Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 13 (1968) (Pécs, 1971)

Régészet - Makkay, János: The Chalcolithic Male Relief from Villánykövesd and the Earliest Male Figurines in South-Eastern Europa

CHALCOLITHIC MALE RELIEF 51 the best parallel of the similar piece from Vinca. We are met by a similar problem of dating in the case of the Bulgarian and Roumanian male idols of the Gumelnita culture too. Only a general statement can be made on them: they are certainly contemporary to the Dimini type and the Subneolithic in Greece; a more refined dating is missing (at least as regards the specimens known so far). The Vidra pieces may belong to the Late Boian —• Early Gumelnita age. Unquestionably the most male idols of the culture are derived from Vidra; beside an interesting, strongly phallic specimen, bending forward (Fig. 6 no. 9) we know chiefly sitting male idols. One of them may have sat on the arm of a large female idol, without being an infant or a male child; so the original соптаоsition could not be a kurotropos, but the goddes used to hold her phallic paredros, in her arms (Fig. 8 no. 3). Another idol belongs to the characteristic, perhaps vision-seeing, dreaming-thinking type (Fig. 8 no. 4)," a further specimen is a quite simple one (Fig. 8 no 5). A stout, cylindrical idol, the sex of which seems to be indicated by the symbol en its sole in our view, is worth considering (Fig. 8 no. 1) A very interesting male figure from Magura Jilavei (near to Vidra), dated to the Gumelnita Biphase, is a man-shaped vessel.

100 A male statuette found at Bila (Fig. 7 no. 10) and another from Blejesti (Fig. 7 no. 11) belong to the developed phase of the Gumelnita culture. Among two finds from Gumelnita itself one is dated to period »B«,

101 the other is more uncertain (Fig. 7 no. 9). Finally a male figurine was found at Cascioarele too.

102 The Bulgarian male figurines of the Gumelnita culture may belong to a later phase of the culture in greater part, their exact dating is difficult, however, since they have been uncovered at an early date. Their especially interesting feature is their portrait-like character, noticeable on several pieces (Fig. 5 nos 5—10). Two figurines from Jambol-Rjscevata mogila were visible sitting figures (Fig. 5 nos 8—9). Two other examples were found in the Devetaki cave

103 and on the site at German.

m A very fine 98 On the male god seeing visions see J. Makkay, Acta Arch. Hung. 16 (1964) p. 61. 100 D. V. Rosetti, Steinkupferzeitliche Plastik aus einem Wohnhügel bei Bukarest. JPEK 1938. PL 29,9. 101 V. Dumitrescu, Archaeology 19 (1966) pp 162— 172. Fig. 27. 102 G. Stefan, Dacia 2 (1925) PI. 13. no. 2. 103 V. Mikov — N. Dsambasov, Devetaskata pestera. (Sofia 1960) Fig. 73a. 104 M. Stanceva — M. Gavrilova, Coveski glineni figurki ot neolitnoto seliste v Sofia. Archeologija 3 (Sofia 1961) Fig. 4. piece is derived from Karanovo, from the Karanovo III level and in this manner is very earlier as the male statuettes of the Gumelnita culture.

105 Our soecial attention is due to a manshaped vessel from Gabarevo, a singular piece of such kind in the cultures surveyed so far. We shall return to some of its problems (Fig. 5 no. 11). As regards tynological points of view only, the hitherto known two male statuettes of the Vadastra culture (from Vadastra itself

106 and from Crusovo: Fig. 8 no. 2, both from the Vadastra I period) do not remind us of the plastic?, of the preceding Hamangia culture but of the Roumanian Gumelnita specimens in the first place. With the male plastics of the Cucuteni culture the situation is somewhat different. To wit, two figurines from Tirpesti, dated to the Precucuteni period (Fig. 9 nos 1—2), are doubtless closely related to the vision-seeing — dreaming or thinking male statuette of the Hamangia culture from Cernavoda.

im Two further pieces from Moldova (Fig. 7 nos 7—8) are dated to the Cucuteni neriod in general. One is remarkable, as it shows the repe".entation of the shoulderbelt (Fig. 7 no. 7). According to H. Schmidt, male figurines do not occur before the Cucuteni В period but he understood this statement as referring to the one or two finds known before his time, among them some frcm Cucuteni itself.

108 For the rest, a figurine from Izvoare (Fig. 7 no 6) and a strongly phallic idol from Draguseni (Fig. 10 no. 2) belong to Cucuteni B, as a mater of fact. In Draguseni were found two other fragmentary male figurines.

109 According to a meaning the generally known cultic object from Trusesti bears a male figure too.

110 It is remarkable that there is no male representation among the almost unical painted human figures of the Cucuteni culture.

111 This is the more striking because one could easily conclude to the contrary from the mentioned painted male figure from Szentes-Ilonapart (see note 28). 105 G. I. Georgiev, Kulturgruppen der Jungsteinund der Kupferzeit in der Ebene von Thrazien (Südbulgarien). L'Europe à la fin de l'âge de la pierre. (Prague 1961) PI. XXXII, 3. 106 C. N. Mateescu, La plus ancienne phase de la civilisation de Vadastra. Bericht über den V. Int. Kongress für Vor- und Frühgeschichte (Berlin 1961) 533. and Materiale si Cercetari Archeologice 5 (1959) Fig. 3,1. 107 Cf. note 99, with further literature! 108 Cucuteni in der Oberen Moldau, Rumänien. (Berlin—Leipzig 1932) p. 65. 109 V. Dumitrescu, Une nouvelle station à céramique peinte dans le Nord

—Ouest de la Moldavie, Dacia 3—4 (1927—1932) p. 145—146., Figs 19a—b, 10—11. Cf. V. Ciurea, ibid. 55. 110 SCIV 5:1—2 (1954) pp. 7. seqq. 111 H. Dumitrescu, Dacia 4 (1960) pp. 31—52.