ANKARA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTER FOR MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY (ANKÜSAM)

Publication No: 1

Proceedings of the International Symposium

The Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age

October 13th – 19th 1997, Urla - İzmir (Turkey)

Edited by

Hayat Erkanal, Harald Hauptmann, Vasıf Şahoğlu, Rıza Tuncel

Ankara • 2008

ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ / ANKARA UNIVERSITY SUALTI ARKEOLOJİK ARAŞTIRMA ve UYGULAMA MERKEZİ (ANKÜSAM)

RESEARCH CENTER FOR MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY (ANKÜSAM)

Yayın No / Publication No: 1

Ön kapak: İzmir - Höyücek’de ele geçmiş insan yüzü tasvirli bir stel. M.Ö. 3. Bin. Front cover: A stelae depicting a human face from İzmir - Höyücek . 3rd Millennium

BC. Arka kapak: Liman Tepe Erken Tunç Çağı II, Atnalı Biçimli Bastiyon. Back cover: Early Bronze Age II horse-shoe shaped bastion at Liman Tepe.

Kapak Tasarımı / Cover Design : Vasıf Şahoğlu

ISBN: 978-975-482-767-5

Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi / Ankara University Press İncitaşı Sokak No:10 06510 Beşevler / ANKARA

Tel: 0 (312) 213 66 55 Basım Tarihi: 31 / 03 / 2008

CONTENTS

Abbreviations …………………………………………………………………………………............ xi Preface by the Editors ………………………………………………………………………………… xiii Opening speech by the Mayor, Bülent BARATALI …...……………………………………………......... xxiii Opening speech by Prof. Dr. Ekrem AKURGAL ……………………………………............................... xxv Opening speech by Prof. Dr. Christos DOUMAS……………………………………………………….. xxvii LILIAN ACHEILARA

Myrina in Prehistoric Times …..……………………………………………………………. 1 VASSILIKI ADRIMI – SISMANI

Données Récentes Concernant Le Site Prehistorique De Dimini: La Continuité de l’Habitation Littorale depuis le Début du Néolithique Récent jusqu’à la Fin du Bronze Ancien ……………………………………………………………………………… 9

IOANNIS ASLANIS

Frühe Fortifikationssysteme in Griechenland ………………………………………………. 35 PANAGIOTA AYGERINOU

A Flaked-Stone Industry from Mytilene: A Preliminary Report …………………………… 45 ANTHI BATZIOU – EFSTATHIOU

Kastraki: A New Bronze Age Settlement in Achaea Phthiotis …………………………….. 73 MARIO BENZI

A Forgotten Island: Kalymnos in the Late Neolithic Period ……………………………….. 85 ÖNDER BİLGİ

Relations between İkiztepe by the Black Sea Coast and the Aegean World before Iron Age ……………………………………………………………………………... 109

TRISTAN CARTER

Cinnabar and the Cyclades: Body modification and Political Structure in the Late EB I Southern Cyclades ………………………………………………………............. 119

CHRISTOS DOUMAS

The Aegean Islands and their Role in the Developement of Civilisation ………….............. 131 ANTHI DOVA

Prehistoric Topography of Lemnos: The Early Bronze Age ………………………………. 141 NIKOS EFSTRATIOU

The Neolithic of the Aegean Islands: A New Picture Emerging ………………….............. 159 HAYAT ERKANAL

Die Neue Forschungen in Bakla Tepe bei İzmir ..…………………………………………. 165 HAYAT ERKANAL

Liman Tepe: A New Light on the Prehistoric Aegean Cultures …………………………… 179 JEANNETTE FORSÉN

The Asea Valley from the Neolithic Period to the Early Bronze Age …………….............. 191 DAVID H. FRENCH

Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery of Southwest Anatolia ………………............. 197

Contents

viii

NOEL GALE Metal Sources for Early Bronze Age Troy and the Aegean ………………………............. 203

BARTHEL HROUDA

Zur Chronologie Südwestkleinasiens in der 2. Hälfte des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr ............... 223 HALİME HÜRYILMAZ

1996 Rettungsgrabungen auf dem Yenibademli Höyük, Gökçeada / Imbros …………….. 229

ERGUN KAPTAN Metallurgical Residues from Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Liman Tepe ………………………………………………………………………….......... 243

ANNA KARABATSOLI and LIA KARIMALI

Etude Comparative Des Industries Lithiques Taillées Du Néolithique Final Et Du Bronze Ancien Egéen : Le Cas De Pefkakia ………………………………………….. 251

NECMİ KARUL

Flechtwerkgabäude aus Osttrakien ……………………………………………………….. 263 SİNAN KILIÇ

The Early Bronze Age Pottery from Northwest Turkey in Light of Results of a Survey around the Marmara Sea ………………………………………………………….. 275

OURANIA KOUKA

Zur Struktur der frühbronzezeitlichen insularen Gesellschaften der Nord- und Ostägäis: Ein neues Bild der sogenannten “Trojanischen Kultur”…………….. 285

NINA KYPARISSI – APOSTOLIKA

Some Finds of Balkan (or Anatolian) Type in the Neolithic Deposit of Theopetra Cave, Thessaly …………………………………………………………………. 301

LAURA LABRIOLA

First Impressions: A Preliminary Account of Matt Impressed Pottery in the Prehistoric Aegean ………………………………………………………………………… 309

ROBERT LAFFINEUR

Aspects of Early Bronze Age Jewellery in the Aegean …………………………………… 323 KYRIAKOS LAMBRIANIDES and NIGEL SPENCER

The Early Bronze Age Sites of Lesbos and the Madra Çay Delta: New Light on a Discrete Regional Centre of Prehistoric Settlement and Society in the Northeast Aegean ……………………………………………………........................ 333

YUNUS LENGERANLI

Metallic Mineral Deposits and Occurences of the Izmir District, Turkey ………………… 355 EFTALIA MAKRI – SKOTINIOTI and VASSILIKI ADRIMI – SISMANI

Les Sites Du Neolithique Recent Dans Le Golfe Pagasetique : La Transformation Des Sites De L’age De Bronze En Sites Urbains (Le Cas De Dimini) ……………………. 369

ELSA NIKOLAOU, VASSO RONDIRI and LIA KARIMALI

Magoula Orgozinos: A Neolithic Site in Western Thessaly, Greece ………………………. 387 EMEL OYBAK and CAHİT DOĞAN

Plant Remains from Liman Tepe and Bakla Tepe in the İzmir Region ……………………. 399

Contents

ix

DEMETRA PAPACONSTANTINOU Looking for ‘Texts’ in the Neolithic Aegean: Space, Place and the Study of Domestic Architecture (Poster summary) ………………………………….......... 407

ATHANASSIOS J. PAPADOPOULOS and SPYRIDOULA KONTORLI – PAPADOPOULOU Some thoughts on the Problem of Relations between the Aegean and Western Greece in the Early Bronze Age …………………………………………………. 411

STRATIS PAPADOPOULOS and DIMITRA MALAMIDOU

Limenaria: A Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlement at Thasos ……………………… 427 DANIEL J. PULLEN

Connecting the Early Bronze I and II Periods in the Aegean ……………………………….. 447

JEREMY B. RUTTER Anatolian Roots of Early Helladic III Drinking Behaviour …………………………………. 461

VASIF ŞAHOĞLU

New Evidence for the Relations Between the Izmir Region, the Cyclades and the Greek Mainland during the Third Millennium BC …………………………………. 483

ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic: New Data on Aegean Prehistory ……………………. 503 EVANGELIA SKAFIDA

Symbols from the Aegean World: The Case of Late Neolithic Figurines and House Models from Thessaly …………………………………………………………... 517

PANAGIOTA SOTIRAKOPOULOU

The Cyclades, The East Aegean Islands and the Western Asia Minor: Their Relations in the Aegean Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age …………………….. 533

GEORGIA STRATOULI

Soziale une ökonomische Aspekte des Chalkolithikums (spätneolithikum II) in der Ägäis aufgrund alter und neuer Angaben …………………………………………….. 559

GEORGE TOUFEXIS

Recent Neolithic Research in the Eastern Thessalian Plain, Greece: A Preliminary Report ……………………………………………………………………….. 569

RIZA TUNCEL

IRERP Survey Program: New Prehistoric Settlements in the Izmir Region ……………….. 581 HANNELORE VANHAVERBEKE, PIERRE M. VERMEERSCH, INGRID BEULS, BEA de CUPERE and MARC WAELKENS

People of the Höyüks versus People of the Mountains ? …………………………………… 593 KOSTAS VOUZAXAKIS

An Alternative Suggestion in Archaeological Data Presentations: Neolithic Culture Through the Finds from Volos Archaeological Museum ……………….. 607

Closing Remarks by Prof. Dr Machteld J. MELLINK ………………………………………………. 611 Symposium Programme ……………………………………………………………………………… 615 Memories from the Symposium……………………………………………………………………… 623

Symbols from the Aegean World: The Case of Late Neolithic

Figurines and House Models from Thessaly

Evangelia SKAFIDA

ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper is to shed more light on the problems of prehistoric ideologies arising from the study of the figurines of the Final Neolithic period found in various Thessalian sites. In this study we have used material from recent excavations at Dimini and Pefkakia, older excavations as well as finds from recent surveys at Neolithic sites of Thessaly.

1. Introduction

Thessaly, situated in the center of the Hellenic peninsula, occupies an important location along the main inland roads connecting Southern and Central Greece. In addition it communicates with the Aegean islands and the world of the East through the Pagasetic Gulf, which offers the best access from the plains of Central Greece to the sea. It is no coincidence that the Argonauts with Argo, the first eponymous ship in human history, used the Pagasetic Gulf as starting point of their journey towards the Euxeinus Pontus.

We should note the problems associated with the study of the cultural history of Thessaly which are related to the transitional stage from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age. Of these we shall mention briefly the most important ones. In many sites during EB, space shaped in a specific way. Levellings and constructions of defensive walls, pits and numerous wells have been observed. Because of such disturbances as in Dimini useful stratigraphic data are missing1. It is not our aim to discuss the problems of chronology of the Late and Final Neolithic in Thessaly. Nevertheless, we would like to stress that the figurines of this study belong to the phases “Classic” Dimini and Rakhmani. In recent excavations at Dimini2 127 figurines were found3, which have been dated to the above-mentioned cultures without more specific

1 Halstead 1984, 5.2.4 2 Hourmouziades 1979. 3 Skafida 1986.

stratigraphic evidences. These two cultures are contemporary with cultural centers of the Balkans in the following associations: 1. West Macedonia-South Albania: Mandalos II, Maliq I-IIa; 2. Pelagonia: Bakarno Gumno I-II; 3. Bulgaria: Karanovo VI-Gumelniţa – Sâlcuţa I-II; 4. Eastern Macedonia: Dikili Tash II B-C, Sitagroi III B-C; 5. Central Macedonia: Vassilika IV, Dimitra III4.

2. Methodological approach

The figurines, which are presented in this contribution, are examined independently with regards to their shape, material, and techniques of manufacture. From a methodological point of view, the figurines function within the ideological system of Neolithic societies, namely in the context of those beliefs with which an individual and a social group could interpret and use the representations of the environment and their surrounding world. The existence of an ideology can be discerned from the type of social and economical structure, the use of space, the symbolic representations, the funerary practices, and mainly from the psychological, ecological and cosmological behavior of the prehistoric people, women, men and children.

3. Analysis of figurines

In a significant number of the Thessalian anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines that have been studied, the existence of certain rules

4 Todorova 1978; Demoule 1991; Grammenos 1991; 1997.

Evangelia SKAFIDA 518

is apparent. The naturalistic and schematic modes of representation coexist already from the beginning of the Early Neolithic5. The two main characteristics of the end of the Neolithic are the schematization of figurines and that they are made of stone. With regards to the typology of the figurines, these are not very much differentiated either in the Earlier or Middle Neolithic, but mainly at the end of the Neolithic. This fact, we believe, is not related to a lower level of technical expertise of the Neolithic people6, because in Late Neolithic the coexistence of naturalistic figurines and ceramics proves it otherwise. Schematization is a choice closely related to ideological meaning and can be associated with the codes of the abstract and symbolic human thought.

3.1. The anthropomorphic figurines

These are made mainly of clay, stone and marble. Based on the level of schematization of the figurines, we can classify them into two general types: the schematic and the naturalistic.

3.1.1. Anthropomorphic schematized

figurines

The following groups belong to this type:

A) Figurines with pronounced Schema-tization, where the anatomical features of the sex are depicted.

B) Cross and anchor shaped figurines, in which the anatomical features of sex are not usually depicted. Mainly the clay ones show painted decoration (color was applied after firing: crusted). They have been found in numerous sites in Thessaly, Macedonia and the Southern Balkans7. Marble cross-shaped figurines found at Dimini (Fig. 10) and Magoula Asprochoma8 have painted decoration consisting of added red color. It is important to stress the repetition of the cross-shaped motive, which surrounds the chest of that figurine and of another clay example, also from Dimini (Fig.

5 Theocharis 1967, 149; Hourmouziades 1973, 166, 208. 6 Treuil 1983, 418. 7 Marangou 1992. 8 Theocharis 1973.

11). This motive recalls the ‘telamones’ of the male Cycladic figurines.

As far as the anchor shaped figurines are concerned we should mention the fragment of clay "anchor" found in Rakhmani phase III at Pefkakia9. It has been interpreted as a female figurine10, because of the breasts. The 2 holes could then represent the eyes. The question whether the "anchors" with one hole known from the Early Helladic II-III periods could be interpreted as figurines or tools used in the household still remains open11. But in general exist no indications, which allow an interpretation as figurine or amulet. Therefore the general opinion is that such "anchors" were probably were used as hooks as first proposed by Müller12. Very often these "anchors" show rests of incisions which might be caused by the threads used for the fixing of objects at the hook.

C) “Acrolithic” figurines

The majority of the figurines of LN and FN studied here belong to this category. They are characterized by a more pronounced depiction of the head in relation to the torso. This distinction is made clearer through the use of a different material for the head: the torso is only a base that supports the head (Fig. 1).

The preserved heads are of stone, fastened into a hole in the clay bodies. The use of wood and bone is still hypothetical but quite possible13 . There are also heads made of clay and seashells. Heads of marble and of seashells, found during surveys in Thessaly (Fig. 2) recall the type Kusura of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia. The anatomical details are rarely depicted, in added color, applied after firing14 or in relief. We can make some technical remarks on the manufacture of the stone and marble heads. It is clear that the prehistoric producers selected small pebbles and stones whose shape was close to that of the figure they wanted to represent. These stones must have been softer than the stone tools. The shaping of

9 Weißhaar 1989, Taf. 82,1-2. 10 Hanschmann 1976, 95, Anm. 224. 11 Weißhaar 1989, 50. 12 Müller 1938, 64; Cosmopoulos 1991, 92. 13 Wace & Thompson 1912, 69. 14 Wace & Thompson 1912, fig. 25 a, b.

Symbols from the Aegean World: The Case of Late Neolithic Figurines and House Models from Thessaly 519

the rough materials must have been done with dented tools of obsidian or flint. The cleaning of the surface was done with flat and thin tools. The smoothing must have been done with sand and other tools or with fish skin which resembled a dented rasp. Finally, the Neolithic people decorated figurines, even though only in few examples traces of color have survived15.

“Acrolithic” figurines are known from numerous Thessalian sites (Fig. 2), from Dimini, where 46% of the figurines belongs to this type16, from Pefkakia17, from Rakhmani, Tsangli, Pyrgos, Sesklo, Zerelia18, from Agia Sophia19, Chasan Magoula20, from Tyrnavos 221, Derelia 2, Lygaria 1, Mandra 1, Moschochori 1, Nikea 11, Platanoulia 1, Rizomylos 222. This technique of separate, inset heads was rarely used for animal figurines23. Moreover, the female figurines from Mandalo of the end of the Neolithic period can be compared to the Thessalian figurines with regards to the technique of the inset head24. The naturalistic bodies of these figurines bear no relation to those of the schematized Thessalian figurines, which show no indication of sex. The Mandalo figurines can be related to those of Pelagonia (Suplevac, Bakarno-Gumno I-II, Grnobuki I-II) and Albania (Maliq II) with which the Rakhmani culture is obviously in contact25 and in which the type of figurine with inset head is known. With the beginning of the phases Otzaki and Classic Dimini, the Thessalian elements extended to the north, to the northwest including Pieria, Western Macedonia and Albania26. Thus, it is possible to speak of a cultural area of Dimini towards the north and northwest27. To conclude, the Thessalian “acrolithic” figurines are found mainly during the end of the Neolithic and continue until the Early Bronze Age, as it is

(Fig. 3).

Velestino.

15 Skafida 1992, 171-172. 16 Skafida 1986. 17 Weißhaar 1989. 18 Tsountas 1908; Wace & Thompson 1912. 19 Milojčič et al. 1976. 20 Chourmouziades 1972. 21 Chourmouziades 1972. 22 Gallis 1992. 23 Toufexis 1990, fig. 9. 24 Papaefthimiou & Papanthimou 1987. 25 Kotsakis et al. 1989. 26 Grammenos 1991. 27 Demoule 1991.

evident from the examples of Rakhmani III phase at Pefkakia28.

D) Violin-shaped figurines

They are numerous during the end of the Neolithic in Thessaly and are made of marble. Sex is not depicted and their head is oblong and triangular. The Thessalian violin-shaped figurines show similarities to the Early Cycladic ones, mainly because of their form29. However, their chronological difference is an obstacle in their correlation. Their similarities could be attributed to the contacts and exchanges that existed between Thessaly and Cyclades during the Neolithic period30. Figurines of this type have been found in many Thessalian sites31 and their number is constantly increasing32

E) Composite figurines

E.1. Figurines with “two or more heads” are rare. They are known from Pefkakia and dated to the phase Rakhmani II33, from Rakhmani, inside the house Q34 and from Dimini35. The most characteristic group of figurines with “three heads” belongs to the phase Rakhmani II at Pefkakia36. Possibly to the same type belong the figurines which have three protrusions on their upper part, of which the central one is more pronounced. They have been found at Pefkakia37, Dimini38 and Sesklo39. There is also the single case of figurines with “multiple heads” or in the shape of a hand, which at present have been found at Pefkakia40 and in the plain of

E.2. Figurines holding a baby, “Kourotrophoi”, are known from surveys near Larissa, Agios Georgios I, Zappeio41.

28 Weißhaar 1989, 49-50. 29 Tsountas 1908, 289; Wace & Thompson 1912, 83;

Hansen 1933, 92. 30 Coleman 1974, 335; 1977, 106; Renfrew 1969, 30-31. 31 Tsountas 1908; Wace & Thompson 1912. 32 Toufexis 1992, Pl III.1; Gallis 1992, fig. 29. 33 Weißhaar 1989, Taf. 66,14. 34 Wace & Thompson 1912, fig. 28t. 35 Skafida 1986, Tav.6, 13, 19. 36 Weißhaar 1989,66,18. 37 Weißhaar 1989, 83,13. 38 Skafida 1986, no. 14. 39 Tsountas 1908, fig. 229. 40 Weißhaar 1989, Taf. 66,16. 41 Skafida & Toufexis 1994, 18.

Evangelia SKAFIDA 520

F) Ring-shaped figurines-Pendants

Based on present evidence, this type is attested in the Chalcolithic civilizations of Central Europe, the Black Sea, Anatolia and the Aegean world42. This fact leads us to suppose that the Neolithic producers and traders of Europe and Anatolia had created a wide network of exchanges and relationships very probably via the rivers and the sea. The ornaments are secure indications of the inventive participation of the Aegean in the development of metal working43.

The ring-shaped figurines-pendants are made of gold, silver, stone and clay. Recent excavations in Greece and the finding of a “hoard” of 53 gold ornaments in Athens in 1997, have brought to light a large number of ring-shaped figurines. This suggests that future research may provide new evidence especially regarding their interpretation. To the two known gold ring-shaped figurines from Aravissos Gianitsa in Macedonia44, we should add the 33 of the “hoard”45 without provenance and context. Their size varies, while only five have protrusions46 and one (n. 12) has decoration of incised lines at both sides, possibly writing.

Nearly all are variations of the type of a flat ring with stem and one or more holes, except for three (n. 33-35) which are simple rings, without perforated stem and have two projections on their periphery.

The silver figurines-pendants of this type come mainly from the Aegean islands. Except for the known examples from Poliochni, dated to the Early Bronze Age47 from the Alepotrypa cave at Diros in Laconia48 and from the Amnisos cave at Herakleion49 there is another example from the recent excavations at the

42 Weißhaar 1982, 321; 1989,51; Fol & Lichardus 1988;

Makkay 1989, 38, figs. 1, 2; Avramova 1991; Fray 1991, 198, fig. 5; Ivanov 1991; Calinescu 1994; Rudolph 1995.

43 Zachos 1996, 166-167. 44 Grammenos 1991, 109, t.30, 3-4. 45 Dimakopoulou 1998, 16-17, nos. 3-35. 46 Dimakopoulou 1998, n. 3, 7, 9, 14, 32. 47 Bernabò-Brea 1964, T. 175.3, 177.25. 48 Papathanassopoulos 1996, 227 no. 43. 49 Marinatos 1930, 98 f.9; Vassilakis 1996, 154, 160-162,

164-165, 231-232, f.18, pl. 69.

Peristeria cave at Salamina50. Similarly, stone examples have increased in numbers and, besides that from the Kitsos cave of Laurion51, there are recent finds, made of marble, from Makrygialos in Pieria52 and from Dispilio Kastoria53.

To the Thessalian corpus, we should add the following to the gold figurine from Sesklo54 and the clay one at Pefkakia55: a) Gold hammered and smooth perforated discoid strip, with trapezoid protrusion, rounded sides and two holes at the upper part (Fig. 4, 12): height 3 cm, dm.3.2 cm, thickness 1 mm, weight 7.14 gr. It was found during surface collection at the settlement Platomagoules in the plain of Velestino and can be dated to the 5th millennium B.C.56; b) Gold ring-shaped pendant with trapezoidal stem and suspension hole from the Theopetra cave near Trikala: height 3.4 cm, weight 6.9 gr. and is dated to the Final Neolithic57; c) Perforated disc with trapezoidal protrusion with two holes at its upper part, made of brownish-gray smooth schist: height 4.1 cm, dm.2.3 cm and thickness 3 mm. (Fig. 5). It was found in Megaron B in the settlement of Dimini during the 1975 excavations and is dated to the 5th millennium BC58; d) Perforated disc with trapezoidal protrusion, which has a hole and is broken (Fig. 6). It is made of gray flint, very finely smoothed, height 3.8 cm, dm. 2.5 cm; its provenance is the workshop of the “potter” at Dimini59 and is dated to the 5th millennium BC.

We can relate these ring-shaped figurines-pendants to the decorative motives of the painted pottery of the phase “Classic Dimini”. For example the phiale (Fig. 7) and the fragments of two other phialai (Fig. 8-9), which were found at the settlement of Dimini during the 1975 excavations; there is also a

50 Lolos 1998, 64, no. 62. 51 Lambert 1981, t. L. 52 Pappa 1998, 67, n. 72-73. 53 Hourmouziades 1996, 45, f. 14b. 54 Tsountas 1908, 337, Pl. 43.8. 55 Weißhaar 1989, 51-52, Taf. XVI: 1. 56 Skafida & Toufexis 1994, 18, fig. II; Skafida 1996, 339

n. 299. 57 Kyparissi-Apostolika 1998, 63 n. 57. 58 Skafida 1996, 336, n. 290; Skafida 1997, 25, n. 4. 59 Hourmouziades 1977.

Symbols from the Aegean World: The Case of Late Neolithic Figurines and House Models from Thessaly 521

fragment of a phiale from Sesklo, with the same motives60.

3.1.2. Naturalistic anthropomorphic

figurines

These are limited in number and are made of clay and less often of marble. Most figurines represent standing female figures. The human body is depicted in a realistic manner, with incisions and color used to denote anatomical details; there is a tendency towards exaggeration in the depiction of volume. Characteristic examples include a seated female from Pefkakia, phase Rakhmani II, which recalls a male seated figurine from Fafos I and belongs to the Vinča civilization61 and a figurine from Magoula Karamourlar in Thessaly62. Decorated figurines are few, implying that decoration was simply a secondary element. The decorative motives are linear, both incised and filled with an added white substance or painted with a brown color on a yellow background. It has been suggested that the decoration may denote tattoos, clothing or that it possibly had a purely decorative value63.

We should mention two naturalistic figurines, typical for this period. One, from Sesklo, shows a woman “kourotrophos”64 while the other, from Larissa, represents a male figure seated on an unidentified object and described as ithyphallic65. Recent finds, such as the male figurine of a “thinker” from western Thessaly, dated to the earlier or middle Neolithic66, prove that the male figurines of Larissa and Zerelia67 belong to a very strong Neolithic tradition. Belonging to the period we are examining is the known “thinker” of Cernavoda, which has similarities to the Thessalian examples of the same type68.

60 Tsountas 1908, 219, t. 21.2. 61 Gimbutas 1982, fig. 11-12. 62 Theocharis 1973, fig. 13. 63 Bànffy 1991; Marangou 1992. 64 Theocharis 1973, fig. 56. 65 Theocharis 1973, fig. 55. 66 Gallis 1990, fig. 5. 67 Wace & Thompson 1912, fig. 118. 68 Berciu 1960.

3.1.3. Anthropomorphic figurines attached on vases or furniture

This type of figurines are, according to an old Neolithic tradition, naturalistic or schematic. They are occasionally used as handles, but in most cases do not have a practical function69. Some handles on vases of the Rakhmani phase show incised human figures70.

We should mention the human shaped handle of a vase from Dimini, on which breasts are shown as two relief protrusions, which on their upper part have three small holes (Fig. 13).

3.2 Animal figurines

Animal figurines in contrast to the anthropomorphic ones, are generally characterized by pronounced schematization and by a monotonous repetition of old types71. All the domesticated animals are represented, such as oxen, goats, sheep, pigs, dogs; however wild fauna is rare72. Most of the animals represented were destined for the supply of meat73. At Dimini, a decorated model of a table has a bovine head (Fig. 14) and differs from the known examples from eastern Macedonia and Thrace, which are very widespread during the cultures of Vinča and Gumelniţa-Karanovo74. At Pefkakia, two clay figurines of pigs, dated to the phases Rakhmani II and III, look very similar to a figurine from Dimini75 , and have a shallow cavity at the belly, which possibly represents the navel of the animal. The depiction of the navel is known from other Thessalian figurines76 .

3.3. House Models

All the models of buildings from Thessaly are made of clay and depict square, rectangular, detached, one-roomed buildings,

69 Tsountas 1908, Pl. 23: 3-6; Hauptmann 1981, Beil. 5:

83-88; Skafida 1986, Tav. 8-24, 14: 27. 70 Gallis 1992, Pl. 8: 6, fig. 13: 8. 71 Toufexis 1996, 159-160. 72 Toufexis 1990, 38-39. 73 Halstead 1981, 322-323. 74 Grammenos 1975; Renfrew et al. 1986; Toufexis 1993. 75 Weißhaar 1989, Taf. XVII: 3. 76 Toufexis 1990, fig. 26.

Evangelia SKAFIDA 522

some with a second floor77. Most have been found in surveys or belong to private collections, mainly from the Larissa region; their number is significantly larger than those are from Macedonia and central Greece. The absence of stratigraphic data makes the understanding of their function difficult. With regards to their dating, most appear in the Middle Neolithic period. The models are roofed and only their exterior is depicted. The roofs can be pitched, flat or have a basin-like form. In some cases one can see decorative architectural elements, while in a single example a bovine bust is represented78. The roofed-house models have a large number of doors and openings and some of them probably show houses with a sort of porch (Fig. 15) at their front and rear faces79. The existence of such a porch is plausible for some Neolithic buildings, for example at Otzaki80 or Sesklo81.

The number of models is fewer in the Later Neolithic and the roof is no longer depicted82. The interior of the house is now represented. The roofless house models are far fewer than the roofed ones. In Thessaly, roofless-house models were found at Platia Magoula Zarkou83 and near the Magoula Kastro 184 while another model of this type was found at Sitagroi-East Macedonia85. They represent, in a similar way, the interior of a house with the hearth and adjacent “bench” along the wall. Apparently, these models did not have a separate, removable roof, although such a roof is reported from Dimitra in Northern Greece86.

Quite similar house models are known from Porodin in the former Southern Yugoslavia87, from Ovčarovo in Bulgaria88, from Popudnia in West Ukraine89 from Kissonerga-Mosphilia in Cyprus90 etc.

77 Toufexis & Skafida 1998, 339-346. 78 Toufexis 1994, 165. 79 Toufexis & Skafida 1998, 340, fig.2. 80 Milojčič 1960, Abb. 2-4. 81 Theocharis 1973, 66. 82 Toufexis 1996, 161. 83 Gallis 1985. 84 Gallis 1992, 129. 85 Renfrew et al. 1986, fig. 8:20, Pl. XL: 1a-d. 86 Marangou 1992, 29, 179. 87 Garašanin et al. 1971, n. 82. 88 Todorova 1974. 89 Kordysh 1953, fig. 12, 13. 90 Peltenburg 1991, 11-27.

Thus, by examining the relationship between the house models and the architectural evidence from excavations, we could note the following:

1. There is some correspondence in size of the plan between the models and the houses. 2. Regarding the pitched and flat roofs, there is also agreement in the materials and mode of construction and in the opening for the smoke that is situated on the apex or the sides of the roof. 3. The same agreement is observed for the two-storey and underground buildings, those with columns and doors. In the latter case we have observed that the models have a large number of doors and openings, a feature that has not been detected in excavation. 4. The painted, incised or relief decoration on the models has not been found in excavated material. The same applies for the shallow cavity on the floor of the models. The existence of holes for central posts has not been confirmed in excavation and the hearths are located near the walls. 5. Finally, the models represent only detached and one-roomed buildings, although excavations at Neolithic settlements have unearthed structures with more than one room. Taken together, this show that what is represented or narrated on the models is not reality but an image of reality, which we could call ‘idea of the oikos’. The decrease and final disappearance of models during the Later and Final Neolithic is related to the socio-economic changes of the time.

4. Distribution of figurines

The problem concerning the circum-stances in which the figurines were found is common. Most of them continue to come from surveys which mean they are detached from their natural context. We are still far from identifying the social factors determining the conditions of the figurines ‘existence and function’. We are also far from comprehending the everyday life practices of Neolithic humans in the household and in the community.

The figurines of Late and Final Neolithic in Thessaly have been found in domestic contexts, they are very unknown in burial, and they are not related to a specific architectural structure within the settlements. At Dimini, for

Symbols from the Aegean World: The Case of Late Neolithic Figurines and House Models from Thessaly

523

example, the figurines were found both inside and outside houses, in storing and also food preparation areas, as well as in tool manufacturing places and ovens. The anthropomorphic and animal figurines are related with each other as well as with pottery, grinding and weaving tools, spindle whorls, stone and bone tools, jewelry and slings.

In no instance were the figurines grouped together in a place that could have had a single, predetermined function. Moreover, the distribution of the figurines is not homogeneous and we cannot suppose the existence of manufacturers of figurines at Dimini91. The same is true for Pefkakia, whereas the house Q at Rakhmani, where acrolithic figurines were found, has been interpreted as their possible place of production92.

5. Conclusions

We did not try to suggest new hypotheses for the use or uses of figurines. Nevertheless, the argument for a relatively large differentiation in use and the various interpretations seem to us more plausible. Figurines seem to have had more than one uses related to the place in the settlement they were found and also to the function and symbolic character of the finding location. The figurines as representations and symbols convey different meanings depending on the user, context of their use, the words and gestures that accompany them. The fact that many figurines we found thrown away or broken shows that they had a limited period of use while their presence in houses, store rooms and rarely in graves implies their associations with crops and survival. Neolithic figurines remain some of the most characteristic elements for understanding the identity of neolithic individual, his experienced culture the way he conceived his world and he created his relations. Future researchers should rise the curtain, the web of the fantasy, the idealism, the narrow and fragmental view of the spider. Let’s hope they will include humanism in their research and go forward to associate the neolithic figurines and

91 Skafida 1992, 176. 92 Marangou 1992, 143.

whole material culture within the relevant social, economic and ideological context.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank for their precious help the

Prof. G. Hourmouziades, the colleagues G. Toufexis, M. Stamatopoulou, Z. Malakasioti, E. Christmann, A. Moundrea, G. Gardalinou, E. Karimali, S. Souvatzi, M. Avgeri, the topographer Th. Makri and the friends G. Psarras, G. Kiassas, D. Goulas, V. Oikonomidou, V. Voulgaris and Hyemeyohsts Storm.

EVANGELIA SKAFIDA Volos Archaeological Museum 1st Athanassaki St. GR- 38 001 Volos, GREECE

Evangelia SKAFIDA 524 Bibliography: Avramova, M. 1991, “Gold and Copper Jewellery from the Chalcolithic Cemeteries near the Village of Durankulak, Varna

District”, in: Mohen, J.P. & C. Eluere (eds.) 1991, Découverte du métal, Amis du Musée des Antiquités Nationales, Millénaires, 43-47.

Bànffy, E. 1991, “Cult and Archaeological Context in Middle and Southeast Europe in the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic”, Antaeus 19-20, 183-249.

Berciu, D. 1960, “Neolithic figurines from Romania”, Antiquity XXIV, 283-284. Bernabò-Brea, L. 1964, Poliochni I. Città preistorica nell' isola di Lemnos, Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene

e delle Missioni Itlaliane in Oriente. Roma. Coleman, J.E. 1974, “The Chronology and Interconnections of the Cycladic Islands in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age”,

AJA 78, 333-343. Coleman, J.E. 1977, Keos I: Kephala, A Late Neolithic Settlement and Cemetery. Princeton. Calinescu, A. (ed.) 1994, The Art of Ancient Jewellery. An Introduction to the Burton Y. Berry Collection at the Indiana

University Art Museum. Cosmopoulos, M.B. 1991, The Early Bronze Age 2 in the Aegean. SIMA 98. Göteburg. Demoule, J.P. 1991, “Les recherches récentes en Grèce septentrionale et les problèmes chronologiques et régionnaux des

cultures à céramique en graphite”, in: Lichardus, J. (ed.) 1991, 227-236. Dimakopoulou, K. 1998 (ed.), Kosmimata tis Hellenekis Proistorias. O Neolithikos Thesauros, 15-19, Ethniko Arhaiologiko

Mouseio, 15 December 1998 – 28 February 1999, exhibition catalogue. Athina. Frey, O.H. 1991, “Varna - ein Umschlagplatz für den Seehandel in der Kupferzeit?” in: Lichardus J. (ed.) 1991, 195-201. Fol, A. & J. Lichardus (eds.) 1988, Macht, Herrschaft und Gold. Das Gräberfeld von Varna Bulgarien und die Anfänge

einer neuen europäischen Zivilisation. Saarbrücken. Gallis, K. 1985, “A Late Neolithic Foundation Offering from Thessaly”, Antiquity 59, 20-24. Gallis, K. 1990, “Prosfates ereunes sti neolithiki Thessalia”, Archaiologia 34, 9-20. Gallis, K. 1992, Atlas proistorikon oikismon tis Anatolikis thessalikis pediadas. Larisa. Garašanin, M., M. Sanev, D. Simoska & B. Kitanoski 1971, Les Civilisations Préhistoriques de la Macedoine. Stip. Gimbutas, M. 1982, The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe 6500-3500 B.C. Sussex. Grammenos, D. 1975, “Apo tous proistorikous oikismous tis Anatolikis Makedonias”, ADelt 30, Meletai, 193-234. Grammenos, D.V. 1991, Neolithikes ereunes stin Kentriki kai Anatoliki Makedonia, Archaiologiki Etairia, Athinai. Grammenos, D.V. 1997, Neolithiki Makedonia. Athina. Halstead, P.L.J. 1981, “Counting Sheep in Neolithic and Bronze Age Greece”, in: Hodder, I., G. Isaac & N. Hammond

(eds.) 1981, Pattern of the Past, Studies in Honor of David Clarke. Cambridge, 307-339. Halslead, P.L.J. 1984, Strategies for Survival: An Ecological Approach to Social and Economic Change in the Early

Farming Communites of Thessaly, N. Greece, Ph.D. Dissertation, Cambridge University. Cambridge. Halstead, P.L.J. 1992, “Lar'sa, Lar'sa, s' eida kai lakhtar'sa”, in: Praktika Diethnous Synedriou gia tin archea Thessalia. Sti

mnimi tou Dimitri R. Theochari, Dimosieumata tou Archeologikou Deltiou ar. 48, 210-216, Athina. Hanschmann, E. 1976, Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa-Magula in Thessalien III. Die frühe und beginnende

mittlere Bronzezeit, BAM 13-14. Bonn. Hansen, H.D. 1933, Early Civilization in Thessaly. Baltimore. Hauptmann, H. 1981, Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki Magula in Thessalien III: Das Späte Neolithikm. und

das Chalkolithikum, BAM 21, Bonn. Hourmouziades, G.H. 1972, “Hassan Magoula”, in: Kernos. Timitikos tomos ston kathigiti G. Mpakalaki, Thessaloniki,

203-213. Hourmouziades, G.H. 1973, I anthropomorphi idoloplastiki tis neolithikis Thessalias. Athina. Hourmouziades, G. H. 1979, To neolithiko Dimini. Volos. Hourmouziades, G.H. 1977, “Ena eidikeumeno ergastirio kerameikis sto neolithiko Dimini”, AAA X, 207-225. Hourmouziades, G.H. 1996, Dispilio (Kastoria), the Prehistoric Lakeside Settlement. Thessaloniki. Ivanov, I.S. 1991, “Les objets métalliques de la necropole chalcolithique de Varna”, in: Mohen, J.P & C. Eluere (eds.) 1991,

Découverte du Métal, Amis du Musée des Antiquités Nationales, Millénaires 2, 9-11. Kordysh, N. 1953, “Stone Age Dwellings in the Ukraine”, Archaeology VI, 167-173.

Symbols from the Aegean World: The Case of Late Neolithic Figurines and House Models from Thessaly 525 Kotsakis, K., A. Papanthimou-Papaefthimiou, A. Pilali-Papasteriou, T. Savopoulou, Y. Maniatis, and B. Kromer

1989, “Carbon 14 Dates from Mandalo, W. Macedonia”, in: Maniatis, Y. (ed.) 1989, Archaeometry, Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium. Elsevier, 679-685.

Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. 1998, in: Dimakopoulou, K. (ed.) 1998, n. 57. Lambert, N. 1981, La grotte préhistorique de Kitsos (Attique), 1-2. Paris. Lichardus, J. (ed.) 1991, Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Symposium Saarbrücken und Otzenhausen 6-12.11.1988,

Teil 1. Bonn. Lolos, G. 1998, in: Dimakopoulou, K. (ed.) 1998, n. 62. Makkay, J. 1989, The Tiszaszölös Treausure, Studia Archaeologica X, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest. Marangou, Chr. 1992, ΕΙΔΩΛΙΑ. Figurines et miniatures du Néolithique Récent et du Bronze Ancien en Gréce, BAR Int.

576. Oxford. Marinatos, S. 1930, “Anaskafai en Kriti”, Praktika, 97-98. Milojčić, V. 1960, “Hauptergebnisse der Deutschen Ausgrabungen in Thessalien, 1953-1958. Bonn. Milojčić, V., A. von den Driesch, K. Enderle, J. Milojčić - v. Zumbusch & K. Kilian, 1966, Die Deutsche Ausgrabungen

auf Magulen um Larisa in Thessalien, BAM 15. Bonn. Müller, K. 1938, Tiryns IV. Die Urfirniskeramik. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des Instituts. München. Papaefthimiou-Papanthimou, K. 1987, “Tria neolithika idolia apo to Mandalo tis Makedonias”, in: Eilapini - tomos

timitikos gia ton kathigiti N. Platona. Athinai, 171-177. Papathanassopoulos, G.A. (ed.) 1996, Neolithic Civilization in Greece, N.P. Goulandris Foundation, Museum of Cycladic

Art. Athens. Pappa, M. 1998, in: Dimakopoulou, K. (ed.) 1998, n. 72-73. Peltenburg, E. J. 1991, “A Ceremonial Area at Kissonerga, Lemba Archaeological Project II”, 2, SIMA 120:3, (2).

Göteborg. Renfrew, C. 1969, “The Development and Chronology of the Early Cycladic Figurines”, AJA 73, 1-32. Renfrew, C., M. Gimbutas & E. Elster (eds.) 1986, Excavations at Sitagroi, Vol. I. Monumenta Archaeologica 13. Los

Angeles. Rudolph, W. 1995, “A Golden Legacy”, Baden, L. (ed.) 1995, Ancient Jewelry from the Burton Y. Berry Collection at the

Indiana University Art Museum. Skafida, E. 1986, Analisi Formale e Contestuale degli Idoli Neolitici del Sito di Dimini in Thessalia Tesi di

Perfezionamento, Università di Pisa. Piza. Skafida, L 1992, “Neolithika anthropomorpha eidolia tou Diminiou”, in: Praktika Diethnous Synedriou gia tin Archea

Thessalia - Sti mnimi tou Dimitri R. Theochari, Dimosieumata tou Archeologikou Deltiou 48, 166-179, Athinai. Skafida, E. & G. Toufexis 1994, “Figurines de la fin de l'époque néolithique en Thessalie, Gréce Centrale”, in: Roman, P. &

M. Alexianu (eds.) 1994, Relations thraco-illyro-helléniques. Actes du XIVe Symposium National de Thracologie, Băile Herculane, 14-19 septembre 1992. Bucarest, 12-24.

Skafida, E. 1996, in: Papathanassopoulos, G.A. (ed.) 1996, n. 298 –309, 311, 324, 326 – 327, 336, 338 – 339. Skafida, E. 1997, in:. Kypraiou, K (ed.) 1997, Greek Jewellery. 6000 Years of Tradition, Thessaloniki, Villa Bianca 21

December 1997 – 21 February 1998. Athens, n. 25. Theocharis, D.R. 1967, I augi tis Thessalikis Proistorias. Volos. Theocharis, D.R. 1973, Neolithic Greece. Athens. Todorova, H. 1974, “Kultszene und Hausmodell aus Ovčarovo”, Thracia III, 39-46. Todorova, H. 1978, The Eneolithic Bulgaria, BAR Int. Series 49. Oxford. Toufexis, G., 1993, “Plastikes parastaseis zoon tis neolithikis Makedonias kai Thessalias: mia sygritiki paravoli”, in: Ancien

Macedonia V, Papers Read at the Fifth International Symposium Held in Thessaloniki, October 10-15 1989, Thessaloniki, Vol. 3, 1501-1515.

Toufexis, G. 1990, Neolithika Eidolia Zoon tis Thessalias. Metaptyhiaki Diatrivi sto Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis. Thessaloniki.

Toufexis, G. 1991, “Neolithika eidolia tis periohis Tyrnavou”, in: Praktika A' Synedriou Tyrnavitikon Spoudon, Tyrnavos, 21-30.

Toufexis, G. 1994, “Neolithic Animal Figurines from Thessaly”, in: La Thessalie, Quinze années de recherches archéologiques, 1975-1990. Bilans et Perspectives. Actes du Colloque International, Lyon, 17- 22 Avril 1990, Vol. A. Athens, 163-168.

Toufexis, G. 1996, “House Models”, in: Papathanassopoulos G.A. (ed.) 1996, 161-162.

Evangelia SKAFIDA 526 Toufexis, G. & E. Skafida 1998, “Neolithic House Models from Thessaly, Greece”, in: U.I.S.P.P. XIII Congress

Proceedings, Forlí-Italia, 8-14 September 1996, Vol. 3. Forlí, 339-346. Treuil, R. 1983, Le Néolithique et le Bronze Ancien Egéens: Les problèmes stratigraphiques et chronologiques, les

techniques, les hommes. Athens. Tsountas, Ch. 1908, Ai Proistorikai Akropoleis Diminiou kai Sesklou. Athinai. Wace, A.J.B. & M.S. Thompson 1912, Prehistoric Thessaly. Cambridge. Weißhaar, H.J. 1989, Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula in Thessalien, I. Das späte Neolithikum und

das Chalkolithikum, BAM 28. Bonn. Weißhaar, H.J. 1982, “Varna und die Ägäische Bronzezeit”, AKorrBl 12, 321-329. Vasilakis A. 1996, O hrysos kai o argyros stin Kriti kata tin proimi periodo tou Halkou. Athens. Zachos, K.L 1996, “Metal Jewelry”, in: Papathanassopoulos G.A. (ed.) 1996, 166-167. List of Illustrations: Fig. 1: Neolithic “acrolithic” figurine from East Thessalian plain. Bastis’ Collection, Archaeological Museum of Volos. Fig. 2: Marble heads of Neolithic figurines from East Thessalian plain. Bastis’ Collection, Archaeological Museum of Volos. Fig. 3: Neolithic figurines of marble from settlements of East Thessalian plain. Bastis’ Collection, Archaeological Museum

of Volos. Fig. 4: Golden Neolithic ring-shaped figurine-pendant from Platomagoules, East Thessalian plain. Bastis’ Collection,

Archaeological Museum of Volos. Fig. 5: Neolithic ring-shaped figurine-pendant of stone from Dimini. Archaeological Museum of Volos. Fig. 6: Neolithic ring-shaped figurine-pendant of stone from Dimini. Archaeological Museum of Volos. Fig. 7: Neolithic phiale from Dimini. Archaeological Museum of Volos. Fig. 8: Fragment of Neolithic phiale from Dimini. Archaeological Museum of Volos. Fig. 9: Fragment of Neolithic phiale from Dimini. Archaeological Museum of Volos. Fig. 10: Neolithic marble cross-shaped figurine-pendant from Dimini. Archaeological Museum of Volos. Fig. 11: Neolithic cross-shaped figurine-pendant of clay from Dimini. Archaeological Museum of Volos. Fig. 12: Golden Neolithic ring-shaped figurine-pendant from Platomagoules, East Thessalian plain. Bastis’ Collection,

Archaeological Museum of Volos. Fig. 13: Human shaped handle of Neolithic vase from Dimini. Archaeological Museum of Volos. Fig. 14: Neolithic model of table from Dimini. Archaeological Museum of Volos. Fig. 15: Neolithic house model from Western Thessalian plain. Archaeological Museum of Volos.

Symbols from the Aegean World: The Case of Late Neolithic Figurines and House Models from Thessaly 527

Evangelia SKAFIDA 528

Symbols from the Aegean World: The Case of Late Neolithic Figurines and House Models from Thessaly 529

Evangelia SKAFIDA 530

Symbols from the Aegean World: The Case of Late Neolithic Figurines and House Models from Thessaly 531

Evangelia SKAFIDA

532