² Jarman et al. 1982, 153; cf. Andreou, St. and Kotsakis, K., “πολιτισμός της Ευρώπης Νεολιϑιχές Έρευνες στην Κεντριχή χαι Ανατολισή Μαχεδονία Νεολιϑιχή”, Μαχεδονία Νεολιϑιχή Μαχεδονία (Thessaloniki, 1987), 57–88, esp. 79–80Google Scholar.

³ Grammenos 1991, 126–43.

⁴ Jarman et al. 1982, 153, table 13; Grammenos 1997, 322.

⁵ Jarman et al. 1982, 156; Grammenos 1997, 322; cf. Grammenos, D. and Kotsos, S., Διαστάσεις του χώρου στην Κεντριχή Μαχεδονία. Αποτύπωση (διαχοινοτιχής χωροοργάνωσης Νεολιϑιχό Οιχισμό Σταυρούπολης Θεσσαλονίχης, 2; Thessaloniki, 2002), 15–17Google Scholar.

⁶ About large, sparsely occupied settlements in central Macedonia, see Grammenos, D., “Δημοσιεύματα του Αρχαιολογιχού Ινστιτούτου Βόρειας Ελλάδας”, in Ancient Macedonia: Fifth International Symposium (Institute for Balkan Studies, 240; Thessaloniki, 1993), i. 499–507, esp. 502–3Google Scholar; M. Pappa, “νεότερες νεολιθιχές στη Μαχεδονία χώρου στην χοιλάδα των Βασιλιχών”, ibid. ii. 1225–38, esp. 1227; cf. Andreou and Kotsakis (n. 2), 83–4.

⁷ Approximately 5300–4500 BC cal: Dimitra Ib–III, Sitagroi I–III, Karanovo III–VI, Vinča A–C: Grammenos 1991, 91. For the phases of Greek Neolithic see Demoule and Perlès 1993, 366 fig. 2 and Andreou, St., Fotiadis, M., and Kotsakis, K., ‘Review of Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece’, AJA 100 (1996), 537–97, esp. 538CrossRefGoogle Scholar, table 1.

⁸ Grammenos 1991, 30, 102.

⁹ Ibid., 50, 60.

¹⁰ = Dimitra Ib, Karanovo III, end of Sitagroi I.

¹¹ = Dimitra II, Karanovo IV, Sitagroi II, Dikili Tash I.

¹² End of the MN, beginning of the LN: approximately end of 6th, beginning of 5th mill. BC, Grammenos 1991, 91; id. 1997, 254.

¹³ On the ground that, having its eyes in front and not at the sides, it could not be a ruminant, Louis Chaix and Isabelle Chenal-Velarde thought that identification as a lion was not excluded (in so far as one could judge from photographs), and that in profile the resemblance was strong. Chenal-Velarde considers this identification as probable; Chaix suggests a second possibility, Mustelidae, in which case the figure would be larger than life-size. Yet this impression is rather due to the fragmentary condition of the muzzle, which looks pointed on some photographs but in reality is not.

¹⁴ See in particular Vasilika and Thermi: Grammenos 1991, 112–13, pls. 34. 28; 35. 19–24; 36.7, 10, 16; Marangou (1992), 27; ead., “Τα νεολιθιχά ειδώλια της Θέρμης Β (ανασχαφιχές περίοδοι 1987 ϰαι 1989)”,in Grammenos, D. et al. , Ανασχαφή νεολιθιχού οιχισμού Θέρμης Β χαι βυζαντινής εγχατάστασης παρά τον προϊστοριχό οιχισμό Θέρμης Α. Ανασχαφιχή περίδοσ 1989”, Μαχεδονιχά 28 (1991) (Thessaloniki, 1992), 427–32, pls. 2–3Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Marangou 1992, 184–5; 2000, esp. 234–5.

¹⁶ Marangou 1996, esp. 195.

¹⁷ Cauvin 1997, esp. 124; Schmidt 1999, esp. 8–9

¹⁸ Hauptmann 1999, fig. 15.

¹⁹ Ibid., 75–6 fig. 10.

²⁰ Cauvin 1997, 151; Schmandt-Besserat 1998.

²¹ Grissom 2000, 42–3.

²² The oldest occupation belongs to the Banat culture, corresponding to the Early Vinča culture, Vinča A: Monah 1997, 32.

²³ A construction system with pegs, used inter alia for fixing heads on torsos, had been used for standard-size Neolithic figurines: Marangou 1997, 227–65, pls. 62–70, esp. 229–34; 2000, 230–1; the heads of Rachmani Final Neolithic (Chalcolithic) figurines were also fixed into a hole in their body, and it has been suggested that they could be changed: ead. 1992, 143.

²⁴ Lazarovici 1989, esp. 153.

²⁵ Ibid., n. 35.

²⁶ Double-headed Vinča figurines are known: Gimbutas 1984, figs. 86, 100–1; 1989, 171 fig. 271; 1999, 76; Truşesţi double altars: Lazarovici 1989, 152; more double figurines and double- or multiple-headed figurines are known from Greece, particularly Thessaly: Marangou 1992, 165, 183 fig. 13 p, r–s.

²⁷ Lazarovici, G., Neoliticul Banatului (Cluj-Napoca, 1979) 89 fig. 7. 14Google Scholar.

²⁸ Lazarovici 1989, figs. 8. 4; 9. 3–5.

²⁹ Lazarovici 1989, figs. 5; 11. 1.6.

³⁰ Whittle 1999, 109.

³¹ Contra: Gimbutas 1999, 76.

³² Lazarovici 1989, 151, 153.

³³ Lazarovici 1989, 152 fig. 3. 5.

³⁴ Galović 1958, 175–85; id., ‘The monumental prehistoric clay figures of the Middle Balkans’, AJA 70 (1968), 370–1 and pl. 93; Whittle 1999, 101.

³⁵ Galović 1958.

³⁶ Ibid., pls. 3–4.

³⁷ Cf. L'Art despremiers agriculteurs en Serbie, 6000–2500 avant J.-C. (Musée des Antiquités Nationales, exhibition catalogue; Saint-Germain-en Laye 1979)Google Scholar, no. 265, H. (pres.) 17.5 cm, LN; no. 181, (H. pres.) 11 cm, LN; no. 78, (H. pres.) 9.2 cm, MN.

³⁸ Garašanin 1952.

³⁹ Kuzmanović-Cvetković and Sljivar 1998.

⁴⁰ Galović 1958.

⁴¹ Garašanin 1952.

⁴² Kuzmanović-Cvetković and Sljivar 1998, 175 and n. 13, 176.

⁴³ Garašanin 1952.

⁴⁴ Whittle 1999, 101.

⁴⁵ Höckmann 1999, n. 54.

⁴⁶ Papathanasopoulos, G. (ed.), Νεολιϑιχός Πολιτισμός στην Ελλάδα (Athens, 1996), 310, no. 228Google Scholar; Höckmann 1999, 282, n. 53, 54.

⁴⁷ 4600–4050 BC cal: Mantu, C.-M., Cultura Cucuteni: Evoluţie cronologie legaturi (Bibliotheca Memoriae Antiquitatis, 5; Piatra-Neamţ, 1998), 187Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Monah 1997, 220, 223.

⁴⁹ The site, located on communication routes, had obvious links with the regions of FYROM and SE Albania, as well as Thessaly: Hourmouziadis, G., Δισπηλιό 7500 χϱόνια μετά (Thessaloniki, 2002)Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Ibid., 257 fig. 7; 1998; Marangou 2000, 234–5; 2001, 177.

⁵¹ Marangou 1997, pl. 70 a–b; 2000, fig. 5 b; for other examples of large figures, see ead. 1992, 184–5.

⁵² Cucuteni, 66, 149, 210, cat. no. 122; cf. Perničeva, L., ‘Glineni modeli na ilišta ot halkolita v bălgarskite zemi’, Arheologija, 20. 2 (1978), 1–12Google Scholar; Petrescu-Dȋmboviţa 1954; ead., ‘Die wichtigsten Ergebnisse der archäologischen Ausgrabungen in der neolithischen Siedlung von Truşesţi (Moldau)’, Praehistorische Zeitschrift, 41 (1963), 172–86, esp. 176, 180Google Scholar figs. 8, 9.

⁵³ Cucuteni, 66. By contrast, Cucuteni B cult ensembles consisted of a number of standard-size figurines and other ritual objects, kept, at least for a time, in vases, as at Ghelăieşti-Nedeia and Buznea (Marangou 1996, 186–8, with references).

⁵⁴ Özdoğan, M., ‘Le vase anthropomorphe de Toptepe’, Les Dossiers d'archéologie, 281 (March 2003), 19Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Gimbutas 1991, 328 fig. 9. 5; 1999, 281 fig. 13; Hegedüs, K. and Makkay, J., ‘Vésztö-Mágor: a settlement of the Tisza culture’, in Talas, L. (ed.), The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region (Budapest, 1987), 85–103Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Cauvin 1997, 153; cf. Schmandt-Besserat 1998, 9.

⁵⁷ Grissom 2000, 43; Schmandt-Besserat 1998.

⁵⁸ Grissom 2000, 43; Schmandt-Besserat 1998.

⁵⁹ Cauvin 1997, 201; Grissom 2000, 44; Schmandt-Besserat 1998, 3.

⁶⁰ Cauvin 1997, 153; Schmandt-Besserat 1998, 8.

⁶¹ Hauptmann 1993, 66 and fig. 25.

⁶² Cauvin 1997, 156.

⁶³ Höckmann 1999.

⁶⁴ Vasić 1932–6, quoted by Chapman 1981, i. 128.

⁶⁵ Bánffy, E., ‘Cult and archaeological context in Middle and South-East Europe in the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic’, Antaeus, 19–20 (1990–1991), 183–249, esp. 224Google Scholar, refers to Genov, N. and Radunčeva, A., ‘Periodăt na hipotezite’, Otečestvo 21 (1985)Google Scholar, passim.

⁶⁶ Todorova, H., Kupferzeitliche Siedlungen in Nordostbulgarien (Materialien zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie, 13; Munich, 1982), 102 fig. 57Google Scholarb 17.

⁶⁷ Schmandt-Besserat 1998, 14.

⁶⁸ Chapman, i. 74.

⁶⁹ Galović 1958.

⁷⁰ Chapman 1981, i. 82–3.

⁷¹ Marangou 2004, passim.

⁷² Cauvin 1997, 171.

⁷³ Ibid., 48.

⁷⁴ Ibid., 124.

⁷⁵ Rosenberg, M., ‘Hallan Çemi’, in Özdoğan, and Başgelen, 1999, i. 26–33, esp. 27Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ A. Özdoğan, ‘Çayönü’, ibid. 35–63, esp. 52 and fig, 24.

⁷⁷ Stordeur and Abbès 2002, esp. 568 fig. 18.

⁷⁸ Hodder 1999, 160, 162.

⁷⁹ Cauvin 1997, 51.

⁸⁰ New excavations: Martin, L., Russell, N., and Carruthers, D., ‘Animal remains from the Central Anatolian Neolithic’, in Gérard, F. and Thissen, L. (eds), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: Internal Developments and External Relations During the 9th–6th Millennia cal. BC: Central Anatolian Neolithic e-Workshop, Proceedings of the International CANeW Table Ronde, Istanbul, 2001 (Istanbul, 2002), 193–206, esp. 201Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Cauvin 1997, 51.

⁸² Darcque, P. and Treuil, R., ‘Dikili Tash à l'époque néolithique: un “bucrăne” néolithique’, Dossiers d'archéologie, 222 (April 1997), 26–7Google Scholar; eid., ‘Un “Bucrane” néolithique à Dikili Tash (Macédoine Orientale)’, BCH 122 (1998), 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸³ Hourmouziadis 1998; Marangou 2000, 233 n. 85; 2001.

⁸⁴ Dimensions (max. pres.): 8.8 × 7.44 × 2.58 cm.

⁸⁵ Grammenos 1997, pl. 38, 13; Marangou 1997, 251, 254, no. MK 320; 1996, fig. 8.

⁸⁶ Galović 1958.

⁸⁷ At a depth of 3.64 m and 2.98 m; Vasić 1932–6, ii. 51, pl. 36. 85.

⁸⁸ Jovanović and Glišić 1960.

⁸⁹ Ibid., fig. 37. 1 a–c.

⁹⁰ Ibid., figs. 2, 3 a–b, 33, 35, 37–42.

⁹¹ Ibid., 141–2; cf. Vasić 1932–6, ii, pls. 36–7, Vinča fragment with a height of c. 40 cm.

⁹² Makkay 1978, 14.

⁹³ About the iconographic relationship woman–bull see Cauvin 1997; cf. Cucuteni, 90.

⁹⁴ Marangou 1996, 193.

⁹⁵ Makkay, J., ‘Foundation sacrifices in Neolithic houses of the Carpathian basin’, in Proceedings of the III Valcamonica Symposium 1979 (Capo di Ponte, 1983), 157–67Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ Avramova, M., ‘Étude sur un thème préhistorique’, Studia in honorem Alexandri Fol = Thracia 11 (1995), 83–8, esp. 84Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ Jovanović and Glišić 1960, 141.

⁹⁸ Ibid., 141–2.

⁹⁹ Kitanovski, B., Simoska, D., and Jovanović, B., ‘Der Kultplatz auf der Fundstätte Vrbjanska Cuka bei Prilep’, in Srejović, D. and Tasić, N. (eds), Vinča and its world, International Symposium the Danubian region from 6000 to 3000 BC (Beograd, 1990), 107–12, esp. 110–11Google Scholar with references; Kuzmanović-Cvetković and Sljivar 1998, 176.

¹⁰⁰ Kitanovski et al. (n. 99), 108–9.

¹⁰¹ Ibid., 111.

¹⁰² Jovanović, B., ‘Arhitektonska plastika u starčevačkoj kulturi’, Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja, 14. 1 (Belgrade, 1992), 53–9Google Scholar.

¹⁰³ Kuzmanović-Cvetković and Sljivar 1998, 175.

¹⁰⁴ H. 13.4 cm, D. (max.) 15.5 cm: VI. Dumitrescu, , Arta Culturii Cucuteni (Bucharest, 1979), 78–84Google Scholar; Cucuteni, 64–6, cat. no. 95, figs on pp. 65, 141, text on p. 202.

¹⁰⁵ Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch., Todorova, H., Aslanis, I., Bojad, J. iev, Konstantopoulou, F., Vajsov, I., and Valla, M., “Προμαχὼνας--Topolnica.Νεολιθιχὸς ολχισμὸς ελληηνοβουλγαριχὼν συνὸρων” ΑΕΜΘ 10B (1996), 745–67Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Several figures, even larger than life-size, mostly human, painted, modelled, or in relief on ‘altars’, platforms, floors, or walls of buildings, as well as bucrania, were found, according to the excavator, in the 5th-mill. Eneolithic settlement of Dolnoslav (S of Plovdiv, Bulgaria): Raduncheva, A., ‘Kurzer vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Dolnoslav’, in Lichardus, J. (ed.), Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche: Symposium Saarbrücken und Otzenhausen 1988 (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, 55; Bonn, 1991), 107–10Google Scholar. The settlement, destroyed by fire, may have been a cult centre consisting of a group of shrines, perhaps with significance for wide areas around (Whittle 1999, 89).

¹⁰⁷ Cauvin 1997, 157.

¹⁰⁸ Hauptmann 1993, 57.

¹⁰⁹ Cauvin 1997, 157–9. Cf. the ‘masks’ of Vinča figurines (Gimbutas 1984, 57–65), a Late Chalcolithic mask belonging to the Baden culture from Hungary (Horváth, T., ‘A unique anthropomorphic representation of the Baden culture’, in Bánffy, E. (ed.), Prehistoric Studies in memoriam Ida Bogádr-Kutzián = Antaeus, 25 (Budapest, 2002), 423–6Google Scholar), and the well-known masks in Varna Chalcolithic tombs.

¹¹⁰ Rosenberg (n. 75), 27, 30.

¹¹¹ Perlès 2001, 254.

¹¹² Hodder 1999, 161.

¹¹³ Chapman 1981, 82–3. fig. 11.

¹¹⁴ Hodder 1990, 51, 84.

¹¹⁵ Hodder 1999, 163.

¹¹⁶ Quoted ibid. 163.

¹¹⁷ Mellaart 1967, e.g. 46 pls. 22–4, 48 pls. 27–8, 121 fig. 33.

¹¹⁸ Makkay 1978, 14; Toufexis, G., ‘Neolithic animal figurines from Thessaly’, La Thessalie: quinze années de recherches archéologiques, 1975–1990. Bilans et perspectives, Actes du collogue international, Lyon 1990 (Athens, 1994), i. 163–8Google Scholar, esp. figs. 8 and 11; Höckmann 1999, 278–9; fig. 11.

¹¹⁹ Perničeva (n. 52).

¹²⁰ Trogmayer, O., ‘Ein neolithisches Hausmodellfragment von Röszke’, Acta Antigua et Archaeologica, 10 (1966), 11–26Google Scholar, with references.

¹²¹ Deschler-Erb et al. 2002.

¹²² Ibid.

¹²³ Cf. Höckmann 1999, 279.

¹²⁴ Marangou 1996, fig. 9.

¹²⁵ The same suggestion, as a trophy, was advanced about the Dikili Tash bucranium by Darcque and Treuil (n. 82). Hell, B., ‘Le culte du trophée en Europe occidentale: réflexion ethnologique sur la continuité de l'imaginaire du sauvage’, in Desse, J. and Audoin-Rouzeau, F. (eds), XIIIèmes Rencontres Internationales d'archéologie et d'histoire d'Antibes, IVèmes Collogue International de l'Homme et l'animal (Juan-les-Pins, 1993), 440–52Google Scholar, recommends caution on extrapolations and establishing relations between hunting customs and practices concerning domestic animals. See also ibid. on later trophies and their significance.

¹²⁶ Deschler-Erb 2002.

¹²⁷ Hauptmann 1993.

¹²⁸ Schmidt 1997, esp. 74.

¹²⁹ Hauptmann 1999, 76 fig. 14.

¹³⁰ Schmidt 2000.

¹³¹ Schmidt 1999, 9.

¹³² But see above, n. 109, for masks possibly used as such.

¹³³ A distinct group of zoomorphic stone ‘sceptres’, usually isolated finds or without stratigraphic information, discovered in a large area from the Rhodope mountains to the north of the Danube, and from FYROM to Thrace and even the Caspian Sea, presumably dates from the transition period from Final Neolithic/Eneolithic to Early Bronze Age (Karanovo VII-Černavodă-Ezero, Crnobuki culture, Chalcolithic Rachmani, Salcuţa III–IV, beginning or first half of 4th mill. BC) are considerably later than the material examined here: Berciu, D., ‘A zoomorphic “sceptre” discovered in the People's Republic of Bulgaria and its cultural and chronological position’, Dacia, n.s. 6 (1962), 397–409Google Scholar, esp. 405 fig. 3; Va arova, Z., ‘Zoomorphes Zepter aus Kjulevca, Bezirk Šumen’ Studia Praehistorica, 8 (1986), 203–8Google Scholar). According to Ghetov, L., ‘Sur le problème des sceptres zoomorphes en pierre’, Studia Praehistorica, 3 (1980), 91–6Google Scholar, they constitute the older evidence of the presence of the steppe tribes in the Balkans (III–II mill. BC), with their ochre inhumations of the first half of the 4th mill. BC. It is usually believed (as by Berciu, 398 and n. 15, Ghetov, and Va arova) that they were in fact used as sceptres, with a probable double function, suggesting social status and ritual ‘distinction“. They should be clearly distinguished from the material examined here, in spite of their common points: the idea of a relatively large, zoomorphic or hybrid extremity of a functional element is similar, but their function was obviously different, as they were carved in stone and, during use, they should be positioned vertically, not horizontally, and would be movable.

The part of ‘sceptres” usually preserved forms a very stylized animal head (Mantu (n. 47), 274 fig. 13): they have generally a straight muzzle, two prominences on the upper part of the head (ears?), bulging eyes and forehead, but the species of the animal is not recognizable: horse, wild boar, pig and dog have been proposed (Berciu, figs. 1–2, 4). They are up to about 15 cm long, have a shafthole, and would have been fixed to a soft object, probably in wood, as a handle. A third protuberance or horn behind the ears could have been used for attachment. The animal head was therefore at the extremity of a wooden stick (Berciu). A small specimen (L. 8 cm) from Kjulevca (Šumen, Bulgaria) found in an ochre crouched burial of a man had belonged to a 40 cm long bone grip with a cavity at the upper end. On the upper part of the animal head, an oblong, rounded opening was used to fix it in the cavity of the grip, by means of a peg (Va arova).

It may be significant that, for a black stone, zoomorphic, shaft-hole axe, found in a much later (EBA) level of Sitagroi Vb (C 14 2055±40bc and 2021±40bc; “Long House;” Renfrew, C., ‘The excavated areas’, in Renfrew, et al. 1986, 175–222, esp. 189Google Scholar; fig. 8. 4b, pl. XXV), in eastern Macedonia, the represented theme seems to be a lioness's head (L. 8.25 cm; Gimbutas, M., ‘Mythical imagery of Sitagroi society’, in Renfrew, et al. 1986, 225–301Google Scholar, esp. 301, cat. no. 228).

¹³⁴ Schmidt 1999, 12.

¹³⁵ Jovanović (n. 102).

¹³⁶ Lazarovici 1989, fig. 11. 1–2.

¹³⁷ Whittle 1999, 109.

¹³⁸ Lazarovici 1989, figs. 3–4; 12.5 × 7 m.

¹³⁹ Ibid., fig. 3A; cf. fig. 4 (reconstruction).

¹⁴⁰ Ibid., fig. 3. 5.

¹⁴¹ Ibid., figs. 5–6; cf. Monah 1997, figs. 1–2; 11.6 × 6 m.

¹⁴² Lazarovici 1989, figs. 8. 2–6; 10; 13. 1; 14. 4.6. But see above for objections on the reconstruction of the ‘statues’.

¹⁴³ Ibid., 152–3. Cf. the animal (and human?) protomes on angles of small ‘altars’ imitating large ‘altars’. For Vinča examples see Stanković, S., The Altars and Prosopomorphic Lids from Vinča (Belgrade, 1986)Google Scholar; for examples from northern Greece, Marangou 2004.

¹⁴⁴ Again for a life-size figure, according to the excavator: Lazarovici 1989, fig. 15. 1–5.

¹⁴⁵ Ibid., figs. 8–9.

¹⁴⁶ Ibid., 152.

¹⁴⁷ Ibid., figs. 13. 1–3; 19. 1. 2.

¹⁴⁸ Tringham, R., Brukner, B., and Voytek, B., ‘The Opovo Project: a study of socioeconomic change in the Balkan Neolithic’, JFA 12. 4 (1985), 425–44, esp. 431 and 433 fig. 8Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁹ Jovanović and Glišić 1960, figs. 25, 29, 30–2.

¹⁵⁰ Ibid., figs. 36, 37. 2 a–c.

¹⁵¹ House at 3.20 m.

¹⁵² Petrescu-Dȋmboviţa 1954; Höckmann 1999, 275–7 figs. 7–9. See Marangou 1996 for possible use of ‘façades’.

¹⁵³ Höckmann 1999, 261, 277; cf. Gimbutas 1999, 77.

¹⁵⁴ Stordeur and Abbès 2002, 568.

¹⁵⁵ Hauptmann 1999.

¹⁵⁶ e.g. Gimbutas 1984, 80 fig. 33.

¹⁵⁷ Marangou 1992, 17 fig. 24 a, c.

¹⁵⁸ Todorova, H. and Vajsov, I., Novokamennata epoha v Bălgarija (Sofia, 1993), 253, pl. 24Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁹ Ibid., 275, pl. 95 a–b.

¹⁶⁰ Marangou 1992, 181.

¹⁶¹ Gimbutas 1991, 260; 1999, 79.

¹⁶² Makkay 1978, 15–16; Höckmann 1999, 272, with references.

¹⁶³ Hegedüs and Makkay (n. 55).

¹⁶⁴ e.g. Marangou 1992, 165 fig. 9; 1997, pls. 66 a; 69 a–e; Hourmouziadis, G., Τα νεολιϑιχὰ ειδὼλια (Thessaloniki, 1994), pls. 6–9Google Scholar; 1998, 256–7 fig. 7; cf. Neolithic Linear Pottery: Virág, Z., ‘Anthropomorphic Vessels of Transdanubian Linear Pottery Culture’, in Hiller, S. and Nikolov, V. (eds), Karanovo, iii: Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa (Vienna, 2000), 389–403, esp. 389–90Google Scholar; for the Toptepe figure see above, n. 54.

¹⁶⁵ Mellaart 1967, 139 pls. 67–8.

¹⁶⁶ A much later (Cucuteni B2, c. 3700–3500 BC) ‘throne’ has two upright figures on both sides of the back, joined by an M-shaped element (Cucuteni, 238, no. 250 fig. 171).

¹⁶⁷ Hauptmann 1999, 65.

¹⁶⁸ Ibid., 77; Schmidt 1999.

¹⁶⁹ Schmidt 2000, 19, 33.

¹⁷⁰ Cauvin 1997, 161; Özdoğan 1999, 231.

¹⁷¹ Hauptmann 1999, 74–5.

¹⁷² Stordeur and Abbès 2002, 568–9.

¹⁷³ Ibid., 572–6.

¹⁷⁴ Schmidt, K. and Hauptmann, H., ‘Göbekli Tepe et Nevalı Çori’, Les Dossiers d'archéologie, 281 (March 2003), 60–7Google Scholar, esp. 60.

¹⁷⁵ Gebel, H. G., ‘The Neolithic of the Near East: An essay on a “Polycentric Evolution” and other current research problems’, in Hausleiter, A., Kerner, S., and Müller-Neuhof, B. (eds), Material Culture and Mental Spheres: Rezeption archäologischer Denkrichtungen in der Vorderasiatischen Altertumskunde, Internationales Symposium für Hans J. Nissen, Berlin, 23.–24. Juni 2000 (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 293; Münster, 2002), 313–24, esp. 321Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁶ Bischoff, D. and Dumézil, G., ‘Les mégalithes de Göbekli Tepe’, Archéologie, 393 (October 2002), 28–37Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁷ Özdoğan 1999, 228.

¹⁷⁸ Cauvin 1997, 164.

¹⁷⁹ Schmidt 2000, 19, 33.

¹⁸⁰ Özdoğan 1999, 231.

¹⁸¹ Ibid.

¹⁸² Recent work on the site: Hodder 1999, 159.

¹⁸³ At some stages of certain ritual practices (initiation or cult) according to Lazarovici 1989, 151.

¹⁸⁴ Ibid., 151; Whittle 1999, 109.

¹⁸⁵ Ben-Shlomo, D. and Garfinkel, Y., ‘The spatial distribution of the anthropomorphic figurines in Area E’, in Garfinkel, Y. and Miller, M. A. (eds), Sha'ar Hagolan: Neolithic Art in Context, i (Oxford, 2002), 209–13, esp. 211Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁸ Vasić 1932–6, i. 32.

¹⁸⁷ Topping, P., ‘Structure and ritual in the Neolithic house: some examples from Britain and Ireland’, in Darvill, T. and Thomas, J. (eds), Neolithic Houses in North-West Europe and Beyond (Oxford, 1996), 157–70, esp. 166–8Google Scholar and fig. 11.3.

¹⁸⁸ Grammenos 1991, 36–7.

¹⁸⁹ e.g. ibid., pl. 36; 7, 10 (LN).

¹⁹⁰ von den Driesch 1994, esp. 10–11.

¹⁹⁰ Ninov 1999; Willms 1986, 141; cf. Usener 1994, 6, with references.

¹⁹¹ Thomas 2003, esp. 189 n. 160 with references.

¹⁹² Vörös, I., ‘Lion remains from the Late Neolithic and Copper Age of the Carpathian Basin’, Folia Archaeologica: Acta Archaeologica Musei Nationalis, 34 (1983), 33–50Google Scholar.

¹⁹⁴ Ninov 1999, 323.

¹⁹⁵ Felsch 2001, 196.

¹⁹⁶ Usener 1994, 7.

¹⁹⁷ Becker 1986, 172: cf. Boessnek and von den Driesch 1979, 449.

¹⁹⁸ Willms 1986, 141.

¹⁹⁹ von den Driesch 1994; cf. Willms 1986, fig. 2, p. 141; Vörös (n. 193).

²⁰⁰ Thomas 2003, 189–92. For lion remains in prehistoric Greece, see also Yannouli 2003, 186–9 and fig. 18. 9.

²⁰¹ Thomas 2003, 163, 189–92.

²⁰² Benecke, N., ‘Animal remains from the Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements at Kirklareli (Turkish Thrace)’, in Buitenhuis, H., Bartosiewicz, L. and Choyke, A. M. (eds), Archaeozoology of the Near East iii, (Groningen 1998), 172–9, esp. 174–5, table 2Google Scholar.

²⁰³ Ninov 1989; 1999, fig 1.

²⁰⁴ Ibid., 328.

²⁰⁵ Ibid.; Willms 1986, 140.

²⁰⁶ Helmer 1997.

²⁰⁷ Thomas 2003, 190.

²⁰⁸ Pini 1985, 156 n. 13; Demakopoulou and Crouwel 1993, esp. 10 n. 16; Thomas 2003, 190.

²⁰⁹ Ibid., with references.

²¹⁰ Ibid.

²¹¹ Ibid.

²¹² Ibid. with references.

²¹³ Lefèvre, Fr., Mulliez, D., Oulhen, J., and Rousset, D., ‘Études, chroniques et rapports: Delphes’, BCH 116 (1992), ii. 686–711, esp. 693CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²¹⁴ Thomas 2003, 190 with references.

²¹⁵ For lion remains in prehistoric Greece, see Yannouli 2003, 186–9, table 18. 3 and fig. 18. 9.

²¹⁶ D. Helmer 1997, fig. on p. 41; cf. Treuil, R., Darcque, P., Poursat, J.-Cl., and Touchais, G., Les Civilisations égéennes du Néolithique et de l’Âge du Bronze (Paris, 1989), 150Google Scholar.

²¹⁷ Becker 1986, 16, table 1.

²¹⁸ Ibid., 248, 295.

²¹⁹ Ibid., 171, 261–2.

²²⁰ Ibid., 293.

²²¹ Ibid., 166. Phases 10–9 belong to EIA, around 1000 BC cal.: Ibid., 16, table 1.

²²² Ninov 1989.

²²³ Becker 1986, 167–8.

²²⁴ Ninov 1989; exception: Demakopoulou and Crouwel 1993, 10 n. 16, about Keos, and tooth from Karanovo.

²²⁵ Becker 1986, 24.

²²⁶ Ninov 1999, 328–9.

²²⁷ Felsch 2001, 196.

²²⁸ Boessnek and von den Driesch 1981; von den Driesch 1994, 13–14.

²²⁹ Becker 1986, 168.

²³⁰ Ninov 1989.

²³¹ Boessneck and von den Driesch 1981.

²³² von den Driesch 1994, 9–15.

²³³ Fischler, C., ‘Le comestible et l'animalité’, in Cyrulnik, 1998, 950–9, esp. 951Google Scholar (first published as ‘La cuisine de l'interdit’, Psynergie (June 1991)Google Scholar).

²³⁴ Usener 1994, 11–12.

²³⁵ Becker 1986, 167.

²³⁶ Usener 1994, 12–13.

²³⁷ Demoule and Perlès 1993.

²³⁸ Halstead 1987, 77; id., ‘Dimini and the “DMP”: faunal remains and animal exploitation in Late Neolithic Thessaly’, BSA 87 (1992), 29–59, esp. 36, 47; Demoule and Perlès 1993 with references.

²³⁹ Becker 1986, 168.

²⁴⁰ As Thomas 2003; Ninov 1989.

²⁴¹ Felsch 2001, 195–6, pl. 62 b.

²⁴² Ninov 1999, 324.

²⁴³ Bökönyi, S., ‘Faunal remains’, in Renfrew, et al. 1986, 63–132, esp. 92Google Scholar.

²⁴⁴ von den Driesch 1994, 8.

²⁴⁵ Limet 1993, 362–4.

²⁴⁶ Ninov 1999, 326.

²⁴⁷ Yannouli 2003, 188.

²⁴⁸ It could also come originally from a non-funerary context: Boessnek and von den Driesch 1979, 449. Cf. von den Driesch 1994, 13.

²⁴⁹ Chokadziev, S., ‘On early social differentiation in the Struma River Basin: the evidence from the Slatino settlement’, in Bailey, D. W. and Panayotov, I. (eds), Prehistoric Bulgaria (Monographs in World Archaeology No. 22; Madison, 1995), 141–7, esp. 142Google Scholar.

²⁵⁰ Limet 1993.

²⁵¹ Ibid., 362.

²⁵² Bloedow 1992, 302–3.

²⁵³ Schnapp-Gourbeillion, A., Lions, héros, masques: les representations de l'animal chez Homère (Paris, 1981), 43Google Scholar; Bloedow 1999, esp. 61.

²⁵⁴ von den Driesch 1994, 13–14.

²⁵⁵ Usener 1994, 14.

²⁵⁶ Needless to say, it is impossible to domesticate lion: von den Driesch 1994, 16.

²⁵⁷ Bloedow 1992, 298.

²⁵⁸ Id., ‘Löwenjagd im spätbronzezeitlichen Griechenland’, Das Altertum, 38 (1993), 241–20, esp. 243 fig. 6 and 244.

²⁵⁹ Limet 1993, 365; ‘zoological gardens’ at Nineveh: Cassin 1987, 196.

²⁶⁰ von den Driesch 1994, 18–19.

²⁶¹ Limet 1993, 364, 370.

²⁶² Ninov 1999; Limet 1993, 365.

²⁶³ Bloedow 1992, 296, esp. pl. 69 b.

²⁶⁴ von den Driesch 1994, 9–15.

²⁶⁵ Cassin 1987, 186, 188, 204.

²⁶⁶ Guest-Papamanoli, A., ‘Hunting and trapping in prehistoric Crete: a proposal for ethnoarchaeological research’, in Reese, D. S. (ed.), Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and Its First Settlers (Monographs in World Archaeology, 28; Madison, 1996), 337–412, esp. 339–40Google Scholar with references.

²⁶⁷ Cassin 1987, 196, 212–13.

²⁶⁸ Ninov 1999.

²⁶⁹ Becker 1986, 261.

²⁷⁰ Willms 1986, 142, 144.

²⁷¹ Becker 1986, 261.

²⁷² Willms 1986, 142.

²⁷³ Becker 1986, 171.

²⁷⁴ Usener 1994, 11.

²⁷⁵ Ninov 1999; Usener 1994, 5.

²⁷⁶ Ninov 1999.

²⁷⁷ Willms 1986, 140.

²⁷⁸ Extinct, as lion, in Bulgaria today: Ivanov, S. and Vasilev, V., ‘Untersuchungen des Tierknochenmaterials aus dem prähistorischen Tell bei Goljamo Delčevo’, in Todorova, H., Ivanov, C., Vasilev, V., Hopf, M., Quitta, H., and Kohl, G. (eds), Selištnata mogila pri Goljamo Delčevo (Sofia, 1975), 245–302, esp. 301Google Scholar.

²⁷⁹ Ninov 1999, 324–7.

²⁸⁰ Ibid., 325–6; cf. Willms 1986, 142, 144.

²⁸¹ Ninov 1999, 324–7.

²⁸² Chokadziev (n. 249), 141; Ninov 1999.

²⁸³ Halstead 1987, 72.

²⁸⁴ Usener 1994, 12; cf. Boessneck and von den Driesch 1979, fig. 1. See also Thomas 2003, 190 n. 162.

²⁸⁵ E. Yannouli, oral communication. Lynx still survives in Greece: Halstead 1987, 74.

²⁸⁶ Psychoyou-Smith, O., ‘Ο χώϱοϛ ϰαι το φυσιϰό πεϱιβάλλον τηϛ Μαϰεδονίαϛ’, in Aslanis, I. (ed.), Η Πϱοϊστοϱία τηϛ Μαϰεδονίαϛ Ι. Η Νεολιϑιϰή Εποχή (Athens 1992), 28Google Scholar.

²⁸⁷ Psychoyou-Smith (n. 286), 30; cf. Papaeuthymiou Papanthimou and Pilali-Papasteriou 1997, 67.

²⁸⁸ Helmer 1997.

²⁸⁹ Hammond 1972, i. 180, map 17; cf. Papaeuthymiou-Papanthimou and Pilali-Papasteriou 1997, 60–1.

²⁹⁰ Hammond 1972, 194.

²⁹¹ Ibid., 182, 183.

²⁹² Becker 1986, 13.

²⁹³ Ibid., 17.

²⁹⁴ Ibid., 252.

²⁹⁵ Ibid., 166.

²⁹⁶ Ibid., 16, table 1.

²⁹⁷ Willms 1986, 142.

²⁹⁸ Felsch 2001, 196 with references; Willms 1986, 140; Boessnek and von den Driesch 1979, 13.

²⁹⁹ Ninov 1999.

³⁰⁰ Usener 1994, 15–16.

³⁰¹ Cf. Ibid., 17–19 and n. 28–9.

³⁰² Felsch 2001, 196.

³⁰³ Hammond 1972, 194, 209.

³⁰⁴ Historiae vii. 124–6Google Scholar.

³⁰⁵ Cf. Becker 1986, 172.

³⁰⁶ Müller, D., ‘Von Doriskos nach Therme. Der Weg des Xerxesheeres durch Thrakien und Ostmakedonien’, Chiron. Mitteilungen der Kommision für alte Geschichte und Epigraphik des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, 5 (1975), 1–11Google Scholar, pls. 1–10, esp. 8–9.

³⁰⁷ Hammond 1972, 194.

³⁰⁸ Glaveris, Th., Ο ϰάμποϛ τηϛ Θεσσαλονίϰηϛ (Thessaloniki, 1998), 29Google Scholar.

³⁰⁹ Κυνηϒετιϰόϛ 11. 1.

³¹⁰ Usener 1994, 19–20.

³¹¹ Hammond 1972, 209, n. 1.

³¹² Papaeuthymiou-Papanthimou and Pilali Papasteriou 1997, 60–1.

³¹³ Hammond 1972, 187; 180, map 17.

³¹⁴ Usener 1994, 20–4.

³¹⁵ vi. 5. 5.

³¹⁶ Usener 1994, 5, 32–3.

³¹⁷ Ibid., 24–9, 32.

³¹⁸ Becker 1986, 173.

³¹⁹ de Planhol, X., ‘Des forêts et des fauves: la façade montagneuse méridionale de l'Anatolie’, Archéologia, 276 (September 2002), 6–9, esp. 8Google Scholar.

³²⁰ von den Driesch 1994, 20.

³²¹ At least thirty-six specimens in the Chauvet Cave, about 14% of the animal figures: Bahn 1997, 153.

³²² von den Driesch 1994, 11–12.

³²³ From Höhenstein Stadel, Germany, about 33.000 bp: Bahn 1997, 101 fig. 7. 21; Lorblanchet 1999, 257.

³²⁴ Löwenpfeilergebäude.

³²⁵ Schmidt 2000, 38.

³²⁶ Hauptmann 1999, ii. 51, fig. 24; Schmidt 1999, 11.

³²⁷ Ibid., 16, pls. 8. 2, 9. 1.

³²⁸ Schmidt 1997, 76–8 figs. 4–6; Hauptmann 1999, 79 fig. 25.

³²⁹ Ibid., figs. 27, 29, 31. Cf. the ‘wild cat or panther’ small stone heads from PPNA (c. 9000 BC) Jerf el Ahmar and pre-ceramic Shillourokambos in Cyprus (c. 8000 BC): Stordeur, D., ‘Symboles et imaginaire des premières cultures néolithiques du Proche-Orient (haute et moyenne vallée de l'Euphrate)’, in Guilaine, J. (ed.), Arts et symboles du Néolithique à la Protohistoire (Paris, 2003), 15–37, esp. 23Google Scholar and 24 fig. 4, 3; Guilaine, J., ‘Objets “symboliques” et parures de Parekklisha Shillourokambos’, in Guilaine, J. and Le Brun, A. (eds), Le Néolithique de Chypre (BCH Supp. 43; 2003), 329–40, esp. 329–30Google Scholar, 331 fig. 1 a.

³³⁰ Ibid., 80.

³³¹ Ibid., 78.

³³² Ibid., 77.

³³³ Ibid., 51 fig. 24 and 53 fig. 31; cf. Cauvin 1997, 127.

³³⁴ von den Driesch, A. and Peters, J., ‘Vorläufiger Bericht über die archäozoologischen Untersuchungen am Göbekli Tepe und am Gürcütepe bei Urfa, Türkei’, Ist. Mitt. 49 (1999), 23–39, esp. 26Google Scholar.

³³⁵ Cauvin 1997, 124, 126. According to U. Esin, ‘Introduction. The Neolithic in Turkey: a general view’, in Özdoğan and Başgelen 1999, i. 13–23, esp. 20), the pictorial transition from theriomorphic to anthropomorphic beings, particularly apparent at Nevalı Çori, Göbekli Tepe, Gürcütepe and Çayönü, as well as the tendency towards mythological themes at Çatalhöyük had begun in Aceramic times.

³³⁶ Mellaart 1967, 139 pls. 67–8, 157 pl. ix, 184 fig. 52; id., The Neolithic of the Near East (London, 1975), 106 fig. 54.

³³⁷ Cauvin 1997, 51.

³³⁸ Mellaart 1967, 142–3 pls. 73–6, 157 pl. x.

³³⁹ Ibid., 182 fig. 49.

³⁴⁰ Ibid., 182, 141 pls. 75–6, 185. pl. 85, 186 pl. 87.

³⁴¹ Ibid., 119, 44–5 pls. 18–21, 75 pl. vi, 119 fig. 31; id. (n. 336), 111 fig. 61.

³⁴² Cauvin 1997, 51, 104: ‘le fauve complice devient un siège’.

³⁴³ Marangou 1992, 163–4; Toufexis (n. 118), 167; Marangou 2000, fig. 5 a; 2001, figs. 7–8.

³⁴⁴ Gimbutas 1984, figs. 54, 80–2, 167–71, 174–7 etc.

³⁴⁵ Willms 1986.

³⁴⁶ Ibid., fig. 6; cf. fig. 7; contra: the animal is more probably a dog: H. Todorova et al. (n. 278), pls. 62. 13, 63. 12.

³⁴⁷ Willms 1986, fig. 1. 1–2.

³⁴⁸ Nikolov, V., ‘Modelǎt na pešt ot Slatino: opit za interpretacija’, Arheologija, 32/2 (1990), 32–7Google Scholar.

³⁴⁹ Marangou 1992, 28, no. NR 279, and 164 with references; Todorova (n. 66).

³⁵⁰ Makkay, J., ‘Weitere neolitische Feliden darstellungen aus Südosteuropa’, Germania, 66 (1988), 135–43, esp. 135Google Scholar.

³⁵¹ Ibid., 136 and nn. 6–7.

³⁵² Ibid., figs. 1–3.

³⁵³ Ibid., figs. 4 and 6; but the identification of the latter, especially in fig. 6, as a lion, seems dubious.

³⁵⁴ Kathimerini Internet edition, October 2001, http//www.ekathimerini.com/news (accessed 20 Oct. 2001).

³⁵⁵ Toufexis, G., ‘Animals in the Neolithic art of Thessaly’, in Kotjabopoulou, E., Hamilakis, Y., Halstead, P., Gamble, Cl., and Elefanti, P. (eds), Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent advances (BSA Studies, 9; London, 2003), 263–71, esp. 268Google Scholar fig. 29. 20 and 269.

³⁵⁶ von den Driesch 1994, 12.

³⁵⁷ Mostly Middle Minoan II and Late Minoan I: Pini 1985; Bloedow 1999, 53.

³⁵⁸ Bloedow 1992, 297.

³⁵⁹ Usener 1994, 7–10, 15–16.

³⁶⁰ Hesiod, , Theogony 326 ffGoogle Scholar.

³⁶¹ Usener 1994, 12 and n. 13.

³⁶² Cf. Hammond 1972, 267.

³⁶³ von den Driesch 1994, 10.

³⁶⁴ Bloedow 1992, 300, 301, 304; 1999, 59–60.

³⁶⁵ Becker 1986, 171–2.

³⁶⁶ Pini 1985, 165; Demakopoulou and Crouwel 1993, 10.

³⁶⁷ Cf. Bloedow 1992, 301.

³⁶⁸ See above, n. 133.

³⁶⁹ Cf. Palaeolithic lionesses: Lorblanchet 1999, 227, 230, 257, 258, and representations of springing lions without mane from Göbekli Tepe (n. 327).

³⁷⁰ Willms 1986, 144.

³⁷¹ von den Driesch 1994, 12; Bahn 1997, 153.

³⁷² Limet 1993, 363.

³⁷³ Pini 1985, 164–5 n. 52 and 56.

³⁷⁴ Lorblanchet 1989, esp. 112, 124, 125.

³⁷⁵ Ibid., 140, 141 fig. 4. 20.

³⁷⁶ See descriptions e.g. Ibid., 122; Bataille, G., ‘Le passage de l'animal à l'homme et la naissance de l'art’, in Cyrulnik, 1998, 210–27, esp. 214–20Google Scholar (first published in Critique, 71 (April 1953), 312–30)Google Scholar; Mithen 1998, esp. 99.

³⁷⁷ Lorblanchet 1989, 115–17.

³⁷⁸ Schmidt 1999, 7–8. To these could be added the ambiguous felid-human face of the Shillourokambos small stone head, which, it is also interestingly suggested, could have been fixed on a wall: J. Guilaine (n. 329), 330, 331 fig. 1 a.

³⁷⁹ Hauptmann 1993, 60, 66, and figs. 21, 23, 25; 1999, 76 fig. 12.

³⁸⁰ Gimbutas 1984, figs. 72–6; Mithen 1998, 99.

³⁸¹ Marangou 2004.

³⁸² Bánffy, E., ‘Notes on the connection between human and zoomorphic representations in the Neolithic’, in Biehl, P. and Bertemes, F. (eds), The Archaeology of Cult an Religion (Budapest, 2001), 51–71, esp. 57–8Google Scholar.

³⁸³ See e.g. Gimbutas 1984, figs. 69–70, 111, 116–17; Marangou 2004, forthcoming; Nikolov, V., ‘Culture matérielle et systèmes religieux, mythologiques et cultuels de la préhistoire tardive sur les terres bulgares’, in L'Or des Thraces: trésors de Bulgarie (exhibition catalogue, Palais des Beaux Arts; Brussels, 2002), 47–51, esp. 50Google Scholar.

³⁸⁴ Höckmann 1999, 281.

³⁸⁵ Tasić, N., ‘Završna istra ivanja na praistorijskom naselju kod Valača’, Glasnik Muzeja Kosova i Metohije, 4–5 (1959–1960), 11–82Google Scholar, quoted by Chapman 1981, 74.

³⁸⁶ Höckmann 1999, 274–5.

³⁸⁷ Gimbutas 1989, 78 fig. 124.

³⁸⁸ Höckmann 1999.

³⁸⁹ Cf. Hacilar VI: Ibid., 284–5.

³⁹⁰ Ibid.

³⁹¹ Renfrew, C., ‘The archaeology of religion’, in Renfrew, C. and Zubrow, E. B. W., The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology (Cambridge, 1994), 47–54, esp. 51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁹² Renfrew 1985, 23–4.

³⁹³ Green, M., ‘Images in opposition: polarity, ambivalence and liminality in cult representation’, Antiquity, 71 (1997), 898–911, esp. 899CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁹⁴ Ead., ‘Crossing the boundaries: triple horns and emblematic transference’, EJA, 1. 2 (1998), 217–40, esp. 219CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁹⁵ Cf. Green (n. 394), 230–1. On the use of drugs in prehistoric Europe, see Sherratt, A., ‘Sacred and profane substances: the ritual use of narcotics in later Neolithic Europe’, in Garwood, P., Jennings, D., Skeates, R., and Toms, J. (eds), Sacred and Profane. Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion, Oxford 1989 (Oxford University Committtee for Archaeology Monograph, 32; Oxford 1991), 50–64Google Scholar.

³⁹⁶ Kloosterboer, D., ‘Monstrous art’, Anthropozoologica, 22 (1996), 23–8, esp. 25–6Google Scholar.

³⁹⁷ Green (n. 393), 909.

³⁹⁸ Ibid.

³⁹⁹ Bucrania are also extremely rare in Greece, according to the evidence available up to now (see above).

⁴⁰⁰ If there had been such an oriental influence, the obvious question is why there was such a delay in adopting eastern customs and beliefs in northern Greece? The most striking artefactual analogies between EN Greece and the East concern objects that required special care in manufacture (seals, earstuds, stone vessels), probably related to symbolic functions or status, as though symbolic artefacts or symbolically loaded techniques remained more strongly linked to earlier traditions (Perlès 2001, 63): analogies point alternatively to the Levant, Anatolia, or the Jordan valley, the valley of the Taurus or the Euphrates (Ibid., 54). She thinks (Ibid., 96) that the first farmers who came to Greece may have belonged to a late phase of PPNB, that the first pioneer groups constisted of individuals continuing the PPNB great exodus and following different pathways up to Greece, each retaining only some of their most valuable symbols and techniques. This would explain the selectivity and heterogeneity of the parallels, and the hypothesis of maritime displacements could be retained (Ibid., 62), in particular because of the absence of EN in central and eastern Macedonia (Ibid., 118). Given the exogenous origin of domestic species in Greece, she considers an opposition of wild and domesticated reinforced by an opposition of local and non-local (Ibid., 172). This is not the place to discuss the issue thoroughly, but see objections by Kotsakis, K., ‘Catherine Perlès, The Early Neolithic in Greece’, EJA 5. 3 (2002), 373–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who considers that the autochthonous inhabitants had a much stronger influence on the Greek Neolithic.

⁴⁰¹ Mithen 1998, 99.

⁴⁰² Boccara, M., La Part animate de l'homme: esquisse d'une théorie du mythe et du chamanisme (Paris, 2002), 38Google Scholar.

⁴⁰³ Mundkur 1988, esp. 164.

⁴⁰⁴ Cauvin 1997.

⁴⁰⁵ Ibid., 279.

⁴⁰⁶ Stordeur and Abbès 2002, 566.

⁴⁰⁷ Ibid., 586. Historical and geographical continuity seems to exist even more in the area of animal symbolism than elsewhere, at the end of the PPNB, between the middle Euphrates and Anatolia (Ibid., 591).

⁴⁰⁸ Cauvin 1997, 51; Hodder 1990, 5.

⁴⁰⁹ Ibid., II.

⁴¹⁰ Russell, N. and Martin, L., ‘Neolithic Çatalhöyük: preliminary zooarchaeological results from the renewed excavations’, in Mashkour, M., Choyke, A. M., Buitenhuis, H., and Poplin, F. (eds), Archaeozoology of the Near East, iv A (Groningen, 2000), 164–70, esp. 168–9Google Scholar.

⁴¹¹ Hodder 1990, 294.

⁴¹² Yet the significance of man-animal relationship in various contexts concerning animal hide dress (such as Hercules' lionskin) does not refer necessarily to totemism: Lavergne, D., ‘Usages religieux du vêtement de fourrure dans l'Antiquité’, in Audoin-Rouzeau, F. and Beyries, S. (ed.), Le Travail du cuir de la Préhistoire à nos jours: XXII^es rencontres Internationales d'archéologie et d'histoire d'Antibes (Antibes, 2002), 217–29, esp. 224–5, 227–8Google Scholar.

⁴¹³ Mithen 1998, 99.

⁴¹⁴ Tapper 1988, esp. 50.

⁴¹⁵ Lévi-Strauss, Cl., Le Totémisme aujourd'hui (Paris, 1962), 132Google Scholar.

⁴¹⁶ Tapper 1988, 50.

⁴¹⁷ Ibid., 51.

⁴¹⁸ Mithen 1998, 100–1.

⁴¹⁹ Ibid., 101–3 with references.

⁴²⁰ Ibid., 103–4.

⁴²¹ Ibid., 97.

⁴²² Mundkur 1988, 175.

⁴²³ Ibid., 141–2.

⁴²⁴ Boccara (n. 402), 29.

⁴²⁵ Mundkur 1988, 146, 167.

⁴²⁶ Ibid., 177.

⁴²⁷ Ibid., 175. But all symbols are secondary developments loaded with obscure, highly variable sociocultural impetuses; interpretations of their meanings are often conjectural (Ibid., 175).

⁴²⁸ Ibid., 178.

⁴²⁹ Ibid., 174.

⁴³⁰ Ibid., 141–2.

⁴³¹ Ibid., 148.

⁴³² Ibid., 153, 157, 159, 161.

⁴³³ Ibid., 174.

⁴³⁴ Ibid., 153, 164.

⁴³⁵ Mithen 1998, 98.

⁴³⁶ Unless more large-size figures had been made in non-preserved materials, such as wood or unbaked clay.

⁴³⁷ Although wild animals are rarely represented, exceptionally, there are a remarkable number of them in some sites, in particular Dikili Tash: Marangou forthcoming and material under study from the same site.

⁴³⁸ Marangou 1992, passim; 1996; cf. Hauptmann 1999, 77. Standard figurines and models from Greece are only exceptionally related to death (tombs or cemeteries), and then are mostly found outside graves (FN) or in incineration areas (EN), not in the interior of graves or funerary vases: Marangou 1992, 228–9.

⁴³⁹ In Neolithic domestic contexts, redundant figurative symbols may also occur on tools or vessels: Marangou 2004.

⁴⁴⁰ Ead., ‘Sacred or secular places and the ambiguous evidence of prehistoric rituals’, in Biehl, P. and Bertemes, F. with Meller, H. (eds), The Archaeology of Cult and Religion (Archaeolingua Main Series 13; Budapest, 2001), 139–60Google Scholar.

⁴⁴¹ Chapman 1981, 75; cf. Ibid., 83, on Vinča society, where ‘social ranking is not attested outside the context of ritual’.

⁴⁴² Renfrew 1985 (‘Other World’); Perlès 2001, 298 (EN); Marangou 1992, 221, 230 (‘connoisseurs’ and ‘guardians’ of Neolithic miniatures).

⁴⁴³ In Mari (beginning of 2nd mill. Be), bronze lions with enormous stone eyes kept the entrance to the Dagan temple; lions in several cases guarded entrances to sanctuaries: Cassin 1987, 184 n. 80, with references.

⁴⁴⁴ Cauvin 1997, 51.

⁴⁴⁵ Figurines sitting on seats, but not related to wild animals are known in Neolithic Greece (see above, n. 64).