Chapter 2. Ways of contextualisation for anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines
29
-
Upload
uni-muenster -
Category
Documents
-
view
1 -
download
0
Transcript of Chapter 2. Ways of contextualisation for anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour in the Neolithic and Copper Age communities of South-Eastern Europe
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour in the Neolithic and Copper Age communities of South-Eastern Europe
Edited by and ȚernaConstantin-Emil Ursu Stanislav
Editura Karl A. Romstorfer, 2014Suceava
Studies into South-East European Prehistory I
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour in the Neolithic and Copper Age communities of South-Eastern Europe
Edited by and ȚernaConstantin-Emil Ursu Stanislav
Editura Karl A. Romstorfer, 2014Suceava
Studies into South-East European Prehistory I
Publication is financed by Suceava County Council through Bucovina Museum
The authors assume full responsibility of all published materials and translations
Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României URSU, CONSTANTIN-EMIL Anthropomorphism and aymbolic behaviour in the Neolithic and Copper age communities of South-Eastern Europe / Constantin-Emil Ursu, Stanislav Ţerna. - Suceava : Editura Karl A. Romstorfer, 2014 ISBN 978-606-93638-4-3
I. Stanislav, Ţerna
902(4) 903.27:73(4) 903.6(4(4)
Muzeul Bucovinei©Editura Karl A. Romstorfer, a
Stefan cel Mare street - 33, Suceava - 720003phone: 004-0230-216439; fax: 004-0230-522979
mail: [email protected]
Suceav
DTP: Iuliana Roşca
We would like to dedicate this volume to the memory of a great researcher
of prehistoric anthropomorphism in Southeast Europe, dr. Dan Monah (1943-2013)
Scientifics referents:- Prof.univ.dr. Victor Spinei, corresponding member of The Romanian Academy- Prof.univ.dr. Igor Manzura (Republic of Moldova)- Prof.univ.dr. Mykhailo Videiko (Ucraina)
Publication is financed by Suceava County Council through Bucovina Museum
The authors assume full responsibility of all published materials and translations
Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României URSU, CONSTANTIN-EMIL Anthropomorphism and aymbolic behaviour in the Neolithic and Copper age communities of South-Eastern Europe / Constantin-Emil Ursu, Stanislav Ţerna. - Suceava : Editura Karl A. Romstorfer, 2014 ISBN 978-606-93638-4-3
I. Stanislav, Ţerna
902(4) 903.27:73(4) 903.6(4(4)
Muzeul Bucovinei©Editura Karl A. Romstorfer, a
Stefan cel Mare street - 33, Suceava - 720003phone: 004-0230-216439; fax: 004-0230-522979
mail: [email protected]
Suceav
DTP: Iuliana Roşca
We would like to dedicate this volume to the memory of a great researcher
of prehistoric anthropomorphism in Southeast Europe, dr. Dan Monah (1943-2013)
Scientifics referents:- Prof.univ.dr. Victor Spinei, corresponding member of The Romanian Academy- Prof.univ.dr. Igor Manzura (Republic of Moldova)- Prof.univ.dr. Mykhailo Videiko (Ucraina)
List of contributors (in alphabetical order):
Constantin Aparaschivei, MA Restorer Bucovina MuseumSuceava, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Vera Balabina, PhDSenior research associateInstitute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of SciencesMoscow, Russian FederationEmail: [email protected]
Valeska Becker, PhDAcademic assistantWestfälische Wilhelms-Universität MünsterMünster, GermanyEmail: [email protected] Tamara Blagojević, MA PhD candidateDepartment of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of BelgradeBelgrade, SerbiaEmail: [email protected]
Dumitru Boghian, PhDAssociate professor“Ștefan cel Mare” University, Faculty of History and Geography, Department of Social and Human SciencesSuceava, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Natalia Burdo, PhDResearcherInstitute of Archaeology, National Academy of Sciences of UkraineKiev, UkraineEmail: [email protected]
Dmitri Chernovol, PhDResearcherInstitute of Archaeology, National Academy of Sciences of UkraineKiev, UkraineEmail: [email protected]
Vasile Cotiugă, PhDLector"Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of IașiIași, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Maciej Dębiec, PhDResearcherLehrstuhl für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Universität RegensburgRegensburg, GermanyEmail: [email protected]
Gheorghe Dumitroaia, PhDDirectorNeamţ County Museum ComplexPiatra Neamţ, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Liubovi Efimenko, PhDHead of DepartmentDepartment of X-ray investigations of National scientific and research centre of restorationKiev, UkraineEmail: [email protected]
Sergiu-Constantin Enea, PhDTeacher“Ion Neculce” High SchoolTârgu Frumos, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Daniela Hofmann, PhDFaculty memberArchäologisches Institut, Universität HamburgHamburg, GermanyEmail: [email protected]
Tünde Horváth, PhDIndependent researcherBudapest, HungaryEmail: [email protected]
Ciprian-Cătălin LazanuMuseographer / ArchaeologistVaslui County MuseumVaslui, Romania [email protected]
List of contributors (in alphabetical order):
Constantin Aparaschivei, MA Restorer Bucovina MuseumSuceava, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Vera Balabina, PhDSenior research associateInstitute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of SciencesMoscow, Russian FederationEmail: [email protected]
Valeska Becker, PhDAcademic assistantWestfälische Wilhelms-Universität MünsterMünster, GermanyEmail: [email protected] Tamara Blagojević, MA PhD candidateDepartment of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of BelgradeBelgrade, SerbiaEmail: [email protected]
Dumitru Boghian, PhDAssociate professor“Ștefan cel Mare” University, Faculty of History and Geography, Department of Social and Human SciencesSuceava, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Natalia Burdo, PhDResearcherInstitute of Archaeology, National Academy of Sciences of UkraineKiev, UkraineEmail: [email protected]
Dmitri Chernovol, PhDResearcherInstitute of Archaeology, National Academy of Sciences of UkraineKiev, UkraineEmail: [email protected]
Vasile Cotiugă, PhDLector"Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of IașiIași, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Maciej Dębiec, PhDResearcherLehrstuhl für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Universität RegensburgRegensburg, GermanyEmail: [email protected]
Gheorghe Dumitroaia, PhDDirectorNeamţ County Museum ComplexPiatra Neamţ, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Liubovi Efimenko, PhDHead of DepartmentDepartment of X-ray investigations of National scientific and research centre of restorationKiev, UkraineEmail: [email protected]
Sergiu-Constantin Enea, PhDTeacher“Ion Neculce” High SchoolTârgu Frumos, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Daniela Hofmann, PhDFaculty memberArchäologisches Institut, Universität HamburgHamburg, GermanyEmail: [email protected]
Tünde Horváth, PhDIndependent researcherBudapest, HungaryEmail: [email protected]
Ciprian-Cătălin LazanuMuseographer / ArchaeologistVaslui County MuseumVaslui, Romania [email protected]
Anna Shianova, PhDSenior restorerArchaeological museum of the Institute of Archaeology, National Academy of Sciences of UkraineKiev, UkraineEmail: [email protected]
Stanislav Țerna, MAResearcher“High Anthropological School“ UniversityChișinău, Republic of MoldovaEmail: [email protected]
Anamaria Tudorie, PhDAssistant ”Lucian Blaga” University of SibiuSibiu, Romania Email: [email protected]
Senica Țurcanu, PhDDirector Museum of History of Moldova, “Moldova” National Museum ComplexIași, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Constantin-Emil Ursu, PhDGeneral DirectorBucovina MuseumSuceava, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Nicolae Ursulescu, PhDProfessor emeritus"Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of IașiIași, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Jasna Vuković, PhDAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of BelgradeBelgrade, SerbiaEmail: [email protected]
Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici, PhDSenior researcherInstitute of Archaeology Iaşi, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Gheorghe Lazarovici, PhDIndependent researcher Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Sabin Adrian Luca, PhDGeneral DirectorBrukenthal National Museum/”Lucian Blaga” University of SibiuSibiu, Romania Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Adrian LucaCandidate phdBrukenthal National Museum Sibiu, Romania Email: [email protected]
Ion Mareș, PhDDirectorBucovina MuseumSuceava, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Florentina MarțișCandidate phd”Lucian Blaga” University of SibiuSibiu, Romania Email: [email protected]
Maria Mina, PhDResearch FellowDepartment of History and Archaeology, Archaeological Research Unit, University of CyprusNicosia, CyprusEmail: [email protected]
Maria Mitina, MAPostgraduate studentArt History department, Saint-Petersburg University of Humanities and Social
SciencesSaint-Petersburg, Russian FederationEmail: [email protected]
Goce Naumov, PhDResearcherArchaeological Museum of MacedoniaSkopje, Republic of MacedoniaEmail: [email protected]
Ciprian-Dorin Nicola, PhDDirectorNeamţ County Museum ComplexPiatra Neamţ, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Ilia Palaguta, PhDAssociate ProfessorArt History department, Saint-Petersburg University of Humanities and Social SciencesSaint-Petersburg, Russian FederationEmail: [email protected]
Slaviša Perić, PhDSenior researcherInstitute of ArchaeologyBelgrade, SerbiaEmail: [email protected]
Marko Porčić, PhDAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of BelgradeBelgrade, SerbiaEmail: [email protected]
Constantin Preoteasa, PhDResearcherNeamţ County Museum ComplexPiatra Neamţ, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Natalia Shevchenko, PhDHead of DepartmentDepartment of physical and chemical investigations of National scientific and research centre of restorationKiev, UkraineEmail: [email protected]
Anna Shianova, PhDSenior restorerArchaeological museum of the Institute of Archaeology, National Academy of Sciences of UkraineKiev, UkraineEmail: [email protected]
Stanislav Țerna, MAResearcher“High Anthropological School“ UniversityChișinău, Republic of MoldovaEmail: [email protected]
Anamaria Tudorie, PhDAssistant ”Lucian Blaga” University of SibiuSibiu, Romania Email: [email protected]
Senica Țurcanu, PhDDirector Museum of History of Moldova, “Moldova” National Museum ComplexIași, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Constantin-Emil Ursu, PhDGeneral DirectorBucovina MuseumSuceava, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Nicolae Ursulescu, PhDProfessor emeritus"Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of IașiIași, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Jasna Vuković, PhDAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of BelgradeBelgrade, SerbiaEmail: [email protected]
Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici, PhDSenior researcherInstitute of Archaeology Iaşi, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Gheorghe Lazarovici, PhDIndependent researcher Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Sabin Adrian Luca, PhDGeneral DirectorBrukenthal National Museum/”Lucian Blaga” University of SibiuSibiu, Romania Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Adrian LucaCandidate phdBrukenthal National Museum Sibiu, Romania Email: [email protected]
Ion Mareș, PhDDirectorBucovina MuseumSuceava, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Florentina MarțișCandidate phd”Lucian Blaga” University of SibiuSibiu, Romania Email: [email protected]
Maria Mina, PhDResearch FellowDepartment of History and Archaeology, Archaeological Research Unit, University of CyprusNicosia, CyprusEmail: [email protected]
Maria Mitina, MAPostgraduate studentArt History department, Saint-Petersburg University of Humanities and Social
SciencesSaint-Petersburg, Russian FederationEmail: [email protected]
Goce Naumov, PhDResearcherArchaeological Museum of MacedoniaSkopje, Republic of MacedoniaEmail: [email protected]
Ciprian-Dorin Nicola, PhDDirectorNeamţ County Museum ComplexPiatra Neamţ, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Ilia Palaguta, PhDAssociate ProfessorArt History department, Saint-Petersburg University of Humanities and Social SciencesSaint-Petersburg, Russian FederationEmail: [email protected]
Slaviša Perić, PhDSenior researcherInstitute of ArchaeologyBelgrade, SerbiaEmail: [email protected]
Marko Porčić, PhDAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of BelgradeBelgrade, SerbiaEmail: [email protected]
Constantin Preoteasa, PhDResearcherNeamţ County Museum ComplexPiatra Neamţ, RomaniaEmail: [email protected]
Natalia Shevchenko, PhDHead of DepartmentDepartment of physical and chemical investigations of National scientific and research centre of restorationKiev, UkraineEmail: [email protected]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1. The “Ritualistic Consecration” of the First Neolithisation in Romania. The site of Cristian I, Sibiu County. Part 4. The plastic art.
Sabin Adrian Luca, Florentina Marţiş, Anamaria Tudorie, Adrian Luca
13
Chapter 2. Ways of contextualisation for anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines
Valeska Becker 29
Chapter 3. Cast in clay. Linearbandkeramik figurines and society
Daniela Hofmann
47
Chapter 4. Figural representations from the eastern border of the Linear Pottery Culture
Valeska Becker, Maciej Dębiec 73
Chapter 5. Fragmentation, context and spatial distribution of the Late Neolithic figurines from Divostin, Serbia
Marko Porčić, Tamara Blagojević 91
Chapter 6. “Praying for Rainfall” or "hieros gamos" (about some nonverbal texts)
Vera Balabina 109
Chapter 7. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater: integrating sex in the study of Greek Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines
Maria Mina 123
Chapter 8: Together We Stand – Divided We Fall: the representation and fragmentation among Govrlevo and Zelenikovo figurines, Republic of Macedonia
Goce Naumov 161
Chapter 9: About the great religious themes of Vinča culture
Gheorghe Lazarovici, Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici
187
Chapter 10: Male figurines from Pavlovac-Čukar, Southern Serbia
Jasna Vuković, Slaviša Perić
249
Chapter 11: On the problem of the interpretation of the Neolithic anthropomorphic clay sculpture: the figurine sets — their structure, functions and analogies
Ilia Palaguta, Marya Mitina 275
Chapter 12. Anthropomorphic plastic art of Trypillia culture: dialectic of similarities and differences
Natalia Burdo 303
Chapter 13. Some considerations on a certain type of anthropomorphic idol of the Precucuteni culture
Gheorghe Dumitroaia, Constantin Preoteasa, Ciprian – Dorin Nicola
365
Chapter 14. Contributions to the knowledge of the anthropomorphic plastic art of the Precucuteni culture. The representations from the settlement of Târgu Frumos
Nicolae Ursulescu, Dumitru Boghian, Vasile Cotiugă
377
Chapter 15. The anthropomorphic plastic of Cucuteni A3 site from Tăcuta (Vaslui county)
Dumitru Boghian, Sergiu-Constantin Enea, Ciprian-Cătălin Lazanu
415
Chapter 16. The Anthropomorphic Representations from the Cucuteni site at Căşăria – Dealul Mătăhuia (Dobreni, Neamţ County)
Gheorghe Dumitroaia, Constantin-Emil Ursu
435
Chapter 17. The foundation ditch of the settlement Cucuteni A- B1 from Adâncata - Dealul Lipovanului, Suceava County. The worship complex „The Goddesses from Adâncata”
Ion Mareş, Constantin Aparaschivei 447
Chapter 18: A special anthropomorphic figurine from the tripolian site of Bernaševka: context, X-ray examination and technology
Dmitri Chernovol, Anna Shianova, Natalia Shevchenko, Liubovi Efimenko
473
Chapter 19. Notes on an anthropomorphic figurine from the multilayered site of Bilcze-Złote (Ukraine) and the development of a specific type of figurines in Southeast Europe
Stanislav Ţerna, Senica Ţurcanu
479
Chapter 20. Human depictions in the Age of Transformation, between 4000 and 2000 BC
Tünde Horváth 507
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1. The “Ritualistic Consecration” of the First Neolithisation in Romania. The site of Cristian I, Sibiu County. Part 4. The plastic art.
Sabin Adrian Luca, Florentina Marţiş, Anamaria Tudorie, Adrian Luca
13
Chapter 2. Ways of contextualisation for anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines
Valeska Becker 29
Chapter 3. Cast in clay. Linearbandkeramik figurines and society
Daniela Hofmann
47
Chapter 4. Figural representations from the eastern border of the Linear Pottery Culture
Valeska Becker, Maciej Dębiec 73
Chapter 5. Fragmentation, context and spatial distribution of the Late Neolithic figurines from Divostin, Serbia
Marko Porčić, Tamara Blagojević 91
Chapter 6. “Praying for Rainfall” or "hieros gamos" (about some nonverbal texts)
Vera Balabina 109
Chapter 7. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater: integrating sex in the study of Greek Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines
Maria Mina 123
Chapter 8: Together We Stand – Divided We Fall: the representation and fragmentation among Govrlevo and Zelenikovo figurines, Republic of Macedonia
Goce Naumov 161
Chapter 9: About the great religious themes of Vinča culture
Gheorghe Lazarovici, Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici
187
Chapter 10: Male figurines from Pavlovac-Čukar, Southern Serbia
Jasna Vuković, Slaviša Perić
249
Chapter 11: On the problem of the interpretation of the Neolithic anthropomorphic clay sculpture: the figurine sets — their structure, functions and analogies
Ilia Palaguta, Marya Mitina 275
Chapter 12. Anthropomorphic plastic art of Trypillia culture: dialectic of similarities and differences
Natalia Burdo 303
Chapter 13. Some considerations on a certain type of anthropomorphic idol of the Precucuteni culture
Gheorghe Dumitroaia, Constantin Preoteasa, Ciprian – Dorin Nicola
365
Chapter 14. Contributions to the knowledge of the anthropomorphic plastic art of the Precucuteni culture. The representations from the settlement of Târgu Frumos
Nicolae Ursulescu, Dumitru Boghian, Vasile Cotiugă
377
Chapter 15. The anthropomorphic plastic of Cucuteni A3 site from Tăcuta (Vaslui county)
Dumitru Boghian, Sergiu-Constantin Enea, Ciprian-Cătălin Lazanu
415
Chapter 16. The Anthropomorphic Representations from the Cucuteni site at Căşăria – Dealul Mătăhuia (Dobreni, Neamţ County)
Gheorghe Dumitroaia, Constantin-Emil Ursu
435
Chapter 17. The foundation ditch of the settlement Cucuteni A- B1 from Adâncata - Dealul Lipovanului, Suceava County. The worship complex „The Goddesses from Adâncata”
Ion Mareş, Constantin Aparaschivei 447
Chapter 18: A special anthropomorphic figurine from the tripolian site of Bernaševka: context, X-ray examination and technology
Dmitri Chernovol, Anna Shianova, Natalia Shevchenko, Liubovi Efimenko
473
Chapter 19. Notes on an anthropomorphic figurine from the multilayered site of Bilcze-Złote (Ukraine) and the development of a specific type of figurines in Southeast Europe
Stanislav Ţerna, Senica Ţurcanu
479
Chapter 20. Human depictions in the Age of Transformation, between 4000 and 2000 BC
Tünde Horváth 507
Chapter 2. Ways of contextualisation for anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines
Valeska Becker
AbstractStarting with the Aurignacian, men created figural representations in Europe. Anthropomorphic, but mainly zoomorphic finds from the Upper Palaeolithic were made from various materials as mobile and immobile objects and are sometimes stunningly life-like. In the Mesolithic, this phenomenon ceases to exist almost completely, and it is only with the beginning of the Neolithic that anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations are to be made anew. The paper discusses figural finds from the Neolithic in terms of their material, mobility, typology and degree of abstraction and compares them with finds from the Upper Paleolithic. An interpretation of these objects will only be possible when we take into consideration the different ways of life and the natural environments of prehistoric man in the Neolithic and former times.
KeywordsNeolithic; figural representations; contextual analysis; anthropomorphic; zoomorphic.
1. IntroductionIn the year 1789, the British Museum in London received an odd stuffed animal from
Australia: it was small, sporting a duck's bill, smooth brown fur, four feet bearing claws and webbings, and a flat tail. The British natural scientist and assisting custodian of the collections at the time, George Shaw (1751 – 1813), was confronted with the task to classify the animal in terms of taxonomy (the example is taken from Eco 2000; cf. Becker in print).
The features the animal displayed greatly challenged scientific classification. It lives primarily in and under water, lays eggs but lactates, however not by the aid of nipples which would be typical for a mammal, but with glands in the skin excreting milk. Excretion and sexual organs are connected with a cloaca. The animal was named "water-mole", "duck-bill" or "duck-mole" at first, and today is commonly known as platypus. But the problem of classification persisted and was heatedly discussed for almost fifty years: should the animal be classified as a bird for its ability to lay eggs? Or should it be termed a mammal, since it lactates?
This example illustrates a problem that also prehistorians have to grapple with: the (always subjective) selection and weighing of features when attempting to classify artifacts. The examination of features is applied for all sorts of objects, especially pottery, but also figural finds. The reason for this can be found in the history of research of this find category.
2. History of researchIn its beginnings, the investigation of prehistoric, especially Palaeolithic and Neolithic
figurines and other anthropomorphic and zoomorphic finds, is closely interwoven with the mindset of the 19th century and the social relations at the time. The family with its members, each assuming defined and definite roles was held to be a main pillar of civil society.Women's functions and duties were as a wife, Hausfrau and mother, and in Germany, for example, their dependence on their husbands was bound legally by the Civil Law Code (Röder 2001: 13). A historical legitimation of this model can be found in Johann Jakob Bachofen's book "Das Mutterrecht. Eine Untersuchung über die Gynaikokratie der alten Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen Natur" ["Mother Right: an investigation of the religious and juridical character of matriarchy in the Ancient World"] from 1861. With this study, he attempted to trace man's history of development as a succession from a matriarchal, material female to a patriarchal, mental male principle (Röder 2001: 19). The desire to reconstruct a development from the simple to the complex implicitly mirrors the influence of Charles Darwin's works in Bachofen's study and others of the time (Darwin 1859).
Especially anthropomorphic figurines were seen in the following as an expression of fertility rites, but also of a society dominated by women. Besides studies from H. Göttner-Abendroth, the books by M. Gimbutas (1921 – 1994), professor at the University of California, Los
29
Angeles, continue to have an effect until today (Chapman 1998). Her popular monographs "The Language of the Goddess" (1989) and "The Civilization of the Goddess" (1991) illustrate her theses concerning a Neolithic and Chalcolithic society with a largely female pantheon and a matriarchal society and are still widely read. According to her, figurines are representations of the First Mother or mother goddesses (cf. Hecker 2001).
Today, the typical way to analyze figural finds is an analysis of features, which is employed as the main method in continental Europe. With its emphasis on empirically reproducable and measurable characteristics, it is an answer to the strongly criticized and subjective theses of M. Gimbutas and others mentioned above. Explicitly, this method is used for figurines of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic, discussing features like the context, manufacturing technique, size, surface treatment, decoration, colour, sex, posture, fragmentation and distribution in time and space (cf. Hansen 2007; Podborský 1985; Marangou 1992; Biehl 1996).
In the English-speaking countries, however, priority is given to developing a model which is then checked with the material record (Bailey 2005; Lesure 2011). Conclusions by analogy and the use of ethnographic parallels are often applied, and problems discussed concern the use and application of figurines, concepts of the body and identity.
Most of the methods mentioned above are applied to Neolithic and Chalcolithic figurines. It is, however, far more difficult to give an overview of the ways of interpretation for Palaeolithic figural art, for the quantity and diversity of the Palaeolithic representations exceed those of younger times by far. Similarly to Neolithic figurines, however, Palaeolithic anthropomorphic figurines are often interpreted as symbols of fertility (Kühn 1950: 1640). This interpretation has been viewed critically since the 1960ies but is still put forward, now sometimes extended to cover also erotic aspects (Leroi-Gourhan 1981: 137-139; Feustel 1971; Neumann 1985; Cook 2004; for an up-to-date discussion of theories in Germany cf. Porr 2013). For other figural representations, especially parietal art, religious aspects are stressed, such as hunting magic, shamanistic rituals, initiation ceremonies, tests of courage and more abstract concepts such as the wish to influence animals, the symbolical encounter with the natural environment and the meaningful act of drawing (Floss 2009: 238-239; Hildebrandt 2011).
3. Figural representations in the European Neolithic3.1 Problems and questions (fig. 1)In the following, the figural representations of the Neolithic will be regarded in terms of
their material, mobility and immobility, the degree of abstraction and also their use. In order to elaborate these features, they will be compared to figural representations from the Upper Palaeolithic (with a focus on the Magdalenian) to establish similarities and differences and to relate them to the respective living conditions and the natural environment of the time. The selection of these two periods is due to the fact that in the Upper Palaeolithic, especially in the Magdalenian (ca. 18.000 – 12.000 calBC), we note the heyday of Palaeolithic figural art between Spain in the west and Slovakia in the east, although men had been creating figural representations since the Aurignacian. The Azilian following the Magdalenian (ca. 12.000 – 9.600 calBC), however, is marked by tendencies of stylization and simplification and an almost complete absence of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations. For the Central European Mesolithic (9.600 – 5.600 calBC), likewise only very few figural representations are known, and it is only with the beginning of the Neolithic in Central Europe that such depictions occur anew.
For the anthropomorphic and zoomorphic finds of the Neolithic in Central Europe, it is especially the Linear Pottery Culture which has to be mentioned (5.600 – 4.900 calBC; cf. for the figural finds Schwarzberg 2011; Becker 2011). It is distributed between the Paris Basin and Ukraine, touches the North German Lowlands in the north and reaches Lake Balaton in the south-east. In the centuries following the Linear Pottery Culture, the tradition of figurine-making ceases in the western part of the distribution area whereas it rises to new heights in Lower Austria,
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
Moravia, Hungary and Slovakia in the Lengyel Culture (ca. 4900/4.800 – 4.300/4.200 calBC; cf. for absolute dates Gleser 2012: 36 ff. and for figural finds e. g. Podborský 1985; Berg, Maurer 1998; Ilon 2007). In terms of quantity of figural finds, the Vinča Culture (5.400 – 4.400 calBC) of Serbia, west Romania, east Bosnia and south Hungary can be compared as well (cf., e. g., Vasić 1936). Finally, the Tisza Culture along the river Tisza and its confluent rivers has to be mentioned.
The following considerations produce a couple of difficulties which have to be discussed beforehand. It is evident that the Magdalenian's span of ca. four thousand years is compared to the Neolithic lasting only for one thousand years. Therefore, all quantitative comparisons are out of the question. Furthermore, the sheer quantity of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations in the Upper Palaeolithic demands for a narrowing down. In this study, the sites of Lascaux and La Marche will be used as examples for an early phase within the Magdalenian, whereas Gönnersdorf, Altamira and Niaux will be used for the more developped phases (cf. Tosello 2003; Beltrán et al. 1998; Clottes 1997; Vialou 1986; Leroi-Gourhan, Allain 1979; Duhard 1993; Mélard 2008; Mélard 2010.).
Another problem is the occurrence of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic finds in the Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic. Magdalenian sites are widely found, from France and Spain in the west to the Czech Republic and Slovakia in the east, but anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations, especially parietal art, occur mainly in France and the Iberian peninsula. West Germany is represented by the sites of Andernach and Gönnersdorf, but the eastern half of the distribution area is almost completely void of figural finds. On the other hand, most anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations of the Neolithic occur in Central and South-East Europe, therefore both areas exclude each other largely. Overlaps can be found only in Central Europe.
And finally, we have to consider that the conditions for the survival of figural finds surely contort our view in many aspects. Finds made from organic material are mostly amiss and can be postulated for both periods. Figural finds made from wood, leather and other organic materials, but also all objects subject to erosion, alluvial processes et cetera are lost for further studies.
Despite all these difficulties, a comparison between anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations of these two periods may prove beneficial. A comprehensive view may reveal similarities and differences more distinctly and help to shed a light on the interpretation of this find category which will be regarded with respect to their different features in the following.
3.2 Features on anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations (figs. 2-7)Most of the methods mentioned above are applied to Neolithic and Chalcolithic figurines.
It is, however, far more difficult to give an overview of the ways of interpretation for Palaeolithic figural art, for the quantity and diversity of the Palaeolithic representation exceeds those
Manufacturing techniquesObviously, the techniques employed when making figural representations can give an
insight into mechanical skills, but also into the deliberate choice of one material over another, which poses new questions. Palaeolithic art was fashioned using an abundance of different techniques on rock, jewellery, tools and weapons, such as painting, engraving, relief, scratching and incising, picking and also combinations of the above (Floss 2009: 237-238). Figurines are three-dimensional and quite rare, figural vessels are unknown.
In the Linear Pottery Culture, paint was not used for figural representations, although colour (incrustation) is employed as a means of decoration for vessels and as a decoration on figural finds. In the south Italian early and middle Neolithic and in the late Neolithic Tisza Culture in Hungary, however, colour (mostly brown and red) was used to draw anthropomorphic representations on the inside of vessels (e. g. Gorgoglione et al. 2013; Manfredini 1972: 115 fig. 45, 6). Other techniques used to realize anthropomorphic representations in the LPC are incisings, applications, figurines and vessels (cf. Becker 2011; Schwarzberg 2011).
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
30 31
Angeles, continue to have an effect until today (Chapman 1998). Her popular monographs "The Language of the Goddess" (1989) and "The Civilization of the Goddess" (1991) illustrate her theses concerning a Neolithic and Chalcolithic society with a largely female pantheon and a matriarchal society and are still widely read. According to her, figurines are representations of the First Mother or mother goddesses (cf. Hecker 2001).
Today, the typical way to analyze figural finds is an analysis of features, which is employed as the main method in continental Europe. With its emphasis on empirically reproducable and measurable characteristics, it is an answer to the strongly criticized and subjective theses of M. Gimbutas and others mentioned above. Explicitly, this method is used for figurines of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic, discussing features like the context, manufacturing technique, size, surface treatment, decoration, colour, sex, posture, fragmentation and distribution in time and space (cf. Hansen 2007; Podborský 1985; Marangou 1992; Biehl 1996).
In the English-speaking countries, however, priority is given to developing a model which is then checked with the material record (Bailey 2005; Lesure 2011). Conclusions by analogy and the use of ethnographic parallels are often applied, and problems discussed concern the use and application of figurines, concepts of the body and identity.
Most of the methods mentioned above are applied to Neolithic and Chalcolithic figurines. It is, however, far more difficult to give an overview of the ways of interpretation for Palaeolithic figural art, for the quantity and diversity of the Palaeolithic representations exceed those of younger times by far. Similarly to Neolithic figurines, however, Palaeolithic anthropomorphic figurines are often interpreted as symbols of fertility (Kühn 1950: 1640). This interpretation has been viewed critically since the 1960ies but is still put forward, now sometimes extended to cover also erotic aspects (Leroi-Gourhan 1981: 137-139; Feustel 1971; Neumann 1985; Cook 2004; for an up-to-date discussion of theories in Germany cf. Porr 2013). For other figural representations, especially parietal art, religious aspects are stressed, such as hunting magic, shamanistic rituals, initiation ceremonies, tests of courage and more abstract concepts such as the wish to influence animals, the symbolical encounter with the natural environment and the meaningful act of drawing (Floss 2009: 238-239; Hildebrandt 2011).
3. Figural representations in the European Neolithic3.1 Problems and questions (fig. 1)In the following, the figural representations of the Neolithic will be regarded in terms of
their material, mobility and immobility, the degree of abstraction and also their use. In order to elaborate these features, they will be compared to figural representations from the Upper Palaeolithic (with a focus on the Magdalenian) to establish similarities and differences and to relate them to the respective living conditions and the natural environment of the time. The selection of these two periods is due to the fact that in the Upper Palaeolithic, especially in the Magdalenian (ca. 18.000 – 12.000 calBC), we note the heyday of Palaeolithic figural art between Spain in the west and Slovakia in the east, although men had been creating figural representations since the Aurignacian. The Azilian following the Magdalenian (ca. 12.000 – 9.600 calBC), however, is marked by tendencies of stylization and simplification and an almost complete absence of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations. For the Central European Mesolithic (9.600 – 5.600 calBC), likewise only very few figural representations are known, and it is only with the beginning of the Neolithic in Central Europe that such depictions occur anew.
For the anthropomorphic and zoomorphic finds of the Neolithic in Central Europe, it is especially the Linear Pottery Culture which has to be mentioned (5.600 – 4.900 calBC; cf. for the figural finds Schwarzberg 2011; Becker 2011). It is distributed between the Paris Basin and Ukraine, touches the North German Lowlands in the north and reaches Lake Balaton in the south-east. In the centuries following the Linear Pottery Culture, the tradition of figurine-making ceases in the western part of the distribution area whereas it rises to new heights in Lower Austria,
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
Moravia, Hungary and Slovakia in the Lengyel Culture (ca. 4900/4.800 – 4.300/4.200 calBC; cf. for absolute dates Gleser 2012: 36 ff. and for figural finds e. g. Podborský 1985; Berg, Maurer 1998; Ilon 2007). In terms of quantity of figural finds, the Vinča Culture (5.400 – 4.400 calBC) of Serbia, west Romania, east Bosnia and south Hungary can be compared as well (cf., e. g., Vasić 1936). Finally, the Tisza Culture along the river Tisza and its confluent rivers has to be mentioned.
The following considerations produce a couple of difficulties which have to be discussed beforehand. It is evident that the Magdalenian's span of ca. four thousand years is compared to the Neolithic lasting only for one thousand years. Therefore, all quantitative comparisons are out of the question. Furthermore, the sheer quantity of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations in the Upper Palaeolithic demands for a narrowing down. In this study, the sites of Lascaux and La Marche will be used as examples for an early phase within the Magdalenian, whereas Gönnersdorf, Altamira and Niaux will be used for the more developped phases (cf. Tosello 2003; Beltrán et al. 1998; Clottes 1997; Vialou 1986; Leroi-Gourhan, Allain 1979; Duhard 1993; Mélard 2008; Mélard 2010.).
Another problem is the occurrence of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic finds in the Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic. Magdalenian sites are widely found, from France and Spain in the west to the Czech Republic and Slovakia in the east, but anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations, especially parietal art, occur mainly in France and the Iberian peninsula. West Germany is represented by the sites of Andernach and Gönnersdorf, but the eastern half of the distribution area is almost completely void of figural finds. On the other hand, most anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations of the Neolithic occur in Central and South-East Europe, therefore both areas exclude each other largely. Overlaps can be found only in Central Europe.
And finally, we have to consider that the conditions for the survival of figural finds surely contort our view in many aspects. Finds made from organic material are mostly amiss and can be postulated for both periods. Figural finds made from wood, leather and other organic materials, but also all objects subject to erosion, alluvial processes et cetera are lost for further studies.
Despite all these difficulties, a comparison between anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations of these two periods may prove beneficial. A comprehensive view may reveal similarities and differences more distinctly and help to shed a light on the interpretation of this find category which will be regarded with respect to their different features in the following.
3.2 Features on anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations (figs. 2-7)Most of the methods mentioned above are applied to Neolithic and Chalcolithic figurines.
It is, however, far more difficult to give an overview of the ways of interpretation for Palaeolithic figural art, for the quantity and diversity of the Palaeolithic representation exceeds those
Manufacturing techniquesObviously, the techniques employed when making figural representations can give an
insight into mechanical skills, but also into the deliberate choice of one material over another, which poses new questions. Palaeolithic art was fashioned using an abundance of different techniques on rock, jewellery, tools and weapons, such as painting, engraving, relief, scratching and incising, picking and also combinations of the above (Floss 2009: 237-238). Figurines are three-dimensional and quite rare, figural vessels are unknown.
In the Linear Pottery Culture, paint was not used for figural representations, although colour (incrustation) is employed as a means of decoration for vessels and as a decoration on figural finds. In the south Italian early and middle Neolithic and in the late Neolithic Tisza Culture in Hungary, however, colour (mostly brown and red) was used to draw anthropomorphic representations on the inside of vessels (e. g. Gorgoglione et al. 2013; Manfredini 1972: 115 fig. 45, 6). Other techniques used to realize anthropomorphic representations in the LPC are incisings, applications, figurines and vessels (cf. Becker 2011; Schwarzberg 2011).
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
30 31
TypologyUpper Palaeolithic figural finds are dominated by zoomorphic representations, whereas
anthropomorphic ones are much rarer. They display a wide range from stylized to very realistic images (cf. Mélard 2010). Besides anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations, there are also hybrids, half man, half animal (Floss 2010; Müller-Beck 2010). Zoomorphic representations display the highest variety, comprising large mammals such as bison, horse, reindeer, ibex, cave lion and mammoth but also more unusual animals like wolverine, seal, birds, fish and insects (cf. Floss 2009: 238). The animals are displayed mostly in peace, i. e. not in attack or flight (Serangeli 2009: 244-246). Finally, there are symbolical images like dots, grids, hooks and others.
In the Neolithic, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations are also very numerous, but in contrast to the Upper Palaeolithic, anthropomorphic depictions outnumber the zoomorphic ones by far (Becker 2007; Becker 2011). Hybrids of men and animals occur, but rarely. Scenic depictions are unknown up to today. However, there are certainly signs and symbols which can be found as decorative elements on vessels.
MaterialThe variety of materials for anthropo- and zoomorphic representations in the Palaeolithic
greatly exceeds that of the Neolithic. Colour, stone, clay, bone and ivory were used, whereas colour is quite rare in the Neolithic. Stone, ivory and bone figurines are absent or almost absent in the archaeological record, and ivory was not available. Most anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations were made from clay.
Size/MobilitySize resp. mobility of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations may be used to
gain insight into their meanings and uses. Featuring contours découpés, figurines and figural representations on weapons and tools, a large proportion of figural objects in the Palaeolithic is undoubtedly mobile. On the other hand, incisions on heavy stone slabs and wall paintings in caves and abris are immobile. In such locations, miniaturised as well as life-sized and larger-than-life representations can be found, whereas portable objects are always miniaturised figural representations.
Neither life-sized nor larger-than-life anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations are known in the LPC, although at least one probably 0.5 m large figurine from Mašovice, dating to the Lengyel culture (unpublished), clearly shows that maybe larger figurines existed as well. Rather, most figurines and other figural representations on vessels are miniaturized and therefore portable. It is very interesting that in this respect, a contradiction between the mobility of persons and figurines occurs: whereas we know only portable, mobile figural finds from the sedentary people living in the Neolithic, the non-sedentary hunter-gatherers from the Palaeolithic also created immobile anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations.
Context I: "Micro-context"The headword "micro-context" can be used to describe the small-scale positioning of
anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations. In the Palaeolithic, for example, they can be found detached from other objects, but also connected to jewellery, tools and weapons, stone slabs for working and on walls and roofs of caves.
In the Neolithic, figural representations are likewise detached. Furthermore, they can be found on vessels, connected with preparing, serving or storing food, as applications, incisions or very rarely as paintings. Other objects of daily life, such as tools, are void of figural representations. Due to the problem of conservation, we do not know whether they were also part of walls or roofs of houses.
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
Context II: "Meso-context"The "meso-context" implies the association of single anthropomorphic and zoomorphic
finds with each other. For example, Palaeolithic anthropo- and zoomorphic representations can be found individually, especially as figurines or contours découpés. However, combinations of representations with a similar or different content occur much more frequently, for instance identical or different species of animals or animals and humans; there might have been contained a hidden system or message in the combinations, as was discussed by A. Leroi-Gourhan (Leroi-Gourhan 1981: 108-113). A special type of such combinations concern scenic representations.
In the Neolithic, single representations come to the fore. Figurines, which constitute a large proportion of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations, occur mainly as single finds in settlements of the Linear Pottery Culture. Even if more than one figurine was found, the specimens cannot be related to each other. In the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Vinča Culture, some sites yielded dozens, even hundreds of figurines (e. g. in Supska-"Stublina", Predionica or Crnokalačka Bara: cf. Becker 2011: 280 with references), but again they do not interact with each other. As always, there are exemptions to that rule, like the so-called "cultic scene" from Ovčarovo, Bulgaria (Todorova 1982: 67-71) with four female figurines, three small tables, nine chairs, three miniature vessels with lids, two larger bowls and three possible drums. However, the sense of the ensemble is enigmatic. The figurines might represent priestesses or else ordinary people, the chairs and tables could be from a cultic or a profane building, and the meaning of the drum-like objects is unclear as well.
Repetitions of the same face can be seen on some face vessels from the Linear Pottery Culture, a feature that occurs likewise with anthropomorphic applications and incisions (e. g. in Vinča, Pavlovac, Biatorbágy or Budapest: Schwarzberg 2011: Taf. 76 and 83; in Vedrovice or Praha: Becker 2011: Taf. 88: 1 and Taf. 102: 9).
Context III: "Macro-context"Finally, the macro-context of a figural representation has to be analyzed. This is to shed
light on the features that anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations come from. In the Palaeolithic, the original situation is most likely contorted, since many hunting sites at which figural representations were surely used are unknown today due to bad preservation. Rather, most figurines, reliefs, incisions and paintings are known from caves, where especially paintings and engravings can occur from the entrances to a depth of more than one kilometer (Leroi-Gourhan 1981: 101).
In the Neolithic, namely in Italy, caves were used, but figural finds are rare or absent altogether (cf. Grifoni Cremonesi, Pedrotti 2012). Rather, they are part of regular settlement rubbish in pits and wells, and not much can be said about their original placement. Most likely, they were used in a domestic context, for special architecture is unknown in the Linear Pottery Culture or its neighboring cultures.
Degree of abstractionThe determination of the degree of abstraction allows conclusions about an orientation
by nature or a more or less pronounced stylization. A classification, however, is afflicted with subjectivity, and it might prove difficult to draw exact lines between highly or less stylized figural representations.
The Palaeolithic, especially the Magdalenian, offers excellent examples both for markedly realistic anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations, but also for slightly and highly stylized examples (cf. e. g. the very realistic representations from La Marche, France, or the more stylized figurines from Gönnersdorf, Germany: Mélard 2010: 37-38.).
In the Neolithic, however, naturalistic representations are almost completely amiss. Zoomorphic figurines, handles or applications are often stylized, so it is impossible to determine the species (Becker 2007). Some examples are slightly more realistic and allow a classification as
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
32 33
TypologyUpper Palaeolithic figural finds are dominated by zoomorphic representations, whereas
anthropomorphic ones are much rarer. They display a wide range from stylized to very realistic images (cf. Mélard 2010). Besides anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations, there are also hybrids, half man, half animal (Floss 2010; Müller-Beck 2010). Zoomorphic representations display the highest variety, comprising large mammals such as bison, horse, reindeer, ibex, cave lion and mammoth but also more unusual animals like wolverine, seal, birds, fish and insects (cf. Floss 2009: 238). The animals are displayed mostly in peace, i. e. not in attack or flight (Serangeli 2009: 244-246). Finally, there are symbolical images like dots, grids, hooks and others.
In the Neolithic, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations are also very numerous, but in contrast to the Upper Palaeolithic, anthropomorphic depictions outnumber the zoomorphic ones by far (Becker 2007; Becker 2011). Hybrids of men and animals occur, but rarely. Scenic depictions are unknown up to today. However, there are certainly signs and symbols which can be found as decorative elements on vessels.
MaterialThe variety of materials for anthropo- and zoomorphic representations in the Palaeolithic
greatly exceeds that of the Neolithic. Colour, stone, clay, bone and ivory were used, whereas colour is quite rare in the Neolithic. Stone, ivory and bone figurines are absent or almost absent in the archaeological record, and ivory was not available. Most anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations were made from clay.
Size/MobilitySize resp. mobility of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations may be used to
gain insight into their meanings and uses. Featuring contours découpés, figurines and figural representations on weapons and tools, a large proportion of figural objects in the Palaeolithic is undoubtedly mobile. On the other hand, incisions on heavy stone slabs and wall paintings in caves and abris are immobile. In such locations, miniaturised as well as life-sized and larger-than-life representations can be found, whereas portable objects are always miniaturised figural representations.
Neither life-sized nor larger-than-life anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations are known in the LPC, although at least one probably 0.5 m large figurine from Mašovice, dating to the Lengyel culture (unpublished), clearly shows that maybe larger figurines existed as well. Rather, most figurines and other figural representations on vessels are miniaturized and therefore portable. It is very interesting that in this respect, a contradiction between the mobility of persons and figurines occurs: whereas we know only portable, mobile figural finds from the sedentary people living in the Neolithic, the non-sedentary hunter-gatherers from the Palaeolithic also created immobile anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations.
Context I: "Micro-context"The headword "micro-context" can be used to describe the small-scale positioning of
anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations. In the Palaeolithic, for example, they can be found detached from other objects, but also connected to jewellery, tools and weapons, stone slabs for working and on walls and roofs of caves.
In the Neolithic, figural representations are likewise detached. Furthermore, they can be found on vessels, connected with preparing, serving or storing food, as applications, incisions or very rarely as paintings. Other objects of daily life, such as tools, are void of figural representations. Due to the problem of conservation, we do not know whether they were also part of walls or roofs of houses.
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
Context II: "Meso-context"The "meso-context" implies the association of single anthropomorphic and zoomorphic
finds with each other. For example, Palaeolithic anthropo- and zoomorphic representations can be found individually, especially as figurines or contours découpés. However, combinations of representations with a similar or different content occur much more frequently, for instance identical or different species of animals or animals and humans; there might have been contained a hidden system or message in the combinations, as was discussed by A. Leroi-Gourhan (Leroi-Gourhan 1981: 108-113). A special type of such combinations concern scenic representations.
In the Neolithic, single representations come to the fore. Figurines, which constitute a large proportion of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations, occur mainly as single finds in settlements of the Linear Pottery Culture. Even if more than one figurine was found, the specimens cannot be related to each other. In the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Vinča Culture, some sites yielded dozens, even hundreds of figurines (e. g. in Supska-"Stublina", Predionica or Crnokalačka Bara: cf. Becker 2011: 280 with references), but again they do not interact with each other. As always, there are exemptions to that rule, like the so-called "cultic scene" from Ovčarovo, Bulgaria (Todorova 1982: 67-71) with four female figurines, three small tables, nine chairs, three miniature vessels with lids, two larger bowls and three possible drums. However, the sense of the ensemble is enigmatic. The figurines might represent priestesses or else ordinary people, the chairs and tables could be from a cultic or a profane building, and the meaning of the drum-like objects is unclear as well.
Repetitions of the same face can be seen on some face vessels from the Linear Pottery Culture, a feature that occurs likewise with anthropomorphic applications and incisions (e. g. in Vinča, Pavlovac, Biatorbágy or Budapest: Schwarzberg 2011: Taf. 76 and 83; in Vedrovice or Praha: Becker 2011: Taf. 88: 1 and Taf. 102: 9).
Context III: "Macro-context"Finally, the macro-context of a figural representation has to be analyzed. This is to shed
light on the features that anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations come from. In the Palaeolithic, the original situation is most likely contorted, since many hunting sites at which figural representations were surely used are unknown today due to bad preservation. Rather, most figurines, reliefs, incisions and paintings are known from caves, where especially paintings and engravings can occur from the entrances to a depth of more than one kilometer (Leroi-Gourhan 1981: 101).
In the Neolithic, namely in Italy, caves were used, but figural finds are rare or absent altogether (cf. Grifoni Cremonesi, Pedrotti 2012). Rather, they are part of regular settlement rubbish in pits and wells, and not much can be said about their original placement. Most likely, they were used in a domestic context, for special architecture is unknown in the Linear Pottery Culture or its neighboring cultures.
Degree of abstractionThe determination of the degree of abstraction allows conclusions about an orientation
by nature or a more or less pronounced stylization. A classification, however, is afflicted with subjectivity, and it might prove difficult to draw exact lines between highly or less stylized figural representations.
The Palaeolithic, especially the Magdalenian, offers excellent examples both for markedly realistic anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations, but also for slightly and highly stylized examples (cf. e. g. the very realistic representations from La Marche, France, or the more stylized figurines from Gönnersdorf, Germany: Mélard 2010: 37-38.).
In the Neolithic, however, naturalistic representations are almost completely amiss. Zoomorphic figurines, handles or applications are often stylized, so it is impossible to determine the species (Becker 2007). Some examples are slightly more realistic and allow a classification as
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
32 33
various representatives of domestic animals (cattle, pig, sheep, goat). The anthropomorphic representations are also very much stylized: a determination of age or sex is often not possible.
4. Conclusions (fig. 8)Certainly it would be possible to regard various other features such as the state of
preservation of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations, exact circumstances of the deposition, traces of use, decorations et cetera. As mentioned above, every selection of certain features is subjective and afflicted with problems. Even the feature "anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representation" may be a reason for criticism, for the examples gathered here may have had very diverse meanings which are not feasible for us any more.
In the Upper Palaeolithic, much more zoomorphic than anthropomorphic representations are known. They were manufactured from all detectable materials and in a large variety of different techniques, miniaturized, life-sized or larger-than-life. Animal representations accompanied men during hunting and their daily life, adorned their clothes and could be seen on weapons, tools and working slabs. Modelled, engraved and painted, however, they appeared also in the darkness and depth of caves, at places which are certainly not connected to daily life but to religious belief. Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations occur in a range of different stylizations and comprise naturalistic depictions and proper "portraits" as well as highly stylized, sketch-like examples.
In the Neolithic, however, proportionally more anthropomorphic representations are known than zoomorphic ones. They were manufactured almost exclusively in clay, the new raw material of this epoch. For anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations alike, we are confronted with a high degree of abstraction, which impedes the determination of the species regarding the animals and age and sex for the anthropomorphic ones. All figural representations are miniaturized.
A view at the different living conditions of the people from the Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic may help to explain the differences in the way of rendering anthropomorphic and zoomorphic depictions. In the Upper Palaeolithic, life with and from animals had high priority. Animals posed an important food source, their flesh, fat and blood was crucial for survival. Their bones, teeth, sinews, pelts, skin and entrails posed important raw materials for clothes, jewellery, weapons, tools – and figural representations. Their absence posed a danger, as their approach in hunt. At the same time, a careful study of animals choosing certain herbs and grasses in sickness might ensure survival during one's own sickness. These reasons, and many more, might have been a catalyst for depicting animals in any size and degree of abstraction, as diverse the original aims might have been. Detailed depictions of single body parts, motion studies, miniaturized animals worn close to the body or on clothes, and animals larger than life with accentuated single features at unaccessible places reflect a wide variety of beliefs ranging from religious feelings to almost scientific interest. Men as representations have only an inferior position.
In the Neolithic, however, anthropomorphic representations are by far more frequent. Animals certainly still served as sources for raw material for clothes, jewellery and tools, and as in the Upper Palaeolithic, they were an important source for food. But the difference now is that due to domestication, their survival depended now on man. They had lost their fierceness and danger as well as their elusiveness and were always available to be used and killed if necessary. This might be the reason for the seemingly careless, highly stylized zoomorphic representations of the Neolithic and the shift of importance to anthropomorphic representations.
After a long and heated discussion between different researchers and biologists, the platypus was finally classified as a mammal in 1844 (Eco 2000: 285), which was later confirmed by DNA analysis and fossil finds. Understanding concerning the interpretation of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations cannot be expected with this kind of certainty. But maybe the thoughts voiced above can inspire a fresh study of figural
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
representations, a find category that has not lost its fascination for scholars until today.
Bibliography
Altuna J. 1996. Ekain und Altxerri bei San Sebastian. Zwei altsteinzeitliche Bilderhöhlen im spanischen Baskenland. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag.
Bachofen J. J. 1861. Das Mutterrecht. Eine Untersuchung über die Gynaikokratie der alten Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen Natur. Stuttgart: Verlag von Krais & Hoffmann.
Bailey D. W. 2005. Prehistoric Figurines. Representation and Corporeality in the Neolithic. New York: Routledge.
Becker V. 2007. Rinder, Schweine, Mischwesen. Zoomorphe Funde der westlichen Linearbandkeramik. In: Gleser R. (Hrsg.), Zwischen Mosel und Morava – Neue Grabungen und Forschungen zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas. Saarbrücker Studien und Materialien 11, 2007, 9-95.
Becker V. 2011. Anthropomorphe Plastik der westlichen Linearbandkeramik. Saarbrücker Beiträge 83. Bonn: Habelt Verlag.
Becker V. in print. Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede bildlicher Darstellungen zwischen Jungpaläolithikum und Neolithikum. Archäologie Diagonal in print.
Beltrán A., Bernaldo de Quirós F., Lasheras Corruchaga J. A., Múzquiz Pérez-Seoane M. 1998. Altamira. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag.
Berg F., Maurer H. 1998. Idole. Kunst und Kult im Waldviertel vor 7000 Jahren. Ausstellungskat. Höbarthmuseum Horn. Horn: Museumsverein.
Biehl P. F. 1996. Studien zum Symbolgut des Neolithikums und der Kupferzeit in Südosteuropa. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 64. Bonn: Habelt Verlag.
Bosinski G. 2009. Kunst immer dabei. Bewegliche Kunstobjekte des Magdalénien. In: Rau, S., Naumann D., Barth M. (Red.), Eiszeit. Kunst und Kultur. Begleitband zur Großen Landesausstellung Eiszeit – Kunst und Kultur im Kunstgebäude Stuttgart, 18. September 2009 bis 10. Januar 2010. Ostfildern: Theiss Verlag, 295-302.
Chapman J. 1998. The impact of modern invasions and migrations on archaeological explanation. A biographical sketch of Marija Gimbutas. In: Diaz-Andreu M., Stig Sorensen M. L. (eds.), Excavating Women. A history of women in European archaeology. London: Roudledge, 295-314.
Clottes J. 1997. Niaux. Die altsteinzeitlichen Bilderhöhlen in der Ariège. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag.
Cook J. 2004. Vom Mutterleib zum Sexualpartner. Sexuelle Bildsprache in der Kunst der Altsteinzeit. In: van Wilsteren V., Weiss R. M. (Hrsg.), 100.000 Jahre Sex. Über Liebe, Fruchtbarkeit und Wollust. Hamburg: Helms Museum, 6-13.
Darwin C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street.
Duhard J.-P. 1993. Réalisme de l'image féminine paléolithique. Cahiers du Quaternaire 19. Paris: Éditions de Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
Eco U. 2000. Kant und das Schnabeltier. München, Wien: Carl Hanser Verlag.Feustel R. 1971. Sexuologische Reflexionen über jungpaläolithische Objekte. Alt-Thüringen
(11), 7-46.Floss H. 2009. Die frühesten Bildwerke der Menschheit. Das Phänomen Eiszeitkunst. In:
Rau, S., Naumann D., Barth M. (Red.), Eiszeit. Kunst und Kultur. Begleitband zur Großen Landesausstellung Eiszeit – Kunst und Kultur im Kunstgebäude Stuttgart, 18. September 2009 bis 10. Januar 2010. Ostfildern: Theiss Verlag, 228-241.
Floss H. 2010. Verborgene Gesichter – Masken und Verkleidungen der Alt- und Mittelsteinzeit. In: Meller H., Maraszek R. (Hrsg.), Masken der Vorzeit in Europa (I). Internationale Tagung vom 20. bis 22. November 2009 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
34 35
various representatives of domestic animals (cattle, pig, sheep, goat). The anthropomorphic representations are also very much stylized: a determination of age or sex is often not possible.
4. Conclusions (fig. 8)Certainly it would be possible to regard various other features such as the state of
preservation of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations, exact circumstances of the deposition, traces of use, decorations et cetera. As mentioned above, every selection of certain features is subjective and afflicted with problems. Even the feature "anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representation" may be a reason for criticism, for the examples gathered here may have had very diverse meanings which are not feasible for us any more.
In the Upper Palaeolithic, much more zoomorphic than anthropomorphic representations are known. They were manufactured from all detectable materials and in a large variety of different techniques, miniaturized, life-sized or larger-than-life. Animal representations accompanied men during hunting and their daily life, adorned their clothes and could be seen on weapons, tools and working slabs. Modelled, engraved and painted, however, they appeared also in the darkness and depth of caves, at places which are certainly not connected to daily life but to religious belief. Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations occur in a range of different stylizations and comprise naturalistic depictions and proper "portraits" as well as highly stylized, sketch-like examples.
In the Neolithic, however, proportionally more anthropomorphic representations are known than zoomorphic ones. They were manufactured almost exclusively in clay, the new raw material of this epoch. For anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations alike, we are confronted with a high degree of abstraction, which impedes the determination of the species regarding the animals and age and sex for the anthropomorphic ones. All figural representations are miniaturized.
A view at the different living conditions of the people from the Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic may help to explain the differences in the way of rendering anthropomorphic and zoomorphic depictions. In the Upper Palaeolithic, life with and from animals had high priority. Animals posed an important food source, their flesh, fat and blood was crucial for survival. Their bones, teeth, sinews, pelts, skin and entrails posed important raw materials for clothes, jewellery, weapons, tools – and figural representations. Their absence posed a danger, as their approach in hunt. At the same time, a careful study of animals choosing certain herbs and grasses in sickness might ensure survival during one's own sickness. These reasons, and many more, might have been a catalyst for depicting animals in any size and degree of abstraction, as diverse the original aims might have been. Detailed depictions of single body parts, motion studies, miniaturized animals worn close to the body or on clothes, and animals larger than life with accentuated single features at unaccessible places reflect a wide variety of beliefs ranging from religious feelings to almost scientific interest. Men as representations have only an inferior position.
In the Neolithic, however, anthropomorphic representations are by far more frequent. Animals certainly still served as sources for raw material for clothes, jewellery and tools, and as in the Upper Palaeolithic, they were an important source for food. But the difference now is that due to domestication, their survival depended now on man. They had lost their fierceness and danger as well as their elusiveness and were always available to be used and killed if necessary. This might be the reason for the seemingly careless, highly stylized zoomorphic representations of the Neolithic and the shift of importance to anthropomorphic representations.
After a long and heated discussion between different researchers and biologists, the platypus was finally classified as a mammal in 1844 (Eco 2000: 285), which was later confirmed by DNA analysis and fossil finds. Understanding concerning the interpretation of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations cannot be expected with this kind of certainty. But maybe the thoughts voiced above can inspire a fresh study of figural
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
representations, a find category that has not lost its fascination for scholars until today.
Bibliography
Altuna J. 1996. Ekain und Altxerri bei San Sebastian. Zwei altsteinzeitliche Bilderhöhlen im spanischen Baskenland. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag.
Bachofen J. J. 1861. Das Mutterrecht. Eine Untersuchung über die Gynaikokratie der alten Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen Natur. Stuttgart: Verlag von Krais & Hoffmann.
Bailey D. W. 2005. Prehistoric Figurines. Representation and Corporeality in the Neolithic. New York: Routledge.
Becker V. 2007. Rinder, Schweine, Mischwesen. Zoomorphe Funde der westlichen Linearbandkeramik. In: Gleser R. (Hrsg.), Zwischen Mosel und Morava – Neue Grabungen und Forschungen zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas. Saarbrücker Studien und Materialien 11, 2007, 9-95.
Becker V. 2011. Anthropomorphe Plastik der westlichen Linearbandkeramik. Saarbrücker Beiträge 83. Bonn: Habelt Verlag.
Becker V. in print. Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede bildlicher Darstellungen zwischen Jungpaläolithikum und Neolithikum. Archäologie Diagonal in print.
Beltrán A., Bernaldo de Quirós F., Lasheras Corruchaga J. A., Múzquiz Pérez-Seoane M. 1998. Altamira. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag.
Berg F., Maurer H. 1998. Idole. Kunst und Kult im Waldviertel vor 7000 Jahren. Ausstellungskat. Höbarthmuseum Horn. Horn: Museumsverein.
Biehl P. F. 1996. Studien zum Symbolgut des Neolithikums und der Kupferzeit in Südosteuropa. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 64. Bonn: Habelt Verlag.
Bosinski G. 2009. Kunst immer dabei. Bewegliche Kunstobjekte des Magdalénien. In: Rau, S., Naumann D., Barth M. (Red.), Eiszeit. Kunst und Kultur. Begleitband zur Großen Landesausstellung Eiszeit – Kunst und Kultur im Kunstgebäude Stuttgart, 18. September 2009 bis 10. Januar 2010. Ostfildern: Theiss Verlag, 295-302.
Chapman J. 1998. The impact of modern invasions and migrations on archaeological explanation. A biographical sketch of Marija Gimbutas. In: Diaz-Andreu M., Stig Sorensen M. L. (eds.), Excavating Women. A history of women in European archaeology. London: Roudledge, 295-314.
Clottes J. 1997. Niaux. Die altsteinzeitlichen Bilderhöhlen in der Ariège. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke Verlag.
Cook J. 2004. Vom Mutterleib zum Sexualpartner. Sexuelle Bildsprache in der Kunst der Altsteinzeit. In: van Wilsteren V., Weiss R. M. (Hrsg.), 100.000 Jahre Sex. Über Liebe, Fruchtbarkeit und Wollust. Hamburg: Helms Museum, 6-13.
Darwin C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street.
Duhard J.-P. 1993. Réalisme de l'image féminine paléolithique. Cahiers du Quaternaire 19. Paris: Éditions de Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
Eco U. 2000. Kant und das Schnabeltier. München, Wien: Carl Hanser Verlag.Feustel R. 1971. Sexuologische Reflexionen über jungpaläolithische Objekte. Alt-Thüringen
(11), 7-46.Floss H. 2009. Die frühesten Bildwerke der Menschheit. Das Phänomen Eiszeitkunst. In:
Rau, S., Naumann D., Barth M. (Red.), Eiszeit. Kunst und Kultur. Begleitband zur Großen Landesausstellung Eiszeit – Kunst und Kultur im Kunstgebäude Stuttgart, 18. September 2009 bis 10. Januar 2010. Ostfildern: Theiss Verlag, 228-241.
Floss H. 2010. Verborgene Gesichter – Masken und Verkleidungen der Alt- und Mittelsteinzeit. In: Meller H., Maraszek R. (Hrsg.), Masken der Vorzeit in Europa (I). Internationale Tagung vom 20. bis 22. November 2009 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
34 35
Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale) 4. Halle an der Saale: Archäologisches Landesmuseum, 49-59.Gimbutas M. 1989. The Language of the Goddess. London: Thames and Hudson.Gimbutas M. 1991. The Civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco: Harper Collins.Gleser R. 2012. Zeitskalen, stilistische Tendenzen und Regionalität des 5. Jahrtausends in
den Altsiedellandschaften zwischen Mosel und Morava. In: Gleser R., Becker V. (Hrsg.), Mitteleuropa im 5. Jahrtausend vor Christus. Beiträge zur Internationalen Konferenz in Münster 2010. Berlin: LitVerlag, 35-103.
Gorgoglione M., Laviano R., Rugge R. 2013. Simbolismo e arte nella Puglia Meridionale dalla fine del VI al IV millennio a.C. Preistoria Alpina (46/1), 159-166.
Grifoni Cremonesi R., Pedrotti A. 2012. L'arte del Neolitico in Italia: stato della ricerca e nuove acquisizioni. Preistoria Alpina (46/1), 115-131.
Hansen S. 2007. Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit. Untersuchungen zur anthropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit und Kupferzeit in Südosteuropa. Archäologie in Eurasien 20. Mainz: Phillip von Zabern.
Hecker R. 2001. Urmütter der Steinzeit. Bilder weiblicher Schöpfungskraft. Katalog zur Ausstellung. Andernach: Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart.
Hildebrandt T. 2011. Bild, Geste und Hand. Leroi-Gourhans paläontologische Bildtheorie. IMAGE (14), 55-77. http://www.gib.uni-tuebingen.de/own/journal/pdf/buch_image14.pdf. Date of inquiry May 5, 2014.
H i t c h c o c k D . 2 0 1 3 . M a s d 'A z i l C a v e - L a G r o t t e d u M a s d 'A z i l . http://donsmaps.com/masdazil.html. Date of inquiry May 5, 2014.
Ilon G. 2007. Százszorszépek. Eberábrázolás as őskori nyugat-Magyarországon. Die Wunderschönen. Menschendarstellung im urzeitlichen Westungarn. Ausstellungskat. Egervár. Szombathely: Vas megyei Múzeumok lgazgatósága.
Kühn H. 1950. Das Problem des Urmonotheismus. Wiesbaden: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur.
Leroi-Gourhan A., Allain J. 1979. Lascaux inconnu. Gallia Préhistoire (Supplement XII). Paris: Éditions de Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
Leroi-Gourhan A. 1981. Die Religionen der Vorgeschichte. Paläolithikum. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Lesure R. G. 2011. Interpreting Ancient Figurines. Context, Comparison and Prehistoric Art. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press.
Mania D. 2004. Jäger und Sammler vor 15000 Jahren im Unstruttal. In: Meller H. (Hrsg.), Paläolithikum und Mesolithikum. Kataloge zur Dauerausstellung im Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle 1. Halle an der Saale: Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle, 233-249.
Manfredini A. 1972. Il villaggio trincerato di Monte Aquilone nel quadro del Neolitico dell'Italia meridionale. Origini (6), 29-154.
Marangou Ch. 1992. Eidolia. Figurines et miniatures du Néolithique Récent et du Bronze Ancien en Grèce. BAR International Series 576. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Mélard N. 2008. Pierres gravées de La Marche à Lussac-les-Châteax (Vienne). Techniques, technologie et interprétations. Gallia Préhistoire (50), 143-268.
Mélard N. 2010. Anschauungen, Sichtweisen und Symbolik – Menschenbilder des Magdalénien vom Fundplatz La Marche, Lussac-les-Chateaux (Frankreich). In: Meller H., Maraszek R. (Hrsg.), Masken der Vorzeit in Europa (I). Internationale Tagung vom 20. bis 22. November 2009 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale) 4. Halle an der Saale: Archäologisches Landesmuseum, 35-39.
Müller-Beck H. 2010. Masken und Geister der Altsteinzeit. In: Meller H., Maraszek R. (Hrsg.), Masken der Vorzeit in Europa (I). Internationale Tagung vom 20. bis 22. November 2009 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale) 4. Halle an der Saale: Archäologisches Landesmuseum, 23-33.
Neumann E. 1985. Die grosse Mutter. Eine Phänomenologie der weiblichen Gestaltungen des
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour... Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
Unterbewussten. Olten: Walter Verlagsgesellschaft.Podborský V. 1985. Těšetice-Kyjovice 2. Figurálni plastika lidu s moravskou malovanou
keramikou. Brno: Universita J. E. Purkyně v Brně.Porr M. 2013. 'Kunst' und Kontext: Zur Interpretation paläolithischer Bildwerke. In: Eggert
M. K. H., Veit U. (Hrsg.), Theorie in der Archäologie: Zur jüngeren Diskussion in Deutschland. Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher 10. Münster: Waxmann, 299-335.
Rauer C. 2010. Maske und Tabu im Jungpaläolithikum. In: Meller H., Maraszek R. (Hrsg.), Masken der Vorzeit in Europa (I). Internationale Tagung vom 20. bis 22. November 2009 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale) 4. Halle an der Saale: Archäologisches Landesmuseum, 41-47.
Röder B . 2001. Vom urzei t l ichen Mutterrecht zur ökofeminist ischen Göttinnendämmerung: Die Geschichte der Matriarchatsidee. In: Röder B., Hummel J., Kunz B., Göttinnendämmerung. Das Matriarchat aus archäologischer Sicht. Klein Königsförde: Königsfurt, 7-111.
Schwarzberg H. 2011. Durch menschliche Kunst und Gedanken gemacht. Studien zur anthropomorphen Gefäßkeramik des 7. bis 5. vorchristlichen Jahrtausends. Münchner Archäologische Forschungen 1. Rahden/Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
Serangeli J. 2009. Riesig groß und winzig klein. Eine Welt bevölkert von Tieren, In: Rau S., Naumann D., Barth M. (Red.), Eiszeit. Kunst und Kultur. Begleitband zur Großen Landesausstellung Eiszeit – Kunst und Kultur im Kunstgebäude Stuttgart, 18. September 2009 bis 10. Januar 2010. Ostfildern: Theiss Verlag, 244-247.
Todorova H. 1982. Kupferzeitliche Siedlungen in Nordostbulgarien. München: Verlag C. H. Beck.
Tosello G. 2003. Pierres gravées du Périgord magdalénien. Gallia Préhistoire (Supplement XXXVI). Paris: Éditions de Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
Vasić M. 1936. Preistoriska Vinča III. Plastika – terakote. Beograd: Državna štamparija.Vialou D. 1986. L'art des grottes en Ariège magdalénienne. Gallia Préhistoire (Supplement
XXII). Paris: Éditions de Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
36 37
Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale) 4. Halle an der Saale: Archäologisches Landesmuseum, 49-59.Gimbutas M. 1989. The Language of the Goddess. London: Thames and Hudson.Gimbutas M. 1991. The Civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco: Harper Collins.Gleser R. 2012. Zeitskalen, stilistische Tendenzen und Regionalität des 5. Jahrtausends in
den Altsiedellandschaften zwischen Mosel und Morava. In: Gleser R., Becker V. (Hrsg.), Mitteleuropa im 5. Jahrtausend vor Christus. Beiträge zur Internationalen Konferenz in Münster 2010. Berlin: LitVerlag, 35-103.
Gorgoglione M., Laviano R., Rugge R. 2013. Simbolismo e arte nella Puglia Meridionale dalla fine del VI al IV millennio a.C. Preistoria Alpina (46/1), 159-166.
Grifoni Cremonesi R., Pedrotti A. 2012. L'arte del Neolitico in Italia: stato della ricerca e nuove acquisizioni. Preistoria Alpina (46/1), 115-131.
Hansen S. 2007. Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit. Untersuchungen zur anthropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit und Kupferzeit in Südosteuropa. Archäologie in Eurasien 20. Mainz: Phillip von Zabern.
Hecker R. 2001. Urmütter der Steinzeit. Bilder weiblicher Schöpfungskraft. Katalog zur Ausstellung. Andernach: Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart.
Hildebrandt T. 2011. Bild, Geste und Hand. Leroi-Gourhans paläontologische Bildtheorie. IMAGE (14), 55-77. http://www.gib.uni-tuebingen.de/own/journal/pdf/buch_image14.pdf. Date of inquiry May 5, 2014.
H i t c h c o c k D . 2 0 1 3 . M a s d 'A z i l C a v e - L a G r o t t e d u M a s d 'A z i l . http://donsmaps.com/masdazil.html. Date of inquiry May 5, 2014.
Ilon G. 2007. Százszorszépek. Eberábrázolás as őskori nyugat-Magyarországon. Die Wunderschönen. Menschendarstellung im urzeitlichen Westungarn. Ausstellungskat. Egervár. Szombathely: Vas megyei Múzeumok lgazgatósága.
Kühn H. 1950. Das Problem des Urmonotheismus. Wiesbaden: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur.
Leroi-Gourhan A., Allain J. 1979. Lascaux inconnu. Gallia Préhistoire (Supplement XII). Paris: Éditions de Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
Leroi-Gourhan A. 1981. Die Religionen der Vorgeschichte. Paläolithikum. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Lesure R. G. 2011. Interpreting Ancient Figurines. Context, Comparison and Prehistoric Art. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press.
Mania D. 2004. Jäger und Sammler vor 15000 Jahren im Unstruttal. In: Meller H. (Hrsg.), Paläolithikum und Mesolithikum. Kataloge zur Dauerausstellung im Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle 1. Halle an der Saale: Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte Halle, 233-249.
Manfredini A. 1972. Il villaggio trincerato di Monte Aquilone nel quadro del Neolitico dell'Italia meridionale. Origini (6), 29-154.
Marangou Ch. 1992. Eidolia. Figurines et miniatures du Néolithique Récent et du Bronze Ancien en Grèce. BAR International Series 576. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Mélard N. 2008. Pierres gravées de La Marche à Lussac-les-Châteax (Vienne). Techniques, technologie et interprétations. Gallia Préhistoire (50), 143-268.
Mélard N. 2010. Anschauungen, Sichtweisen und Symbolik – Menschenbilder des Magdalénien vom Fundplatz La Marche, Lussac-les-Chateaux (Frankreich). In: Meller H., Maraszek R. (Hrsg.), Masken der Vorzeit in Europa (I). Internationale Tagung vom 20. bis 22. November 2009 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale) 4. Halle an der Saale: Archäologisches Landesmuseum, 35-39.
Müller-Beck H. 2010. Masken und Geister der Altsteinzeit. In: Meller H., Maraszek R. (Hrsg.), Masken der Vorzeit in Europa (I). Internationale Tagung vom 20. bis 22. November 2009 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale) 4. Halle an der Saale: Archäologisches Landesmuseum, 23-33.
Neumann E. 1985. Die grosse Mutter. Eine Phänomenologie der weiblichen Gestaltungen des
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour... Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
Unterbewussten. Olten: Walter Verlagsgesellschaft.Podborský V. 1985. Těšetice-Kyjovice 2. Figurálni plastika lidu s moravskou malovanou
keramikou. Brno: Universita J. E. Purkyně v Brně.Porr M. 2013. 'Kunst' und Kontext: Zur Interpretation paläolithischer Bildwerke. In: Eggert
M. K. H., Veit U. (Hrsg.), Theorie in der Archäologie: Zur jüngeren Diskussion in Deutschland. Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher 10. Münster: Waxmann, 299-335.
Rauer C. 2010. Maske und Tabu im Jungpaläolithikum. In: Meller H., Maraszek R. (Hrsg.), Masken der Vorzeit in Europa (I). Internationale Tagung vom 20. bis 22. November 2009 in Halle (Saale). Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale) 4. Halle an der Saale: Archäologisches Landesmuseum, 41-47.
Röder B . 2001. Vom urzei t l ichen Mutterrecht zur ökofeminist ischen Göttinnendämmerung: Die Geschichte der Matriarchatsidee. In: Röder B., Hummel J., Kunz B., Göttinnendämmerung. Das Matriarchat aus archäologischer Sicht. Klein Königsförde: Königsfurt, 7-111.
Schwarzberg H. 2011. Durch menschliche Kunst und Gedanken gemacht. Studien zur anthropomorphen Gefäßkeramik des 7. bis 5. vorchristlichen Jahrtausends. Münchner Archäologische Forschungen 1. Rahden/Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
Serangeli J. 2009. Riesig groß und winzig klein. Eine Welt bevölkert von Tieren, In: Rau S., Naumann D., Barth M. (Red.), Eiszeit. Kunst und Kultur. Begleitband zur Großen Landesausstellung Eiszeit – Kunst und Kultur im Kunstgebäude Stuttgart, 18. September 2009 bis 10. Januar 2010. Ostfildern: Theiss Verlag, 244-247.
Todorova H. 1982. Kupferzeitliche Siedlungen in Nordostbulgarien. München: Verlag C. H. Beck.
Tosello G. 2003. Pierres gravées du Périgord magdalénien. Gallia Préhistoire (Supplement XXXVI). Paris: Éditions de Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
Vasić M. 1936. Preistoriska Vinča III. Plastika – terakote. Beograd: Državna štamparija.Vialou D. 1986. L'art des grottes en Ariège magdalénienne. Gallia Préhistoire (Supplement
XXII). Paris: Éditions de Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
36 37
Fig. 1: Distribution of the Magdalenian/Epigravettiano and the Linear Pottery Culture, Lengyel, and Vinča Cultures.
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
Fig. 2: Zoomorphic representations from the Magdalenian. 1 Painting (bison), Niaux. 2 Model (bisons), Le Tuc d'Audoubert. 3 Figurine (horse), Espélugues. 4 Contour découpé (horse), Isturitz. 5 Spear-thrower (foal, adult horse, skeletonized horse), Le Mas d'Azil. 6 Engraving on a schist slab (horse, cervid?, birds, human?), Gönnersdorf. 7 Engraving on bone (reindeer herd), Teyjat (after Floss 2009: Abb. 273 centre right and below right; Serangeli 2009: fig. 287; Altuna 1996: fig. 11; Hitchcock 2013: http://donsmaps.com/images29/threehorses.jpg; Bosinski 2009: Abb. 360 and Abb. 362).
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
38 39
Fig. 1: Distribution of the Magdalenian/Epigravettiano and the Linear Pottery Culture, Lengyel, and Vinča Cultures.
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
Fig. 2: Zoomorphic representations from the Magdalenian. 1 Painting (bison), Niaux. 2 Model (bisons), Le Tuc d'Audoubert. 3 Figurine (horse), Espélugues. 4 Contour découpé (horse), Isturitz. 5 Spear-thrower (foal, adult horse, skeletonized horse), Le Mas d'Azil. 6 Engraving on a schist slab (horse, cervid?, birds, human?), Gönnersdorf. 7 Engraving on bone (reindeer herd), Teyjat (after Floss 2009: Abb. 273 centre right and below right; Serangeli 2009: fig. 287; Altuna 1996: fig. 11; Hitchcock 2013: http://donsmaps.com/images29/threehorses.jpg; Bosinski 2009: Abb. 360 and Abb. 362).
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
38 39
Fig. 3: Anthropomorphic representations from the Magdalenian. 1 La Magdeleine-des-Albi. 2 Gönnersdorf (engraving). 3-6.8-11 La Marche (engravings). 7 Nebra (figurines) (after Floss 2009: Abb. 280; Bosinski 2009: Abb. 364; Duhard 1993: pl. LXI: 2 and pl. LXVIII: 1; Mania 2004: Abb. 18: 23; Mélard 2008: fig. 16, fig. 17 and fig. 19).
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
Fig. 4: Hybrids from the Magdalenian and the Neolithic (Linear Pottery Culture, Alföld Linear Pottery Culture). 1.2 Les Trois Frères. 3 Gabillou. 4 Espélugues. 5-10 Altamira. 11 Mezőkövesd-Mocsolyás. 12 Füzesabony-Gubakút. 13 Oberpiebing. 14 Spišský Hrhov. 15 Franzhausen. 16 Pulkau. Different scales (after Floss 2010: Abb. 12; Rauer 2010: Abb. 2: 2, 3, 6 and Abb. 7; Becker 2007: Abb. 10: 1, 5; Becker 2011: Taf. 67: 2, Taf. 68: 3, Taf. 97: 1 and Taf. 98: 1).
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
40 41
Fig. 3: Anthropomorphic representations from the Magdalenian. 1 La Magdeleine-des-Albi. 2 Gönnersdorf (engraving). 3-6.8-11 La Marche (engravings). 7 Nebra (figurines) (after Floss 2009: Abb. 280; Bosinski 2009: Abb. 364; Duhard 1993: pl. LXI: 2 and pl. LXVIII: 1; Mania 2004: Abb. 18: 23; Mélard 2008: fig. 16, fig. 17 and fig. 19).
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
Fig. 4: Hybrids from the Magdalenian and the Neolithic (Linear Pottery Culture, Alföld Linear Pottery Culture). 1.2 Les Trois Frères. 3 Gabillou. 4 Espélugues. 5-10 Altamira. 11 Mezőkövesd-Mocsolyás. 12 Füzesabony-Gubakút. 13 Oberpiebing. 14 Spišský Hrhov. 15 Franzhausen. 16 Pulkau. Different scales (after Floss 2010: Abb. 12; Rauer 2010: Abb. 2: 2, 3, 6 and Abb. 7; Becker 2007: Abb. 10: 1, 5; Becker 2011: Taf. 67: 2, Taf. 68: 3, Taf. 97: 1 and Taf. 98: 1).
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
40 41
Fig. 5: Scenic representations from the Magdalenian. 1 Lascaux, shaft. 2 Chancelade-Raymonden. 3 La Vache. 4 La Marche (after Leroi-Gourhan, Allain 1979: pl. XXIII; Rauer 2010: Abb. 6; Floss 2010: Abb. 10; Mélard 2010: Abb. 9).
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
Fig. 6: Anthropomorphic representations from the Linear Pottery Culture. 1 Windecken. 2 Nové Vozokany. 3 Törökbálint-Dulácska. 4 Barleben. 5 Gneiding. 6 Nová Ves (after Becker 2011: Taf. 3: 3, Taf. 36: 2, Taf. 47: 2, Taf. 59: 1, Taf. 91: 3 and Taf. 104: 1).
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
42 43
Fig. 5: Scenic representations from the Magdalenian. 1 Lascaux, shaft. 2 Chancelade-Raymonden. 3 La Vache. 4 La Marche (after Leroi-Gourhan, Allain 1979: pl. XXIII; Rauer 2010: Abb. 6; Floss 2010: Abb. 10; Mélard 2010: Abb. 9).
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
Fig. 6: Anthropomorphic representations from the Linear Pottery Culture. 1 Windecken. 2 Nové Vozokany. 3 Törökbálint-Dulácska. 4 Barleben. 5 Gneiding. 6 Nová Ves (after Becker 2011: Taf. 3: 3, Taf. 36: 2, Taf. 47: 2, Taf. 59: 1, Taf. 91: 3 and Taf. 104: 1).
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
42 43
Fig. 7: Zoomorphic representations from the Linear Pottery Culture. 1 Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb. 2 Štúrovo. 3 Nieder-Weisel. 4 Bad Nauheim – Nieder-Mörlen. 5 Bylany. 6 Großgartach. 7 Hienheim. Different scales (after Becker 2007: Abb. 6: 4, Taf. 2: 1, Taf. 3: 1, Taf. 4: 1, Taf. 7: 2, Taf. 22: 1, 4).
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
Fig
. 8:
Com
pari
son
betw
een
Upp
er P
alae
olit
hic
and
Neo
lith
ic f
igur
al f
inds
wit
h re
gard
to
vari
ous
feat
ures
.
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
44 45
Fig. 7: Zoomorphic representations from the Linear Pottery Culture. 1 Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb. 2 Štúrovo. 3 Nieder-Weisel. 4 Bad Nauheim – Nieder-Mörlen. 5 Bylany. 6 Großgartach. 7 Hienheim. Different scales (after Becker 2007: Abb. 6: 4, Taf. 2: 1, Taf. 3: 1, Taf. 4: 1, Taf. 7: 2, Taf. 22: 1, 4).
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
Fig
. 8:
Com
pari
son
betw
een
Upp
er P
alae
olit
hic
and
Neo
lith
ic f
igur
al f
inds
wit
h re
gard
to
vari
ous
feat
ures
.
Anthropomorphism and symbolic behaviour...
44 45
