Discussion
In my opinion the idea that this is a head to head representation loses force by virtue of even the more complete image being unfinished. If the second image were still in the process of being sculpted after the first was completed I would be more convinced that the goal was a single composition. The possibility that a third figure had already been removed supports the idea of a production sequence in which several statuettes were sequentially produced on and detached from the same support.
Curiously, the less finished figure seemed to be destined to be somewhat different in profile and proportions from the more finished one. On the former, less volume has been left for the breasts than was given to them on the latter. This argues against the goal of standardization (metric, volumetric or canonic) as the motivating force for the creation of two statuettes on a baton of uniform diameter, although overall standards of width and thickness were perhaps being pursued in such a strategy.
Moreover, there is a cultural context for interpreting the deep furrow between the heads as preparatory to separating the two statuettes by snapping. This technique for controlled breakage is well-known from sites of the Kostienki/Avdeevo Culture. Notably, at Avdeevo (Gvozdover 1996) there are two heavily worked, circular sectioned ivory baguettes that show this type of flexion break along a circuminscised furrow.
In sum, a close technological reading of the "double statuette? from Gagarino leaves little interpretive space for the notion of a single composition composed of two human figures. Rather, the importance of this remarkable object lies in the insight it provides into the châine opératoire for the production of female statuettes in the Kostienki/Avdeevo Culture of the Russian Plain.
It is noteworthy that we have here an object that was the product of more than one sitting. It is reasonable to imagine that it was tucked away in an earthen pit for safekeeping or to keep the ivory moist between sculpting episodes. We have no idea how many such episodes had already taken place, or in precisely what context they occurred, but it seems certain from the current reading that more were anticipated. The domestic context of the find does not in any way imply specialized craft production, but more likely part-time skilled craftspersons whose sculpting endeavors were interrupted by other responsibilities and time constraints.
There are other important implications for the interpretation of differences in statuette form. Here we have two statuettes produced from identical supports, but which are somewhat different in conception and are at different stages of production. In spite of their differences, we know with certainty that they were precisely contemporaneous and that they were almost certainly produced by the same person. Therefore the differences between the two human figures are referrable only to the intent of the sculptor and/or to the different degree of completeness of the two works.
Importantly, if the current reading is accepted, different authorship cannot be used to explain morphological differences between statuettes within individual site assemblages of the Kostienki/Avdeevo Culture . An important question is raised as to the nuanced differences in meaning embedded in morphologically different statuettes produced by the same individual, using the same techniques at the same moment in time. The observations presented here argue strongly against the validity of any interpretive framework that does not recognize and account for such redundant, purposeful and contemporaneous differences in form.
