Folia archeologica 27.
István Ecsedy: Két neolitikus idol Kelet-Magyarországról
50 I. ECSEDY rites. Even if we agree with the hypothesis of János Makkay, displayed in extenso and accepted by many specialists, according to which the male figures of Szegvár, Larissa and Cernavoda prove the existence of a male principal god, and the Late Neolithic enthroned male and female figurines are to be regarded as divinities, resp. divine couples, we cannot accept without reservations his view regarding the earlier female figures, according to which these would represent a goddess ("Gaia"), being revered previously to the cult of the male principal god. 5 3 The myth described in Mesopotamian sources, later in the works of Hesiod, does not seem to be applicable mechanically for an interpretation of the Neolithic idol plastic of southeastern Europe. 5 1 In this regard we would agree with the summarized opinion of Behrens. According to him religious manifestations of the Early Neolithic are to be imagined within the framework of fertility rites, in which notions about divinities were not yet included. 5 5 Neither the Szegvár statuette, nor the other Neolithic figurines are considered by Müller-Karpe as representations of divinities. Lie bases his opinion on the relative chronologic position of the figurines compared with the Near Eastern high cultures. 5 6 Höckman takes the notion for a starting point, according to which these representations would signify in every case a real being, a concrete person, i.e. they are to be regarded as idols in the strict sense of the word. 5 7 As we can hardly assume, on the ground of the Late Neolithic theriomorphic representations, totemistic cults, "animal cults", i.e. imagine that the animals represented would stand in the centre of the cultic worship, the Early Neolithic occurrence of female figurines alone does not signify with a certainty the cult of a Mother Goddess, imagined personally. The notion of some general fertility cult, seems to be even more anachronistical for in this case we could speak of the symbolical representation of a generalization of ideas, which is hardly probably for the Neolithic Age and not to be reconciled with ritual ceremonies, being directed obviously to single concrete aims (magic practices). Oberhuber, while denying the function of Neolithic idols as effigies of divinities, is of the opinion that these statuettes represent the Corn, being representations of a non-material, impersonal Power. 5 8 In this notion a female figure would represent the corn and the impersonal power, connected with it - this way the personified Corn would stand in the centre of the cult. Though several figurai representations of the Neolithic Age, so a part of the effigy pots and anthropomorphic vases point to a connection of corn with cultic rites, the statuettes and relief-like representations, "impersonating a non-personal power", do not seem to reflect any symbol5 3 Makkay, /., Acta Arch.Hung. 16(1964) 48-57. 5 4 We do not touch here upon the problems connected with relative chronology, which may arise in the case of accepting the radiocarbon data: Makkay , J., Acta Arch.Hung. 16(1964) notes 22, 84, 89. We have to remark, nevertheless, that the emerging and spreading of the elaborate figures, seated on a stool (Larissa, Vinca C, Tisza culture), are to be explained most likely by a climax of Neolithic religion, by the appearance of divine figures. 5 5 Behrens, H., Die Jungsteinzeit im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet. Veröff.d.Landesmus. f. Vorgeschichte in Halle, 27. (Berlin 1973) 244-246. 5 6 Müller-Karpe, H., Handbuch der Vorgeschichte. II: Jungsteinzeit. 1-2. (München 1968) 392-394. 5 7 Höckmann , O., Menschliche Darstellungen in der bandkeramischen Kultur. JbRGZM 12(1965) 23.; Cf. Láng, J., loc. cit.; Höckmann, О., Andeutungen . . . 188., note 3. 5 8 Oberhnber, К., op. cit. 55-65.
