While archaeologists have not yet determined the purpose of these so-called “Pretty Lady” figurines, for the purpose of today’s blog post, we will imagine that they were used as dolls. Perhaps they even gave children an opportunity to learn how to sew by providing clothes for the figurines.
These dolls or figurines were found in excavation sites in Mexico, where archaeologists studied the Tlatilco culture. According to Encyclopedia Britannica Online, “The tremendous amount of looting that took place before the major sites came under professional control has made it difficult to unravel the story of these peoples.”(1) So the purpose of these figurines is still a mystery.
The dolls/figurines are nude, but their hair is done up in very fancy hairstyles. Little girls love a doll with fancy hair, so from my perspective, these were possibly the fashion dolls of a bygone era in Mesoamerica.
However none of that has any basis in archaeological evidence, to my knowledge. It’s just my own take on what I’ve learned about the “Pretty Lady” figurines of the Tlatilco culture of Mexico.
My research has given me a number of different dates for the Tlatilco culture. Wikipedia suggests that this culture existed from between 1250 and 800 BCE. The Metropolitan Museum of Art places them in “the Early to Middle Preclassic-period Zacatenco culture (ca. 1500–600 B.C.)”(2) which is even earlier. An online college lecture video that I watched placed the Tlatilco culture circa 1200 to 400 BCE. So maybe the date of this period in Mesoamerican history is also up for debate.
The Met describes these doll-like effigies thus: “Depicting females with large heads, small waists, and prominent hips, these handheld sculptures present a fairly standardized body type and are typically fired to red, buff, or brown tones.”
Hmm… Red, brown, and buff. Those sound like skin tones. Okay, maybe red isn’t. But the fancy hairstyles… Big heads, small waists, large hips. Can anyone see a resemblance to, say, LOL Surprise dolls?
It should be noted that male archaeologists came up with the name, “Pretty Ladies,” even though nude male figures were found in similar excavations, but instead of calling these figurines “Handsome Gentlemen,” they opted to call them “Little Lords.”
What will they say about Ken, when they dig him up 3000 years from now? They might call Barbie a “Pretty Lady,” but I think they’ll have to refer to Ken as a “Little Eunuch!” Hee hee hee!
There’s a whole Wikipedia article dedicated to the fact that, by naming the figurines this way, early archaeologists “projected ideals on the culture these figures were part of, influenced by European representations of beauty.”(3)
Personally, I believe little Mesoamerican girls probably learned how to sew by using these “Pretty Ladies” as dolls they could dress. They might have even glued, wrapped, or strung cloth arms and legs onto the figures. Or grass arms and legs.
Just imagine cloth arms affixed onto one of these “Pretty Ladies.” Now put a dress on her. Voilà! You have a Mesoamerican doll…
So why don’t the dolls have fabric attached to them today? Fabric had to be hand made by someone in a person’s own household, so you wouldn’t throw that away in the garbage pile when your little girl grows up; you’d just make the fabric into something else. It’s just a thought…
A lot of the figures have arms that are clearly separated from the torso. If the figures weren’t meant to be dressed in cloth garments, the sculptor wouldn’t bother making the arms separated from the rest of the clay body. But because the arms are clearly formed apart from the torso of the figures, it gives a young seamstress an arm to measure for sleeves.
With the female figure shown below and above, the arms are little rectangles that stick out. That seems like the perfect way to attach a pair of cloth arms…
A nude doll isn’t just a “pretty lady;” she’s a doll that’s waiting to be dressed! But again, that’s just my take on the “Pretty Lady” figurines of ancient Mexico. What are your thoughts?
Do you think these figurines are dolls? Sacred objects for rituals? Or something else?
Feel free to visit the articles I’ve linked to, study the images, and let me know what you think in the comments.
- Dockstader, Frederick J.. “Native American art”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 14 Jan. 2021, https://www.britannica.com/art/Native-American-art. Accessed 23 June 2024.
- Artist unknown. “Female Figure.” [Medium: Ceramic]. 10th Century BCE. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY. Associated images are in the public domain.
- Wikipedia contributors. “Pretty Ladies (female figurines).” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 13 Feb. 2024. Web. 23 Jun. 2024.
Please note: throughout the month of July, 2024, I will be taking a break from my blog. I will still approve comments though, so feel free to comment on this and other blog posts.
As an Amazon Affiliate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Please click here to learn how affiliate marketing works on my website.
My website counts on your generous donations, income from class fees, and the purchase of goods to maintain the storage space for the hundreds of free patterns found here. Please consider making a purchase from my online store, donating, or taking one of my online classes to show your support.
Interesting take, and one that archaeologists might easily overlook! 🙂
Well, we can always hope that some creatively-minded archaeologists stumble across my article and find it useful! 😉