119UDK 903.2(4)''634''>2–5
Documenta Praehistorica XXXIV (2007)
Early and middle Neolithic figurines –
the migration of religious belief
Valeska Becker
Kelten Römer Museum Manching, Germany
Valeska.Becker@donau-archaeologie.de
Introduction
In attempting to draw a picture of prehistory and to
reconstruct our predecessors’ life, it is essential toregard all aspects of a culture, as defined by Max We-ber (Weber 1980 ): society, economy and religion. It
is this last and most ambiguous facet which will bethe subject of this paper; ambiguous because religionis probably the most interesting of the three aspectsmentioned above, but also the most difficult to as-sess. The following considerations will confine them-selves to the middle Neolithic Linear Pottery Culture(LPC) of central Europe, with some limited digres-sions to the early Neolithic cultures of south-east Eu-rope. Obviously, it cannot be my aim to attempt a fullreconstruction of LPC religion. Such an effort wouldhave to comprise analyses of mortuary practices, aswell as investigations of natural and artificially con-structed cult sites, cult imagery, cult equipment, cultparticipants and cultic actions ( Bertemes and Biehl
2001.18 ). Instead, I will restrict myself to anthropo-
morphic representations of the LPC, placing the mainemphasis on figurines ( Becker in print ).
All in all, the following six types of anthropomor-
phic representation can be distinguished in LPC con-texts (Fig. 1):
❶massive and hollow figurines,
❷vessels, specifically face vessels and vessels that
imitate the whole human body,
❸applications fixed on the outside of vessels,
❹lugs, knobs and handles with human faces,
❺incised anthropomorphic representations, for-
merly often misinterpreted as frogs or toads,
❻anthropomorphic figurines made of bone.ABSTRACT – In Linear Pottery Culture, two types of anthropomorphic figurines are distinguishable:
Type 1 figurines have a columnar body, without legs or hips, while Type 2 figurines show more de-tail in their body shape. These two types have parallels in the Neolithic of south-east Europe, espe-cially in the Star≠evo culture. These parallels become evident not only in the shape of the body, butalso in other features such as sexual characteristics, breakage patterns and find circumstances. It istherefore, likely that LPC figurines and Star≠evo culture figurines are manifestations of similar setsof religious beliefs.
IZVLE∞EK – V kulturi Linearno trakaste keramike lahko razlikujemo dva tipa antropomorfnih figur:
figure tipa 1 imajo stebrasto telo, brez nog in bokov; figure tipa 2 imajo  detajlno  oblikovano telo.Oba imata paralele v neolitiku jugovzhodne Evrope, ∏e posebej v  kulturi Star≠evo. Te so o≠itne tudipri drugih potezah, kot so spolne zna≠ilnosti, vzorci prelomov  in okoli∏≠ine odkritij. Verjetno je, daantropomorfne figure tako v kulturi Linearno trakaste keramike kot v kulturi Star≠evo izra∫ajo po-dobna verovanja. 
KEY WORDS – Neolithic; figurines; religion; Linear Pottery culture; Star≠evo culture
Valeska Becker
120Distribution of finds
Anthropomorphic finds from LPC
can be found in almost the whole di-stributional area, from Hungary andRomania in the east, to France in thewest. I noted no anthropomorphicfinds in Ukraine, but this might bedue to the lack of published excava-tions, or otherwise to my poor know-ledge of foreign publications.
Oddly enough, anthropomorphic
finds are not evenly distributed.There are regions of a certain den-sity concerning this artefact group –East Austria; the Rhine-Main area,and the region around the riversElbe, Saale and Unstrut, for exam-ple. This unevenness in quantity can-not be explained with the currentstate of research, as the followingexample shows: East Austria yielded around 80 an-thropomorphic finds, whereas Bavaria yielded ba-rely a dozen. These two regions are comparable bothin geographical and climatic respects and in theirstate of research, so this discrepancy must have otherreasons, although what these reasons were is not soeasy to determine. A possible explanation might bethe existence of settlements with a special signifi-cance (‘ Zentralplätze ’ according to Kneipp 2001.33–
35), where finds consist of a disproportionate amount
of flint and stone tools, stones used for colouring (he-matite, graphite) and last, but not least, anthropo-and zoomorphic figurines, vessels etc. These settle-ments might have served as places of trade and re-ligious feasts and rituals, religion being not a pri-vate, but a public matter.
Dealing with figurines: problems
and solutions
The following considerations will be
confined largely to clay figurines ofLPC. In the course of working withthem, several problems emerged thathad to be dealt with. The worst wasthat 99 % of all figurines are frag-mentary, so a priori there was no
knowing how they looked when theywere complete. The construction of atypology based on entirely preser-ved figurines was therefore impos-sible.There was a problem concerning interpretation be-
cause almost all figurines were either stray finds orfound in pits in secondary locations, which makes itimpossible to determine where they were originallyplaced. The problem with the find conditions createdanother setback: precise dating was either difficultor impossible.
Due to the wide distribution of LPC with, consequen-
tly, many different chronological systems, a synchro-nization of those figurines that could be dated alsoturned out to be a problem. While dating stray findsremains an obstacle yet to be overcome, the recon-struction of the figurines’ shape and decoration couldbe achieved by employing an analysis of features.
Fig. 1. Categories of anthropomorphic finds from the LPC. 1. Figu-
rine, Bad Nauheim – Nieder Mörlen. 2. Face vessel, Stuttgart – BadCannstatt. 3. Application, Gneiding. 4. Knob, Mu∫la-∞enkov. 5. In-cised representation, Bayerbach. 6. Bone figurine, Berry-au-Bac.Different scales (from Schade-Lindig 2002.53 Abb. 4,1; Keefer 1993.
97 Abb. bottom left; Torbrügge 1963.Taf. 16,6; Kuzma 1990.436 fig.7, 8; Bayerbach 1997.39 Abb. 10, 6; Sidéra 2001.145 Abb. 14 ).
Fig. 2. Types of fragments from LPC figurines.
Early and middle Neolithic figurines – the migration of religious belief
121Every figurine and every fragment was treated as a
closed find, all the features on it being contempora-neous. Thus a typology was accomplished with frag-ments, not with entirely preserved figurines. Forexample, ‘head types’, ‘arm types’, ‘body types’ and‘leg types’ were constructed (Fig. 2). Every fragmentmade up of two or more features could be used in acombinatorial analysis. Finally, the combination oftypes of body parts yielded hypothetical whole figu-rines.
Figurine typology (Figure 3)Two main types of figurine were the product of fea-
ture analysis. Type 1 is characterised by a columnarbody without legs or feet. The head is shaped in apeculiar way, with an impression on the upper sidethat makes it look rather like a small bowl. The baseis flat, and sometimes widens slightly.back, although decoration also appears on top of the
head, the arms and the legs.
In analyzing the decoration, two different styles are
distinguishable. One style is typical of the regionsalong the Danube: Transdanubia, Austria, Moravia,Bavaria, and rarely, South Poland. This ‘Danube’style consists of a decorated upper head, a fish bone-pattern on the back, and rectilinear decoration onthe legs. The other decorative style can be foundalong the Rhine and in the Elbe regions, especiallyaround the rivers Saale and Unstrut. Here, heads arenot decorated. On the backs of the figurines thereare mostly zigzag or meander patterns. The legs aredecorated with lines accompanied by impressions.
These two styles can be clearly distinguished in the
second phase of LPC development. In the oldestphase they are not so clearly visible; here, it is usu-
ally the ‘Danube’ style thatcan be found. This might bean indicator for the spread ofLPC, along the Danube at first,travelling along (or on?) theriver from Transdanubia tothe north and the west.
With regard to LPC pottery,
these different styles were no-ted some time ago. In 1980,M. Lichardus-Itten indicatedthat regional styles in vesseldecoration existed within LPCculture ( Lichardus-Itten 1980.
114). She named these styles
according to Europe’s great ri-ver systems, speaking of the
‘Danube group’, the ‘Elbe group’, the ‘Rhine group’and the ‘Seine group’. Obviously, this division can,at least to some degree, be extended to figural finds.As shown above, a ‘Danube’ style can be separatedfrom decorative styles occurring in the Rhine andElbe regions. Due to the lack of finds, a ‘Seine style’could not be described.
Fertility? Sexual characteristics (Figure 4)
It is important to discuss sexual characteristics, be-
cause some authors tend to interpret figurines asmother goddesses and connect them with fertilityrites. This feature, like those concerning shape anddecoration, was investigated in the course of theanalyses.
Fig. 3. Decoration styles in the LPC. 1. ‘Danube’ style figurine. 2. ‘Elbe-
Rhine’ style figurine. Idealized reconstruction.
Type 2, however, has a body that is structured with
more detail. There are always hips and legs. Due tothe fact that there are standing and sitting figuri-nes, this type can be divided into subtypes. Figurinesof this type occasionally depict some kind of actionsuch as holding a vessel.
These two types appear throughout the distributio-
nal area of LPC, so they are not regional variants.Chronologically, they emerge at the same time, star-ting with the oldest phase of LPC.
The analysis works, however, not only with types of
body parts, but also with types of decoration. In con-trast to painted decoration, e. g.in the Lengyel cul-
ture, LPC decoration is usually incised. It can be foundin different places on the figurines, mainly on the
Valeska Becker
122In LPC, as in most Neolithic cultures, most sexual
characteristics indicate female representations: thereare breasts, indicated by small clay pellets, and pu-bic triangles, incised. Only one figurine, from Zscher-nitz in Saxonia, is definitely male. But not all figuri-nes have sexual characteristics. In fact, only one thirdof all of them can definitely be characterised as fe-male. Two thirds of the figurines display no sexualcharacteristics. It is doubtful, therefore, whether ‘fer-tility’’ was the only or even the main aspect in theuse of figurines (provided that they are not to beseen as art pour l’art ). Explanations for the absence
of such features are not easily elucidated. Perhaps itwas less important to apply sexual characteristics toa figurine, since most people knew whether it wassupposed to be male or female; or perhaps the figu-rines were meant to be neither male nor female, butboth or something else altogether. It has to be ad-ded that sexual characteristics are not restricted toone of the two types.
Fragmentation (Figure 5)As mentioned before, almost all the figurines are bro-
ken. The question is whether this breaking happe-ned accidentally, e. g.during use, or otherwise deli-
berately, for whatever reason. To answer this ques-tion it is necessary to analyze the position of thebreakage. For example: if a figurine broke at theneck, the arms or legs, this break might have happe-ned accidentally, since the material is weak at thesepoints. But if a figurine is broken vertically throughthe body, this break was probably deliberate.Especially interesting for an answer to this question
are Type 1 figurines. Their columnar body is verymassive and not easy to break. Still, only three figu-rines are unfragmented; all the others are destroyed.Most of them must have been broken deliberately,since it requires great force to smash them.
All Type 2 figurines are broken, but there are more
places where they can break easily: the neck, thearms and legs. But here, also, breaks can be obser-ved that must have been brought about on purpose.There are, for example, breaks vertically through thebody, or through the hips, which are the most mas-sive part of the figurines.
Although this is not easy to interpret, it seems clear
that part of the figurines’ function was their destruc-tion at some point in time. From this we can con-clude that LPC figurines were, at least partially, deli-berately broken.
From where? Find conditionsLPC figurines have so far never been
found in graves. Instead, they seem tobe part of ordinary settlement rubbish,lying in pits with fragmented pottery,flint, animal bones, and stone andbone tools. This is true for almost allearly and middle Neolithic figurines,no matter from which culture they ori-ginate. It will be not until the late Neo-lithic that figurines appear in burials(e. g.figurines from the Hamangia cul-
ture: cf. Vajsov 2002 ).
Oddly enough, the missing parts of fi-
gurines have never been found, evenwhen entire settlements were excava-ted. What happened to the missingparts is unclear. They might have been
Fig. 4. Distribution of sexual characteristics in
the LPC.
Fig. 5. Breakage patterns. Left: Type 1 figurine from Rimpar, bro-
ken in a vertical axis through the massive body. Right: type 2 fi-gurine from Nerkewitz, also broken vertically (from Rimpar
2002.318 Abb. 3,1; Höckmann 1967.27 Abb. 1,4 ).
Early and middle Neolithic figurines – the migration of religious belief
123buried outside the settlement, or else thrown into a
river, or even crushed and reused, although we haveto bear in mind that only a small portion of a settle-ment’s vessels could be refitted. So perhaps the mis-sing parts of vessels and figurines went the same wayand were simply lost in the course of the millennia.
Predecessors: Star≠evo cultureWhen asking for the origin of the LPC figurines, it is
obligatory to direct one’s attention towards the earlyNeolithic of south-east Europe, as there are no Meso-lithic figurines that could have triggered LPC figu-rine development. Is it, therefore, possible to findcontinuity in form and decoration and in other fea-tures in figurines from south-east Europe, or are LPCfigurines something completely new? In order toanswer this question it will be necessary to take alook at the early Neolithic figurines from the Bal-kans and the Carpathian Basin. They can be foundin almost all cultures distributed in these areas, na-mely, the east Bulgarian Karanovo I and II culturesand the west Bulgarian early Neolithic; in Macedo-nia with its regional groups, Anzabegovo-Vr∏nik andVelu∏ka Tumba-Porodin; in the Romanian Cri scul-
ture; in the Körös culture in Hungary, and also inStar≠evo culture.
The latter is especially important, of course, as most
researchers think that LPC originated from it, al-though the exact process is still matter of discussion.Recent research seems to prove genetic connectionsbetween late Star≠evo and early LPC, as can be de-monstrated from the excavations in Szentgyörgyvöl-gy-Pityerdomb ( Bánffy 2004 ), Andrashída-Gébárti tó
(Simon 2002 ), Vörs-Máriaaszonysziget ( Kalicz, Vi-rág and Biró 1998.158–181 ) and other places in
Transdanubia. Over 100 Star≠evo figurines, mostlyfrom the literature, could be extracted for examina-tion. There are certainly many more, but the aimwas not to produce a complete catalogue of Star≠e-vo figurines, but to gain enough samples for a solidanalysis. In order to compare LPC and Star≠evo, thesame method was employed and the same features(shape, decoration, sexual characteristics, breakagepatterns, find circumstances) were considered.
Star≠evo figurines: a history of the researchIn contrast to LPC figurines, Star≠evo figurines and
their systematic typology were the object of researchearly on. In 1966, Srejovi≤ noted that Star≠evo figu-rines were geometrical and cylindrical ( Srejovi≤
1966.29–30 ). Höckmann, who dealt with Star≠evo
figurines in the course of his doctoral thesis pub-lished in 1968, distinguished cylindrical figurinesand ‘fat’ figurines, with broad buttocks, short legsand long necks ( Höckmann 1968.44–45 ). Finally,
Letica has to be mentioned. While working withStar≠evo figurines from the Divostin settlement, sheidentified types similar to those of Höckmann, withthe difference that she subdivided the ‘fat’ figuri-nes into seated ones whose arms rest below thebreasts and whose legs are short and stumpy, and fi-gurines without sexual characteristics, but prominentchins, which might therefore be males ( Letica 1988 ).
Facts and features: Star≠evo figurines (Figure 6)Quite obviously, the previous research concluded
in the formulation of two types which can possiblybe subdivided: there is one type (Type 1) with a co-
lumnar/cylindrical body and a base thatcan be flat, bell- or pear-shaped, or evenslightly rectangular. Legs or hips are notshown. The second type (Type 2) is of-ten characterised by large buttocks andbroad hips. A re-evaluation of Star≠evofigurines has confirmed these two types.
Decoration is very rare on Star≠evo fi-
gurines. Two pieces from the epony-mous excavation Star≠evo-‘grad’ are de-corated. One is covered in a dark, pain-ted net-like pattern ( Arandjelovi≤-Ga-
ra∏anin 1954.tab. 4, 12 ); the second is
decorated with incised lines in V-shapesaround the neck and base ( Gara∏anin
1979.tab. 25, 3 ). Both are Type 1 figu-
rines.
Fig. 6. Figurines from the Star≠evo culture. 1. Type 1 figurine
from Vinkovci. 2. Type 2 figurine from Donja Branjevina ( Ga-
ra∏anin 1979.tab. 41,6 ; after Karmanski 2005.83 tab. 1 ).
Valeska Becker
124These two types do not represent regional variants.
There are settlements where both types can befound, and both types appear in the whole distribu-tional area of Star≠evo culture. Likewise, they do notdiffer chronologically.
As for sexual characteristics, only features pointing
to female representations are discernible, e. g.breasts
and pubic deltas. But they are represented on onlyone third of the figurines, while two thirds show nosexual characteristics.
Breakage patterns are quite similar to those of the
LPC figurines. Especially with Type 1 figurines fromthe Star≠evo culture, deliberate breakage seems li-kely, because the body is massive and column-like,and probably hard to break. Despite this fact, onlyone third of Type 1 figurines remain whole; twothirds are broken.
Type 2 figurines have bodies more susceptible to
breakage, especially at the long neck. In fact mostfigurines are broken in this area. But there are alsobreakages through the buttocks which seem to bethe most massive part of the figurine. Here, it canoften be observed that figurines were made of diffe-rent pieces pinned together with small wooden pegs.The surface would then be coated with a thin layerof clay, covering the seams of the individual parts.The pegs would perish during burning, making the fi-gurine extremely fragile. Some authors propose thatthis is evidence of deliberate breaking, of the inten-tion to break a figurine at some point in time.
Like LPC figurines, Star≠evo figurines can be found
only in settlements, not in graves. Usually, only frag-ments that cannot be refitted are found. This is trueeven when whole settlements were excavated.
Star≠evo culture vessels and applicationsFor the sake of completeness it should be noted that
there are a few anthropomorphic vessels in Star≠e-vo culture. As they are mostly fragments, and of thoseonly very few, the construction of a typology is diffi-cult. Vessels that depict the whole human body arerepresented with fragments from Rudnik ( Tasi≤
1998.432 fig. 16 ) and Mostonga ( Gara∏anin 1979.
tab. 40, 1 ); perhaps there were also face vessels ( cf.
the vessel from Gladnice: Tasi≤ 1998.440, fig. 30 ).
Rarely, anthropomorphic applications appear on theexterior of Star≠evo culture vessels. They probablyrepresent women ( Minichreiter 2000 ). Two special
pieces from Transdanubia conclude this enumerationof figural finds from Star≠evo culture: ‘altars’ with
anthropomorphic ends from Lánycsók ( Kalicz 1990.
127, Taf. 11, 3 ) and Kéthely ( Sági and Tör őcsik
1989.80–81 and 59–60 fig. 25–26 ).
The Big Picture: figurines in the Balkans early
Neolithic (Figure 7)
Quite obviously, parallels exist between LPC and
Star≠evo culture figurines, not only in the similarityof the two types, especially in their shape, but also inother features such as breakage and the representa-tion of sex. Hence, it might not be surprising to seethat in almost all cultures discernible in the Balkans,these two types appear: in the Romanian Cri sculture,
as well as in the east Hungarian Körös culture, the Ma-cedonian, the east Albanian and the west Bulgarianearly Neolithic. Only in Impresso- and Cardial cultu-res do figurines or other anthropomorphic finds notturn up in the cultural inventory ( Müller 1994.187 ).
The figurines are evidently part of some system of
religious belief that is the same in almost all earlyNeolithic cultures in south-east Europe. Of course,there are differences in detail, such as the shape ofthe head or the position of the arms. But the mainidea – one columnar type without legs, and one typewith a long neck, broad hips, large buttocks andsmall legs – seems the same.
From Star≠evo to LPCNow back to the initial question: do LPC figurines
have predecessors in the Early Neolithic cultures ofSouth-East Europe? Yes, they do. Both in Star≠evoculture and in LPC there are two types of figurinesthat look very much alike. Obviously, there is conti-nuity of form: in both cultures there is one colum-nar type and a type with legs and hips. They differin detail; for example, LPC figurines do not possessthe broad hips and tiny legs characteristic of Star≠e-vo figurines. The main idea, however, is identical.Continuity can also be found in other features. Forexample, the distribution of sexual characteristics isthe same in both cultures. And continuity appears inbreakage patterns. In both cultures, there is evidenceof a deliberate fragmentation of figurines. Decora-tion, however, is a (almost) unique feature of LPC.Star≠evo figurines are hardly ever decorated, whe-reas since the oldest phase of LPC there is decora-tion on the figurines.
If we were to take a look at the other kinds of an-
thropomorphic representations, we could state that
Early and middle Neolithic figurines – the migration of religious belief
125anthropomorphic vessels and applications can be
found in both cultures. On the contrary, incised re-presentations and bone figurines from LPC are with-out south-eastern parallels.
Still, in my opinion, it is evident that both in LPC
and in Star≠evo culture we have to deal with similarmanifestations of religious belief, with two differenttypes of figurines: figurines that were destroyed atsome point in time and can be found not in gravesbut in settlements and that can never be refitted.The ambiguity of argument: a
question of faith
Though a continuity in belief is likely
after the above considerations, it can-not be a help when dealing with thequestion of how this belief ‘migra-ted’: whether it travelled along withpeople coming to central Europe andbringing their religious beliefs, orwhether it was a mere idea that tra-velled and adopted by the local lateMesolithics; or whether it was a com-bination of the two.
The problem is still heatedly discus-
sed (cf.for example Lichardus-Itten
and Lichardus 2003 ). New ideas
come from Bánffy, who stated thatLPC figurines were a mix of Mesoli-thic beliefs, proved by a special de-coration on the back of some figuri-nes (the so-called herring-bone motifconsisting of V-shaped lines – ribs?,sometimes combined with a verticalline, probably marking the spine),and Neolithic beliefs, as proved bythe making of figurines, which is un-common in the Mesolithic. The dis-appearance of figurines during theNeolithic of central Europe occurredbecause “two highly conservative setof beliefs clashed” and because “thebeliefs of the local hunter-gatherercommunities eventually provedstronger in the life of the Central Eu-ropean Linear Pottery communities”(Bánffy 2004.296 ).
This hypothesis shows that discus-
sion of Neolithization really is a que-stion of faith: not the faith of Meso-lithic or Neolithic people, but of mo-
dern researchers. Figurines can be interpreted ineither way: In placing an emphasis on a decorativemotif, Bánffy uses figurines as proof of an adoptionof the Neolithic way of life by local hunter-gatherers.Yet it is equally possible to argue that Mesolithic hun-ter-gatherers never employed figurines; therefore, areligion involving the use of figurines must havecome from abroad, brought by foreigners.
Fig. 7. Type 1 (1–6) and Type 2 (7–10) figurines from south-east Eu-
rope. 1. Star≠evo, Star≠evo culture. 2. Kunszentmárton, Körös cul-ture. 3. Gra ˘dinile, Cri
ssculture. 4. Zelenikovo, Makedonian early
Neolithic. 5. Ga ˘la˘bnik, west Bulgarian early Neolithic. 6. Barç, east
Albanian early Neolithic. 7. Donja Branjevina, Star≠evo culture. 8.Endr őd 39, Körös culture. 9. Za ˘uan, Cri ssculture. 10. ∞avdar, west
Bulgarian early Neolithic. Various scales (from Gara∏anin 1979.
tab. 25,3; Makkay 1993.78 Abb. 3; Nica 1981.36 fig. 5,1; Galovi≤1964.Taf. 16,1; Pavúk and ∞ochad∫iev 1984.218 Abb. 16,2; Lera1993.39 fig. 5 ; after Karmanski 2005.83 tab. 1; Makkay 1993.77
Abb. 2,1 ; after Lakó 1977.fig. 2,1 ; after Georgiev 1981.104 Abb. 57 ).
Valeska Becker
126ARANDJELOVI≥-GARAπANIN D. 1954. Star≠eva≠ka kultu-
ra, Ljubljana.
BÁNFFY E. 2004. The 6 thmillenium BC boundary in
Western Transdanubia and its role in the Central Eu-ropean Neolithic transition (the Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityer-domb settlement) . Varia Arch. Hung. XV, Budapest.
BAYERBACH 1997. Bayerbach b. Ergoldsbach (Lkr. Land-
shut). Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter. 10: 39, Abb. 10,6.
BECKER V. in print. Anthropomorphe Plastik der westli-
chen Linearbandkeramik .
BERTEMES F., BIEHL P. F. 2001. The Archaeology of Cult
and Religion: An Introduction. In P. F. Biehl, F. Bertemesand H. Meller (eds.), The Archaeology of Cult and Reli-
gion. Archaeolingua Main Series 13, Budapest: 11–24.
GALOVI≥ R. 1964. Neue Funde der Star≠evo-Kultur in Mit-
telserbien und Makedonien. Bericht der Römisch-Germa-
nischen Kommission 43–44: 1–29 .
GARAπANIN M. 1979. Centralnobalkanska zona. In Prais-
torija jugoslavenskih zemalja II: Neolitsko doba , Saraje-
vo: 79–212.
GEORGIEV G. 1981. Die neolithische Siedlung bei ∞avdar,
Bezirk. Sofia. Cultures préhistoriques en Bulgarie. Izvesti-
ja na archeologi≠eskija institut 36: 63–109 .
HÖCKMANN O. 1967. Menschliche Darstellungen in der
bandkeramischen Kultur. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germa-
nischen Zentralmuseums 12: 1–34 .
HÖCKMANN O. 1968. Die menschengestaltige Figuralpla-
stik der südosteuropäischen Jungsteinzeit und Stein-kupferzeit . Münstersche Beiträge zur Vorgeschichtsfor-
schung 3–4, Hildesheim.
KALICZ N. 1990. Frühneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus
Südwestungarn . Inventaria praehistorica Hungariae, Bu-
dapest.
KALICZ N., VIRÁG ZS., BIRÓ K. 1998. The northern peri-
phery of the Early Neolithic Star≠evo culture in south-west-ern Hungary: a case study of an excavation at Lake Bala-ton. In M. Budja (ed.), 5
thNeolithic Studies. Documenta
Praehistorica 25: 151–187 .
KARMANSKI S. 2005. Donja Branjevina. A Neolithic set-
tlement near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia) . Società
per la preistoria i protostoria della regione Friuli – Vene-zia Giulia. Quaderno 10, Trieste.KEEFER E. 1993. Steinzeit . Württembergisches Landes-
museum Stuttgart 1, Stuttgart.
KNEIPP J. 2001. Bandkeramische Zentralplätze und ihre
kultisch-religiöse Funktion. In Archäologie in Hessen.
Neue Funde und Befunde . Festschrift Rudolf Herrmann.
Internationale Archäologie Studia Honoraria 13, Rahden/Westf.: 33–41.
KUZMA I. 1990. Plastika ∫eliezovksej skupiny z Mu∫le-∞en-
kova. Slovenská Archeológia 38(2): 429–452 .
LAKÓ E. 1977. Piese de cult din a sezarea neolitica ˘de la
Za˘uan (Jud. Sa ˘laj). Acta Mus. Porolissensis 1: 41–46 .
LERA P. 1993. Vendbanimi i neolitet të hershëm në Barç
(Barçi I). Iliria 1–2: 5–31 .
LETICA Z. 1988. Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic Figu-
rines from Divostin. In A. McPherron, D. Srejovi≤ (eds.),Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia , Kragujevac-
Pittsburgh: 173–201.
LICHARDUS-ITTEN M. 1980. Die Gräberfelder der Groß-
gartacher Gruppe im Elsaß . Saarbrücker Beitr. Altkde.
25, Bonn.
LICHARDUS-ITTEN M., LICHARDUS J. 2003. Strukturelle
Grundlagen zum Verständnis der Neolithisierungsprozes-se in Südost- und Mitteleuropa. In E. Jerem und P. Raczky(eds.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der
Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa . Fest-
schrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Archaeolin-gua Main Series 15, Budapest: 61–81.
MAKKAY J. 1993. Eine prachtvolle Frauenfigur der Körös-
Star≠evo-Kultur. In V. Nikolov (ed.), Praistori≠eski na-
chodki i issledvanija. Sbornik v pamet na prof. GeorgiI. Georgiev , Sofia: 73–78.
MINICHREITER K. 2000. Reljefni prikaz ∫enskog lika na
posudama star≠eva≠ke kulture. Prilozi instituta za arheo-
logiju u Zagrebu 17: 5–15 .
MÜLLER J. 1994. Das ostadriatische Frühneolithikum.
Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adria-raumes . Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 9,
Berlin.
NICA M. 1981. Gra ˘dinilie, o noua ˘asezare a neoliticul tim-
puriu în sud-estul Olteniei. Arhivele Olteniei N. S. 7: 27–
39.
PAVÚK J., ∞OCHADΩIEV M. 1984. J. Pavúk/M. ∞ochad∫iev
(eds.), Neolithische Tellsiedlung bei Ga ˘la˘ bnik in Westbul-REFERENCES
Early and middle Neolithic figurines – the migration of religious belief
127garien (Grabungsbericht der Jahre 1980–1982). Sloven-
ská Archeológia 32/1: 195–228 .
RIMPAR 2002. Rimpar-Maidbronn, Lkr. Würzburg. Beiträ-
ge zur Arch. Unterfranken. Mainfränkische Studien 60:
317–318 .
SÁGI K., TÖR ŐCSIK Z. 1989. A Dunántúli Vonaldíszes Ke-
rámia “Tapolcai csoportja” (El őzetes jelentés). Tapolcai
Városi Muz. Közleményei 1: 29–129 .
SCHADE-LINDIG S. 2002. Idol- und Sonderfunde der band-
keramischen Siedlung von Bad Nauheim-Nieder-Mörlen“Auf dem Hempler” (Wetteraukreis). Germania 80/1: 47–
114.
SIDÉRA I. 2001. Animaux domestiques, bêtes sauvages et
objets en matières animales du Rubané au Michelsberg.Gallia Préhistoire 42: 107–194 .
SIMON K. 2002. Das Fundmaterial der frühesten Phase der
transdanubischen Linienbandkeramik auf dem FundortZalaegerszeg-Andráshida, Gébárti-Tó, Arbeitsplatz III. An-
taeus 25: 189–203 .
SREJOVI≥ D. 1966. Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines
from Yugoslavia. Jahrbuch für prähistorische und ethno-
grafische Kunst 21: 28–41 .
TASI≥ N. 1998. Arheolo∏ko blago Kosova i Metohije. Od
neolita do ranog srednjeg veka , Beograd.
TORBRÜGGE W. 1963. Oberpöring. Katalog zur Vorge-
schichte einer Ortsmarkung . Kat. Prähist. Staatssam-
mlung 5, Kallmünz/Opf.
VAJSOV I. 2002. Die Idole aus den Gräberfelder [sic] von
Durankulak. In H. Todorova (ed.), Durankulak II. Die
prähistorischen Gräberfelder von Durankulak, Teil 1(Text) , Berlin-Sofia: 257–266.
WEBER M. 1980. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft , 5. Auflage,
Tübingen.