularly suitable for carving with the available toolkits [5, p. 116]. Its use for personal ornaments dates back as early as the 10th millennium BC, but production reached its zenith during the Middle Chalcolithic period [6, p. 295]. Because the stone’s specific mineral composition is unique to the island, objects made from it found in the art trade are generally ascribed a Cypriot origin [1, p. 295]. The favoured colour appears to have been a uniform blue-green, suggesting a deliberate selection process by the artisans [6, p. 301].

The primary sources for this raw material were the Kouris and Karyotis rivers, which drain the Troodos serpentinite outcrops and carry water-worn pebbles of picrolite downstream [5, p. 137; 7, p. 439]. This geological reality likely influenced the distribution of production, concentrating it in the south and west of the island [5, p. 137]. The procurement of picrolite from these secondary river deposits would have required more time and labour than sourcing other materials like clay or common hard stones, suggesting the material itself was valued [6, p. 351].

While picrolite was the preferred medium, it was not used exclusively. A strong correlation exists between the stone and the cruciform shape, but exceptions demonstrate that form and material were not inextricably linked [6, p. 302]. Cruciform figures have also been found made from white crystalline limestone and basalt [1, p. 302]. The smaller pendants show a slightly greater material diversity; of 143 catalogued specimens, approximately 97% are picrolite, with the remaining few fashioned from shell and bone [6, p. 358]. This consistent preference for picrolite suggests the stone held a specific significance, though the nature of that significance—whether aesthetic, symbolic, or practical—remains unclear [6, p. 405].

The production of these figures appears to have been a widespread, non-specialized activity. Excavations at sites like Souskiou-Laona have yielded more than 300 pieces of picrolite, including wasters and debitage, distributed across the settlement rather than in a single workshop area [6, p. 301; 8, p. 48]. This suggests that many households engaged in carving, with part-time craftspeople producing objects for local use [5, p. 116; 6, p. 301]. The carving process involved a range of techniques, including incising, abrading, and polishing [9, p. 247]. Experimental archaeology and analysis of tool marks show that chert flakes were used with a sawing motion to cut the sharp, 90-degree corners required for the cruciform shape [9, p. 274]. Details such as facial features or body decoration were added with fine abrading tools and flakes to create grooves and incisions [9, p. 247]. While many figures were polished, lapidaries often did not remove all working marks, leaving parallel striations visible on the surface of finished objects [9, p. 235; 6, p. 289].

Style, Form, and Typology

Chalcolithic cruciform figures, though standardized in their basic form, exhibit significant stylistic variation. They typically range in height from 3 to 15 cm, although a few examples may have originally stood over 30 cm tall, qualifying them as statuettes [2, p. 158; 6, p. 323]. The canonical form features a tilted head on a long neck, arms outstretched at a right angle to the body, and legs bent with knees tucked up in a squatting or sitting posture [2, p. 158; 10, p. 34].

Scholars have identified several distinct stylistic varieties, often named after sites where they were first identified or are most common. The Kythrea variety is characterized by a complete absence of facial features and a more three-dimensional, volumetric form that would require a sizable picrolite pebble for its creation [5, p. 141; 6, p. 327]. The Salamiou variety often includes small bosses on the chest and is sometimes rendered as a double figure, with a smaller figure carried by a larger one [6, p. 327]. The Kissonerga variety is typically larger and flatter, likely carved from slab-like pieces of picrolite, and features more defined rendering of the thighs and lower legs [6, p. 327]. A fourth group, the Mylouthkia variety, is less stylistically uniform, differing in the rendering of the arms and the posture of the legs [6, p. 306]. Alongside these main groups are "intermediate" or "hybrid" figures that combine features of different varieties, as well as "crude" cruciforms that are reduced to the basic cross shape with little elaboration [6, p. 327].

The reason for these stylistic differences is not understood. It may relate to regional preferences, chronological developments, or the specific function of the figurine [10, p. 13]. The shape and quality of the available raw material also played a role; for example, carvers often used lower-quality picrolite for larger figures, suggesting that the availability of a sizable piece of stone was more important than its purity [6, p. 302]. The existence of these distinct stylistic conventions, however, suggests a shared and recognizable symbolic system that was nonetheless open to localized interpretation and expression [2, p. 160].

A distinction is often made between larger "figurines" and smaller, more schematic "pendants" [6, p. 355]. The pendants are generally understood as reduced versions of the figurines, with a more two-dimensional appearance and a perforation hole through the head for suspension [6, p. 355]. They range in size from approximately 1.6 to 4 cm [6, p. 395]. This distinction can be superficial, as it is believed both categories shared the same general meaning and were often used in the same way, as centrepieces for necklaces [6, p. 355].

Findspots and Archaeological Context

The study of cruciform figures is hampered by a significant problem: a large number of them derive from illicit excavations and lack secure provenance [3, p. 54; 6, p. 334]. Of the figures with known findspots, the vast majority come from sites in the Paphos District of south-western Cyprus [6, p. 348; 6, p. 347]. The settlement of Kissonerga-Mosphilia has yielded the largest assemblage from a single excavated site, with 20 specimens [6, p. 348]. This geographical concentration suggests that the cruciform tradition was an innovation of the Paphos region, which then spread to other settlements [6, p. 407].

Cruciforms appear in both settlement and funerary contexts, but they are not a common feature of burials [6, p. 349]. At the Souskiou-Laona cemetery, for example, about 20 cruciform figurines and pendants were recovered from 137 burial facilities [6, p. 349]. At Kissonerga-Mosphilia, only a single grave out of 73 contained a cruciform figurine [6, p. 349]. This scarcity indicates that they were not standard grave goods but were instead reserved for a select portion of the population [6, p. 349]. Their inclusion in a grave may have marked a specific social identity, status, or group affiliation [6, p. 396].

When found in secure burial contexts, the figures are often associated with other elements of personal adornment. The most compelling evidence for their use comes from Grave 563 at Kissonerga-Mosphilia, a Middle Chalcolithic burial containing the remains of two infants. A cruciform figurine measuring 10.1 cm in height was found in the chest area of one infant, together with numerous dentalium shell beads [1, p. 340]. The arrangement suggests a necklace with the figurine as its centrepiece. Given the size of the figurine and the estimated length of the necklace (48 cm), it is unlikely to have been worn by the infant. It was probably an object that belonged to an adult and was deposited in the grave as a secondary function of the item [1, p. 340]. This find, along with others from cemeteries at Lemba and Souskiou, confirms that cruciforms were worn as personal ornaments, likely by adults [4, p. 38; 6, p. 375].

The Life of an Object: Use, Wear, and Repair

The presence of cruciform figures in graves represents only the final stage of their use-life. Evidence on the objects themselves shows that they were actively used and handled before being deposited [1, p. 340]. The softness of picrolite makes it susceptible to wear, which provides clear indicators of usage [6, p. 289]. Wear is frequently observed in two areas: the surface of the figure and the perforation hole used for suspension [6, p. 289]. Concentric abrasive traces from the initial drilling process can be worn smooth over time by the friction of a cord, indicating prolonged use as a pendant [6, p. 289]. Similarly, polished surfaces and worn-down contours suggest frequent handling [6, p. 342].

The value attached to these objects is further demonstrated by the practice of repairing and reworking broken figures. They are often found in good condition, but several specimens show signs of secondary treatment after sustaining damage [6, p. 343]. For example, if the head and neck broke off, the remaining stump might be re-carved with a new groove to allow the figure to be re-suspended as a pendant [1, p. 343]. One figure from Kissonerga was extensively re-worked after its head, arms, and lower legs broke; the modified areas show wear polish, proving it was used again after the repair [6, p. 343]. Another specimen from the same site, after its head broke, had a new hole drilled through the remaining part of the neck [6, p. 343]. The fact that considerable effort was invested to maintain the function of a damaged figure suggests its value was not lost upon breakage [6, p. 344].

Evidence for deliberate, ritual destruction is less clear. While some damage on figures from burials may have been intentional, no distinct pattern of fragmentation, such as "ritual killing" observed in other figurine traditions, is apparent across the cruciform corpus [6, p. 343; 6, p. 342]. Damage such as pecking or dents on less vulnerable parts of a figure might indicate targeted action, but with a limited number of examples, it is difficult to distinguish deliberate breakage from accidental damage or post-depositional processes [6, p. 342; 11, p. 118].

The Interpretive Debate: Goddesses, Birth, and Identity

The meaning of the cruciform figures is their most debated aspect. For decades, interpretation was dominated by the "Mother Goddess" theory, which saw the figures as representations of a universal female deity associated with fertility, a prehistoric precursor to Aphrodite, whose main cult centre in later times was at Paphos [2, p. 158; 11, p. 29]. This reading was often connected to the view that their posture, with bent knees, depicted a woman in the act of giving birth [6, p. 327].

However, closer scrutiny of the archaeological and iconographic evidence has challenged these interpretations [2, p. 159]. The birthing posture theory is undermined by comparison with contemporary ceramic "birth figures," which are stylistically and posturally distinct [6, p. 319]. While cruciforms have bent knees, their legs are typically pressed together, a position inconsistent with parturition [2, p. 163]. Furthermore, the equation with a female deity is problematic. Many cruciforms are depicted wearing a smaller cruciform as a pendant, an unlikely convention if the figure was meant to be a goddess wearing a representation of herself [2, p. 163].

The question of the figures' sex is itself complex. The vast majority are sexually ambiguous or androgynous [6, p. 322]. Explicit sexual characteristics are rare. Small bosses appear on the chest of some Salamiou variety figures and have traditionally been identified as breasts [6, p. 315]. However, this interpretation is not conclusive; their rendering is different from breasts on other Chalcolithic figures, and on double figures they could plausibly represent the hands of the main figure holding the smaller one [6, p. 322]. Only about 20% of the figures have these features at all [2, p. 158]. The elongated necks have been interpreted as phallic, while a protrusion on the throat of some figures has been seen as a male Adam's apple, but could equally represent a goitre or other medical condition not specific to sex [4, p. 35; 6, p. 311]. Indeed, a few figures from the Mylouthkia variety appear to be explicitly male [6, p. 327]. The general lack of clear sexual markers suggests that gender identity may not have been the primary message the figures were intended to convey [6, p. 323].

In light of these challenges, alternative interpretations have been proposed. Morris suggested they were not religious idols but birthing charms used in sympathetic magic by women who wished to conceive [4, p. 16]. Others see them as apotropaic charms intended to offer protection [12, p. 1]. More recently, Bleda Düring has argued that the posture—with outstretched arms and bent knees—is not related to birth but is a schematic representation of dancing, an important communal and ritual activity in many prehistoric societies [2, p. 162]. Another plausible interpretation is that the figures functioned as identity markers, signifying an individual's status, social role, or affiliation with a particular group or family [6, p. 396]. This would explain why they are found with only a select minority of the population.

A Uniquely Cypriot Phenomenon

The cruciform figure appears to be an entirely insular creation. While anthropomorphic representations were common throughout the prehistoric Aegean and Levant, the specific cruciform shape with its distinctive posture is unique to Cyprus [4, p. 16]. Attempts to find external parallels in Anatolia or the Cyclades have been largely unconvincing, with similarities dismissed as superficial [4, p. 36]. The tradition seems to have developed locally, drawing on earlier, though scarce, Neolithic precedents for schematic human representation on the island [6, p. 328]. This independent achievement highlights the distinctive cultural trajectory of Chalcolithic Cyprus before the island became more integrated into the wider eastern Mediterranean world in the Bronze Age [13, p. 12].

The tradition did not last. The production and use of cruciform figures decreased significantly at the end of the Middle Chalcolithic and had all but disappeared by the Late Chalcolithic period (c. 2700 BC) [6, p. 407; 14, p. 117]. This abrupt end coincided with broader societal changes, including shifts in settlement patterns, mortuary practices, and material culture [15, p. 84]. The abandonment of this powerful symbolic system suggests a profound ideological transformation on the island [8, p. 46].

Conclusion

The cruciform figures of Chalcolithic Cyprus remain enigmatic objects that resist simple classification. The archaeological evidence allows us to reconstruct much about their physical existence: they were primarily made from locally sourced picrolite by non-specialist carvers in households, they were concentrated in the Paphos region during the Middle Chalcolithic, and they were highly valued personal possessions worn as pendants, sometimes for long periods, before being deposited in the graves of a select few.

Their meaning, however, remains elusive. The once-dominant interpretations of fertility goddesses and birthing scenes are not well supported by the iconographic details. The figures are overwhelmingly ambiguous in their sexual characteristics, suggesting that modern binary gender categories may be an unhelpful lens through which to view them. Newer interpretations that focus on their role as apotropaic devices, social identity markers, or representations of ritual activities like dancing offer promising avenues for understanding their function within Chalcolithic society. It is possible, even likely, that their meaning was multi-functional and shifted depending on context and user [16, p. 39]. The true function of these figures may never be fully known [17, p. 14]. What is certain is that for a few centuries, these small stone figures were potent symbols at the heart of a distinctively Cypriot prehistoric culture, one whose sudden transformation is marked by their disappearance from the archaeological record.