Kovács Tibor (szerk.): Neuere Daten zur Siedlungsgeschichte und Chronologie der Kupferzeit des Karpatenbeckens (Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 7; Budapest, 1995)
Nikola Tasic: Anthropomorphic sculpture of the Eneolithic in Serbia and Macedonia
above survey of the anthropomorphic figurines of the Bubanj-Sälcuta-Krivodol complex we have drawn attention to the headless idols from Pelagonian and other sites. The idol from Suplevec compares well with the Bubanj-Sälcuta figurines, even though it does exhibit features that are more characteristic of Baden figurines, such as the hole for the insertion of the head and the pubic triangle. A similar idol has been reported from a Maliq II context by Prendi. 31 These similarities can be seen as the reflections of contact between the Cernavoda III and the Säleuta groups, perhaps in the Lower Danube Basin at the time of the first penetration of the 'steppean nomads' who gradually migrated towards Central and South-East Europe from the east. Tins is also supported by other 'steppean' elements - such as stone sceptres, corded ware pottery, clay anchors, etc. - in the Eneolithic cultures distributed to the south of the Danube. 32 Although ousted by the newcomers from the steppe, the Säleuta, Gumelnija and other groups continued their existence and even adopted some elements from the intruders. This would explain the appearance of headless idols in the BubanjSälcuta-Krivodol complex. * * * What were the later developments in this Eneolithic anthropomorphic art? The fact that echoes of the stylistic traits of the Boleráz-Cernavoda III group can be clearly discerned suggests that it made its appearance in an early phase of the Baden culture and, also, that it vanished after a relatively short period of time. Few anthropomorphic figurines are known from the relatively well-investigated Kostolac group (Gomolava, Pivnice in Bosnia, Koricane near Kragujevac, Jelenac 51 Prendi (1966) Pl. X. II.4. 12 N. Tasic. Der jugoslawische Donauraum und Ägäa m Imeohthikum. Archlug 19 (1978 [1979]) 1-7. B Tasic (1979) 238-39. 54 M. Jevtic, Les stations áiéohthiques dans la secteur de Djerdap I-II (Portes de Fer). Hügelbestattung in der Karpaten-Donau-BalkanZone während der äneolithischen Periode. Edited by D. Srejovic and N. Tasic. Beograd (1987) 21-26; N. Tasic, Äneohthische Kulturen üstserbiens und deren Verhältnis zu den Fundstätten in near Aleksinac, and a few others). 33 The same holds true for the Serbian distribution of the Cotofeni culture to the south of the Danube. Not one single anthropomorphic figurine was brought to light from the excavations in the Djerdap region (Padina, Donje Butorke, Ajmana, Barace), in eastern Serbia (Zlotska pecina, Klokocevac, Krivelj near Bor) or in the Lower Timok valley. 34 Cotofeni figurines are, to date, only known from the Romanian sites of this culture. The seven idols published by P. Roman are predominantly stray finds. 35 They can be divided into two basic types: the first includes the Leliceni idol, a highly stylized figurine which echoes a Cycladic type with arms 'en croissant'. 36 The other group consists of figurines with a disc-shaped upper part, whose ornamental motifs are comparable to the early Baden and Cernavoda III cultures (Pianu de Jos, Lopadea Veche). 37 The form of these figurines has good analogies in the statuettes of the preceding late Tripolye complex. The Usatovo sites in the southern Ukraine and Russia yielded both Cotofeni idol types. 38 The first group seems to continue the Early Eneolithic Balkanic and Danubian tradition, whilst the second can be linked to the intrusion of steppean groups in the mid-Eneolithic in the eastern half of the Carpathian Basin. The seven idols published by P. Roman can perhaps be assigned to an early phase of the Cojofeni culture. The Vucedol culture marks the end of the Eneolithic in the Balkano-Danubian region, as well as of Eneolithic anthropomorphic art. Figurines are rarely found on the Vucedol sites in the Yugoslavian area of the Danube Basin The few idols from Vinkovci, Vucedol and Sarvas, and their incised ornamentation highlighted with white encrustation, clearly reflect the high standard of the potter's art in this period. 39 Oltenien, Transylvanien und im rumänischer Teil des Banats. Balcanica 12 (1981) 7ff. 3 ' P. Roman. Cultura Cofofeni [The Cotofeni culture]. Bu cur esti (1976) 30, and Fig. 51. 5-12. 36 Ibid., Fig. 51. 6. 37 Ibid.,Y\g. 51. 8, 11-12. 38 E.F. Patokova, Usatovskoe poselenie i mogilniki [The settlements and cemeteries of the Usatovo culture]. Kiev (1979) 35ff. 39 Schmidt (1945) PI. 52. 1-2; Dunitnjevic (1979) 294-295, and PL XXTV. 3-5. References Dimitrijevic, S. (1979), Badenska kultúra [The Baden culture]. Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja III. Eneolitsko doha. Edited by N. Tasic. Sarajevo, 183-234. Kalicz, N. (1977), Tököl-Dunapart. MittArchlnst, 126-128. Nemejcová-Pavúková, V. (1981), Nácrt periodizácie badenskej kultúry a jej chronologickych vztahov k juhovychdnej Europe [The periodization of the Baden culture and its chronological relation to South-East Europe], SlovArch 29, 261-296. Novotny, B. (1981), Zur Idolatrie der Badener Kultur in der Slowakei. SlovArch 29:1, 131-138. Prendi, F. (1966), La civilisation préhistorique de Maliq. Studia Alhanica 3, 255-280. Schmidt, R. (1945), Die Burg Vucedol. Zagreb. Tasic, N. (1979), Kostolacka kultúra [The Kostolac culture]. Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja III. Eneolitsko doba. Edited by N. Tasic. Sarajevo (1979) 235-266. Tasic, N. (1980-81), Die Idole der Baden-Kultur in Vinca. Archlug 20-21, 27-32.
