by Chris Fowler
Lanting J.N. and van der Waals J.D., 1976. Beaker culture relations in the Lower Rhine basin. In J.N. Lanting and J.D. van der Waals (eds), Glockenbecher Symposion. Oberried 1974, 2–80. Haarlem: Fibula-Van Dishoeck.
Last, J. 1998. Books of life: biography and memory in a Bronze Age barrow. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 17(1), 43–53.
Lazarich González, M. 2000. Estado actual de la investigación sobre el Campaniforme en Andalucía occidental. Madrider Mitteilungen 41, 112–138.
Lefebvre, A., Gazenbeek, M. and Pernot, P. 2008. Les sépultures campaniformes du site de Montelange ‘La Sente’ (Moselle). Résultats préliminaires. Internéo 7, 187–201.
Leonini, V. 2004. La céramique domestique du Campaniforme de l’Italie centrale et septentrionale. In J. Czebreszuk (ed.), Similar but different. Bell Beakers in Europe, 149–170. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University.
L’Helgouach, J. 2001. Le cadre culturel du campaniforme armoricain. In F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, 289–299. Trento: Ufficio Beni Archeologici.
Martin Cólliga, A. 2001. Etat de la question du Campaniforme dans le contexte culturel chalcolithique du Nord-Est de la péninsule Ibérique. In F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, 155–171. Trento: Ufficio Beni Archeologici.
Mizoguchi, K. 1993. Time in the reproduction of mortuary practices. World Archaeology 25, 223–235.
Mottes, E. 2001. Bell Beakers and beyond: flint daggers of northern Italy between technology and typology. In F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the international colloquium Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy) 11–16 May 1998, 519–545. Trento: Ufficio Beni Archeologici.
Müller, A. 2001. Gender differentiation in burial rites and grave-goods in the eastern or Bohemian-Moravian group of the Bell Beaker culture. In F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the international colloquium Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy) 11–16 May 1998, 589–599. Trento: Ufficio Beni Archeologici.
Müller, A. and Lemercier, O. 1994. Le site néolithique final/chalcolithique de la Fare à Forcalquier (Alpes-de-Haute-Provence). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 91, 187–189.
Needham, S. 2005. Transforming Beaker culture in north-west Europe: processes of fusion and fission. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71, 171–218.
Neugebauer J.-W. and Neugebauer-Maresch C., 2001. Bell Beaker culture in Austria. In F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the international colloquium Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy) 11–16 May 1998, 429–437. Trento: Ufficio Beni Archeologici.
Nicolis, F. (ed.) 2001a. Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998. Trento: Ufficio Beni Archeologici.
Nicolis, F. 2001b. Some observations on the cultural setting of the Bell Beakers of northern Italy. In F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, 207–227. Trento: Ufficio Beni Archeologici.
Nicolis, F. and Mottes, E. (eds) 1998. Simbolo ed enigma. Il bicchiere campaniforme e l’Italia nella preistoria europea dell III millennio a.C. Trento: Ufficio Beni Archeologici.
O’Brien, W. 2001. New light on Beaker metallurgy in Ireland. In F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the international colloquium Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy) 11–16 May 1998, 561–576. Trento: Ufficio Beni Archeologici.
Orozco-Köhler, T., Bernabeu Aubán, J., and Molina González, F. 2001. Exchange networks in Bell Beaker southeast Spain. In F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the international colloquium Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy) 11–16 May 1998, 471–486. Trento: Ufficio Beni Archeologici.
Parker Pearson, M. Cleal, R., Marshall, P., Needham, S., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Ruggles, C., Sheridan, A., Thomas, J., Tilley, C., Welham, K., Chamberlain, A., Chenery, C., Evans, J., Knüsel, C., Linford, N., Martin, L., Montgomery, J., Payne, A., and Richards, M. 2007. The age of Stonehenge. Antiquity 81, 617–639.
Pétrequin, A.-M. and Pétrequin, P. 1988. Le Néolithique des lacs. Préhistoire des lacs de Chalain et de Clairvaux. Paris: Errance.
Price, T.D., Knipper, C., Grupe, G., and Smrcka, V. 2004. Strontium isotopes and prehistoric human migration: the Bell Beaker period in central Europe. European Journal of Archaeology 7(1), 9–40.
Prieto-Martinez, M.P. 2008. Bell Beaker communities in Thy: the first Bronze Age society in Denmark. Norwegian Archaeological Review 41(2), 115–158.
Rehman, F., Robinson, V.J., and Shennan, S.J. 1992. A neutron activation study of bell beakers and associated pottery from Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Památky archeologické 83, 197–211.
Rodríguez Casal, A.A. 2001. The Galician maritime beaker complex in the cultural framework of the Copper Age of western Europe. In F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, 125–137. Trento: Ufficio Beni Archeologici.
Rojo-Guerra, M.A., Garrido Pena, R., García-Martínez-De-Lagrán, I., Juan-Treserras, J., and Matamal, J.C., 2006. Beer and Bell Beakers: drinking rituals in Copper Age Inner Iberia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 72, 243–266.
Roussot-Laroque, J. 1998. Le sud-ouest de la France. In J. Guilaine (ed.), Atlas du Néolithique européen II. L’Europe occidentale, 689–761. Liège: ERAUL 46.
Salanova, L. 2000. La question du Campaniforme en France et dans les îles anglo-normandes. Productions, chronologie et rôles d’un standard céramique. Paris: CTHS/Société Préhistorique Française.
Salanova,. L. 2004. The frontiers inside the western Bell Beaker block. In J. Czebreszuk (ed.), Similar but different. Bell Beakers in Europe, 63–75. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University.
Sangmeister, E. 1966. Die Datierung des Rückstroms der Glockenbecher und ihre Auswirkung auf die Chronologie der Kupferzeit in Portugal. Palaeohistoria 12, 195–207.
Sarauw, T. 2007. On the outskirts of the European Bell Beaker Phenomenon—the Danish case. Available at http://www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de (accessed 23 February 2009).
Sarti, L. 2004. L’Epicampaniforme en Italie centrale: stratigraphies, datations radiométriques, productions lithiques et céramiques. In J. Czebreszuk (ed.), Similar but different. Bell Beakers in Europe, 205–221. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University.
Shennan, S. 1976. Bell Beakers and their context in central Europe. In J.N. Lanting and J.D. van der Waals (eds), Glockenbecher Symposion. Oberried 1974, 231–239. Haarlem: Fibula-Van Dishoeck.
Shennan, S.J. 1978. Archaeological ‘cultures’: an empirical investigation. In I. Hodder (ed.), The spatial organisation of culture, 113–140. London: Duckworth.
Shennan, S.J. 1993. Settlement and social change in central Europe, 3500–1500 BC. Journal of World Prehistory 7, 121–161.
Sheridan, A. 2008. Upper Largie and Dutch-Scottish connections during the Beaker period. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 40, 247–260.
Sherratt, A. 1987. Cups that cheered. In W.H. Waldren and R.C. Kennard (eds), Bell Beakers of the Western Mediterranean, 81–114. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Strahm, C. (ed.) 1995. Das Glockenbecher-Phänomen. Ein Seminar. Freiburg: Institut für Ur—und Frügeschichte der Universität Freiburg.
Tchérémissinoff, Y., Convertini, F., Fouéré, P., and Salanova, L. 2011. La sépulture campaniforme de La Folie, Poit
iers (Vienne). In L. Salanova and Y. Tchérémissinoff (eds), Les sépultures individuelles campaniformes en France. Gallia Préhistoire XLIe supplément, 11–19. Paris: CNRS.
Tipping, R. 1994. ‘Ritual’ floral tributes in the Scottish Bronze Age—palynological evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 21, 133–139.
Turek J., 1995. Nálezy z období zvoncovitý pohárův povodí řeky Bíliny v severozápadních Čechách. Archeologické výzkumy v severozápadnuch Čechách 1983–1992, 123–134.
Turek, J., Dvořák, P., and Peška, J. 2003. Archaeology of Beaker settlements in Bohemia and Moravia. An outline of the current state of knowledge. In J. Czebreszuk and M. Szmyt (eds), The Northeast frontier of Bell Beakers. Proceedings of the symposium held at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań (Poland), May 26–29 2002, 183–208. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Tusa, S. 2001. Mediterranean perspective and cultural integrity of Sicilian Bell Beakers. In F. Nicolis (ed.), Bell Beakers today. Pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Riva del Garda (Trento, Italy), 11–16 May 1998, 173–186. Trento: Ufficio Beni Archeologici.
Vander Linden, M. 2006. Le phénomène campaniforme. Synthèse et nouvelles perspectives. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Vander Linden, M. 2007. What linked the Bell Beakers in third millennium BC Europe? Antiquity 81, 343–352.
Vandkilde, H. 2005. A review of the Early Late Neolithic period in Denmark: practice, identity and connectivity. Available at www.jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de (accessed 23 February 2009).
Vaquer, J. 1998. Le Mourral, Trèbes (Aude). A fortified late neolithic site reoccupied by Bell Beakers. In M. Benz and S. van Willingen (eds), Some new approaches to the Bell beaker phenomenon Lost Paradise …? Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the ‘Association Archéologie et Gobelets’ Feldberg (Germany), 18th–20th April 1997, 15–21. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Vatcher, F. de M. and Vatcher, H.L., 1976. The excavation of a round barrow near Poor’s Heath, Risby, Suffolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 42, 263–292.
Woodward, A. 2008. Bronze Age pottery and settlements in southern England. Bronze Age Review, 1. Available at www.britishmuseum.org/system_pages/holding_area/bronze_age_review/bar_volume_1.aspx (accessed 23 February 2009).
Woodward, A., Hunter, J., Ixer, R., Roe, F., Potts, P.J., Webb, P.C., Watson, J.S., and Jones, M.C. 2006. Beaker age bracers in England: sources, function and use. Antiquity 80, 530–543.
CHAPTER 32
A MINIATURE WORLD
Models and Figurines in South-East Europe
STRATOS NANOGLOU
INTRODUCTION
A fascination with the world of miniature models, be they of human or animal bodies, buildings or furniture, has a long history in archaeology. A primary reason for this seems to be that models have been, and to a certain point are still, considered to hold an exceptional position from which we can study some non-materialistic aspects of prehistoric life (Ucko 1968, xv), to offer a window to the prehistoric mind (see Bailey 1996, 293). Yet models are objects present in the world under specific conditions and their materiality is paramount to their meaning and effectiveness in social life (see Meskell 2004; Miller 2005 for general assessments of materiality). Although an earlier generation of archaeologists mostly accepted them as reflecting social relations, rather than constituting them, recent studies have increasingly focused on the way objects, including miniatures, were experienced in specific contexts and at the same time how objects affected experience and acted upon social life (Joyce 2000; Meskell 2004; Meskell and Joyce 2003). Objects, including miniatures, emerge as part of the very conditions of experience (Barrett 2005), that is, the terms by which experience and life are made possible (Nanoglou 2009a). All this means that we should approach miniatures as objects with a specific size, texture, colour, form, etc., which, when produced, used, and deposited in specific contexts, affected experience in particular ways (Bailey 2005; Gaydarska et al. 2005, 2007; Meskell 2007; Nanoglou 2009a). Miniatures, then, re-present (Nanoglou 2008a, 2009b) an inhabitable position, one that makes sense, and thus set the terms by which inhabitation is possible, normalizing certain versions of life over others. It is important to consider that miniatures act upon us, before we can act, before we have the ability to act, and thus they set the terms by which action is possible before we can make a choice. Accordingly objects, miniatures, representations, figurines, pots, along with human bodies, animal bodies, etc., set the terms by which someone is recognized, by which any recognition (of a person, of a member of the community, of a woman or a man, of someone accepted or cast out) is possible, before someone is able to act back and change the terms. This process affects the ontological status of all entities and therefore the study of the terms imposed by miniatures is of grave importance for any question regarding life in the past. This is true whether we interpret them either as mundane or as sacred objects, although such an interpretation bears upon their suggested role in social life. Here I will not enter this debate, although I concur with critical voices that challenge over-arching narratives such as the Mother Goddess myth (Bailey 2005; Bánffy 2001; Hansen 2001a; Meskell 1995; Ucko 1968). This chapter explores these issues, focusing mainly on the interplay of the themes, the media, and the materials that miniatures employ through the Neolithic, starting with a longer description of the initial phases and continuing with the changes that followed and which probably built on this initial tradition. In the end I come back to the whole issue of crafting a miniature world and its consequences for social life. Although I will consider as many cases as possible I do not intend to be exhaustive, and the reader is referred to comprehensive studies elsewhere (e.g. for human figures, Hansen 2007).
THEMES, MEDIA, AND MATERIALS
People living in south-east Europe during the Neolithic came across various objects that represented humans, animals, buildings, or other items in miniature form. Yet the practice of making and using miniatures was not uniform across the area, not least because miniatures range from a handful to thousands on any given site (Hansen 2007, 161–162; Nanoglou 2006, 160–161). Accordingly the effect of miniatures on people would have varied, even in terms of the frequency with which someone came across them. In the seventh and the first half of the sixth millennium BC people would have mostly encountered miniatures made of fired clay, that is free-standing figurines (Figs 32.1 and 32.2), figural vessels (Fig. 32.3), figures attached to or painted on vessels or three-dimensional models (Fig. 32.4), all these in varying ratios. In communities established in the south of the area (modern Greece, southern Bulgaria, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (hereafter FYROM), Albania), human figurines were probably the most common objects, with animal figurines following in much lower numbers (Bailey 2000, 2005; Demoule and Lichardus-Itten 1994; Hiptmair 1997; Korkuti 1995; Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002; Nanoglou 2008a, 2009b; Naumov 2009). Anthropomorphic (Pileidou 2006) and zoomorphic (Nanoglou 2009c) vessels were present but not very common, whilst house models1 were a later addition to the repertoire, with the earliest examples from Thessaly dating to the first half of the sixth millennium BC (Fig. 32.4c–d; Toufexis 1996; Toufexis and Skafida 1998) and the ones from FYROM or Bulgaria around the same time (Fig. 32.4a; Naumov 2009; Nikolov 1990; Sanev 2006). Furniture was also present, both independently modelled or merged with figurines (Fig. 32.1c; Theocharis 1973, fig. 214 and 37 respectively). Stone figures did exist, but they were infrequent and most of them bore holes probably for suspension (Hansen 2003, 348; Kyparissi-Apostolika 2001), suggesting that they may have constituted a distinct class of objects (Nanoglou 2008b). Furthermore most of them were of human form, with only a handful of animal ones known (surprisingly, in the form of frogs: e.g. Rodden 1964). There were very few occasions where shell or bone was used as a material and we can certainly suppose that wood might have been used too, but no wooden example has survived. The various classes have some distinctive traits worth exploring. Human figurines almost always showed a certain gesture and po
sture (Figs 32.1a, c, d), which could suggest a preoccupation with an active body (Nanoglou 2005), whilst after 6000 BC painted figurines became common in southern Greece (Talalay 1993) and were present in central Greece as well; animals were mostly of a generic type that perhaps defies categorization as domesticate or not (Nanoglou 2009c); house models from Greece were of a roofed type with a variable number of openings, which suggests a certain focus on the exterior (Toufexis 1996), whilst the ones from FYROM had a human figure on top of the roof (Fig. 32.4a; Hansen 2007, 150; Naumov 2009, 75; Sanev 2006; Zdravkovski 2006); finally, stone pendants included the only cases where ‘autonomous’ body parts were represented, invoking a body that was capable of being compartmentalized, albeit temporarily, for if they were indeed pendants they were still part of the body that bore them (Nanoglou 2008b).
FIG. 32.1. Anthropomorphic figurines from Thessaly, Greece: a. Chara 1 (earlier Neolithic); b. Makrychori (later Neolithic); c. Magoula Koutsouro (earlier Neolithic); d. Sitochoro 2 (earlier Neolithic).
(Photos by the author).
FIG. 32.2. Anthropomorphic figurines from Selevac, Serbia.
(After Milojković 1990, fig. 11.16b. Reproduced with permission).
FIG. 32.3. Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic vessels: a. Rakitovo, Bulgaria (earlier Neolithic); b. Dikili Tash, Greece (later Neolithic); c. Selevac, Serbia (later Neolithic); d. Rákóczifalva, Hungary (earlier Neolithic).
(A: after Hansen 2007, Tafel 170.1; b: after Theocharis 1973, fig. 230; c: after Tringham and Stevanović 1990, fig. 10.22b; d: after Hansen 2007, Tafel 119. All reproduced with permission).
FIG. 32.4. House models and an oven model: a. Madžari, FYROM (earlier Neolithic); b. Platia Magoula Zarkou, Greece (c. 5300 BC); c. Crannon (earlier Neolithic); d. Myrrini (earlier Neolithic); e. Oven model: Sitagroi, Greece (later Neolithic); f. Promachon-Topolniča (later Neolithic).
