Anthropomorphic statuettes have often been integrated into the category of cult inventories. Their decor was considered directly related to the type of representation. Most of them present clothing and ornaments. Sometimes the decoration was interpreted as a tattoo or body marking, which could provide clues to certain social details, such as age, gender or social position. For several decades, anthropomorphic representations, namely figurines, have been interpreted as being related to the fertility and fecundity cult. The display of anatomical features encouraged this type of interpretation. For now, there is no consensus on the use of statuettes in rituals, nor how they are actually used. Moreover, it is still being discussed whether they are objects of worship, an aspect firmly stated by M. Gimbutas in several studies, while P. J. Ucko saw them as toys. D. W, Bailey considers statuettes as ways of asserting a group identity. R. Alaiba considers that the statuary ensembles were added for use in a ceremony. The presence of statuettes in Anatolian sanctuaries, in particular, was interpreted by M. I. Neagoe as being offered to the gods, brought by several people, at different times. The statuettes were seen by E. Comșa as images of ordinary people, being no representation of supernatural or divine beings. The most consistent interpretations of female statuettes are related to the ancestral image of a Mother Goddess, with the attribute of fertility and fecundity, generally associated with a mythology of the earth as a source of life, an aspect strongly supported by M. Gimbutas. However, to this day, the respective category of objects provokes a series of discussions related to their functionality. It is still difficult to say to what extent using them, or if they had a strictly apotropaic role, being related to a possible cult of fertility and fecundity. The present presentation brings into discussion the possible use of statuettes as pendants, microscopic technological observations bringing arguments in favour of this hypothesis. An indepth study of this category of objects is necessary, given the technical specificity of each case separately. Fig. 1. Figurine from Drăgușeni-Ostrov, found in the deposits of Botoșani County Museum