UDK 903.3(4)"633\634">291.37 Documenta Praehistorica XXXII (2005) The transfer of symbols and meanings> the case of the ‘horns of consecration’ Marina Milic´evic´ Brada; Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb, Croatia mladen.bradac@zg.htnet.hr ABSTRACT – Sir Arthur Evans first used the term “horns of consecration” in 1901. Since then they have been interpreted in various ways as Moon idols (Mondidole), boat models, pot stands, loom stands, spit supports, and fire supports. Most, however, can be seen as abstracted bull’s horns. Abstraction should have taken place in Anatolia or northern Mesopotamia, and “horns of consecration” spread very early, appearing, as already defined symbols in various cultural settings. The question is whether they stood for the same set of ideas wherever they appeared, or if meaning varied from one cultural setting to another. IZVLE.EK – Izraz »rogovi posvetitve« je prvi uporabil Sir Arthur Evans leta 1901. Od takrat so jih interpretirali na razne na.ine, kot lunine idole (Mondidole), modele ladij, podstavke za posodo, podstavke za statve, podpornike za ra.enj ali ogenj. Ve.ina pa jih lahko predstavlja abstraktne bikove rogove. Abstraktna upodobitev se morda pojavi v Anatoliji ali severni Mezopotamiji, »rogovi posvetitve« pa so se zelo hitro raz.irili in se pojavili kot .e dolo.eni simboli v razli.nih kulturnih okvirih. Vpra.anje je, .e so povsod, kjer so se pojavili, predstavljali enak niz idej ali pa se je njihov pomen v razli.nih kulturnih okvirjih spreminjal. KEY WORDS – horns of consecration; bulls’ heads; bucrania; representations of bucrania The objects known as “horns of consecration” have probable solutions for them. The questions are: are presented a scholarly problem for more than a cen-these methods always justified, and is the transfer of tury now. The first to use the term “horns of conse-symbol from one culture to another also a transfer cration” was Arthur Evans1. Since then they have of meaning? been discovered throughout the Middle East, many of them from older contexts than the Cretan exam-Archaeologists are the great obstacles because they ples. They have also been found in Europe, ranging often project what they wish to see onto an object. from the Early Neolithic to the Late Iron Age. The di-This affects the formulation of hypothesis, and is the versity of their dates, shapes and dimensions has reason there are so many different portraits of the raised questions as to their meanings and functions. same civilization (Ripinsky-Naxon 1989.220). Our reconstructions of symbolic systems are deduced It was obvious from the beginning that we were from ancient cultural models and are susceptible to dealing with an abstract symbol with a long history our perception of them. As Ripinski-Naxon (1989. of developing meaning and perhaps, function. Since 219) put it: the perception (output) modifies the the symbol lacks a verbal context, we are forced to concept (input). On the other hand, deconstruction look for parallels from cultural and social environ-negates the possibility of the reconstruction of logoi ments which yield more data. This in turn raises pro-(Davis 1992.335). In short, according to deconstrublems of great temporal and geographical gaps and ction theory, we are left with material only, unable 1 A. Evans, Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 21, 1901.135 ff. (text) © 2005 Oddelek za arheologijo, Filozofska fakulteta - Univerza v Ljubljani, SI Marina Milic´evic´ Brada; to reconstruct the reasons, ideas and values of the symbol’s creator. The theory of the “structure of meaning” offers a way out of the deconstructionist’s blind alley2. When considering the structure of the organized material in the “long range context” (e.g. Neolithic), similar meanings can be attributed to similar objects (Davis 1992.334). “Structure of meaning” theory can attribute a noun or an adjective to an abstract symbol and thus incorporate it into the abstract semantic structure of the cultural environment (Davis 1992.344). The term “horns of consecration” belongs to such a category. And we ask ourselves: is this the designation of an object or of an abstract idea susceptible to acculturation? Does the object represent an abstracted bucranium, and did it reach the European Neolithic as a direct indicator of a bull cult, or did it arrive as an already detached symbol of a religious Fig. 2. Bucranium from Vinkovci, Croatia, Vu.edol culture (after Hoti 1989.T. 3,1). idea, which does not necessarily denote the bull, but a whole complex of ideas (although it directly originated from the veneration of bulls at its source). The problem lies in the fact that symbols imply a complex interpretation in the eyes of their creators, and the process of either widening or narrowing the meaning of the same sign/symbol (Manetti 1987.12). For example, in the process of the development of writing in Mesopotamia a drawing (immediately recognizable) of a bull’s head, in the first instance, literally denoted “bull”, but through the semantic broadening of the sign, in the second instance, it denoted “cow” or “any large animal” (Manetti 1987.12). The other example comes from a much later date in Crete. The sign “horns of consecration” does not exist in Linear A repertory, but it appears in Linear B in the so-called canonical shape. The meaning of the sign is pte. No connection whatsoever between the phonetic group pte (suggested as the name of the object) and the horns could be established (Dow 1980.600, Fig. 17; Rutkowski 1981.82) (Fig. 1). Fig. 1. Linear B sign no. 62 (after Guarducci 1967. 55, Fig. 4a). Ritual is another way of distorting the meaning of a symbol. Ritual creates boundaries within which a real object becomes unreal and begins to denote a connection between the object and the context (Napier 1992.XVIII). Within the boundaries of ritual a symbol becomes an ideograph (ibid. XIX). Here we confront another barrier: rituals consist of regularly performed conventional stereotypes; they have emotional value, and represent a type of communication embedded in specific cultural codes (Rappaport 1971.62–63) which can be decoded only by members of the same culture. They are systems of activities organized in time and space having a strict structure, which makes them “quasi-linguistic system” (Rappaport 1971; Burkert 1990.54 ff). Once again we lack the verbal context for a symbol or an ideograph. Every culture has its own conventions for creating images and symbols. The simpler the form of the Fig. 3. Bull’s head – mask from Kition, Cyprus (af- ter Karageorghis 1975.Fig.4). 2 I. Hodder, The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Oxford 1990: 21. 3 The bucranium is 80 cm in diameter and was originally situated above the entrance to the Vu.edol house. When the structure collapsed the bucranium fell in front of it together with the piece of plaster it was fixed on (Hoti 1989.35, T. 3.1–2). The transfer of symbols and meanings> the case of the ’horns of consecration’ Fig. 4. Çatal Hüyük, Turkey, shrine E VI,8 (after Mellaart 1963.64, Fig.10). tomb of the king Uadji from the 1st Dynasty shows clay bull heads with real horns inserted (Conrad 1959. 75 and figure) (Fig. 5). This tomb is roughly contemporary with the Vu.edol culture. We can discuss the nuances of the treatment of the bulls and reverence for them in different cultures, but the framework is clear – it must be religious, and bull must have played a great part in that religious context. The next step is the three-dimensio nal representation of the bull’s head in some other material (clay, plaster, stone or bone). Such are the heads from Çatal Hüyük (Fig. 6), or the clay bucranium from Vin.a (Vasi. 1936.Fig. 86 a–b) (Fig. 7), or Banjica (Vin.a culture) (Tasi. 1973.T. XI, 33) (Fig. 8). Dated to c2300 BC there is a clay model of a shrine found in Kothati (Cyprus). The shrine ends in stylised bull heads. A small female figure is probably making a sacrifice in front of a shrine (Karageorghis 1974.353; 1991.Pl. CII.2; Kalicz & Raczky 1981.18, T. 7. 3; Burkert 1990.37) symbol, the more difficult is the decoding of it for someone who does not know the codes (Morgan 1985.7). Codes are acquired during a lifetime of learning within a given community. Any symbol can acquire many meanings (social, mythical, cultic etc.) as Lyvia Morgan puts it: “Variability of meaning is perhaps partly explicable in the light of multiplicity of meaning” (Morgan 1985.6). The bull’s head or bucranium began as a real object, and persisted from the Çatal Hüyük to the historical times. An example could be the bucranium from Vinkovci (Eastern Croatia) found in the Vu.edol layer, dated to the 1st half of the 3rd millennium BC3 (Fig. 2). A further example could be the masks made of bulls’ skulls found in Kition (Cyprus) in Temple 5, dated to the 12th or 11th centuries BC (Karageorghis 1975.402, Fig. 4) (Fig. 3). Both examples are immediately recognized as such and could be well connected to the complex bull veneration in the Old World. The bucranium from Vinkovci is interesting because the lower part of the skull is missing and was made of clay. This mode of recreating bucrania resembles distant origins in Çatal Hüyük, where the horns of the bos primigenius were inserted into heads or stands made of plaster (Mellaart 1967.T. 16; cf. Mellaart 1963.T. 6b – shrine VI, 6, T. 22, 23 – plaster heads with inserted with real bull horns). (Fig. 4) The same method can be found in Egypt: the Fig. 5. Egypt, the tomb of King Uadji (after Conrad 1959.Fig. p. 75). Fig. 6. Çatal Hüyük, Turkey, shrine VII,1 (after Mellaart 1964.56, Fig. 14). Marina Milic´evic´ Brada; Fig. 7. Clay bucranium from Vin.a, Serbia and Montenegro, Vin.a Culture (after Vasi. 1936.Fig. 86 a–b). (Fig. 9). Finally, we have the famous bone plaque in the form of a bull head, with a female figure carved on the snout. It is from the Cucuteni culture, and was found in Bilcze Zlote Cave in NW Ukraine, with other Cucuteni B objects (Soudsky & Pavlu 1966.117; Gimbutas 1982.293, Pl. 178) (Fig. 10). These examples are already on the way to schematisation, distanced from the original object, but highly Fig. 9. Kotsiates (Kothati), Cyprus, clay model of a sanctuary (after Karageorghis 1991.Pl. CII, 2). Fig. 8. Clay bucranium from Banjica, Serbia and Montenegro, Vin.a Culture (after Tasi. 1973.T. XI, 33). recognizable. Their meaning remains moderately recognizable. They obviously refer to a set of ideas surrounding bulls connected with the female principle. When the schematisation goes a step further, discarding the superfluous iconic additions and approaches the sphere of symbols, our ambiguity grows, perhaps less in recognizing the symbol than in interpreting it. Some objects are still recognizable as bucrania, for example, the “benches” from Çatal Hüyük (Mellaart 1963.53, Fig. 4 – shrine A VI, 1) (Fig. 11). Interpretation diverges: they are obviously sacred, but in what way? They might signify the bull’s role in a religion of the female principle. But they can equally be a gift given in return for a successful hunt. This theory tries to explain why there are rows of horns in benches: do many horns sanctify a space more efficiently than a single pair? Probably not, but they can be a ritual method of restoring to a goddess what has been taken from her world (Hodder 1987) in a system of gift exchange with the gods. For some other examples we can infer that they stem from bucrania, like the small altar table from Sarva. Fig. 10. Bone figurine from Bilcze Zlote, Ukraine, Cucuteni Culture (after Soudsky and Pavlu 1966. Fig. 17). The transfer of symbols and meanings> the case of the ’horns of consecration’ Fig. 11. Çatal Hüyük, Turkey, shrine A VI,1 (after Mellaart 1963.53, Fig. 4). Fig. 12. Clay “altar” from Sarva., Croatia, Vu.edol Culture (?), Archives of the Archaeological Museum, Zagreb. meaning in respect to the symbol’s distant Early Neolithic origins. When the object is further abstracted into the form of “horns of consecration”, the direct connection with the original image is lost. Now there is no agreement on their origin from the bucranium, nor on their function and cultic meaning (if any). “Horns of consecration” became the smallest definable iconographical unit, meaning that nothing could be removed from the object without it losing its recognizable form (Morgan 1985.10). As a result they are difficult to interpret within a specific culture, to say nothing of the transfer from one community to another. The smallest iconographic unit acquires meaning within a culture’s set of instruments for its interpretation. These instruments are mostly lost to us. When we find the syntax of symbols in different cultures, e.g. woman + double axe + horns of consecration + small bird, we can speak of a certain affinity of meaning, but when the smallest iconographic unit appears alone, we do not know its meaning within the specific set of conventions. This is why there is no universally accepted theory of the origin, meaning and function of the “horns of consecration”. Not everyone would agree that “horns of consecration” even derived from bucrania. They were understood as pot stands, loom stands, pot supports, spit supports (Diamant & Rutter 1969. 147), or fire supports (Gazdapusztai 1957; Rutkowski 1981.88). The different opinions on their function are in most cases based on their dimensions. Cretan examples (Eastern Croatia) (Schmidt 1945.Textbild 74–3, 145 f; 184), only 15.5 cm long, 14 cm wide and 10.5 cm high (Fig. 12); or the very similar object from the Kod.adermen tell in Bulgaria (Radun.eva 1971.59, Fig. 2, 3) (Fig. 13). The small objects are probably ritual paraphernalia connected with bull worship. They have no obvious domestic function. On the other hand, when we find schematised horns on the rim of an Early Minoan I vessel from Eileithyia’s Cave on Crete (Zervos 1956.Fig. 90) (Fig. 14), we must ask ourselves if they are merely the decoration of an otherwise simple bowl, or if they are the horns which sanctify the use of the vessel and the substance served in it. We do not know whether their meanings remained the same or were abstracted, even if they were broadened and acquired some additional Fig. 13. Clay figurine from Kod.adermen, Bulga- ria (after Radun.eva 1971.Fig. 2). Fig. 14. Vessel from Eileithyia’s Cave, Crete (after Zervos 1956.Fig. 90). Marina Milic´evic´ Brada; are classified according to their size: monumental, found on architecture; medium (from 10 cm to 1m); miniature (not more than 10 cm) (D’Agata 1992.250). Prehistoric sites in Central and SE Europe lack monumental examples, but medium and miniature ones are abundant. For the monumental Cretan “horns of consecration” most would say that they had a religious or cultic function. Miniature specimens, Cretan, Middle Eastern or European prehistoric are equally understood as cultic objects, amulets or tokens (Budja 2003). Miniature examples appear very early in Europe, in the Sesklo culture from the site at Xynias Ombriaki in Greece (Sampson 1981.Fig. 17) (Fig. 15). They have holes, which suggests they were worn as amulets or simple pendants, although the object Fig. 15. Clay “amulet” from Xynias Ombriaki, Greece, Sesklo Culwas described as a loom weight. Small ture (after Sampson 1980.Fig. 17). “horns of consecration” are known Fig. 16. Miniature clay “horns of consecration”, Ruse, Bulgaria, from the site at Ruse in Bulgaria, of the Gumelnita Culture (after Gimbutas 1982.93, Fig. 49,1 and 49,2). Fig. 17. Clay “horns of consecration”, Vin.a, Serbia and Monte-Gumelnita culture (Gimbutas 1982.93, negro, Vin.a Culture (after Gimbutas 1982.Fig. 49,3). Figs. 49.1, 49.2) (Fig. 16), and from Fig. 18. Fragments with horns on the rim, Vesztö-Magor, Hun- the site at Vin.a and the Vin.a culture gary, Tisza Culture (after Hegedus & Makkay 1987.Fig. 11). in Serbia (Gimbutas 1982.Fig. 49.3) Fig. 19. “Amulet”, Divostin, Serbia and Montenegro (after Budja (Fig. 17). They adorn the rim of a ves-2003.119, Fig. 3) . sel from Vestö-Magor, Hungary, from Fig. 20. “Amulet“, Vin.a, Serbia and Montenegro, Vin.a Culture (after Tasi. 1973.T. XVIII, 61).the Tisza culture (Hegedus & Makkay Fig. 21. Clay “horns of consecration“, Vu.edol/Gradac, Croatia, 1987.Fig. 11) (Fig. 18). Even if some Vu.edol Culture (after Schmidt 1945.T. 18.2). of them served as tokens in inter-com-Fig. 22. Clay “horns of consecration”, Vu.edol/Streim’s Vine munal communication networks, no yard, Croatia, Vu.edol Culture (after Vu.edol 1988.cat. no. 39) . one really doubts that they originated Fig. 23. Clay “horns of consecration”, Vinkovci, Croatia, Vu.edol from bucrania. The same goes for Culture (after Vu.edol 1988.cat. no. 38) . some highly abstract “amulets” (Tasi. Fig. 24. Clay “horns of consecration”, Tell Brak, Iraq, halcolithic 1973. T. XVIII. 61; Stankovi. 1989/ (after Diamant & Rutter 1969.Fig. 28) . Fig. 25. Clay “horns of consecration”, Alishar, Iran (after Müller 90.42; Budja 2003) (Figs. 19 and 20). Karpe 1974.T. 303, B5). The medium-size objects, although very similar to Vu.edol 1988 Cat. No. 38, p. 78; Hoti 1989.34, T. the monumental and the miniature examples, pose 3.2) (Fig. 23) to mention only a few of the best a problem. They are easily made, easily accessible to known. These were found in deposit pits with no almost anyone (D’Agata 1992.250), and they are other context. Some fragmented examples were most often interpreted as having a domestic, not cul-found in the houses (Hoti 1989.34) or near them, tic, function. Such controversial examples are the and were automatically under suspicion as domestic “horns of consecration” from Vu.edol (Gradac), found objects (e.g. fire supports). The same is the case with in 1938 (35.5 cm long, 31 cm high, 18.5 cm wide, the Middle Eastern examples (Diamant & Rutter Schmidt 1945.36, T. 18.2; 50.3) (Fig. 21); horns from 1969, passim) such as those from Tell Brak, Iraq (Di- Vu.edol (Streim’s Vineyard) found in 1986 (50 cm amant & Rutter 1969.Fig. 28) (Fig. 24) or Alishar Hülong, 27 cm high, Hoti 1989.T. 1.2) (Fig. 22); or the yük, Iran (Müller Karpe 1974.T. 303, B 5) (Fig. 25). horns from Vinkovci (Hotel) belonging to the Vu.edol culture found in 1977 (35 m long, 17. 5 cm high, Even if we sometimes reach a consensus that they Dimitrijevi. 1977/78.Abb. 3, 11; Te.ak 1979.Abb. 6; are sacred or cultic objects, we cannot agree why. The transfer of symbols and meanings> the case of the ’horns of consecration’ Fig. 26. The ornament of the Mycenaean crater from Salamis, Cyprus (after Gimbutas 1982.Fig. 151). Evans (op. cit. n. 1) insisted that they were schematised bucrania connected with a bull cult; Gärte thought that they were a derivation of the Egyptian hieroglyphic sign for horizon4. The suggestion that they derived from the crescent shape of the moon also had quite a lot of supporters, as well as the assumption that the original image was a boat. Two theories were then connected into one: the “horned” shape represented a moon boat carrying the moon across the sky (Zervos 1956.41; Rutkowski 1981. 88). One suggestion was that the shape derived from a female figure with hands raised (Levy 1948. 230). Further difficulties arise when we consider two-dimensional representations of a three-dimensional object. Representations are truly the smallest definable iconographic units. We have already mentioned the Linear B sign pte. Evans was convinced that the “horns of consecration” stood for bucrania because of the representation on the Mycenaean crater from Cyprus (D’Agata 1992.248, n. 7) (Fig. 26). They are easily discernible here, and functionally interchangeable. Earlier representations of bucrania, however schematised, are easily recognizable, as on the Mid- Fig. 27a. Detail of Fig. 27 (after Mellaart 1975.Fig. 150). Fig. 27. Assemblage of middle Halaf pottery, Yu- nus, Turkey (after Mellaart 1975.233, Fig. 150). dle Halaf pottery (5000–4500 BC) from Yunus near Carchemish (Mellaart 1975.232, Fig. 150) (Fig. 27). Highly stylised, but still recognizable, are the representations of bucrania on Cucuteni B2 pottery (Dodd-Opritescu 1981.Fig. 4. 23) (Fig. 28). Representations of the “horns of consecration” are a bigger problem. We are usually not sure if they really represent “horns of consecration” and not some similar horned shape. Such is the case with an object (seal? loom-weight? shuttle?) from the Neolithic layer in Knossos. It has an almost perfectly incised drawing of “horns of consecration” (Makkay 1984. 22–24, Fig. 1. 2b) (Fig. 29). But the sign has also been described as the Egyptian hieroglyphic sign for mountain (ibid.). The object is dated to the Middle or Late Neolithic, so it is too early for both interpretations. Its explicit drawing enables us to recognize a more vague representation on a clay object Fig. 28. Repertory of Cucuteni B2 ornaments in the form of bucrania (after Dodd-Opritescu 1981. Fig. 4,23). 4 W. Gärte, Die Bedeutung der kretisch-minoischen Horns of Consecration. Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 21, 1922.72–98 quoted by D’Agata 1992.247, n.6. Marina Milic´evic´ Brada; Fig. 29. Clay object from Knossos, Crete, Neolithic (after Makkay 1984.Fig. 1.2b). Fig. 31. Drawing of the same object from Sesklo as in Fig. 30 (after Makkay 1984.Fig. 1.4). from Sesklo, Greece, dated to the Sesklo culture (Teocharis 1973.Fig. 212c; Makkay 1984.24, n. 11, Fig. 1.4) (Figs. 30, 31). This drawing has disintegrated, but is still recognizable as a type of schematised “horns of consecration”, although the meaning is far from clear. In this context we must mention a bone object from Me.iri.i, Ukraine (Filippov 1984.Fig. 8.9) (Fig. 32). It is decorated with incised drawings, among them motifs which in some other context would be immediately recognized as “horns of consecration”. Since this object belongs to the Upper Palaeolithic, we cannot but say that we are dealing with a crescent shape with a flat base. Small circles can be seen between the “horns”. Perhaps this time we could say that these shapes might really represent the sun and moon, because here we have a somewhat more subtle syntax of iconographic units. This occurrence makes one cautious: when we are dealing with the utmost schematisation the possibility presents itself Fig. 30. Clay object from Sesklo, Greece, Sesklo Culture (after Teocharis 1973.Fig. 212 c). Fig. 32. Bone object from Me.iri.i, Ukraine, Upper Palaeolithic (after Filippov 1984.Fig. 8.9). that two or three or more different original images (bucranium, crescent moon, mountain, boat) could be schematised in the same way and still have different meanings. Meanings would vary from culture to culture according to inherent codes of cultural communication inside a given community. In conclusion we could say that the oldest finds still represent the literal transposition of the object (bull’s head) to a culture. With the passing of time and widening of geographical radius, abstractions appeared, followed by symbols. These were very remote from the original image in appearance, and we wonder how remote they were in meaning. The transfer of symbols and meanings> the case of the ’horns of consecration’ REFERENCES BUDJA M. 2003. Seals, contracts and tokens in the Balkans Early Neolithic: where in the puzzle. In M. Budja (ed.), 10th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 30: 115–130. BURKERT W. 1990. Greek Religion, Archaic and Classical. Harvard University Press. Cambridge Mass. CONRAD J. R. 1959. The Horn and the Sword. The History of the Bull as Symbol of Power and Fertility. Macgibbon and Kee. London. D’AGATA A. L. 1992. Late Minoan Crete and Horns of Consecration: s Symbol in Action. In R. Laffineur & J. T. Crowley (eds.), EIKON, Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Methodology (Proceedings of the 4th International Aegean Conference), University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia 6–9 April 1992), Aegeum 8: 247–256. DAVIS W. 1992. The deconstruction of intentionality in Archaeology. Antiquity 66: 334–347. DIAMANT S. & RUTTER J. 1969. Horned objects in Anatolia and the Near East and possible connections with Minoan “Horns of Consecration”. Anatolian Studies 19: 147–178. DIMITRIJEVI. S. 1977/78. Zur Frage der Genese der Gliederung der vu.edoler Kultur in dem Zwischenstromlande Donau-Drau-Sawe. Vjesnik Arheolo.kog muzeja u Zagrebu 3. ser. 10–11: 1–96. DODD-OPRITESCU A. 1981. La céramique décorée a la corde dans l’aire des civilisations de Cucuteni et Cernavoda I. Studii se cercetari de istorie veche si archeologie (Bucuresti) 32/4: 511–528. DOW S. 1980. The Linear Scripts and the Tablets as Historical Documents. Cambridge Ancient History II, Part 1: 584 ff. FILIPPOV O. K. 1984. Obrabotka i ispoljzovanije predmetov na poznopaleoliti.eskom poselenije Me.iri.i. Arheologija (Kijev) 48: 35–47. GAZDAPUSZTAI G. 1957. Ein Leuchter vom Ende des Neolithikums aus Hódmezövásárhely. Archaeologiai Értesítö 84/2: 211–213. GIMBUTAS M. 1982. Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, Myths and Cult Images. Thames & Hudson. London. GUARDUCCI M. 1967. Epigrafia greca I. Istituto poligrafico dello stato. Roma. HEGEDUS K. & MAKKAY J. 1987. Vésztö Mágor. In P. Raczky (ed.), The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region: 85–104. HODDER I. 1987. The contextual analysis of symbolic meanings. In I. Hodder (ed.), The Archaeology of Contextual Meaning. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 1–10. HOTI M. 1989. Novi nalazi konsekrativnih rogova na Vu.edolu. Opuscula Archaeologica (Zagreb) 14: 33–43. KALICZ N. & RACZKY P. 1981. The Percursors to the “Horns of Consecration” in the South-east European Neolithic. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 33: 5–20. KARAGEORGHIS V. 1974. Cypriot Civilization in the Mycenaean Period. In G. A. Christopoulos (ed.), Prehistory and Protohistory: 346–360. 1975. Excavations at Kition, Cyprus, 1975. Journal of Field Archaeology 2/4: 399–404. 1991. The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus I: Chalcolithic – Late Cypriot I. A. G. Levenis Foundation. Nicosia. LEVY G. R. 1948. The Gate of Horn. A Study of the Religious Conceptions of the Stone Age and their Influence upon European Thought. Faber and Faber Limited. London. MAKKAY J. 1984. Chronological links between Neolithic cultures of Thessaly and the Middle Danube Region. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 36: 21–28. MANETTI G. 1987. Le teorie del segno nell’antichita classica. Bompiani. Milano. MELLAART J. 1963. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, Second Preliminary Report 1962. Anatolian Studies 13: 43–103. 1964. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük Third Preliminary Report 1963. Anatolian Studies 14: 39–119. Marina Milic´evic´ Brada; 1967. Çatal Hüyük. A Nolithic Town in Anatolia. Thames & Hudson. London. 1975. The Neolithic of the Near East. Charles Scribner’s Sons. New York. MORGAN L. 1985. Idea, Idiom and Iconography. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplement XI, L’iconographie minoenne: 5–19. MÜLLER KARPE H. 1974. Handbuch der Vorgeschichte III. C. H. Beck. München. NAPIER A.D. 1992. Foreign Bodies. Performance, Art and Symbolic Anthropology. University of California Press. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London. RADUN.EVA A. 1971. Sur la signification de certaines figurines animals en argile de l’Enéolithique. Arheologija (Sofija) 2: 58–66. RAPPAPORT R. A. 1971. Ritual Sanctity and Cybernetics. American Anthropologist 73/1: 59–76. RIPINSKY-NAXON M. 1989. Hallucinogenes, Shamanism, and the Cultural Process. Ahthropos 84: 219– 224. RUTKOWSKI B. 1981. Frühgriechische Kultdarstellungen. Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung, Beiheft 8. Berlin. SAMPSON A. 1981. A Settlement of “Sesklo” Period at Xynias Ombriaki. Athens Annals of Archaeology 14/1: 104–133. SCHMIDT R. R. 1945. Die Burg Vu.edol. Ausgabe des Kroatischen archäologischen Staatsmuseums. Zagreb. SOUDSKY P. & PAVLU I. 1966. Interpretation historique de l’ornement linéaire. Památky archeologické 57/1: 91–125. STANKOVI. S. 1989/90. Predstave bika u starijem neolitu. Starinar 40–41: 35–42. TASI. N. 1973. Neolitska plastika. Katalog izlo.be Muzej grada Beograda. Beograd. TEOCHARIS D. 1973. Neolithic Greece. National Bank of Greece. TE.AK T. 1979. Vu.edoler Kultgeräte aus Vinkovci. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 16: 3.13. VASI. M. M. 1936. Praistoriska Vin.a II. Dr.avna .tamparija Kraljevine Jugoslavije. Beograd. VU.EDOL 1988. Vu.edol. Three Thousand Years BC. Catalogue of the Exhibition. Muzejski prostor. Zagreb. ZERVOS C. 1956. L’Art de la Crete, néolithique et minoenne. Cahiers d’art. Paris.