Jessica Price

Did I mention in this that even though women appear frequently in other types of Minoan art, no composite ivory statuettes that are both definitely female and definitely genuine have been found? Interesting side note.

Anyway, the problem is there are a TON of these composite ivory Minoan goddess statues floating around, none of them have reliable provenience, and they're what were used to authenticate each other. See the problem?

Some of them are proven forgeries. So a lot of what is "Minoan-looking" in our minds is forgeries, possible forgeries, and "restorations" done by turn-of-the-century artists.

And as we learn more about them, we find out that a lot of the assumptions were very much dictated by Victorian expectations. Those "corsets" or "jackets" Minoan women are depicted as wearing? Actually shifts with skirts tied around them.

There are a lot of problems with the Boston Goddess. She's too skinny, for one. And if, as some have suggested, her hips and butt are so flat because the ivory is significantly worn away, how are the details of her flounces still visible there?

The Boston Goddess (or rather, the fragments of her not used in the restoration), the Seattle Boy-God, and the Ashmolean Boy-God have all been carbon tested. The results were intriguing-- 250ish years old for the Ashmolean figure, and 400-500 for the other two.

That's deeply weird. Obviously, the ivory is far too new for them to be genuinely Minoan, but it's awfully old for a Victorian forgery.

But in any case, enough about the artifacts themselves. I want to talk about the conclusions Evans drew from them, which have been repeated as fact in a lot of books and textbooks and journals and magazines since. but first I gotta go edit a few more pages.