Makedonski Bronzi (Macedonian Bronzes) - Nikos Čaušidis

Publisher
CPR Center for

Prehistoric Research
Proofreading
Andriana Dragovi
Computer layout
and graphic design
Nikos Chausidis
Front cover
photography and design
Nikos Chausidis
Noemi Chausidis
English translation of the summary

Andriana Dragovi

Nikos Chausidis
MACEDONIAN BRONZES
AND THE RELIGION AND MYTHOLOGY
OF IRON AGE COMMUNITIES
IN THE CENTRAL BALKANS
2017
CIP -
". ",
903-4(497)"638"
2-264(497)
003.62(497)"638"
,

/ ; [ , ;
]. - : ,
2017. - 1192 . : ; 30
. IV: Macedonian bronzes and the religion and mythology of iron age communities in the
Central Balkans / Nikos Chausidis. - . - : . 1103-1192
ISBN 978-608-65967-2-9
I. Chausidis, Nikos , ) - - )
- ) - ) - -

COBISS.MK-ID 102403594
Creative Commons,
, ,
.
CC BY-NC-SA Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

...... vi
()
.... 1
A. :
. 3
I. ... 3
II. ... 5
B. :

. 7
I. ... 7
II. .. 9
III. ( ) 13
C. :
15
I. . 15
II. ( ) .. 22
D.
:
............ 24
vi

E. :
.. ... 26
I. . 26
1. .... 26
2. .. 28
3. .. 28
4. .. 30
5. 32
6. . 35
- .. 35
- 37
II. - .. 43
1. ... 43
a) .. -
(, , ) .. 45
b) .. -
(, , , ) .. 49
c) - . 51
d) - .. 53
e) . 53
2. . 57
a) . 59
b) ... 59
c) .. 61
d) ... 61
e) - .. 61
3. . 63
a) ... 65
b) . 67
c) .... 72
F. .. .. 74
I. .. 76
1. - , .... 81
a) . 81
b) ... 83
c) ... 85
d) . 89
e) . 95
II. , ... 95
III. ... 100
1. ... 100
IV. . 100
1. 101
a) ( ) ... 101
b) . 103
c) ... 105
- (-) .. 105
- - ( ) ........... 105
- .... 107
d) . 107
vii

2. ....... 109
a) ...... 109
b) .... 114
c)
..... 117
d) ....... 119
V. ....... 121
1. ........ 123
2. ............ 124
VI. -
. 125
1. (Apsar) . 125
2. (Sarasvat) .. 126
3. (Ardv Sr - Anhit) .. 126
4. ... 127
5. .. 128
6. 129
G.
.........130
I.
........ 131
1. .. ... 132
2. ... 133
3. ... 135
II.
... 136
1. (, ) ..... 136
2. (, ) ..137
3. ....137
4. 137
III. ... 141
IV. 143
1. ..143
a) .... 143
b) ....... 144
c) - .... 144
2. - .. 145
a) ..... 145
b) .... 148
c) .....148
d) .... 149
e) ... 151
()
.. ... 155
A. . 155
- ..... 155
- .. 159
viii

- , ..... 159
- ..... 163
- ...... 167
B. ... 167
I. .. 167
1. ... 167
2. . 170
3. . 172
4. - .. 172
5. - 173
6. 173
II. 176
1. ...... 176
a) ... 176
b) ... 179
c) . 183
d) . 184
- .... 185
- .. 188
e) ... 189
- . 193
- 195
2. . 196
a) ... 196
b) ... 196
c) glans penis .... 198
3. . 208
a) 208
- . 208
- . 208
- ...... 208
- .... 212
b) 214
- - ... 214
- - ..... 217
- ... 222
- .... 222
4. :
- ... 224
a) 224
b) . 225
c) ... 228
d) .... 229
e) ..... 231
f) ...... 231
5. ( ) . 235
a) .. 235
- . 237
- ... 239
b) .. 245
- 245
- 247
c) .. 249
ix

- . 251
- .. 253
- . 253
- . 255
- .... 255
- . 255
6. .. . 256
a) ... 256
- .. 256
- .. 258
- ...... 260
- ...... 260
- ...... 261
- .... 261
- ... 263
b) .. 263
- ...... 264
- / ... 264
- ... 267
- . 269
C.
. 272
I. 272
II. 274
1. ( ) . 274
2. .. 280
a) 281
b) ... 281
c) ....... 281
d) .. 283
e) ... 285
f) . 285
3. .. 285
4. . 291
5. .... 293
a) =
. 294
- ... 297
- ... 298
()

. 307
. . 307
1. 307
2. 309
3. , . 309
4. .... 311
- ... 311
5. . 313
. ... 315
I. .. 315
- ...... 316
II. 317
1. () . 317
- ..... 317
- ..... 321
- - ......... 325
2. ... 327
) .... 328
- .. 328
- 330
- .. 331
) ... 332
- .. 332
- (, , , ) ...... 334
- () ... 339
- Benvenuti, ( ) . 339
- .... 341
- . . 347
3. 350
) .. 350
- 350
- .. 352
- .. 353
) ... 353
) ... 355
4. . 356
) ... 356
- , .. . 356
- . 356
- . 356
- ... 357
)
, ... 357
- .... 357
- .... 358
- (, .. ) .. 359
-
... 362
- ....... 362
) ..... 368
- ... 368
- . 370
- ... 370
- ..... 372
) ...... 373
- = . 373
- = ... 374
- .. 376
xi

()
... 381
A. .. 383
B. 386
1. ... 386
2. .. 387
3. ... 388
4. . 389
C. /
... 389
I. .. 389
1. .. 390
2. . 391
3. 392
II. 395
1. .. 395
III. .. 401
1. . 401
2. .... 409
3. . 411
D. ... 413
I. 413
II. ..... 414
III. .. 416
E. . 419
I. . 419
II. .. 421
F. .. 426
G. ... 431
I. ... 431
II. ... 434
III. .. 437
IV. .. 443
()
. 447
A. .. 449
I. ...... 453
II. ... 455
III. , , ... 457
IV. 461
V. . 463
xii

B. . 464
I. .. 464
1. 464
2. .. 466
3. , . 466
4. .. 469
5. ..... 471
a) : ... 476
6. .. 478
a) (
) . 478
b) .. 479
- ... 481
- , .. ... 481
- . 484
- ... 485
- .. 485
c) a
.. 492
- .. 492
- .. 493
- 495
d) . 496
e) . 498
f) . 506
7. . 513
a) . 513
b) .... 514
c) .. 514
d) .. 515
II. () 516
1. 516
2. .. 517
3. , . 517
4. .. 519
5. .. 519
6. .. 521
a) . 521
b) .. 521
- .. 521
- 523
7. . 525
III. 525
1. 527
2. .. 529
3. .. 529
C. . 532
I. KU I ZI ... 532
II. ... 534
1. .. 538
a) 538
- . 538
- .... 540
xiii

- ... 541
b) .. 543
III. .. 545
1. ... 549
) .. 549
b) ... 553
c) .... 555
- .. 555
- .... 557
- ... 559
- . 559
- .. 564
2. . 564
D. ... 565
I. 567
1. .... 567
2. 567
3. , 569
4. .. 571
5. .. 573
a) () .. 573
b) () .. 575
II. ... 575
a) , .. .. 575
b) 577
- 1: 5 . 579
- 2: 3 4 ... 579
- 3: .... 581
- . 581
- .... 582
- ... 583
III. 583
IV.
.. 590
V. 594
VI. ... 596
1. . 596
a) 596
b) , .. 597
c) .. 600
- .. 601
- .. 607
d) ... 608
e) . 608
2. . 611
a) ... 614
- .... 614
- ... 619
b) .. 621
- .... 626
xiv

c) .. 626
- . 627
3. .... 631
4. ... 635
a) 635
b) ... 640
c) .. 643
d) . 645
VII.
, .. ... 647
1. .... 647
2. . 648
3. .. 648
4. .. 648
()
....... 653
A.
.. 653
I. 653
II. - .. 655
III. . 659
1. 659
a) .. 662
2. ... 664
IV. .. 669
B. .. 671
I. - . 671
1. 671
2. .. 671
3. . 673
4. ... 676
5. .. 676
6. , ... 676
7. .. 678
II. .. 680
1. .. 681
2. . 683
a) . 683
b) . 683
3. .. 684
a) 684
b) . 686
III. .... 687
1. 687
a) ... 687
b) . 690
2. . 692
a) 692
b) 695
xv

IV. .. 696
1. . 696
a) ... 696
b) ( ) .. 699
c) ( ) ... 701
2. / .... 705
V. : + .... 709
VI. ..... 715
VII. . 721
1. , ... 721
a) ...... 723
b) .. 726
c) ( ) ... 728
d) ( ) .. 730
2.
... 735
3. . 742
4. . 745
a) .. 745
b) ... 747
c) . 749
d) .. 749
e) ... 751
f) ..... 751
g) ..... 753
VIII. ... 754
1. . 755
a) .. 757
. 7 . 12 , ... 758
C.
..... 761
I. . 761
1. 761
2. .. 762
3. .... 763
4. ... 764
II. , ... 765
III. 766
1. ... 768
2. , .. . ... 768
IV. . 771
1. 772
V. .. 776
()
....... 781
A. ........... 781
I. .... 781
xvi

II. . 787
1. .. 787
2. - ... 792
3. 794
4. .. 796
B. .... 799
I. 799
II. . 801
C. ... 804
I. 804
II. . 806
D. V .. 810
I. 810
1. V- .. 810
2. V- 812
II. . 816
1. .... 816
2. .. 817
a) ... 817
b) ... 822
c) , .. ..... 827
d) .. 829
E. 830
I. .... 830
II. .... 832
1. ....... 832
2. ... 835
3. ..... 839
4. .... 841
()
- -
... 849
A. -
- ......... 850
I. ...... 851
II.
, .... 852
B. 854
C. -
- ,
...... 858
I. .... 858
1. ..... 859
2. .... 860
xvii

3. .... 861
II. ... 862
1. .... 862
2. ... 863
3.
.... 864
III. .. 865
1. - ,
..... 866
) , .... 867
) , , ..... 867
2. ..... 869
a) .. 869
..... 871
b) .... 875
c) .. 875
3. ... 876
a) - ..... 876
- - .... 876
- ...... 877
- ( ) ...... 879
- ( ) ....... 880
- .. 883
- ...... 884
- - .... 885
- , .... 888
b) / .. 889
- sinth-, .. sith- ...... 889
- sind- ... 890
- .... 891
c) .. 892
- ... 892
- ( ) ..... 892
- ..... 894
- ... 895
- ..... 896
d) ..... 898
IV. ...... 899
1.
.... 899
2. ,
.. 901
a) (/) .. 902
b) .... 903
c)
.... 904
- Benvenuti ... 905
- ...... 905
- ...... 905
d) -- ....... 905
- : ..... 905
xviii

- : ...... 907
- .. 907
- - ... 908
- - ............. 908
e) , - ... 912
- ... 912
- ... 912
- ... 914
- .... 914
D.
.... 916
I.
.. 916
II. ...... 916
1. .... 919
2. ..... 923
III.
.. 926
MACEDONIAN BRONZES AND THE RELIGION

AND MYTHOLOGY OF IRON AGE COMMUNITIES
IN THE CENTRAL BALKANS (Summary) .... 931
Introduction ........ 931
Chapter 1: A BIRD AND A VESSEL ... 936
A. Bird carrying a vessel ...... 936
B. Bird identified as a vessel .... 936
C. Bird standing on a vessel .... 936
D. A vessel placed on a bird-drawn carriage: miniature carriages
supplemented with birds ...... 937
E. Vessels with bird protomes: little bronze goblets, i.e. pyxides with bird protomes .. 937
F. Woman- i.e. godess-shaped vessel ..... 940
G. Function of bronze objects where bird and vessel are combined .. 943
Chapter 2: CLUSTER PENDANTS OR THE SO-CALLED JUG-STOPPERS .... 944
A. Basic information ..... 944
B. Iconography and Semiotics .... 944
C. Hollow and perforated spherical pendants with a human sitting figure ..... 949
Chapter 3: CONE-SHAPED OBJECTS WITH A PAIR OF ELONGATED
SEGMENTS ON TOP ...... 951
A. Basic information ..... 951
B. Iconography and semiotics ..... 952
Chapter 4: MACEDONIAN BRONZES AND THE HOLY POTION ......... 956
A. Holy potion in ancient Balkan peoples .... 956
B. Soma and haoma holy potion in Rigveda and Avesta .. 957
C. Comparisons between soma/haoma and the Balkan holy potions .... 958
D. Symbolic relations .... 959
E. Holy potion personalizations ...... 960
xix

F. Holy potion and sacrifice ..... 960

G. Holy potions stimulating functions ...... 961
Chapter 5: CROSS-SHAPED OBJECTS .... 961
A. General review of semiotics and symbolism of the cross .... 961
B. Free cross ........ 963
C. Three-dimensional cross ..... 968
D. Cross within a circle ..... 971
Chapter 6: DOUBLE AXE-SHAPED OBJECTS .......... 977
A. Late Bronze Age and Iron Age double axes from Macedonia ....... 977
B. Iconography and semiotics of the double axe .... 978
C. Semiotics of Iron Age double axes from Macedonia .... 984
Captere 7: OBJECTS WITH FEMALE FEATURES IN THE ICONOGRAPHY ....... 986
A. Ajoure belt garnitures ..... 987
B. Ajoure triangular pendants .... 988
C. Pendant from Mati (Albania) ........ 988
D. Ajoure V-shaped objects ..... 989
E. Bronze zoomorphic figurine from Rape .... 991
Chapter 8: CULTURAL-HISTORICAL TRACING OF MYTHICAL AND RELIGIOUS
PHENOMENA CONTAINED WITHIN MACEDONIAN BRONZES ... 993
A. The role of the mythical-religious phenomena in tracing the ethno-cultural processes .. 993
B. Past ethnic determination of Macedonian bronzes ... 994
C. Mythical-religious aspects of Macedonian bronzes related to the ethno-cultural
movements in Europe, the Mediterranean and the Near East .... 994
D. Macedonian bronzes Balkan Bronze Age/Enelolithic/Neolithic cultures ... 1002
(ILLUSTRATIONS CATALOGUE) .. 1007
(BIBLIOGRAPHY) .... 1103
xx

, 8. 6. . ..,
, .. - .

,
. ,
- . 1 .
.2 ,
,
.
.
,
, , .
,
(, -)
, , .
.

, - ,
, - .
, ..
, ,
.
, , -
1
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian; J. Bouzek, Macedonian.
2
. , , 98, 99; . , , 33.
xxii

,
.

, .
().
, , ,
.
, , ,
. ,
()
/ (). ,
, .3
,
,
/.4 (
)
, (62: 5).
, ,
,
( 605 545 . . ..) ..
(56; 67; 62).

( ) .
(
, ) ,
, .5
,
, , , (Philia),
(Pherai) .
, ,
, . ,

.6 , ,

(9: 1, 2) , ..
, .
, , , ,
, , .
(1; 2; 3; 4),
(56), (9; 10).

(, , ...), (
, ...)
(, , , ...).
3
(Herodotus, 4,76).
4
, .
( hidden there, Anacharsis celebrated the goddess' ritual with exactness, carrying a small drum and hanging images
about himself). , .. , ,
: , , , (P.
Chantraine, Dictionnaire, ).
5
: J. Whatmough, Rehtia, 224 226.
6
: . , , 227, 228.
xxiii

. , ,
,
.

, .7
.
,
, , ..
, .8
:
, , ,
. ,

.
, .. ,
, .. . , ,
,
: , ,
, , , , .

,
. .
-
, , , .
,
, .. , , , .
, , ,
, ,
, .
, , ,
, ,
(, , , , , ).
.

.
, .. ( , ,
), . , ,

,
, .
,

.
,
( ) , ..
.
, ..

7
. , , 17 67 ; N. ausidis, Mythical; . , ; . ,
, 3 15 .
8
E. Kasirer, Filozofija, Tom II.
xxiv

.
.
,

, .

,
() .9

, , ..
. () (),
ornamentum ordo/ordino.
, , ..
, .. .10

, ,
, .
: . , , , ; .
, . (.) , , , .
(. . rd). .
, , (.) , , . , .
. (= )
, ..
() (= . , ,
).11

, , .. . ,
. ,
.
: ,
(1; 2; 3). ,
,
.

.12
. ,
( ), , .13
(. . . )

.

, ..
.
,
9
: . , ; ,
: O. M. Frejdenberg, Mit, 46, 47, 89, 90, 99, 127, 132, 167, 241,
315, 351 353, 398.
10
. . , , 101, 102 ; . , , 311; -P. Vernan, Poreklo; . . ,
. : P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire, .
11
P. Skok, Etimologijski, (red); . , , (); A. Gluhak, Hrvatski, (stroj); 2016.
, . (
).
12
N. Chausidis, The magic, 7, 8; . , .
13
. , , 311.
xxv

.
, , ,
-,
.
, ..
, ,
.

( , ,
), , , , .. (
).
,
.

, .
(, ) , ..
( , ,
),
. ,
,
- ,

, , , ,
.

.

.
, ,
, , , .
,
, . , -

, ..

, ,
. ,
, .. , , .
, .. .
, ,
, , , ,
.

, , ,
.14

,
,
. ,
, , ,
.
14
. , .
xxvi

-
.
, , ,
.
, -
.
: (), (),
(), ().
( , 23: 5, 6; 15: 3; 9: 11).
, o :
- : : A, B, C, D;
- : : I, II, III, IV;
- : : 1, 2, 3, 4;
- : : a), b), c), d);
- : .
, , ,
. ,
,
.

, ..
. ,
.
( )
- .
.
,

,
.
, ,
, , , (,
-, ),
, ,
(Artemis Orthia, Ardv Sr-Anhit, amta).
(, , , .)
(, iarovce, Wrzburg)
(Bologna, Amphipolis, Knossos). ,
( ., , , ),
, (, ) (,
), (, ).

, . Chauchitsa (), Kilkis ().

, .. .
( , )
: . (
) ( ).
: Monteoru, Babadag, Linear pottery
culture.
( .,
Prozor ) , ,
, .
xxvii

( , ; Louvre Museum, ; Barbier-Mueller, ).
, ,
.
, :.
,
(J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian). ,
-,
(Anahita 2012).

, -.
, ,
, .
: , ,
,
, .

, , ,
- .

,
.

. ,

. 20.
19. 3000
.
,
.

. .

.
-
PDF
. ,
,
. ,

.
, .
,
,
.

. ,
,
.
xxviii

PDF
(Figures),
. e (Launch
file) Do not show this message again.
xxix

Chapter 1
A BIRD AND A VESSEL
()

()

. ,
.
A. :

I.

(1: 1 3).
,
, .
.
(1: 1, 2) ,
, .
(1: 2).
. ,
( /Chauchitsa
/Kilkis) . ( ), . -
IIA.1
, (
114).2 o
(17: 1 12)
(8; 10) ( . 185 155).
( ) ,
(17:
13 16).
1
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 13 15, 38, 39; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 148; . ,
, 129; : . , , 55 . 21.
2
. , (
).
3
A. :
A1
4
()
, .

.
,
,
. (1: 6),3
.
II.
.

, , ,
. Knossos ( 9. . ..),
,
(1: 7).
(1: 4, 5).4
( ) (
) .
,
, (1: 8). Kerameikos,
(8. . ..) (1: 10).
.5
, ,
( Amlash ), 1000 . . ..,
( ) ,
(1: 11, 12).
(1: 9).
.6
M
(Negev, - 5: 6).
..

, - ,
.
(1: 7, 8 6: 2)
(13: 9)
. , /
Chauchitsa (1: 3) ,
. ,

(1: 7) (1: 10) , ,
.7

.
..
, .
3
. , . , , 81, . 25, . 20; . , , . . 141.
4
J. N. Coldstream, Knossos, 590; J. Bouzek, Die Anfnge, 114 116, Abb. 6: IIA, III(B); J. Bouzek, Greece, 131, 132;
M. Guggisberg, Vogelschwrme, 75, Taf. 14: 1, 2, 4.
5
J. Bouzek, Die Anfnge, 117, 118, 120 Abb. 12; J. Bouzek, Greece, Pl. 11.
6
A red buff 2013; A grey buff 2013; The Habib 2013.
7
. 523 525, 615.
5
A. :
A2
6
()

. (, )
.. .
.
B. :

I.
, ,
( , ) ,
.. (A2: 1 3, 7, 8; A3: 3 5; 4: 5, 6, 8, 9).
,
,
( ),
. , (
) (2: 1, 2,
8; 3: 3 6; 4: 5). (4: 6, 8, 9)
(2: 3). . ,
4 ( ) C ( ), ,
, 7. . . -
(Hennen mit zwei runden ffnungen im Krper),
, ,
. (.. ,
, V- - )
, .8
. 12 5
, ,
40 45 (2: 7; 3: 5).9
(
. ), , ,
().10
,
, ,
,
,
(4: 10 12).11 ,

(4: 1 3). ,
(
),
8
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 13, 14, 16, 21; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 142 144. : .
, , 92, 93; . , . , , 80, 81; . , , 36, 37 (. .
132 136).
9
S. Temov, An Iron Age.
10
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 143, Taf. 103; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 95; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 16,
21.
11
. (J. Bouzek, Caucasus, 90; J. Bouzek, Die Griechisch-geometrischen, 90, 91,
Abb. 1). : . . , , . 112, 121; 2013, 615 , . 307; J. Curtis,
M. Kruszyskinna, Ancient, 16 Fig. 9: 19.
7
A. :
A3
8
()
.12
,13 -
(4: 4).
,14

( 2: 5, 6 2, 8).
( )
, ,
(4: 7).
II.

,
. , ,

,
, - , , ,
- .
. - ,
, ,
( ) . 15
,

.
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier
,
.16
,
( ), , .
, ,
, ,
, ,
(1: 1 3), ,
.
( ),
..

.

(4: 6, 9). ,
-
, , , ( 4: 8 1: 7, 10).17
12
. . , , 114, 109 . X:11, 12, : 114 116; . .
, , 75 . 5: 1 4; J. Curtis, M. Kruszyskinna, Ancient, 56 59, Fig. 33 35, Pl. 11a b.
13
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 87, 89, 84 Fig. 25: 9.
14
T. Kovcs, Askoi, 27, 28; G. Kossack, Studien, Taf. 5: 10, 11; V. Podborsk, Nboenstv, 280 Tab. 75: 12.
15
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 143.
16
17
. , , 75.
9
B. :
A4
10
()
,
,
Amlash ( 4: 5, 6 5: 3 5, 7, 8).
,

( )
. .
,
, ( - ),
.. ,
( , , , ), , , /
.
.. ( , ,
.).
( ?)
.
, -
,
. .
(DAS Air Hardening Modeling Clay),
, (5: 2). ,
o , , .. (5: 1).
. ,
-
. .
.
, ,

(5: 4). ,
( ),
- (5: 9 - 13).18
:
- =
;
- = = .
(, , ) (
)
.19
-
,
.

. ocarina .. ,
avis .20
18
. , , 173 191; . . , , 581;
: . , .
19
. , , 173 191; . . , , 580, 581.
20
carina 2010, (ocarina from Italian: little goose, from oca goose, ultimately from Latin avis bird); carina 2012.
( )
, . (. , ).
11
B. :
A5
12
()
III. ( )

, .

, , ,
.21 ,
.
,
(. ) ,
, , ( ..
) (6:1).22
, ,
(3: 7 9; 6: 2 6; 7: 10). (6:
7, 8). e () ,
13-12. . .., (
), (6: 5).23
1. . . .. ,
, ,
, .24 ,
,
(3: 7).25 ( 3 2 . . ..)
(2: 4).26
, ,
. 8.
.. (6: 3). , .27
, ,

.28
.. , ,
( ).29

. ,

. ,
.. ,
- (7: 5, 7, 8, 11).30
/
21
T. Kovcs, Askoi; A. Kapuran, A. Bulatovi, Bird; J. Bouzek, Die Anfnge, 110 117; R. Vasi, V. Vasi,
Bronzezeitliche; Starodavna 1987, kat. br. 55, 69, 71, 72; J. Bouzek, Greece, 129 131.
22
..
(. , . , 249, 250).
23
. , , 37; : . , , 27 37; R. Vasi, V. Vasi, Bronzezeitliche,
161 163.
24
M. Guggisberg, Vogelschwrme; (
), , , , (82 84).
25
D. Strong, Etrurski. 187.
26
A Bactrian 2013.
27
D. Boi, Zakladi, 96, 97; : M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 489.
28
A. Durman, Vuedolski, 32 42, 59.
29
T. Kovcs, Askoi; Sz. Guba, V. Szevernyi, Bronze, Fig. 1 Fig. 4; A. Kapuran, A. Bulatovi, Bird, 30 Pl. 2; .
, .
30
M. Gimbutas, The Language, 36 40, 273; M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 112 ; R. Washbourne, Out of the
mouths, 89, 90; A. Baring, J. Cashford, The myth, 123 126; M. Robbins Dexter, The Monstrous.
.. : . , , 244 250.
13
B. :
A6
14
()
,
.
,
( 8; 17 1: 1 3).
(, , )
,

.
( Strymon/)
,
(3: 1) (3: 2).31
/ (
),
.
, ,
, (3: 1).
C. :

I.

, :
(bird-cage pendants)
(bird-on-cage); / (geschlossene
Bommeln mit Vogelaufsatz). ,
, ,
(8; 9), (10). ,
.
, ,
.
IIA IC .
7. . ..,
, 6. . ..
( , )
,
, .
,
.. . ,
(
).32
, .
.. - (
) .33
31
. . , . . , . . , .
32
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 60 75; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 65 123; J. Bouzek, Greece, 183 185. . .
. .. distaff-shaped pendant (N. G.
L. Hammond, A History, 343, 345, 346).
33
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 60 75; J. Bouzek, Greece, 183, 184.
15
B. :
A7
16
()
, . . , , ,
.34
. 35

,
, , , ( 8, 9, 10 11).

14 13. . .., .36
,
, :
( ),
( ),
.37 Amlash
(11 7. . ..) (11: 4, 8, 10, 11).

, ( .. )
( 11: 5, 6 1 3, 7 9).

, .
,
( 8: 5 6; 9: 11 12; 10: 5 6).
,
(
19: 3, 5 7).
.. .

(15: 4).38
, ,
, .
, ,
,
.. (8: 3; 9: 1,
2, 5). (9: 4; 11: 5),
..
(9: 5). , ,
. ,
(8: 1, 2, 5, 9; 9: 12),
, ,
( 29: 7 9),
( . 57 59).39
,
, ..
34
. . , , 120.
35
J. Bouzek, Greece, 183 185; . . , , 220 227.
36
. . , , 226.
37
. . , , 127 129; . . , , 220 227; J. Bouzek, Greece, 183
185; T. Kemenczei, Zur Frage.
38
( ): I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 228, Taf. 81: 1467, 1468.
, 2014 .
- ( Vergina 9: 3)
.
39
: P. G. Kritikos, S. P. Papadaki, The History I, Fig. 27 ;
Luristan (): . . , , 112, 119.
17
C. :
A8
18
()
19
C. :
A10
20
()
11
21
C. :
.
,
(
11: 4, 9, 10, 12, 13).40
.

.41
J. Bouzek
, , .. ,
.
, ,
.
,
(11: 7 9).42

- , ..
- . ,

,
.43

.
:

(9: 9, 10);
,
(9: 5, 8 18: 1 6).44
, ,
.
,
, .. (10: 1, 5), (10: 2), (10: 11)
(10: 9, 10) , , .

, . Pherai
(), (10: 7), (10: 8). ,
,
(10: 3).
, ,
(10: 4; 56).
( . 291, 272).
II. ( )

. .
Turie, Dvorie (),
40
( ): J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 327 Fig. 20: 15, 17.
41
T. Kovcs, Askoi; Sz. Guba, V. Szevernyi, Bronze, Fig. 1 Fig. 4; A. Kapuran, A. Bulatovi, Bird; . ,
.
42
J. Bouzek, Greece, 183, 184.
43
. , , 75, 76; . , ; : , ,
114, 127 129.
44
: J. Bouzek, Greece, 133, 134; ( . 188;
18: 1 6, 19).
22
()
12
23
C. :
(12: 1). ,
.45
Vounous (12: 3, 4),46 (
12: 5) (12: 8).47
, ,
(12: 6, 7
8).

.
( Providence, ),

:
, , (12: 9, 10).
, (
), ,
. ,
,
.
,
..
.
..
.
,
(12: 10)
(, , ).48

,

(8; 9).
* * *

.
. . . (N. G. L. Hammond) .

( . 362).
D.
:

,

. , ,
..
45
K. Vinski-Gasparini, Grupa, 200, T.XXI: 1.
46
H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. III, Taf, 342, 343; R. Washbourne, Out of the mouths, 203 214.
47
J. N. Coldstream, Geometric, 100 Fig. 37-c; O. J. Brendel, Etruscan, 333, 334.
48
(, , , , .)
,
, (J. E. Harrison, Themis, 97 117; .
. , ).
24
()
13
25
D. :
.
,
(13).
(13: 8, 9).
(13: 3 5),
, , 7. . . (13: 6 9).
, (13: 1,
2). ,
.
.49
.
( ) (13: 8)
(1: 8, 10).50
, ,
,
.51

.

( ) ..
(13: 9).
( . 131, 401 409).
E. :
..

I.
1.
:
(Protomengefsse), (Pixis pendants), -
- .52
, ,
..
, .. ..
.
49
A. Hnsel, Die Kultwagen, 273 178; R. Vasi, V. Vasi, Bronzezeitliche, 182 185; H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch.
IV, Taf. 429: 1, Taf. 521: C5; G. Kossack, Studien, Taf. 4: 7; M. Bondr, Prehistoric; S. Kuko, Japodi, 169 171, 174
176, 181, 182, sl. 228, sl. 229, sl. 262/2; V. Podborsk, Nboenstv, 228 233, 278 283; J. Bouzek, Greece, 132, 133;
M. Guggisberg, Vogelschwrme, 79, 80; . , , 302 304; D. Strong, Etrurski, 192.
50
(),
( 7. . ..)
( ): . -, . ,
, 18.
51
: . , , 244 250.
52
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 24 37; . , , 220 226; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 229 241; .
, , 84; : . , , 4
7.
26
E. : ..
14
27
I.
2.
. 80%
- ,
.
: (, ), (Ku i
Zi, Kor) ( Pherai, Philia, Samos
Chios).53
3.
. . ,
, . .54 .
. ,
(A14: 2 10). .
. , ..
(A15: 16 18; A16; 18: 1, 2, 6).

(A17; A18: 7).
. I. Kilian-Dirlmeier,
: (, , );
( ) (
/ ); (, ).55
. , ,
( )
.56 . , 7 ( C, D, E, F, G, H, I)

- ,
: ;
; ; ;
; ;
.

, , .57
. . .. .
, , -
(A14).
(17), , ,
(20: 1 6),
.58 , I.
Kilian-Dirlmeier (Pyxiden auf Gitterstnder).59
, . ,
. ,
15
53
: . , , 220, 221; . , , 4; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian,
24 37; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 94; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 229 241, Taf. 106A; D. Mitrevski,
Pogrebuvanja, 569; . : . , , 84 90; D.
Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 567 569; . , .
54
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 24 37; . , , 220 226; . , , 84 90.
55
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 229 241.
56
. , , 221, 222.
57
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 31 37.
58
. , , 86, 87, 90.
59
28
E. : ..
15
29
I.
(17; A17a; 18: 7). , ,

(20: 1 6).60

, , ,
.
, ,
(21: 4, 5, 7).61 (. )
,
(21: 1, 2).62
( 23: 3 21:
1, 4, 5, 7). ,
( 3 ) (21: 10).63 , ,

Eleusis .64
2014 .
() .
( : 19). ,
, , ,
.65

.
, (14),
, ,
(
).
, , , (16; 17; 18).
4.
- .. , .
8. . ..,
. 7. , (..
) 6. .66 . , 8
6. ,
8. , 7. .
7. ,
,
7. .67 Vitsa (15: 1) I. Kilian-Dirlmeier
800 . . ..
,
60
: . , , 87, 88 . 5, 89 T.II: 1; . , '
, 613, 614, 623 . 15, 624 . 16; , : I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 88:
1542. (
).
61
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 34 Fig. 9: 7, 37; H. Myrto, Dy varse, 59, 60; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier
(kahnfrmige Protomengefsse): I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 239, 240.
62
. , , 54; . , , 229, 247 . 92: 3;
.
63
M. Guggisberg, Vogelschwrme, Taf. 15: 2.
64
: J. Bouzek, The Attic, 15 Fig. 1, 3, 25.
65
(.
).
66
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 25.
67
. , , 225, 226.
30
E. : ..
16
31
I.
IIA .68 . , .
8. 6. , 7. . ..69
5.

.
. . ,
, a
. . . (N. G. L. Hammond) ( herb cups).
.. ,
,
, , , ,
.70 .
( ),
.71

,
.. -
. ,
.72 .
.
.73
,
15
(22) ..
.74

,
(15: 17; 22: 5). ,
, . ,
.. .75
(
) , .76
, ,
( )
(14; 15: 16,
17; 16; 18: 1, 2, 6).77
in situ
, a . 113
Vitsa (), ,
(15: 1). . 8 a
68
69
. , , 86, 87; D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 567, 568.
70
S. Casson, Excavations, 19; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 24; . , , 220; , , 4; I. Kilian-
Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 235, 236.
71
72
. , , 84; . , , 113 115; . , . , ,
83, 84; . , , . . 118 130.
73
. , . , , 84.
74
. , , 82 16; D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 569.
75
(. , , 92).
76
S. Casson, Excavations, 19; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 24; . , , 220; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier,
Anhanger, 235, 236.
77
32
E. : ..
17
33
I.
A17a
34
E. : ..
(Chauchitsa, Kilkis, )
, .78 . 48
, (. ),
, , .
.79
53 (. ),
. in situ
(21: 8, 9) ( . 45, 51).80 15 ,
(. ), 35- ,
.
, ,
,
(22: 1, 3, 4).
, , .
,

( 22: 2).81
.
12 ( , . ), ,
(62: 6).82
,
( ).83 (17: 3),
(22: 1, 3, 4), .
. .
, ,
, ,
. , ,
(22: 5).84
6.
-
, ,
.. .
,
.
, .
,
, , ,
.
.. (
, solar barque) .
. ,
, . .
8. 7. ,

.
78
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 229, 239.
79
. , , 86, 88 . 2.
80
. , , 30, 52, 53, T.XIV: 10.
81
. , , 70 85; D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 564 569.
82
D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 570, 571; S. Temov, An Iron Age.
83
D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 570, 571.
84
. , , 81, 82.
35
I.
A18
36
E. : ..
.
, ,
.85
, .
. .

.
.86
, (17: 2),
, ,
.87
-
-
: ; , ;
.88
,
. ,
( .. ).
,
( ).
, ,
, .
( )
(, .)
. , - ,
,
. ,
, ,
. ,
, Nov Koarisk (23: 9)
,
-.
- ,
( , ) .
, (. )
. ,
, ,
(40: 1 3).89
/
, .
,

. ,
, (
), , .. . , -
,
85
. , , 223, 224; (
): G. Kossack, Studien, 62 65.
86
D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 567, 568.
87
. , , 84.
88
. , , 71 78.
89
. , , 71 73.
37
I.
A19
38
E. : ..
20
39
I.
A21
40
E. : ..
, .
,
. , (1: 1 3),
,
, ,
(2; 3; 4; 5).
, ,
, ,
(13).
,
. (
),
(.. ),

. ()
. , ,
( )
(8; 9; 10).
.

, -,

.
,
-- :
; ..
, ( ); , ,
;
;
- ..
; ,

.90
,
- .
( ) -
, , ,
, . -
,
( ),
.
, ,
.
- ,
,
.
, .
, ,

.91
,
, , ,
90
. , , 74 77.
91
. , , 77, 78.
41
I.
A22
42
E. : ..
.
,
(, )
. ,
, (42).92
II. -

, .
, , ,
, .
1.

, ,
.
:
(19); , (15: 1
15; 23: 1 3, 8); (23: 9 11).
.
,
.. ,
.. .
, ,
. -
,
.
. (15; 19: 1, 2), 3, D2
F . ,
(19: 3, 5 - 7).93 ,
( ) ( ) (23: 1 3).
,
, . .
,
.94 . , ,

.95 . , . -
.

() (Kerameikos, Agora, Nea Ionia, Argos). 96
, (,
) . .97

(. ),
92
. , , 78.
93
. , , 221, 222; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 28, 33, 35.
94
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 24; J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 199.
95
. , , 224.
96
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 230, 236, 237.
97
G. Kossack, Studien, 62 65.
43
I.
A23
44
E. : ..
(23: 10, 11).98 , , ,

,
,
(12: 3 5, 9, 10; 20: 7, 8; 32).99
,
Nov Koarisk () ,
, ,
(23: 9 6 8).100 -

, , ,
. ,
-,
.
-
.
(. ), (21: 8,
9).101 -,
:
; .
, ,
(15: 1, 4, 6, 12, 15) (17; 20: 1 6).
,
(21: 8, 9).
.
( ).

- ( H, I J . )
( 21: 3, 6 8,
9).102
,
, (. ). . ,
, (...)
(19: 11).103
, ,
(
) ( ).
a) ..
- (, , )
-
,
, ,
.

.
98
. , , 68 . 4, 74 T.IV: 5, 6.
99
100
. , , 72, T.I: 12; : J. Kunierz, Naczynie; K.
Kromer, Das stliche, 79, 80.
101
. , , 30, 52, 53, T.XIV: 10.
, , .
102
: J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 34 (Fig. 9: 4, 8), 37.
103
. , , 142 . 1.
45
II. -
A24
46
E. : ..
.

(handmade globular pyxis).
, (24: 1 8, 10, 12; 25; 25).
12 11., 7. . .., ,
,
, ,
, . ,
, , , ,
(, , )
.
.. .

, .
..
.
(
, ),
(, ),
, (25: 1, 2, 5).
..

. ,
..
, :
(.. ) (24: 9, 11);
; ; .104
I. Martelli
. (
) , (
) ( ).

.105 ,

Agora Kerameikos
, (24: 2, 8, 10, 12; 25: 8 15).
: ; ( 6 12 cm);
;
;
..
( 24 14), ( ) ( 24 15: 2,
5, 13; 16: 5, 6; 17a: 11; 18: 5).

.

( , , )
.
104
I. Martelli, Women; . (J. Bouzek,
The Attic; J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 198, 199) Attic Dark Age Incised Ware;
:
K. Kbler, Neufunde, Taf. 29 Taf. 33; E. L. Smithson, The protogeometric, Taf. 30, Taf. 31; E. L. Smithson, The tomb,
Pl. XXIX; Pl. XXX).
105
J. Bouzek
(J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 198, 188 Fig. 94: 12, 13).
47
II. -
A25
48
E. : ..
b) .. -
(, , , )
..

.
( )
.
Monteoru Noua, .

(26; 27).106
Monteoru
Noua. , Ic3 Ic2
Monteoru ( , ),
I Noua ( II
).107
, Saharna-Solonceni, -
.
, ,
. , , ,
.108 ,
Alcedar
- ( 28: 10 11).
Babadag
(26: 12, 13)
(26: 7, 8). (,
), .
, Kerameikos ,
Babadag, Mljitul Florilor, Garvn (),
(26: 1, 2 24: 2, 8, 10, 12).
, (26: 3
9).109
-
.110

( ) (27: 2, 4 7).111

(, -).
( ), (
)
. (27: 2, 4, 5, 7).
( ) 12. 10.
. .., , , .112 , ,
Saharna-Solonceni 10. 8. .113
Babadag () (26: 1), Kerameikos, . 10.
106
G. Jugnaru, Pixidele.
107
G. Jugnaru, Pixidele, 63, 64, 69, 70.
108
G. Jugnaru, Pixidele, 63, 69, 74 Fig. 3: 1 12.
109
G. Jugnaru, Pixidele, 67, 72 Fig. 1, 73 Fig. 2; . . , , 36, 37 . 2: 6.
110
. . , , 68.
111
. . , , 67, 68, 70 . 4: 24, 71 . 5: 23, 77 . 7: 42; 2013, 612 .
. 306.19.28; . . 306.19.28; J. Bouzek, Greece, Fig. 217: 1 3.
112
. . , , 67, 68, 77 . 7; 2013, 612 . . 306.19.28; . . 306.19.28.
113
. . , , 68.
49
II. -
A25
50
E. : ..
,114 , Saharna-
Solonceni 10. 9. .115 Telia-Amza
Babadag III, 8. 7. . ..
.116

, (
) , ,
.117
c) -
-
:
( 28: 1 2, 5 14; 16 24). ,
, (15: 1, 4, 12, 14, 15;
19: 1, 2).
-, ,
, .

.

, .
,
/
.118

, ,
,
(24; 25). ,
,
. ,
(. ) (21: 8, 9),
, ,
.
, ,
, (15; 19: 1, 2).
, (-) ,

3 4
.119 ,
( , , ),
, .
, ..
,

. ,
114
. . , , 36,
115
G. Jugnaru, Pixidele, 70, 71.
116
G. Jugnaru, Pixidele, 70, 71.
117
G. Jugnaru, Pixidele, 71; . . , , 36; . . , , 67, 68.
118
. . (J. Bouzek, The Attic, 2, 22; J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 183
191, 198 202; G. Kossack, Studien, 62 65).
119
: I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 230, 236, 237; J. Bouzek, Graeco-
Macedonian, 24; . , , 222, 223.
51
II. -
A26
52
E. : ..
,
.
d) -

. ,
(26: 7 10),
(26: 3 6, 10).
(
) -
(28 3 2; 27: 2, 4, 5, 7).
,

(28: 1; 24; 25; 25: 8 -
15). , , -
.
(12 10. 8 6. ),
.. .120
- .

(28: 8 3).
( )
Axioupoli Chauschitsa ( ), , ,
(28: 2; 14: 7). Fjerd ()
-
(28: 6 7 17).
, -
( 28: 6 3 27: 2, 6, 7). ,
Bujoru Ortie (,
)
(13: 6, 7 15; 16; 17; 18).121
e)

, -,
.
-
( , ,
, ), (,
, , , ) (15).
, ,
,
.
,
-, ,
120
. (J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 183 201), . (G. Kossack,
Studien, 62 66) . (. , , 223, 224).
121
(
), , . (G. Kossack, Studien, 64, 65) . (M.
Guggisberg, Vogelschwrme, 79 85).
53
II. -
A27
54
E. : ..
.122 ,
- ,

, , ,
.123
. ,
/ (24: 9, 11).124

. ,

, ,

(28: 8 1 3).

. ,
, ,
( ) ,
.125

. .
(K. Reber) (
) ( ) .
, ,
, . , (
)
.126

.

-
.
-
.

,
Brauron () , ,
, ,
( ),
(6 5. . ..) (26: 11).127 . ( , , )
, 2. .. ,
122
() , ,
(, . Buxus sempervirens).
, boxwood (Pyxis 2015).
123
, -
. (. , , 224).
124
J. Bouzek, The Attic, 8, 38, 40, 50; J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 201, 202; J. Bouzek, Greece, 87, 88, 127, 128; J. Bouzek,
Bulgaria, 8.
125
: J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 183, 184; G. Kossack,
Studien, 62 65.
126
(Macedonian Lausitz Wate)
Gava Babadag: J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 183 201; J. Bouzek, Greece, 88; .
(G. Kossack, Studien, 62 65); uto Brdo
irna ( . /V. Miloji/): J. Bouzek, The Attic, 1, 36, 38, 42, 46, 48, 50.
127
Brauron 2015.
55
II. -
A28
56
E. : ..
, (27: 3).128
, ( ),
( 27: 3 2, 4, 5
7). , .

.
( ?)
.
2.

.. ,

(Papaver somniferum).
-
.129 .
. 15 (22)
.
,
, ,
, ... (
).130
..
. . ,
,
. ,

.131 . ,
, .
( -).
, ( , ) ,
, .
,
.132
,
, .
,
, .
,
, ,
( ) , -
.
.
128
.
,
- (. , ; Oldest shoes 2015).
129
. , , 84; . , , 113 115; . , . , ,
83, 84; . , , . . 118 130.
130
-
(. , , 82; D.
Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 569).
131
. , . , , 84.
132
. , , 123 125.
57
II. -
A29
58
E. : ..
a)

. ,
?

( 29: 7 11 13). ,
. (
)
(19; 23: 1, 3).
.
, ,
(29: 1, 2, 6, 10).133

(23: 4, 5).134
,
, (17; 17),
.

.

.
,
,
, ..
,
.
( )
.
,
.
(Hyoscyamus niger),
(29: 5, 9),135 (Punica
granatum) (29: 3, 4, 8).136

(23: 12).137
b)

.
,
, .
,
,
. ( )
,
. ,
133
: P. G. Kritikos, S. P. Papadaki, The History I II; H. Askitopoulou,
I. A. Ramoutsaki, E. Konsolaki, Archaeological; . -, .
134
, . - (I. Kilian-
Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 123).
135
. -, II, 45, 46.
136
. 179; : . , .
137
59
2.
A30
60
E. : ..
, , ..
, , ..
,
.
c)
:
?
, - , , ,
. ..
, ( ) , , ,
, ?138
, , ,
?
, , , ( )
. ,

, .
d)
, ,
,
.
, , . ,
- ,
, , , ,
.
e) -

: ,
; , ,
; , ;
, ; ,
.
( ,
, .).139

. ,
(29: 10),
( ) ( ).
,
.
, -
.
,
.. , ,
138
: P. G. Kritikos, S. P. Papadaki, The History I II; M. Julyan, M.
Dircksen, The Ancient.
139
P. G. Kritikos, S. P. Papadaki, The History I II; . -, .
61
2.
A31
62
E. : ..
, , ..
.
3.
,
.. , .
, , ,
.. : , .140

, .141
,
.
:
- , (14: 2 8);
- ( 17: 13; 20: 4, 5);
- , (15; 16; 17; 17; 18; 19);
- ,
(17; 17; 18: 7).
:
(14: 2 8; 23: 6 - 8)
(19: 3, 9, 10);
(15 23); ,
, (17; 17), , ,
(17: 13; 20: 4, 5).

, ,
.
.

.
, ,

(17; 17; 18: 7; 31).
,
.

(30: 8, 9). ,
( , . )
(30: 6 . 7).142 , ,
,
.143

(17: 10, 11).

(31).

( ?) (31: 1).
140
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 24 37; . , , 220 226.
141
: I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 238; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 33,
Amphipolis (36 Fig. 10: 1); : . , , 76.
142
: . ., , 58 . . 584; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 30 Fig. 7:
4, 31, 32.
143
. , ,
(J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 31).
63
2.
,
,
(31: 2, 3, 7 9). ..
(31: 4, 12), (31: 5, 16).
-
,
(31: 6, 18, 19).
-
(31: 10, 15, 17).

.
(30: 6 7 17: 10).

, ,

.
,
.
. , ,
, - (
. 72, 123) (36: 3 5).
(31: 10, 15, 17)
(, , ).144

.
.
, (30: 1), ,
(30: 3). ,145 in situ,

(22: 1, 3, 4).146 ,
180 , .
,
( 30: 2, 4).
,
, .
,
,
( 30: 1 4 6 9 31).
,
.
, ,
, ( 30:
4 10). ,
(22: 3) , ,
.. 180 ( .
).147
,
.
144
: . , , 93 130; . , ; .
, .
145
. , , . . 162.
146
. , , 80 82, T.III: 5.
147
R. Vasi, Makedonske, 157 Sl. 4: 4.
64
E. : ..
Vinul de Jo (30: 5).148

,
.

.

.
- ,
.
a)
1. .
.. .

. ,
, , , .
Paolozzi Chiusi,
(32: 3).149
(32: 5).
. (32:
4) Barberini Praeneste (32: 1, 2), 7.
. .. (),
o.150
.
Novilara (Pesaro-Urbino) Banecci Caprara (Bologn),
- (20:
7, 8 4; 65: 3, 4, 7, 8). ( 10 15 cm)
.
, , , ,
, . ,
,
-. Novilara Banecci Caprara
(incensiere, turibulum .. ).151

.
Bujoru Ortie ()
( 20: 7, 8 13: 6, 7).
,
1. .
. ,
.
, , .152

(32: 6 8).153
148
R. Vasi, Makedonske, 147, 157 (Sl. 4 1); M. Petrescu-Dmbovia, Depozitele, Pl. 393: 2; . ,
, , (D. Mitrevski,
Northern, 113, 122 Fig. 6: 7).
149
O. J. Brendel, Etruscan, 105 Fig.72; : E. H. Dohan, A Ziro; D. Strong, Etrurski, 173;
: K. Kromer, Das stliche, 77 80.
150
D. Strong, Etrurski, 173, 174; J. N. Coldstream, Geometric, 344-345.
151
P. Ducati, Gli Incensieri; J. P. Thevenot, Sur la function; M. Besnier, Turibulum, 542 Fig. 7174;
( ): D. Boi, Zakladi, 129
152
M. Guggisberg, Vogelschwrme, 79 83.
153
: M. Shanks, Art, 213 Fig. 6; 223 Fig. 12; . , I, 47 . 15.
65
3.
A32
66
E. : ..
.

, ( 3: 8).154
, Providence (),

(12: 10). ,
.. ,
( 12: 10 31).
b)

,
, , , .
, ( ) ,
. . , . ,

. , , . .
.155
,

. ,
, (
15: 2, 5, 13; A16: 5, 6; 17: 10, 11),

.156
( )
,
?
- ,

() , . , ..
, ,
.. , .. .. . ,
,
( ,
), (33: 1).
, ,
-
..
.
, .. ,
(15; 16), , , (33: 2; 13),
.. .

- , (
), , ( ) .157
154
Certosa Bologna, (O. H. Frey, Der
Ostalpenraum, Taf. 7: 3).
155
. , , 223, 224; D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 567, 568; . , , 84, 85.
156
. , , 74 76.
157
. , , 244 250; . , , 88 108 ( ); S. Kuko, Japodi,
111 115, 168, 169; M. Guggisberg, Vogelschwrme, 84; . , . 2, 53 (: );
: . , , 55 57, 85, 86.
67
3.
A33
68
E. : ..

, ,
, ,
.. , .

(33: 5; 1: 1 3). ,
(1: 4, 5, 7,
8), (13),
,
(12: 10). ,
Peckatel () (12: 2).158 ,
,

(31).
(33: 4; 2; 3; 4),
-, (6),
( ),
,
. ..
,
(7: 5, 7, 8, 11).
,
, .. ,
.
,

,
, .
,

:
(1: 1 3); (2; 3; 4; 5);
(8; 9); (14 21).
. , .
( )
.. . .
,
.159

, .
( ) (
) ,
( . 590, 631).

. , , , ,
(
).
..
, .
(1: 1
158
V. Podborsk, Nboenstv, 282.
159
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 38; D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 573.
69
3.
3), , ,
(13).
.. ,
, ,
. , ,
.. . ,

( , ).
Amphipolis ( )
, ,
( ) (19: 9).
( )
(10: 8).
,
(19: 3).160
, -
,
,
.

. ..
-
(, , ) .161

, -,
.. (13: 6, 7).
,
- ( 15: 16 18; 16; 17; 17).
Bujoru, (13:
6) , (20: 4, 5),
Barbier-Mueller (17: 13),
(20: 7, 8).
.. ,
, ,
. , ,
,
(18: 3, 4).162
,
( 21: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7).
, ,
-
. ,
,

. ,
,
,
- .
.
160
: J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 20 Fig. 3:5, 23, 33, 34 Fig. 9: 5, 36 Fig. 10: 1 4; S.
Casson, Excavations, 18, 19.
161
. , , 74 76.
162
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 240, 241, Taf. 89: 1546, 1547.
70
E. : ..
34
71
3.
c)
, ,
, (15: 16 18; 16; 17; 17; 18;
20: 2 5). ( )
.. ,
(36: 3, 5).

. ,
(34; 35).
(. )
(34: 5).163
- (Cucuteni-Trypillian culture)
(34: 6, 8).164
(34: 1 Alaca Hyk, )165
o (35: 4, 5, 7 Knossos Koumasa ),
(A50: 5).166

, (35: 8).167
- ,
(35: 6)
(35: 1 3, 1 4. ).168
: Byllis,
; Qesarat,
.169 ( )

(, . ) (35: 9).170
(41;
). ,
, , (unum vas)
(34: 3; 43: 5).171 (34: 2).
,
.172 , ,
,
. ,
163
. , . , , 42, . 149. eliezovce culture
(34: 7): J. Pavk, Umenie, 51 Fig. 43.
164
. ii, 1. . 2, 146, 258, 259, 260, 268, 269; . . , . . , 171, 205; M.
Gimbutas, The Language, 293 Fig. 460.
165
H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. III, Taf. 312: 25.
166
M. Gimbutas, The Language, 49 Fig. 85: 3a b; 229 Fig. 353; A. Evans, The Palace, Vol. IV I, 138 168; H.
Harissis, V. Harissis, Apiculture, 33 Fig. 17, 39 Fig. 30; : S. Valentini, Snakes.
167
: J. N. Coldstream, Geometric, 100 Fig. 37: a, c, 231 Fig.78: c; . . , 62; Starodavna 1987,
31 Kat, br. 78.
168
E. Neumann, The Great Mother, 143, 144; M. Prusac, Hybrid, 14, 15.
169
A. Stipevi, Kultni, 55, 58 76.
170
. , .
171
C. G. Jung, Psihologija, 187; E. Neumann, The Great Mother, 143, 144, Pl. 57, Pl. 171.
172
J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 796 805; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 121 137; . , ,
62 65.
. : A. Stipevi, Kultni, 47 59; M. ael Kos, Draco; .
, ; . , , 209 306.
72
E. : ..
35
73
3.
:
, ,
; .
. ..
, ,
. , (,
, )
.
. , , , ..
.
. .

.173
,
. (,
, ), , ,
.. .
.. (34: 4),
, ( ,
). ,
,
( )
.
(45: 11).174
.175
* * *

.
, .
F. ..
.. ,
, , , ,
- .
,
- ( 36):
-
, ,
.
- .. ,
,
, .
-
.
173
. , , 62 65; . , , 140 158.
174
. , , 209 306.
175
. , , 53 ( Codex Tro-Cortesianus).
74
F. ..
36
75
1.
- (16: 5, 6),
(24)
.
-
,
.
- , ,
, .
- , ,
.
-
, .
- ,
,
( ) .

, ,
, .176
,

.
.
I.

.
,
, ,
. , ,
(
), ,
() ,
(, )
. ,
, (,
) (, , ,
). , , ,
, , ,
( , ,
). ,
.. .

.. ( ) ,
.
, ..
.177

,
.
176
. (. , , 68).
177
E. Neumann, The Great Mother, 39 54, 123; L. Mumford, Mit o maini, 141 143; . , , 242 244;
. . , . . , , 526 531; . , . , ; . , ;
. , O .
76
F. ..
37
77
1.
A38
78
F. ..
,
.
:
-
, ,
, , , .178
- ,
, , .
(, ) , , , , ..
.179
- ( ., , )
, ,
. .
( . , ),
.180
- ,
(, ) (, , ). ,
, ,
,
.181
- ,
, ,
, , , (, ,
).182

, ,
.
,
, ,
:
, ,
(37; 38; 39; 45: 2). , /
(38; 39),
(37: 5, 8; 38: 5). ,
, (37: 1, 2, 4).
..
, (40: 4 7).183
,
,
, . , ,
. -
178
: . , ; . , . , , 104 108; G.
Naumov, The objectified, 98; . , , 346.
179
. . , , F4. ; (, ),
, : M. Elijade, Joga, 341, 342; . , , 242, 243; . ,
, 81, 82.
180
. , . , ; . , ; . . , . . , .
181
. , ; . , . , ; . , ; . . ,
. , ( )
(. , , 243); ,
(): L. Mumford, Mit o maini I, 142, 143.
182
G. Naumov, The Vessel; . , .
183
G. Naumov, The Vessel; . , ; : S. Hansen, Bilder; M. Gimbutas, The
Language, 36 39; J. Bouzek, Greece, 128, 129; : E. Neumann, The Great Mother, Pl.
84.
79
1.
A39
80
F. ..

,
. ,
.
, Nov Koarisk
() ,
, (39: 3, 4; 23: 9 1
3, 6 8). ,
,
.

- (36: 1, 6, 7). ,

, , ,
.
kernos, , ,
, , ..
, ( ) .

/ ( ).
.184
1. - ,

a)
(. ) ( )
, . ,
.
,
, ()
(40: 1 3). ( )
, ( ) ,

. ,
, . ,
, ,
, .
.185
, ,
,
.
( karagam) ,
184
: J. Kunierz, Naczynie; : B. kvor Jerneji, Motiv, 40, 41;
: . , , 43; : . -,
II, 43, 44; : . , , 242.
185
. . , , 52 55; . , ; . , ;
(), : . , , 111 115.
81
1.
A40
82
F. ..
,
.186
,

, .
, , ,
.
, , :
, ; ; ;
; .
: ,
,
;
,
; ,
( ).187
b)
,
(61: 8, 9).

( . 121, 624) (61: 4, 5).
,
. .
(, ),
, ( ?) ,
.. , (41: 1 3).
( ) (
) (43: 3).188
(. )
( ) (41: 6).189

( = , = ),
( ), (41:
1, 3).
, .. ( ),

(60).190 ,
186
M. Elijade, Joga, 342; H. Whitehead, The Village Gods, 37, 38, 55; G. S. Opperet, On the original, 461, 461
.
187
: . , . , , 97 111; . ,
, 157 161; : . . , .
188
( ) S. Dll, Die Gtterkulte, 137 141, 403 405; .
, , 164, 166, 179 . 6, 7, 8, 180 . 9; A. Nikoloska, Evidence, 259, 260.
(, ) : . , , 362; .
, , 244; . , , 121, 122 (
).
189
. , , 122. ,
(. , , 108).
190
E. Neumann, The Great Mother, 56, 169,180, 181, 254, 255, Pl. 55 61; . , , T. XXIII: 7, 8, T.
XXXVIII: 5, 6, 7, 9; . , , . 11.
83
1.
A41
84
F. ..
( )
. , ..
(41: 5).191
, ( , ),
- ( ),
(18: 5 9) ( . 347).

Agathodaimon, , ,
.192
.
- Autun ()
( )
. ,
.193
c)
, ,
,
. ,
, .
() ,
, , , ( 42: 1, 2, 3,
7). , , , ,
, , , .
, , ,
.. .
, ,
, , .. .
.194

(42: 5).
,
.

, .
(
).
2 3. .. (42: 4, 6, 8).195

.

191
S. Dll, Die Gtterkulte, 139, 365; . , , 230, 231.
192
A. Nikoloska, Evidence, 259, 260, 271 Fig. 2 7; : F. Dunand, Les representations; D. Ogden,
Alexander.
193
J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 242.
194
, : . , ,
109, 110, 120 148; G. Naumov, The Objectified, 104 111; . , , 350 355.
195
, : N. Feri,
Tipoloke, 575 577, 580; E. Dobruna-Salihu, Dekorativno simbolini, 594 596; : . ,
, 7 11; : . , ,
78, T. I: 13, 14.
85
1.
A42
86
F. ..
.. . ,
,
,
.196

,
.
,
,
,
. ,
,

.
,
,
.
, .. (, )
, , ,
( ).
?,
.
, , (
), ,
.. .
,
,
(43: 1, 2, 4 7). .. ,
,
, .. . , XI
: ,
, , .
, ( )
(, , ). ,
, ,
(43: 4, 6, 7). :
= ; =
.197 , ,
, ,
.198 , -

.

, .. .

, .

199 (
7: 5 8, 11).
196
: . , , 10 36.
197
J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 176, 242 244; G. Naumov, The Objectified, 104 111; . ,
, 350 355; . , .
198
. . , , 142 10.
199
: . , , 266, 267.
87
1.
A43
88
F. ..
(Ecclesia)
(43: 1).

,
, .
d)

,
, , ,
(36).
,
(16: 5, 6), , ,
-.200
,
.
,
(44: 5, 6, 8, 9).
,
.201 ,
,
.

, ,
( , .. ).
Myrtos
(44: 10, 11) (= ) .

() , ,
.
Tell Qasile, (44: 3, 4).202
( ), ,
, ,
, .. (7: 5 8, 11).
( )
-.
(/) ,
, : (7: 1 4,
9). ,
,
, , ,
(7: 4, 6, 9).203
,
.
200
. , , 76, 77.
(T. I: 9, 16).
201
A. Evans, The Palace, Vol. II I, 258, 259; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 38 Fig. 63, 86 Fig.140; H. Mller-
Karpe, Handbuch. III, Taf. 368: 30.
202
H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. IV, Taf. 114: E 3; : A. Evans, The Palace, Vol. II I,
253 259; : . ,
, 104 106, 150 152, 297, 298; N. Chausidis, Myth. Representations.
203
A. Evans, The Palace, Vol. I, 705 707; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 31 41, Pl. 8, 40 Fig. 67; R. Washbourne,
Out of the mouths, 248; : . , , 40, 244 250.
89
1.
A44
90
F. ..

,
(44: 1, 2).
( )
( , )
( 44: 1, 2
36). (
) ,
.204 (38: 1
3), , Gilat Negev,
(44: 7), , .
, , ,
,
.205

, ,
. ,
,
(45: 7 9, 11).206 . ,

(
.).
,
. ,
(45: 11), , ,
.. ..
, .207
, ,

( ).208 ,
, , , (45: 7 9).209
,

, , ( 45: 7, 9 36).

:
; -
Autun, () , (
) .210
204
. . , . . , 168, 169, 181 183; . , , 73.
.
205
C. Epstein, Cult, 77, 79 Fig. 53; : . , , 162.
206
. ii. 1/. 2, 15, 18, 26, 82 84, 135, 208 211, 267; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 39 Fig.
64, 229 Fig. 352.
207
: . . , . . , 166, 167, 169, 172, 179, 202, 203, 208; : M. Gimbutas, The
Language, 69 Fig. 109.
208
. . . , , 157 158, 162.
209
: . , . II, . 56; .57, . 66: 2; .67: 1, 2; .68: 1, 2; .69: 1;
2013, 454, 455 . . 143.1, 143.2; J. Bouzek, Greece, 127, 128; J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 195, 196.
210
. , , 243; L. Mumford, Mit o maini I, 142, 143; J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 242.
91
1.
A45
92
F. ..
46
93
1.
A47
94
F. ..
e)
, .. ,
,
. ,
, .. ,
, .. , .

, ,
, -
( ) .
,
( .. ,
, ).211 ,
( ) ,
,
. ,
,
(46: 3, 5).
(47: 4 ),
(47: 3, 6, 45: 6),
() (45: 3; 46: 4, 6 9; 47: 5). ,
,
( 46: 1 3, 5 6 9, Lemnos 4).

( . 864).212

(38; 39: 2, 5, 6; 45: 4, 5; 46: 1, 2).213

..
.
,

- (: 47: 6 15 16).
II. ,
-
, ,
,
(48 1 ).
,
,
(15: 16, 17; 17: 2, 4; 22: 5).
,
,
, , , ,
211
G. Naumov, Housing; . , .
212
. . , , 84-88; H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. II, Taf. 199: K; III, Taf. 335: 5 9,11, Taf. 448: C, Taf.
476: 1 4; M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 361, 527, 531; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 39 Fig. 66 1, 191 Fig. 291, 292,
245 Fig. 383; J. Kneisel, Die gegrtete, (
). (M.
Prent, Cretan Sanctuaries, 433 435).
213
: S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil II, Taf. 430: 17; C.- L. Rdoescu, Typologies.
95
1.
A48
96
F. ..
(49).214
,
(37: 1 3, 4, 5, 8; 38: 8; 39: 1 4).

, (49: 1 4, 9,
11, 12). ,

(50: 2) ()
(50: 4, 7, 8 49: 1 4, 9, 11, 12).215
(= ) ,
- ( 50: 1 2).
( )
, ,
-
(24: 9, 11).216
.

(
), ( ) ,
.217
( ,
)

,
.

. -, .. ,
.
, , ,
. , ,
, - (16: 1, 2; 17: 3).
,
(16: 2).
,
(22: 5). ,
, ,
, ,
, -
. , ,
, ,
-.
,
(17: 13; 20: 4, 5).
-
.. ,
(20: 7, 8; 13: 2, 8).
,
(19: 1, 2).
214
: S. Hansen, Bilder; H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. II, Taf. 108: 8, Taf. 112, Taf. 124
126, Taf. 136, Taf. 173 D: 1 4, Taf. 175 A: 5, 6, 9, 11 14; Taf. 218 Taf. 224.
215
J. Bouzek, Greece, 127.
216
J. Bouzek, Greece, 127; J. Bouzek, The Attic, 2, 6 10, 36 39, 43.
217
. (M. Gimbutas, The
Language, 86 Fig. 140).
97
II. ,
A49
98
F. ..
50
99
III.
III.
1.
-,
/ ,
-
, (36). ,
, .. .
,
, Nov Koarisk
(39: 3 6).218
.

,
,
(38; 39; 45: 3 - 5; 46). ,
, (38: 7, 8), ,
(38: 1 3).219 (39; 45: 4,
5), , (46).
,
, ,
( ) .
:
( ) Szentes Kunszentmarton-Jaskor, (39: 5, 6);220
Svodin () Lengyel (38: 7, 8);221
Marz, (39: 1).222
, ,

(39: 2).223

,
, ,
. , (, ,
) .
(, )
, ( )
.

-
(14; 15; 16; 17; 17; 18; 19; 20).
IV.

-

218
. , , 77, 78.
219
: C.- L. Rdoescu,
Typologies, 26- Fig. 3: 5, 6; P. Georgieva, P. Milanov, Eneolitic, 19 - Fig. 3: 1-3; S. Hansen, Bilder T.I, 252 Abb. 152.
220
. . , , 179 . 107: 1, 2; H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. II, Taf. 186: 6,7.
221
J. Pavk, Umenie, 39: 24; P. Demijn, Hroby, 136 (Obr. A19), 180 (Obr. A70).
222
M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 483 Abb. 1; V. Podborsk, Nboenstv, 152 158.
223
M. Gimbutas, The Language, 39 Fig. 66 1;
: . , , 245 248.
100
F. ..
,
- (36).

.
1.
,
, .
, , .
,
.224
.
a) ( )

,
. ,
(51).
-,
(6 3. . ..) .. ,
, ( )
(51: 1 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15).
( in situ),
.
(51: 2, 3, 9, 15), (51: 1, 5, 13).
, ,
,
.225 ,
. ( )
,
(66: 5).
, .
,
(51: 2, 5).
,

.226 ,
,
(51: 7, 13, 15).
(51: 14, 15).227
(
) (Axioupoli/ Kilkis/)
, (66: 7).
224
: . , , 137 149; . ,
, 405 412; . , .
225
: D. Glogovi, Gospodarica; S. Kuko, Japodi, 166 197; S. Kuko, Solarni; M. Blei, Kastav, 94, 95,
111, 112; B. Raunig, Umjetnost, 103 106; R. Drechler- Bii, Japodska, 410; A. Stipevi, Kultni, 61, 62; J.
Whatmough, Rehtia, 221 223; : P. Gleirscher, Ein ltereisenzeitliches.
226
: D. Glogovi, Gospodarica,
266. ,
, (B. Gabrievi, Studije, 61,
62).
227
. , , 137 140; . , , 408, 409.
101
IV.
A51
102
F. ..
,
(66: 6).228 , ,

.
.
,
( Vergina).229
7 6. , ,
( ),
Fritzens Sanzeno.
, , .. (57: 5, 7, 8; 18).230
:
(51: 4),
.
, ,
. ,
(, , ) ,
(51: 10, 11). Ulaka (),
(51: 12).

.231 ( )
, .232
,
Prozor (6 5. . ..), (
) (, , ?)
, (51: 6, 8), (77:
3 5, 7). , ..
(, , ), (51: 6, 8).
,
(52: 5, 6)
(52: 17, 18).233
,
(52: 10), , , ,
(52: 8, 9).234 ,
(52: 7).235
b)
,
,
. (52: 1, 2) ,
228
. , ' , 622 . 12.
229
. , , 100, 101. .
, , . ,
Via Egnatia
(D. Mitrevski, Northern, 109).
230
F. Marzatico, Testimonianze, 320, 321; D. Glogovi, Gospodarica, 263, 264 Sl. 7 Sl. 9; S. Kuko, Japodi, 162
sl.136: 9; 193 sl. 283: 2,3; 194 sl.187; J. Whatmough, Rehtia, 219, 220.
231
. , , 408, 409.
232
F. Stare, Upodobitev; B. Raunig, Umjetnost, 106, 107.
233
S. Kuko, Japodi, 155 164, : 184, 200; S. Kuko, Antropomorfni; R. Drechler-Bii, Japodska,
410, 408; F. Marzatico, Pendagli; M. Blei Kavur, Povezanost, 97 100.
234
S. Kuko, Japodi, 171 190; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 301 Fig. 480: 2, 3.
235
I. Karadzhinov, Miniature; . , , 109, 110 . 31; . , , 21 . 8; J.
Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 20 Fig. 3: 2; J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 327 Fig. 20: 1, 6.
103
IV.
A52
104
F. ..
(Artemis Orthia), (Potnia Hippon).

.236 . (M. Egg)
.237
, ,
,
, (52: 11
56).238
.

. ,
, .
-
(61: 7, 9).239
( )
(29: 6, 7).240
c)
,
.
, , , -,
.
- (-)
(7 11. ..)
(53: 1 7 51).
- ,
. , (
) ,
. ,
, , .241 ,
, ,
(53: 2, 4, 5).
,
.242
- - ( )

(6 7. ..). -
, (54: 1 4, 8 11, 13).243
,
236
D. Glogovi, Gospodarica, 265, 266, Sl. 11, Sl. 12; . , , 409.
237
: D. Glogovi, Gospodarica, 265.
238
: O. J. Brendel, Etruscan, 218, 219 Fig. 145.
239
. , , 17, T. IV; T. VI.
240
. , , 170, 172, 174, 176, 181 .12, 182 . 13; . ,
, 137, 138.
241
. . , ; - 1987, 59, 150, .XX: 21, T.LI: 1, 8, T.LXIV: 10, T.LXV: 9, T.LXXXII:
21.
242
. , , 137 140; . , , 409.
243
( ): . . , (I); .
. , (II).
105
IV.
A53
106
F. ..
, , , . ..
, ,
. , (54: 1, 2, 3)
, ,
.244
, (54: 1, 2, 8, 9)
(54: 3, 10).
,
.
, , ,
( 54: 5, 6, 7, 11).

.
(54: 13) ( ) (54: 3, 4; 55: 2,
6).245 ,
-
(55).
, ( 55: 1, 4, 5)
( .. )
(55: 3, 8, 9).246
-

. ,
- (53: 13).
,
(53: 11, 12). ,
(53: 8, 9). ,
18. (53: 14).
,
(54: 12).247
19. (52: 16).248
d)

.
, ( , Angkor )
(56:
11 13).249
,
(56: 1 7, 9, 10).

, ,
.
: Hamsasya (), Mrigashirsha (),
244
, , . . (. . ,
, 61; . . , . . , 200).
245
. , , 409 411.
246
: . , , 198 205.
247
. , , 184, 185, 409 411; . , , 210 212.
248
. . , . . , , 321 . 68.
249
. , , 411; . , , 137 149.
107
IV.
A54
108
F. ..
Simhamukha (), Tamrachuda/Sukatunda (), Garuda (), Mushica (), Bhramara

().250
2.

,
. , . . , ()
.251 .
- ,
, .252 . ,

Potnia Theron, .253 .
(M. Egg) ,

. . (P. Gleicher)
, . .
( )
- , , , .254

Rehtia/Reitija Este Batarella.
(52: 1, 2) Artemis Orthia
hippia.255 , . ,
, .
( ) ,
, .256

.
a)

. (, , ),
,
. ,
.
: (52: 3, 4); body art (52: 12 15; 56: 8);
(52: 19). - ,
.. .
, .
, , ,
: , , . ,
,
.257
250
Mudra 2012; J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 568, 569.
251
. . , . 473 . 247.
252
. . , . . , 200 201, 206.
253
S. Kuko, Japodi, 144, 145, 155, 165, 173, 187; S. Kuko, Antropomorfni, 70, 76, 78; S. Kuko, Solarni.
E. M. De Juliis ..
.
254
D. Glogovi, Gospodarica, 263, 264.
255
D. Glogovi, Gospodarica, 264 266. J. Whatmough, Rehtia, 222 224.
256
M. Guggisberg, Vogelschwrme, 82 85.
257
J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 567 570; . , ; . ,
; . , , 104 109.
109
IV.
A55
110
F. ..
56
111
IV.
, , ,
, .
,
(54: 7).

.
, .258

,
. ,
- (54: 11 7)
(51).

, , , (51: 10,
11). Ulaka, ,
,
(51: 12).
- (54).

,
. , ,

.
() (54: 5 7).259
:
? ,
8 7. . ..
.260
, ,
, (57: 2, 10 12).
,
, , (57: 1, 3, 6, 9).
, (57: 6, 9 ),
, (57: 1, 3). , ,
,
, , ,
(= ) (57: 6, 9, 11, 12).261

,
(57: 5, 7,
8; 18).262
258
- - ( , )
, ; ,
(. . , , 80).
259
. , , 354 362 ( - ), 407, 408, 411, 412 (
); . , , 137 149. .
, (D.
Glogovi, Gospodarica, 264).
260
R. Ghirshman, Notes.
261
. , , 60 65.
262
. , , 88 92.
(F. Marzatico, Testimonianze, 320, 321).
112
F. ..
57
113
IV.
b)
: , (
)
(, , ) ? ,
.. . ,
.
( , )
.. ( , , .) (33).263
, ,
, .. .
,
( ),
.264 , ,
(,
).
:
.265

, . ,
(51: 2, 3, 9, 15;
66: 6, 7). ,
.
(51: 2, 5) ,
(51: 7, 13, 15),
, .
, , ,
.
..
(51). ,
,
:
.
-
, (). , ,
,
, ,
(54: 3; 55: 2, 6).
, (54: 4, 8 10).266
-
, , (36; 60).

.. . - (53: 1
7) , , ,
, .267
263
. , , 88 108; . , , 244 250; . . , .
264
o ,
: A. Stipevi, Kultni, 62 64; S. Kuko, Japodi, 85, 86; : Hippocampoi 2012; .
, , 31, 32, 247, 248; (IX. 66. 10; IX. 87. 5; IX. 10. 1)
(. . . , , 68, 69).
265
: . , , 247.
266
. . , . . , 200 202; . , , 197, 294, 301, 302, 383.
267
. . , , 82, 98.
114
F. ..
- (54; 55) ,
. - ,
, (51; 66: 1, 3).
, ,
( 52: 8, 9).268

.
.
(38: 5, 7, 8),
- (38: 1 3 4).
..
.. .
:
;
; , , , .
, -
.
(
).
(38: 5, 7, 8).
( )
( , , ,
), , , , (38: 1
4). , - ..
(38: 8).
(37: 1, 2).
Susa (
) ..
(47: 1).269
, ,
.

(38: 6; 44: 1, 2, 7, 10, 11; 47: 5; 50: 2, 5).

,
, , . ,
.
, , , ,
.
,
.. .
,
: (
) ( ).270

, .

.
.. .
268
B. Fath, B. Glunz-Hsken, Textilien; 265 Abb. 13; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 300, 301 Fig. 481.
269
. , , 188, 26: 5.
270
- 2013; . . , . . , 694 696.
115
IV.
A58
116
F. ..

.
, ,
..
(58: 5,
6, 10 13). ( ) ( )
( Yaszbereny, 58: 9),
(58: 7, 8).271 ,

.
,
,

(58: 2, 3, 4).272
* * *
, -
,
, (, , , )

(36). , ,
( )
.
c)

,
, , ..
. , Sanzeno, ,
(A51: 4).
,

.

, ( . 464, 493, 523 525, 615).
, Prozor (A51: 6, 8),
.
,
(A51: 2, 3, 9, 15). Kompolje ()
, (A51: 7, 13, 15),
,
( )
(: 51: 15). ,
Ulaka,
(51: 12) ( . 103, 112).
.. ,

271
. . , . . , 691 741; . . , . . , , 218 221, . 8, .
9; . , , 144 . XXVI: 8, 9); . , . , 93 95.
272
. , , 140 149.
() (. . , . . , 683 688).
117
IV.
A59
118
F. ..
( )
. ,
,
(14; 16; 36).
, ,
(50: 1).
,
,
(, , )
(16; 17; 18: 1, 2 50: 6).
( ) -
(20: 1 6).273 ,
( )
, ,
.
-
(50: 2; 44: 10, 11). ,
( ),

( , , ),
(50: 4, 7, 8). ,
,
(24: 9, 11) -
.
.
d)

- ( . ..
. ) (15: 16 18; 16;
17; 17; 18: 1, 2, 6, 7; 20: 2 5).
, , ,
( 18: 1; 20:
4, 5; 36).
,

-. ,

:
- .

( ).
- ,
, .
(
), (59: 1, 4, 8).
- , ,
.
(, . ), , ,
(: 61: 6 7).274
273
. , , 76; :
. . , . . , 166 212; . , . ; G. Naumov, Patterns, 4 33.
274
: . , , 247, 248.
119
IV.
A60
120
F. ..
Koumasa
(50: 5).275
-
( ).
(60: 2 3 55: 2,
6). ,
( ),

(60).276 ,
: ,
(60: 8); Naga-
Kanya (-)
, (60: 5).
( ) ,
.
, II,
. ...
, ,
.
.277

, ( Haemus),
( 60).278
Amphisbaina (
), .. .279 , ,
, ,
(41) ( . 83).
V.

(, , , ,
) (: 59; 61: 4, 5).
:
;
;
(, , , , ,
).
: (61: 4, 5), (59: 8), (59: 1, 4),
(59: 12, 13). ,
( )
( ).
, ,
,
(59: 9, 11; 55), - (59: 3) (53: 9).
275
A. Evans, The Palace, Vol. IV I, 163 Fig. 121.
276
M. Robbins Dexter, The Monstrous.
277
(Plutarchus, Alexander 2); . , , 46, 48.
278
. , , 112, 113.
279
Amphisbaina 2015; G. Devereux, Bauba, 216.
121
IV.
A61
122
F. ..

(55; 59: 3, 5 7, 10).280
-
- (17; 17; 36: 3 5,
8, 9; 59: 2 3, 5 - 7).
1.
-2
( . ), ( . -),
, ,

(17; 17; 18: 7; 31).
.

.
..
.

( 47: 1; 50: 1, 6).
,
.
.
, ,
(17; 17; 36: 5 3, 8, 9).

, ,
.
(61; 8, 9)
( -)
( 61: 2, 3 4, 5). ,
:
; ; (
); - ; ,
.
, , ,
.
( ),
, ,
.281 ,
..
, , (32: 1, 2,
4) (12). ,
( ), , ,
(.. ).

(samsara).
,
( ), (50:
3). , ,
280
. , , 171 205; . , , 207 212; N. Chausidis, Myth. Representations, 13,
16.
281
S. Kuko, Japodi, 39 59, 170, 171.
123
V.
:
; ();
.282
j ,

Aigai (4. . ..) (62: 2).283
,
, , -,
-.284 - (
?)
(62: 3).
2.

(30: 6 9; 31).
, ,
,
(, , 17; 17; 36: 3, 8). ,
,
.

, , ,
, , (55; 59).
.
( ) .

,
(17: 10, 11; 59: 2).285
. , ,
, (23: 3),
Barbier-Mueller (17: 13) (21: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7).

(
: 17: 13 10).
. ,
, , -
(17: 10; 59: 2): = ;
= ; =
.
,
( ) .
( ),
(= ?) ,
.
282
(Padmasambhava) : E. Neumann, The Great Mother, 235, 236; : . ,
, 70.
283
. (Eudalagines) .. (.
, , 165, . 53, 53); . ,
(. , (1), 23, 24.
284
. , , 161 163, 10, 11: 13 15; N. Chausidis, Myth. Representations, 13, Pl. VI: 1 8.
285
(. ,
, 245 . 88); . ,
.
124
F. ..
-
Fjerd ()
(61:
10 ).286

.

. -
.
. ,
, , ,
, (12: 9, 10).
( ,
, , ).287
, ,
(2) ( . 63).
VI. -

, , ,
. ,
e
. ,
- ,

.
.. .
1. (Apsar)
,
.

(56: 11 13). ,
,
.288 *ap- ()
*sar- (), ,
, .289
,
. ,
286
G. Kossack, Studien, 43 Abb. 2; M. Petrescu-Dmbovia, Depozitele, Pl. 181: 6.
287
S. Kuko, Japodi, 44.
288
. , , 137 149; . , , 411.
289
. . , Indoarica, 33, 70, 71, 226, 253, 270; M. Jei, R'gvedski, 166 168. -

( ),

. . 866.
125
V.
.
, , .
.
,
,
.290 ( )

, Agastya Vasista.
.. ,

, .

,
.291
2. (Sarasvat)

( ).
, ,
. ,
, , ,
, . ,
, ,
.
,
. .
,
( ).
.. ,
, ,
( ), , , .
, ,
( ).
, , .
, , ,
.
( )
.
Harahvait.292
3. (Ardv Sr - Anhit)
(Yat 5)
, , , , .
Ardv .
,
,
. ..
.
.
290
. . , , 96.
291
M. Elijade, Joga, 342.
292
D. Kinsley, Hindu Goddesses, 10 13, 55 64; V. Ions, Indijska, 22, 83, 84.
126
F. ..
, ,
,
. 4
: , , .
, ,
. ,
.
( )
, , , .
, 6. .
.. ,
.293

,
(51: 7, 13, 15): ,
. ,
.294
, , ,
.295
- .
( ) (.. ) ..
- ( ) , ,
, .296
, - ,
- ,
.

.
- .297
4.

.. , ( *-), ,
.

.298
- (54), , ,
,
.. (55).
(
) .
: (
) .
(55: 1, 4, 5)
(55: 3, 8, 9)
.
, (55: 3, 8, 9)
293
M. Boyce, M. L. Chaumont, C. Bier, Anhd; Anahita 2012; M. Rici, The cult.
294
(Taittirya Samhit IV.3.11.7) : B. Gangadhar Tilak, Arktika, 135.
295
M. Ricl, The cult, 198; Anahita 2012.
296
. , , 362; . . , , 158.
297
. . -, . . , , 68, 69.
298
. . , . 19, 131 133; . . , . . , .
127
VI. -

.299

(54: 3; 55: 2, 6).
,
, .
, ,
.300

( ), 11.
. .
,
, , .301
5.

.

, ,
, (amta),
(). ( )
. ,
,
. , -
, .

.302

. , ,

. ()
,
:
- ,
.
- ,
( , .. ),
.
- ,
, .
- ,
, .
,
, ( . ).303
299
. , , 198, 199 ( Sparta Linkihnen Cosoveni), 200 203 ( Nea
Anhialos Orlea).
300 N. Nodilo, Stara, 470, 476; . , , 69, 224.
301
. , ; . , , 27.
302
(Nonnus, Dionysiaca XXI.11 62; : Homer, Iliad VI.130 135; Diodorus Sicilus 3.65.5); . , .
, , 237; . , , 136; . , , 78, 79, 86 ); : G.
Samuelsson, Crucifixion, 82, 83; . , , 110.
303
. , , 69 99 ; . , . .
128
F. ..
,
.. .
(--)
(= ) (=
= ).304
. -. ,

, , , ..
. -,

(62: 3). , ,
Aigai (62: 2), .
, .. .305
.
(= ), subatu (=
). ,
(
). -
, .
, , ,
. : ,
; ;
. , ,
( )
(: , : ).
, ,
.
, .
,
, .306

..
. ,
.307
6.
- (17; 17; 18:
7), (51: 14, 15)
.

(59: 1, 4) .

(61: 4, 5).
, , , ,
( ).
(, . ),
-
304
(Hygini, Fabulae 132); . , . , , 236, 237.
305
. -, , 4 8; . , (1), 23, 24.
306
. , , ( VIII: 105).
307

.
129
VI. -
.308
(61: 4, 5, 8, 9).
( )
,
, (61: 7). (
),
,
( 61: 7, 6).
,
-
.
( ) , ,
(Draco, Dracen) ,
.309
.
( )
,
(41: 2, 3, . 83). ( )
( )
, (41: 4).310
G.

, .
, (
), .
,
,
, .

, ,
.
.
, ,
. ,
,
( .. ),
.. , ,
( ) , ,
- .
308
. , ; . , , 171-191; . , , 207 212;
: 14: 4; 21: 1, 2 (. , , 58 . 4; 59 . 6; . ,
. , , 36, 37; . , , 247 . 92: 3).
309
S. Dll, Die Gtterkulte, 102, 138, 142, 159, 362; . , , 159 167.
, ,
. : S. Dll, Die Gtterkulte, 137, 138, 406; . , , 31; .
, , 166; . , , 122, 147 150; . , ; M. ael Kos, Draco;
. , .
310
( ): S. Dll, Die Gtterkulte, 139, 283, Abb. 14; . ,
, 87, 147 150.
130
G.
,
,
, ,
.

(, ) , ,
.

( ) .
( )
,
.
:
- : , ,
.. ;
- - : ..
;
- : ,
.

(, ), , ,

.

, .. .
- . 15 ,
(. ) ,
.
( ,
) (?),
(22; 62: 5; 64: 1).
(, .. )
.. .

.
..
, ..

,
.
I.

,
,
.
( ) (14 21) (
)
(13).
. , , ,
, ,
, , , (2: 1, 2,
131
I.
8; 3: 3 6). (
)
.
, , , (1: 1 3). ,
, ,
. ,
, , ,
. ,
, , , ,
.
( ) ,
, (8; 9; 10).
,
.311

, .. , ,
(14 21).

( ).
(22) (
).

.
, .. (
),
.. :
.. ; ;
.
1. ..
. (S. Casson) , -
. ,
( , , , ),
.
in situ , , .
,
. . ,
(
,
) (24; 25;
25).312 ,
,
, ,
(.. ),
( . 358 368).
, ,
, ( 66: 3).313
311
(15: 4) (I.
Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 232, Taf. 82: 1484.)
312
I. Martelli, Women, 333.
313
: B. Fath, B. Glunz-Hsken, Textilien.
132
G.
2.
. , ..
, , (
)
, .
,
, ,
.

, ,
, .
( ) , (..
) ( , , , , .).
,
(
).

, .. , (, ,
), ( , , , , ,
).
, .. , ,
. ,
( , , ...), , ,

, , ,
(, .. ).
,
, .. , (
, ),
( ), , , (
).
-
(36). (
)
,
(40: 1 3). (
- 13)
.314

, ,
, (17)
(8; 18).
,
. , .. , , ,
, -
.
, ,
. ,

( ),
(/ )
314
M. Jei, R'gvedski, 182. (. 409).
133
I.
A62
134
G.

. , ,
, .. .
, , ,
, 7. , ,
.
3.
. . . (N. G. L. Hammond), herb cups,

.. .
. ,
, .
.
, ..
.315

( . 59). , ,
,
:
- - /
, .
,
(15: 13).316
-
(14).
, , .317
.
-
, ,
(
; 10: 4).318
- , ,
,
.319
- -
,

( ) (36 29: 1, 10). ,
(Nisaba)
.320 (29: 1)
,
-.
315
J. Bouzek,
(24) (J. Bouzek, Greece, 88).
316
: P. G. Kritikos, S. P.
Papadaki, The History I, Fig. 5, 6 (), 23 ().
317
P. G. Kritikos, S. P. Papadaki, The History I, Fig. 11.
318
P. G. Kritikos, S. P. Papadaki, The History I, Fig. 27.
319
P. G. Kritikos, S. P. Papadaki, The History I, Fig. 4, 11, 25.
320
P. G. Kritikos, S. P. Papadaki, The History I II; . -, II, 44, 101, 122.
135
I.
II.

1. (, )

(, ),
(, , , , ). ,
.. ,
( ), (,
) .
: , - .
,
-
.
, ,
.
, (, ),
. ,
, ,
.. ,
( )
(. /, ).
- ( ),
,
, ,
.

.
( ),

.

.
,
: , ,
- . (
)
( ) ,
, .
, .. , ,
, .

( )
.

. , ,

, .
-

. ,
( ) .

136
G.
,

.321
2.
(, )
, -
. , ,
,
. .
.
( ),
.
,
, ,
.
, - .
,
, .
-. 322
-

.
, ,
.
3.

-,
.
, .

, .
, ,
. ,
, .

, .

( 66: 4).
,
, .. .
4.
-,
, ( ,
) ,
, - .
321
. , , 62 66;
: S. Kuko, Japodi, 57, 79, 89.
322
2015.
137
II.
, ,
, , ..
, .
, , , ,
,
,
.
.

, ( )
. ,
/
.
,
, , , ,
.
, ,
, . 323

. ,
-.
. , (
).324 .325
, ,

. , -
,

- .
, .
,
.326
-
.
,
,
,
. .. (5. . ..),
(63: 8, 9 5, 6 2, 3 24).
,
, ,
.327
. ,
,
,
. , , ,
, ( 15: 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 15).
323
(Herodotus 4.74 75).
(
: . . , , 146 148, . 33).
324
(Herodotus 1. 201 202).
325
(Pomponius Mela 2.21) : . , Thymateria, 306.
326
M. Besnier, Turibulum; G. Marunti, Incensiere; . , Thymateria.
327
M. Besnier, Turibulum, 542 Fig. 7177, 7178.
138
G.
, ..
, , , .
,
, ..
(64: 1, 7).

(63: 2, 3; 14: 8 10),
. -
.328 ,
, (
) , ..

( : 63: 4).329
.
,
, ,
,
.
(Novilara, Banecci
Caprara) - (8 7. .
..) (65: 3, 4, 6 8). ,
,
. , ( 10 15 cm)
,
( 64: 3, 4, 6 1, 2, 7). ,

,
.
, (
), , ,
.
.
,

- .330
, ,
(63: 8),
.
,
, .
,
, (62:
4; 64: 5). 2000 . . ..
(, , ,
).

.
(
328
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 233 ( Radanje), Taf. 83: 1487 1496;
: . , . , , 76 . 13.
329
(. , ,
74 15).
330
J. P. Thevenot, Sur la function; M. Besnier, Turibulum, 542 Fig. 7174;
P. Ducati, Gli "Incensieri"; L. Ambrosini, Thymiateria.
139
II.
A63
140
G.
, )
,
(62: 4).331
-, (
62: 4 64: 5 1, 2, 7) : ,
;
; / ;
. (
)
,

(64: 7; 22: 5).
III.
( )
,
, , , -
. , , ,
.

, - .
. -,
,
, .. . ,
, ,
( )
.332 , ,
, .
.
( ),

(24: 8, 9).
( pars pro toto)
.

.
,
.
(65: 2).
,
Dodona, .
(
),
( ).

( ) ( ),
k, , ,
,
.
: , .. ;
(, , ) ;
331
M. D. Herrera, Holy Smoke; 2015.
332
141
II.
A64
142
G.
, ( );
;
.333
,
, ,
. ,
( )
, (23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28;
29). ,
, , , (23: 1;
26: 4).
.
. Hagia
Triada (, ) ,
(68: 11). ,

.334

,
(64: 1).
(.. ) .
,
( 62: 5
4). ,
:
( )
.
IV.
,
,
, .. , , . ,

- .
,
(, , .)
(, ). ,
,
.
1.
a)

,
(8; 9; 10).

, , , , ,
( 11: 4, 9, 10, 12, 13).
in situ
( )
333
. , .
334
. , .
143
III.
, , , , (62: 6).
, ,
,
(63: 1, 7; 11:
1 3, 7 9). ,
. ,

. ,
.335
b)
(2: 1 3, 7, 8; 3: 3 6; 5: 3).
,
, , ,
.
. , ,
, , (5: 1).
c) -
-, ,
,
(64: 2; 65: 5; 20: 1 6).
, (
) (64: 2).
.
(- , . )
, (20: 1),
, , , ,
.
,
.
(15: 17; 22: 5) , ,
, ,
.

,
.
, (64: 1).
, , , ,
, , , ..
. , ,
( 62: 5 4).

-. , ,
,
(62: 4; 64: 5). , ,
,
, , .

: (, );
( ); ( ,
335
V. Stare, Kultne.
144
G.
); ( ); (
).336

(8. . ..)
(64: 3, 4, 6; 65: 3, 4, 6 8 ):
, ;
, ;
;
- .
2. -
(
, ),
.

( ),
, .
,
, ,
: (tympanon), ;
(kymbala), ; (krotala), ;
(seistron),
.337
, ,
. , , ,
, .338
, ,
.

, , , ( ) .
- . . ,
Dodona,
.339

.
a)
, .. -
. ,
,
. ,

.
: ; ;
; (
).
( , ,
) : , ,
336
: M. D. Herrera, Holy Smoke.
337
: C. Sachs, The History, 25 59; . , , 75 83.
338
. , , 208 223.
339
. . , .
145
IV.
A65
146
G.
, (, , ),
. , .. ,
(, , , ) .340
( ,
, , , )
() .
,
.341

(tintinnabulum) ,
, ,
(65: 1). , ,
,
.
.342 crepundia ,
( )
. ,
.343

, , (petasus).
, , , .344

. -
, , ,
.345
.

, .
, .
,
.346

. ,
. ,
,
.
(62: 6).
,
( )
( ) ,
. ,

.

, ,
.
340
. . , , 284, 285, 288.
341
. . , , 288, 289.
342
C. Moser, Naked, Fig. 66 70; . . , , 7, 8.
343
H. T. Peck, Harpers, (crepundia).
344
(Plinius, Naturalis Historia 36.19).
345
(Herodotus 6.58)
346
(Apollodori, Bibliotheca 2.5.6)
147
IV.

,
.
b)
, ..
, ( = , ,
; = , , ). , ,
, .. ,
, . ,
,
. ( )
:
; ; ;
;
.347

,
.
.
.348

,
.349
( )
, , , ,
.350
,
..
,
, , ,
(62: 6). , :
; ;
; ;
.
c)

. (800
700 . . ..) ,
(62: 1). ,
-. . , (
), .
( )
.351
347
. . , , 286, 287.
348
. . , , 289.
349
: . , , 144 148; . , , 15 20.
350
. . , , 291, 292.
351
J. E. Harrison, Themis, 76 79; : P. Georgieva, P.
Milanov, Eneolitic. (
148
G.
( , .. )
, ,
( ).

, ,
(13). ,
Krannon. , ,
, . 352

( = ; =
).
, , .. , (10: 1 3) ( . 409).353
, ,
,
.
(, )
.
(64: 1),
.

, , ,
. ,
, ,
(66: 6, 7 2, 5 51).
, , (66: 1, 3),
,
. ,

, . ,

,
. , ,
,
, . ,
,
, .. .

,
, .. . -
(53: 1 - 7)
( )
.
d)
,
. ,
, :
) ( J.
Boardman, : S. Kuko, Japodi, 94 . 121).
352
(Antigonus Carystius, Historiae Mirabiles 15) : J. E. Harrison, Themis, 81; (
) , Merida, (5 1. . ..): . . 1, 636.
353
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 830 833; . , , 154, 155; J. E. Harrison, Themis, 81, 82; A. Hnsel, Die
Kultwagen, 255 Abb. 2.5.
149
IV.
A66
150
G.
( ), ( ), (
), ( )
, , , .354
,
.355
.
,
.
, ,

.356
,
, .
, , ,

.
,
.
.
, , - .
, ,
, (,
, ) ,
. ,
.
, ,

, ,
.
e)

Dodona () . ,
( , ),
, ,
. ,
, .
, ,
Delphy, , , ,
.357 Dodona ,
.
.358

,
. ,
354
. . , , 292.
355
. , , 155; . , . , 79.
356
(Theocritus 2.30) P. A. Riffard, Rjenik, 336; . . , ; . , , 99,
2: 5.
357
Dodona: (Strabo 7a.1.3); Dodona Delphy: . . ,
.
358
, , ,
: . . , .
151
IV.
, (,
, ). ,

.
, .359
- (damaru) -
.

.
:
; ;
.
* * *

, , .
,
, , ..
, - .

.
, .. ,
, . ,
(, ,
, ) ,
. -

, .. .
, .
- ,
( , )
- .

( ) ,
. ,
, ,
.
,
:
.
359
: . . , .
152

..
Chapter 2
CLUSTER PENDANTS OR THE
SO-CALLED JUG-STOPPERS
()

()

..
A.
-
.. ,
. ( 10 cm),
, ( ,
), (1 8).
, , ,
( ), , .
, , (1: 5 9; 9)
(1: 1 - 4).1
,
(1: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6). .
B, C, D E.2
( F . ) (1: 2; 8: 1 - 7).3
,
(10: 1 - 6).4 ,
(1: 4; 7: 1 - 11) ..
( G . ).5
, (1: 3). ,
, (4: 4) (4: 3).6
( . G2), ,
,
(7: 1, 7, 8) (12).7
1
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 76 86; M. Vickers, Some Early, 17 31; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 114, Taf. 29, Taf.
30, Taf. 42: 1, Taf. 96; R. Vasi, Donja, 82 84; R. Vasi, eveliska, 705; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 194 208; .
, , 66, 67; . , , 55, 56; . , , . .100 105; .
, , 317 - 319, 328 T.VIII: 2 . 1, 2.
2
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 79 83; : I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 194 203.
3
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 83, Fig. 24; J. Bouzek, Addenda, 40; M. Vickers, Some Early, 19; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier,
Anhanger, 203; Z. Andrea, Kultura, Tab. XXVI: v. 20 - 3, Tab. XXXVI: 11, Tab. LXIII: 10, 11.
4
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 224, Taf. 81: 1449 1451; : R. Vasi, Donja,
84.
5
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 83, Fig. 24; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 203, 204; . , , 20
. 3, .I: 3.
6
(Pherai, ): I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 204, Fig. 73: 1302;
( Ku i Zi, ): P. Lera, Gjurm, 178 - Fig. 1.
7
. , , 30 . I: 2, 4; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 58 Fig. 17: 5; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier,
Anhanger, 204, 205; Z. Andrea, Kultura, Tab. XXXI: v. 62 3, Tab. LXIV: 6; . , , . . 50.
155
.
156
()
157
.
158
()

.
, ,
(4: 1, 5).
, ,
, ,
, (4: 5).8
(.. ..
) ,
( C . ; A . -) (2; 3; 4:
6, 7), (, .. E, Potidaea .
.. ; C . -) ,
(5; 6),
( 5: 1, 2, 3). . ( D ..
Bohemitsa) E.9

( B2).10

.11
(7: 12 - 19),
( . A).12
-
, , jug-stoppers,
Kannenverschlusses ( ).
grozdoliki privesci ( ) . ,
,
.13 a,
. , rod pendants ( )
.14
- ,
(
. , ), 7. . ..,
8, 6, 5. .
( ) ,
.
, ,
(2; 3), (8. 7. ) ,
(5; 6) , ,
7. 6. .

.
8
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 196, Taf. 63: 1190, 1191.
9
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 80 83; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 194 208 ( ).
10
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 79, 80.
11
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 76 - 86; M. Vickers, Some Early, 19 - 31; . Ma: .
, ; 55, 56.
12
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 77, 79, Fig. 22: 5 - 7; J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 329 Fig. 21: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8; : .
, , . . 274, 275.
13
R. Vasi, eveliska, 705.
14
S. Langdon, From Monkey.
159
.
160
()
161
.
162
()
( , .. ),
(Dodona, Pherai .).15
-

. . ,
,
- . ,
, ,
( 7: 12, 13, 15
17; : 7: 14, 18, 19; 13: 10).16 , ,
, . ,

. ,
.
. (2;
3)
(Villanovan culture, ),
(31).17 , , ,
, , ..
.
, (33: 9).18 , . ,
( ),
, .19
,
.
,
, ,
, .
( )
(13: 3 6, 8),
(13: 7, 9).
(13: 10; 7: 14, 18, 19)
, (7: 12, 13, 15 - 17).20
,

(6 - 5. . ..).
.. ,
,
(8: 8 10
15
J. Bouzek, Macedonian, 97, 99, 107, 108; M. Vickers, Some Early, 25 31; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 208, Taf.
107; R. Vasi, eveliska, 705, 706; R. Vasi, Donja, 83; . , ; 55, 56; D. Mitrevski, Bow Fibulae,
33, 35.
(. , , 130, 131).
16
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 76 79; J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 328 332.
17
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 76; J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 329 Fig. 21: 1 11, 330, 333, 334.
18
J. Bouzek, Macedonian, 101, 103; J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 333, 334; J. Bouzek, Addenda, 50, 51.
. - (I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 208) . (R. Vasi, Donja, 83, 84).
19
S. Langdon, From Monkey, 422 424.
20
. . , , 270 (. 80: 28 30); 278 (. 85: 2, 3), 280 (. 86: 9 12), 281; :
H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. III, Taf. 688: A 1, 2, 5; 2013, 418, 421, 588, 619; . . ,
.
163
.
164
()
165
.
166
()
13: 3 - 6).21
( ) Nahal
Mishmar (),22
(13: 1, 2 8: 1 - 7).
-
20. , ..
. . (U. Jantzen)
,
.23 ,
, , , , .

.
. ,
.
Ku i Zi, (10: 7; 11: 7 - 9), (. ), /Bohemitsa
/Kilkis, () ( ). ,
,
( )
- .24
, 21 cm
, (4: 5).
(,
).

.
B.
I.

,
.
. , ,
.
1.

, , ,
, , .
(3: 4; 6: 8, 9; 27: 5, 12)
21
: . , , 29; . , , 116 . 4; I. Mikuli, Pelagonija, 45.
, ,
, .
22
P. R. S. Moorey, The Chalcolithic; H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. II, Taf. 107: 3 10.
23
: M. Vickers, Some Early, 17, 18. 36: 4, 9
( /), stopper, .. ,

.
24
M. Vickers, Some Early, 17 19; R. Vasi, Donja, 82; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 205; Z. Andrea, Tumat, 168
Fig. 4, 172, 173 Fig. 7, 188, 189; . , , 66; . , ; 55, 56; .
, ; . , , 158, 159, 163.
167
I.
10
168
()
11
169
I.
(, , ),
(: 5; 6).
, ,

.25
(, ), . (B.
Schweitzer) .26
. ,
,
, (56: 3, 5, 6).
,
, , , ,
.27
2.
,

.
(31 27).
,
,
. ,
. , .
,
. ( )
.
( , , ) ,
,
( 32; 33: 7; 34: 8 27).
, .
. ,

. ,
(35: 9) (38: 4).

, , , , (
).
,
.28
.
, ,
,
(,
).
, .

25
M. Vickers, Some Early, 19, 21.
26
Kobolde des Dionysus frhe Satyrn (: M. Vickers, Some Early, 22).
27
M. Vickers, Some Early, 22.
28
: E. H. Cline, Monkey; A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. IV II, 486, Fig. 411, 412.
170
()
12
171
I.
. ,
(Tree of Life) ( : 53: 5).29
3.
, , ,
.
,
, , ,
. ,
. ,
1988 .30
( )
, .
( 27 31 32).
, .
,
(), (33: 9).31
-
:
( ?) /
.32 , .
, (,
, ) ,
( )
: , .
, -
, .33
4. -

,
(6: 9),
(5; 6). ..
(56). ,
(
).34
29
S. Langdon, From Monkey, 415, 423.
30
J. Bouzek, Macedonian, 107 ( 37). J. Bouzek, Greece, 110 ( 9). : J.
Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 76 86.
31
J. Bouzek, Macedonian, 101, 103; J. Bouzek, Addenda, 51;
(. , , 215).
32
The most plausible explanation of the jug stoppers is that they represent the shaman (or rather shamaness?) while
drinking his or her magic potion and magically climbing a tree. (J. Bouzek, Macedonian, 107). 34,
, ,
( ,
37 , ).
.
33
J. Bouzek, Macedonian, 108.
34
172
()
5. -
,
( . )
. ,
. , .
() .. .
,
.35
6.

1988 .36 ,
.37

.
, .

, , ,
.
,
,
. , ,
, , ,
.38
. ,

( 30: 1 - 4 8, 9), , ,
Ku i Zi, (2: 1; 5: 1).
,
, .
,
. ,
,
.
, .
, , , ,
. , ,
, .. ,
, .
: , , , , , , , , , , ,
, .39
(, ),
(
).40
35
. , .
36
. , , 78 83.
37
. , , 359, 365 370; . , . , , 120 137.
38
. , , 80; . , . , , 132, 133.
39
. , , 79, 80; . , . , , 132, 133.
40
. , , 80, 81, T.IV: 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11; . , , 365 370; . , .
, , 132, 133.
173
I.
13
174
()

. , ,
(10: 1 6; 18: 3 - 5, 19),
(8: 1 - 7).
,
. -
.
, .. ,
, / ,
. ,
( )
, (
) ( 63: 4).

(18: 13 - 16) .41
,
,
glans
penis ( 9: 5 9, 28).
,
, .. , .42

. , ,
.
, , ,
,
, .. . ,
,
. , ,
,
.43 ,
(
/ ) .

, .
,
/, ( ),
.44

.
,
. , ,
, (,
)
.
. , ,
( , .. ,
, , .. ).

41
. , , 74, T.II: 1 - 6.
42
. , . , , 132, 133.
43
. , , 82.
44
. , . , , 132, 133.
175
II.
. ,

.45
II.

1.

. ,
.
,
. ,
(
, , , ).
, , .. (
, .. ),
. ,
: .
;46 . o,
;47 . , ,
, .48

. , ,
. . -
XIX , 2006 .49

, . ,
( ),
.
(14: 1 3 4 - 15),
.50
a)
Phytolaccaceae.
Phytolacca mericana (14: 1, 2)
(Phytolacca pruinosa Fenzl) (14: 3).
, : . . , , ,
, ; . ; . Kermesbeere; . , .
: , , , ,
, , , .,
.
45
. , , 82, 83; . , , 365 370; . , . , , 132,
133.
46
S. Langdon, From Monkey, 415, 423.
47
... Shaman (or rather shamaness?) while drinking his or her magic potion and magically climbing a tree (J. Bouzek,
Macedonian, 107).
48
. , , 32, 35 ().
49
. , .
50
.
,
.
176
()
.
()
. (, )
( ,
) , , ,
, , , , . ,
() .51
, ,
(15; 16). ,

. - (phytolacca) . phyto =
. lacca = ( ). /, Kermesbeere
kermes = . ,
, ,
, pocan
.52
,
.
, ..
( 16: 8). ,
, , .
( 16: 11).
: , , ..
( 16: 9, 10). ,
.
.
( ,
), , , ,
, .
, ,
( ).53 .
,
,
- .
( , )
.
, ,
. ,
.
: 60 1
2-3 . 2-3 . ,
2-3 .54 , .
, .. , (. ).55
- ( )
21-
: 1 30 2-3
51
Phytolacca 2012; Phytolacca americana 2012; E. Gotfredsen, Phytolacca; . , . , ,
136 - 138; : . , , (Phytolacca, Phytolacca decandra).
52
Phytolacca 2012; Phytolacca americana 2012; Kermesbeeren 2012; . , , (Phytolacca,
Phytolacca decandra).
53
Phytolacca 2012; Phytolacca americana 2012; . , Temporas;
: . , . . , 104.
54
. , . , , 138.
55
2012 , (), - .
177
1.
14
178
()
, . 3
3 .56
, ,
.
: (. Levantine Pokeweed; . Phytolacca pruinosa Fenzl)
, , (14: 3);57 (Phytolacca
dodecandra) .58 ,

, , , , ,
. ,
(, ).59
b)
, .. -

, , ,
. ,

.
,
.
,
, .. .60

.
, ,
(, , ).

.
: ,
;
, ( )
( ). ,
.. .61

, .
, ,
,
. ,
56
Krmus 2011.
57
Phytolacca 2012; E. Gotfredsen, Phytolacca, : ( ), ,
, .
58
Phytolacca dodecandra 2016.
59
Phytolacca americana 2012. 20. ,
. ,
,
, ,
(Pokeweed 2012; Phytolacca Decandra 2012).
60

,
.
61
: J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 54 58, 79 81; V.
Mati, Zaboravljena, 130 135; . . , , 647 651.
179
1.
15
180
()
, .
:
(.. );
; .

. ( ),
( , )
(, .. ). ,

, , .. .
, , ,
,
.62 ,

. , .63
, , ,
.
,
,
. ,
.
, .
, ,
(Rubia tinctorum, . ) ,
, .
, .64
, ( ,
.) Spondylus.65
(Murex brandaris)
.66 cremesium (
) ,
, .
/ (Dactylopius coccus) ,
( , ),
.67 ,
( , )
.

o .
, ( )
()
, , . ,
, .
( . 85) ,
,
62
( Bezdanjaa , ): S. Kuko, Japodi, 23 27,
37; : . , , 142, 146; : M. Elijade, Kovai, 128 131; J.
Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 73.
63
. , , 214.
64
. , , 55, 262; V. Mati, Zaboravljena, 130, 131.
65
A. Durman, Spondylus.
66
I. Ziderman, 3600 Years. ()
, .
67
: . , , 102 104; T. , , 265; : Cochineal 2013.
181
1.
16
182
()
.68 ,
, , , .69

, ( )
. , (
) .
.
( )
. ()
, , .70
. ,

, .71
,
( ) .72
(
) ,
.73 , ,
,
, .74
,
, .75
c)

(14; 15).
,
, .
,
( ),
, .. (14: 8,
9 1, 2).76

,
( ) .
, ..
:
- , ..
.
-
, .. (8: 1 7).
68
: J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 746 748; . , . , 130.
: , 49, 11;
, 49, 26; (.), 6, 34; , 32, 14; (.), 50, 17;
: () (, 14, 24).
69
. , , 41.
70
. . , , 373.
71
(Clem. Alex. Cohortatio 2.39 40).
72
(Arnobius 5.6.12).
73
R. Grevs, Grki, 27/10. ( ): .
, , 251, 252, 269, 270; . . , , 648, 649.
74
(Nonnus, Dionysiaca 3.400); J. Frazer, The Golden, Ch. 32.
75
. . , , 373.
76
: . , , 16 . 2, 19, 30 . 2.
183
1.
- , ,
(2 6, 27: 2, 3, 5 30: 2).

, (
),
(8: 1 - 7). ,
( ), ,
- , .

, .

, , ,
, ,
.
:
- .
- ,
.
- ( )
.
-
(, , ).
- ( , , )
.
,
. ,
, ,
, (-) .
,
, .
d)
,

(8: 1 - 7). ,
.

(17: 13 - 16)
(17: 1 - 12). , ,
(
) , (2
6; 2: 1, 2; 27: 1 - 5). ,
.
,
. ,
(), , , .

. ,
, .. .
,
.
, , zelai.
,
184
()
- , , , , .. .77
, , ,
.
,
, .
. /
(sour rowanberries lat. Sorbus aucuparia; Sorbus torminalis).78
(
)
(), , , (, . )
Inula ().79
. (Sextus Julius Africanus, 3.
..), , kamon.80
(camun) ,
() ,
, .81 ( )
. cervisia
(Jonas of Susa, 7. ..). , (
), ,
( 1. . ..,
).82
***

.
,
.
-

: (8: 13
15; 1: 1 - 3); (8: 1 7;
10: 1 - 6); (18: 3 - 5, 19);
(.. 18: 7).

.

, ,
. ,
3 7 cm (17: 1 - 12).
- , ,
77
. , , 41.
78
(Vergilius, Georgica 3.379 380), : M. Nelson, The Barbarian's, 43, 44, 13.
79
(Hecateus, FGrH1F154 in Athen., Deipn. 10.447d) : M. Nelson, The Barbarian's, 20, 21 ( 25, 26);
. . , , 60 ( 8: Hecat. Fr. 123 Mller, Fr. Hist graec 1. 8.);
: . , , 294, 295.
80
(Julius Africanus, Cesti 1.19.17 23), : M. Nelson, The Barbarian's, 74, 75 ( 22).
81
M. Nelson, The Barbarian's, 44, 70, 71, 74, 75, 94.
82
Jonas, Vit. Columb 16 Krusch = 26 (= PL 87.1026BC) = Vit.Columb. abb. disc. eius 1.16 (= MGH-SRM IV, 82.58),
: M. Nelson, The Barbarian's, 94, 95 ( 39);
.
185
1.
17
186
()
, . ,

(17: 13 - 16).
, .
,
,
( 17: 5 9, 10 13 6, 7 14).

, .
(
17: 4, 5, 12; 17: 8 - 10) ,
(17: 1, 2). 8. 6. . ..,
,
. .
, ( ).
, ,
-
(65: 9 11 12 7: 5, 7, 8, 11 ) ( . 69, 89).83
. .
, , .. -
. (..
) ( ).84 .

(8: 13 - 15) .85

, , (8: 1
7; 10: 1 - 6). ,
, .. ( ),
, , , . ,
, ..
,
( )
, .
(
)
:
( );
( ) ;
( ) (,
, ) , ;
, ,
. , .. ,
.
, (17: 1 - 12)
( . 114, 148) (17: 1, 2)
( . 523).
83
: J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 38 49; J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 307, 308; K. Kilian,
Trachtzubehr, 111, 112, Taf. 93; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 216 228; . , , 32, 33; .
, , 90 - 92; . , , 128, 129, 289, 290, 298, 299, 307, 309;
. , , . . 146 158; . , , 125 128; . , . ,
, 75; : S. A. Paspalas, A Macedonian.
84
85
D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 573; . , , 90, 91.
187
1.
(8: 13
15) ( . 3).

( )
() , , ,
.86 ( )
( )
( ) : , ..
; (
. 195).
-

(10: 1 - 6), ,
, .

(18: 3 - 5, 19).87
,
, .

, ,
(18: 3 - 5, 19 6). .
(multistoreyed vessels),
Samos
(18: 1, 2).88
,
.
(=
) ,
(= ) (9: 5, 8 10; . 17, 22).

, ,
, , , , .. .

Udaipur, (18: 6).89
,
, , ,
.

(18: 5) ,
Ku i Zi, (10: 7; 11: 6 - 9).90

(18: 7).
.
, , ,
, ..
86
(Plutarchus, Theseus 22; Porphyrius, De abstinentia 2.7); W. Burkert, Structure, 134, 135; . , .
87
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 85, 86, 81 Fig. 24: 9, 12; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 78: 1381 1384, 1386,
1387; S. Aliu, Tuma, 146 Tab.VII: 3; C. Rolley, C. Dunant, Bronzes, Fig. 1; e ( Egina, )
: P. G. Kritikos, S. P. Papadaki, The History. I, ( . 17).
88
J. Bouzek, Greece, 133, 134, Fig. 153: 1 - 3.
89
Folk Dance 2013.
90
Z. Andrea, Tumat, 172, 188, 189, Fig. 4, Fig. 7. Tab. III: V.14.
188
()
. -
,
- . , ,
,
.

,
, . ,

(18: 8 - 18). , ,
: (Ku i Zi, 18: 10 - 12), ,
, (, 18: 17, 18).
, (18:
13 - 16), (18: 9).
, , (
) (
, 8: 11).
Trilophon Messimeri (18: 8) (
)
(8; 9; 12), ( . 298).
, ,
( , ) Nahal Mishmar ()
, , (
)
(13: 1, 2).91

.
, ,

.92 ( , ),
.
(Parjanya)
( ) ().
.93
, ,
(.. , ), , ,
.94
, ..
.95
e)

, ,
(
), , , , ,
( : 16: 1 5, 9, 10). ,
91
P. R. S. Moorey, The Chalcolithic; H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. II, Taf. 107: 3 10.
92
( ), : . . , , 301; : N. Profantova, M.
Profant, Encyklopedie, 134, 135.
93
(Rigveda V.83.8; VII.101. 4); . . , , 255, 256, 296, 302 304, 382, 383;
: . . . , , 160 162 (Rigveda I.88.4; V.53.6; V.55. 5;
VIII.72.8; X.42.2); : A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 204 2.
94
. . , , 52.
95
(Rigveda VI.69.6); . . . , , 156, 158.
189
1.
18
190
()
, .. ,
(
) ( ).
,
(19: 1, 2, 7; 2 8).
( )
(),
.
, ,
(19).
, .. ,
.
(19: 3, 4), (19: 6, 9, 10) .
(, )
, ( )
( ).96 ,
( ),
. (), /
Edesa, .97 15
,
, (22: 3, 4).
(19: 6)
.
. ,
(19: 9, 10) 9 cm, , (19: 6) 270
. ,

.98
.. - , ,
.99 () .
( ), ,
(
) .100

, ( , 19: 1, 2, 7)
, , , ..
. , ,

( : 19: 5).
,
96
. (J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 113 Fig. 36; 117, 118) tubular beads with
rings ( ). K. (K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 87)
scheibenprofilierten Rhrenhngern ( ). . - (I.
Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 44, 45) Achsenscheiben Anhnger.
97
. , , 28 .16./4/, 29 . 17./2/ ( ); . , , 121
Eik. 6.
98
. , , 60, 61 . 13; . , , 72 . 2, 74, 75. : . ,
, 388, 389, 399 T.I: 3 ( , , . ); . , , 250
(, ); . , , 49, 129 (, , ); S. Gashi, K. Velo, Iron Age, 149 - kat. n.
193, 194 (Llashtic Hgjilan, ); Z. Andrea, Tumat, Fig. 3, 219 T. IV: v.16 3, T. XII: v.104 2; T. XVI: 4
(Ku i Zi, ).
99
. . , , 198, 199 . 95: 1 ( ), 200 . 96: 8
( ), 201 97: 2 (, ).
100
. , , 249 . 2, 250; : K. Hadaczek, Zote,
23, T.XII: 4.
191
1.
19
192
()
,
( ),
.
, (10: 7; 11: 9),
.
, :
, , ,
, .
,
.
-
,
.
(1 )
. .
(. ) ( )
, .
(), ( ),
.
, ( ) , ..
. (. ), , ,
. ,
, ,
( , ,
). , . ,
. ( , , ),
. , ,
, .
, ,
.
, . ,
, .
,
(
). ,
, .
() ,
, ,
. . (
),
.101
(
)
.
. ,
( ), ,
, . ( )
, , , , ,
(24: 1, 8, 9).
101
G. Schubert, Konac, 136 141, 146, 147; . . , , 648, 649; . , , 64, 65; .
, . (, ,
). (), .
193
1.
(
)

.
, , ,
.102

,
(: 22: 10; 23: 6; 24: 4 - 6).

: .
(, ), ,
( ),
( ) (24: 3).103 , ,
,
-,
( = ).
- ..
.
, ,
,
, (19: 3, 4, 6, 8 - 12).
( , , ) ,
(19: 1; 2; 3).
Ku i Zi ,
(19: 2).
,
, ,
.

, (
), (
).
(19: 5) (, ) ,
, ..
- -.

( . 196).
(
)
( )
.. . ,

, (47: 6,
7). ,
( ).104
102
: , . ; , (
; . , , 127, 128, 129, 190; G. Schubert, Konac, 147).
103

(. ,
, 131). () ()
(G. Schubert, Konac, 141; . , . , ,
100 102).
104
2013.
194
()
-
( )
, (. ), , ,
,
() (24: 1).
( )
. ,
.
, , ,
. ,
.105
(. ).
( ).
(= ?),
.
.106
-

.
(Tuppavi, ) ( )
, , , , .
, , ,
(.. ), . ,
, ,
, .
,
.
,
(-) .107
(
)
, ,
. ,
.108

() ,
(, ) .
, .
. (/),
(/), ,
Samos Cyzicus (/).
(), ().
: ,
; Samos
; ,
,
105
. , , 128, 129.
106
. , . , , 100 102.
107
. . , , 213, 214; : . , , 103 107.
108
( ) ,
- : B. Fath, B. Glunz-Hsken,
Textilien, 269.
195
1.
. ,
( Delos), ,
. , (
).
(, , , ).
.

. , ,
5. . ..,
, , (
).109

(), ,
( ,
).
(Xandika),
(Xandicos), ,
( ) - .110
,

.111 ,
, ,
.
2.
:
; ;
glans penis.
a)
, Ku i Zi,
(2: 1; 5: 1; 27: 1). ,

,
.
(. 208).
b)

(12: 1, 2; 20: 4).

,
.
109
. , .
110
. , , 22; P. Kamburovski, Grob, 16 18; . , , 165, 166.
. (, )
(
. ).
111
(Schol. In Apollon. 1. 917), : R. Gicheva-Meimari, Psychoactive; (Pausania 9.25.5), : . ,
; . , , 136, 137.
196
()
20
197
2.
, .
( )
.112
, ,
.
,
.

(22: 11).
,
(20: 8 ).

(20: 5), , .. (20: 6, 9),
,
. (20: 7,
) (20: 11), Knidos, (20:
10).
(25: 7). 3. . ..,
( )
,
(20: 1).
( . )
.113
,
, ..
,
, , ..
.
,
Philia (), . -
(20: 2, 3).114
: ( )
; ; glans penis ( 20: 2,
3 4 21: 1 - 4). , ..

, .
Ku i Zi (),
(12: 9, 10). ,
, ,
.115 ,
,
(18: 3 - 5, 19).
c) glans penis
,
glans penis (9: 5 9, 28).
(22: 1 - 3), Ashmolean Museum,
Oxford (22: 4 - 6), Ku i Zi (19: 1), Kozani, (4: 6, 7)
(4: 5). K
112
. , , 20 22, . 4, .I: 4; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 122, Taf. 34: 662.
113
. , .
114
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 76, Taf. 26: 502, 503 ( Fazettierte bommeln).
115
Z. Andrea, Tumat, 175, Tab. VII: v.45: 4; Tab. XV: 5; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 219, Taf. 78: 1390.
198
()
21
199
2.
22
200
()
,
,
(1: 5 9; 9).

, ,
.
, ..
( )
(22: 1 6 54).116
-
, .. :
, ;
, ..
, .

(Shiva Purana) (Linga Purana),
. ,
.
.
, .
,
.
( 23: 4, 5, 7).117
,
(lingam) (24:
4 - 7).118
,
, ,
. , ..
.119

.
, :
- (standards) ,
(9 7. . ..)
(23: 1 3; 57: 1, 6, 9).120
- (6 7. ..) ,
, -
- - (54: 3, 4; 55: 2, 6).121
- (10. ..)

(21: 8, 9; 46: 4).122
-
(23: 6, 8; 24: 4 - 7).123
116
. , , 55, 61 65, 374, 374, 380 382.
117
V. Ions, Indijska, 41; . , , 312 313.
118
: 2011.
119
. . , , F77A; . , , 12; : . ,
, 61, 64, 65, 374 383; . , .
120
. , , 62 63.
121
. , , 381 383; . , .
122
. . , . . , 245 250; . , , 474; . , , 56, 57.
123
Kanamara 2013.
201
2.
23
202
()
24
203
2.
,
,
.
,
. glans penis
,
(25: 2).124
, (26: 1).125 ,
.
(Pella, ) , (
), (25: 5, 6). ,
, , , (25: 3).126
, ,
( , )
.

( ) . , (
), , .

czyca, (21: 10) (21: 6; 22: 8).127
. (
) (), (25: 7),
(, ) (26: 3).128
, ,
(21: 5).
(21: 6, 9),
.
glans penis.129

. - 14.
. (35: 6, 7) ,
, (25: 4).

. , (25: 9)
(= ) ,
, (45: 7). ,
()
(25: 8). ,

(25:
10).130

, , .
() (22: 1 - 6).
124
. , , 345 T.LXXXII: 4, 347.
125
. , . , 355 . 46, 356, T.IV: 9.
126
: A. Fowler, S. Blazevska, Description, 21 MN18.4.3;
: J. Marcade, Eros, 114, 115.
127
. , , 345 T.LXXXII, 346 353; . . , . . , 36, 39 41; . . ,
, 371, 372, : 368
380.
128
: C. Moser, Naked.
129
: . , ; N. ausidis, Poganska, 446 T.V:1, 2, 448; : . , ,
459 471.
130
. , . , , 111 113, 122, 123; . , , 90 .
204
()
25
205
2.
26
206
()
, ,
(, , .. ).

, ,

. , , .. ,
,
(, )
( . 258, 264 268).

, .131

( ) ,
(26: 5).132
(phallophoriai), .133

(
26: 4, 5 23: 6, 8). , , ..
, .. .134

, , ..
( ,
22: 1 6 14).
.

,
.
, ()
,
: ; ;
.
, ,
(10: 7; 11 7 - 9).135
,
, :
, , .
,
.
(21: 2 4; 4: 5).
glans penis,
.
,
.
131
132
W. Burkert, Greek, 104, 105, 151, 244, 257, 259, 165, 290, 292, 298; R. P. Najt, Seksualni.
133
(Herodotus 2.48 49); K. Kernyi, Dionysos, 72, 73, 259 261.
134
(Clemens Alexandrinus, Protrepticus. 2.19.4, Schol. Ad. Loc), : . , , 189, 190; K.
Kernyi, Dionysos, 72, 73, 259 261.
135
Z. Andrea, Tumat, 172, 189, Fig. 4; Tab. III: V14 6, 8.
207
3.
3.
,
,
(27; 28). ,
.
a)
-
,
,
: , , .
,

. .
( . 172).
-
, Ku i Zi,
(27: 1; 2: 1; 5: 1) ( . 173).
,
.
.136
-
,
. ,
. ,
(27: 5, 12 5; 6).137
.. ,
.
(56: 3, 5, 6). ,

( . 498)
,
. V , ,
Wrzburg,
(28: 7 9 10).138
(8: 14).
Amphipolis ()
(6: 1).
(6: 3) (
. 64, 451, 455, 531, 693).
,
(6: 9), , .
(27: 2).139

(5; 6; 28: 5 9; 29: 3, 8).
136
. , , 79.
137
M. Vickers, Some Early, 19, 21; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 206.
138
: M. Gimbutas, The Language, 14 Fig. 22.
139
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 205, 206; . , , 33.
208
()
27
209
3.
28
210
()
29
211
3.
.

.

.
Szarvas () (29: 9 3, 8).140 ,
, ( ),
( ) (29: 5, 6).141

.

().
, ,
, (29: 1,
2, 4 3, 8). , ,

( ),
. 6. . ..
, () ,
(
).142

,
, .. .
,
(38: 2, 3). ,
(29: 7). .
(38: 2)
(38: 3) ( . 231).
-

, (27; 28).
(28),
, (27). (27: 2 -
5) , , ,
( 30: 2).
,
, (27: 1, 6 30: 1).
( ) ,
, .. (27: 10, 11; 28).
, , , ,
, , , ,
( 27: 13 30: 3), , , , , ,
(30: 4).

, (33: 8), (33: 9).

(31). ,
(33: 3),
140
: S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil I, 189 Abb. 90; : Teil II, Taf. 421: 3; 422: 1; 425.
141
B. Raunig, Umjetnost, 43, 44, 61 T. X: 1- 3.
142
The Petasos 2013.
212
()
30
213
3.
, , , ,
( 33: 6 1, 2).
, (
) ,

.
.143

, .144

, ,
, .
,
.

, ,
.
, , , ,
(27 28 30: 5, 8, 9). , ,
. ,
, ,
(30: 6, 7).
, ..
,
. ,
, , , , ..
, .
b)
- -

, ,

. , ,

.
.
(27; 28),
(31)
.
,
(32).145 , . .
, .146
, . ,
.
143

(. , , 152 155, 290 303, 321).
144

(G.
Devereux, Bauba, 133, 134, 149, 150, 157).
145
146
J. Bouzek, Macedonian, 101, 103; . (B. Schwetzer): M. Vickers, Some Early, 22.
214
()
31
215
3.
32
216
()

.147

.
.
, , , ,
,
.
( .. )
, .
,
, , ..
, .. ,
, ..

( , .. , .).

.
- -
, ,
(34: 4 - 7, 9, 10)

, (34: 3).148
( ) ,
, ,
.
(34: 5) , (34: 9, 10).
,

.
.149 .

( / ),
.
. ,
( )
.150

, ,
(34 30: 5 - 9).
Cernavoda (), ,
(34:6; 52: 3).151

( ).
147
. , , 36.
148
, , . (. , , 36).
149
S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil I, 122 126, 178 182, Abb. 85, Teil II, Taf. 104: 16, Taf. 398; S. Marinescu-Blcu, A
propos; : Rare Neolithic 2016; A. Miloevi, Cetinski; M. Gimbutas,
The Gods, 230 234; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 181 183.
atal Hyk, (J. Mellaart, atal Hyk, Fig. 85).
150
M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 230 234; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 181 183; . , , 272, 273.
151
S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil I, 178 182; . , , 272, 273 . 7: 42.
217
3.
33
218
()
34
219
3.
, ( )
.
,
,
.
,
.
, ,
, .
,
(, , ,
32; 33),
( 31)
.152 -

, . ,
,
: , ..
, .
.
(,
, )
, , .
-
( , , , ),
. ,
, ,
, ( )
.
, (32)
(31). ,
, ( , )
, ,
. , , ..
- . ,
, ..
, (,
, ) . ,
, -
.
,
:
, , , ,
? , , , , , ,
, ? , , ,
?
,
,
,
152

1. . .., (.
-, ). ,
(33: 7).
220
()
35
221
3.
. ,
, (32: 1
- 6), (31).
, ,
.
-

.
Rllinge (), 10 11. (35: 4)
,
,
( ).
. Lund ()
, (35: 1, 2) ,
.
14. (= )
(35: 6, 7). ,
Hadda (35: 8),
,
. ,
, , , ,
, .
,
,
,
.
(30: 8, 9),
( 35: 9, 10),
, , , , , . (34: 1 33: 4).

,
.
, Nommo
(Nomoi/Nomoli) , (36: 1).
(36: 2, 6).153 ,
, (, ) (36: 3, 5).
, , , ,
.
-.
(36: 7, 10).
( ,
, ). ,
,
.154 ,
, I-ngang
, (36: 11).
, , ,
153
R. Cavendish, T. O. Ling, Mitologija, 226; . . 2, 226.
154
. . 2, 577.
222
()
36
223
4.
( 36: 4 / 36: 9
36 - 8).
4. : -

, , ,
,
. ,
, ( ) , ,
. ,
,
,
2. 1. 1.
.
-

. , ,
, , , , , . ,
, .

. .
,155 . ,
, , ( 31 37
38: 1, 4 - 8).156 . , ,
, (,
, )
(, ).157
.158

.
a)

( , ),
(27; 28). ,
( 37: 3, 5 - 7, 9 - 11), , (38: 4 - 6, 8).

, , .159 ,

, , ,
. , ,
,
. ,
.
,
155
Kobolde des Dionysus frhe Satyrn (: M. Vickers, Some Early, 22).
156
157
J. Bouzek, Macedonian, 108.
158
. , , 80.
159
(Pausania 23.5); . , , 78; : . , , 45 51;
: . , ;
( ): . , , 48, 49, 51, 70.
224
()
(37: 1, 2; 38; 41). (

, .. -) ( ).
( ), , ,
. ,
.160 ,
.

, ( 37:
1, 2).161 , , ..
(27: 13; 30: 3)
( , ),
.162
,
,
.
: , ,
.163
.
Wondjina , ,
, (55: 4).164

.
b)
,
. ,
-, (38: 3; 39: 9). ,
, . , ,
, ,
(, , ,
).
.
,
( 27 28 37; 38; 39). ,
, , ,
, .
:
, , , ,
.. (30: 8, 9);
(30: 6, 7).
,
,
, .. (
, , ).165
. ,
,
, .. .
160
. , , 274.
161
,
(. , , 264, 271, 272 275; . , ).
162
: . , , 274 276, 311.
163
. . , , 137.
164
J. Campbell, The Way, 140 142.
165
: . , , 45 51; . , , 285. O. M. Frejdenberg, Mit, 175.
225
4.
37
226
()
38
227
4.
, ,
.
, ( .
256).

. ,
, (30: 4;
33: 4) (25: 2).

, (32: 1, 3; 34: 4, 6,
7, 9, 10).
( )
, ,
. , , (. ).
-,
.166

( /).
c) -
(, , , ),
.
: , ,
(38: 1; 39: 9); ;
( , ,
) (39: 8, 9);
(39: 1, 8, 9, 11) (39: 2).
(
)
.167
.
( )
.
,
.
, ,
(39: 2).168 ,
( , )
.
, , ,
.
(39: 1, 2, 8, 9, 11).169

Amphipolis (6: 1).

,
, . ,
, ..
166
. . , . .V, 39, 40 (. 18); . , . , 120, 121).
167
. , . , 101. : M. Kati, Antropomorfna; M. Dgi, A Sicilian.
168
: . , , 226 240.
169
: Marsyas 2012; E. Van Keer, The Myth.
228
()
, , ,
:
- ,
.
- , , ..
(, ).
- , ..
(, , ).
- , .. .
,
, , , .

( ), , ,
, . ,
, ,

.170
, . ,
,
(38: 4 6, 8).
() , (35: 9)
(38: 4).
( 35: 4).
.171

, .. ( )
( . 269). ,
, ..
, ,
.
d)
, .. , ,
,
.
,
, (, ,
). ,
(, , ) , , ,
.

, . ( , ),
, , , , ,
(37: 3, 5, 7, 9).
.
, , ,
.
, ,
, , .
,
170
. , , 71; . , , 79 80; 2012; . , , 68 70,
289.
171
. , , VIII: 106; . , , 201 205.
229
4.
39
230
()
, ,
.
e)

. , , , , ,
(37; 38; 39; 41). (
, ) ,
glans penis ( ,
). ,
(39: 10) glans penis.
( ), ,
.
,

. , .172
Ku i Zi,
(37: 8; 27: 1),
.
-, (32: 2 - 7)
, .
(32: 9,
), ,
, (32: 8).
( 35: 9; 38: 4),
baubon (olisbos)
( bauba).173
(37: 11)
(36: 11).
,
(33: 1, 2 3 6).
,
( Ku i Zi 27: 1; 2: 1). ,

glans penis (4: 5 - 7; 9: 5 9, 28; 21: 1 - 4).
f)

.
. ,
,
(35: 9, 10) (30: 8, 9),
. , , ,
, , , ..
, . ,

, , (
, , .. ).
, , ,
, ,
172
(Sophocles Fr. 173), : . , , 36, 37.
173
G. Devereux, Bauba, 9, 60.
231
4.
40
232
()
41
233
4.
(37: 3, 7). ,
(, ) .

, . ,
,

(41). ,
,
. ( , ,
, , , )
(, ),
(41: 1 - 4).174

(41: 8).
-
, , ,
.
(
8. 7. . .. 39: 4 6; 40: 12).
, ,
. Tragliatella (7. . ..)
, (39: 7).175 -

( 7. . 6. ),
(B40: 11).
/,
( 41: 2, 3, 9). ,
, Coofeneti, (40: 8).176
( - )
(
5. . ..) (40: 4,
5). , ,
-,
.177
,
.
( Lete )
, .. , , .
(40: 6, 7 4, 5).178
, ,
, .
( ),
,
, ( ) (40: 1).179
6. . ..,
. ,
174
. , ; A. Schachter, Evolution, 124, 130, 131; . , , 77, 79.
175
F. W. von Hase, Die goldene, 269, 270, 274, 275; Tragliatella: M. R. Albanesi, Il fregio.
176
. , , 213, 310; . . , , 6 . 2.
177
. . , , 5 7, . 1.
178
: . . , . . , . . , , 21 . 4; . . ,
, 5 7, . 3. ,
. .
179
N. ausidis, The Black Man, 74, 75.
234
()
-
( , .. ) (40: 2, 3).180

, .
, - (
35: 6, 7),
.. (12 14. ).
,
(40: 9).
(, ?)
(40: 10 35: 6, 7).181
***

.

.
(31),
(27; 28) , , , ,
, - , ..
.182
5. ( )
a
,
. , ,
,
. ,
, .

.
a)
,
, (42: 8).
, (, )
, .. , , ,
. , , ..
,
. /
, .. , ,
- (,
). ,
( ), .
( ) ,
, , ,
. ,
180
. , ; . , , 475 477.
181
. -, , 45 53; . , , 277, 278.
182
. (M. Kati, Antropomorfna,
104),
, .
235
5. ( )
42
236
()

( , , , ,
, .. , ). ,
, , , ,
, .183
, ,
, ..
( ).
,
, .. , ..
(, .. ,
, , ). ,
,
, , , ..
(42: 8).184
-
,
( ) (, , ,
),
. ,
, , , ,
, .
,
, ( ), , ,
( ,
). (
), , ,
( . 614).185 ,

(42: 8). ,

. ,
,
: , ..
(, ); (
) (
); .
(42: 2, 6),
(42: 5) (42: 3), ,
( )
(42: 2, 3), , , (42: 5, 6).
, , ,
.
, (
183
: . , , 68 76; . . , ,
428; . . , ; . . , , 34 39; M. Elijade, amanizam, 205 210, 353
358; . . , , 398 406; . , ; . , , 21, 50 53, 61, 70, 71, 292
295, 314, 341, 370 373, 380, 399, 400; . , . , , 120 137; N. ausidis, Myth. of the
Mountain, 272 275; . . , ; A. J. Evans, Mycenaean Tree; : J. Chevalier, A.
Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 365 369; . . , , 71 90; V. J. Prop, Historijski, 324 326.
184
. , , 68 76; . . , , 428; . , , 23, 102, 108, 324,
6: 1; . , . . I; . , . . II.
185
(Maximus Tyrius 2.8).
237
5. ( )
43
238
()
)
(42: 4).186
19. 20. ,

(42: 9, 10). (
)
(42: 7).187 , -
, ,
20. . ,

( ).188
-

. , (,
, , ) ,
,
. ,
( , , )
. , ,
( ,
, .).

(
43: 1).
(, , ) (
, ) (55: 6).
, ,
.189 , ..
. ( )
(),
, , , (45: 6).190

(43:
3; 51: 5; : 22: 10; 44: 4).191

. ,
, -
(= ). ,
-. ,
, (68: 4).192 - ,
, , ,
(= ).
, , ,
. ,
186
: . , , 311, 312, 367, 368; . , ; (
. 237, 239, 617, 638, 645).
187
. . , , 24, : 236 .2: 3.
188
. . , . . , , 534, 535; . . , . . , , 219 221,
240, 254; . . , , 284, 294 296, 302, 317.
189
M. Elijade, amanizam, 112, 113, 207 210; V. J. Prop, Historijski, 324, 325; . , , 194, 195.
190
. , .
191
: . , .
192
. . , , 44, 45; V. J. Prop, Historijski, 324, 325.
239
5. ( )
44
240
()
(= ). , - ,
- .
, ,
. ,
- ( -) (
55: 5 44: 5 ).193
: , , (22: 10 19:
5).
,

( ),
, ,
(54 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8).
, ,
( , , , ,
, , .). ,
, (, .. ),
( ,
) , ,
.194 , , ,
.

.195

.
196 ( ), , ,
.

.
( )
(43: 2; 47: 2).
()
, , .
, , 6-7 ,
( ) (
; 2; 3). ,
. , .. ,
, ,
.197
,
- ( 42: 8),
, ,
, .198 (Beauce,
193
. , , 52, 334, 363, 364.
194
V. Mati, Psihoanaliza, 22; . , . , , 120 137.
195
(Polyaenus 7.22); . , , 117; . . , , 73 81;
: J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 365 369.
196
( 28.10 19); J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 366 368.
197
. . , , 107 113, 195; . . , . . , , 534, 535; . .
, . . , , 219 221, 240, 254; . . , , 283 285, 294 296, 302,
317; 2013.
198
: . , , 321, 322, 330, 371, 412 414; ( .
600).
241
5. ( )
45
242
()
Orlanais). 24-25 , grand mondart

. .
, ,
( ).199
, (
) .200

. ,
20. ,
( ). ,
, (= )
(45: 7). , , ,
, , (= ).
. ,
( )
( ), ,
. ,
, ,
- .201

, .
, ,

( ) (45: 2 -
5).202 , ,
, , ,
.203 ,

.204
, Oldenburg ( 45: 5)
, .205

. (thymateria) (candelabra),
, ,
(46: 1, 2, 8 - 10; 50: 7).
( ),
.
(= ),

( 46: 1, 2 8, 6, 7). ,
,
(46: 10 )
(= 46: 1)
,
199
. , , 215.
200
. . , . . , , 237 240.
201
: . , . , , 111 117, 122 126; . , O ; . ,
.
202
: . , . , , 127 129.
203
(, ). : .
, , 313 316, 399, 400; . . , , 398 406.
204
. . , , 57, 58.
205
Conrad Bothe, Cronecken der Sassen ( 1495 .), 1123.
243
5. ( )
46
244
()
(46: 9, 10).206
( = ),
(46: 7
9, 10). , ,
, .
,
,
.
( 46: 3, 4, 8), (
) ( . 264).

( Villanova),
, , , ,
(46: 5), (55: 2).207
,
,
.
, ,
,
- (47: 1).208 ,
(, )
(50: 8, 9).209
b)

. ( )
. ,
, , ,
, (, ),
( . 183, 258, 260, 438).

. ,
. . ,
. ,
(- ).
, .
( . 256, 264, 269).210
-
, .. ,
, .. , ,
, .. - , , .. .

( ) ,
.

.
206
: O. J. Brendel, Etruscan, 90, 91, 216, 217 219, 298 300, 332 334; E.
Saglio, Candelabrum, 872 875.
207
M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 499 Abb. 8, 9.
208
. . , .
209
2013, 622 321.6.
210
(Havamal 138 / /; ); . , , 49.
245
5. ( )
47
246
()
,
, .
:211
- .
-
.
- ,
.
- , , (44: 2, 3).
- (, ),
.
- , ,
.212

:
(42: 1; 43: 5).213
. , ,
,
( . 619).214
-

. (
. 241), , .. -
( )
,
(44: 6; 48: 1).215
: (
) ,
.
, .. .
,
(
). , ,
- ,
. , (
)
, ,
.

(48: 2, 3, 5).
,

( ), , ,
211
, : Medieval Torture 2012.
212
: . , . , , 123, 136, 137; : .
, , 49, 50; N. ausidis, The Axis.
213
Breaking wheel 2012.
214
(Pindarus, Pythia 2.20).
215
. . , ; A. . Gavrilovi, Holy Stylites; . . , , 62.
247
5. ( )
48
248
()
.216

(55: 1).

.

...

, .217 -
, -
. . : () ,
, , ,
, ,
.218
c)
,
,
.
,
, ,
. ,
, ,
, .

,
- ,
,
. (,
)
.219
,
, - ,

.

, , (, )
. ,
,
, , ,
, , ,
.
216
. , . , , 136, 137; : G. Samuelsson, Crucifixion; Crucifixion 2012; .
. Vladimirescu, The Crucifixion; : . , . ,
; , : .
. , , 205, 237 276, 331, 390; J. L. Henderson, Drevni, 108, 109; K. G. Jung, Pristup, 80, 81; . ,
, 97, 103,
217
O. Begbeder, Simbolika, 48; : . . , , 124
32.
218
. , , 585, 586; O. Begbeder, Simbolika, 48, 49.
219

. : . , ; : N. Chausidis, Juggling;
: . , ; : N. ausidis, The Black Man;
: . , a.
249
5. ( )
49
250
()

(. perche, . pole, . , ).
, ,
. 2 10 ,
,
. ,
, ,
,
.
, ( )
, (
, , , .).
, , , .220
,
,
.
-
949 .,
,
, , 24
(). , ,
. ,
( ).221
(14. ).
, .
, 4 .
, () ,
.222
. , 11. ,
(, , ) .
( ?)
(49: 4).223
Jszberny (), ,
,
(50: 2, 3).224
(, ),
. ( )
( , , .. ), (49: 3, 5, 6, 8, 11;
49: 8 46: 6).225 ,
, (49: 7, 9).226

, .
, ,

220
. . , . . , , 234, 235 ().
221
(Liutprandus Cremon. Episc., Antapodosis 6.9); . . , , 150, 151.
222
( , ) : . . , , 152, 153.
223
. . , , 153; . . , , 207; : 2012.
224
. . , . . , , 218, 219 . 8: 3.
225
. . , , 23 25, : 23 . 4, .3: 1, 5; .4: 1, 2.
226
J. Baltruaitis, Fantastini, 104 Sl. 81; . , . , , 129, 159 T.X: 1 4, 6.
251
5. ( )
50
252
()
. , ,
( 46: 8),
(46: 1, 2, 10) (46: 8, 9),
(46: 9; 50: 7).227

(618 907 .). , 3
, ,
, . ,
.228
,
(3. . .. 3. ..),
17. . ,
(49: 10; 51: 1, 2).229

Mallakhamb/Mallastambha,
.
(, , , , )
2 . 12.
, -. , 19.
, -
(51: 3).230
,
. , ,
(51: 4).231
16.
, ().
, ,
. ,
, .

.232
-
,
.
Danza de los Voladores 30
( , ), 4 . ,
5 ,
(49: 1).233
227
O. J. Brendel ,
(O. J. Brendel, Etruscan, 218 18).
228
( . /X XIII ./), : . . , ,
153.
229
. . , , 25, 26, . 6; Han 2012.
230
(Someshwar Chalukya, Manas-olhas; Manusmruti) Mallakhamb 2012; Mallakhamb, Wikipedia 2012.
231
Sedaka Sutta 2012; : 2012; Acrobats 2012.
232
. . , , 92, 93.
233
: Danza 2012; . , ;
(K. Kristiansen, T. B.
Larsson, The Rise, 230 Fig. 106).
253
5. ( )
51
254
()
-
18. ,
, (48: 4; 50:
4). ,
, , (50: 6), , ,
(, , , .)
, ( , 17. :
49: 2).234 ,
Hashigo-nori Dezome-shiki
(50: 5), (50:1) (45: 1).235
-
(. pole dance),
80- 20. (
- ), ,
(44: 7).
. ,
, , Mallakhamb
, 19. 20. .
(, -)
.236
- ,

.
,

. , (
),
. (
), . ,
, ,
, .. , .
(44: 7).
(
) ,
( ).
-, -
(= ) .
-
, 19.
(43:
4). , ,
.
, .
.237
234
. . , . . , , 49, 50 (, . balance = );
: . . , , 22 . 5.
235
Dezome-shiki 17. (Dezomeshiki 2012);
( Linquan, Anhui): National Post 2012; Pole-Climbing 2013.
236
2010; Pole dance 2012.
237
: The Rise 2012.
255
6. ..
, , ,
,
.
, ,
( . 225).
(),
,
, , .. .
- ,
/ . ,
, ,
, .238
6.
..
,
,
, .. ,
. ,
:
-
;
- ;
- .
,
,
.
a)
-
, ,
( , .. ) .
,
. , ()
, .
,
: , .239
, ,
,
. ,
,
.
(-, ), ,
, . , , , ..
,
,
(30).
238
: . . , ; . . , , 86 89; V. J. Prop, Historijski, 325
326.
239
(Elder Edda, Hvaml 137 144). : Odin 2012; . , ; M. Elijade, Istorija,
Tom II, 131, 132; . , . , 142 177; . . , ; :
J. Kozk, inn.
256
()
, (37; 38; 39; 40; 41).

, ,
, ,
.

( 27: 2 - 5)
(39), :
, ,
. , ,
, , , , ,
, .. (, , ), .
, ..
, (14; 15; 16).
, ,
, .
,
(, , , ).
,
. , ,
, . ,

( , .. ), , ..
.
. , ,
, .
,
. ,
.
.
, ,
, .. .
.
,
( , )
(27; 28; 30: 1 37: 3, 5, 7, 9).240
( )
(Rllinge, 35:
4, 1, 2 3, 5). ,241
, ..
.
()
( )
. ( )
.242
- :
240

.
()
(. , . , 114).
241
R. Cavendish, T. O. Ling, Mitologija, 184; L. P. Supecki, Mitologia, 159 Ryc. 18, 354.
242
2013, ( , ).
257
6. ..
; ( ?); ;
( ).243
-
, .. . ,
5. . .. ,
3. . .. .244 ,

( ).
, .
, , , ,
, ,
. (
, ) . ,
, , ,
, .
,
, - .
,
,
. , ,
.
, ,
. ,
.245
, ,
.246 , ,
, ,
.
( ), ,
. , ()
, .247
,
, .
, ,
. ,
, .248
, .249
, ,
(Calaus), .
, (), ,
, .250
,
. 22 ,
,
243
. , , 85, 96, 100.
244
: Agdistis 2012; Attis 2012; . , . , , 4, 5, 64;
W. Burkert, Structure, 99 111.
245
: Agdistis 2012; Attis 2012.
246
(Ovidius, Fasti 4.221).
247
(Arnobius, Adversus Gent v. 4) : Attis 2012.
248
(Galloi, Galli, Serv. ad Aen. ix. 116; comp. Lobeck, ad Phrynich. p. 273) : Attis 2012.
249
(Diodorus Siculus 3.58 ).
250
(Hesychius Alexandinus /s.v. Atts/; Pausania 7.17.5; 1.4.5; 7.20.2), : Attis 2012.
258
()
52
259
6. ..
. (
), ,
(

15; 16; 19: 5).
, , ,
, ,
. ,
.
.
.
.
,
. ,
.251
(52: 1, 2) (52: 6)
-, , , (52:
1, 2, 4 - 6). ,
( 52: 5 37: 3, 5, 7, 9).
-
,
.
: ;
(Silvanus); (, , , ).
/ , .. :
(= ), , (=
).
(= , ) (= , ). , ..

.
(1 ), (
) ,
.
, .
-.252
-
,
.
().
. .
,
(
). /
. , ,
(, , ).253
251
J. Frazer, The Golden, 34 36. : J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik,
58, 59.
252
. . , , 30 35.
253
. . , , 35 40. ,
/ (. , , 30).
260
()
-

.
, ,
( ) (53: 1 37). ,
.
. ,
( , ).
, , ,
(53: 3, 6). ,
, ,

.254
.
(.. )
,
, .
, .. (Pinus pinea), , ,

( ).

.
.

: ; ,
.255 ,
.
(= ) (= )
.
-
, ,
, , (53: 2 33: 8).
, , , .
.

.
:
, ( ) . ,
.256
,
( , .. ),

(53:2). , ,
254
: Marsyas 2012; . , . , , 246, 247.
255
. . , , 40 44.
256
. , . , , 310 - 312; . , ; . , , 303 346; .
, ; . , , 164. ,
(. . , , 300 - 302).
, ..
. ,
(. , , 311)
(. , ). , , (Pentheus 2016).
261
6. ..
53
262
()
,
.

( 27; 28 30: 4),
.
,
(8: 1 - 7; 18).
(
) .

( ), ( ) ( /).
, ,
Hebrus () ,
, (
) (25: 10). ,
, ,

.257 (
),
.

(=
) .
.258
: bedu,
.259

(6: 1).
-

, .. .

,
,
.
, , ,
.
( , , .).
b)
,
,

.
257
. 204, 283; : . ,
, 228, 230.
258
. , , 231; : A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 204
2.
259
(Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromateis 5.8.46 47); : . , ,
146, 161.
263
6. ..

( ) ( ) ,
(
). , , ,
, .. ,
, ..
( 54).260

.
-
,
, , .. (
52: 4).
, , , .. .

(27: 13 28 30:
3), (= ?)
. (, , , , , ,
) ,
,
(27; 28 30: 6, 7).
, ,
, (37; 38; 39).
, -
. ,
, --

.
/ ,
.261
,
( ), , ..
(22: 1 - 6).
- /
,
( , , ).
( , )
(
). (, )
(, ). , ,
, , .
,
.262
.
( ) ,
260
: J. Frazer, The Golden; . , , 110 114; J. Janiijevi, U znaku;
. ,
(. , , 113 116).
261
. . , , 390, 391.
262
J. Frazer, The Golden, 38.
264
()
,
.263 ,
, .. .
(, 52: 6),

.264
(54).

, ,
, ,
.

.
, . ,

( )
,
( ).
,
, .. .
, , ,
.
,
.265
.
( )
.
,
,
. (
) (19:
5)
.
, ,

.266
,

. Dyalos (dryalus, )
() ,
/Kilkis ( ) ( Dyalis).267
j ( ),
,
.268 , (
), ,
. ,
263
264
C. Picard, Attis.
265
. , , 96.
266
2013.
267
(Hesychius Alexandrinus, Lexicon); . , . -, , 94, 95; . ,
, 171, 172, 176 178; . , , 106 119; . , Thraco-Peonica, 78; . ,
, 134, 135.
268
: . . , , 44; E. Van Keer, The Myth.
265
6. ..
54
266
()
(Baccho Edono) (Bacchi sithoniae).269

(sauadai,
saudoi) , .270
, (
)
. (
)
. ,
, ,
.271
( )

. (
53: 2) .272
-

( ) .
,
( ),
(, .. ) , .

,
.273
,
,274
.
( ),
.
, .. ,
.275
, ,
(). , ()
( , .. ), ,
, .
, ..
.
/
, (),
.276
(-)
, , , ,
269
(Ovidius, Amoris 1.593; Ovidius, Metamorphoses 6.587); . , , 113, 114.
270
(Hesychius Alexandrinus, Lexicon /sauadai, Amerias/); . , ,
121.
271
. , , 225.
272
. , , 141, 184.
273
A. Porteous, The Lore, 156.
(. , , 42, 75).
274
: J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 58, 59.
275
: J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 30, 31;
(. , , 126).
276
(Diodorus Siculus 3.58); . , , 115, 116, 174; . , , 7; . -,
II, 42.
267
6. ..
. , (Phyllis), ,
,
. , , .277
,
.
(27: 1)
glans penis (9: 5 9, 28; 21: 1 - 4). ,

,
(22: 1 - 6). ,

()
.
, ,
.
, ,
, (10: 7; 11: 7 9, .
167, 188, 207).
.
( = , = ),
, -
( ) ( ).
,

- , (
), (, ..
).

, , ,

( 54).278

( 54). Museo
Lateranense :
, ,
.
, ,
.
.

. ,
, ( ) (38: 5).

,
( ), ja
( ).
, ,
,
, ,
277
(Ovidius, Heroides 2; Servius, Commentarius in Vergilii Eclogas 5.10); . , . , , 111,
112.
278
. . , , 133 ( ).
268
()
( ) .279

,
.
-

,
.
,
(52: 5). (53: 1),
,
(37: 3, 5, 7, 9) .
, .280 ,
.
, , .
, , ,
, (
),
.281

,
(30: 1,
2).
, , ,
. 282
/
/, sman ihamai.283

.

Paiawon.284 ,
o ( e )
.285
, ,

(, , ),
, .286
, ,
-
. , ,
(= ),
279
. , , VIII.
280
: . , , 77 (Vergilius, Eclogae 6.13 28).
281
. , . , 166 173.
282
: M. Elijade, amanizam; : J. Campbell, The Way;
: W. Burkert, ; : . , ; : C. Morris, A. Peatfield,
Experiencing; : M. Milievi Brada,
Of deer; : . , , 303 333; : . . -, . . ,
, 83 113, 131 146.
283
. . , , 619.
284
. , , 20, 112, 117, 131; . . , , 56, 58, 101, 143.
285
(Homeri Ilias 5.395 402; Homeri Odyssea 4. 219 232). . . , , 101, 143.
286
. . , , 58, 146, 147; . , , 20.
269
6. ..
55
270
C.
-j, ,
.
. (
/), ,
,
,
( . 859).

, .
(
), .
-
,
.287

.288
. *peti, *pojo,
*pojo, . *pojiti
, , , ( )
, ( ),
.289
Dyalos,
. , H. Krahe
dej berausche (, ) dwals
tricht, nrrisch (, , ),
.290
.
***

,
,
.
,
, ,
.

.
287
(. . , ,
170 173, 320); : . , , 86 88.
288
. . , , 150; ( ) (Pausania 5.1): .
, , 34, 67, 104.
289
. . , .
290
H. Krahe, Die Sprache, 82, 83; A. Stipevi, Iliri, 70.
271
I.
C.

(56)
,
,
(57) ( . 15). ,
,
(56 2 3; 27; 28).
(8: 1
- 7).
I.
: Hag. Anargiroi, Leukothea, /Kozani,
(56: 1, 4); (Muse du Rodin) (56: 2);
Agrilia/Smolia, Trikala, , (56: 3); (Eric de Colb),
(56: 5); (Metropolitan Museum of Art), (56: 6, 7).291
, ,
.
(56: 3). ,
.
,
.
, .
, (56: 1, 4).
.
(56: 6, 7),
(56: 2).292 ,
(56: 3, 5, 6), (56: 3),
(56: 5, 6).
, .
(man-on-cage), , ..

. (group P)
, 6. . ..,
.
(56: 6, 7) 7. 6.
( 31). (56: 1, 4)
(a gesture of greeting or prayer).293 . -
, , ,
(31),
,
, .
(60: 2, 7, 12 8, 9 27;
28), , , ,
.294
291
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 62, 67 (Fig. 20: 9), 70 (Fig. 21: 1), 74, Pl. VII: 23, 24; Pl. VIII: 25, 26; J. Bouzek,
Addenda, 46, 48, 49; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 90 93, Taf. 28: 543 546.
292
(I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 91 . 542).
293
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 62, 74, 75.
294
272
C.
56
273
II.
II.

,
. ,

,
(56 57: 10; 8; A9; 10) ( . 17).

,

, ,
.. .

,

( 56 29: 1, 6, 7).295
,

, , .

.

(56),
, ,
(56: 1, 4).
, .
(56: 6, 7)
(56: 2),
. ,
, , .

: ;
( );

.
1. ( )
/Kozani (56: 1, 4),
. ( )
. . . . ,
,
,
.296 ,
,

(58; 59).
, .. ,
, ..
. ,
295
P. G. Kritikos, S. P. Papadaki, The History I, . 27.
296
P. G. Kritikos, S. P. Papadaki, The History I, . 27.
274
C.
57
275
II.
, a
. ,
, ,
(58: 2 - 4, 6 8, 10).
(
, ), , ,
, . ,
, .
,
,
(58: 6, 7). ,

: (58: 2, 6, 7); (58: 8, 10);
( : 58: 8, 10).
(, , ) .
, ,
, (58: 2, 6, 7).
, .
,
(56: 2),
( Ku i Zi, 60: 8
7) (37;
38; 39).
(59: 11 58: 4),
(/) (?)
( ?). ,
Iraklion () 1300 1200 . . ..,
( ) ( )
(58: 9 ).297
.
(
58: 1 9).
Kourion () 1300 . . ..
(61: 4).

(, , ) , ..
, .
, ,
( 58 59: 12, 13), ,
o , ( )
( / ).
,
. ,
, ,
.298
,

. ,
( . 859). ,
,
297
Clay rhyton 2015.
298
C. Morris, The Language, 247 249; B. Rimell, The Minoan, (16 Knossos seal impression m1 5); A. Evans, The
Palace, Vol. III, 449 459 Pl. XXXIX.
276
C.
58
277
II.
(
) .
Larissa
() ( ),
,
, (58: 5 1 61: 4).299
.

( ), .
(58: 2, 6, 7),
,
(60: 7)
( Ku i Zi 60: 8).

,
.300
,
, ,
(34: 9, 10).
(, , )
,
(59: 8 10).301 ( , )
,
(59: 6, 7).302
,
.
. ,
, ,
. , :
( 59: 5);303
( 600 .) ,
( 59: 4 54: 7, 11);304 (
) () ,
(59: 2, 3);305 ,
, (59: 1).306
, ,
, .

(59: 12, 13).307
299
: S. Hansen, Bilder. I, 123, 125 Abb. 48; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 181 Fig. 281; M. Gimbutas,
The Gods, 220 223.
300

: 58: 5 25: 1 (. . , , 138, 137 . 58: , ).
301
1982, T.LVI; T.LXI; T.LXXIV; . ii. I/1, 48, 49; . , , 120, 119
T.XX: 9 12; : . . , . . , 187 189,
206; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 242.
302
M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 499; S. Kuko, Japodi, 168, 175, 176, 183. Sl. 226; . , , 120, 119
T.XX: 5, 6.
303
M. Tarradell, E. Sanmart, L'tat, Pl. 5.
304
. 107, 112, 278, 496, 807; . , , 356 362.
305
. , , 72 77; . , , 114 120.
306
. , , 310 312.
307
Salute 2013.
278
C.
59
279
II.
,
,
,
(59: 1, 2, 8) (59: 3, 4).
(
)
( ),
(, ) (59: 1).
( )
, ,
(59: 1 - 5).308
( ) ,
.309

, ,
,
(60: 7, 8).
, ( , .
) 3. 1. . ..,
, (58:
11).310 ,
(58:11
4, 8 59: 11). . -,
( )
3. . .. .311
aposkopein,312
. , ..

. ,
( )

.
2.
,

,
.
- ,
.

: (, , ,
...)
.
308
. , , 72 77; . , , 114 120.
309
. . , . , 62.
310
. , , 130, 131; . , , 42 44.
311
(Plinius, Naturalis Historia 35.138); . , , 130.
.
312
. , , 190, 191.
280
C.
a)
, , (13 ),
, .. () ,
.313
( ).
.314

,
, .. (60: 2, 7, 12 1, 6, 11).
b)
,
. , ,
, ,
.315
, ,
.316 , ,
, , ( ) (61: 3).

.
(13).

.
-, .

( ), (
) (33; . 24, 67, 69).

Samos ()
(62: 7).317 . Men and birds
on wheel nave ( )
(
). ,
, , . ,

.
. ( )
(62: 8 28).318
c)
,
,
Praeneste (), 4. 3. . .. ( 61: 8).
,
(Iuno Lucina), ,
313
(Homeri Ilias 5.385 391; Schol. Apollodori 1.7.4).
314
Ares 2013; . . , , 35 40; . , . , , 49; . , .
, 31 47; . , . , 7 31 ( ), 69 87 ( ).
315
(Mim nerm. Fr. 10 I 12), : Helios 2013; . , . , , 456, 457.
316
(Apollodori, Bibliotheca 2. 5.10); . , . , , 464.
317
J. Bouzek, Greece, Pl. 25: 2.
318
. , , 140, 148 . 6: 3.
281
2.
60
282
C.
.. .319
(, ,
). ,320
, ,
(
) (
).321
d)

(60: 10, 13)
.322
(60: 8, 9 10, 13)
.

( )
(30).
, .. .
,
(60: 7)
( )
( - 25: 10) ( . 204,
263).

Kozani/ (58: 1).

( ),
, ,

.323 (58: 2 4, 6
8, 10; 59: 11),
( )
.
( ) ,
( ),
( ).324

,
.
anthropodaimon,
, (?), ,
j .325
( ) .326
319
. . , , 31, 32.
320
. Dimezil, Drevna, 512, : 513.
321
: . , . .
322
. , . , , 310 312; . , .
323
(Kern. Fr. 113), : . , , 228; . , , 329.
324
(Pausania 9.30); . , , 228, : 232, -
: 235, 236; . , , 339.
325
(Euripides, Rhesus 963 973); N. Theodossiev, The Dead. II, 175; . , , 68, 69.
326
(Macrobius 1.22. 2 5); . , , 129.
283
2.
61
284
C.
e)

, (62: 3 - 5).
(480 . . ..)
(Musei Vaticani) . , , ,
(62: 4),
. ,
(, )

, .. .
, .. ,
, ,
. , ,
( 42: 8).327

, ,
. ,
.
, ..
, , . .

, . ,
, .. ,
, , , (62: 6) . ,
, (, )
.328
f)

. ,
-. , , ,
/ (
).329 ( )
,
, .. ,
.
(),
, .. .330
3.

, .. .
, ..
( ,
).331
327
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 193 206, Fig. 144.
328
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 193 231.
329
. , , 101 105; . , , 104, 105; . , , 224, 225.
330
. , , 91 95; . , , 37.
331
, . .
(. , , 105).
: . , , 85 99.
285
2.
62
286
C.
,
, . .
(

) - .332
, .. .333

, ,
(, ).

.
(
) (, , )
, .. (, ).
( )
(58) (60: 7).

. ,

( ) ,
, ,
. , ,

.334

, .. , ..
(, ) ,
. ,
, ..
.
, ,
.
, ..
(
, , ,
).335

, ,
.. , , ,
.
, , (
), ( ) (
). , ,
332
: . , , 84, . 15; . ,
, 39 . 49, 40; . , , 72, 73.
.
(=
) (= ) (. .
, , 108). ,
, , .
333
. , , 13, . 2 ( ).
334
, .. : . , , 215, 216; . , , 190.
335
. , , 261 313; . 74.
287
3.
63
288
C.
64
289
3.
, .
(61: 5), , ,
( 61: 2).
, , , ..
.336 ,
(62: 6) , ..

(61: 8).

, ..
, , (56).
, .
,
( )
, .. .
,
.

,
(56; Samos 62: 7).
,

. ,
,
(61: 3).
.
,
. ,
, ..
, .
, (57: 12, 13;
60: 14),
.
, ,
. (
)
(, ) ,
(60: 7) (58).337
, ,
: , , , , , , , ..
. (
) ,

(57). , ,
, , .
336
: . , , 81, 82. . , , 201, 233, 234 236, 357; . ,
. , 12, 13, 184, 185; M. Elijade, Istroija T.I, 312 314; M. Elijade, amanizam, 56, 57, 346; V. J. Prop,
Historijski, 205, 514 516; E. Neumann, The Great Mother, 187 189, Pl. 138, Pl. 139; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 210 231.
337

, : . . , , 370 378.
290
C.
4.

(8; 9; 10,
. 15).
(63 57: 10).
( )
, (64: 1 6).
, :
, , ,
(57: 4, 8);338 ,
(65: 6 - 8). ,
.
Philia (64: 3), (64: 5),
(63: 8), , ,
(57: 3, 8; 64: 1, 6; 65: 6, 7). ,
,
(63: 2 4, 7; 64: 4).339 ,
, , ..
(63: 2, 6 8; 64: 1, 2, 4, 6), ,
(63: 7).
,
, .
, .
Asproula Kastoria/ (
) .340
(64: 1 - 6)

.

,
,
:
. 1 (65: 1):
- ()
- ()

:
( = )
, / (60: 2, 7, 12 1, 6, 11).
2 (65: 2):
- ()
- ()
, (60: 8, 9;
2; 3; 4), , (60: 5)
338
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 67 Fig. 20, 74; J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 317 Fig. 17: 2, 3; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier,
Anhanger, Taf. 61: 1156.
339
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 74 (Group P: Dogs on cages); J. Bouzek, Addenda, 48, 49.
340
S. A. Paspalas, A Macedonian, 527.
291
4.
65
292
C.
(Ku i Zi, 60: 3).341

,
( = ) (60: 10, 13). ,
, ..
( =
).
. 3 (65: 3; 60: 8, 9 2, 7, 12)
- ()
- () 342
. 4 (65: 4; 60: 1, 6, 11 3, 5)
- ()
- ()
, ..
, .
. 5 (65: 5)
-
- ()
- ()
,
,
(= 60: 10, 13; 8: 1 - 7).

,
(
= ; = ).
5.

, (66: 1).343

(66: 8),
, .344

, , ,
. ,
.
.
.345
ashvattha
( = , = ).346

.
341
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 28: 539; P. Lera, Gjurm, 178 Fig.1. .
,
, .
342
. (M. Vickers, Some Early, 22).
343
P. Lera, Gjurm, 178 - Fig. 1.
344
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 28: 539.
345
. , , 215, 216; . 260, 302.
346
. , , , 57; : Ashvattha 2015.
293
5.

( )
(66: 9).347
20. , ,
, ,
.348
. ,
, Nesactium (, )
,
(66: 3).349 1
3. .., .
, , ,
(47: 1; 66: 2).350 Vetulonia,
,
(66: 4 60: 8, 10).351
, ,
(66: 6, 7),352 ( 66: 8
11). (8. . ..)
,
(66: 10).353
a)
=
,
(60: 8, 9 3, 5),
, ,
.
, ,
.
, .. , ,
.
( )
.354

( . 256).
+ ,

(60: 10, 13).
+ () +
() ,
, - , ..
() , .. (65: 4).
,

.
,
347
J. Campbell, The Way, 175 Fig. 304.
348
. , , 88, 89.
349
S. Kuko, Japodi, 192, 195 Sl. 288: 2.
350
. . , .
351
A. Naso, Antichi, 22 ( 11).
352
T. Kemenczei, Zur Frage, 172 Abb. 2; 173 Abb. 3.
353
. . , . . 51.
354
. , , 88; . , . .
294
C.
66
295
5.
.
(Candaon) .
,
daos ,
.355
, .
,
()
.
, , .
,

: ,
, ,
(= ) ( . 128).
,
. (amta),
().
,
, (). ,
, , ,
.356 ,
, .357
()
, .. -
, , ,
. (66: 1). ,
, ( . 302, 260).
,
, .
(, , )
,
.
, (
).
, *lik
. , :
, , .. ;
, ; ,
,
(= ) (66: 5).358
, , (
),359 .360

.
, .
355
. , , 102; . , . , 24; . , . ; ("kindle" or
"kill" and "blaze") : Candaon 2015.
356
. , , 135, 136; . , , 78, 79, 86; : J. Chevalier, A.
Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 227; V. Mati, Zaboravljena, 71, 72.
357
(Diodorus Siculus 3.65.5); : G. Samuelsson, Crucifixion, 82, 83; . , , 110.
358
: . , , 131, 132; . , , 19.
359
(Diodorus Siculus 1.18); . , , 63, 64.
360
(Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 3.96).
296
C.
, saka haumavahrka
, :
.361
, ..
Gundestrup (),
(55: 3).
. (= )
(, )
.362

(65: 1; 60: 1, 6, 11 2, 7, 12)

( ,
).
(
), ( )
, .. ( )
(65: 5).
,
.363
( , , .),

, .. . , ,

.
, ..
(63: 2 4,
7; 64: 4).
-
(, , , )
. ,
, ..
.
(63: 10; 64: 1, 6; 65: 6, 7).
, ..
, .. , .. .
(64: 3, 2)
( = , = , = , = ),
( ) .364
,

. ,
.
, :
- .
. , ,
.
361
, : . , , 69 122; . , . .
362
. , , 17 19; . , . , 28, 31.
363
: P. Kmeov, Postavenie; B. Raunig, Umjetnost, 96 99; A.
Stipevi, Kultni, 65, 66.
364
. , . . 905 - 910.
297
5.
- .
,
glans penis, (22: 1
- 6).365
- .
.
, .
,
.
.
/Kastoria
(63: 8).
(, ) , ,
, .

.
, .. (63: 2, 6 8; 64: 1, 2, 4, 6)
(63: 7).
,
,
.
,

(17: 1, 2)
(15 23).
Amphipolis
, (65: 6, 7).
Gorny & Mosch,

(63: 7). ,
(, , )
, .. (= )
(= ) (= ).
- ,
( )
(64: 7 - 9).366 ,
,
. ,

, .
,
-
(. 401, 411, 419).
-
,
, (67: 1). ,
. ,
,
365
, : . .
, , 370 378.
366
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 188 192, Taf. 60: 1144, 1145, 1149, 1152; Taf. 61: 1154.
298
C.
67
299
5.
67
(60: 14; 57: 12, 13).

.367
, , ,

(67: 2 1; 67: 13 16).
.

(67: 8 - 10).368

(67: 3, 4, 6), ,
(67: 5, 7).369
(18: 3 5, 19).
,

, .
,
,
, , (67:
11, 12).
367
: G. Kossack, Studien, Taf. 6.
368
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, (Vgel auf profilierter Rhre) 158, 159, Taf. 51: 938 940.
369
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 164 167 (Taf. 53: 980 982); : 178 (Taf. 57: 1070), 182
(Taf. 1103).
300
C.
68
301
5.

.

(Lascaux, ) (68: 5).
( )
( , ) (45: 6).
, .. (68: 4).370
(68: 3), .371

.372
-
(68: 6 - 11).

.
( ) .
,
( )
. ,
, ( )
.373 . ,
, .
, , .

.374
,
, , .
, ,
, , .. ,
, .. .
, , .. , , ,
.375 ,
.
:

(60: 5).
,
, .

(68: 2).
,
(60: 10, 13; 8: 1 - 7; 18).
,
, -,
,
(7: 5, 7, 8, 11).
370
. . , , 399; . . , . . , , 281; U. Holmberg, Der Baum,
24 (Abb. 8); 161, 162 (Abb. 79).
371
. . , , . 25, . 165.
372
. . , , ; . . , .
373
. , , 49, 50, 210, 314 316, 27: 4; 4: 1, 7 : 27: 8, 9.
374
G. F. Abbot, Macedonian, 18; .
(. , , 53, 54); :
. . , . . , , 243, 244, 281 283.
375
. . , ; . , , 73, 173.
302
C.
, ,

(60: 10, 13 65: 9 11 12).
303

Chapter 3
CONE-SHAPED OBJECTS
WITH A PAIR OF ELONGATED
SEGMENTS ON TOP
()

()

.
1.
, ,
(1: 1 -
8; 2: 1 - 5, 8). , :
(1: 4, 5), (1: 1, 2: 2: 8), (1: 6 - 8) (2: 1,
4, 5), . ,
, 0,5 cm.
4,4 12,7 cm. 15
. : (1: 1 - 5);1
(1: 6 - 8);2 , (2: 2, 3, 8);3
(2: 5);4
, .5 : a
(Chauchitsa, Kilkis) (2: 1);6 (Vergina, Veria) (2: 4).7
. . (
Pherai, Philia, ), , .. ,
, (
67: 7).8
1
. , , 94, 95, . 67; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 98, 48 Fig. 14: 13; K. Kilian,
Trachtzubehr, 93, 94, Taf. 49: 10 12.
2
K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 95, Taf. 57: 14; . , , 60 62; . , , 41 . 159.
3
. , , 237, 238, 250 . 21; D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 572 Fig. 12, 573, 574; . ,
. , , 49 . . 53.
4
. , , 245 . 88 (
).
(. , ).
5
. , ( ).
6
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 48 Fig. 14: 11.
7
Aigai 2015.
8
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 98; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 94.
307
.
308
()

, .
. ( 99).
, 4,4 8,4 cm 1,7
2,8 cm. (
2: 1, 4, 5),
( 2: 2, 3)
.9
2.
. (horns) (bird-
protomae on a tree),10 .
(Doppelprotomen-Aufztze, Tllenaufstze).11 . , .
(duguljasti tuljci) .12 .
-, .
.13
3. ,

, , Vergina . .
,
8. 7. ..14
( 15 , 13 16),
,
(2: 8), ,
2. . .., (2: 2,
3).17
99 , . ,
.
, 15 ,
Vergina (52: 1, 2, 5).18
,
. ,

( , ). (
), .
( ) .19
9
. ,
2012 .
10
11
K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 94, Taf. 89: 4.
12
. , , 94; A. Stipevi, Kultni, 32.
13
D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 573, 574; . , , 41 . 159.
14
15
. , , 90 95.
16
17
. , , 237, 238; D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 573 574.
18
. , .
19
D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 573 574.
309
.
310
()
4.
.
( ),
.
, , , :
Pherai Philia (), ;
Pherai, ; Philia (1: 9).
, ,
- .20

, .
Brodski Varo, Slavonski Brod ()
( ) (2: 6).
: ; ( )
; .21
Eeri/ () (2: 7).22
, ,
. , ,
.
(Majkop culture) .
(1: 10; 4: 15).
, 12 cm , ,
.
, , .. .
e ,
.
,
, ,
.23
-

,
3.000 , (3: 1, 4,
5; 4: 2 4; 5: 2 6 1; 2). ,
,
: ;
,
.
,
, , 200 . 4
: AI (, .. /); AII
(); AIII (); AIV (). AI
:24
20
21
K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, 95 ( ), Tab.
56: 46 ( 56).
22
J. Bouzek, Greece,190, 191, Fig. 220: 5; J. Bouzek, The Belozerka, 250 Fig. 4: 5.
23
JI. C. , . ; . . , , 207 (. 55), 208.
24
() ;
: . , , 14, 15, 19, 20, 29, 82 85, 94; : .
, . , . , .
311
.
312
()
- .
, ,
.
,
(21: 2, 3).
.
- . 2,5 10 cm,
, 4,5 6,5 cm.
.
- . ,

. , ..
.

(3: 1, 4, 5; 5: 2 - 4, 6), (5: 5), , ,
(4: 2 - 4).
( 1; 2: 1, 4, 5).
- . ,
( 3: 2).
( 0,5 cm) ,
.
- .
(, 3: 1, 4, 5),
, (2: 2, 3)
.

.
(
)
: (24; 25;
26); (27); (28); (29) ( . 916).
5.
.
(pole tops),
( 21: 2 - 4).25
. ,
(Tllenaufstze mit Doppelprotomen-ende; Doppelprotomen-Aufztze),
Spindelknauf ( .
).26 , ,

( ,
). , (. Spinnrocken, . distaff)

(22: 1, 2 ).27
. . . ,
(8; 9; 10; 63), distaff-shaped pendant
( )
.28
25
26
K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 93, 94, Taf. 89: 4; R. Vasi, Srednja, 694.
27
. , , 86, 87.
28
N. G. L. Hammond, A History, 343, 345, 346.
313
.
314
()
. ,
, , ,
.29

(3: 2),
, .. ( )
,
(5: 2, 3, 6). , ,
, , .. , .. ,
(
3: 2, 3).30 ,

. , ,
, , ,

(20: 2, 3) ( . 356).
I.

. , ,
.
, , ,
, .. .
,

.31
.
, (2: 1
2: 4, 5). , (1)
, , ..
.32
.
. ,
. ( ),
. ,
,
.33
.
, .
,
/,
.
29
D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 573 574.
30
. , , 29.
31
32
K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 94.
33
A. Stipevi, Kultni, 32, T. XVI: 1 4.
315
I.
, keratophoroi ( )
-.34
. -
, , ..
- ( ).35
. .
,
.36

( 7: 1).
-
,
.
( )
,
, ,
.
, , ,
,
( ) -. ,
, ,
.
-
, , .. .

( )
: (1: 4, 5); , ..
(1: 1, 2, 6 - 8); (2: 1).

( ) .
, . , , ..
.
()
.
(=) (11: 1 - 14) ,
, - (13: 6).

.

, (.. )
,
.37
34
. , , 112, 113, 119, 120.
: Polyaenus 4.1; Plutarchus, Alexander 2; Sch., Lyk. 1237; Sch., Pers. 1.99.
35
D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 573. ,
- (. , , 85, 86).
36
, (Maximus Tyrius 2.8): . , . ,
, 45; R. Vasi, Srednja, 697.
37
. , , 85, 86.
316
()
II.

1. ()
, ..
( ) ,

,
.38 ,
, , ,
.

, (),
.
:
- . , ..
.
- .
(1; 2 3: 11).
(1: 1, 2, 6 - 8) (2: 1, 4, 5),
( 6: 9 10).
- , .. .
, ,
.

.
(1: 9 3: 11).

, , .
,
, (1;
2). , ,
, ,
.
, , ..

,
,
.
,
, ( ),
,
,
.
38
A. Stipevi, Kultni, 32; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 98; R. Vasi, Srednja, 697; . , , 60; .
, , 41 . 159; . , , 94; D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 573 574; . ,
, 113.
317
II.
318
()
.
, ,
.
.
atal Hyk ()

, (5: 10 - 12; 6: 11).

( 1; 2). ,
(3: 1 - 5;
5: 2 - 6), . ()
Zorlenu Mare ()
(3: 6, 7).
() (5: 7) ,
, (1: 10; 4: 15).

, ,
, (3: 10).
,
, ,
( 3: 8 9, 12).

, .. ,
(6: 6, 8).

, .. ( 5: 9).
,
. , Rivna
() (?)
, , (5: 8).39

,
? (7).
( ) (6: 4, 7; 36;
37), (6: 3), (6: 2), ( 6: 10),
-
, (6: 5).40 ,
(7: 3) ,
(1; 8; 10; 17; 18).

(7: 1), , , (7: 4 - 6)
( . 332, 339, 341, 347).

,
39
: M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 7 30; M. Milievi Brada, The transfer, 187 194; M.
Gimbutas, The Gods, 91, 93; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 265 275; atal Hyk: K. C. Twiss, N. Russell, Taking;
: JI. C. , . ; . . , , 207 (. 55), 208;
( ): . , , 43; . , .
, . , , 131 148; . , ; : R. Washbourne, Out of the mouths,
196 203; : G. Naumov, Together, 166, 184 Fig. 5; : A. J. Evans,
Mycenaean Tree; . . , , 244, 246, 247, 249, 251, 255.
40
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, Sl. 1.28 ( ), 1.29 (), 1.34, 1.41, 1.42 (), 1.39 (), 1.67, 1.74
( ); M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 169 173; M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 78, 85 Fig. 35, 184,
187, 188; A. Evans, The Palace, Vol. II II, 527 539. + / . 479
( ), + . 730).
319
1. ()
320
()

, ,
. ,
, , .
,
( atal
Hyk 5: 10 - 12) (5: 9),
(5: 2 - 7). (,
)
, (
) (6).41

. . 10 cm,

, , - (8: 6, 7, 8). .

. ,

.42

,
. , Patso
Vrokastro (8: 1, 2),
( Heraklion Knosos 8: 4, 5).43 Pina
()
(8: 3).44
, ..
,
.
,
,
.
(?) , .. -
.
-
(
) ,

, .. (6; 8 16; 17).
,
, ..
. ( ,
41
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski; M. Hoti, Novi; M. Milievi Brada, The transfer; .
( - ) (.
, -).
42
. , . , 381 . 56; T. XXVI: 13.
.
(, )
(. , . , 369, T.XI: 12).
43
: A. J. Evans, Mycenaean Tree, 136, 137; M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 167;
. . , , 250 . 57; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, Sl. I,30, Sl. I,36; : J. A.
MacGillivray, The Minoan, 124 Fig. 7; A. Evans, The Palace, Vol. II II, 622 Fig. 390.
44
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, Sl. I.47.
321
1. ()
322
()
, ),
( = ) ()
( . 481, 485, 492).45
, ,
,
(), .. .
, ,
atal
Hyk. atal Hyk (5: 10 - 12),
(6: 11)
(
-) .
atal Hyk ,
-.

(, )
.
,
,
.46 , , ,
, , :
( . . )
, .. ; ( ., .,
., . )
.
,
, .47
, ,
,
( = ). atal Hyk
,
,
.
,
, ,
, , ,
.48
, ,
dhew, ,
(8:
10; 37: 6).49 ,

.50 ( dhew =
) ,
45
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 7, 11, 34, M. Milievi Brada, The transfer, 190, 193; M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 91, 93; .
, , 278 285; : M. Gimbutas, The Language, 265 275.
46
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 9, 16, 17, 37 39; M. Milievi Brada, The transfer, 188 190; M. Gimbutas, The Gods,
176; . . , , 244, 249 251, 255; . , -.
47
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 15, 16, 33 36; M. Milievi Brada, The transfer; . , . , 29 34.
48
N. ausidis, The River, 276, 277; . , .
49
: M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 187 189. J. A. MacGillivray, 123 126; N. Marinatos,
Minoan Kingship, 103 113; C. Anghelina, On the Date, 7, 8; : . .
, .
50
N. Marinatos, Minoan Kingship, 116 120; -: A. Evans, The
Palace, Vol. II II, 527 539.
323
1. ()
324
()
,
. ,
, .. (8: 9)
(12: 7).
,
,
, (,
, , ) -. ,
,
(, , ), ,
() (8: 9; 6: 5)
( . 485, 492, 730).

/, (, ,
keratophoroi) (, ) (25; 26)
( . 315 316, 368, 372).51 , ,

.52
. , ,

.
.

(13: 18, 19).53
- -
, ,
(
) ,
.
:
- ,
, . ().54
- ( 3: 11) ,
12 ,
.55
- ()
( )
,56 (9: 5 - 7)
( 9: 8, 9).57
51
. , , 119, 120.
52
(Euripides, Bacchae 300 310, 920 930, 1010 1020); . , , 112, 113.
53
. , , 320 326; . . , , 670 674.
54
(Aristoteles, Historia inimallium 630.A19 630, B18); . . , , 24, 59.
: . , , 292, 293.

Mesapos ( : .
, , 66, 67).
55
(Pseudo-aristoteles, De mirabilibus auscultationibus 129; Theophrastus Fr. 40), : . . , , 59,
60; . , , 396, 397.
56
(Pausania 10.13.1); . , , 132; N. ausidis, The River, 276, 277.
57
, : . , , 14 18, 94, 97.
325
1. ()
326
()
- (Adaios Makedon, 4. . ..)

,
Doberos.
,
,
(. ).58
-
, .59
- .. ,
(9: 2, 4) (9: 3)
.60
- - ( , )
, , .

, .. (Tauros, ): Taauriana (
); Tauresium/ ( ).
Dionysos Tauros,
(9: 1).

( ).61
- *bo-

( . 676, 766, 859).62
2.

,
, . , , ..
( )
.63

, ,
(3: 6 7). , -
, ,
.64
( 3: 6, 7 12 8
).
,

(3: 1, 4 24 28).65
, Patso
(8: 1)
58
. , , 173. : . , , 20 23, 333 335; .
, , 28 33.
59
(Atheneus Grammaticus 3.91, XI, p. 476 d), : . , , 194.
60
Lj. Popovi, Katalog; B. D. Filov, Die archaische; . , .
61
N. ausidis, The River; . , ; . , ; . , ;
. , .
62
. , , 162; . , , 26.
63
: M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 186, 187, 193. M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 25; M. Milievi
Brada, The transfer, 193.
64
: M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 92.
65
( ): . , , 8, 159 . . 218.
( . 498).
327
2.
,
, .. .66
djew,
Dendera (8: 9). ,
,
. ,
, (= ),
(= ).67

.68

. .
)
-

, ..
.
, ,
( 1; 2; 7: 1).
,
, ,
.
.
. , ,
( )
(
= / ).
, ,
, .

(37; 38; 39; 40; 44; 45; 46; 47; . 74).
Karphi (, )
(13: 14).

, ..
.69
( )
, , (10 : 8, 9
41: 1 - 3).

: = ;
= ; = (10: 1, 2, 4).
, .. (
) .
,
66
. . , , 249, 250.
.
67
J. A. MacGillivray, The Minoan, 123 Fig. 6; M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 186, 187.
68
. , , 85, 86.
69
H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. IV, Taf. 220: 7.
328
()
10
329
2.
.70
, ,
- .
, ,
(, . 10: 10)
(), (10: 6).71
(-)
.72

,
= ; = /; = (10: 5).
.73
, (
) ,
: , ,
( ).
, ,
, , .. .74 ,
( ),
( . 440, 441).

Alpago (, 7. - 6. . ..)
(10: 7).
( ),
,
( . 440).
-
( )
. ,
:
(1: 4, 5); (1: 6 8); (1: 1
3; 2: 8); (, ...)
(2: 1, 4, 5).
(4: 6 8 1, 9)
(4: 5, 10 14; 51 - 57) ( . 100).
,
, ad hoc ,
..
.75
(4: 2 - 4).
,
70
. . , , I, 1, 137 140.
71
: . , , 222 242; . , , 12, 64, 65; : .
, , 19 21.
72
. , , 19 21.
73
, (. . , , 213 65);
: . . , , 188 192.
74
. , , 119 121; 2015.
75
. , ,
, (K. Kilian,
Trachtzubehr, 94).
330
()

( 5: 5 38: 7, 8).76
-

.

,
( ) ,
, (, , , .). ,
, ,
, (7).
. ,
, ( )
.

(= )
. , , .. ,
,
.
(7: 3).
( 34; 35; 36; 37),
.

( . 715).
/ (7: 1).
.
,
, ..
,
(51; 52; 53).
.
(
)
. ,
, ( )
, . , (
) . . ,
.77
(7: 2).
, .. (
)
. ,
.

( 5: 8).78 - (, ,
) ( = /),
djew , ..
( = ) (9: 1).
76
. , , : . . 252 ;
: . . 109, 115, 118, 125, 170, 209, 213; . , . , . , , 131 148.
77
. , . , , 45.
78
. , , 280 285, 33: 1 5; 34.
331
2.
(7: 4 - 6).

,
(, , , , ).

(7: 4 14;
15). ,
(7: 5, 6).
,
.
,
(11: 1 - 14; 13: 6).
, , ,
.
)
-

(, ) (11).
, ,
, , .
3. 2. , . , , 11. 7.
. . ,
. 8. 7. .

(Lengyel-Tisza, , , ),
(12: 1, 9, 10).79
(, , ,
)
, . ,
.
(11: 1 - 14, 24 26 15 - 17).
- . ,
: (11: 3 5 15);
(11: 2, 6, 9 16): (11: 11
17); (11: 8 - 14).
- . :
( ?) (11: 1 - 7);
(11: 8 - 14); (11: 6).

(11: 6 15 - 17).
- . ,
, : ; ; ;
; , (,
, ?). (11: 5, 7, 14).
,
, .. ,
,
.
79
: . Anati, Magourata; B. Hnsel, Hhlen; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 241, 242.
332
()
11
333
2.
, ..
.
,
.
, ,
( . The Lady of the Cave).
, ( ),
( 11: 24 - 26),
. (11: 18 23).
,
, .. .
, .. , , ,
.80
, . . ,
( )
/
.81
-
(, , , )

,
Naqada. (12: 1; 20: 4, 13)
(12: 7, 9, 10).
,
. ,
5. 4. . . ..82
,
(= ) , .. ( 1; 2: 8).
, ,

, ,
, (13; 13: 12, 13;
3: 9). (
) .
,
, , ,
. , .. ,
(13: 1, 5 ).
(13: 4, 10).

, .
. , ,
: , ; (13:
2, 3, 9 11; 13: 13); (13: 4, 6, 8; 13: 12).

80
. Anati, Magourata; B. Hnsel, Hhlen.
81
. . , , 268, 269.
82
: Y. Garfinkel, Dancing, 233 267.
334
()
12
335
2.
, ( , ..
).83
, ,

.
(3: 9; 13: 10, 11,
13: 13 13: 1, 5). , ,
, , , 7. 6. . ..84

,
. ,
,
: , ..
; , ..
(
).
, Tegea ()
(2: 9):85 ( 8 cm) ,
.. ;
(LH IIIC), ..
;
.

.
, ro
.
Tanagra (13. . ..)
,
, (13: 7).
,
. . .
Tanagra a
(13 11),
- .86

( ) (13: 4).87
,
( . 353).

, 3 ( 20: 13).

- ,
(20: 11).88
83
F. Gaignerot-Driessen, Goddesses; M. Prent, Cretan Sanctuaries, 181 184, 424 441; . . , ,
627 630; V. Karageorghis, Starodavna; : A. Bernard Knapp, Prehistoric, 182
185. : A. Evans, The Palace, Vol. IV I, 28 39.
(: S. Hansen, Bilder T. I: Abb. 157:1,
289:1, 2; S. Hansen, Bilder. T. II, Taf. 198: 9, 266: 4, 267, 325: 4 7, 401: 2, 407).
84
V. Karageorghis, Starodavna; A. Bernard Knapp, Prehistoric, 182 185.
85
Y. Thomassen Flognfeldt, Sanctuaries, 46, 48 Fig. 14A.
86
M. Gimbutas, The Language, 242; B. Hnsel, Hhlen, 117.
87
R. S. Young, Late Geometric, 53 55, Fig. 35: (XI 18); Fig. 36.
88
: E. Neumayer, Lines, 199 Fig. 533.
336
()
13
337
2.
13
338
()
- ()

2. . ..
, (, ,
) .
( 12: 6; 13: 15, 16):
; ;
; .
( 12. . .. 8. 4.
. ..) ,
. , ,
, , ,
.89
, ,
,
( , ).

.90

( ). ,
, (
. 355).
D. M. Calabro
,
. ,
,
, .
( )
. ,
,
.91
- Benvenuti, ( )

, (7. 6. . ..).
Benvenuti , ,

(14: 5 2 4, 6, 7) : ;
, ,
;
,
.
,
.
,
, ,
. ,
. ,
, (
89
D. M. Calabro, Gestures, 111 117.
90
D. M. Calabro, Gestures, 106 111.
91
D. M. Calabro, Gestures, 110, 111, 116 119.
339
2.
14
340
()
)
. Hallstatt () ,
,
( 14: 1, 8 2, 7).92
, ,
(14: 3, 6).

. Alpago
, ..
(10: 7 15).
,
,
. .
,
, ,
.
.

: (
20: 4);
( ,
); ( 4: 1);
( ).
-

, , .

,
. ,
( )
(15: 1, 5).
(16: 9 10).
,
( Hallstatt - 16: 12).

(, ?). ,

(4: 6 - 8). ,
,
(15: 3, 7). ,
, , , , ,
(15: 2, 4).
,
-
.
.
. .
( )
( )
. , ,
, .. ,
92
: P. Turk, Images, 18 Fig. 14.
341
2.
15
342
()
,
. ,
, , axis mundi, ..
. ( )
,
(Potnia Theron).

, .

,
( ) , , , ,
(= , , ).
,
, ,
.
Asvattha , Saules
Koks ( ).93
. ,
, ,
.
- , . ,
, ,
,
(15: 4 - 7).94
- .

(15: 1 - 3),
,
(15: 6; 10: 11).95
( ) .
- ?
, ,
, ..
.
- .
, ,
, ,
(15: 4, 5, 7).
( ,
), (, ) ( ).

,
(= ).
- .
(
. )
( ), (=
93
S. Kuko, Japodi, 201 228; S. Kuko, Grki, 8 22; : S. Kuko. Solarni,
1 18; , : . ,
; : A Jovanovi, Prilog.
94
: . , , 311, 312, 385 387, 402 405, 414 416.
95
(
) : . , , 272, 399, 400.
343
2.
16
344
()
).96
( ,
, ,
),
.97 ()
.98
,
.99
- .
(duhita divah/divjah ) (),
,
dia < *diw-ya ( , .. ).
( ) . ,
, .. , .
(= )
( ), ..
.100
= : = .
(= )
(= , ).
,
, ( ).
,
, , .101
- .
(15: 4 - 7),

.
,
, (17: 4, 6).
- ,
, , ,
.
Tenos (7. . ..),
(/?) ,
(17: 3).102 (
) ,
, -.
,
(17: 5).103
, (
) .104
96
: . , , 130 137.
97
: . , , 536 538; . , , 307
331. ()
, , (S. Kuko, Grki, 15).
98
: . . . , , 54 61.
99
: . , , 295 301.
100
. , , 27, 92, 175 182, 186; . . . , , 53, 54.
101
. . . , , 51 70.
102
( ): S. P. Morris, Daidalos, Fig.
11; . , , 234, 235.
103
: R. Washbourne, Out of the mouths, 57 62.
104
(Hesiodus, Theogonia 886); Metis 2015; M. Elijade, Istorija. Tom I, 239.
345
2.
17
346
()
.

.

.
a ,
,
.105 (
)
( ).
, ,
. (= )
, .. .
, ,
, ,
( ) Adraia/Aithria, Dion
.
adraia / phosphoros ,
. ,
, ,
(24: 10).106
- .

,
.
.
, (2 3. ..).
, ,
,
. (18: 5 9),
,
(18: 7, 8, 9; 16: 4 8 ).107
,
(18: 7, 8). ,
, ,
(18: 9 2).
,
(18: 5; 16: 4).

(= ?) (18: 9).
,
(18: 5, 7; 16: 4, 6 10 7: 5).
,
, (18: 6;
16: 8).
, ,
105
,
, (. . . , , 55, 59 61).
106
. , , 83, 84; . , , 59, 60, 77, 159 161.
107
, : N. Proeva, Les stles, 459 464; . ,
, 211 213.
, .
347
2.
18
348
()
,
(18: 7 9). (18: 6),
(18: 5; 16: 4).
. ,
,

. ,
( ),

. .
. ,
,
. , , ,
.
. ,
,
.
, ,
(18: 5).
(trois gnies funraires)
.
,
.
, ..
, , ,
.
(.. ) , . ,
,
.

, .
, , , ,

. , , ,

.108

. ,
,

( 16: 4 8 ).
,
, , (18: 2
5 - 9),
( ), ,
, ( 18 7: 4 - 6).

Pinaceae.

, .
( , Lilium martagon, Lilium carniolicum), ,
,
108
. , : N. Proeva, Les stles, 464 468.
349
2.
(18: 4 5, 7, 8).
- ,
, .109
(Humulus lupulus 18: 1) , ,
. , , ,
( )
.
(Equisetum arvense) (18: 3 9).

(
)
.

.
( ---)
.
3.
,
,

(1; 2; 16).
,
.110
)
-
,
,
(19).
,
. ,
, .. .111

, . , ,
( 180 ), , ..
:
- = ;
- = ;
- = ;
- ( ) = ( ) .

( ), ..
( 19: 8 - 13).112 , ,

. ,
109
: Lilium 2013; : . , , 102 114; J. Chevalier, A.
Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 369, 370.
110
: D. M. Calabro, Gestures; E. Neumann, The Great Mother,
113 119; . , , 146 151; J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 567, 568, 734.
: . , , 312, 389, 405 407.
111
112
: . , , 3; 4; . , , T. XXX T. XXXII.
350
()
19
351
3.
( )
,
, .. .
Tenos , ,

(17: 3).
,
(6. . ..) ,
(19: 3).
,
, (19: 2).113
(),
, ( )
(19: 7, 13:
17).114 ,
(19: 1).115

( , 8. ..)
,
(19: 4).116
- ..

(11; 12; 13: 4, 6
8 1, 5; 20). ,
. ,
,
,
(/ = , ) .
.
,

(11: 24 - 26). ,
(
11: 18 - 23). ,
(, ,
).117
( )

. ,
(12: 2).
(20:
4 5, 13 12: 1).118
113
, : . , , 244 250.
, ( 37).
114
. , , 149 ( ); . , . , 233, 234; .
, , 418, 419.
115
: . , .
116
. , , 190 198; . , , 52, 53.
117
: . , , 138 144; . , , 8
15.
118
Y. Garfinkel, Dancing, 233 267; . , I, 43 . 12; : E. Neumann, The
Great Mother, 114 116.
352
()
( ,
, 4. . ..) ,
, .
(20: 10, 12).119
-

.
( )
. ,
,
.120

( ) , .. :
, , , , .
,
,
, , . ,
, , ,
.
, , ,
.
,
. ,
, ,
(1: 4, 5).
)

.
(), (
, )
( ) .

. ,
(= )
(= ) (= ) (12: 9), ,
, , (12: 7).
(13: 4):
= ; = , , ;
= , ; = , .. ;
( )
= .
( , ?)
.121 , ,
119
. . , , 340 342 (. 86 . 90).
120
121
( ): R. S. Young, Late
Geometric, 54, : 52 (Fig. 35: XI 18), 54 (Fig. 36).
353
3.
20
354
()

( ) (12: 5).122

( = , : =
) (59: 1, 2). ,
, (,
, , ).123
, ,

(13: 6, 8, 9).
(13: 8,
9), ( = /; =
/).124
)
,

- .
,
( , , .. ).
(
).
4. ..
,

.

.
, ,
.
.
,
. ( )
, ,
.
,
.
,
(19: 5).

, .125
,

, ..
122
. , , 405 407.
123
, . .
( ),
(. . , . . , 511 527);
: . , , 307 316; . , , 536 538.
124
(A. Baring, J.
Cashford, The myth, 123 126; . . , , 39).
125
: . . , . , 60 100, 164 171; . . , , 27,
28 . 2, 99 102. : D. M. Calabro, Gestures; J. Chevalier, A.
Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 734; E. Neumann, The Great Mother, 118, Pl. 29.
355
4.
, .
(. )
,
(19: 6).

, ,
. , ,
( , . ).
,
, ( 19).
4.

,
, ..
, , , ,
(1; 2).126
- , ..

, .. , ,
, .

(21: 2 - 4).
-
,
, ,
.

.

(1; 2).
(13)
(3: 1 8, 12; 4: 2 4; 5: 2 - 6).
-
,
, , , ..
( , ,
.). ,

(3: 2, 3).127

, ,
.
126
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 98; . , , 59, 65.
127
. , , 29.
356
()
( ),
. , ,

(20: 2, 3).
Eeri/ () (2: 7; 20: 6),

.
,
,
(20: 2, 3).128 ,
,
,
(
2: 2 - 5). , ..
( )
( . 143).
)
,
-
.
,
, ,
.129
,
,
.
, ,
,
. o , ,
, .130
(
),
o- .
, (
),
.131 :
, , , ( , ) .

,
.
, III, .

128
,
.
129
K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 93, 94; R. Vasi, Srednja, 694; . , , 85, 86.
130
(Herodotus 5.12.13); : . , , 201; . , , 93, 94.
131
(Callinicus Vita S. Hypatii 97); : . , , 93; . , , 188;
. , , 134.
357
4.
, ,
, .132
,

, ,
. ,

( ?)
.
-
.
-
,
. , , (,
, ), , ..
(
).
, ,
,
.
. , ,
(21: 7).
,
.
, -
( , ). ,
, ..
.

( /) ( /).133

, . ,
,
,
.134
, ..
,
, (
), (
).
, , .
,
( ),
132
(Quintus Curtius Rufus, Historiae Alexandri Magni 5.2).
133
. , . , 48 73; . , ; : .
, , 43 51.
( , .)
,
(. , , 57 64). -
(L. Larson Lovn, Lanam).
134
. , . , 48 73; . , , 189 198; L. Larson Lovn, Lanam; .
, , 64 66, 107. ,
(. , , 58, 59).
358
()
.135

.
. ,
, .
,

, .136
. - , ,

( , )
( , )
(21: 8).
,
( , .. ),
, . , , ,
( = / ; = )
(
, .. ).137
,
.
(=
).138
- (, .. )

, .. .
( )
.

.
, ,
,
, , .139
,
, ,
.
, bend
, (, ,
, ).
: , .. (
); ()
();
135
. , . , 48 73.
(. , , 208, 209; . , , 64,
76).
136
. , , 189 191; . , , 39 41; . . , , . 141.
137
. , , 93 95; . , , 201, 202. ,
, , ,
(. , , 208). : N.
ausidis, The River.
138
: H. Mchal, Nkres, 130; : . , , 97, 106, 107.
139
. , , 93; . , . , 48, 50, 60, 61, 68; P. Janouchov, The Cult.
359
4.
21
360
()
( ) () (,
, , ).140
,
,
, , ,
.
, ,
.141
.
,
( ),
.
:
;
; ( )
(24: 9, 10) ( .
832).142 ,
(/Pireaus)
.143

,
, .. ,
,
e (, , ).144

, ,
, .145
/,
,
( ).146 ,
( )
- -
.147

.

(Artemis Basilea) , ,
( . 896).148

.
140
. , , 92, 93; . , . , 54, 55; P. Janouchov, The Cult.
(. , , 168, 390)
(. , , 166 170).
141
. , . , 54.
142
. , . , 70, 71; . , , 325, 326; . , , 230.
143
(Platon, Republica 327, 328, 354); Bendis 2013; P. Janouchov, The Cult; . , , 58.
144
. , , 179, 180; . , , 49; . , , 150 154; R. Katii, Ancient,
116 120. (Herodotus 5.13).
145
J. Bouzek, Addenda, 45; J. Bouzek, Macedonian, 108. : .
, , 100, 141, 149, 150 154, 180, 213.
146
. , , 179, 180; . , . , 48; : . , ,
180.
147
(Strabo, Geographia 10.3.18); Bendis 2013.
148
(Herodotus 4.33.34); : . , . , 68; P. Janouchov, The Cult, 98 100, 102, 103.
361
4.
,

.
-

, .. ,

, .
( ),
, .
(11: 24 - 26)
(12: 1; 20: 4),
.

,
( 21: 2 - 4):
- = / ;
- = ;
- = ;
- , .. = ,
(, );
- = /.149

, (
) .150
19. 20 , (22: 12, 13).

, (= )
(= ), (=
).
(= , .. )
( = ; =
; = ).151

( 22: 1, 2 ):152
= = ;
= = ;
=
= .
-

,

( . 15, 272). . . .
149
: E. Suhr, The Spinning Aphrodite, New York, 1968/1969 (: . , ,
93).
150
. . , , 76.
151
. . , . . , 239 249; . , , 82 86.
152
: . , ; . . , .
362
()
22
363
4.
(distaff-shaped pendants) (8; 9; 10; 63).153

19. 20. ,
,
.
,
(, ) (23: 1, 6, 7, 14 - 16).
,
.
(23: 1),
,
(bird-cage pendants), . .154

e (23: 9, 12
6, 7).
( 24: 13),
(21: 4, 7). ,
(21: 8; 23: 6).

. , , ,
(21: 5, 6).155
Gvle (), ,
( ) (23: 11).
(distaff-shaped pendant)
. . . ,
, ,
,
, .. . ,
(23)
, : , ,
?

4 10 cm, , ,
,
. ,
( )
.
?
- ,
, .. .
, ,
( 23:
5 7). , ,
(11: 1 3, 7, 9)
(11: 5, 6; 63: 1).

.
- ,
( ; ,
).
- , , ,
( ).
153
N. G. L. Hammond, A History, 343, 345, 346.
154
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 60 75; J. Bouzek, Greece, 183 185.
155
: E. Howard, Ancient Spinning; L. Larsson Lovn, Textile.
364
()
23
365
4.
24
366
()
- (
).
- , , ..
, , , ,
.
,
(23: 2, 4, 5,
8, 10, 13, 17, - 3).
(. finger distaff; . Fingerkunkel)

( ). ( 20 30 cm),
(24: 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16), (24: 17), (24: 7, 15),
.
,
,
(24: 6, 13).
( 50 cm) , ..
(24: 17) (, ).156

(5. 7. ) (24: 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16
2 - 4, 10 - 12). ,

( 24: 9), (
). ,
(24: 7, 15)

.
( , ,
)
, ( 24: 15 2; 4).157

, .. ( 21: 4).
( ,
) ( . 696).158 , ,
,
,
.
( ),

.

(, , ) (23: 2,
4, 5, 10). ,
,
156
V. Lrnt, A Bone Distaff; A. R. Facsdy, Glass Distaff; Distaff Aphrodite 2015;
(. .
, . . , , 175).
157
: A. R. Facsdy, Glass Distaff; Distaff bird
2015, QNL-4002.
158
() ( , ): . , , 82; .
, , 51, 52.
367
4.
.159
, ,
.
,
, ,
,
. , ,
, ,
( ),
, .. .
.
, ,
,
, .
,
(35: 8; 36; . 534).
)
. ,
, , .. . ,
,
(bakhai) ,
(). ,
, -, keratophoroi ( )
. ,
, .160
,
:
; ,
; ,
.

.
-
( ) , .. ,
( , )
(25). ,
(26). ( ) ,
5.
. (
) ,
. ,
, ,
(agathyrsoi ).161
.
159
,
, .
160
(Strabo x. p. 468; Plutarcus Alexander 2; Lycophron 1464); . (
): . , , 112, 113, 119, 120.
161
/
/ (Tyrsenoi, Tyrrhenoi) , , e
( . 901).
368
()
25
369
4.

407 ,
. , ,
.162

(25: 1, 3, 9; 26: 2, 4),
, .. , .

, ..
, (, , , , ,
) (25; 26).
, ,
: (. Ferula); ;
(
).
, (25: 10, 11, 18; 26: 3), , ,
(25: 5, 8, 13; 26: 1, 7).
, , ,
, (25: 3, 8, 10,
13, 18). , ,
(25: 3, 8). (
).
.163
-
(26: 2, 4)
( , , 25: 9; 26: 1),
, .
, ,
. ,
: ,
, (26: 7 ).

(26: 3). , ,
( ).
, , ..
,
(26: 3).164
-

, .

, ,
,
. , ,
(= glans penis) (= ) ,
. ,
162
A. Reinach, Thyrsus, 287.
163
A. Reinach, Thyrsus, 288 293.
164
A. Reinach, Thyrsus, 293 296.
370
()
26
371
4.
,
(26: 1;
26: 7).
-

.
-
.
la quenouille , (Typha latifolia).165
. . *trs-
(. *trst *trstka),166
tuwarsa, .167
- , ,
. ,
, ,
.168
-
(25: 1, 3),
(25: 5, 8; 26: 7).
(21: 7; 25: 2)
(25: 4, 14, 16).
-
.

( ).169

(21: 1), , , (26: 5).

( ) (26: 3 5).
.
, ,
,
.
, ,
. ,
(Kladones), (Mimallones
).170
( ) ,
, .171 ,
( ) ( )
165
Massette 2015.
166
A. Gluhak, Hrvatski, 640, 641 (trska); P. Skok, Etimologijski III, 509 (trs).
167
P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire, 447 (); R. Beekes, Etymological - Vol. I, 566 ().
V. Jagi, K. trekelj G. Meyer, : P. Skok,
Etimologijski. III, 509 (trs).
168
: . , , 119.
169
. , , 198, 199.
170
(Polyaenus 4.1; Schol. ad Pers. Sat. i. 99); A. Reinach, Thyrsus, 295 6;
: . , , 113, 119, 120.
171

(Herdotus 5.18 21); ( = )
M: . , , 120.
372
()
, .172

(26: 5).
* * *

, ,
.
.173

,
, ,
(21: 2 - 4).
(, )
(, , , ) .
(26:
6 7),
(25: 5, 8 6, 7).
( )
,
(25: 10, 11, 18 12, 15, 17).
- =

( ),
, . ,
, , , , ,
( )
.
, ( )
,
.

. : (.
)
(19: 2, 3); ()
, , (19: 7).174

(), -,
,
, ( 19: 7 8 -
13).175
172
: . . , , 230 233; . , ,198, 199.
173
: V. Stare, Kultne.
174
: D. Grudeva, The caryatids; . , . , 232 234; . ,
, 314, 315; . -, .
175
: . , , 161 163, 11:13 15; N. Chausidis, Myth. Representations,
13, Pl. VI: 5 8.
373
4.

- , , ,
, (7: 4 - 6).
, ,
: ;
; .

,
, ,
(46). ,
,
.

, ,
. (15)
, ..

.
, ,

.
(13: 7), (19: 6)

. ,

. ,

.
,
. , , ,
.
,
( ),
.
.
,

a .
,
,
(14: 5, 6, 7).
.176
- =
,
,

.
176
. , , 162. . 91, 424.
374
()
, , , ..
.177
- = /
( );
- .. =
(, , , , );
- , .. = ;
- =
.

, (, ,
) , : , .178

: () ,
; () , ;
(), , ..
.

(18; 16: 4 8 10).
,
.
(
) .179

.180

.
, .181
( , 17)
.182 ,

j , :
()
(15: 4 - 7).

(4) ( . 109, 117, 121).

,
.
, .183
/
177
. , , 106, 196; . , . , , 272, 273; . . , . .
, , 199 203.
: . , ,
199 202, 233; . , , 227.
178
, ,
(. , . , , 272, 273).
179
. . , . . , , 200.
180
. 2, 226.
181
(Orphica Argonautica, Humni 59), . , . , , 272.
182
. . , , 169.
183
: . . , . . , , 200.
375
4.
( ),
.184
,
-
( ),
, .. (
, ).
-

. ( -,
),
, ,
.

.185
, , , ,
, .. .

, ,
.

, ,
, ( , , ...)
.

/Vergina ( ),
. (psihe)
.
(, , , , , )
, (=
) .186 (19: 2,
3), ,
.

(.. ),
(
), . ,
, (12: 3, 4).
,
,
. ka ko
.187
(, )

.188
184
. . , . . , , 181.
185
. , , 32 37.
186
H. Hoffmann, Sotades, 105, 106.
187
J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 237; M. Vii, Egipatska, 9 48; . . . 1, 49, 136, 603; .
, , 406, 3: 14.
188
. . , . , 60 100, 164 171.
376
()
.
, .. ,
(
)
. ,
.
( ) e
.189
* * *

,
, , (
) .
, ( ),
, .. .
: .
, , ,
- , : ,
, , .. , , , .
,
.
.
,

( ) . ,
mater familias
, .. ,
.
, .190
,
, ,
. :
; ;
. ,
,
,
.191 ,
( ), ,
.192 ,

.
, . (18. ) ,
189
: A. Evans, The Ring, 15 17, Fig. 16 18; E. Neumann, The Great Mother, 118, 308, 309 Fig. 65, Pl. 27,
Pl. 28; . . , , . 64; . , , 25; M. Prent, Cretan Sanctuaries, 433 436
( ).
190
A. R. Facsdy, Glass Distaff, 170; L. Larson Lovn, Lanam.
191
. . , -, 167; (.
, , 64).
192
,
: . . , , 115 117.
377
4.
( ).193

, , ,
, , ,
.194
,

, .. , .
193
. . , , 206 212.
194
(Herodotus 4.34 35); . , , 233.
378

Chapter 4
MACEDONIAN BRONZES
AND THE HOLY POTION
()

()

:
- , ,
(1: 6; 8: 1 - 7) ,
(1: 3; 27).
- , ,
, (1: 1, 2; 36).
- ,
(1: 4; 17).
- ,
(1: 9; 1: 1 - 3).
- ,
(1: 5; 8; 9), (1: 8; 10) (1: 10; 56).

,
. ,

,
. ,
,
(, .. ) .
, ,
.
, ,

.
.

, , (,
, -),
.
381
1
382
()

,
. , ,
, .
, , ,
.. ,
.
-
.
,
.
:

; a priori
( ,
- ). ,

.
-
, ,
: ; , , .
, ,
, (6 4. . .) .
,
, ,
, .. .
,
.
.

,

.

.
A.

,
, .
,
,
1:3, .1 , (
)
, .. ,
. , ,
,
, 1:20.2 ,
1
(Aristoteles, De somno 457B.6 10); . -, , 5, 7.
2
(Homeri Odussea 4. 219 232; 9.196 2 11); R. Gicheva-Meimari, Psychoactive; . , , 173, 174.
383
.
(Hedera helix) / (Hyoscyamus niger),

apsintitis , ,
(Artemisia absinthium).3
(kykeon)
(Hordeum) , ,
( , Mentha), . ,
,
. (
) (Claviceps
purpurea) .4

(/ ) . -
( ),
.
medos.5
, , sabaium, ..
sabaia. ( ),
sabaiarius, .6

.
, .
,
.7 , ,
/
(. sour rowanberries, . Sorbus aucuparia; Sorbus torminalis).8
(zelas, zilai, zeila),
(-) ,
.
, / .9

(, , )
.
,
(), (, . )
( .. , Inula).10
,
, , .
( ) ( )

3
(Plutarchus, Quaestiones Convivales 648. F.13 20, 621.E1. 4 622, A; Dioscorides, De materia medica, III, 23; V,
39); . -, , 7; R. Gicheva-Meimari, Psychoactive.
4
P. Webster, D. M. Perrine, C. A. P. Ruck, Mixing; . , , 28; . , , 292 294.
5
(Pseudo-Aristoteles, De mirabilibus auscultationibus 22.832a; Priscus Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum 4.83); A.
Stipevi, Iliri, 70; . , . , 98.
6
(Hieronymus, Comentariorum in Isaiam, VII, 19; Flavii Arriani Alexandri Anabasis, I, 5); : A. Stipevi, Iliri,
70; M. Zaninovi, Iliri, 271; . , , 294.
7
. , , 294; ( ): M. Zaninovi, Iliri.
8
(Vergilius, Georgica 3.379 380); M. Nelson, The Barbarian's, 43, 44, 13.
9
. , ; . , , 75 106.
. , (. . ,
).
10
(Hecateus, FGrH1F 154 in Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 10.447d); : M. Nelson, The Barbarian's, 20, 21
( 25, 26); . . , , . 60 ( 8: Hecateus Fr. 123, Mller, Fr. Hist graec 1.8);
: . , , 294, 295.
384
()
.11
,12
. ,
, ,
(Cannabaceae).13
,
( 3. ..) kamon.14 ,
, (camun),
( ) .15

, , .
(Jonas of Susa, 7. ..) cervisia (
), , .16
,

( , ) -

.17
( ) . ,
, ,
,
.18
,
.

( ) ,
.
.
, ,
, ,
, , ,
.
,
, Pelina,

( ).19
, , ,
- :
- .
11
(Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 10.447.b d); . , , 295.
12
. , , 30.
13
. , , 29, 30; . . -, . . , , 118.
14
(Julius Africanus, Cesti 1.19.17 23); : M. Nelson, The Barbarian's, 74, 75 ( 22).
15
M. Nelson, The Barbarian's, 44, 70, 71, 74, 75, 94.
16
Jonas, Vita Columbni 16 Krusch = 26 (= PL 87.1026B C) = Vit.Columb. abb. disc. eius 1.16 (= MGH-SRM IV, 82.5
8); : M. Nelson, The Barbarian's, 94, 95 ( 39). ,
.
17
( ),
, : . , . , 90 93.
18
(Platon, Republica 2.363d); . , , 11; . -, , 5, 6.
19
. -, , 6, 7; . , , 7 11.
385
.
-
, , .20
- ( )
, , ..
.
B.

,
,
,
. , ,
(
)
.
-
. ,

- ,
. , .
, (8. - 6. . ..),
(15. 11. . ..) (13. 6. . ..).
,
, ..
2. . ..
.21 ,

,
2. 1. . . ..22
1.
(. sma) (. haoma) :
- ;
- , ( *sauma-;
od *su/hu , );
- (, ) ;
- , .. , ,
: , , , / ,
, .

( ), .
.23
20
: S. Kuko, Japodi, 60 94;
: . , , 376 383.
21
J. Kellens, Avesta; 2012; - 2012; 2012; . . , ; . . ,
; . . , Indoarica; . . , , 429 441.
22
(. 867).
23
. . , ; Soma 2012; Haoma 2012; D. Taillieu, M. Boyce, Haoma; P. V. Sharma, Original; .
. -, . . , , 116 119; . . , , 146, 147; . , ,
28 32; . . , . . , . II, 653, 654; D. L. Spess, Soma.
386
()
2.
, ..
. ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
. ,

. ,
(Ephedra) (5: 15), :
(Amanita muscaria), (Cannabaceae), , .. (Hyoscamus),
(Mandragora), (Panax ginseng) .
(Hmulus).
, .

, ,
.
, (= ).
,
.24
,
.
, , , . ,
, , , , -
,
, . ,
, (
, ). (
) .25
.
, , (
) .26
, ..
.
( ) .27
,
. , .
, ,
, , .28
:
: ; > .
: / ; >
.
24
J. E. M. Houben, The Soma-Haoma; D. Taillieu, M. Boyce, Haoma; Soma 2012; . . -, . .
, , 116 119; Soma 2012; . . , , 344, 345, 347; N. C. Shah, Soma; H.
Falk, Soma; . , , 29; . . , . . , . II, 653, 654; Haoma
2012; U. Sderlind, Haoma; . . , , 578.
25
. . , , 330, 332, 326; : Rigveda, VII, 98,1; VIII, 24, 16; IX, 11, 4; IX, 45, 3; IX, 61,
21; IX, 89, 3; X, 94, 3; X, 144, 5; : Yasna, IX, 17, 30 32.
26
(Homeri Ilias 19.25 39).
27
. , , 41; . , . , 97.
28
(Homeri Ilias 14.338 342); Ichor 2013.
387
B.
,
( ) (
), .
(Helichrysum arenarium),
. , .. ,
, , .
. ,
( ), () (immortelle,
).
, ..
, ,
.29 ,
.30
,

, .. (, .. ).

( ).

.
.

, .. () , ..
, .

: (15;
16); (15: 2, 3).
,
.. , , . ,
.
,
, , .
, , ,
/
(5: 14 15).
3.
, .. ,
.. ( 3. 2. 2. .
..). :31
- ( ) ;
- , ,
;
- , ;
- , , , .
(
) (
). 32
29
: . , , 1 14; N. ausidis, Myth. of the Mountain, 267 269;
. , . . I, 89 92.
30
(Homeri Ilias 5.369).
31
. . , , 324, 326, 328, 332, 338, 345; M. Jei, R'gvedski, 147, 148; . . , , 146
148.
388
()

, ..
.
4.
, , .. ,
, , (=
) .
, , , , ,
, , , ,
, ,
. : , ,
, .
, .
.

. .33
C. /

I.

,
. (amta) ,
(*mer = -), (.
: = , = ),
, .. .
() ,
*nek- = , *-tar = .34
( ) ,
, , ( )
.
, a
,
, . , ,
, (
) , , ,
.
.

. ,
, ,
, ( )
32
/ (
, )
( ) (V. I. Sarianidi, Margiana; U. Sderlind, Haoma, 7 9).
33
. . , , 326, 328, 329, 345, 346, 348 350; D. Taillieu, M. Boyce, Haoma; Haoma 2012; Soma
2012; . . -, . . , , 112 116; . . , , 176, 177; . .
, , 114 133.
34
Ambrosia 2013; Soma 2012; . . , , 323.
389
B.
. ,

.
1.
, , ..
( ).
/,
.
.35
, .36

.

. :
(1: 1, 2);
(15: 2; 34; 35);
,
(15; 36).

,
(= )
(= ) (1: 5, 8; 8: 1 4; 12: 4 - 8;
13: 10 - 13). ,
,

, ( 11: 4, 9,
10).

. ,
.
,
,
,
. , ,
, ,
, .. ,
(, ) , ,
.37
9 ,
.38
. ,
,
( )
,
. -
(: 35: 4, 5)

35
. . , , 334; Rigveda, III, 55, 20; . . . , , 156 162.
36
. . . , , 159; J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 242.
37
. . , , 332, 334, 335.
38
U. Sderlind, Haoma, 9, 10.
390
()
. ,
.39

. (
) (41). ,

(10: 6, 11; 15: 2).
,

.
( )
.

. ,

, .
, 2. 1. . ..,
, ( ),
( ).40

,
. ,
,
.
2.

,
. -
,

. , ,
, , , (
). ,
.41
, .. ,
, . ,
, .
, , , ,
:
( );
( , .. );
(
).42
,
.
.
, ,

39
. , , 48, 49; . . . , , 149, 150.
40
. , , 247 249.
41
. . , , 342 348.
42
. , , VIII/111.
391
C. /
. , ..
,
,
.
, ,
, ,
. ,
.
,
, ,
( , ) ( ,
.).
, , ,
(
) -
.
,
( ),
(1: 4; 11: 1, 2),
( ),
(11: 7). (
)
(1: 3, 6; 2: 5, 6; 19: 1, 2, 9
5: 14). ,

, ( )
, .. .
3.
,
,
(
)
(1: 6; 2: 5).

:
- : ;
- :
.
, ..

. ,
(2: 1, 3, 4, 7 - 9). ,
,
(3: 1 4; 4: 1 4).
Providence,
, , , ,

(4: 1). ,
(/ ? 4: 2), (
? 4: 3). ,
( 4: 4), ,
(3: 1).
, ,
392
()
393
C. /
. Benvenuti,
(4: 5), Kuffarno ,
(4: 6).43

, , ,
. ,
, . ,
,
(
camu).44 -
, ,
( trikarduka).45
, ..
.46

. .
() 16. 12. . .. (5: 3).
()
,
( ) ( ).47

(5: 8, 9, 11, 5: 3).48
Nov Koarisk (),
, , (5: 2),
kernos (
. 37, 45, 81, 100).

. Ku i Zi
(), .
,
(5: 1).49 ,
, , ,
. , ,
(5: 10),
(5: 13).50
(1: 9; 5: 6).

,
.51
43

(S. Kuko, Prizori, 10).
44
(Rigveda VIII.2.7 9; VIII.94.5; IX. 96.20); : VII.101. 4; M. Jei, R'gvedski, 149, 154.
( ) (.
, , 257).
45
(Rigveda I.32.3; : VIII.92.21); P. V. Sharma, Original, 116.
46
47
. , . , 93; . , . , 197; . , , 55, 56.
48
M. Guggisberg, Vogelschwrme; :
. -, -.
49
: Z. Andrea, Kultura, Tab. X: V.83: 4; Tab. LII: 1; . 1; :
A. Stipevi, Iliri, 155.
50
: J. Bouzek, Die Anfnge, 118 120.
, 7. 5 . ., Quirinal , Staatliche
Museen (Duenos 2015).
51
. ii 2004. I / . 1, 371, 542; . ii 2004. I / . 2, 118, 132.
394
()
() 7. . ..
, , . .
,
( )
.52
, ..
: , ,
.
, ,
(1: 7)
,
,
. trikarduka,
( )
,
( 18: 1 - 6, 19; . 22, 188).
Benvenuti,
.
, ,
,
(9: 1, 2; 17: 1, 3 5: 14;
14 16). , .. ,
, ,
(2: 2),
(4: 5; 14: 6). , ,
,
(
). :

, , ,
.
1. . ..

, , ,
(5: 8 - 11) (5: 10).
(-)
, .. (
, ).53

.

2. 1. . .. ( . 867).
II.
1.
.
, , ..
, , ,
(...) ,
52
. , , 254 257.
53
M. Guggisberg, Vogelschwrme.
395
C. /
396
()
(...) .54 ,
, .. .
, ,
( , .. ),
.
,
: ( ) (
, ) , , .55
, , ..
. ,
, .. (
). .56

.
, .
:
(,
).57

.
, .
, , , .58
(. 388;
. 416, 632).
(
, )
, (1: 3, 6; 2: 5, 6; 19: 1, 2, 9).
,
, ,
.

, .. :
;59 .60
,
, ,
(1: 3, 6; 54). (
) . ,
, (..
, ), , , .61 ,

(42; 43: 3, 5; 71; 72) ( . 614).
54
. . -, . . , , 122 124; . . , , 333, 338, 346.
55
(Yasht X. 90; XVII.37; Yasna XI.3, 4, 10, 11); . . -, . . , , 122, 123; .
. , , 333, 344, 346; . . , , 114 130. : N.
ausidis, Myth. of the Mountain, 262 269.
56
: Rigveda IX.12. 4; IX.72.7; IX.82.3; IX.86.8; . . -, . . ,
, 124; . . , , 462. : N. ausidis, Myth. of the
Mountain; 272 275; : . . , , 114 136.
57
. . , , 147; . . , ,122; H. Falk, Soma, 89 90.
58
(Euripides, Hippolytus 742) ; Hyades 2013.
59
. . -, . . , , 124.
60
. . , , 122, 123.
61
. . , , 52.
(. . , , 444).
397
C. /
398
()

.
, .. .
,
( ) (2: 1, 3, 4, 7 9
32: 1, 4; 61: 9; 62: 3 - 6).62 Sanzeno,
( , )
(2: 4 5, 6).
(
) Benvenuti,
(2: 2 5: 14).

, ,
( 2:1, 3, 4, 7
9 1: 7 18: 1 6, 19).
,
,
(Aegir), ,
.
. (
)
. murias
muir .63

, ( )
.
Brodski Varo (),
(, ?)
(3: 7).64 Shtoji
(),
(3: 6). , ,
, ,
,
(3: 5; 51: 10 12; 54: 6, 7, 11; . 107, 112, 496).
,
(3: 8).
, , , ,
, , ,
.
, ,
.
( )
( , ),
, , .65
, , ,
, ( ).
62
, (
, ), (. , , 146, 147);
, (, , )
( ) : E. Neumann, The Great Mother, 235, 236; J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik,
291, 292; . , , 70.
63
. , , 70.
64
K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, 90, 91, Tab. 53: 9.
65
. . . , ,156, 157; (Rigveda VI.69.6).
399
C. /
400
()
, ,
(
), .

(, ) , (
, ).

( )
.66
Certosa , ,
(16: 1).

.67
III.
1.
,
.. , ..
( ).
, .
(Shyena)
.
, , ,
.68 (),
, ,
(8: 7). ,
, .
, , ,
.
. (Saena)
.
, .. ( )
(7: 3).69
, , ,
,
, , , , .
,
, , , . ,
, ,
,
.70

66
(Rigveda X.72.2; X.129.4); . . . , , 157 162.
67
. . . , , 158, 159, 161.
68
(Rigveda IV.26.6; IV.27.3); . . , , 324, 333, 340, 342, 344; . . -, . .
, , 122 126.
69
(Yasna X.10 11); . . -, . . , , 124 129; . . , ,
114 146.
70
. . -, . . , , 122; . . , , 114, 120, 122, 123, 126;
: Rigveda IV.27.5.
401
C. /
402
()
, .. (6:1 3). , ,
, ,
. ( ,
) ,
.71
, , .
,
,
.72
(Garuda) (, ),
so geranos ( )
, .. .73 (
)
( K) 19. .

(5: 6, 7 5 4 ).74

(6: 2).
. ,
( ) , ..
.75 (
) ,
, ( = = = )
. a
, ,
.76 ,
, ,
, , , .. .
, ,
.77
.
( )
.
,
(= , , , ..
).
( : . 426). ,
-, .. (),
, .. .
,
, , (= )
(-)
.78
71
. . , , 117; . , , 54.
72
(Homeri Odyssea 12.1.59 65).
73
. . , Indoarica, 175, 208, 209, 239; . , , 37, 38.
74
, , Saena Senmurv, .. Simurg: .
, , 313 316.
75
. . , . . , , 346.
76
. . , . . , , 346.
77
: Ganymedes 2012; : . , . , , 398.
(, )
(6: 4). : . , .
, , 80; . , , 84.
78
V. I. Sarianidi, Margiana.
403
C. /
404
()
405
C. /

.

(6: 5 - 7),
(1: 9 4, 6; 2: 5; 8;
10) ( . 3, 188). (
) , , (2: 6).
(11: 1, 2 7),

.

,
,
, , .
, ,
(, ) , , (7: 1, 4 - 6).
,
, , .
( . 9, 11, 41). (
) ,
.
.
( )
(7: 7, 8),
(7: 3
7, 8; 67: 2; 67: 13 - 16 ).
,

( . 15). , ,
(8: 1 - 4),
:
() / / .79
:
, ;
; ,
.

,
, . Benvenuti,
(9: 1). ,

,
(14: 2 4, 6, 7). , , ,
. .

(9: 1; 17: 1, 2).
, ,

, , / . ,
, .
.
. (
) Gandarewa ,
79
(Rigveda IX.3.1).
406
()
407
C. /
(Gandar, Kandarv).80
,
.81

?82
,

. , ..
,
, ..
.

, (
) (9: 1; 17: 1, 2).
(.. ,
) . ,

, .. .
, (
) (9: 2),
Este (9: 4), (9: 5, 7).83
-
- ,
Gandarewa ().

(. , . . ), (, )
.84
, Benvenuti
,
. (, , )
, (9: 6).85
, ,
(9: 10, 11).86
( ),
( )
(9: 3).
.87
80
A. Panaino, Gandarba; . , .
81
. . , , 440 443; . . . , , 149, 150; M. Jei, R'gvedski, 166; (Rigveda IX.113.3).
, ,
.
82

: . . , , 200, 232 19.
83
,
, : M. Shanks, Art, 213 Fig. 6.
84
. . , , 431 445; . , , 147 150; :
A. Panaino, Gandarba.
85
: J. Doyle, The Hunting;
: . . , , 438, 439.
86
: . , . , 144 148; . , , 173 178; . ,
, 147 150.
87
: . . , ; . , ; . -,
, 108 128.
408
()
( ) ,
, .88
Providence
. ,

(8: 5, 6; 4: 1 - 3).
2.

, .. .
. (camasa)
.89

(havirdhana) .
,
( = ).
(mahavedi) ,
.

( ) .

.90
( )
.

( )
, ,
( ) (10: 4, 5, 7, 8; 13).
,
.

( . 24).

, :

(10: 4, 8 6, 11);

(10: 7 9, 10).

.

. ( . 149)
Krannon , ,
, (, )
. 5. 3. . ..
,
(10: 1 - 3).

88
: . . , , 439.
89
P. V. Sharma, Original, 113 ( ), 114 (
), 119 (camasa).
90
(Rigveda X.13); : . . , IX X, 422, 423; . . , , 327, 333,
336. 337; M. Jei, R'gvedski, 131, 172, 173, 182, 259; . . . , , 68, 69.
409
C. /
410
()
. e,
( )
.91 ,
. ,

( ).
, (
) ,
(= ) .

.

,
, .. ( )
(
) (10: 4, 5, 8). Bujoru ()
, , ..
(10: 8).

(10: 6, 11), , ,

. ,
, , .. - .
3.

( , ). , ,
,
, , , , .92 ,
,
, ,
, .. ( = ;
= ). .93

,
, .. (9: 8, 9).
, ,
, , , -
,
( . 294).

.94
.
91
A. Hnsel, Die Kultwagen, 255 Abb. 2.5; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 830 833; J. E. Harrison, Themis, 81, 82; .
, , 154, 155.
92
(Rigveda IX.79.3); : (Rigveda X.39.13; X.95.14 15; X.127,
6, : 371, 390).
93
, : Yasna IX.21.
94
. . . , , 147 149.
411
C. /
10
412
()

.
(.
. = ). , , ,

, (
: 8: 8, 9).
, British Museum

(8: 8).
,
( ),
.

, .. ( . 128, 296).95
(saka haumavahrka),
: .96
D.
I. -
, , ,
, .. .
, .. (Vach) .
, , ,
.97 ,
( , ),
, , ..
,
.
.
, : =
; = , .. .
(, ),
(, , , ), (
, , ...).98 retas ()
, ,
.99 ,
(
). ,
, -
. , , ..
95
. , , 69 122, 157 173.
96
. , , 105.
97
. , , ( V); V. Ions, Indijska, 22, 23. . .
. ,
, , , ,
(P. V. Sharma, Original).
98
. . , , 328, 333 335, 347; M. Jei, R'gvedski, 150, 151, 154 156; . . . , ,
68, 69; . , , 31, 32; : J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 242.
99
P. V. Sharma, Original, 111 113.
413
C. /
, ( ).100
,
, .101
,
,
(1: 6; 2: 5).

, .
, ,
.
, ,
(
), .
, (1: 1, 2; 11: 6)
(= ) (= ).

:
(1: 2; 11: 6);
( / = , = ).
-
(15: 1 - 3, 5, ).
II.
,
, , , , (
).
, , .
mada.102
, .. .
,
.
, .103

6. 5. . ..
, (. )
(). ( )
,
().104 ,
.
(
) .105
100
(Yasht X.6; XIV.5.63; XVII.45.61; XIX.13.54.96).
101
P. V. Sharma, Original, 109, 110, 112, 114, 120 122; . . . , , 159; J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant,
Rjenik, 242.
102
Soma 2012, 10; M. Jei, R'gvedski, 50, 79, 151, 155, 158, 160; . . , , 330; P. V. Sharma,
Original, 113 115; . . , , 578. : 2012;
2012.
103
. , . , 98.
104
. , . , 237; : . , , 26 28.
105
. , -; J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 394, 395;
( ): . , , 26 28.
414
()
11
415
D.
III.

. , ,
: ,
, ,
. , ..
, . ,
, ,

. ,
,
().
() .
,
.106
( = =
), ( = = ),
(
).107 . ,
.108
(
), ,
.109
, .. ,

( . 388, 632).

( ) ,
.
, , ,

( = , = ).
, (=
) (11: 1, 2).
, ,

, , . ,
(11: 6, 8),
(11:
3, 4).
, (11: 5),

,
, .

(12: 9). ,
,
. -
106
. . , , 327, 328, 332, 335 340, 351; M. Jei, R'gvedski, 155; P. V. Sharma, Original, 111.
107
. . , , 341; M. Jei, R'gvedski, 155.
108
(Yasht VIII.33; X.88; XVII.37, 39).
109
(Pindar Carmina Fr. 140); : K. Kernyi, Dionysos, 74, 75; . , . , 98.
416
()
12
417
D.
, .
(?)
(12: 10, 11).110 , ,
,
.

, .
,
,
. ,
,
, .. (syena), .
-,
.111
(11: 5; 12: 9)
(
). ( )
, .112

(8: 1 - 4) (8: 5, 6).

.

.
. ,
, ,
, .. .
, ,
( ).
, ,
, . ,
, ,
. , (
) (, // ,
// ).113
(
)
( ,
11: 3, 4, 9; 66: 14).

.
, ,

. ,
,
, .
110
. : . , , 74,
T. III: 5, 6.
111
. . , , 328, 331, 337.
112
(Rigveda IX.96, 19); . . , , 339.
113
. . , , 325, 328, 331, 332, 336, 337, 352; : (Rigveda IX.74.8); . . . , ,
68, 69 (Rigveda IX.66.10; IX.87.5; IX.10.1).
418
()
,
(
6 12). ,
,
. ,
( ),
(12: 4, 5, 7, 8).
E.
I.
,
,
. ,
(6: 1), ,
.
, ( )
( ), .
, , :
, , .
, (), (
, ), ,
.114
, , , ... .
,
( ), .115

. , ..
, :
;
, .. /;
; ; ;
, , , .. ; ,
.116

(1: 3; 13: 1 4; 18: 1 4; 19: 1 4, 9),
, ,
(1: 3 6; 1: 1 2).
, ,
(1: 3; 13: 1 4, 7). ,
:
?
( pars pro toto): >
> > .

114
. . , , 338, 339, 341; : (Rigveda IX.68.5; IX.82.4; IX.97.41; : IX.33.5;
IX.38.5; IX.102.1; IX.74.1; IX.110.10); P. V. Sharma, Original, 110 113
115
(Yasna IX.27; Shahnameh. Menichehr, 4782 4786, 4827 4831); . . , , 128.
116
. , . , 94 99; M. Jei, R'gvedski, 163, 164.
419
D.
13
420
()
( ), ,
. ,
, .. ,
() Divah
iu .117
,
, , .. .

, (
) .
(, , , ...)
(
, , ),
(, ) (13: 5, 6, 8, 9; 18: 5 - 8).

,
(1: 10; 13: 10 - 13), (13: 10).
,
, ( , ),

.

, ,
.118 ,

.
(1: 3; 19: 1 - 4, 9)

(ashvattha).119
,
(54: 1; . 176, 228 231, 239).
II.
,
. ,
,
, , .
, , .. (Vach).
, .. ,
( , /
/ ).
, . ,
.
, , ,
, , .120

117
M. Jei, R'gvedski, 164; . , , 155.
118
. . , , 327.
119
. . . , , 158.
120
. . , , 327, 352; : (Rigveda I.137.3; : Rigveda IV.27.1; IX.93.3; X.20.2;
X.27.14; X.30.11, 12; X.76.7).
421
E.
() . ,
, , .121
,
,
(1: 8; 12: 4, 5, 7, 8; 63).
, ,
, ,
.
, .. , , ,
(12: 8). ,
, -
, . ,

, (1: 8;
12: 4, 5, 7; 63: 5, 9, 10). , ,

(12: 7 6).
, ( )
, (
). - , ,
(12: 1 - 3).

, .. ( )
, .
,
, (-).
,
( ) (8: 9). , ..
.

(Amaltheia), , .
, ,
( ) , ,
, , .. .

() ,
( , ).
, , ..
amalgein (= , ).122
.123
,
, , .. . , ,
,
, , ..
(8: 8, 9).

, , ,
121
(Yasna XI.4).
122
: Amaltheia 2013; : Zeus 2013; . .
, , 104 114; 235 259; . . , , 626; (
): . , -, 53, 54, 60.
123
. , , 20; -
,
(. 24 29). . , .
422
()
14
423
E.
. , ,
, .. .124
, ,
, .
( ) , ,
.125
, -
, .
,
, , , , .126 ,
.. ,
,
( 1: 3; 19: 1, 2, 9; 54): ( ) (
) ; ( ) (
), ,
.

,
(9: 8, 9; 63).
. , ,
, . , ,
.127

. ( )
6
(14: 1, 5 - 7).
( ),

. ,
,
: ,
; , , ..
(
14: 4).
. ,
, , ,
, , .
, .. ,
.128
,
( )
, ,
(= ) (= ) .
, .
124
(Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 3. 29 30); Dionysus 2013.
125
. . , , 89 (: 143 146); . , , 154, 206 213;
( ) : A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. I, 515 Fig. 373.
126
(Pseudo-Hyginus, Fabulae 139); Amaltheia 2013.
127
K. Kernyi, Dionysos, 74 76; . , , 26; . , . , 98.
, (
).
128
. , .
, ,
.
424
()
15
425
E.
, .. (Vach) ,
, .. , , , ,
. , (Haraxvaiti),
, .. (
5: 4). , , ,
a.
, (Sindhu),
( ,
).129
,

, .

, -
(15: 1, 3).
,
(15: 2, 5).

/
( 15: 4, 6).

.
-
, , , ,
, (15: 7 56).

, .. .
(15: 8), (
15: 10),
, .
F.

, .. , .
,
.
,
. ...
, / , , ,
( ?) .130

... .131
(
).
.132
129
(Rigveda IX.67.32; X.30.11.12; X.64.9; X.75); . . , , 462. : . .
, , 442, 443
130
. , . , 94 96; M. Jei, R'gvedski, 163, 164; (Rigveda X.94; : X.94.3).
131
(Yasna XI.2); : . . , , 148 1.
132
426
()
, ..
(, , , ,
), .
(linos/lenos)
.
() , ,
. ,
,
. ,
,
.133

,
.
, ,
.134
, .. ,

. ,
,
: = ; = ;
= .135
,
.

,
, .

, , .136
,
, .
,
(Kelenai) (.. ) (
).137
, ,
( = ; / = ),
(13: 5, 6,
9).
(). , , ,
. , ,
.138
, .. ,
(13: 1 4; 19: 1 4, 9).
,
, ,
133
. , . , 94 95; M. Jei, R'gvedski, 163, 164. : M. Gimbutas, The Language, 182.
: (Schol. Clemens Alexandrinus, Protrepticus 1.2.2) .
, . , 95); : (Homeri Ilias 18.565 572).
134
T. Mannack, The Late Mannerists, 91; S. Lewis, The Athenian, 26.
135
, : . , , 166 172.
136
(Rigveda X.94.1).
137
. , . , 96; : . , , 37, 38; :
(Herodotus 7.26).
138
. , ,187.
427
F.
16
428
()
17
429
F.
. ,
(, .), ,
, - , ..
( , ).
,
.
. (
) ,
.139 (, ),
,
.

(9: 8, 9).
( ),

( ) ,
.
,
.
( )
(
) .140
. ,
, ,
, .
: , ,
.141 ,
(
), , , , .. (, ).
,
, .
()
( ) .
,
, .142

,
.143

(, , )
, , ,
(17: 1 - 3, 8, 9). , ,
(16: 2 - 4),
(16: 1), , , (, 16: 1, 5).
(, ) , ,
139
. , , 48 52.
140
(Rufus Festus, Breviarium 9; Florus 1.39; Ammianus Marcellinus 27.4.4; Orosius 5.27; Jordanis 219) : F.
Papazoglu, Srednjobalkanska, 379, 385, 386.
141
(Plutarchus, Alexander 39.1.2); . , , 52, 53, 154, 155.
142
. , , 41; . , . , 95 97, ,
, : 96.
143
(Shahnameh, Menichehr 4782 4786, 4827 4831); . . , , 167, 168.
430
()
, .144 ,
.
(, , )
(, ) ( )
. , ( ,
) , , ,
( ) .145
,
(, , - )
. ,

: ,
; ,
.

,
,
.146
,
.147
G.
I.
, ,
.. (amta ),
. :
, , / , . /
/ ,
?; , , !; ,
. ,
.148
, , , ..
. , , .. ,
.149
, ..
.150 .
, , ,
, .151 ,
, .152
144
: C. Koch, Der doppelleibige; P. Turk, Images, 35, 36.
145
. . . , , 148, 149; (Rigveda III.29.14; X.124.4).
146
(Strabo 9.4.10); : K. Kernyi, Dionysos, 74 76; . , .
, 98; . , , 26.
147
,
: . , , 226 240, 11, 17; . , a.
148
. . , , 329, 335; M. Jei, R'gvedski, 152, 153; Soma 2012. : (Rigveda VIII.48.3;
VIII.48.4; VIII.48.7).
149
. . , , 332, 352.
150
: J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 242.
151
(Yasna IX.2, 4 ; Yasht XIV.57; XVII.37); U. Sderlind, Haoma, 10.
152
. . , , 147.
431
F.
18
432
()
,
.
, ,
.153
,
() .
,
(*mer- -)
, , ..
, .154

. ,
, .. . ,
( )
. ,
.155
, ,
.
,
.
, (
) .
,
,
.156
,
, .. (
) .
.
.157
, , ,
.158 ,
.
( ),

, , .. .
,
, .

,
. ,
.
,
,
, ,
( ),
, .. .
153
U. Sderlind, Haoma, 10.
154
Ambrosia 2013; Soma 2012; . . , , 323.
155
(Homeri Ilias 19.25 39).
156
. -, , 6, 7; . , , 7 11;
: S. Kuko, Japodi, 60 94.
157
(Homeri Ilias 14.170 1 75; Homeri Odyssea 18.190 195).
158
(Homeri Odyssea 4. 440 450).
433
G.
(.. ) ,
, .

,
(17: 1 3, 8, 9). , , ,
,
( . 430, 431). ( Benvenuti 17: 1,
3) ( ),

( /),
. ,
(, , ).
, ,
.
,
,
.
,
(/), , , (
) (17: 4 - 7). ,
, , ( )
, , .159
. ,
.

.160
,
.

.
II.

.., ,
, , , , ,
.

.
, 1000 .
,
, .
, .. ,
( = = = = ).161
.162
, ,
159
. , , 137 148.
160
S. Kuko, Prizori, 23, 24.
161
. . , , 330, 331, 345, 351; . , . , 101; (Rigveda VII.34.10; X.37.1);
H. Falk, Soma, 80 83.
162
(Yasht VIII.33; X.88; XVII.37, 39; Yasna IX.27).
434
()
19
435
G.
.163 , ,
.164
.
,
, , ( )
. :
,
( ).

( , , ,
).165

,
, ,
(18: 1 - 4).
, ,
(18: 5 - 8). , , ,
: , , ,
. , ,
(37; 38): ,
;166
.
, ,
,
.
,
Providence,
(18: 10, 11; 3: 1). , , Certosa,
, (18: 9).
: , ..
,
;
.
( )
.167
, (
) ,
.. , , ..
,
. ex nihilo, , ,
.

, , , , .
, , , ( )
,
, ,
.
,
163
(Yasna IX.17; Yasht XVII.5); . . , , 146.
164
. . . , , 42.
165
. . , , 329, 331, 335, 341, 351; . , . , 101; . ,
, 59, 60; H. Falk, Soma, 80.
166
(Aelianus, Historia varia 3, 18); . , . , 101.
167
V. I. Sarianidi, Margiana.
436
()
.
, (53:
2).168
III.
,
, .. .

.
( 85-
).
,
. , , .169
,
, .. . , .. ,
. ,
(= ). ,
.170 , (retas), ,
,
( ).171
, , :
, ,
. , ,

. ,
, , ,
.172
,
, , , . ,
,
. ,
( )
.173 ,
. , ,
.
() .174

,
.175
, (
168
(. , , 43);
(. , , 29).
169
. . , , 325, 329, 333, 339, 340.
170
. . , , 328, 336, 337, 339, 340; (Rigveda IX.7.3; IX.9.47; IX.61.21; IX.93.2); M. Jei,
R'gvedski, 149, 150; . , , 28, 29, 31.
171
. . , , 333, 338; P. V. Sharma, Original, 112 V. Ions, Indijska, 22; . . , , 167;
H. Falk, Soma, 86, 87.
172
(Yasna IX.4 13, 22, 23); Haoma 2012, 3, 11; . , , 352; H. Falk, Soma, 86, 87;
: U. Sderlind, Haoma, 10.
173
(Clemens Alexandrinus, Protrepticus 2.19.4, Schol. Ad loc); . , , 189, 190.
174
. . , , 162; . . , ; (
): J. Frazer, The Golden, Chapter 31 (Adonis in Cyprus).
175
. . , , 373; : . . , . . , , 45.
437
G.
), .176
,
( ) ( ), ,
.177
,
. , , ,
(19: 3, 4, 9), (19:
8, 10, 11) .
glans penis (19: 1, 2, 5 7; 9). ,
(19: 1, 2),
.178
, (10: 7; 11: 9).
, ,
, ,
.
( )
.
, ,
, ..
( ) ( . 176, 177, 207). -
,

,
( . 258). , ,
.179

, , , .
Rodin Museum ,
(13: 10).
. ,
, (20: 3, 4).
, , , ,
.
. ,
, , ,
.
, ,
. , .. ,
( -
-)
.180
,
,
- .181
Alpago, ( )
(.. )
(20: 2).
176
. . , , 371, 372.
177
. , , 36, 37; . , , 33.
178
/ (P. V. Sharma, Original, 114).
179
U. Sderlind, Haoma, 9.
180
. , ; S. Kuko, Erotski.
181
. . , . . , , 45;
: . , , 397.
438
()
20
439
G.
, ( )
,
( . 330, 341). ,
. ,

:
> >
> >
.
:

> >
.
(
, ) .
(20: 1).182
(
) .

, .. ,
(
). ,
.183
,

, .. . ,
,
. ,
, .184 (
)
. , .
:
() , .185
( ) ,
, ,
(= ) .186
, ,
, ,
, .187
182
, : S. Kuko, Erotski, 63, 64.
183
( -)
: . . , , 213 276; . . , , 203 205; . , .
184
(Rigveda I.28); : . . , I IV, 558, 559.
185
(Rigveda VIII.91); : . . , V VIII, 723, 724; M. Jei, R'gvedski, 148.
186
, ..
,
, (. , , 8 10; . . , ,
53, 54, 130, 165 167; . . , , 101 105).
187
,
, (
, .. ) (
).
440
()
,
.188
(21: 5) stpa
, , (
= ; = ; = )
(21: 8).189 ,
(
), . , , ,
/ , , .. ,
, . ,
,
- -.

(= , .. ,
) ( = , ) (21: 1, 4).190
, ,
- . ,
. ,
,
. , ..
,
.191
,
.
, , ,
, .
( = );
; ;
; .
.192
,

( , glans penis
19: 1, 2, 5 - 7). , , ..
(21: 6; 10)
( . 328 330, 341).

( )
(21: 7 2, 3, 5).
.

(19: 1, 2),
,
( 54).
188
(Yasht 10.91; Yasna IX.2); : . . , , 148; U. Sderlind, Haoma, 9;
: V. I. Sarianidi, Margiana, Fig. 3: 4, 11.
189
: Stupa 2013; : . , , 33, 38.
190
Samudra 2015; . . . , ,158.
191
,
: . , , 119 121; 2015.
192
P. V. Sharma, Original; : . . , , 329, 332, 333.
441
G.
21
442
()
IV.
,
. ,
, ,
, , ,
. ,
. ,
, .. ,
. ,
, ..
.
( , ),
( ).
: =
; = ;
= ; =
.193

. ,
, Hraosravach : , ,
, . , ,
, j.194
, ,
.195 ,

. ,
( ) ,
,
.196
,
, . ,
, . , , ,
, , ,
( = ; = ).197

, , ,
. ,
. ,
( , ,
) ,
( 4: 1).

. , ,

. ,
, .. -.
Benvenuti,
193
. . , , 329, 338, 340, 341; . , . , 93; H. Falk, Soma, 87.
194
(Yasna IX.1, 2, 18, 20, 30 32; Yasht XIV.57); . , . , 93, 94.
(. , , 19);
: . . , , 102, 103.
195
S. Kuko, Japodi, 60 94; . , , 376 380.
196
(Pausania 11.30.5); . , . , 93, 94.
197
(Homeri Ilias 19.353, 354); . , . , , 71.
443
G.
,
(16: 6 - 8).
(, ),
. ,
.

(16: 6).
. , ,
.
, .
,
. : ,
, (
, ).

, .
, .
, ,
.. . ..
( , )
(, , ). ,
,
(, ..
, , .. ).
(
) ,
(19: 2).
, , ..
.
.
,
.

: (= ); ,
( = , ); ( =
/ ).198
.199 , ,
, .

. ,
, .. , .200

(
= ; =
).
198
: . . , , 422 428.
199
, ,
(), ()
(R. Gicheva-Meimari, Psychoactive).
200
. , ,187.
444

Chapter 5
CROSS-SHAPED OBJECTS
()

()

.
, ..
, .. .
,
.
:
-
-
:
-
-
- , ..
:
- , ..
- , ..
,
,
, ..
.
,
,
, ,
. ,
, .
447
1
448
()
A.

, ,
.
:1
- , , , = ; =
(1: 5);
- = (1: 6);
- - ( ,
, ) (1: 3, 4);
- (
), ( ) (2: 4).

, .
(2: 6), ,
(, , ), (7: 1, 2, 4, 6)
. :
;
; - , ..
. ,
, .2
: ,
. ,

. ,
, .. .
,
, , .
.
, ..
(2: 6; 3: 4). , ,
.
, .. :
- ,
(2: 5).
, .. ,
, , , ,
, (1: 2).
- ,
(1), ,
, , .. .
,
.
- (=
), (= ,
1
F. Eber-Stevens, Stara, 129; . , , 148 151 ( ).
2
, , , ,
- : J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik,
309 316; . , . ; D. K. Kuper, Ilustrovana, 76 78; . , ; . . , ,
61 80; . , , 97 122; H. Dana Ward, History.
449
.
450
()
),
(1: 5).
- (2: 5),
,
( ).3
- ,

( , , ,
...).
( ) (
), .
, (=
),
).
-- ( )
,
(1: 5).
, ,
: , , ;
. ,
.

, , ,
(2: 3 5, 6).
: , , ,
, .

, (1: 3, 4).
, , (, ),
.
, , (, ),
, ( ) , .. (
).
, , .
.
( ),
, . , ,
, ,
. , ,
.
, (, , ),
, , ,
, , , .
, .. ,
.
,
(3: 4; 4: 4, 7 - 14).

( ) (3:
4; 4: 1 - 3, 5, 6, 12, 13). ,

. ,
3
: . . . ,
, 137, 138.
451
.
452
()
(3: 5) (3: 4).

,

( ; ;
) (15: 1).
.

. , , .. (
) , ,
(2: 1 2).

( 2: 2 4). , ..
, , .. , ..
(3: 5, 6).4

,
, .. ( )
.
,
.
, .. 4. ,
.5
I.

. , ,
.. (), , ..
(), () ( 1: 2 2:
5). , ,
. ,
(5: 7).
,
(-) , (
).
.
,
,
. ,
. ,
.
(5: 2). Xiuhtecutli
,
.6
(Navajo) (5:
1).7
,
(= ).
4
(. J. Green, The Wheel,
296; . , . , X).
5
. , , 97; . , , 35 41, 58.
6
J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 314 316; . , . ; . , , 16 (
), 67 71 ( ); : . , , 38 40.
7
L. C. Wyman, Sandpaintings; J. Campbell, The Way, 244 249; J. Wicherink, Great.
453
.
454
()
, 10
(crux decussata).8

.
, , , ,
.

(3: 2).

. , ,
, , .
,

.9
,
.

(3: 3).

(, , , ). ,
,
, ,
.10
,
,
(3: 7 - 9).
(
(3: 8), (3: 7),
, (3: 9; 6: 3).11

(2: 3).
, .
()
( ),
, .. ( ) (
1: 4).12
II.

,
, ,
, (2: 6; 3: 4; 4: 4, 7 - 14).

. ,
,
8
J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 314; . , . , VI; . , , 13; . .
, , 67.
9
: K. Moszynski, Kultura T. II/2, 185; . , , 87 89 (
).
10
. ,
(. , , 119); : . , , 193, 194.
11
. , , 405 405; . , ; D. K. Kuper, Ilustrovana, 78; . ,
, 187 192.
12
J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 309, 314; . , . ; D. K. Kuper, Ilustrovana, 78.
455
.
456
()
. , ,
(, , )
(
, , ...).
,
.
, (
) , .. ,
(3: 4; 5: 6, 8).13

. ,
,
: ;
(= ) (= ) (4).
III. , ,
,
.

, (3: 4; 4: 1 3, 5, 6). ,
,
( ), . ,
, ..
(67: 7).

.14
, ,
, . ,

.

, ,
. , ,

: = ; , ..
= (6).
,
, (
) .
,
.
,
, (20: 10).15
, ,
.
(6: 13, 14; 20: 13, 15,
16).16
13
D. K. Kuper, Ilustrovana, 77; . , , 97 108; . , , 63 66; . ,
, 101 126; . , . , IX, 146.
14
. , , 317 326, 330, 331; . . , , 113.
15
: . , , 42, 43; N. Chausidis, The Funeral,
653.
16
D. K. Kuper, Ilustrovana, 77, 78; J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 315; . , , 99, 100.
457
.
458
()

: ;
;
(6: 7, 8, 12). ,
.
,
(3: 5, 6; 6: 6).

. , ,
.
( )
,
, .. .
,
.17
,
, , , ,
10.
.

, , .
, .. ,
, .. xwar/xorid ( ),
hrsu ( = ). -
hrs/horse ()
. ,
. ,
() ( , )
, .18
,
, ().
( ),
.

-
( 3: 8, 9).
, .

( ), : .
, . ( ); . kres, . . ( ), . .
/ (, ); . ( ); . .
= . ( , . crux,
. Kreuz),
, .19
, ,
.
, , ,
( )
, ,
17
. , , 97 103; . , , 7, 8.
18
C. L. Borissoff, Non-Iranian; . . , ; . , , 181 185, 225 231; .
, , 314 331.
19
. , , 102; . , , 90, 91.
459
.
460
()
(9; 10).
,

kres krest, ,
/ .
, , ,
, (
) .

. , , , ..
, , , .20

.
, ,
. , ,
,
. , , ,
(, , , )
( )
. , , ,
( . 614).
.
, .
( ) ,
, , ,
(, , , , ...)
, , (18: 5). .
3. 4.
. .21
IV.
, ,
. ,
, , , ..
.
, , , ..
( , )
.
,
( ,
, ...).22 ,
.
( )
(7: 1,
2). ,
,
20
(Aristoteles, Mirabilibus Auscultationibus 842a.122); . ,
, (. , , 116),
( Alcestis, 968)
; : J. Iliev, Oracles, 64, 65, 68. 69.
21
. , , 135 147, : . 137 . 1.
22
. . , ; . , .
461
.
462
()
(8: 2).23
(8: 1; 34:
11).
,
, ,
.
(7: 6),
(7: 4),
(4: 1).
.
, (5: 3),
, (5: 4, 8) .
: = , = ,
= (5: 3, 4).24
, ernn ()
Stedodunajsk mohylov kultura (5: 5).
.25
,
(7: 3, 5).26
V.
,
, .
(
) ,
(8: 8, 9; 18: 9).
(Ankh).
,
. , ,
(8: 5, 7). ,
. ,
, .
, , .27
, , ,
, (11: 3, 6, 7) ( .
469).
,
(8: 6).
,
Knossos (8: 3)
(6: 5).28
( 20 cm) .. (temple repositories) Knossos,
(6: 2),
23
A. , ; . , (1), 19, 22.
24
B. Brentjes, Gradovi; J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 314, 315; . , , 16, 63, 71 87; .
, , 61 87; . , , 258 261; . . , , 101, 109 113.
25
V. Podborsk, Nboenstv, 248 .64: 8, 250.
26
. , , T.LIV: 1, 3; . , , 4, 6.
27
D. K. Kuper, Ilustrovana, 78; J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 315; . , , 97, 102, 105, 106; . .
. , 255; . , , 12, 13, 37, 120 ( , ,
, , ).
28
: R. Washbourne, Out of the mouths, 46 49; : A. Evans, The Palace,
Vol. I, 515, 516, Fig. 374; H. Schliemann, Mykenae, 225 Nr. 294.
463
.
(8: 4).
- .29

. . ,
, , , ..
, , .30
B.
I.
1.
,
(9; 10; 11: 2, 5).
. ,
,
(9: 3, 6; 10: 1, 4, 6). (9:
4, 5, 10; 10: 4, 5, 7; 11: 5), , ,
(9: 1 - 3, 6, 8, 9; 10: 3, 6 9; 11: 2). ,
, ,
(23: 6).31
j
( ) (11:
10 - 12; 12; 13: 3 5, 7).32 ,
: (12: 1 3; 13: 3 - 5);
(12: 4, 7);
(11: 9 - 12; 12: 5, 6, 8, 9).
:
, ; ,
;
.
(. ),33
, , (13: 3 - 5):
;
, ;
( )
( 13: 4 1 12: 9);
;
.
, , ,
( ),
29
.
(A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. I, 514 517),
, .. , , (. ,
-, 134).
30
A. Stipevi, Kultni, 16 21, 33.
31
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 145 (Fig. 46: 3 8), 157, 158; . , , 28, 29; K. Kilian,
Trachtzubehr, T.27: 19 30; A. Benac, B. ovi, Glasinac, T. XXVI: 2, T. XXXI: 18; . , , 26, 27
(. 33), 34 (. 43), 37 (. 46), 57, T.X: 34 6, T.XVIII: 71 12, T.XX: 81 4; K. Kilian, Bosnisch-
herzegowinische, Taf. I: 4; K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, 169, 170, T. 127: 8 13, 16.
32
: . , , 4 6, . 3; : A. Benac, B. ovi,
Glasinac, T. XXVI: 3, T. XXXI: 19; S. Aliu, Aspekte, 275, 280 T.II: 9; . , , 57.
33
: . , , 57.
464
()
465
B.
. ,
(), 7. 6. . ..,
, (13: 6).34 ,
( 13: 6
12: 5, 6, 8, 9) (13: 6 4, 5).
: (, ) (11: 9;
12: 9) , (. ) (13: 1),35 ,
, , ..
; - (. ), (,
) (, ),
, (13: 2, 8, 9). ,
, (), ( ),
(13: 7).36
2.
. (hollow crosses), . :
, . ( ):
(kreuzfrmige Riemenkreuzungen), . - (
), . . .
( ).37
.
3. ,

.
, ,
. ,
( , -
). ,
,
.
: , . , ,
, ( )
: Argive Argos, Pherai .
. .
, ( ,
,
- ). Trilophon-Mesimeri
.38 ,
, 2.
. .., .39
34
: . , , 59, 60.
35
, , ( 6
4,3 cm), .
, .
. , .
36
. : . , . , , 73 . 12, . 9; : R. Vasi, The
openwork, 4; . , , 6; V. Vejvoda, I. Mirnik, Haltatski, 596, 603, 610 (.7: 7).
37
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 157, 158; J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 298, 330; . , , 56, 57; K. Kilian,
Trachtzubehr, 28; K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, 169, 170; . , , 28, 29; . , , 4.
38
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 158; . , , 57; . , , 28, 29; . ,
. , , 52 . . 70.
39
. , , 237, 238, 250 . 21.
466
()
10
467
I.
10
468
()
. , 8. 7. . ..,
,
7. 6. . ,
7. . .., 6. .
, 7. .
8. , ,
,
.40 ( , )
7. 6. ( 5. . ..), (23: 6)
, . ,
. Vlashnje, Prizren ()
( ?) (11: 5).41
,
,
.42 ,
,
, , .. . .
, ,
, . 34 (9: 9) . 81 (9: 1, 2)
in situ, .43
,
, ,
, .. .44
4.
,
8. 7. . .. .
. ..
, .
,
( 9: 10, ,
). ,
,
.45 .
,
,
.46
( ).47
(
)
. ,
, (11: 6, 7).

40
Bouzek, Bronzes, 330; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 157, 158.
41
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 158; : K. Luci, Bronze, 126 . . 165.
42
Bouzek, Bronzes, 330; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 157, 158; . , , 56, 57;
-
: C. Metzner-Nebelsick, Der "Thrako-Kimmerische", 352 362.
43
. , , 56.
44
. , , 156.
45
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 158; Bouzek, Bronzes, 329 Fig. 21; (
): . . , , 31, 159 . XXI: 12.
46
. , , 57; D. Mitrevski, Northern, 113.
47
F. Maier, Zu einigen, 66; K. Kilian, Bosnisch-herzegowinische, 169.
469
I.
11
470
()
( ),
, .. , .48 ,
3 mm
(, )
(11: 1, 3).49

,
, , ( 8 cm) (11: 8; 24: 9).

.50
. , (11: 4).51

,
( ) ,
.
(11: 6, 7), ,
( . 916).
5.
,

, .52
( in situ) . ,
,
, .. .
, ,
, .. ,
, .. .
71 35 , (9: 3)
.
.

.53

. , , ,
, . ,
, ,
, ,
, .. , ,
48
. , . , . , , 136 (. . 173), 143 (. . 186)
49
. , , 31, 50 (.2703), 172 ( . 271).
50
. ,
. : .
, , 56 T.I: 4; . , . , , 73 86, 448 23: 48 (III
29).
51
( 9 cm).
2007 . , .
, .
52
J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 298, 308, 330. :
(hollow crosses for arrangement of straps of horse garments);
, (horse`s harness).
53
. , , 57.
471
I.
12
472
()
13
473
I.
, ( , , ,
) ( 14: 3, 4).
, ( )
( ), , ,
, , .
?
, ..
, (9: 3, 6).
,
, .
,
,
( 14: 4).

, , ..
, , ().
,
, ( 14: 2, 5, 6).
,

: ;
;
( ).
(14: 2, 5). , ,
.

,
,
/ (14: 1).
, , ..
.
: . 34 (9: 9);54 . 2
IX Kaptol, Slavonska Poega ()
, .55
(11: 9; 12: 9), , - ,
Kaptol
(13: 1, 2, 8, 9).
, -
,
(13: 1, 2).
,
. ,
, , .. ( ),
,
. ,

. (
. 498 ).
54
. , , 26, 27 . 33, T.X: 34 6.
55
V. Vejvoda, I. Mirnik, Haltatski, 585, 586, 603, 610 (T.7: 1 4).
474
()
14
475
I.
a) :

, ( 479 460 . .
..). ,
(10: 10, 11).
quadratum incusum,
(73: 9).56 , , ,
,
, ( 10: 10, 11 8, 9).

,

.
.
.
,
,
.
/ ( )

. , ,
,
.
, (50; 51; 52,
. 565 ).
, ( )
, (
?),
(10 : 11). , , ,
Batina/Kiskszeg ().
.. - , ,

( 10 : 12 17 20; 9; 10).57
,
,
.
,
.
,

( 10: 21 13, 16, 17).58

, .. - ,

:
( . 883);
;
56
: Thrachian coins 2014; 4 : A Feast 2014.
57
S. Foltiny, ber die Fundstelle, 179, Taf. 70: 1; C. Metzner-Nebelsick, Der "Thrako-Kimmerische", Taf. 120.1; .
, -, 32, . 15; . (D.
Dujmi) Muzej Slavonije Osijek, ; , ,
, (S. Foltiny, ber die Fundstelle, 179, Taf.
69: 22 24).
58
: . , , 12 - 14, 17 (. 3), T.III.
476
()
15
477
I.
(, , ?);

, ,
.
( . 854 856, 861, 862, 883, 884, 889).
6.
, .. .
,
: ( ),
, .
,
.

.
.

( ).
, . ,
, ,
. , ,
, ..
, .
, ,
(11; 12; 13).
, ..
,
( ) ,
- (14).
, .
,
.
,

.
a)
( )

(11: 9 - 12; 12; 13) . .
(11: 9; 12: 9)
. ,
,
,
( ).59 .
, .
, ,
.
, ,
59
. , , 49. ,
.
478
()

.
( ). ,
, ( 13: 6)
( 12: 9), , . (G.
Kossack) . ,
.

. .
, .60
,
( ).

. , . ,
(12: 1).61 ,
(11; 12; 13),
.
b)

, , .

, ,
, ,
(11; 12; 13).
,
, , .
,
.
, .
, , , .
, . , .
, , .
(hieros gamos)
.
: (19:
9); ,
(18: 1 - 3); ,
( ) ( ) (17; 19; 20).
,
, , ,
. : ;
; ( )
( ).
, .

, , , ,
, , ,
.
60
. , , 4, 6;
: . , , 59, 60.
61
A. Stipevi, Kultni, 30.
479
6.
16
480
()
, , ..
.
, , (: 16: 8, 9).62
-
,
, , .
, .

, , , ,
( ),
(22: 5). ,
,
. ,
. , .
, ,
, , ..
. ,
, , , , ..
, .

.
,
, ,
.63
- , ..
, ..
.

.
, ,

( ) (17; 18; 19; 20).
, ..
(15: 2 8; 16: 1 3, 6, 7).64
, .
( ),
( ) ,

(15: 2 - 5).65

( , )
,
(16: 4, 5).66
,
62
. , , IV; J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 406 410; . , , 278, 279.
63
. , , IV/52, 54, 55; . , , 58.
64
S. Kuko, Japodi, 155, 168, 169, 180, 181, 189, 204, 208; G. Kossack, Studien, Taf. 8: Taf. 9; Taf. 10: 7, 10; F. Kaul,
Reading, 328 333; J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 177 180; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 247 249; . , , 51,
119, 138.
65
. ii 2004. 1, 44, 73 76, 422, 423.
66
F. Kaul, Bronze Age, 139, 140.
481
6.
17
482
()
18
483
6.
,
.
- ,
( = ; = ).67

,
, .. . ,
,

. ,

(16: 5).68
-
,
,
. ,
, (, , )
(15: 6 - 8; 16: 1 3, 6, 7).
, ,
.
, .. .
,
.
, ,
,
(, , .) (15: 1).69

. ,
,
. (,
),
. -
, , ..
, .
,
,
.70
, .. -
, .. . ,
, ,
, ,
, ( 3: 5).71
. ,
67
(Rigveda I.140.12); . . , . I - IV, 178, : 631; : . ii
2004. 1, 422.
68
: . . , , 71, 72.
69
F. Kaul, Reading, 328 333; . , ; S. Kuko, Japodi, 155, 168, 169, 180 185, 189, 204, 208; G.
Kossack, Studien, Taf. 8: Taf. 9; Taf. 10: 7, 10; K. Kristiansen, T. B. Larsson, The Rise, 294 309; . , , 51,
119, 138.
70
/ : . , , IV/ 51; 52; . ii 2004. 1, 416;
. , , 278 285.
71
: .
, , 278 285.
484
()
,
. (. )
, ( 16: 4, 5).72
-
,
,
, , .
, ,
.73
, ( , .. )
, . ,
, .
, , .74

,

, .
, , ..
,
, .. ( 21: 5).75
-

(11; 12; 13
17; 18; 19; 20).
( ) ,
. ,
, .

, ,
.
(17: 8 - 12).
- ,
.76 ,

.

Siteia (17: 6). . ,
.77 ,
,
72
. . , , 71, 72; . . , , 521; . . , , 23 25;
(, ) : F. Kaul, Bronze Age, 139.
73
: . , , 57 59.
74
, : . , ,
IV/51.
75
: E. Neumann, The Great Mother, 256 258;
: . . , , 98;
: . , , 31, 33, 111;
( ): .
, , 57, T.II: 5.
76
: . , , IV/51; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 11.
77
A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. I, 514, 515.
485
6.
19
486
()
. :
(=
); (=
, ); (= 4 ).
,
, (17: 5; 19: 9; 74: 2).

, ,
(17: 8, 10).

, . (
)
- (17: 9).78
Siteia
Nebra (), 1600 . . .. (=
) (17: 14).79 (4. 3. .
. ..)
, , ,

(17: 15).80

, , (17:
2 - 4).
.
,
.81
(, , .)
, .82
(
17: 7).
,
, ,
( ) (19: 1, 3, 7).83
,
(19: 4, 5). 2.
Exohi ,
(19: 10).84
.

, .
(, .)

( ) ,
, .

( ,
78
Calendar house (I; IV) 2013; . , , 58, 59, . 71: 2, 9; 72: 4; 73: 4.
79
Nebra 2013; V. Podborsk, Nboenstv, 237.
80
. . , , 18, 19; . . , .
81
. , , 58, 59, . 71: 4, 5, 10 12.
82
. , , IV / 49; 54; D. K. Kuper, Ilustrovana, 78, 104 106.
83
F. Cumont, Recherches; F. Cumont, After Life, 85, 86, 94, 99; B. Gabrievi, Studije, 53 74; . , ,
IV/54.
84
K. G. Chatzinikolaou, Locating, Fig. 26.
487
6.
20
488
()
), , , (,
).85

, ..
. ,
(19: 8).
,

.86
.
,
,
. ,
, ,
(, , 5. 7. )
(20: 1, 2, 9).
(17: 11, 12 8 10).87
( , )
(20: 4, 5, 12, 14).
(,
) (19: 4; 20: 10).88
,
,
(20: 13, 15, 16). ,
(= ) (=
). , ,

,
.89
,
. ,
( 12 )
,
,
(), , ..
(
).90

( ). ,
(15. )

, (21: 3).
(11. )
, ,
85
F. Cumont, After Life, 81 109; . , , IV/54; B. Gabrievi, Studije, 53 88;
: . , , 71, 72; N. Chausidis, The Funeral, 659, 660.
86
. , , 71, 72; N. Chausidis, The Funeral, 649 651, 659, 660.
87
. , , . 72: 2, 5, 6.
88
M. Wenzel, Ukrasni, T.XXIII T.XXXIV; . , , 147 152; . , , 327
333.
89
. . , ; . . , -; . . , , 77, 78; . ,
, 30, 37, 38; . , , 102; . , , 184 187.
90
. . , , 61, 62.
489
6.
21
490
()
(21: 6 16). ,
( ),
. ,
..
, . ,
,
, (
21: 5).91

(21: 1, 4).
,
, ,
.

,
.
, , ..
, , ,
( , ..
). ,
,
(
) .92

, , ,
( 18: 6 8).93
.
(Sucidava) ,
,
( 20: 11).94
, ,
. , ,

, .95
, ,
,
(20: 7, 8).96
.
, (14. ) ,
(= ,
) (21: 2).97
91
E. Neumann, The Great Mother, 256 258. .
(. , , IV/55).
92
,
11. 12. , ,
(. , , 30 49).
93
. , , VIII/109; . , . , IX.
94
: J. Werner, Byzantinische, 39, 41, 43, 46.
95
. , , 264, 265; : . , a.
96
Z. Vinski, O postojanju, 55, T. IV: 6, 7.
( , : .
, , 325 329).
97
( ): . , , 137, 138, .25: 24/22; .27:
24/21.
491
6.
,
, :
(= ) ; (= ) ;
, ( . 485, 817).
c) a

. ,
,
.
-
,
(. ) (13: 3 - 5). ,

, .

, .
( =
), . ,
, ,
.98 ,
e ,
,
, , .
()
(13: 6 3 - 5).99 ,
( = )
, , ,
.
,
( 17: 8,
10).100
. ,
, , ,
.101
. ,

( ). , ,
,
(, )
.
, ,
, .
: : ; : ()
98
(, ): . , , 82; . , , 51,
52.
99
: . , , 4; . , , 59, 60; . , , 39.
100
J. A. MacGillivray, The Minoan, 125.
101
(Pausania 9.12.1).
492
()
; :
.102

,
, , .. ,
, .. . ,

, , ,
(30: 4; 12).
,
.
, , ,
(/Aigai) , ,
I, .103
/Kastoria
( ) (12: 8).

,
tudittu
hieros
gamos. ( . 502, 614, 632).104

- .
,
(29: 5).105
-
,
.
, ..
. (12: 5, 6), (12: 8),
(
)
.
( )
(22: 2 16: 1 7).
,
.
,
. (11: 9; 12: 9)
, ,
. , (13: 1),
,
.
( ) ,
( 22: 6 5).106
102
. , , a IV/51, 52.
103
: (Diodorus Siculus 7.16); : (Hygini, Fabulae, 219); . ,
, 74, 75.
104
(R. Washbourne, Out of the mouths, 116 122, 126, 346 355).
105
. , . , , 126 . 158.
106
. , , 49; . , , 6.
493
6.
22
494
()
- (. ),
(13: 2).

(
) (22:
1).
-, ,
, (22: 2).
,
(11: 9 - 12; 12: 5, 6, 8,
9).
, ,
, .. .

- (12: 1 3, 4, 7; 13: 1
6).
.

( )
. .107

.
.108 ,

,
.
.
, (..
) ditya ( Hary) dna
(= ). visarga

.109
-

.

, .
, (22: 5, 8 9).

.110

-
(22: 8 7). ,

.111
107
: . , , IV/59; : . , O
, 95 97; . 390, 409, 413, 414.
108
109
P. V. Sharma, Original, 112, 113.
110
: F. Kaul, Bronze Age, 142, 143.
111
. , , IV/57, XII/159.
495
6.
180 ,
.
,
(22: 11, 12 17: 7; 20: 4, 7, 8).

,
(22: 11 10). ,
,

, .. , ,
, .
d)

Fossi () (23: 1, 2). 10.
..,
, .
,
. ,
.
, , .
,
,
, (Mjlnir)
. ,
,
.112
( )
(23: 3). , ,
Fossi.113

(23: 3, 8, 10), ,
.
Eyjafjrur, (800 1000 .)
(23: 7). ,
, .

, .114
, .. .
Fossi

( 23: 1, 2 4, 5).
.
,
,
, ( )
( ) ( 19: 10).
,
112
J. Lyman, Thorshammerrings; J. Graham-Campbell, The Viking, 180 193; A. S. Grslund, Thor`s Hammers, 190,
191; Mjlnir 2014.
113
A Viking 2014.
114
J. Lyman, Thorshammerrings.
: J. Harding, Thor's Hammers; , .. : Mjlnir 2014.
496
()
23
497
6.
. ,
,
, ,
, .. .

.
.115
Fossi ,
.

:

;
.116 ,
. (mjlnir
. ) ( , )
.117 ,
: ;
( , , ).118 ,

,
, .
,
, . ,
, .
, Fossi,
,
(
), .119
-
,
( 23: 9).120
V- , ,
(14, . 812).
e)

,

, . ,
,
(14). , ..

. ,
, ,
, , , ..
115
( ): Mjlnir 2014, 13.
116
J. Lyman, Thorshammerrings.
117
Mjlnir 2014; . . , , 519, 520.
118
, ,
( )
(J. Lyman, Thorshammerrings).
119
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 158; Bouzek, Bronzes, 329 Fig. 21.
120
: I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 49, 50, Taf. 20: 201 307.
498
()
24
499
e)
25
500
()
26
501
e)
, ,
,
. .

(24).

, , ,
.
,
.
, .. (24: 6, 10,
4).121 Ulaka (),
,
(26: 10).122
, , ,
.
. , .. (bands)
, ,
( ) .123

.124 , . , .
, , , ..
. ,
,
.125 .
tudittu, , , ..
,
.
, , ,
.126
.

(25: 1; 15: 16; 18: 6).127
,
(36), ,
.
Yarym Tepe () Rckeve () , ,
(24: 7; 25: 2 1).128

. ,

(25: 4 8, 11).

121
: R. Washbourne, Out of the mouths, 116 122; S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil II, Taf. 18: 4; 41: 1; 44: 5, 8; 82: 1,
4, 5, 7, 10; 84: 3; 85: 3, 14; 279: 6, 9; 321: 3; 492: 1, 2; 493: 1, 2; 494: 3; 495: 2, 4; M. Gimbutas, The Language, Fig. 9,
11, 66, 139, 148; . , , . 214: 1, 4; . 215: 1 3; A. Stipevi, Kultni, 33.
122
M. Gutin, Kronologija, 482, 483 Sl. 3: 11.
123
M. Gimbutas, The Language, 6 15; M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 89 91.
124
-: N. Chausidis, Myth. Representations.
125
. , , 119.
126
R. Washbourne, Out of the mouths, 116 122, 126, 346 355.
127
: . , , 110 T.VIII: 5 ( , , , . ); I.
Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 87: 1537 (Chauchitsa, ).
128
: . . , . . , , 252 . 98.
502
()
27
503
e)
( 25: 12; 56: 6).129

,
Perjen, Tirol (), , ,
(25: 9, 10).
. -,

, .130 -

, .

(, , , , , )
( 26: 9; 27: 6). 1. . ..
, ,
.

( , , ),
,

(26: 1 - 8). , , ,
, , , ,
.
, .
(, , )
(, ), .
, , .
(, ,
, , ),

. , ..
, ..
,
.

: ()
( )
, ;131
; , (26: 4) .132
. -
(27: 3, 4).
, , (, , ),
, ,
, . ,
, . .
(, , ),
, .

, , ,
(), , , .
,
129
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 90 93, Taf. 28: 543, 544, 546.
130
. -, ; R. Gicheva-Meimari, Crossbands; . , ; . -
, . I, 170, 171.
131
. , , 139, 342.
132
. , , 78, 85.
504
()
28
505
e)
,
, .
. -
, 19. 20.
(, , , )
(27: 5).133

.

. , (4. 3. . ..)
(
) (28: 3).
, , Hoxne, (5. ..)
, , 6. .. (28: 1, 2 ).134

Archondiko ( ) 5. 3. . .. (29: 4).
. - , , ..
, , .. . ,
, ,
, (24: 6, 10; 29:
4). (,
K) .

, .
,
.135

- (14).
f)

,
,
.
.

,
, , ..
? ?
. ,
:
,
, . ,
- ,
, .. ,
.136
133
. , , 46; . -, . I, 170, 171.
134
. -, , . 6, 7; R. Gicheva-Meimari, Crossbands, 362, 363, 368, Fig. 4, 10, 11.
135
(Schol. Apollonius Rhodius 916) : . -, . I, 170. .
, (. , , 85, 139, 140, 342).
136
. , , 156.
506
()

, ..
. , -
, -
.

.
.
, ,
. ,

,
.
, ,
, ,
.
( )

.
. , ,
.
, , ,
.
. ,

, ,
, - .137

. ,
,
.
(.. )
. ,
, , . ,
.
, .138

,
, . . , :
- , , = (, , ,
, ).
- , = , .. (, ,
, ).
, ..
.
, ..
,
( ).139 ,
137
,
(. , . , 15).
138
(Herodotus 5.5); (5.16)
, , .
139
. , , 73.
507
f)
, . ,
,
.140

, , ,
. ,
, .141
, ..
( )
: (= )
; ; ,
.142
. ,
, ( ),

. , ,
,
. (Zygia)
. ,
(
= = = ; =
= = ).143
, ..
( )
. ,
. ,
(= , ).144
,
, .
, ,
( ), .145
,
, ,
, . , ,
, . (
) .
Hippon ( = )
. Hippia
, . , , .146
,
: *kabula, matar kubeleya ( ),
caballus, kevl .147
,
, .
140
(Aristoteles, Historia Animallium An. 6.18.116); . , , 73.
141
Leukippides 2013; . , , 73.
142
. , , 77.
143
. , , 73, 74, 76.
144
. , . , , 114, 115; . , , 76; . , , 54.
,
/- (. , , 186 69).
145
M. Robbins Dexter, The hippomorphic, 286; . , , 74.
146
M. Robbins Dexter, The hippomorphic, 286, 287; . , , 74, 75, 77, 79; . , , 24;
147
. , , 148, 149; . , , 60, 113.
508
()
, ,
Chalinitis ( ).
, , , :
;
, .148
(, ),
(, ,
, , ).149 , , , ..
, .
, ..
.
, . .
,
, .
(
) . : gorgos,
blimna gorgyn (
). :

;
.150

,
. .
(2. . ..) (
) (29: 6, 7).
(
, 26: 2).
5. . .., ,
.151
,

( 29: 6, 7 26: 2),
.
ja
,
o (61: 7, 9). , ,
.

.152 Demetra Hippia
Phigalia :
, , a .153

.
148
M. Robbins Dexter, The hippomorphic, 286; . , , 77; . , , 53,
: 56, 57.
149
. , , 56.
150
M. Robbins Dexter, The hippomorphic, 288; . , , 53, 54.
151
. , , 170, 172, 174, 176, 181 (.12), 182 (. 13); . ,
, 137, 138; K. G. Chatzinikolaou, Locating, Fig. 25.
152
. , ,19, T. XI.
153
(Pausania 8.42.3 4); M. Robbins Dexter, The hippomorphic, 287.
509
f)
29
510
()
.
(.. -) .
/,
, ( )
- . , -
, , ( ).154
- , ,
. ,
,
*ekwos .155
-. ,

.156 ,
,
.157 , , ..
,
(54: 4).158

, . ,
, ,
( ). ,
,
( ), ( )
.
( ).159 ,
( ) .

. , , ..
, ,
. , ,
( ) , , ,
, .160 ,
() , .. . ,
, .
, ( , )
.161
,

= = . ,

:
- + = (= = )
- + = (= = )
154
M. Robbins Dexter, The hippomorphic, 285; . , , 78.
155
Epona 2013.
156
(Herodotus 4.8 10); . , , 55.
157
, , (. . , , 172 . 32); . ,
, 174 176.
158
. , , 208; . , , 195 197.
159
. , , 517 521; . , . , 147; . , , 24.
160
. . , , 517 520.
161
V. J. Prop, Historijski, 248, 275; . . , . . , , 220 222.
511
f)

. , (.*sprg, *sprga)
: . *prgnti, *prgti, *prg , ; . *prg . prg
; . *spreng- *(s)p(h)erg-. : ,
, /, , , .162

( ) ,
, (, , )
, .. . ,
, ,
19. 20. , (
)
.
,
( ).
,
() ,
, .

,
( ) (
).163
.
, .. ,
, -.164
-
, , ,
, .. .
.
,
( ) .
,
:
; ( -)
; , ;
(
).165
( )
(
),
. ,
.

, , (
, .. ).166
162
A. Gluhak, Hrvatski, 433 (napregnuti); P. Skok, Etimologijski. III, 31, 32 (prei); P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire, 397
399 (); J. Pokorny, Proto-Indo-European, 1381 1384 (ieu-2, ieu -, ieu-g-).
(. ),
(P. Skok, Etimologijski. I, 479 /evelija/).
163
(Aristoteles, Politica, 7.1324b. 15 17).
164
. , , 54; : . , , 185.
165
(Herodotus 1.31).
166
: . , , 54, 56; ()
: . , . , 57, 60.
512
()
,
.

(. 516).
7.

,
,
(26; 27 14).
, :
;
, Archondiko (29: 4)
( , ) (28: 1 - 3). . -

,

( ).167
,
: , ,
.
a)
.
, (kredemnon), ,
, . , ..
(anakalypterion), ,
.168

.
( ), ,
( 29: 2, 3).
,
,
: ;
( ).
A
, , .
,
.169 ,

.

, ,
. ,
: (27: 2);
Tell Judeideh () (28: 4, 5);170
Gundestrup () (28: 6).171
167
. -, I, 170, 171; . , , 47, 48.
168
. , , 139.
169
. , , 81 88, 139.
170
S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil I, 356 Abb. 298: 4 6.
171
. , , 12.
513
7.
b)
, (
), .
, ,

, ,
, , ,
.
(26: 4).
, ,
*bind / (26: 7, 8).172

( 14),
, , .
. ,
,
.
(,
, ). ,
, :
.
, ,
.173
() (25:
9, 10), , , ,
(5: 1 - 3; 56; 60: 7, 8 37).
c)
, ,
..
(= )
(= ).
,
, ,
, . ,
, , ..
,
.
,
.174
. , , ,
, ,
, .
( ) ,
, (
).175 , (
172
. , , 76.
173
. Dimezil, Drevna, 272, 273.
174
. . , , 67. ,
, ,
(. , , 116).
175
. , , 116, 117.
514
()
, ) , ..
,
.
:
, .. ; , .. -
;
. ,
,
, , , , .
,
. .
, ( . 54 . 80) ,
,
30 cm (29: 8, 9).176
.
,
( )
,
.
( ) ,
, e .177
d)
,
.
,
, - . , ,

.178
,
.
( ) .179 -
,
plexus solaris ( /)
.
. ( )
180 plexus solaris . , ,
, , ,
.
:
( )
( ),
( ).
,
.
, , .. .
176
Z. Videski, Religious, 317 319. . 669.
177
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 14; Taf. 15; Taf. 55: 1037; Taf. 57: 1090.
178
= /: B. Gabrievi, Studije, 53 78; F. Cumont, After Life, 103 109.
.
(A. Stipevi, Kultni, 33).
179

: F. Kaul, Bronze Age, 139 141.
180
F. Cumont, After Life, 100.
515
7.
( )
.181

.
, , .
(/ ), (Anhata),
, . , ,
, , (
) (Maipra),
. , ,
(Svdhihna), , ,
.182
, ,
, ..
.

(12; 22).
,
(11: 9 12; 12: 5, 6, 8, 9), ,
,
. ,

( plexus solaris) , ..
-, (
18: 4).
,
, / .
, ,
, . ,
,
. (

) , ,
, .
II. ()

.

, , ,
. , ,
( )
, .. , ,
.
1.
12 .
: (30: 3);
181

: ... na persi ti sonce, na eli ti mesec, po ivotu ima lipe drobne
zvizde? (R. Katii, Zeleni, 319, 320).
182
A. Govinda, Tibetanska, 155 166; Chakra 2014.
516
()
(30: 1, 2); , , (30: 4, 8; 31: 1, 2;

32: 8); , (30: 7); , (30: 5, 6; 32:
6); , (31: 3); - (32: 7).
, ( 20 cm)
,
, .
(
30: 3).
(..
) ,
( ) (30: 7). ,
,
(30: 4; 31: 3; 32: 8),
(30: 1).
, .. (30: 1
3, 5). , ,
(30: 3, 4, 5, 8).183
, a ,
(32: 10).184
, ( 30: 5; 32: 6),
- (32: 7)
.
.185
2.
.
(bumerangfrmige Anhngen mit Ringse), . -, -
(Bumerang Anhngen). . ,
. (cheek pieces of horse-bits) . . . (side-piece of a horse-
bit). . (. pendants), -,
-, .. ,
. ,
.186
.
3. ,

( . ), 7. 6. . ..
, ,
183
. , , 216; R. Vasi, Srednja, 694; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 157, 158; . ,
, 95, 97 I; . , , 79, 81, 83; D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 570; . ,
, 60; B. Husenovski, E. Slamkov, Archaeological, 17 Fig. 21; . , , 245 . 88;
,
(. , . , ).
184
J. Bouzek, Greece, 62, Fig. 230: 4.
185
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 29.
186
K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 95; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 43, 44; . , , 214, 216 218; J. Bouzek,
Graeco-Macedonian, 157, 158; N. G. L. Hammond, A History, 55, 360; . , , 93, 95, 96;
D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 567, 570; . , , 245 . 88; . , , 99; . ,
, 71.
517
II.
30
518
()
.187
,
.
,
,
( ) (31: 2).
, (30: 4, 8).
, , ,
.
.
(31: 1, 2; 22: 3,
4).188
4.

. . ,
, (, , )
. ,
, 8. . ..
,
, .

7. . .. .
,
,
, .. .189 . ,
(30: 1, 2),
(, , ),
.190
,
(32: 10 ).
,
, , ,
, , , .
5.
, (. . . , . , . )
,
. .
.191 ,
,
,
. ( )
, (.. ) ,
.192
187
. , , 216; . , , 95, 96; D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 570; J. Bouzek,
Graeco-Macedonian, 157, 158. , , . -
Vinul de Jo (I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 44).
188
. , , 81, 83; . , , 97, 99, 107.
189
. , , 214, 216 218.
190
191
. , , 216 218.
192
. . , ; . . , , 193 220.
519
II.
, (
)
, .193
.

.

.
,

. :
( 30: 5 9);
; ;
. ,
, .194
. 15

, .195
,
,
.
.
,
(31: 1, 2). .
, ,
( ),
, ,
, .. .
, , ..
, ( ).

,
, ..
(77: 6).196
,
, ,
. , ,
. ,
,
. .
, in situ,
(31: 2). , ,

.

.
.

,
193
. , 4.
5. . ..: . , , 189 191, . 6.
194
. , , 96; . , , 83.
195
. , , 97, 99, 107; . , , 79, 83.
196
. , , 83.
520
()
, .. ( )
.
. ,
, , (, .. ?)
.
6.
a)

.
. (30: 1),
.
,
,
, ..
. , . ,

( )
() ...
.197
, .
(30: 2),
(30: 6).
(30: 5) ( ),
(30: 3) (
, , 31: 1). ,
, ,

.198 . , ,
(30: 4; 32: 8).199
b)
-

. ,
,
(30: 1, 2), .
, .. (
), ,
. ,
( )
.
,
(30: 3, 5; 31: 1).

( ) (30:
1, 2).
(30: 4).
197
. , , 217, 218.
198
. , , 95, 96.
199
. , , 99.
521
II.
31
522
()
, ,
,
(30: 1 4, 6; 31: 3).
,
(30: 5, 8). ,
(30: 6),
(30: 7).
.
,
. (30: 4; 32: 8).
(31: 3).
.
,
. ,
. , ,
,
. ,
(30: 1).
( ) . . , ,
.
.
, (30: 2 1).

, ,
(30: 3 5, 8).
-

,
.
,
. ,
(30: 1, 2) ,
.

(30: 3, 5; 31: 1).
. , ,
, ,
.

.

(30: 6),
, ..
.
,
(30: 8).

,
( , , , ...) ,
.. ( 73).

. , ,
523
II.
(30: 1, 2),
(-, ).
, ,
, ,
(30: 1, 4; 31:
3). ,
( ,
), , , (, )
, (30: 4 73) ( .
619, 621).200

(
, ) , .. 1. . . .. (31: 4).201
( ),
, .
, .
, ,
,
. , ,
, .. , ,
.
, , ,
. ,
,
.
,
.
(, ,
, ..
).
, .. ,
( 30: 1, 4; 31: 3 60: 3, 4, 9, 12).202
,
(1100 500 . . ..)
().
( , ),
, .
(15: 1):
();
();
(); ,
()
() .203

(30: 4; 31: 3; 32: 8),
, .. , ..
( ;
) ( 75: 5, 9, 10).
, (30: 1) , ,
200
: . ; , 279 289;
: . , , 347, 348; . , , 40 44.
201
2013, 606 (. . 306.18.18).
202
. , , 327 362; . , , 275 303.
203
F. Kaul, Reading, 328 333; . , , 240 242; F. Kaul, Bronze Age.
524
()
, . ,
(=
) . ,

, , ..
.
, .

() (= , ) ( .
117, 464, 493, 615). ( ,
I)
.

(31: 1).
(
),
. , -
( ) (,
) (, )
.
, e
.
, ,
.
7.

, ..

. , ( )
.

, , : , ,
( . 513 516).

,
( 32: 9 11 - 13 19) ( .
191).204 , . ( ,
, )205 o
o ,
(, ) ,
.. .
III.

,
,
,
204
: . . , , 198, 199 . 95: 1 ( ), 200 . 96: 8
(, ), 201 97: 2.
205
: . , , 249.
525
II.
32
526
()
.. . ,
(33), ,
(32: 1 - 5).
, ,

( 34: 7).
1.

(33).
, ,
, , (33: 2, 6).
. ,
(33: 9, 10, 12, 13).
, / (33: 3, 4, 9).
( ),

.
, .
, , , ,
, , , .206 .
(buttons in the shape of Maltese crosses). ,
, ,
. ,
700 . . .., , 6.
. .. ,
(
).
4 (41: 9, 13, 15),
, .207 .

.
(
)
(33: 9, 10, 12, 13).208
. ,

(41: 1 - 3, 9, 13, 15, 16),
, .. (33).

, .
, .. .
,
.
206
W. Schle, Die Meseta-Kulturen, map.10; R. Vasi, Makedonske, 144, Sl.1: 4, Sl. 2: 10; N. Slavkovi- uri, Ilirski,
T. II: 5; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 11: 1; Taf. 71: 4; A. Benac, B. ovi, Glasinac, T. XXVI: 2; K. Vinski-
Gasparini, Kultura, T. 119: 9; K. Kilian, Bosnisch-herzegowinische, Taf. I: 11; J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 330; V. Lahtov,
Problem, 62, 63, T.XXIII: 1, 2.
207
208
. , , 17 (. 10); 21 (. 19), 33, 64, T.I (Gr. 1: 3, Gr. 4: 13), T.V (Gr. 19: 7, Gr. 20: 14), T.VII
(Gr. 26: 12), T.XVI (Gr. 61: 19); . , , 32, 33 (. . 112 116).
527
III.
33
528
()
2.

, , , ,
(32: 1 - 5).
, . .209
. 15 , in
situ, (32: 2, 3).
, . 4
.210
3.
.
, ,
.
.211
..
, .. .
, ..
.
, , ,
, ,
. , .. ,
( , , ,
, ...) (3: 1).
,

, ,
(1: 1; 2: 6).
,
(33: 9, 10, 12, 13),

.
.
, ,
,
, .. .
() , .212

.

, ,
(5: 7 6 8).
(
) (34: 1 3, 6,
9).
, , /
209
. , , 78 T.II: 2; . , , 69 (. . 293). K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, T.
119: 10; N. G. L. Hammond, A History, Fig. 20: g; K. Kilian, Bosnisch-herzegowinische, Taf. I: 10; . , -
, 29 T.II: 6, 33.
210
. , , 76, 77 T. I, 78 T.II: 2.
211
J. Bouzek, Cimmerians; J. Bouzek, Cimmer. and Early, 36, 37.
212
N. ausidis, Myth. of the Mountain, 270 272; . , . , 180 183;
: . . . , , 119 121, 125.
529
III.
34
530
()
. , ,
,
( 34:1).213
(34:
10) , 3.000 . . .. (34: 4).

.
, .214

,
(34: 9).215
()
,
(8: 2).216 ,

.
.

(34: 11).217
(
. 33: 14).
Yarim Tepe, (
) (34: 8; 24: 7).
,
.
, ,
,
, .. .

, .

a , .218
, .
4 (32: 2, 3).
, ,
( ) .

( )
, , ,
(50; 51). ,
,
, ,
, .
213
. , , 109 117, 16, 29.
214
. . . , , 157 ( ).
215
: . , , 86.
216
( ): A. , , . 7; .
, (1), 19, 22.
217
. , , . IV; 4 : . , . , IX,
145, 146.
218
: . , , 129, 130, 11, 12; : .
, , . 61, 81, 143.
531
III.
,

,
( 32: 1 5 38; 39; 40).
, ,
..
.
( . 735).
C.
I. KU I ZI
. 62 Ku i Zi, Kor (),

, ( , 6 cm)

(35: 1, 2).
. - ,
. ,
, -
, .
,
. .
.219
, (, -
)
( 11).
,
(), (6. 5. . ..).
,
. . .
Ku i Zi (38: 3, 4 1, 2).220 ,
() (38: 5).221
,
.

.
, , ,
.
( ),
, ,
, .

, . ,
,
-
.
219
Z. Andrea, Kultura, 117, 145, Tab. XXXI: v62 3, Tab. LXIV: 6; Z. Andrea, Tumat, 176, 189, Tab. IX: v62 3, Tab.
XV: 7.
220
. . , , 39 (. 7: 7), 40; . /Abarchuk
(J. Bouzek, The Belozerka, 250 Fig, 4: 6; J. Bouzek, Greece, Fig. 220).
221
. . , , 30 (. 1: 18), 34.
532
()
35
533
C.
, ,
, ,
6 . ,
, ,
, .
, , , , ,
.
, , , , ,
( , , ,
). (
) ,
.

.
.
( )
. ,
(35: 3).
Ku i Zi
, , ..
.
, ,
.222
( )
. (35: 5).223

. ,
, 15 ,
(31: 1). ,
(35: 6).224
,
, Ku i Zi
.
II.

.
.

.
( 3 4 cm)
(36).

.
. ,
(36: 3, 6, 10), (36: 4, 5, 13, 14),
(36: 12) Lindos , (36: 2).
, (36:1). .
222
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 58 (Fig. 17: 5), 79; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 11: 1.
223
. , . , , 78, 79, . 20, . 16: .
224
. , , 20 (. . 50); J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 70 Fig. 21: 8; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier,
Anhanger, 79, Taf. 26: 507.
534
()
36
535
II.
37
536
()
7. 6. . .., .
,
7. . .. . .
(beads), . (durchbrochen gearbeiteter Perlen), .
, .
. .
, = , = ,
(36: 1).225 ,
,
, .. .
, ,
.
o 55
(36: 3). ,
( 36: 11),
.226 ,

(
. . ). (
), ,
. 227 ,
.
1 cm,
, . .
,
, ,
( 35: 8
23) ( . 357).
(36: 15).
4,6 cm, 5,4 cm 2 cm,
.228
.
, , , ,
(35: 10).229
4 ( 35).
, .. .
Ku i Zi, , ,
(35: 7). ,
( ),
,
( 10).230
225
. , , 92, 94; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 69; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 89; .
, , 42, 43 (. . 164 168); . , , 31, 32, 54; D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja,
Fig. 4: 19, Fig. 5: 4, 9, Fig. 6: 2, Fig. 7: 4.
226
: . , . , , 77, 78, . 19, . 15 (
); J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 120 Fig. 38: 8 (Olint, );
: I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 80, 145, Taf. 26: 511 ( ); Samml.
Geom. Bronzen 2013 ( ).
227
. , , 92, 94; . , , 31, 32, 54; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 69;
K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 89.
228
. . , , 25, 157 . XVIII: 1; . . , , 82 T.XXI: 18.
229
Samml. Geom. Bronzen 2013.
230
Z. Andrea, Kultura, Tab. LXIII: 3; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 118, 119, Taf. 34: 652.
537
II.
1.

,
,
.
a)
-
, Ku i Zi
.
4. . .., ( 4
6) , .
,
(11: 3, 6, 7 9; 10).
, ,
( ), , ,
Ku i Zi (38: 6 - 14 1, 2; 39: 3, 4, 7 11 2).
3 7 cm, ,

- ( , .. 39: 7).231

Ku i Zi,
.
- ( ),
,
(38: 11, 14).
- .
- - ,
, .
- ,
, ,
.

. .
,
. , , (. ) (39: 1)232
, () (39: 5, 6).233
, , ,

. .
, (
I) .
, , ,
231
. , , 16, 17; J. Makkay, A Peculiar; . , . , . , , 28, . .
170, 173, 175, 180, 182, 183, 186, 187, 198, 199, 200; . , Crepundia, 166, 167; S. Hansen, Bilder II, Taf. 273: 2,
3.
232
. . , , 448 23: 48.
233
. , , 182, 183, : 181 (T. XLVIII: 15),
: 31 (. 28).
538
()
38
539
1.
. ,
.234

, .
.
, 10 15 cm, ,
, ,
.
, , .235

,
.
,
.
, . ,
Ku i Zi,
,
. a ja
-
(30; . 916).

,
.
: (sattva), (rajas) (tamas). ,

( ),
, , .. (
). :
; .
,
,
,
.236 ,
.237
10 : , ,
, () , , , ,
, , . ( ,
)
(, , ).238

. , ,
, , , .239
234
. , , 181 (T. XLVIII: 15), 182, 183.
.
235
. , , 56 T.I: 4; . , . , , 73 86, 448 23: 48
(III 29).
236
J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 309, 314; . , . , V IX, XXIV; D. K. Kuper,
Ilustrovana, 78.
237
(Atharvaveda XIII 1.4; 3.1, 6); : . . , , 175.
238
. . , , 93 95, 102 106.
239
. . , , 66, 67.
540
()

(). . (39: 8, 9)
(
) .240
.
,

- (39: 12 9 59:
4).241 , ,
,
.
-

( . 866). ,
.
,

. ,
(39: 13,
14).
(3: 3, 9) .
. ()
, , ,
. ,
.242 ,
, (
) (,
). , ,
,
.
, ..
.
, ( )
, , , ,
. ,
, . ( ).
, .
7. . ,
, , .
, ,
.243
240
: J. Makkay, A Peculiar, 17 (Fig. 7: 7 a, b), 18, 19.
, ,
(. , , 29 31).
241
: . . , ; . ii. 1/1, 42 44; 1/2, 177.
242
. , -, 213 : ,
, , , ``
``. , ` `.
243
. , . , IV.
541
1.
39
542
()

.
, ,
, ..
,
( ). ()
. .
() .244
. -
, ,
: () ,
, , ,
, ,
.245
( ) .

. (
), ,
.246
,
(vara), , (rja = ).
(45)
(46: 4) , ,
( . 561, 564).247
,

.
,

.

( . 555).
b)

(36). , , ,

. ,
(36: 7 - 9).

.
.

. ,
, (,
, , ).
244
. , . , IV.
245
. , , 585, 586; O. Begbeder, Simbolika, 48, 49.
246
, ,
= , , , = ( : .
, ).
247
. , -, 213.
543
1.
: ( = ); (
, ); ( );
( ,
); (
).
:248
- : : : : :
- : : : : :

,
. ,
.

, .. ,
.
,
. ,
. ,
, .249

, , .
( )
(43; 44; 45; 46; 47; 48).
,
, (= )
.
(
/ )
( . 559, 561, 564). ,
.
,
(, ) (48: 8, 9) (
). ,
.
,
.250

, ,
.
. , 2. . ..
.251

( 37: 5).
, ,
( )
(37: 1 - 4).
, .. ,
.
,
248
. , , 275 277; A. M. Potts, The World's.
249
: . , , 320, 321.
250
A. Stipevi, Kultni, 135, 136, T.XXXIV: 4, 5; , : . .
, , 64, 65, . XXXIX: 60 .
251
A. M. Potts, The World's, 17 24.
544
()
, .
, (, )
.252
,
(37: 7, 8). . .
( =
, = ). , ,
4 ,
( : 41: 11; 43: 6, 8, 9; 47: 1).
.

.253

.
, .
4
. ,
,

, , (36: 6, 12; 37: 6).
(, )
, (36: 11).

( )
, (
35: 8).
( 23)
.
,
.

.
: ,
( ,
, ) ; , ,
, .. ( . 358).
III.

, 3 cm,
2,9 cm 1 cm (35: 4; 40: 10).
, 4
.
, ( )
. .
252
A. Prentice, Athenian; A. J. Clark, M. Elston, M. L. Hart, Understanding, 90, 91; J. R. Mertens, Attic; A. M. Potts,
The World's, 35 37.
253
. . , . . , 201, 202; : M. Gimbutas, The
Language, 54 60; : A. M. Potts, The World's, 32; : . , ,
275 277. .
- (. , -, 135).
545
1.
40
546
()
,
(35: 3) (),
7. . ..254 . ,
.255

.
.
, ,
(33: 5).256

. Ku i Zi,

.
() (. ),
( 1,1 cm), 6. 5. . .. (41: 14).257
( , )
, ,
(35: 9 4).258 ,
.
Philia ()
(20: 2, 3).259
( )
Ku i Zi, ,
(35: 11).260

( )
.261
, -
, ,
( . 163) (41: 1 3, 9, 13, 15, 16).
. , ,
,
. ,
,
.
,
(35: 4).
,
( )
, ,
1 cm.
(35),
,
.
254
. , , 60, 63.
(. ., , 60 . . 622, . . 787).
255
K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 94, Taf. 58: 4.
256
N. Slavkovi- uri, Ilirski, 544, T. II: 5.
257
. -, , 285, 286, . 13.
258
. , , 8, 9, 10 . 14.
259
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 26: 502, 503.
260
Z. Andrea, Tumat, 226 Tab. XI: v. 97 1.
261
V. Stare, Kultne.
547
III.
41
548
()

,
(40: 10). (35: 9)
, ,
, (, , ...),
.
, (
) ,
(41: 12).
, .. , (42: 2,
3, 6 - 11). , , ,
.
,
.

,
.
( 41: 17).262
( ) ,
.
,
,
.
, ,
, (, ) (
, , , )
, , .. .263
1.
)
,
. ,
, , (. 4,2 cm),
(40: 11 38: 6 14). ,
,
.
, .264
, () Zorlenu Mare ()
( 39: 7 9 38: 13 35:
4).265

( . 916).

( 6 cm) , , ,
(40:
4, 5). , ..
,
, .. .
262
: . . , . , I II ().
263
L. Mumford, Mit o maini I, 205; Ceremonial mace 2014; O. M. Frejdenberg, Mit, 399;
(mace).
264
. , . , . , , 28, 143 . . 187.
265
. , , 30 . 14, 144 . .157; S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil II, Taf. 273: 2.
549
III.
42
550
()
( ,
).266
glans penis, .
:
; -, .
, ..
, ,
(= ).267
,
(, , ,
) , ,
, , , .
,
, .
( 7 10 cm)
,
,
(40: 2, 3, 6, 9). ,
, , ..
.268
, ,
( 3. . . ..) (40: 1). , ja (40: 12
2. . . ..)
.
3,5 cm .
-
( ) (42: 2, 3).269
, .. ,

. , ..
, (42: 2, 3, 8 - 11).
( ),
, ( )
.
, (42: 2, 3
1).270 ,

o, . ,
, .. ().
( )
, .271
,
- (40: 7, 8, 12, 13; 41: 1
3, 9, 13, 15, 16).272
266
B. Govedarica, Die kreuzfrmigen; : Preh. of Transylvania 2014; . ii 2004 .1/1, 484.
267
- -: . , ; . , .
268
. . , , 140, 142 144; . . , , 29, 30, 34; . . ,
, 25, 26, . XVIII: 5, 6; . . , . , I. 2; . , , 162, 163;
2013, 400 82.1, 562 251.10.
269
. . , . , I. 2; 2013, 62 . 4, 619: 319.1.
270
2013, 603: 306.18.7; . . , , . 32.
271
. . , ; . . . , 152, 165 . 6, 166 . 7, 8.
272
. (J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 329 Fig. 21, 330).
551
1.
43
552
()
, .. .273
,
(
) (23).

, , .. (mace head).
, a
. , (42: 6)
.
, ,
(5,7 cm).274 , ,
,
(42: 7).275 (
Sackler)
(43: 1, 2). ,
. ,
.276
( ) ( )
(43: 8, 9).
,
(41: 11).277 , ( 4 )

, .. .

, .. (,
), .
() ,
(43: 6). Khateeb collection,

(43: 4).
b)

, ,
( ). (
3 cm) .
,
(42: 4, 5).
, ,
, .. . , ,
. Allinge,
(43: 7), , (43: 5), III
, .278 ,
, .
273
()
( ?), : . . ,
, 35 5.
274
Luristan Br. Mace 1, 2014.
275
Luristan Br. Mace 2, 2014.
276
Ancient fertility 2014.
277
B. ovi, Srednjodalmatinska, 450, 451 Sl. 26: 6; . , , 261 Sl. 146 a, 262.
278
J. P. Lamm, On the Cult, 225 Fig. 13; . , .
553
1.
44
554
()
, ,
,
, .
-
, , ,
.

.

. (
) , ..
,
, .. .
.
c)

( ) , .
, .
, , .. ,
,
( 43: 3 /, /;
44: 5 //, 6 //). ,
. ,

. , ,
,
.
, ,
2.
1. . ..
-

. 13. 8. . .. ,
Yayji Goris ( 76 cm)
, 5 (44:
7). .
Navur Itsakar Tavush (44: 3). ,
(. 6 cm, ) 4
.
( , ).279 ,
-
(43: 1, 2, 4, 6).
,
, .. . , .. ,
, ,
( ) Tetraprosopos ( ).
279
. . , , 269 270; . , , 459.
555
1.
45
556
()
,
, , .280

. ,
(
), (, ) (48: 8, 9)
( ). ()

.

.281
.
,

(41: 11).282
-

, (45).
, .. : , , , ,
(45: 3).
,
(, , , ).

( ).
, , Bayon, Angkor Thom () (45:
5). Lingam, .. Shivalingam,
, .. (caturmukhalinga), ,
, ,
(45: 4, 6). ,
lingam (= ), ,
glans penis.
( . 201).
,
Shiva Mahesvara (, , ). ,
, ,
, , ,
. ,
.
.283

: , , ,
, .
. ,
, , ()
280
R. C. Zaehner, Zurvan, 219 247; H. von Gall, The Lion-headed, 513, 514.
281
A. Stipevi, Kultni, 135, 136, T.XXXIV: 4, 5.
282
283
Sri Swami Sivananda, Lord Siva; M. Elijade, Istorija. Tom I, 185 210 (
).
557
c)
46
558
()
().284 , , ,
, (45: 5).
- ,
.285
-

. ,
, , ..
, .. . ,
.
(Pons Fabricius)
,
(44: 9). ,
.286
(44: 2). 45 cm,
( ).
( )
, . ,
.287 ..
, ,
(44: 10), ( )
, , .. Meter Tetraprosopos (44: 4).288
, ,
(Ianus Quadrifrons). ,
,
Velabrum Forum Boarium.289
-
, ..
, ,
. ,
, .
.290
- . ,
. ,
, .. .
, (46: 4) , - (46: 5) (
)
.291 ,
Plave,
(46: 3).292
, . ,
284
. . . , , 105, 106, 109; . . , , 93, 94.
285
. . , , 108 51.
286
P. Gaietto, Four-headed.
287
. . , , 53, 54 . 38, 39; . , , 459.
288
Monumenta Vol. X, no. 53 ( Beskaris Hyk, ); N. Eda Akyrek ahin, Eskiehir'den.
289
(Servius, Commentarius in Vergilii Aeneida 7.607; Isidorus, Origines 8.11; Augustinus, De Civitate Dei 7.4);
Quadrifrons 2014.
290
: . , , 461 471.
291
. . , . . , 236 251; . . , . . , .
292
A. Pleterski, Wie auf der Erde, 128, 131 Abb. 15.
559
c)
47
560
()
, (3 4)
Bribir, Vaani, (46: 2).293 ,
( ),
(44: 8).294
- . ,
,
(, ) , .
, , , (47: 1 4,
6, 7, 9). Svendborg, (.
), (47: 1, 2 43: 8, 9).
, .295
- . , ,

,
(48: 3, 4, 6). , ,

Sutton Hoo,
(48: 1, 2). ,
(48: 5).
.296
.
,
.297

:
4 ; (Charenza)
(Porenutius) 4 , (Poreuithus) 5
7 ; , 3 .
15. , ,
(
), (
Perunedn = ). ,
, : : , ,
, .298 ,
, , .
. , (46: 4) Wilica () (47: 4)
, .
,
.
. .
, .
, (
), . ,
( )
293
. , , 465 471; N. ausidis, Poganska, 441 443; V. P. Gos, The Three-Header; .
, .
294
. . , , 131, 132, . 32: 1, 3.
295
. . , . . , 356 358; J. P. Lamm, On the Cult; . . , ; . ,
; . , , 461 464.
296
J. P. Lamm, On the Cult; K. Kajkowski, P. Szczepanik, The multi-faced; M. J. Enright, The Sutton Hoo sceptre.
297
: . , . , 200 204; A.
Durman, Simbol, 20.
298
. . , . . , , 24 30 ( 6 + 1
).
561
c)
48
562
()
49
563
c)
, .. ,
: ( ,
) (47: 1 48: 8; 43: 6, 8, 9 41: 11);
, .. (46: 4).
() , .. ,
, , ,
.
, ,
, . . , , ..
.299
,
, .
, , (46: 4 21: 8,
9), Svendborg (47: 1) (47: 2). ,
(43: 8, 9).
,
( ).
,
,
.
-

, .
, .. ,

,
.
, (), 12. (46:
1). ,
, , , .300
(48: 7).

, ,
(49).
.

.
,
(49: 5).301
19.
20. (49: 9).302

.
2.

(42: 1).
299
. . , . . , 236 251.
300
. . , ; . . , , 88 95.
301
. , , 471, 472.
302
. , , 128 . 4.
564
()

(, , ...) ,
, .. (41: 12, 17). ,

.
D.
j
.
, .
, .
:
; ( ) ,
. ,
.

, , ,
(50 62).
, .. .

, ( ,
52: 1, 2, 5; ).303
, ,

, .. ,
, ( ).
, ,
, , .. .

, .304
, .. , .. .
,
, .
,
( ) (
), :
- ()
, , ..
(52; 58: 2 4, 6).
- ()
(50; 51).
- , .. , , .. ,
(55).
.
,
, , .. .
, :
303
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 137, 138; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 17, 23.
304
: I. Kilian-Dirlmeier,
Anhanger, 16 42.
565
D.
50
566
()
- , , , ,
: (10 30 cm) (52: 1, 2, 5);
(5 10 cm) (50; 51: 1, 4 9, 12); (2 5 cm) (50: 11; 51: 2, 3, 10).
- , : , , ,
, , , .
- : 4 (50; 51), 6 (52), 7 (55: 1) (51: 10).
- , .. , .. : , .
- : ;
; .
- : 1, 2, 3, 4
(58; 60; 61; 62; 63); , ..
(56; 57).
- / :
( , ; , , ,
, , ); ( );
( )
(62; 63); (
) (79; 81).
. ,

, ,

.
,
, . ,

.
I.
1.

(50; 51; 52).
.
, ,
(50; 51: 8, 9, 12).
( ) ,
(50: 4; 51: 1, 4, 5, 7).
,
. , ( )
(50: 9, 51: 5, 6, 9, 12),
(
) (50: 5, 8 - 10).

,
.
.305
2.
. shield bosses decorative bosses,
, .. , ..
. decorative ornamental
305
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 17 23. J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 140; . , , 55.
567
D.
51
568
()
, .
wheel-shaped ornaments. .
(Makedonischen Votivrder mit
Speichen),
(Radanhnger mit erhabener Mittelplatte/mit Wulstkranz). , -
, . -. .
. .
( / ), .
, .306
3. ,

( 10 30 cm): /Chauchitsa /Kilkis (
) 18 31 cm ( 52: 1); Vergina ( )
; /Bohemitsa, ( ).307
( 27 cm) , (. )
,
(52: 2, 5; 31: 2 - 77: 6).308
99 , .309
Beravci (, ) (52: 3, 4).310
, .
( 5 7 cm).
: , (50: 3, 6);311 , (50: 12;
51: 6);312 , , (50: 9);313 , (50: 1);314 , (50:
2, 5);315 , (50: 7);316 , (51: 9).317
: , (50: 8, 10),318 : , ,
(51: 4, 7)319 : Ku i Zi (51: 8) Rehov, Psar.320
(): Vergina (51: 12), Pateli
(51: 5), Trilophon-Messimeri (50: 4) .
: Aegina, Aetos, Tegea, , .
: Megara Hyblaea (51: 1).321
, 2014 .,
306
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 137, 138, 140; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 93 95, 110, 111; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier,
Anhanger, 17 23; . , , 71; . , , 79, 81; . , , 55; . ,
, 27, 28 (. . 88 92), 69 (. . 295).
307
308
. , , 79 81; . , , 99.
309
. , (
).
310
K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, 165, T.109: 20, 21.
311
. , , 94, 95 . 66; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 93, Taf. 50: 5.
312
. , , 16 . 9; 55, T.XXII: 13.
313
. , , 73 .4: 3, 75; . , , 303, 304.
314
. , , 311.
315
. , , 60, 63; . ., , 60 (. . 620); K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 94, 95, Taf.
59: 11; , , : . , 54.
316
. , , 71, 73, 74; . , , 33 ( .14), 47 . 14.
317
B. Husenovski, E. Slamkov, Archaeological, 15 Fig. 10.
318
N. Slavkovi-uri, Ilirski, 544, T.II: 8, T.III: 1; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 67: 5, 6, Taf. 71: 2, 10 13, Taf. 73:
3.
319
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 138, 139 Fig.44: 1; . , . . T II, 469. . 98; I.
Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 22, Taf. 6: 95.
320
Z. Andrea, Kultura, T.XXXVI: v.122 3; S. Aliu, Aspekte, 280 T.II: 9.
321
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 22, Taf. 6: 91 93; Taf. 7; Taf. 8; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 135 Fig. 43: 3, 6,
138, 140; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 110, 111, Taf. 92; . , , 55.
569
I.
52
570
()
, ().
10 cm Megara Hyblaea.
5 6 cm, .
,
, ( 4 cm)
. . (, ;
. 322 51: 2, 3)
(, 323 50: 11). , ,
Vergina.324
(52: 1) . 8. . ..,
(52: 2, 5) . 7. . ..
7. 6. . ..,
(, 750 625 . . .., 53) (Megara Hyblaea, 700 . . .. 51:
1).325
4.
, .
- ,
. ,
(54) - ,
, ,
. , , ,
.326 .
,
.327

, (53), ,
, , .
,
. (53: 2, 6).
,
(53: 3 5, 7, 10, 11).
( , 53: 11, 10)
.328
() (53: 9).329
( ),

( 54: 4).330

.
,
322
. , , 27, 28 (. . 88 92); . , . , , 71, 72, . 10, . 6, 7.
323
N. Slavkovi-uri, Ilirski, 544, T.III: 2;
324
. , . , 36 (. 8), AZ VII, 255 (Eik. 99), 80: EVI a, 129: AZ VII .
325
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 137; J. Bouzek, Macedonian, 105 Fig. 5: 3; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 110, 111,
Taf. 1; . , , 73, 74; . , , 55.
326
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 137, 140; J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 329 Fig. 20: 22, 26.
327
K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 110, 111.
328
: Praistorija Jugosl. Tom V, T.II: 1 5, T. XXIV: 6, T.XXVI: 7, T.XLVIII: 21, T.LIV: 1 3 (
), T.LXI: 7, 8, 11; A. Benac, B. ovi, Glasinac, T.VI: 7, 9 11, T.XX: 5, 13, T.XXIII: 3, 16, T.XXXX: 5. B.
ovi, Ostava; K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, Sl. 5: 18, .48: 30, . 53: 7, 39, . 56: 34, 35, .58: 4, 5, 15, .69: 16,
.86: 13, .109: 20, 21, .113: 15, 16, . 119: 8, 11
329
. . , , 216, 218 . 106: 53 59.
330
J. Bouzek, Greece, 125 127, Fig. 140: 1 4, 141: 9; D. Glogovi, Okrugle;
: C. F. Pare, Der Zeremonialwagen, 35 Abb. 12.
571
I.
53
572
()
, ,
. ,
(, Pherali Philia .)
,
(54: 1 5, 11).331
(Arcalia, Bistria-Nsud) .332
, .. (
, .. ) (53; 54: 6),
, .. .
,
, (51: 11) Siteia,
(59: 8).333
5.
a) ()

, . (S. Casson)
(52: 1, 2, 5). . ,
, ,
, .. .
.
.334 .
(52: 2, 5),
( ?). ,

(31: 2; 77: 6).
,
. (
) ,
.
, (
) , ,
, ,
, .335
.
, .

. . ,
,

( . 614).
, ,
. .
331
: I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 17, 18, Taf. 4: 56 76; Taf. 5: 74, 77, 78; J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 52,
53, 81 (Fig. 40: 3), 146 (Fig. 72), 171 (Fig. 86), 172 177; . J. Green, The Wheel, 24, 25, 32 35.
332
M. Petrescu-Dmbovia, Depozitele, 161, Pl. 383: 1, 2; C. F. Pare, Der Zeremonialwagen, 31 (Abb. 7), 33.
333
H. Schliemann, Mykenae, 234 Nr. 316; A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. I, 514 Fig. 371; A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. IV
I, 94, 95; H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. IV, T. 219: E 2.
334
335
. , , 81; D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 574, 575; M. Vassileva, First, 674.
573
I.
54
574
()
b) ()
, ,
, ..
(, ) (50; 51). ,
( )

.
, .. , ,

, .
, (51: 7) , . (51: 9)
.336
,
(50: 5; 52: 1, 2).

, , .. ,
.
(
) . , ,
.337
II.
a) , ..
,
,
.. , ,
,
(: 55: 7, 8; 61: 1, 2, 3, 5). (, )
.338 ,
,
(55: 3 - 5).339 ,
, . ,
/Bohemitsa ( Axioupoli, ),
7 ,
(55: 1).
.340 , . ,
, 5
(55: 2). ,
, .. .341 ,
, , (55:
6).
336
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 22, Taf. 6: 95. . ,
.
337
D. Glogovi, Okrugle. 273; : C. F. Pare, Der
Zeremonialwagen, 35 Abb. 12.
338
G. Kossack, Studien, Taf. 10, Taf. 16; . J. Green, The Wheel, 22 24, 29, 30, 33, 35 37; H. Mller-Karpe,
Handbuch. IV, Taf. 332; K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, T. 53: 7, T. 56: 34, 35, T.85: 16, T. 113: 15, 16; . . ,
, 41, 42, . XXIV: 35 39; . . . .
339
: I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 16, Taf. 4: 54, 55.
340
. , ' , 613, . 13.
341
, .
(. , , 246 . 88).
575
I.
55
576
()
.342
( . 655).
,
.
, .. ,
.
(: 55: 9).
,
.343 (, , )
-
, , (55: 10 -
12).344

.
b)
,
( ), , , (56; 57).
, , , ,
, , 4 .
(56: 1, 3), , ,
(56: 6). , ,
, , , , . . -,
- (Radanhnger mit freiem Mittelring),
. ,
.345
2014 , (
, ),
. ,
,
(56: 1; 69: 7).346 ,
,
. ,
, ,
, .
.
.347 (
) . ,
, , .
342
I. Mikuli, Pelagonija, 16; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 78 ( : Rasiermesser
mit rundem Blattdurchbruch und einem Vollgriff, der in einem Ring endet). : K.
Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, T. 56: 7, 15.
343
. . , .
344
. , , 49 52.
345
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 28, 29; G. Kossack,
(G. Kossack, Studien, 23); A. Stipevi, Kultni, 17.
346
. . ,
.
2014
29 2014 .
347
, A. Radanhnger, ,
12 : 21, 37, 38, 40, 41, 56, 57, 106, 118, 129, 135, 186 (G. Kossack,
Studien, 41, 85 91, Taf. 16: Typ 7).
577
II.
56
578
()
8 .348
. -,
( ).
,
. ,
( ).
Typ A (57: 8), ( ?) Typ B (56: 4, 5, 8,
9). o
(56: 4, 5).349
, ,

.
- 1: 5
, ..
, .
Hamallaj /Durrs () 19,5 cm
10 (57: 7). ,
, . , .350
( ),
(7)
(57: 10).351 (5)
Torre del Mordillo Spezzano Albanese (Calabria ) (57: 11 10 ), ,
, S. Andrea, Cupra Marittima (Ascoli Piceno ) 7
18 cm.352
- 2: 3 4
4 3 ,
5 10 cm .
.
, ..
. , , . (56: 1;
69: 7) Dobova, (56: 3),353 , , ,
(56: 2),354 , , (56: 4, 5)355 ,
. Dobova ,
, , ,
( 56: 1 2).
, ,
( ,
) ( 57: 3). , ,
, ,
(56: 4, 5). ,
, , ,
. (
348
A. Stipevi, Kultni, 17, 34 10.
349
350
M. Korkuti, Marrdhniet, 96 (Fig. 4), 97, 102 (Tab. I: 6).
351
A. Stipevi, Kultni, 17, 34 10 ( ), T. III: 1.
352
S. Bellei, Gli insediamenti, 7.
353
A. Stipevi, Kultni, 17, 34 10 ( ), T. IV: 1.
354
R. Vasi, Oblast, 674; . -, . , , 18, 19 (. . 140: . 10).
355
. , , 248, 249 . 2; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 28, 29, Taf. 10: 152, 153; . ,
, 48 Sl. 50, 129 T. XXIX: 2, 4.
579
b)
57
580
()
70 km). , 4
,
.
115 km .
, Dobova ()
(3) ,
(56: 3).
2
, , , :
( ) (56: 7);356
Katundas Berat () (56: 10 - 12);357
Pherai (56: 8, 9);358 (57: 1 - 3).359
: ()
; ;
.
, (56: 6)
.360
-

( 14).
(. 607).
- 3:

(,
). , ,
. Pula
Picug, () (57: 4, 5) , (57: 8, 3,3
cm).361 ,
.
,
, .
Pobreje, Maribor () (57: 9).362 ,
, (71:
11).363
( , )

( 61: 1).364
-

, , , . , Hamallaj Katindas
356
A. Stipevi, Kultni, T. III: 2 ( ,
(: G. Kossack, Studien, 86 . 37).
357
M. Korkuti, Marrdhniet, 97 (Fig. 5), 102 (Tab.I: 7 9); K. Braka, Nj varrez, 39, 40, 43, 47 Tab. III: 9.
358
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 29, Taf. 10: 150, 151.
359
S. Bellei, Gli insediamenti, 7; Pendaglio 2015a; Pendaglio 2015b.
360
. , , 40, 41 (T.II: 5), 42.
361
A. Stipevi, Kultni, T. IV: 4, 9; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 28, 29, Taf. 10: 149.
362
S. Pahi, Maribor, 25 Sl. 5.
363
364
K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, T. 48: 30 (Poljanci, Oprisavci), . 56: 34, 35 (Brodski Varo, Slavonski Brod).
581
b)
, , ,
.365 .366
, ,
. e , Dobova (56: 1, 3, 6)
,
(56: 2, 4, 5). Hamallaj,
(57: 7, 10).
,
( ) (57: 1 - 3) (57: 11),
.367
-
. -
,
, .

, ,
.368 . , , ,
.
Sala Consilina, Cumae Basilicata ( Hamallaj),
Calabria (Torre del Mordilo, Rocella Jonica) Metapont.369
Torre del Mordillo
(57: 10, 11). ,
, (
) ( . 899 - 902).370
. ,

( , ),
, (57: 6).
2. . .., ,
.371 ,
(9. 8. . ..)
, , (69: 1, 2).

(6: 11).
.
.372
. - .
8. . ..373
( , 7. . ..),
, 4.
. ..374
365
M. Korkuti, Marrdhniet, 97; K. Braka, Nj varrez, 39, 40.
366
. -, . , , 18, 19; . , , 40.
367
368
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 28, 29; S. De Angelis, G. Francozzi, . Gori, I pendagli, 119 Fig. 2.
369
M. Korkuti, Marrdhniet, 96 98; : S. Bellei, Gli insediamenti, 6.
370
. , , 164 168; F. Papazoglu, Srednjobalkanska, 103, 104.
371
. . , , 122, 123 . XIII: 7.
372
. . ( .), , 140, . LXVI T. LXXV; . , , 56 58.
373
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 29; M. Korkuti, Marrdhniet, 97;
, 6. . .. (S. Bellei, Gli
insediamenti, 7).
374
. , , 40.
582
()
-

,
. , , ,
, ,

.375 . . , -

.376

, ,
( . 601 607).377
III.

,
, (58: 2 4).
( ) ,
.
,
.
. . ,
(58: 3, 4) 75,
, .. .378
(),
,
(58: 6). ,

. ,
.

( 58: 6 7).
.379
. ,
,
.380 ,
, .
,
( 4 cm). .
, ()
( ).
375
G. Kossack, Studien; A. Stipevi, Kultni, 16 18; . , , 40, 42, 43; . , , 128 T.
II; S. De Angelis, G. Francozzi, . Gori, I pendagli; S. Bellei, Gli insediamenti, 6.
376
. J. Green, The Wheel, 297.
377
. , , 22, 23, 324, 325, 23: 4, 5, 6, 7.
378
. , , 16 (. 9), 35 (. 44), 55; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 135 Fig. 43: 5, 141.
379
. , , 30 (18./3).
380
. , , 55; . (. , , 25).
583
III.
58
584
()
59
585
III.
60
586
()
, ,
(59: 1).381
,
(58: 1; 60: 6) /Chauchitsa (?), /Kilkis (60: 5)
, , .382

,
, .
(62: 8
10). , ,
. ,
, .. (62: 7; 63: 4, 10).383
,

, . ,
(60: 7 12; 61).

, ,
(76: 3 9).
. Pylos, (76: 5),
, , .
,
(76: 1). Vergina,
(76: 2).
, , (76: 3, 4, 6 - 9) ( . 627).
: ,
, , ( ) (61),
(66). ,
, ,
4 (61: 4).384
Alaca Hyk (),
(61: 6, 7, 8).385
,
: (60: 11;
65: 11); (60: 8, 10);
(60: 7).386

(60: 3, 4, 9, 12).
, Villanova,
(65: 7, 8).

, .387
.
381
. , , 30 18./3; . , , 13; . , . , 60.
382
R. Vasi, eveliska, T. LXXIII: 1; . , , 315 Eik. 13.
383
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 140, 141, Pl. X: 35; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 13 15, 25, 26, Taf. 3: 41 47;
Taf. 8: 121, 122.
384
A. Stipevi, Kultni, T.IV: 9, 10.
385
H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. III, T. 309 T. 314.
386
()
,
(. , , 136, 137).
387
O. J. Brendel, Etruscan, 89 Fig. 58; G. Kossack, Studien, Taf. 12: 20.
587
III.
61
588
()
62
589
IV.
IV.

Hlne Stathatos Benaki

(Trilophon-Messemeri) (62: 5, 6).

, . ,
, (
5 cm). , .
.
( Mnil Houston)
,
, , ,
(, , ?) (62: 3). ( Mnil Houston)
(62: 2):
, .. 6 ; , , ;

; .
,
( )
(62: 9, 10).
.388 , .
,
.389
, . -
, ,
: 8 ,
(62: 4); , ,
; Pherai,
(62: 8 9, 10).390

, ,
.
.
(
), (63: 1 3).391

(63: 9, 11, 12) (63: 5, 6) .392
,
, ..
.
- .
(,
), ,
(62: 7; 63: 4, 10).393 ,
( Pherai ) ,
388
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 135 Fig. 43: 7 9, Pl. X: 35.
389
390
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 19, 25 27, Taf. 5: 81 83; Taf.8: 121, 122; Taf. 9: 139.
391
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 154 158, Taf. 49: 907; Taf. 50: 908, 910, 923.
392
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 160 183, Taf. 50 Taf. 58; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 28: 4.
393
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 13 15, Taf. 3: 39 47; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 28: 9.
590
()
63
591
IV.
64
592
()
65
593
V.
(= ) .
(62: 1; 63: 7, 8).394
( )

.395 ,
/ (64: 9)
(65: 1, 2, 3, 6, 12).
,
, (65: 12)
(65: 1).396
(65: 4, 5).397 , .. (
) ,
(64: 13) .398 ,
,
(, , ).399

, , , ..
(64: 7; 65: 9, 10).
( )
(64:
7, 10).400 ,
.401
, ,
20. ,
(64: 4) ( ,
).402
V.
, , ..
, .
, , ,
. , ,
(66:
1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14).403 o ,
( 66: 13),404
( )
394
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 159, 160, Taf. 50: 944 946; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 28: 3.
395
. J. Green, The Wheel, 23 25, 36, 38, 42, 43; C. Tappert, Ein keltischer; F. Kaul, Reading, 333; G. Kossack,
Studien, 100 117.
396
. , , 350 352.
397
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 11, 12, Taf. 2: 36, 37.
398
J. N. Coldstream, Geometric, 266 Fig. 90d, 317 Fig. 107, 320 Fig. 109;
: . . , , . 5.
399
. , , 345 352.
400
. . , .
401
. , , 51, 52; . , ; . , . . I, 90, 91; . ,
, 350 352.
402
. , , 350 352, 18: 2, 5, 7.
403
: J. N. Coldstream, Geometric, 24 Fig. 11a, 36 Fig. 13b, 40 Fig. 17g, 90 Fig. 33b, 91 Fig. 34a, 194
Fig. 69e; J. Bouzek, Die Anfnge, 99 Abb. 1: 2 4; R. Washbourne, Out of the mouths, 167 170; K. Nikov,
Macedonia, 419 Fig. 11.
404
: K. Nikov, Macedonia, 419 Fig. 11; J. Bouzek, Die Anfnge, 99; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 20: 3a; .
, , 216 Sl. 105.
594
()
66
595
V.
(15: 7; 66: 11, 12).405 (

66: 15; 67: 3).406
,
. .
( 5. 2. . ..) .
,
(59: 2, 3).407

(66: 1 9).
.408 ,
,
,
.
VI.
, ,
,
. , , -
.
,
. , ,
(, , )
.409
1.
a)
, ..
. , ,
,
, : ,
( ,
).410
,

. ,
. - .
, , 24-
,
, .. (67: 2). ,

.
405
: . J. Green, The Wheel, 28, 29; V. Podborsk, Nboenstv, 307 .83: 5, 323 .87: 3, 428 T.126: 18;
S. Kuko, Japodi, 156, 207; K. Horedt, Die Wietenbergkultur, 122 Abb. 9: 8.
406
: . ii 2004. . I, 261 263; : . . , . . , 192 208,
325.
407
. , , 229, 243 . 27, 28.
408
. , , 480.
409
G. Kossack, Studien, 17 23, 28 32, 35 38, : 85 91; J. Bouzek, Greece, 125 127; J. Bouzek,
Die Anfnge, 98 101; A. Stipevi, Kultni, 116 118; S. Kuko, Japodi, 155 157, 166 168, 179 192, 200, 212,
213; . , ; . . , .
410
L. Mumford, Mit o maini I, 272 279.
596
()
, , ,
, ( )
- (67: 1, 4).

, (67: 3, 8).411
,
.
,
, , ..
( )
:
; ; ; (), (
) .412
, ,
.. , ,
, .. .

(59: 5, 6)
(60: 11; 62: 1; 63: 7, 8; 65: 11). ,
,
.413
,
.
,

.414
b) ,
, ,
,
. ,
: =
; = , .. ; = ;
= , , .
: ;
(= )
, .. ; (=
). , (
- ), , , , .. ,
.415
, ,
, .416
411
. . , . . , 198 200, 236, 238; B. Gangadhar Tilak, Arktika, 91 93, 156, 157; F. Kaul,
Bronze Age, 137; . , , 239; . , , 46 48.
412
. , , 4.
413
M. Elijade, Kovai, 21; . , , 46; : A. Hnsel, Die Kultwagen;
: . . , . . , . II, 723 732;
: D. Anthony, The Horse; . J. Green, The Wheel, 16;
: C. F. Pare, Der Zeremonialwagen; Trundholm ()
: K. Kristiansen, T. B. Larsson, The Rise, 294 308.
414
. , . . I, 84, 85 ; . , . . II.
415
J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 288 291; R. Genon, Velika, 140 144. D. K. Kuper, Ilustrovana, 172, 173; P.
A. Riffard, Rjenik, 208, 209; C. G. Jung, Psihologija, 136, 174 179, 392 399; F. Kaul, Bronze Age, 145, 146.
416
R. Genon, Velika, 143, 144. . , . , VI.
597
VI.
67
598
()
, , , ,
. , ,
, , .417
1. . ..

, (64: 8).

(, , ) (60: 11; 65: 11).418
, ,
, ,

, .. . , ,
,
(4), (7, 28 30) (12 360).419

,
(54: 7).
, ..
: 12 (= 12 ) ;
; 720 (= 360
); 5 ( 54: 9, 10) 5 (= ) 12
(= 12 ); 12 , 360 (=
).420
, .421
30 ,
.422
6 .
,
6 , , , .

. ,
,

, ( 78: 1, 2 79). ,
, .. , (41; 42).423

,
.
,
( ).
(dharmacakra) , (sasra)
(64: 12; 82: 1).

(80: 2, 5).424
417
(Rigveda X.89.4); . . , , 207; . , , 25, 370.
418
. . , . I IV, 660; . . , , 28.
419
J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 289; R. Genon, Velika, 141, 142.
420
(Rigveda I.164.11 15); : . . , I IV, 640, 647, 649.
421
(Rigveda I.185.1); . . . , , 86; (Rigveda, IV, 28, 2); : . . , . I
IV, 740, 741.
422
(Dao De Jing II); : J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 289, 290.
423
. , , 87 91; J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 289. : . , ;
: A. Pleterski, Kulturni, 120 123, 266 268.
424
J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 289; D. K. Kuper, Ilustrovana, 68; : Sasra 2014; 2014.
599
VI.
c)
(67: 7)

( 68: 1).425
, , ..
: , , .
,
, .
(
), , , 12-
( . 634) (78: 4; 82: 7).
(klacakra),
. ,
:
; ;
(
). ,
, - .
, ,
, , ..
( 49): ,
, , ,
( ); , , (
): , ,
; , (
), . ,
,
. , ..
.426
, , -
,
, -
. ,
, , . ,
, .
, ( ,
),
. , ,
, ,
(67: 7).427
,
. , ,
, . ,
- ( ). ,
, . ,
() , , .
425
. , , 317, 318, 321, 322, 330, 331; . , . . I, 84, 88, 93; . ,
. . II, 66, 79, 80.
426
. , , 44, 45; D. Pajin, Tantrizam, 107; J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 288 291; D. K.
Kuper, Ilustrovana, 68; . , , 330, 331.
427
. . , , 207 (); . . , , 186 ( ); . , .
. I, . , . . II, ( ); . , , 267 (); . ,
, 363, 364.
600
()

. - ( , ),
,
, .428
( , , ),
, .
,
, ,
.429 , -

, ( ,
).
,
, .
- ,
( ) (64: 7;
65: 1, 2, 3 - 6, 12).
- ( , ..
) (62; 63; 64).
- (
) (79: 8, 11; 81: 1 - 3).
, -
(59: 4).
- ,
(79; 81).
,
, , .430
-

,
. .
,
, (68: 2).

, ..
(68: 1).
, ,
. -
, .
.431
3 3 ,
( , ).
,
.
. 9 ,
7, , . ,
428
. , , 344; . , , 19, 20; : . , , 132,
159 163; . , . , XXIV, 257; -: . , , 267.
429
. , , 78 82, 208, 210;
: . , , 28, 84, 313, 318, 319, 351, 352.
430
. , , 370, 371.
431
(. , , 322 325).
601
VI.
68
602
()
3 , 7 . , ,
( , 16 ). ,
63, () 99.
. - 7 8.
,
. , 7 9
. (9, 13)
.
9 ( ),
. () 7 ,
.
,
.432 , 3 7,
9 . , , ,
, , ,
(, , ). ,
,
,
.433
( 7 9 )
,
.
.
(.. ), (, , )
, ( ,
) , ,
, .
(/)
.

( ,
,
). , ,
... ,
....434
, ,
, . , ,
,
, .435
.
, -
, .
432
: . . , , 206 - 208; . , , 190, 191, 194, 195; J. Chevalier, A.
Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 428, 429; : . , , 345; : . Dimezil, Drevna
rimska, 295, 296, 477, 488; : . . , , 409; - : . ,
, 36, 101, 199, 252, 384; : . -, , 442, 443;
: . , , 73; : . , , 75, 122.
433
: . , . I, 114 134; . ,
, 13 15; . ., , 209, 210; . , . , 68 70.
434
. . , , 25.
435
.. : M. Elijade, amanizam, 208 ; . . , , 61;
: . , , 27.
603
VI.
, ,
. ,
.

5 :
4 ,
.436 , ,
,
.

.
,
, (
/ ) , (68: 6,
: 3, 7).437 , ,
,
.

(56; 57).

. ,

.

(
).
, ,
,
( ),

(68: 1). ,
,
,
( 68: 1 2).

, .. ,
(, ), , , (,
, ) (69: 9), (78: 4, = ).438
,
, .439
Kleinklein, Krll-
Schmiedkogel () , ,
(69: 3). , ,

, ( )
, .440 ,

:
(55: 1, 2).
436
. , , 159 164.
437
J. L. Henderson, Drevni, 156; : . , .
438
: . , , 38 45, 216 219.
439
R. Genon, Velika, 143, 144; . , . , VI.
440
( ): B. Fath, B. Glunz-Hsken, Textilien, 262, 264 Abb. 11.
604
()
69
605
VI.

( )
(69: 4). ,
,
,
, :
,
, .441

(),442 - (, 69: 8) Rogem Hiri (Golan, 69: 5),
, (. ) (69: 4 7).443

, ( )
. XI ,
,
.444

.
II
III. 316 . . ..
(Peucestes), . ,
, , 4
: () 10 -
;445 ( 8 )
; (4 ) ,
, ; , 2 ,
, ;
.446

( ) . , ,
-
, (Aigai)
/Vergina.447
,
.
( )
( ) (68: 4)
tjuringa .
,
,
, .. .
,
441
(): B. Govedarica, Ideoloki;
: .
, Heterotopia, 217.
442
K. Kristiansen, T. B. Larsson, The Rise, 242 244, Fig. 111 b.
443
Rogem Hiri : B. Govedarica, Ideoloki;
: I. Mikuli, Pelagonija, 13 20; . , , 106, 107.
444
. , , 79 . 1, 80 . 4.
445
1 178 m.
446
(Diodorus Siculus 19.22); : . , , 223.
447
Vergina: . , . .
606
()
.448 , ,

.
, , , ,
( ,
, , ; : 4: 5, 6).

,
, , , , ..
(71: 1, 4, 5; 78: 7).

(70: 10).
,
.449

(78: 6, 8).
( )
.
, , ,

, .. .450
-

, (
) .
,
( ) ( ),
. ,
() .

.

.
(56: 6). . ,
,
.451 ,
.

, ,
.

, . ,
,
. ,
448
J. Campbell, The Way, 135 137, : 15 (. 8, , , ).

(68: 5) (. , , 284
. 11).
449
. , , 310 312.
450
: Idoli 1986, 99, 100 kat. br. 101; : . , , 366 368.
451
. , , 42.
607
VI.
, (, ,
, , ).452
,
.
-, plexus solaris,
.. .
d)

, , ,
.
,
.
,
(78: 11).453
, ,
,454
(6: 4, 8; 66: 15; 67: 3).
, ,
.455
, , .
, , , ,
-.456
, .
. ,
, ,
.457
e)
, ..

.
,
(58: 5;
60), , ( )
(53: 4, 5; 61: 2 67: 2, 5, 6).458

:
= = ; = = /;
= = .459
, (=
452
: . , , 203 205; . , , 142; .
, , 12, 13.
453
R. Rajchl (: A. Pleterski, Kulturni, 107, 108 Sl. 2.35).
454
G. Kossack, Studien; F. Kaul, Reading.
455
(T. Lucretius Tarus, De rerum natura 5.433) : A. Stipevi, Kultni,
17, 34 ( 7, 8).
456
D. K. Kuper, Ilustrovana, 172; . . , , 122, 123.
457
. . , . . , , 534; . , , 15 22, 186.
458
F. Kaul, Bronze Age, 145, 146.
459
. , , 44, 45.
608
()
70
609
VI.
) (
).460

, ()
() (70: 2, 6).

.
(70: 1).461
,
(, )
( = ?, (= ) .
,
.
, ,
8. . .. ,
(70: 5) (70: 3).462
,
Radolinek, (9.
8. . ..) ,
(
) (70: 8, 9 3 5).
,
.
, .. (70:
4, 5). Radolinek
( )
, , .. .
, (
) , .
, Radolinek
,
(70: 9 67: 1 4).
.463

(58:
2 4, 6)
, (, )
( 58: 5).
(60: 7)
, ,
(60: 8, 10).

, .. , ,
(60: 3, 4, 9, 12).464

,
460
B. Gabrievi, Studije, 18 21; F. Cumont, Recherches, 226.
461
B. Raunig, Umjetnost, T.XXXIII: 2, 3; V. Podborsk, Nboenstv, 324 Obr. 105.
462
. , , 235, 236, 275; : K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura,
T. 111: 1 4.
463
. , , 275 277; . , , 54.
Radolinek , . . (. . , . . , 341,
342).
464
. , , 50, 51, 334, 339; : . J. Green, The Wheel, 20, 21.
610
()
. , (, )

(60: 11).
(65: 11).

.465 ,

, .

: , , /
! / ,
. / , ....466
(, ,
), , , ( ).467
,
.
, ,
,
(58: 3, 5). ,

,
. ,
, ( 58: 6, 7 70).
,
Villanova ()
(65: 7, 8).
,
. (
)
.
.468
2.

( , ,
.) , ,
, , ,
. .

.
. ( )
( ), , , (
).
.469 ,

: ( ,
465
A. Hnsel, Die Kultwagen, 277, 278.
466
(Rigveda I.183.1, 2); : . . , I IV, : 660; : . .
, , 28.
467
. . , . I IV, 660; . . , , 28; M. Jei, Rgvedski, 182;
: B. Brentjes, Gradovi, 70.
468
. , ; . , , 345 352. = . 905 - 910.
469
. . , . . , , 535; . . , , 111, 112; . , ,
46; . , . I, 207 214.
611
VI.
, ); (
).
.470
( )
.. .
, , /.

.

, .471
,
(42: 7), (74: 3, 5; 78: 7).
( )

.472
(= ) ,
.

, - (-/Jan-Sharyh).
, ,
, , .
, ,
. ( ),
.473
,

.
,
( 67: 1).

.
(71: 1, 4; 78: 7; 42).
= ,
, , .474
, , .
4. . .. Salzkammergut,
Halstatt, (74: 3).

. ( )
, .. ( )
( , )
/ .
,
.475 (
) Gundestrup (82: 6) ( . 645).

(74: 5).
470
. . , . . , , 534.
471
. , , 44, 45.
472
N. Chausidis, Juggling.
473
. , , 45; . , , 95, 96.
474
N. Chausidis, Juggling.
475
F. E. Barth, O. H. Urban, Neues, 391 394; O. H. Frey, ber die Ostalpen, 780, 781; V. Sbru, G. Florea, Les Geto-
Daces, 184; J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 290.
612
()
71
613
VI.

. Dodona
, ,
, . . , ,
,
. (65: 2). ,
,
, , , ,
.
, .. , .
, - ( ),
( . 493, 502, 632).476
a)
-
, 2. ,

, .. ,
.
: , ..477
, .. ,
: ; ()
;478 ,
.479
.

, , ..
, , , -. ,
-
interpretatio graeca, , .. .

. ,
, .. , .. .
,
: ( -),
.
, .. .

. () ,
, .
,
. ( ),
, ,
()
, .
, , ,
, .

476
. . , .
477
(Maximus Tyrius II.8).
478
B. Gabrievi, Studije, 63 100.
479
. , , 184.
614
()
, (
, 70: 2, 6). ,
( )
.
( ) .

. , ,
() ,
(, , ).

. . . (J. N. Svoronos),
,

, (73: 4, 6, 7, 8). . . . (J. M. F. May)
,
. . (C. Picard), ,
.480 .
,
.481 .
,
.482 .
,
. ,
( 16)
, . ,
( ) ,
, ,
.483 . ,

: , , , -
.484 S. Kuko
, A. Stipevi
, (
) .. .485

, (72: 5; 1; 2).
,
, .. .
(, ) .
, ,
, ( . 781, 787).486

,
480
( ): A. Stipevi, Kultni, 17 2; B. Gabrievi, Studije, 63
100.
481
. . , , 62.
482
. , , 55, 70.
483
. , , 183 185; . , .
484
, ,
( ): . , , 125 130; . , , 130; . ,
, 57, 121 XX: 2.
485
S. Kuko, Japodi, 179 180; A. Stipevi, Kultni, 16, 17.
486
. , , 50, 51, 21.
615
a)
72
616
()
(72: 8).487 , ,
, .
, ..
(71: 3, 7,
8, 11) . (
, ) :
, 4, 6 8 , . ( 55: 8).488
, ,
B Skla, Moravsk kras () ,
, .
(71: 2).
,
.489
, , ,
,
. (71: 1, 4, 5),
, (71: 10),
(71: 9).

.

.
, (71:
6; 72: 7) ( . 237).
.
( ) 6 ,
, - Knossos ,
Ashmolean Oxford (72: 2).490
( ).
, ,
,

( ).
(.. )
, .
,
, (72: 1).491

(72: 3, 6).

.
Assur Tukulti-Ninurta I, 1230 . . .. (72: 11).
,
8 ( emblem of radii)
.
, ,
.
487
488
. J. Green, The Wheel, 19; G. Kossack, Studien, Taf. 16; H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. IV, Taf. 360 363;
2013, 461 (152.1).
489
V. Podborsk, Nboenstv, 314 318.
490
A. Evans, The Palace, Vol. IV II, 453 Fig. 377; . . , , 363, 365, 366 . 101; . .
, , 34, . 116.
491
. , , 23, . 32: 2.
617
a)
.492 Arapha
() (72: 4).493
.
, (vajapeya)
,
. ,
. ,
, .
.494

( ), , ,
.495
.
( 2. ..) ( )
(72: 9, 10).496 ,
(
)
, ( ).497

.
.
. , -, .
, .
, . , .498
(, , , .)

.499 , (
) , (
) , .. . ,
, .

, , , .
, ,
.
, .
, . ,
(
) , , ,
.500

( ),
492
I. J. Winter, Touched.
493
494
. . , , 88.
495
. . , , 52; . . , , 315;
(Herodotus 4.72)
ashwamedha (. . , ,72, 73).
496
. . , . , 103 . 4, 104 . 7, 105;
- (. J. Green, The
Wheel, 299, 300).
497
. . , , 106 40.
498
. . , , 215; . (B. Gabrievi, Studije, 63
101).
499
. . , , 316.
500
. . , . . , , 534, 535.
618
()
, . ,
- 11 .
, (
) (
).
. 12 .501

,
(71: 6; 42: 1, . 245, 247).
, ,
( ) (
). , ..
,
4 , .
, (82:
2).502
-

,
,
. , .

. ,

, (73: 4, 6).

, .. . ,
,
,
. , (
), , .. ,
, .
, .. (73: 6).503
(5. . ..)

(73: 7, 8).504
, ,
,
,
( , ) , ..
(73: 12 - 15).505 , ,
(, ,
) .506 ,
501
: . , . 81, 82; . , , 338, 339;
: . ., , 114, 115; : . -, ,
157, 158.
502
. . , , 431, 432.
503
. , , 410, 411; : . , . ,
, .
504
. , , 17.
505
. , , 279 281; . J. Green, The Wheel, 42, 301.
506
N. ausidis, The River, 276, 277; . (.
, , 57).
619
a)
73
620
()
, . ,
(5. . ..),
(73: 9, 10).

()
(73: 1 - 3, 5).
, ,
, (64: 1
3; 73: 12 - 15).
, (, )
.507 (
) Asido ()
(73: 11; 17: 13)

( ),
,
.
,
, ,
. ,
, (.. ) ,
. ,
.508
,

.
b)

.
,
.
, .. , .
,
,
. ( )
( ) , ( , ). ,
, ..
,
.
, ..
. , ( ,
) .

,
. ,
,
507
, o, a (
: . J. Green, The Wheel, 35, 36, 39 41).
508
(Herodotus 8.115. 3 4); : . , .
621
a)
74
622
()
.509
(69: 4, 5, 8) - (,
) (69: 6).510

, -
. ()
, ,
.511
..
, .
, ,
, .512
,
(9. 6. . ..),
Benacci Caprara Novilara (74: 6 - 8).513
.514
, ,
( ,
),

, , .. .

.515
, .. .
, , ..
.

( )
: , ,
.516
, ,
,
(74: 4; 78: 10; 80: 2, 5 ).

( ) .

(
) .517 ,

.
.518
, .. , ,
, .
509
. . , , 86, 87; . . , , 319; . J. Green, The Wheel, 17, 42;
: C. F. Pare, Der Zeremonialwagen, 39 41.
510
N. A. Bokovenko, Tuva, 267 Fig. 2 D; (): K. Kristiansen, T. B. Larsson, The
Rise, 242 244, Fig. 111 a.
511
. . , , 316.
512
. . , , 88.
513
S. Kuko, Japodi, 120, 121, Sl. 181, Sl. 184; Stele di Novilara 2014.
514
. J. Green, The Wheel, 299.
515
. . , , 88; D. K. Kuper, Ilustrovana, 68.
516
517
518
(Rigveda IV.28.2); : . . , . I IV, 740, 741.
623
b)

, .. , ,
.. .
,
, , ,
, ,
.
,
,
.519
, ,
, ,
( 69: 4).
(6. 5.
. ..) .
.
-
(75: 1, 6).
, (
)
,
(75: 1, 9). ,
, , , 6 ,
,
(75: 5, 9, 10). , (
)
(75: 4, 7).

, ,
, .. .520
,
4
(75: 2, 3).521
, ( 75: 2, 3 32: 1 -
5; 50; 51; 52; 53).
.

(75: 8).522
..

.
,
.
,
. ,
, ,
519
. , , III ( ).
520
: . , ; : N. Theodossiev, The dead. I; N.
Theodossiev, The dead. II; : . , . .
521
B. D. Filov, Die archaische, 31 Abb. 28: 4; R. Vasi, Ohridska, T. LXXVI: 4.
522
. , 1000 , VIII, T. XII: 4.
624
()
75
625
b)
6 .523 .

.524
-
-

.

(Acholshausen, Milavec, Peckatel, Skallerup 13: 3 - 5).
,
( . 24).525
( ) (13:
8), Bujoru Ortie (13: 6, 7) Pherai (62:
1; 63: 7, 8), , ,
.526
.
.
(59: 7),527 Sindos
.528
(, )
( ).529

. , (),
. ,

( )
, .. .530
(,
, , , , K)
, (54).

,
.531
, (50; 51
54).
c)

.
, , ,
523
. , , 59 61; N. Chausidis, The Funeral, 658, 659.
524
N. Proeva, Sur liconographie; . , ; : .
, , 361, 362.
525
A. Hnsel, Die Kultwagen, 273; C. F. Pare, Der Zeremonialwagen, 57, 58.
526
. , , 302, 303; 2013, 524 (218.2); : K. Kilian,
Trachtzubehr, Taf. 28: 3; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 159, 160, Taf. 51: 944 946.
527
P. Kuzman, Le masque, 553 Ph. 7.
528
: N. Theodossiev, The dead. II, 188 190.
529
. , ; . , . , ; . , .
530
. . , , 88.
531
. , , 73 77; . J. Green, The Wheel, 16, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33 36; C. F. Pare, Der
Zeremonialwagen, 57 61.
626
()
. .
Tukulti-Ninurta I Assur
, ,
(72: 11).
(
stephane) (76: 11).532

j
, .

, .. - (76: 2, 3, 5).
in situ
(76: 4, 6 - 9).533
, ,
. Vergina,
( 46 cm), ,
, -
(76: 2).
,
.534 . , ,
,
.535
, , 8
, (76: 1) ( . 629, 786, 789).536

, 20.
( 76: 10).
, ..
(50; 51; 52).
, /Chauchitsa
(52: 1, 2, 5), , .
.

(
) , , ,
, .
,
,
.

.
ja
.
( )
532
B. Teran, Liburnske, 244 (Sl.1: 2), 245.
533
: M. Petrescu-Dmbovia, Depozitele, Pl. 159: 1; Pl. 255: 1; Pl. 256: 5, 6;
C. F. Pare, Der Zeremonialwagen, 34 Abb. 11; B. Brukner (i dr.), Praist. Vojvodine, 244 (Sl. VII); K. Vinski-Gasparini,
Kultura, 169, 170, . . , , 200 . 96: 1; J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 174 Fig. 87: 12.
534
. , . , 251 254, . 88, . 101 .
535
. , , 52.
536
B. Husenovski, E. Slamkov, Archaeological, 19 Fig. 90.
627
c)
76
628
()
(77: 1, 2).537 ,
,
, ( Tobl, 77:
10). ( ),
Hesselagregard (),
( 27: 2; 28: 4 6).
.538
,

, , , .
( ) ,
, , ..
(77: 3 - 5, 7).539
(), (77: 8).
o , ,
a
( ) ,
.540
, (. ),
( , 15)
.541 8 ,
(76: 1 77: 8)
( . 785, 786, 789).

( ) ,
(77: 9).

, ( : . 871).542
, .. M.
Blei Kavur , , ,
.543 S. Kuko , ,
. ,
, (
) .
, ,
Vinkov Vrh
(81: 5).544
,
. .
. 338 , ,
23 .545 ,
,
537
S. Kuko, Japodi, 183, 184, 200, Duga Gora (Sl. 311), Prozor (Sl. 316), Skradnik (Sl. 337).
538
K. Kristiansen, T. B. Larsson, The Rise, 298 303; S. Kuko, Japodi, 183, 184, 191 (Sl. 279), 192, 200; F. Kaul,
Bronze Age, 146, 147 Fig. 11; . J. Green, The Wheel, 23, 24, 29, 30 32, 38; C. Iaia, Elements.
539
M. Blei Kavur, Japodske, 241 245; S. Kuko, Japodi, 155 157 (Sl. 219), 166, 167, 183, 184, 200.
540
. , , 23; R. Vasi, The openwork, 6, T. II: 9.
541
B. Husenovski, E. Slamkov, Archaeological, 19 Pic. 90; . ,
.
542
. . , , 83 . 1: 1;
.
543
M. Blei Kavur, Japodske, 243, 244.
544
S. Kuko, Japodi, 155 157, 166, 167, 183, 184, 200.
545
( ) .
629
c)
77
630
()
.
(6. 5. . ..)
.546
,

. ,

.
(= )
, ,
. , ,
, ,
.. .
svadhistana plexus hypogastricus
, ,
.547
3.

: (62; 63;
64; 65); (73);

. ,
.
, ..
, , ,
, , ,
. , , ..
, .548
,
, , , , ,
, .549
Bujoru ()
, , ..
(13: 6).
,
(62).

(64: 7, 10). , ,
, ,

:
( ,
); , (, .. ) (64: 7, 12; 79: 8, 11; 81: 1
3).
,
, ..
.
546
. , , 135 T.V.
547
A. Govinda, Tibetanska, 155 166.
548
. J. Green
(. J. Green, The Wheel, 300).
549
. , , 327 354; . , , 51, 52; . , . . II.
631
3.

: =
(64: 1 - 3, 6); = (73: 12); =
(73: 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14).550
, ,
(, , ),
, .. . ,

(73: 4, 6, 7, 11).

. (Iynx), ,
,
(. wrynecks).

.551 ()
,
( ), , ,
, .552

, .. (62: 2, 4;
63).

( ),

(65: 1 - 6, 12). ,
(, , ; , , ), ,
.
, (65: 10).

( ,
).553
-
. -
,
. , ,
: (
); ( ); (
);
( / . immortelle = /
, .. ).

, .

.554
550
. , , 276 301; . , , 327 354.
551
: Iynx 2015.
552
. . , , 13.
, tudittu (
) (R. Washbourne,
Out of the mouths, 116 122, 126, 346 355); ( . 493, 502, 614).
553
. , , 339, 340, 350 352; . , . . I, 90, 91;
: C. Tappert, Ein keltischer.
554
. , . . I, 89 92; . . , . . , , 535;
: N. ausidis, Myth. of the Mountain, 267 269.
632
()
78
633
3.

, .

.
-
. vahana
, (
Wagen), , .
, .555
, ,
. , , ,
. 12- ,
.
.
, 12- (, , ,
.). ( ,
zverokruh ). ,
, suncopas, ,
. Mater verborum, svor
. ,
*svar, *svarg
.556

(62).

, , ..
.

, ,

.557

, ..
.
( ,
, )
( , .. , , ..
). ,
(, ).
, ..
,
Pherai ,
(62:
1; 63: 7, 8 65: 11). ,
, , ( , ).

(Ichnae, Tynteni), , ,
( 78: 1, 2 73: 10).558
555
. . , , 115.
556
. , ; . , . I, 129, 130.
557
. , , 87, 88.
558
( ): . , , T.XXI: 3, 4; . ,
, 135 T. V.
634
()
( , , Krannon)
(78: 5, 9; 73: 4, 6).

Vathi Samos () (78: 3).

, , , .559
, ,
(78: 1, 2).
,
, , ( 78: 4; 26: 4). ,

( , ) , ..
. -
( 79) ( . 835, 841).560
,
,
.

(, , )
,
( ) (
: 78: 4).561
:
, ,
, -
.
4.

,
.
.. .

,
.
, ,
,
.
a)

, .

- .
(79: 1, 2, 4, 6, 7),
(79: 5, 8, 9, 11, 12).

marjeta,
559
: . , , 121 T.XX: 2; : . , , 12;
Krannon: Thessaly 2015; Vathi : Arch. Mus. Samos 2015.
560
: . , , 164 168; . , , 178 181;
: . J. Green, The Wheel, 300.
561
( ): . , , 38 45.
635
4.
79
636
()
(79: 6).562 ,
Pteni, Prostjov, (79: 4),
(79: 2) (79: 1, 7).563

,
.
(79: 9, 12) ( , ,
),
(79: 8, 11). 7. 8.
.. .. (79: 5).564
,
( , - .565
1.500 ,
,
() (79: 2, 5). , ..
(79: 1, 8, 11).

. , .. , ..
,
( 79: 3, 12 1: 6),
, , ..
. , .. ,
, .. , , ..
. , ..
,
, , , ..
. ,
( )
, , ,
, ( / )
.

,
.
, , ,
( . 350, 822).
, .. -,
, ..
. ,
, , ,
,
( ) ( ).566

( 79 78: 1, 2).

562
D. Boi, Zapadna, 878, 892, T.LXXXVIII: 16.
563
: J. Meduna, Latensky, 49: 2; : . . , , 56 . 21: ;
: . . , . . , , 85 . 3; . . , .
564
: . , , 190 198; . , , 52, 53; . ,
, 59, 60; . . , . . , , 87 . 5; . . , ; . .
, , .4; . . , .
565
. , , 28: 18; 31: 18; . . , . . , , 87, 88.
566
. , , 190 200; . , , 412 414.
637
4.
(,
), ( 78: 4).

. ( ,
, ) , , ..
( , ,
, ). ,
(= ) ,
( ).567

. , (Mabinogi),
Arianrhod .568 ,
,
Aska, Gotland () , .. (79: 11).
,
, , .. ,
(54: 10), (82: 3, 7), , , (80: 4).569
,
: , , (82: 5
, . ). , ,
.
(, )
. ,
, , , ,

(80: 2, 5). ,
( ),
.
.570

,
, .
,
(Cakravarti = ), (82:
1), ,
Angkor.
, ,
.571 (
),
(Shiva Nataraja),
(Apasmara/Muyalaka) (79: 10).572

,
, ,
, .

, .
567
. . , . . , , 535; . , . I, 213.
568
J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 290; Arianrhod 2014.
569
: . , . 41; . -, , 71 . 103.
570
. , , 368, 371, 372; E. Neumann, The Great Mother, 238, 238, Fig. 99; . ,
, 43 46.
571
572
Nataraja 2014.
638
()
80
639
4.
12. Gerona,
a ,
, ,
(80: 6). (,
)
: (80: 1), . .573

. , ,
.574
,
. ,
,
.
,
,
.575
(
, ) , ..
( ) (),
.576 ,
- ,
(
, , ).
b)

, ,
, , , .
, .. ,
.
,
,
.577
Libna,
(81: 1; 1: 2).
,
.578
, ,
(81: 2, 3; 1: 6): ( );
, ;
. (
) Marlik Guilan (1: 5).579
, ,
- ( . 853).
573
The Girona 2014; R. Cavendish, T. O. Ling, Mitologija, 157; . , , 41; . ,
.
574
. , , 71.
575
. , , 91 139.
576
R. Genon, Velika, 143, 144.
577
. , , 413, 414; . , , 198, 200.
578
M. Gutin, Libna, 45, 113 . 65; (
6. . ..) A. Prelonik (Intitut za dediino Sredozemlja, Univerza na Primorskem,
).
579
Pendentif 2015.
640
()
,
(81: 8).580
,
,
(bhavacakra), ,
.581
( )
(81: 9). ,
. e
(82: 1), , ,
, , ,
(64: 12; 72: 9, 10; 74: 1).582
Vinkov Vrh pri Dvoru () (81: 5)
Paularo Misincinis ( ) (81: 6)
. 5
.
, .
,
.
,
.583 Vinkov Vrh, .
,

, , .584 .
,
.
. -
, .
,
(= ), , ..
.585

.
,
, ,
. ,
, .

. , ,
, , ( ).
.
- (:
59: 8; 78: 12). ,
580
. . , .
581
Bhavacakra 2014.
582
. . , . , 103 . 4, 104 . 7, 105; D. K. Kuper, Ilustrovana, 172.
583
F. Stare, Upodobitev, 20 - 23; S. Vitri, S. Corazza, G. Simeoni, Un pendaglio, 700 703. ,
, .. .
Vinkov Vrh
(24),
Paularo Misincinis (S. Vitri, S. Corazza, G. Simeoni, Un pendaglio, 702, 703).
584
F. Stare, Upodobitev, 20 23.
585
: S. Vitri, S. Corazza, G. Simeoni, Un pendaglio, 703.
641
4.
81
642
()
.
(54: 9,
10).586 , ,
.587

, , , .
( ),
.
, ,
.588
, .. , ,
,
.
( )
, . ,
-, - ( -
) . ,
, ,

.
( ), , ,
. , 12-
365- .589

, 13 .
, ,
.
.
,
, , ( 360-
).590 ,
,
.
, .
,
.591
c)
(,
, Dodona) (54: 1, 3 5,
11).
, ,
.
586
: . , , 110; . . . 1, 439, 665;
: . . , , 116 120; : . . , , 55.
587
. , , III, 45.
588
: . . , . . , , 534.
589
: . , , 71; . . , , 31, 32; : R. C. Zaehner,
Zurvan; . , , 65, 391 395; : . Dimezil, Drevna rimska, 259, 262, 265, 266.
590
: . . . 1, 614; : . ,
, 173, 174.
591
. , , 413, 414, 29: 4 10; 29: 7; 36: 8, 9; 4:11, 12; 29: 1, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15.
643
4.
82
644
()
(54: 1).592 ,
1. . .. 1. ..
, , ,
( ), (54: 8).
(82: 4), ,
(82: 3) - .
,
, .. .593
Gundestrup
,
(82: 6 74: 3, 5).
, .
,

.594
. ,
,
,
.
,
(46: 4 ).595
8. . ..
.
,
(66: 10). ,
,
, ( ).
, ,
.596 ,
, (
82: 5). -
( )

.

. , ,
, (
). ,

.597
d)

(81: 4, 7, 10 12).
592
Miniature 2014; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 17, 18, Taf. 4, Taf. 5.
593
. J. Green, The Wheel, 33, 34, 295, 297 301, (
), (Pl. IV Pl. IX); V. Podborsk, Nboenstv, 347, 348; J.
Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 289, 290; : Taranis 2014.
594
. , , 20.
595
. . , . . , 240 243 ( ); . , , 56 58 (
.. ).
596
J. Curtis, M. Kruszyskinna, Ancient, 53, 54, Fig 31.
597
( 10.6 11; 13.16 17); J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 290.
645
4.
, , ,
,
.

, , , ,
,
(, )
( , , ...). ,
.. ,
(, , , , , ,
).
, ..
( :
,
).

(),
(81: 10).598
,
, ,
.
(81: 4). ,
, Radvane nad Dunajom
() , ,
(81: 7).599
, .. ,

. ,
, . ,
, .. . , ,
( , .. ,
).
,
, .. . ,
, , ..
, .. .
, ..
(/ = , / = ; / = ,
/ = ).600

: ,
, ? ( : ). ,

. , ,
,
(81: 11). , (),
, 20
(81: 12).601
598
. . , , . 184.
599
Z. ilinsk, ov, 65: 67; . , , 337, 338, 8.
600
. , , 260 275; . , , 337, 338.
601
M. Kica, Vypravy, 283; . , , 105 . 43.
646
()
, (
) .602
,
. . ( 1847 .)

(74: 4).

, 10 80 ().603
VII.
, ..

, ..
.

, ,
, .
.
, : , ,
.
,
.
,
, ( , , ,
), , ,
. ,
.
1.

, ..
, . ,

, ..
( , , , ) (, ,
, .. ).

, .. .
( , , )
:
-
, ,
.
-
, .. ,
- .
602
: . , , 216, 218; . , , 194, 195.
603
. -, , 224 (. 12), 228.
647
VII. , ..
2.

(, , plexus solaris,
, , ) . ,
,
.

: ;
; ;
;
.
,

.
,
.
, , ,
.604
, ,
, , , (77: 6),
(58: 2, 3, 4, 6).
,
(59: 1).
3.

,
()
. ,

.
(52),
, ,
, .

(77: 6).
( ,
) , , ,
, , , .605
4.
, ,
, .. ,
. ,
604
. , , 45; (Aristoteles, Physica II.2); (. , , , 22, 116);
, .. : . lijade, kultizam, 141 183.
605
A. Stipevi, Kultni, 17; S. Vitri, S. Corazza, G. Simeoni, Un pendaglio, 703; . J. Green, The Wheel, 42, 295.

(, ) 20. (K. Moszynski, Kultura. T.
II, 763 766).
648
()

,
.
, , ,

. ,
,
: ,
plexus solaris .

.
649

CHAPTER 6
DOUBLE AXE-SHAPED OBJECTS
()

()

, ..
,
.
:
;
;
, ,
.
A.

I.

, , ,
.
,
, ,
. . , , ,
, (1: 2), , (
)1 , (1: 1).2
, .3
, ,
.
: Scutari (= Shkodr?), (); ()
1
. , , 59, T.II: 5; V. Lahtov, Problem, 81, 82, T.XXVI: 9; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 64: 6.
.
.
2
. , , 70, 71, 78 - . 1: 10.
3
. , . , .
653
A.
654
()
(1: 7); (); ( ).

.4
,
, .

5 ,6 (1: 3, 4).
- , ,
Kierion , , Hermones .
, , (1: 6, 8
10), (1: 11; 3: 12) .
(1: 5), ,
. 1300 1200 .
. ..7 , (
)
,
(6: 1 1: 5, 6, 8; 3: 13).8
, , ,
, , ,
,
.
. ( 6. 5. . .. 1: 1),
,
, -
( -) .9
, ,
, (3: 14).
()
. 32 13. 12. . .. ( . 871).10
,
, ( )
(9) ( . 669).
II. -

. . .
,
(. 37)
(2: 1, 2; 69: 4). (
4
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 147, 148, 154 Fig. 48; J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 43 46; B. ovi, Glasinaka, 617,
628 (Sl. 36: 8, 9), 630, T. LXIII: 10; A. Benac, B. ovi, Glasinac, T. XXXI: 11 12; D. Garaanin, Posebni, 802, 803,
T.CXII: 5; F. Prendi, The Prehistory, 223 (Fig. 42: 1 4), 224; A. Stipevi, Kultni, 98; I. Panayotov, Bronze, 186 191;
: M. Lowe Fri, The Minoan.
5
I. Mikuli, Pelagonija, 7 13, T. II: Sl. 1 b.
6
D. Garaanin, Posebni, 799, 802; : . , , 29 31.
7
D. Garaanin, Posebni, 802; . -, , 3; : .
, , 30, 31; : . -,
, 1 10; J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 43 46.
8
. , . , 382, T. XXVIII: 4; . -,
(: . -, , 7 9, . 3).
9
. , , 71.
10
. , , 39, 40 (. 7), 199, 317.
655
A.
656
()
657
A.
) 11. . ..11 ,
,
.
.

. ( ), ,
, .
, .
, ..
. . bronzeni brija ili amulet u vidu labrisa, .
bronzeni privesak u obliku dvojne sekire, . - ,
.12 .

.
.13
. , , ..
1, . (P. Reinecke).14 .
-, . (A. Jockenhvel),
Gromugl (2: 3, 4) Mesi (2: 7, 10).15
Gromugl,
Gromugl, Stockerau () (2: 4), -
.16 Otok-Privlaka,
Vinkovci () (2: 3).17
,
. Brodski Varo, Slavonski
Brod (
) (2: 8, 9).18 Tuma e Prodanit (),
, , -
(2: 5, 6).19
, , ..
Wilten
, .. ,
, (3: 8 10).20
(2: 1, 2), , ,
- . ,
, .
, ..
.
,
11
I. Mikuli, Pelagonija, 16, T.IV: Sl. 8 b; . , . , , 56 . . 23, . 295; M.
Garaanin, Razvijeno, 790, 791, T.CIX: 7; . , , 280.
12
M. Garaanin, Razvijeno, 791; I. Mikuli, Pelagonija, 16; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 245; J. Bouzek, The Aegean,
217, 218; . -, , 9.
13
A. Stipevi, Kultni, 97, 98, 118 80.
14
M. Garaanin, Razvijeno, 791; . , , 57, 87. . . .
(Knovizer culture),
(N. G. L. Hammond, A History, 337, 338,
Fig.17: v).
15
16
A. Jockenhvel, Die Rasiermesser, 78 85, Taf. 9: 96.
17
K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, T. 28: 37.
18
K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, Tab. 56: 7, 15.
19
S. Aliu, Tuma e Prodanit, 59 (Tab. V Var. 47: 46), 66 (Fig. 6).
20
A. Jockenhvel, Die Rasiermesser, 157, 158, Taf. 24: 298 301.
658
()

.21
.
. 7
(3: 2). ,
, 12. 11. . ..22
, .
, (3: 1) ,
,
( ) .. , .. (: 3: 3 7).23
III.
. -,
: , ,
.24
1.
6 ,
Vergina ( ).

.
, , 20/25 10 cm (4: 1 6; 5: 2, 4, 6;
6: 2, 5, 7). , (4: 3; 5: 4).
( )
(4: 1, 2, 6), , , ,
(4: 1, 2, 4, 5). ,
, , ,
(4: 4, 5). , ,

(tremolo), (4: 5), ,
,
(4: 6). .
M I (11/10. 9. . ..).25

Vergina, .
, , , ..
. , LXV- (4: 1) ,
, , -III (4: 2; 5: 5, 6)
Malamas -I (4: 4; 6: 6, 7), , .
21
I. Mikuli, Pelagonija, 16; . , , 119; . , , 61; . -
, , 9, 10, 22; : . , , 198, 199; A. Stipevi, Kultni, 97, 98; J.
Bouzek, The Aegean, 217, 218; . - Vergina Pateli
(. , , 118).
22
. , , 68, 69, 73, 74, 79 T.II: 6, : 84; . ,
, 61, 317.
23
. , , 58, 59; . -, , 9, 21, 22;
: . , .
24
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 244, 245; , : S. Pabst-Drrer, Zur sozialen,
649 ( ).
25
. , . , 53, 54, 67, 69, 78 ( ), 131, 137, 139, 140, 146, ( ),
160, 248 251, 280 (), 275, 276, 278, 279 (); I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 244, 245; S.
Pabst-Drrer, Zur sozialen, 653 655, : 648, 649.
659
A.
660
()
661
A.
(4: 3, 5, 6)
: -II (4: 3, 7; 5: 3, 4); -V (4: 5; 5: 1, 2); -I (4: 6; 6: 4, 5).26
a)
( 2 mm)
, .
, , .

, , (
), , .. ( ).
, . . . , ,
( it was attached to a head-dress).27
. -
, . ,
. ,
( Malamas I) (4: 4; 6: 6, 7).28
, ( , ),
. -
Vergina. ,
.

. , ,
.
Vergina
,
. ,
Vergina (Priesterinnen)
(Drillingsdoppelaxtzeptern
) . ,
,
. ,
(Geraien)
(Gerontes).29
. -
.
, ..
(Dreiteilung) , ..
. ,
(Lilienblte)
( 4 31: 1, 8; 36: 7).
,
, - (
26: 3, 8; 36: 3).30
26
. , . , 54, 67, 69, 78, 160; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 244, 245; S. Pabst-Drrer, Zur sozialen,
654.
27
N. G. L. Hammond, A History, 335.
28
. , . , 160, 248 251, 280; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 245; ,
: S. Pabst-Drrer, Zur sozialen, 653, 654.
29
Dies verbindet sie mit den Geraien der homerischen Epen, die ihre hieratische Funktion im Stadtkult durch das hohe
gesellschaftliche Ansehen ihrer Gemahle, den Geronten, erlangten. (S. Pabst-Drrer, Zur sozialen, 654.). . ,
,
, , ,
, (. , , 223).
30
S. Pabst-Drrer, Zur sozialen, 654.
662
()
663
A.
,
Vergina . , ,
.
(4: 1, 2, 6).
, ..
( ) .

. ,
, , ..
. ,

, . ,
, , .
. (4: 5;
5: 2)
, , ,
. Malamas I
, , ,
(4: 4). .
(4: 5)
(4: 4)
.
Vergina (
), . ,

, .
.

( , ..
). ,
, ( ),
(
). : -
, , ,
, ; , , ,
( )
.
2.
, , . .
, ()
. 16, , ,
(7: 6, 7).
10 cm, .
(
) . .
I II.31
Vergina
( 7: 7 4: 5).
31
M. Garaanin, Razvijeno, 798; I. Mikuli, Pelagonija, 16, T.V: Sl.10 a; . ., , 56 . .
539 (), 56, 57 ( ); . , . , ., 56 . . 26, . 296; K.
Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 82, Taf. 60: 4; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 245; M. Garaanin, Razvijeno, 798, T. CXI: 10
12; . , , 280; . , , 87.
664
()
, ().
,
( ). 4
9 cm ( 7 12 cm).
,
(7: 1 - 5).
, ,
(7: 2 - 4).32 (7: 1, 5),
, ,
, ,
. ,
, .33
, . ,
( ) ,
( 7: 4 9: 1, 2).34
. II, .
9. , . 10.
8. . ..35
,
(), ,
(8: 1). ,
. . 800 . . ..36

( 8: 1 9: 1, 2) ( . 669).
, . ,
. ,
7. . .. ..
(. ) (8: 13).37
( ),
.
. , ,
, ().38
, ( 3 13 cm)
, (8: 7, 11, 12 13). .
-
(Doppelbeile mit Klingenausschnitten). (Pherai, Philia,
) . , ,
, .

,
32
. ., , 61 . . 654 656, 680; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 81, Taf. 53; I. Kilian-
Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 245; . , , 105 (. 28: ), 286; . 1996, 206; M.
Garaanin, Razvijeno, 797, T. CXI: 1 3; . , . , 23, 24; -: .
, , 236 . 76: 1; D. Mitrevski, Genesis, 91 Fig. 6.
33
. , , 118.
34
. , , 54 . . 222.
35
M. Garaanin, Razvijeno, 797; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 81, 82; . , , 286.
36
. , , 117, 118, 121, 123 . 1 - ; . , , 105 (. 28 ),
315, 316; : . , ,
180 182.
37
. , , 245 . 88 ( ,
).
38
. , , 225.
665
A.
666
()
( ). ,
.39
, ,
, Veliko
Nabre, Gainci (8: 4, 5) Brodski Varo, Slavonski Brod (8: 3, 6). ,
.

. , . -
.
( , ),
.40 . -
,
. ,
, (
)
( , ).
Palio
Gynaikokastro /Kilkis .41 .
,
(6: 3).42
, (
),
Spelaion Grevena ( ) ( 8: 2).

. 16 , (
) (7: 6, 7).
,
.43 , ,
, .
Malamas -I Vergina , ,
(6: 6, 7).
, .44
, ,
(
?) ( . 758, 875).

. Spelaion,

(8: 2).45 , ,
.
Kastroulia, Messenia (),
.
. 46
.
.
. .
39
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 254 258, Taf. 97 Taf. 99; J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 43, 44 Fig.13: 8.
40
K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, 85, 95, 96, T.45: 22 26 (Veliko Nabre), T. 53: 36, T. 58: 20 (Brodski Varo).
41
. , , 307, 311 . 11.
42
. , , 114.
43
44
S. Pabst-Drrer, Zur sozialen, 649, 650 (Abb. 3), 651.
45
46
J. Rambach, Investigations, 145 Fig. 23 (Tumulus II, quarter G, grave 2); J. A. MacGillivray, The Minoan, 119.
667
A.
668
()
Vergina
- .47 ,

.
:

.48
IV.
, (,
. ) 13. 12. . .. in situ ,
(9).
, ,
.

, .
. 54 14 (9: 2 4),
80 26 (9: 1, 5, 6).
, ,
, .
, .
, .49
. 13
.50
. , ,
. , ,
(religious garments or
their accessories). , ,
,
, .

.
, .. (household goddess),
.

. 54, (9: 8, 9)
(29: 8, 9, . 515).

, , ..
.51
(8: 1),
,
(8: 8, 9), (
), , , .
, ( 8: 1 9: 1, 2),
(9: 7
47
. , , 114.
48
. , , 114; D. Mitrevski, Genesis, 89, 91.
49
Z. Videski, Religious; . , , 316, 317.
50
Z. Videski, Religious, 317 2.
51
Z. Videski, Religious, 316, 317, 319; .
(D. Mitrevski, Genesis, 89, 91; D. Mitrevski, On the Ethno-Cultural, 17,
18); . (. , , 49, 50).
669
A.
670
()
9: 8, 9 54 ). , 16
, (7: 6, 7, 8).52
B.

, ..
. ,

. , ,

,
.

, :
- ;
- ;
-
.

,
. ,
,
.
I. -
1.
,
, , .. .
Halaf (7. 6. . . ..)
, ( 10: 9).
,
, Globular Amphora Culture (10: 2, 6 8, :
1, 4, : 3, 5). 4000 . .
.., (
). ( II)
.53
2.
,
,
(1: 5; 3: 13; 11: 2).
.
, (Mesara, Mochlos, Kamilari)
/
(11).
52
: M. Garaanin, Razvijeno, 798, T.CXI: 14.
53
J. A. MacGillivray, The Minoan, 124; W. Burkert, Greek, 38; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 46; M. Gimbutas, Battle, 51, 52
(Fig. 2); . , , 291, 294 . 7: 76; J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 43; A. Stipevi, Kultni, 96, 97;
: . .
, .
671
B.
10
672
()
, .54
,
(, ) , ..
. , , , , ,
, , ,
.
(Arkalochori Psychro) ,
(11: 1, 3 8).55
, .. -
, (12: 7 9; 31: 1, 2, 6 8),
(31: 3; 37: 4), (12: 5, 6),
(12: 11 13; 32: 5), (12: 2).56
. . , , ,
( ), ,
. .
(
), ,
( ). , ,
. ,
,
, . ,
,
.57
3.
.
,
,
.58 , , ,
, , .
(12: 14 16), (28: 5, 6; 34: 8, 10; 36: 3, 9,
10).
.
() , ,
.
.59 , .
, ,
. ,
( , )
(17: 9).60
,

: Artemis Orthia (23: 4); Artemis Lusia ;
; Metapont .
54
J. A. MacGillivray, The Minoan, 118, 119; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 46;
: M. Haysom, The Double-Axe, 36.
55
A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. IV I, 346 (Fig. 290); M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 46, 47; J. A. MacGillivray, The Minoan,
118, 119; . . , , 276; M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 196, 197; M. Haysom, The
Double-Axe, 42.
56
J. A. MacGillivray, The Minoan, 118, 119; D. V. Sippel, Minoan; M. Haysom, The Double-Axe, 36.
57
M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 229; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 55, 69.
58
59
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 49 51.
60
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 49 51, 55.
673
I. -
11
674
()
12
675
I. -
(25: 9; 42: 8 10, 13).

, ,
. , , ..
( ) (22), ,
: Delos, Hephestia, Pergam,
Lemnos, Tenedos (25: 1 5), , Thessalonica.61
4.
,
, .
(
) : , ,
, , , /, , , ,
. (: 18; 21; 26: 1, 2, 4, 7; 34: 2 6).
, .

(, , )
, , (20; 21).62
5.
.
,
, ( ) .
, , , .
, Arezzo, Cortona Perugia,
, , .. (43: 4, 5).
, Vetulonia. ,
(43: 1). ,
,
( . 902). ,
,
.63 , ..
(fasces)
.64
6. ,

.
,
.
, . . . .
(Bottiaei) 14. .
.., .65 ,
61
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 56, 58; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 646 648; . , ; . ,
, 320.
62
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 559 ; Hoti, Prethistorijski, 60, 61.
63
e : J. A. Spranger, The Double; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 528 Fig. 398 (
).
64
D. V. Sippel, Minoan, 91 32; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 633 635, 680.
65
N. G. L. Hammond, A History, 335, 336; R. S. P. Beekes, The Origin, 31, 32.
676
()
13
677
I. -
,
( 30: 7).

,
( 13: 5, 7 10).
, .66

-
(2: 1 - 3, 5 - 10). , ,
,
( 15: 3 5), (, )
,

.67
7.
, ,
,
2. . . .. ,
,
(14). , ,
:
, ;
, ; ;
(15: 2).68

, , .
: (, , )
(13: 4, 6); (, , );
( ) (13: 3); (, ,
); ( , II, II) (15: 7, 8).
: (15:
9)
(26: 9).
. Odesos ()
4. . .. .
(42: 8, 9). ..
. , 5. . ..
, 3.
. ..
,
, .
( ), ,
.69
66
A. Stipevi, Kultni, 97, 98; . , -; J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 43 46.
67
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 54; . , , 198, 199; J. Whatmough, Rehtia, 220, 224; A. Stipevi, Kultni,
97, 98; I. Mikuli, Pelagonija, 16; : G. Kossack, Studien,
97 (E).
68
. , ; . , , 761 763; . , ;
( ): . , , 37 45; J. Bouzek,
The Aegean, 43; (Uioara de Sus): M. Petrescu-Dmbovia, Depozitele. Pl. 247: 2;
: . , ; I. Panayotov, Bronze, 186 191.
69
. , ; . , , 318 321; . , . , 52 54, 100; . ,
. 362; . , ; . , ; . , ; . , .
678
()
14
679
I. -
-
,
, (,
).
,
.
, 5. . ..70
II.

, . ,
,
, .
.
, , ,
(10: 2, 6 8).
( ),
.
: , ..
? ,
, .
( ,
)
, .
, .. ,

.71

. . .
. ,
, ,
: ( ),
; (
), .
( )
.72

, , ( , ,
).

, .

(, , ) (22: 1, 2, 6).
, ,
70
. , , 111, 112, 114 (. 3: 1, 2) 115, 116 (. 5: 2) 115, 124;
: . , , 33 40, . 45,
49, 50.
71
: M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 69; M. Haysom, The Double-Axe, 37, 38; M. Gimbutas, Battle; N.
Marinatos, Minoan Kingship, 114; . , , 151; . . , , 242.
72
A. T. Hodge, The Labrys; : M. Haysom, The Double-Axe,
36, 38. : M. Lowe Fri, The
Minoan.
680
()
( + ; + ; +
), ( + + ).

, ,
, , ,
,
. , , , ,
, , , ,
.
, , ,
,
, ( )
, .. .
,
,
.
1.

labrys .
, ,
.
labyrinthos Zeus
Labraundos/Labrandeus, Myasa Caria.
labrys
Zeus Labraundos
, labyrinthos .
Labrandos ( Caria), , ,
.73
lubarnas, labarnas, labar , .. .
Lobrine , da-pu-ri-to-jo po-ti-ni-ja
- Potnia Labirintoj.74
, labr-, lavr-,
lawr-, laur- . labra
, laure ,
, . , ,
labyrinthos labrys, labra
/ (*la- = ) ,
/ ( Ampeluza Gortina ). .
(, , , , ,
) , .
.75
,

(28: 2). . . ,
( )
-
73
(Plutarchus, Quaestiones Graecae 45.2); M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 62 64; M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 223
225.
74
: . , -, 59; . , , 800, 801; Da-pu2-ri-to-jo 2014.
75
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 63 65; M. Elijade, Istorija. Tom I, 115, 117.
681
II.
15
682
()
. ,
.76
labrys

( *la- ),
, , .

*ax- *ox- (. axe, . Axt, . kse, . ks, . yxa,
. . ascia). .
.
, ( )
. , Axieros (= , )
, (Axiokersa = Axiokersos = )
.77
2.
a)
, ,
.
- . , , , ,
.
, , , . ,
, , (10: 1, 4),
(10: 9; 14), .
.78
- . ,
.
.
- . ,
, .
.
: , ,
(10: 3); ivalji, Obrovac ()
, ,
(10: 5); ( )
( ) (15: 6).79
,
,
(10: 5).
b)

. , ,
, , ..
, .
76
. . , , 247.
77
M. C. Waites, The Deities, 48, 49.
78
. . , , 242; M. Gimbutas, Battle, 52, 54; J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 46; O. Montelius, The Sun-
God's, 68 ( ); A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 635, 636; : .
, , 37 45.
79
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 43, Sl. II, 4; I. Marovi, B. ovi, Cetinska, 207; . , , 96 . 3 (
).
683
II.
- (= )
. ,
, ,
(= ) (12).

(4. . . ..), (12: 10
23. . ..) .
,

: , , ,
,
.80
(15: 1).81

(12: 5, 6), (12: 7 - 9, 14 - 16)
(35: 4, 5; 37: 4),
, . , ,
.82
, (12: 11 - 13;
32: 5). ,
, , , ,
.
,
(12: 2).83 ..

(12: 1).84
3.
.

, ..
a, .

hourglass ( , .. ).85
.
a)
, .. / , ,
.
( , ) .
(7. . . ..), ,
(16: 6, 8 - 10), (30: 8)
( 16: 5).

.
80
J. A. MacGillivray, The Minoan, 124 126.
81
Indus Script 2015; M. Le Martin, Lajja.
82
M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 199; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 47.
83
M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 215, 216.
: D. V. Sippel, Minoan, 88 90.
84
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 44.
85
M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 184 187; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 239 243.
684
()
16
685
II.
,
, . ,
, , ,
(16: 6). ,
,
(16: 7, 8).86

,
.87
. ,

. ,
, .. ,
, .
,
.
,

.88
,
.
,
, .. .
(16: 4 - 10),
(
) ( ).
. ,

.
.
b)
.

(: 16: 1 3; 33).89 ( ,
) . . , , ,
.90 . ,
,
, , ,
2. ,
.
( )
, ,
.
,
, . ,
86
87
: M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 43 45, Sl. II, 2, 3.
88
Water clock 2014.
89
A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. II II, 787 790; A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. III, 149 154.
90
M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 213 215.
686
()
()
- .91

(16: 1 3; 33),
.
,
.
,
(29: 7).

atal Hyk (33: 1)
.92
III.
,
, ,
,
, ,
.
.93
. , ,
, , ,
. . (C. Picard) . (F.
Schachermeyr) .94
, ,
,
.95
1.
,

. , a , .
, ,
.
.
a)

.

. Knossos
(17: 8). , ,
, .
Hagia Triada Zakros , Tera (17:
91
M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 186, 187.
92
M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 186, 187; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 643 646; : M. Hoti,
Prethistorijski, 44 46, 68; . . , , 247; . , , 150, 151.
93
: M. Haysom, The Double-Axe, 38.
94
A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. I, 447; . , -, 52, 58; M. Haysom, The Double-Axe, 37.
95
M. P. Nilsson,The Minoan-Mycenaean, 226; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 47, 55.
( Kameiros ): O. Montelius, The Sun-God's, 64, Fig. 6.
687
II.
17
688
()
5, 7, 10).96 Zakros Hagia Triada

, , , , .97
, (
),
Knossos (17: 8) . .
,

(28: 5, 6).98 Palaikastro
( , ,
).
(17: 1, 2).99 , ,
.
( )
.100

(.. snake frame).

. ,
. Knossos (17: 4), Kalkani
(17: 3)
(, ).
(snake frame) ,
.. , ,
(36; 37) ( . 317).101
, .
,
( , ,
) (17: 9).
(),
, .

. ( 50).102
- (12: 2)
,
.
, ,
Ashera (A-SA-SA-RA).

Archalochori. I-DA-MA-TE, , , ,
.
()
. ,
Pelekes (= ).103
96
M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 225; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 623; . . , , 447, 448
. 125; M. Haysom, The Double-Axe, 43, 44 Fig. 6, 7.
97
M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 225; M. Haysom, The Double-Axe, 43 45, Fig. 4, 5, 44; Zakros 2014.
98
J. Campbell, Occidental, 72.
99
M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 225, 226; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 624, 625; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 47, 48; .
. , , 446, 447 . 124.
100
A. Baring, J. Cashford, The myth, 113; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 48.
101
. . , , 249, 250 . 56, 298 . 73, 299; M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 225,
226; . , -, 58, 59; : M. Haysom, The Double-Axe, 40 6.
102
. . , , 504 507.
103
J. A. MacGillivray, The Minoan, 120, 126.
689
III. -

, , .. ,
. .104 .
... ,
... ,
( . 709).105 . . ,

, , ,
. , Axieros (= , )
, (Axiokersa = Axiokersos = )
.106
. . Palaikastro
, (17: 1, 2, 6).

,
.107
b)
.
, ,
, ..
, , , ..
. ,
, ,
, , ,
. , ,
.
.
Aphrodisias
. Mostena (18: 2).
Myra Likiai ( ) :
, , ( Artemis
Eleuthera).
(18: 6, Aphrodisias 4).
. (
c ), , , (18: 3) Nysa (18:
1) Anazarbos .108
(Hesichius Alexandrinus) (=
/ ).109

. ,
, a Artemis Orthia
(23: 4) Lousoi .
Kos ,
.110
104
: M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 68.
105
A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. I, 447; : M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 226; M.
Haysom, The Double-Axe, 37.
106
M. C. Waites, The Deities, 48, 49; : . , , 319 321.
107
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 624, 625.
108
M. C. Waites, The Deities, 30, 31, 36, 37; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 564 565, 680 683; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 56, 60,
61, 72, 73.
109
110
M. C. Waites, The Deities, 30; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 56.
690
()
18
691
III. -
,
,
.
, ,
.
.
.
Smyrna, Cyme, Aegae, Magnesya ad Sipylum, Cibyra, Ancyra Mazaca.111
, ,
(18: 7).
5. , . ,
..
, ,

.112 (18: 5)
Dike Adikia (47: 9).
, ,
. , ,
, ().
,
.
, .113
( Chiusi, Saryteano, Guarnacci Museum Voltera .)
.
.114
/ (47: 6), . (47: 4) ( . 768).
2.

,
. .
, ..
. . .

, ,
.115
, /
,
, .. ( 28:
1).
a)
(
)
.
, .. ,
: = , , , ,
111
M. C. Waites, The Deities, 31, 32; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 559, 560; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 55 57.
112
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 57; : A. J. N. W. Prag, Clytemnestra's; G. C. W. Warr,
Clytemnestra's.
113
. , , 799.
114
J. A. Spranger, The Double, 202, 203.
115
M. Gimbutas, The Language, 242, 243; D. O. Cameron: M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 45.
692
()
= , , , .
, ,
(10; 19: 1, 3, 4, 7, 8).
, , ,
. ,
,
(= )
(= ).

.
Korovci, Murska Sobota () (19:
1).116 ( )
, , ,
.
.

.
( ) ,
, (19: 5).117
,
,
, .118
,
, ( ) .
, ,
,
, , , . ,
,
. ,
Maliq, ,
, (19: 2).
, , -

(19: 3, 4).119
(3: 11 ;
15: 2 ).
, (19: 7, 8).

, , , ..
. , -
, ..
(, , ). , , , ,
116
Stalna 1997, 13; : . , , 148, 149; .
, , 24, 25.
117
: A. Solenhofen, Stoneworking; . , . , , 142 .
118
(), (. , )
, , (. , ).
: A. Gluhak, Hrvatski, 158 (habati, habam,
*xobot; gurati, udarati, *skabh strugati, rezati, dupsti (otrim oruem); lat.
scabo grebem, eem, scabies hrapavost, svrab), 293 (jebati, jebe); P. Skok, Etimologijski, 765 (jebati), 645, 646
(habati).
119
Shqip. Arkeologike 1971, 13; . . , . . , . . , , 91, 92 . 12;
: . , , 93 100 .
693
III. -
19
694
()
.120
,
, .. .121
(, , )
(, )
,
.122
, ..
. ( )
, .123

( )
, , ,
, (
, ).
b)
, , ,
- ,
.
, ,
12
.124
( ), (
).125 . , ..
, ,
. ,

, .126
. . ,
, ,
, / , .. .127
,
,
.
:
( . 643); (/ =
; / = ). ,
120
: . , , 181, 182; . . , , 289.
121
. . , , 312; M. Gimbutas, Perknas/Perun, 477 ( stone axe
).
122
M. Elijade, Kovai, 99, 10; . . , , 67, 68, 86 (
,
).
123
(. 47).
124
(Homeri Odyssea 21).
125
W. B. Stanford, A Reconsideration; L. G. Pocock, The Arrow; P. Brain, D. D. Skinner, Odysseus.
.
, (L. G.
Pocock, The Arrow, 348 351; C. J. Russo, Odysseus, 96, 97).
126
. , , 63 67.
127
C. J. Russo, Odysseus.
695
III. -
,
.128
12 , ,
, . ,
,
, ,
.
() ,
. ( ),
(
) , ..
, .. .
,
.
,
. ,
(= ) , ..
, ..
. , ,
.
,
/ ,
(= ) .
,
,
. ,
, ..
, ,
.
.
23- ,
. ,
, ,
, .129
( , ), , ,
(,
).130
IV.
1.
a)

,
.131 ,
128
C. J. Russo, Odysseus, 101; : . , ,
8 13; . , , 138 144; : . , a;
. 832.
129
(Homeri Ilias 23.850 859); . , , 64, 65; . , , 801.
130
, , . ()
(= , ): . , , 82; . , , 51, 52;
: A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 691.
131
M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 220, 223, 226.
696
()
20
697
IV. -
, . . ( )
,
, . , ,
.132
,
: ( , Melos)
, ,
( ) (20: 2);133 Kameiros (20: 3);134
Armenoi,
(= ) (20: 4);135
( Argos) (
, ) (20:
1).136
,

M.
M ,
.137

.

,
.138

.139
- ( ).
, ( )
( )
( ) , ( ),
(28: 2; 36).
- .
, ,
( ) (= ) (=
). ,
,
(, ) .
- . ,
, .
,
, ,
,
. , .
132
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 601.
133
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 544 Fig. 419, : 548
558.
134
O. Montelius, The Sun-God's, 64, Fig. 6.
135
. . , , 441 446.
136
, .. (R. Hampe, Aktorione, 475;
Aktorione 2015).
137
138
139
: M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 75, 76;
M. C. Waites, The Deities, 29, 33, 34; M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 220 223; . , -, 58,
59; A. Durman, Simbol, 71, 72, 76; . , , 150, 151.
698
()
b) ( )
( ) ,
. , ,
(20: 5 7, 9).140
, . ,
, ,
.141 ,
( ?)
(20: 5, 6). (20: 9)
(20: 7).
,
, . ,
.142
(21: 9).143
,
. , ,
, , (, ,
). ,
. , ,
,
, .144

, , , .
, , ,

. ,
, Labranda/Labraunda Caria (21: 4, 6, 7).
labr- ,
: ;

. ,

( 20: 5, 6, 9).145
,
, (Zeus Stratios, Zeus Olympios), , ,
, , , Apolon Tyrimnaios ( Thyatiara 21: 2, 3)
(Baaltar Tarsos). (21: 3)
(21: 5, 8). ,
Doliche Komagena (),
. ,
(20: 8; 21: 10, 11).146
(, ) . ,

, .
140
. . , , 142; A. Durman, Simbol, 72.
141
A. Petrosyan, The Cities, 147, 148; M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 222; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 61, 71, 74.
142
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 61, 71; A. Durman, Simbol, 73; O. Montelius, The Sun-God's, Pl. I: Fig.1.
143
O. Montelius, The Sun-God's, 63; A. Petrosyan, The Cities, 148.
144
A. Durman, Simbol, 75, 76.
145
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 559 599; M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 221, 223; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 62; O.
Montelius, The Sun-God's, 62; . , -, 59; . . , , 247.
146
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 561 576, 654 662; O. Montelius, The Sun-God's, 63, 64; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 60, 61; A.
Durman, Simbol, 71, 72.
699
IV. -
21
700
()
*teks (
= ), , ,
, .

/ , 5. . ..
.147
, ,
,

.148
c) ( )
, ,
: (22: 1);
(22: 6); (22: 2).
.

/ / , (23: 6),
(23: 1), (22: 3, 4).149
. Tenedos ( )
Dionis Anthroporrhaistes (= ) ,
Tenedios pelekys.
, ,
, (22: 3, 4).
o Keos, , , ,
, .. , .
,
Pegasai,
Dionysos Pelekys (= ).
Olbia, 4. 3. . ..
,
( ).
.
, , , ,
. ,
, .. , , ,
, .. .
, ( )
.150
(22: 5).151
,
, .. .
,
,
147
A. Petrosyan, The Cities, 147 151; : A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 626 628.
148
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 600, 601; A. J. Evans, Mycenaean Tree, 109; . .
,
(M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 223).
149
O. Montelius, The Sun-God's, 65 67; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 56; . , , 319;
: . . , , 53, 54.
150
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 659 662; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 57 59.
151
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 661 (Fig. 600); : J. A. Spranger, The Double, 202.
701
IV. -
22
702
()
.152 Thyatira ( )
, Apolon Tyrimnaios,
(21: 2, 3).
: Blaundos, Mostene,Tabala (21: 8) . Koula
Apolon Bozens, (21: 5).153
( Apolon Eteudeniskos)
( . 775).
,
Salamina 300 295 . . ..,
(24: 3).154

.
( ?).
.
,
,

.
(15: 7, 8).155

(26: 9).
( . 711).156
,
. , ..
( ) , .. .
.
, ,
, , .
,
, (20: 8; 21: 10, 11).
, ( ) ,
, . ayas
, .157
(Taranis/Thanaris) ,
Thor (23: 1 3, 7, 8, 10), Thunor,
, Apolon Tyrimnaios
, Tenedios Pelekys
( Tenedos . thunder = ).
. ,
, (23: 2).
, .
( . 496, 498,
553, 561, 772).158
152
O. Montelius, The Sun-God's, 65.
(61).
153
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 561 564, 568, 569; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 60.
154
: Demetrius Poliorcetes 2015; . , , 167, 168, T.
XXVII: . 54.
155
. , ; . , , 362.
156
. , , 799.
157
158
O. Montelius, The Sun-God's, 67 ( Taranis/Tanaris Thunor Thor), 74, 75 (
. ).
703
IV. -
23
704
()
,
, ,
, (23: 9).159
2. /

, .. . , .. (,
) , ,
.
, .. - ,
, .

,
.
/ . . . . ,
.160
. , (
), .
pereky -,
( pelekis).161 ( )
, -
: Perkunis/Perkons, Parjanya
/ .162
, Adad
( ), (
), (20: 5, 6, 8; 21: 10,
11).163
. -
( ).
,
(23: 5 4). (
, ), ,
(keraunos) (41).164
( Hagia Triada
) (35) , .. .
4
, , ..
( . 735).165
. . ,
( ) -
.166 . . .

159
M. Gimbutas, Perknas/Perun, 474 477; . . , ; : .
, , 415 423; N. ausidis, Poganska, 443.
160
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 505 ; . . , (M. P. Nilsson,
The Minoan-Mycenaean, 226, 227).
161
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 66, 68.
162
, ,
() / (. . , ),
Perendi /Perudi (. , , 59).
163
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 61, 71, 76.
164
M. C. Waites, The Deities, 28, 29; . . (A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 639 641).
165
M. C. Waites, The Deities, 37 4.
166
. . , , 247.
705
IV. -
(thunderbolts) ,
A . ,
, .
, , , . ,
, -
.
.167

Odesos ( , )
(42: 8, 9). ,
( ) (42: 13). .
, ..
.168

(15: 9).169
, ,

. (
),
(42).170
( a)
Statenica () (15: 10).171
,
.
(Shango/Sango), Yoruba ( )
.172 , ,
(24: 4).

, .. , .. ,
, .
( ), , ,
(= ?),
, .. (20: 5 8; 21: 10, 11).

, .. , , , .. .
, ( ), , , ..
, , ,
. ,
, ( ).
, ( ) , ..
( , . )
, ,
, ( ,
, ). , ..

, : ,
.
167
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 505 512, 703, 704; O. Montelius, The Sun-God's, 60, 61.
168
. , .
169
( ): . , , 319, 320; .
, .
170
N. L. ukovska, Lamaizam, 49; . , , 39.
171
M. Gimbutas, The Language, 271 Fig. 421.
172
Sango 2014; (: M. Gimbutas, Battle, 54).
706
()
24
707
IV. -
, .. (
),
.173
. (
) (
) (20: 8).174
, , ,
( ), (
) , (20: 5 8; 21: 9
11).175
,
, -
, . , ,

(17), , ,
(18).
, .. . .
,
() , .. .
Sirakusa, , , , (
) (24: 8, 10) .
Metropolis , Parium, Lesbos Amastris.
(Iuno Caelestis) ,
Marium ,
. ( Cremna
Pisidia), (Lampsacus) ( 24: 9 Lesbos).176
Citium ,
( )
Keraunios, Keraunia. ,
, ..
, ,
. ,
( ), (Tenedos)
(25: 1 5).177
, ..
, ..
, .. .
( ) -, , .
,
, .178 ,

( ), ,
,
.
, : . ;
( );
173
. , , 405 .
174
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 61. , II,73 ( 20: 8)
, Iupiter Dolichenus (2.
..).
175
.
176
177
178
. ( ): . . , ., 405 407.
708
()
, , .. ;
, .
( )
, ,
( ).179 .
,
,
, .. . , .
, .. (
/), ( ) , ..
( ).180 , ,
.
( ) (18: 8; 47: 2, 5, 7).
(
. 768).
V. : +
.
, .
, .
. (C. Picard)
.181
. . ,
Psihro, ,
,
.182
. ,
- . ,
,
.
, .183
Tenedos

, , ( ,
) (25: 1 5).184
, . . ,
, (25: 6, 7), ,
(, ) ( ,
) (26: 4, 7).
-.185

4. 3. . .. (25: 8).
( )
, .

179
. . , , 182, 183; . . , , 398; . , ,
330; . , , 130; . , .
180
N. Nodilo, Stara, 404, 405; . , , 418; : . , , 31.
181
A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. I, 447; A. J. Evans, Mycenaean Tree, 108; . , -, 52, 58.
182
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 533, 534; M. Haysom, The Double-Axe, 37.
183
184
Tenedos 2014; M. C. Waites, The Deities, 33 Fig. 2, 38; A. J. Evans, Mycenaean Tree, 108.
185
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 574 576, 591 596, 654 657, 673 677.
709
IV. -
25
710
()
( , .. )
.

( ). ,

( , .. )
.186 .
:
, , , ..
( Myra Lycia Aphrodisias
Caria) (26: 1, 2); ,
- , , ,
( ) (26:
5, 6 ).
, ,
.187
. . , -
, , .188 .
, , ,
,
, .189

,
(26: 9). ,
( ),
,
, .. ( . 832).190
,
(, , )
: , .. ;
; ( )
.191
( )
(. )
( )
.192 ,
,
.
186
M. C. Waites, The Deities, 33, 34, 45.
187
M. C. Waites, The Deities, 35 37; . . (A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 680 683,
); : J. E. Harrison, Prolegomena, 279 283; . , , 73, 74.
, ,
(. . , , 289). ,
, .
188
189
. , -, 52, 58.
190
: . , ; : . ,
, 325 327; . , , 228, 230; : M. Hoti,
Prethistorijski, 77 98.
191
O. Montelius, The Sun-God's, 71; . . , , 97, 98, 100; M. Gimbutas, Perknas/Perun, 476.
192
... , / , / : / ,
. (. , , 92: . 10).
711
V. : +
26
712
()
27
713
V. : +
,
.193
... (), ,
(Patrio more), : .
, .

,
.194
,
( ) ,
, .. ,
.. , . ,
( ) ,
(=
) (= ).195

( ) ,
( 23: 3). ,
, (,
, .. /,
). ,
(=
).196 , ,
, Vergina
.
,
, 12-

. ,
,
.
, , (19: 7, 8).197
, , e ( = )
(= ) , , ..
, , ,
.
(),
,
( . 600 ). , , ,
,
.198
(35) . .
193
. ,
(. , , 193).
194
(Curtius Rufus, Historiarum Alexandri 8. 4.27 28). ,
(. . , , 242).
195
, .. : . , O ; . , . , ; .
, ; : . , ; . , .
196
. . , (1984), 73 75; . . , .
197
A. Durman, Simbol, 91 (Sl. 2: 2, 3), 99, 135 (kat. br. 46, 47).
198
(= )

(), , ,
(19: 6). (. , . , 37,
59).
714
()
(= , , )
, (= , ) .199

( ) , (3,1
1,8 cm) , .
, , (27:
3, 4).200 ,
,
.

, ,
. , ..

, .. (
, ) (27: 1, 2, 5 12).201 ,

.
VI.
. ,
, ,
(
). , ,
.
, .

, :
, , , .
,
.
,
.
. ,
,
.202
. , , ,
.

,
.
,
, ,
.203
,
, .
(28: 5 7). ,
, , ..
199
200
. , , 95 . 2;
: A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 649, 650.
201
: . , ; . , , 378 383.
202
M. C. Waites, The Deities, 29, 30, 37, 38.
203
715
V. : +
28
716
()
(
), ( )
(= , .. ). , ..
, , .
( )
(.. ) ,
( ) .
. ,
, ,
( ).204
, ,
. ,

:
.

. Palaikastro, ,
(17: 1, 2, 6).

, , , ,
, , . .

, . (17)
(36), , , .
.205 , ,
.
( ) (22: 2),
(22: 6).
.206 .
,
, , (26: 1, 2)
(26: 5, 6).207
, ,

, ,
. ,
, ,
.208
.
.209

204
J. Campbell, Occidental, 70 72.
. , , ,
).
: A. Baring, J. Cashford, The myth, 114 117; : A. J. Evans,
Mycenaean Tree, 107, 108; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 515, 516; . . , , 291 295; M. Haysom, The
Double-Axe, 41.
205
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 48, 68.

(22: 3, 4). (. . , ,
53, 54), , .
206
. , , 319, 320; J. E. Harrison, Prolegomena, 280 285.
207
208
, : M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 48.
209
717
VI.
29
718
()
(28: 1).
. . , , (
), ,
.210 ,

, (
)
,
.
,

, , . ,

(29: 8 10).211

(28: 1). ,
.
,
,
(vagina dentata), ..
( )
(28: 1).
,
, , ..
, ,

(28: 2).
(, ), (, ).
, -
, .
, ,
, .. , , -
.
. ,
,
( ,
).

, ,
, ,
(28: 3, 4).

. (
),
, .. (29: 6). .

(29: 7).212

,
: ( ) ,
.
210
D. O. Cameron, 12 ( M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 45).
211
: . , , 232 256.
212
. , -, 58.
719
VI.
30
720
()
.
, (30: 1),
(
) (30: 2),
(30: 3).213

(30: 9).

, :
atal Hyk (30: 4);
, (30: 5, 6).214
VII.
1. ,

(31).

, .. (32; 35).215
, Hagia Triada
(), ,
(32: 3; 35: 7), , (35:
1, 6).216

, .
. .
.
, ,
. .
.217 -
, , ..
(, )
(, ) .
, ,
,
( 34: 1). ,
,
(34: 3 5).218
Hagia Triada,
,
, .. , , .

(28: 5, 6).
213
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 45, Sl. II, 13 15.
214
J. Mellaart, atal Hyk, 172 175, Fig. 61 64, Pl.XIII; . Anati, Magourata, 92 Fig. 49, 96 Fig. 53, 54.
215
. (A. J. Evans, Mycenaean Tree, 106 112).
216
: A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 516 524; . .
, , 415 433; M. C. Waites, The Deities, 37; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 47.
217
M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 216, 219; M. C. Waites, The Deities, 37.
218
J. A. MacGillivray, The Minoan, 121, 122; M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 216 218, 229; A. B. Cook, Zeus.
II, Fig. 456 458, 656.
721
VI.
31
722
()
. .
: Psychro Dicte
; Knossos
(32: 5).219

,
(31:
1 3, 6 8). .. (37: 1, 2, 4).
,
, , , ,
( ) , .. .
( ),
, .220

Vergina (4: 1, 2, 4, 5).
, ,
, , (31: 4, 5).221
Arkalochori
.
(11: 4, 7).222
a)
, ,
,
(33: 4).
,
(31: 1, 2,
6; 33: 4, 5, 8).

(, .). Mochlos
(33: 9, 10,
13). (33: 5, 6) (
) (Sacral Knot)
(ankh) (33: 4).223
, .
Melos ( ,
) .
(cherubic goblins).224
( ?) (33: 11, 12). ,

. ,

, .
219
220
: A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. II II, 475, 476 (Fig. 284); A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 524 528; M. P. Nilsson, The
Minoan-Mycenaean, 204 208; N. Marinatos, Minoan Kingship, 121; . . , , 247, 248 (. 55),
559 (. 156: 4); : C. Anghelina, On the Date, 8, 9.
221
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 573 (Fig. 472, 474).
222
A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. IV I, 346 (Fig. 290 a).
223
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 527; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 274 (Fig. 429); M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 187 Fig.153; A.
Evans, The Palace. Vol. 1, 430 435; N. Marinatos, Minoan Kingship, 122, 123; . . , , 247,
248.
224
A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. 1, 703, 704 (Fig. 527).
723
VII.
32
724
()
33
725
1. ,
Hagia Triada
(35: 1, 6, 7).
- ,
. ,
.225
- -
, - (
) (32: 3). .
,

, , .
,
. . .
,
(), , .226 . .
(32: 3, 6)
.227 ,
,
. ,
.
,
. , ,
, , ,
, , .. (33: 2, 3;
34: 5).228

(34: 10, 11).

, ,
(34: 8, 9).229
(
), , .. (34: 2).230
b)
.
, ( ) .
- .231 ,
,

, , .
,
, :
( );
225
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 520, 521; . . , , 261, 418 433; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 75.
226
M. C. Waites, The Deities, 37; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 75; M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 220, 221
( , ); A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 522, 533, 552.
227
J. A. MacGillivray, The Minoan, 121, 122; A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. IV I, 211 213.
228
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 566, 567 (Fig. 456 458).
229
A. J. Evans, Mycenaean Tree,153 168.
230
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 575 (Fig. 478 481), 592 (Fig. 496).
231
N. Marinatos, Minoan Kingship, 124 126.
726
()
34
727
1. ,
; ;
; () ().232

: ,
. .
c) ( )
Hagia Triada
(32: 3; 35: 1, 6, 7). ,
, Giofyrakia (35: 5).
.. .
, , , , ,
. .
, .233 .
, . .
.234
Dodona
.235
, ,

. ,
,
, .. , .
,
(, , ).

(30: 7).236
, ,
.237
, .
,
,
, ,
, .238
, , (45: 6; 68: 4).

. Hagia Triada
, (35: 3).
, ..
. ,
, ()
(),
, , , .239
,
232
. , , 363 374.
233
N. Marinatos, Minoan Kingship, 115, 116
234
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 518, 519; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 47, 48, 68, 74, 75; . . , , 261; J. A.
MacGillivray, The Minoan, 124 Fig. 7.
235
(Philostratus, Imagines 2.33); A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 677.
236
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 47, 48, 59, 68, 74, 75; . . , , 424, 433.
237
238
. (C. Anghelina, On the Date, 8).
239
. , .
728
()
35
729
1. ,
( ) ,
,
(35: 2).
(35: 8).240

(, .. ). ,
=

( ).

( ),
.

(35: 4).
,
-.241
,
,
.
d) ( )
,
(.. boukephalion) (36: 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10)
(.. ) (35: 4, 5; 37: 1, 2, 4) ( . 317). ,
, ,
, ..
.
(36: 3, 6).
(36: 3, 4, 6, 7). ,
, Palaikastro, Giofyrakia Khania (31: 3;
35: 4, 5; 37: 4), (37: 1, 2).242

.243 ,
Knossos, , , ,
, ,
.244 . .
,
( ).
,
.

, ()

.
240
H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. IV, Taf. 219B: 1, 4: Taf. 220: 8, 9. A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 536 (Fig. 406 c); A. J. Evans,
Mycenaean Tree, 191 (Fig. 65).
241
. . , . . , , 346.
242
M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 218; N. Marinatos, Minoan Kingship, 114 122; . . ,
, 244, 438; J. A. MacGillivray, The Minoan, 124 Fig. 7; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 10, 11 (Sl. I, 41, 42), 47 (Sl.
II, 29; II, 38); L. Vance Watrous, The Origin.
243
244
D. V. Sippel, Minoan, 87; M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 223, 224.
730
()
36
731
1. ,
. .
.245 , ,
,
: () ()
, ,
.

.
, ,

.246
,
.
,
, . (
) .
(=
, ), (=
) -
(= ) (=
).
.247 , ,
. atal
Hyk () ,
( ?) (36: 8, 11).
Gumelnia (36: 5)
(36: 2)
( ),

.248
,
,
. ,
tiet (
), -
(36: 1). ( -
, . )
. , , , ..
dhew ,
,
(37: 6).249 .
(37: 3, 5) , ..
(carrier of the luminaries of
heaven) .250
245
M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 229 232.
246
M. Haysom, The Double-Axe, 38; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 68, 69 (
,
).
247
. , -, 52, 58.
248
J. Mellaart, atal Hyk, 109 (Fig. 23),124 (Fig. 37), 125 (Fig. 38), 127 (Fig.40); . , -, 52, 57
58; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, Gumelnia: 11, 22, Sl. I, 67, : 45, Sl. I,
74.
249
J. A. MacGillivray, The Minoan, 123 126; N. Marinatos, Minoan Kingship, 103 113; C. Anghelina, On the Date,
7, 8; M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 188, 189.
250
N. Marinatos, Minoan Kingship, 116 120.
732
()
37
733
1. ,
-
, .
, ,
( )
, .. . ,
dhew (= )
.
, , ,
(16: 4, 5; 8: 9, 10).

(20: 5)
(20: 8; 21: 10).
( ),
( ).
, ,
,
(, ,
) . .
= ,251 , ,
. ,
.
,

. (4. 3. . ..)
, (
) .
( ), (= ),
,
( :
) (42: 13 36).252
,
(32: 3, 6; 34: 1; 35: 1, 6, 7).
. ,
. , ,
( ),
.
,
.
Hagia Triada
(35: 1, 6).

.253

Knossos
,
(37: 1).254

. Mylasa
251
A. Petrosyan, The Cities.
252
: . , , 758, 759, 765 . 10; . . , , 203
206; . . , , 392, 393.
253
. . , ; . , , 104, 105.
254
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 527 (Fig. 396).
734
()
(34: 6, 7).255
, .. ,
. ,
, , ,
, (33: 2, 3; 34: 5).
2.

Hagia Triada , ,
(32: 3; 35: 1, 6, 7). ,
,
( 38: 1 2). ,

: (11: 9); (31: 7; 38: 6);
(17: 7, 8; 28: 5, 6; 38: 7); (36: 10) .256
, ,
, ,
, .
?

Knossos ,
(38: 4, 5).
. ,
, . .257
,
, ,
( ) (31: 7).258
Ko

.
Knossos (38: 7), Pseira (38: 6).259 .
, .. (
) , ,
(40: 7 10).260

. ,
, .
( , 5,6 x 2 cm), , ,
(38: 3).261
, , .

( ), , ,
4 , (32: 2,
1). . .
255
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 577 (Fig. 488), 663 667 ( ).
256
M. C. Waites, The Deities, 37; J. A. MacGillivray, The Minoan, 122, 123; . . , , 559 .
156.
257
A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. IV I, 200, 201 (Fig. 154 a, b).
258
A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. IV I, 342, 343 (Fig. 285, 286).
259
A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. IV II, 608 (Fig. 597 d), 614; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 652 (Fig. 580), 653 (Fig. 581); M. C.
Waites, The Deities, 45; M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 202, 204 (Fig. 97).
260
A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. II I, 199 201 (Fig. 109, 110 A).
261
. , , 98, 99 . 5.
735
1. ,
38
736
()
( 35: 8).262
4 .
( )
Niru Khani
, (11: 10; 32: 6).263
.
Kastroulia, Messenia (),
,
.264 Sindos (6. . ..) ,
, (13: 1,
2).265

,
. .
, . . - -.266
(, )
, ..
, .. .267 , , .
( )
.268 , .
, ..
.269 . .
Pseira (,
)
(38: 6; 12: 9).270
.
( )
.271

, , , , ..
Sard () (40: 4).
,

(40).
, ,
(, , , ) (, , , ).
, ,
( )
.
/ -, ..

.
262
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 528, 529 Fig. 399.
263
J. A. MacGillivray, The Minoan, 122; M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 198.
264
J. Rambach, Investigations, 145 Fig. 23 (Tumulus II, quarter G, grave 2).
265
E. Kypraiou, Greek jewellery, 83 Fig. 61; : . ,
, 39.
266
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 653; M. C. Waites, The Deities, 37; J. A. MacGillivray, The Minoan, 122, 123.
267
268
Kind of perspective rendering of axe-blades set crosswise with edges pointing to the four corners of the earth
(Paribeni, Mon. Ant, XIX, 31, : M. C. Waites, The Deities, 37 4).
269
270
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 653 Fig. 581, 582.
271
N. Marinatos, Minoan Kingship, 127.
737
2.
-
(43; 44; 45; 46; 47; 48).
( ) , , ,

, ( . 545, 555).

.
, .. ,
.. .
, , .. .
, , , -
,
, , , .
: ; ,
;
;
. ,
,
, ,
.272
,
.
,
, ..
. , (
, ), , ,
( , , , ).
, , ,
,
, .

.

, , , .273
-
(, , )
, . , ..
( )
, .
- , .
. ,

.
.
- , .
.
.
272
. . , ; . , , 76 79; . . , .
273
. . , , 288 290; . . , , 491, 492; . , , 387, 388; .
, , X ( ); . , , 406, 407; M. Gimbutas, Battle, 53, 54;
M. Gimbutas, Perknas/Perun, 476, 477; . . , , 97 101.
738
()
- , ,
, .

. , .
- , ,
, .. . ,

.
-
.
.
,
(12: 7 9, 14 16; 31: 1, 2, 6
8; 33: 4, 6, 9, 10, 13; 36: 6, 7; 38: 6). ,
, , ,
.
, ,
.

.
Hagia
Triada ,
(32: 3; 35: 7).
(31: 3; 35: 4, 5; 37: 4),

.
Nirou Khani (11: 10; 32: 6) :
, ;
,
.
, ,
Kkenydomb .
(
), ,
.274 .
(, , ) ,
, .275 ,
,
.
, .. ,
.
,
, .. .
( ) Palaikastro , ,
4 , (
) (17: 1, 2).
.
,
, ,
, (1; 2).

:
274
I. Hodder, The Domestication, 85.
275
M. Gimbutas, Battle, 53.
739
2.
39
740
()
40
741
2.
; ; ; .
,
,
( : 449
464).
,
, ..
(34: 10, 11).
, , ,
.. .
( ) ,
.. (34: 8, 9).276

( 59: 11).
Knossos in situ, ,
( )
.277
,
, . ,
, . ,
(39: 7). , 3. 2. .
..278 , ,

.
,
,
.

.

(38: 6, 7).
(39: 10; 40: 12). , ..
(40: 7 10).279
,
. ,
( ), atal Hyk (39: 11,
12).280

, ,
(39: 1 4; 40: 1 3, 5).
3.

,
(30: 7).281
276
: A. J. Evans, Mycenaean Tree, 156 161.
277
A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. II I, 335 340; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 534 536; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 48, Sl. I, 70.
278
. , , 798; . , , 40; : A. Evans,
The Palace. Vol. II I, 199 201 (Fig. 109, 110 A).
279
A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. II I, 199 201 (Fig. 109, 110 A).
280
J. Mellaart, atal Hyk, 88 (Fig. 35), 162, 163 (Fig. 46), : 44 (Fig. 18, 19).
281
A. Stipevi, Kultni, 97; : A. Durman, Simbol, 52, 53 (kat. br. 22).
742
()
, .282
.
Mochlos , (7 8 cm),
.283 ( )
Platanos,284
Isopata Knossos.285
Palaikastro, ,
, ,
(40: 6).286

.
Salamina ,
, , (37:
2).287 Hagia Triada ,
, , , (35: 6, 7).
Knossos
,
(32: 2).
, , .
, , ..
(32: 4).288
.
, Knossos ,
( 35: 8,
). 9
Phaestos, .
, ,
.289 ,
9 (3 3 =
9).

. Perinari, , 16. . ..,
7 ,
.290
( ) ,
( ) (38:
3).291

Elis . . ,
,
, , () .
,
().292
282
A. Durman, Simbol, 75.
283
284
285
L. Alberti, Rethinking, 100, 101,103.
286
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 623, 624 Fig. 525.
287
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 538, 539; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 11 (Sl. I,42);.
288
A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. I, 443 447; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 528, 529 Fig. 399; M. C. Waites, The Deities, 39.
289
M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 217.
290
. , . , 47.
291
. , , 98, 99 . 5.
292
743
3.
41
744
()
(/ )
, .. .
.
, ,
, , ,
, .293 , ,
, . ,
,
.
( ,
) : , .
,
, .
4.
o ,
, ,
. Palaikastro
, , ,
(40: 6). Knossos

(40: 11). . , , , , ..
.294

.
a)
()
, , , ..
, (41: 3, 5). ,
,
. ,
, (, ),
, , , ,
(41: 1, 2, 6, 9). ,
,
.
. ,
, , .. , .295

, , 9.
. ..,
(41: 7, 10).
, , ,
, .. (20: 6; 41: 8).
.
( ), (
), (= ) .
,
293
294
A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. IV I, 198 (Fig. 153), 199.
295
: A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 722 785.
745
3.
42
746
()
Dodona
, , ,
( . 151).
-
.296
9. . ..
(20: 7; 41: 7, 10).
(700 . . ..) (
) (20: 5, 6), , (41: 3, 5), ,
(20: 8; 21: 10).297
, ..
, , .. ,
.
, .

,
.298 . .

, (lilium) (36: 7).

: , , ,
, . -
(42: 11).299 ,

(42: 2, 3).
b)
(vajra)
. ,
, , ,
(42: 1, 5 7).
,
(42: 4).

.
, ,
.
( ) (41: 4).
( ),
(
40: 4; 40). (, ,
) , .. ( ) (
, .. ).
( ).

, , ,
296
: N. L. ukovska, Lamaizam, 65; Dodona
: . , , 46, 47.
297
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 712 727, 764 769;
. (M. C. Waites, The Deities, 28).
298
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 771, 774; N. Marinatos, Minoan Kingship, 120.
299
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 774, 775.
747
4.
43
748
()
() .300
,
, .
, ..
,301
Vergina
(4).
c)

, , ,
, .. (82: 3, 4).
6 .
( 6 ) ,
: () 6
(46: 4);
() 6 20
( ) (66: 12);302 ,
, , , .
, , .303

, .. : ,
, ;
; (
). , ,
. ,
, , , ,
.
,
.304
,

. Pherai (43: 3),
(43: 4,
5).
d)

, .. (3: 8, 9),
(44: 1 - 3, 15, 16).
( )
(44: 11 14).
,
labarus/labarum.
, .

300
N. L. ukovska, Lamaizam, 49, 65 68; D. Pajin, Tantrizam, 57, 62; A. Govinda, Tibetanska, 66 70; .
.. 1, 207, 208; J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 846, 847; : A. Mollerup, Vajra.
301
A. Govinda, Tibetanska, 67.
302
. . , . . , 177 187, 242 . 51.
303
. , , 186.
304
. , , 405, 406.
749
4.
44
750
()
, , Jupiter Dolichenus,
(20: 8; 21: 10, 11).
- (44: 4 10
11).305
e)
,
, 6
(45: 1, 4). , ..
,
.
, ,
, , .. ( ,
)
(43: 7 10). ()
.306
, .. .
, ,
, ,
: Knossos,
(43: 2);307
( )
(43: 6);
( , .. )
(43: 4, 5).308 ,
Stele di Aule Feluske
, (43: 1).
Uioara de Sus,
(13: 10).
,
(Bylazora) ,
(. ),
(44: 17).309
f)

(Iris germanica) (42: 11; 45: 7, 10).

.
, ( )
: ,
, .
(),
( ),
, , ( cvetje perinovo).
305
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 601 614; . . , . . , 300, 456.
306
. . , . . , 295 303, 455 - 459; . . , . . , 181; Z. mitek, Mitoloko, 173;
: K. Moszynski, Kultura T. II/2, 128 137; : .
, , 151.
307
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 652 (Fig. 580).
308
Etruria, Uncertain 2014, Lot 26 Lot 31.
309
: . , .
751
4.
45
752
()
.
( , ),
.310
,
.
.311

. , ,
, , ..
, (: 45: 10 11, 12, 41 42). ,
, , ,

(: 45: 7
1, 2, 4, 5).
. , ,
, (45: 8). ,
,
-
(29: 11 13).
(), (
) (29: 1 4).312

, , ,
(45: 7 1, 4 43: 7 10).
g)

.
. .
, ,
, .. , . ,
, ,
( ) , ,
,
.
, , ,
(45: 3). ,
, .313

,
, (45: 6).314

atal Hyk
310
. , , 33 35; . ., , 40, 347, 468; N. Nodilo, Stara, 384; S. Marjani,
Mitoloka; . , . . ,
.
(. , , 410, 411).
311
. , , 410, 411; : A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 642, 643.
312
D. Pajin, Tantrizam, Sl. 9, 11, 12; N. L. ukovska, Lamaizam, 66, 67; . . . 1, 207, 208; .
, , 39, 95 97, 378, 379; . , .
313
. . , . . ,181 182; . . , . . , 295 303.
314
. , , 409 142.
753
4.
( ) (33: 1).315 .
,
. , ,

,
(45: 9).
atal Hyk,
.316
( 6) . .
.317
, ..
: , .. ; ,
;
, , .. .

,
.318

(, , , , )
(, , , ) (2: 3). ,
, ,
. ,
,
.. , ( )
.
,
. ( ,
),
,
, , (45:
4).319 , (
) per se,
: , , ,
.320
VIII.

.
.
,
315
M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 186; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 270;
: M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 45, 46; . . , , 242, 246, 247.
316
. , , 150; :
A. Pleterski, Kulturni, 120 123.
317
J. A. MacGillivray, The Minoan, 123 126.
318
: . , , 409.
319

, , , ()
.
, . : J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant,
Rjenik, 675, 676.
320
. , , 409.
754
()
,
, .
.
1.
, , ,
.

, .
(
) (, , ,
Mernburg ) (Kivik Schonen, ) ( 30: 8).
(14. . ..)
, .321
, , ,
, Mesara Mochlos (2800 2600 .
. ..).
( )
.
Knossos , ,
Hagia Triada
. A
56 (36: 9,
10). Kastroulia, Messenia (),
, .
Mochlos Kamilari , , , Apesokari Platanos
, (
?). Mochlos
.
Hagia Triada
(35: 1, 6, 7),

. .
. , ,
( Hagia Triada)
. , . .
.322
() . .

(31: 3). Isopata, Knossos
( ),
.323

. Argos (8. . ..)
, , ,
, .. .

(17: 9). .

321
M. Gimbutas, Battle, 52, 53; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 54.
322
J. A. MacGillivray, The Minoan, 118, 119, 126; M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean, 195 197, 199, 208, 219,
220; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 49; J. Rambach, Investigations, 145 Fig. 23; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 521, 522, 525, 538.
323
L. Alberti, Rethinking, 99 103; N. Marinatos, Minoan Kingship, 126.
755
VIII.

.324

. , ,
Camicos , (
), ()
. .
, Knossos
( ) 29 , , ,
.
,
,
. , ,

.325
, Isopata ,
,

( 28: 1, 2).

: ,
( , ) (2:
10); ,
, (10: 3); ( 5 10
cm) , ( 14:
1).326

( ) .
, .

Stele di Aule Feluske (43: 1).327
(15: 9; 26: 9). ,
, ,
(ascia), (46).
,
( )
, , , ,
(23: 7, 8, 10, 12, 13).328

. ( Phaistos)
, .329

,
.
, , ..
. , ,
324
325
(Diodus Siculus 4.79.3); M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 49.
326
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 52, 53; . , -, 125; . , , 37 45;
: A. Stipevi, Kultni, 99.
327
J. A. Spranger, The Double, 202, 203.
328
. . , , 93, 94; . . , , 49 52; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 699 701.
329
756
()
, , , . ,
, ,
. ,
.330 ( )
( ) (
) ,
, , ,
? , ... .331
. ,

. ,
,
, ..
.332
a)
, ,
. , ,
,
. ,
.
, , ,
, / , , ,
.
,
-
, .333

, .. (, , , ,
...)
, .334

. (
), , ,

.
, , , .335
,
,

(
22: 6).

(22: 3, 4). ( )
,
.336

330
. . , , 98; . . , , 289.
331
. , , 72, 73, 161, 189; . , , 388.
332
. . , , 98; . . , , 289; . , , 161.
333
. . , ; B. Gabrievi, Znaenje.
334
. . , , 45, 46, 50.
335
. . , , 50.
336
. . , , 53, 54.
757
VIII.

.

,
- .
-
. ,
.. , ..
, .. (46: 4 8). ,
,

.
(46: 5, 7)
.337
Damastion, 4. .
.., , (46: 1).
,
.338
,
.
, ,
.
- . 7 . 12 ,

, ,
, (46: 9). . 7
.
( , ) (ascia).
. 12 (
62: 6) 40 45
.
, ..
( ).339
,
, .. .

.
, , (
) . . 16
, ( : 7: 6, 7), -I
( Malamas) Vergina (6: 6, 7).340
Vergina (?),
: -II, -I (6: 4) ,
; -VI, -V (5: 1) ;
LXV-, LXV- ( 4: 1) .341
337
. , , 65 69; N. Chausidis, The Funeral, 660, 661; .
: . , , 34.
338
. , , 25.
339
S. Temov, An Iron Age, 662; . , .
340
S. Pabst-Drrer, Zur sozialen, 649 651.
341
. . . (N. G. L. Hammond, A History 335).
758
()
46
759
VIII.

,
( )
(2). , . ,

. ,
. ,
.342
,
. , ,
. , ,
.343
( Dolenjska/Carniola).
Stina Ivanna Gorica ()
( ) ,
, .344

.
(
) ( ,
).
(
) , 20
(9) ( . 875).345

.
. , ,
, , ,
.
. ,
.

,
.346
, : , () .
. :
,
, , , .
. , , . .
: , ( ),
( ),
;
.347
* * *
342
(Herodotus 5.5). ,
, (Herodotus 5.16).
343
. , . , , 170, 171 ( ), 350, 351 ( );
( ) : .
, , 181, 182.
344
P. Turk, Images, 40 (Fig. 59), 43.
345
. . , , 203 205; ( ) 10.
.. .
346
. . , , 204, 205; Sati 2016.
347
: . . , , 205.
760
()

, ,
. , ..
,
, , , , , ,
, .. .

, .
, ,
.
, .
, ..
, ,
, , , ,
.

, ..
.
, , ,
, , ..
. , , ..
, ,
.
C.

, ..
,

. ,

,
.
.
I.
1.

,
. ,
,
, . .
, , ( ),
( ) ( )
( 8: 8, 9). :
(7: 6, 7); (7: 1 5); (8: 1);
(8: 13). Vergina,
(4; 5; 6: 2, 4
7). ( Spelaion) ,
761
C.
,
,
(8: 2).

e
( )
( ).

, , , , .
,
, ( ),
, ..
/ .
(,
).
2.

, .. .

(, , , , , ) ,
(, , , , , ) ( 1; 2,
. 451, 538 543).

.

. ,
.
, ,
, ( )
, -,
. , ,
, . /,
,
.
,
,
.
,
:
.
,
/,
, .. . ,
,
, (
) . ,
(2: 1, 2) (2: 3, 5, 6,
8) , ,
. ,
, Vergina
(4: 6). ( )
(23: 7, 8,
762
()
10, 13), (23: 3, 11).

, , .348

.
,
- .

, .
,

, (
).349
3.
,
. ,
,
(13: 1, : 13: 2).350
, (6. 5. . ..) ,
,
.

( 13: 1, 2 9: 1, 2).
, ,
, ..

. ,

(40: 1 3, 5). ,
,
. (39: 7),

. (40:
7 10).351

(39: 10; 40: 12)
(42: 4).
,

. , ,
( )
. . 9
( 3,6 cm) (39: 1, 2),
348
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 646 649; . . , . . , 546, 547; . . , ,101; N. L. ukovska,
Lamaizam, 66; . , , 406, 408.
349
A. Gluhak, Hrvatski, 347 (kresati), 349 (krijes), 655 (Uskrs).
350
Sindos: E. Kypraiou, Greek jewellery, 83 fig. 61; : . ,
, 451, 452 . 31; . , . , , 65 . 9; : I.
Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 249, Taf. 94: 1603.
351
A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. II I, 199 201 (Fig.109, 110 A); . , , 798.
763
I.
( 4 cm) (39: 3, 4) ( . 529).352

, , -
.

. , ,
,
.
-
- :
(43: 7 10), (43: 1, 4, 5)
(42: 4).

,
, .. (
). ,
.
hira shuriken, .. shaken, ,
, (39: 5, 6).353
chakram, , , , o
(39: 8, 9;
). :
Sudarchana Chakra
.354
4.
,
, :
. 54 14 (9: 2), 80 26 (9: 1).
.
14- 28 ,
. , 26 52
.

(= , , ) (=
, ).
, .. ,

.

(
).
,
.
,
( , ) .

(9: 1, 2), (8:
352
. , , 94, 98 (T.II: 7, 8), 107; . , , 65 (. . 276), 67 (. . 285).
( II) , ,
(. , , 49 . 52).
353
Shuriken 2014.
354
Chakram 2014.
764
()
1), Vergina (4: 3, 5: 3, 4).

.
, ,
, .

. ( )
Knossos 29 (= 28 +
1?).355 12- ,
52- , 12-
.

( ). 355
(24: 1),
, , , (24: 2)
).
, (9: 1, 2),
.
II. ,

(4;
5; 6; 7; 8 31; 32; 34; 35).
,
( 26: 3, 8;
36: 3, 6), .
, .
Vergina
, .
, ,
, (4). ,

,
( . 687 692).
, ,
, ,
, .. ,
- . ,
,
, .
,
. , , ..

(
. 368 373). ,

, ,
. ,
, ,
( 21: 4, 7),
, .. ,
(23: 9, 12; 24).
355
355
. , , 3.
765
II. ,
,

.
,

.
/ (21: 1; 26: 5),
.
. , .. ( ).
,
Vergina
(5; 6). .
, , ,
. ,
.
, , , :
; ;
( );
.
, ,
.
Vergina.
.
, , -
,
- - (
, ; ,
).
III.

.
in situ, , .. ,
(9). , ,
, ,
,
.

.
. . . ,
Vergina. , 14. . ..
(Bottiaei), .356
,
,
, ,
.

Uioara de Sus (Felsujvar),
/Karansebes ( , ) , ,
356
N. G. L. Hammond, A Hystory, 335, 336; (Strabo, Geographia
6.3.2); . (A. Stipevi, Kultni, 97) .
(D. Mitrevski, Genesis, 91).
766
()
, (13: 9, 10).357

, ..
(30: 1, 2),358
(30: 9).
,
(24: 1, 2).
,
, .
(30: 3)
(30: 7).
,
,
( =
).
( = )
( = ).359
, ,
, , .. (8:
8). , Sindos (13: 1, 2),
,
,
(8: 9). ( , )
1. . . .. ,
,
.360 ,
.
( ).
Agios Pantelejmonas Florina/ ().
,
.361
,
,
( ) (, , )
: , .. , ,
(
).362 ,

(=
) (= ).363
357
M. Petrescu-Dmbovia, Depozitele, 87, Pl. 126: 32, 34; . , , 199, . 2, . 3.
358
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 45, Sl. II, 13, 14.
359
. , , 394; . , . , 214, 215; J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 449,
450; . , , 138, 159, 249, 250;
: A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 716 722.
360
. , , 24, 25; . , , 39.
361
: . , .
362
O. Montelius, The Sun-God's, 71; . . , , 97, 98; M. Gimbutas, Perknas/Perun, 476; M. Gimbutas,
Battle, 53; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 702.
363
. .
( , )
(. . , , 242). , . . ,
, , (. . ,
, 131).
767
III.
54 ,
.

.
/, .
1.
( 12 7 cm)
(. ),
(naiskos), (47: 4).
, ,
, . . 3. ..
, .. .
(
/Arinna/). Comana Pontus Comana
Cappadocia. , , (Enyo) ,
1. . .. , , ..
( Ma-Bellona). ,
14 ( 3. .., /Edesa, )
.

, , .364 ,
,
- Ostia (),
, , . , ,
, .
,
Trier ()
(47: 6). ,
Comana Pontica (
, ).365

,

.
Scupi ( , ),

.366
2. , .. .
,
. , , ,
, ,
.
( )
.
, .
: ;
; . , ..
( ) , , ,
364
N. Proeva, La desse; . , , 91 97; V. Stefanidou, Ma; M. Hatzopoulos, Artmis, 404 405.
365
N. Proeva, La desse, 168, 171, Fig. 5.
366
: . -, .
768
()
, (47: 2, 5, 7), , , (18: 8).

, , (47: 8). ,

.367 ,
.. ,
.368 , , ascia (,
),
, .
, .. . .
,369 , ,
,
(18: 1 4, 6).
. .
1074/75 .
12. . . . 14.
. .
, ,
. .
( )
, . 16.
17. , ,
.370
,

( 47: 4 2, 5, 7). , . , .

.371
.
, (47: 8).
.372 ,
, ,
, ..
.
. . (47: 3), ,
,
, . .373
. , ..
(47: 1). ,
,
( 4 ).374
. / ,

(9).
.
. .
367
. , , 34, 35; : . , .
368
. , , 37.
369
. . : . , , 19 25, 27, 58, 70.
370
. , , 33, 34; . , , 22 25.
371
. , . , , 17, 18, 24, 42, 43, 62, 81; . , , 162.
372
: . , , 166 (
. ) : . , , 11, 21, 45, 184.
373
. , , 33, 36; . , , 25, 27, 38, 69 71, 177.
374
. , , 28, 70.
769
III.
47
770
()

. ,
.375 ,
, ..
(34: 10, 11 5).
, ..
(17: 1, 2 60: 6, 10). . ,
, , , ,
(11: 1, 3 8).376
. ,
(Dike ),
6. . .. (47: 9).
, , Adikia
, .377
.

.
. , ,
,

(), ().
(
. 757). ( )
, ,
. ,
. Prekmurje () ,
.378

, .. .

.
, - ,
( ),
.
, . , ,
, .. ( ),
Fiorgynn
(, Perkunis, Parjanya). Anna
Perenna/Peranna .379
IV.

.
(23: 4, 5).380 ,
375
. , , 58 60, 189; . , , 9, 52 56, 91, 165, 172, 177.
376
. : . , ; . , , 11, 57, 97 105, 180 182.
377
J. E. Harrison, Prolegomena, 612 Fig. 163; Dike 2014;
Artmis Digaia (Blaganitis) Vergina, : M.
Hatzopoulos, Artmis, 402 408.
378
. . , , 289.
379
. . , , 103; M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 56; . , , 57, 58; . ,
, 46 55.
380
M. C. Waites, The Deities, 28, 29; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 639 641.
771
III.
Vergina (4: 5)
(7: 6, 7), ().

,
, V,
( I) ( 24: 10). ,
, ,
.
, Adraia/Athria ,
. ,
adraia , ,
aithria phosphoros ().381

, , ..
. ,

( ) ,
,
, .. (47: 4).
.
(47: 2, 5, 7).
. . ,
, ( )

2. 3. ..382
, ,
.
1.
( 5,3 cm),
( ), , , (
10,5 cm)
(48: 6 11, 5).
.
(48: 10), 4 (48: 8),
, ..
(48: 6).
/, / (48: 9, 11).
2. . .. (
V), .383
,

.
, ,
.
- ,
, . -
, , , , ..
381
(Schol. Iliad, XIV, 225 = Ven. B; Hesych., s.v.) : . , , 59, 60, 83, 84, 129.
382
. , , 31, 32.
383
.
, . .
772
()
48
773
IV.
(mjlnir = ). ,
, , ( ,
21: 9). ,
(22: 3, 4).
, .
, .. ,
(), ,
.
.
,
, .. ,
.
, .. ,
.

( ) ,
(
46: 2).384
,
,
( 48 14).385
, .

.

, . ,

, .
:
Tenedos Dionis Anthroporrhaistes (= )
Tenedios pelekys; o Keos
, .. , ;
Pegasai Dionysos Pelekys (= ).386
.
? , , , ,
? , ,
. ,

,
. ,
, (26: 4, 7)
(- - )
(27). ,
( Tenedos)
(25): - ( );
( /); - /
( ).
(25: 8).387
384
( ),
: A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 649 652.
385
. , , 37 45.
386
387
M. C. Waites, The Deities, 33, 34; A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 654, 659, 662, 663, 667; C. N. Deedes, The Double-Headed,
221, 222.
774
()
. ,
(4. 3. . ..)
() (42: 8, 9) ( )
(42: 13 36).388 ,
,
: .

, ,
.389 ,
, (Kolobaisa)
,
.
, , .
Apollon Eteudaniskos/Oteudanos (
).390 ,
( ).
Tenedos j
(Tenedios pelekys).391 e
o
( . ).

(, .. )
.392
,
.. ,
(Eteudaniskos)
.
,
(Artemis Ephesia),
.393
, , 4 km .394

,
( ).
,
. ( ),
.
,
(.. )
.
(
388
: . , , 758, 759, 765 . 10; . . , , 203 206; . . ,
, 392, 393.
389
: . , .
, 190 192; N. ausidis, Myth. of the Mountain, 278 281.
390
S. Dll, Die Gtterkulte, 50, 55, 230, 282, 283; . , , 89, 90; . -,
, 287 298; () : . , , 158,
160.
391
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 57 59. , .. . thunder
(= ), .
392
: . . , . .V, 551 554; . , . . VII, 163 167.
393
S. Dll, Die Gtterkulte, 232, 291.
394
. , , 124 146.
775
V.
),
.395

, ,
, .
,
,
(48: 10 1, 2, 3 14: 4).396
(
) ( . 721).
,
(Vscum), , .. .
, ( Donnerbesen , )
. .
. , ..
.397 , ,
.
.
.
,
( ) , ,
(46: 3).398 ( )
. .
(.. ).399 .
( )
, ( o ).400
V.
-

(2: 1, 2; 69: 4). ,
, .
, ,

, . , ,
( ),
.

, .401 , ,
, ,
( , )
,
, .
395
: . , . , 191 195; N. ausidis, Myth. of the Mountain,
279 283.
396
M. Gimbutas, Battle, 53 Fig. 4; . . , . . , . . , , 91, 92 . 12.
397
A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 642, 643.
398
. , , 282, 283 (: ), T. I: 2;
: . , , 19 87, 36 (T.IV: 5).
399
. , , 209.
400
. , . . LXXI, 34, 35, T.V.
401
: A. Harding, Razors.
776
()
,
( ) . ,

.402 5. 3. . ..
,
.403
. -
Vergina,
, (4; 5; 6).
, (Geraien)

(Gerontes).404 . . .
, , (queen
or/and a priestess).405 . ,
(9), ,
, , ..
.406
402
. , . , 51, 52; A. Durman, Simbol, 76.
403
. , .
404
S. Pabst-Drrer, Zur sozialen, 654.
405
N. G. L. Hammond, A History, 335.
406
Z. Videski, Religious, 316, 317, 319.
777

CHAPTER 7
OBJECTS WITH FEMALE
FEATURES IN THE ICONOGRAPHY
()

()

,
, ,
. ,
, , .
,
, (, , , ,
).
A.
I.
( )
, , (1; 2; 3; 4; 9: 16).
,
. , ..
,

(1: 1, 4 6; 9: 16; 4: 1; 5: 1). ,
,
(1: 2, 3: 1).
, .
,
() (2: 1, 2, 9; 3: 2, 5, 6)1 () (1),2
1
, , , : N. Tasi, The Bosut Group, 39 Fig. 40; , , : R. Vasi,
Moravsko-Timoka, 661, 664, T.LXVIII: 3, 4.
2
, : . , , 432, 434 (. 1); , : . , . , ,
53, 54 (. 1); , : . , , 52 54 (. 11 13); (
, ): . , , 298 (. 224); , .
781
.
782
()
783
.
784
()
(3: 7).3
( ) (2: 3 8),4 (3:
1, 3)5 . (4: 1, 2, 5 9).6 ,
Perachora (),
(4: 4).7
7. 6. 5. . ..8
,
, ,
.. - ,9 , ,
10 .11
, ( 5:
3) ( ).12
.. - , .

, , .. .13
, .. .
,
.14 ( )
, , ,
( 3: 4).15
, Drencova, Cara-Severin
(), (2: 6) (9: 16).16
,
.
, (. ),
(4: 8).17 .
, ,
. ,
.
,
.18 (
) ,
3
Drencova, Berzasca: M. Petrescu-Dmbovia, Depozitele, 36, 165, Pl. 403: 1.
4
, , : Z. Mari, Donja Dolina, 33, 37, T.VI: 18, 19; T.X: 6, 10; ,
, , : . , -, 35 . 17, 36 . 18, 19.
5
, , : D. Srejovi, Karaga, 55, 59, 76 T.IV: 3.
6
, (), , . : . ., , 59 . . 617; K. Kilian,
Trachtzubehr, 89, 108, Taf. 55: 6 9, Taf. 84:1; , , , . : . ,
, 67, T.I: 5; , , . : . , , 34, 62, . 71; Benaki
Museum ( , . ): . , ;
. : . , . , , 73, 74 (. 14, . 10); . ,
, 54 . . 224; , : B. Husenovski, E. Slamkov, Archaeological, 19 Fig. 90.
7
R. Vasi, The openwork, 1.
8
, : R. Vasi, The openwork; : K.
Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 84: 1.
9
. , -, 35, 36; Z. Vinski, K. Vinski-Gasparini, O utjecajima, 271, 278, T.IV: 70, 71; N. Tasi,
The Bosut Group, 39.
10
. . , , 125.
11
. , , 164, 165; D. Srejovi, Karaga, 55, 59, 76 T.IV: 3; D. Mitrevski, Northern, 112, 113.
12
M. Vassileva, First, 670.
13
R. Vasi, The Decorative, 178.
14
. , -, 35, 36; . , , 164; V. Lahtov, Problem, 82, T. XXVI: 6.
15
: . , , 183 . 96.
16
. , , 226; M. Petrescu-Dmbovia, Depozitele, 36, 165, Pl. 403: 1.
17
. , , 34, 62 ( . 71).
18
M. Vassileva, First, 671 10.
785
.
786
()
, ( ) 15 , (. )
(4: 2). .19
, .. . .
, .
,
, , ,
.. , . ,
(-)
( ).
, ,
, .20
. , .
, ( ,
, ),
. ,
.21
.
, ..
. ,
. ,

, ,

.22
, .

.
,
,
, . ,
, ..
,
,
.
, .
II.
1.
,

(6: 1).23
. , ,
( ),
, .
19
: R. Vasi, The openwork, 4; N. Tasi, The Bosut Group, 39 (
). : B. Husenovski, E. Slamkov, Archaeological, 19 Pic. 90;
. ,
.
20
R. Vasi, The openwork, 1 3; R. Vasi, The Decorative.
21
. , , 58, 60.
22
. , , 50, 51.
23
: . , , 50, 51.
787
.
788
()
-
. , ,
(= ) ,
.
.
.
, ( ) ,
, .. (1: 3; 4: 4).
, ,
,

(-) , -.
, ,
,
(4: 2; 76: 1).
. (=
) (= )
, ( 6: 1).
.

. ,

, , , .
, (4: 1; 5: 1) , (4: 2),
, .

,
(1: 1, 2; 2: 3). ,
,

(6: 1). ( ),
, ,

(4: 1; 5: 1).
.
,
(7: 1). , ,
: , ,
.
,
, ..
,
, (4: 2
1; 2; 3). , ,
( ) (4:2).

, ,
(4: 3 2). ,
,
( 77 . 627).

.
(58).

. , ,
789
.
790
()
, ,
, ( . 583 587).

, , ,
, (5: 2, 4; 6: 10) ,
, ( 51: 7, 13, 15).
.
,
,
, ( , , ,
).24

.
, ,
(6: 1)
( . 614 619).
, , ,
,
.
,
, Sun-
shining-with-rays, , ..
. , (=
) (= ) (6: 3, 8).25 ,

(aten), ,
(5: 6; 6: 12).26
-
, ,
,
.
,
.
(6: 4 6, 9), ( ,
6: 7) , .. .
( ,
) :
(
);

; , ,
, ,
.

(2. . ..)
( ).

.27 Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
, , .28
24
(. , ).
25
A. H. Gardiner, Egyptian, N8.
26
Aten 2014.
27
(Rigveda V.62.6 8); : M. Jei, R'gvedski, 125.
28
(Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Madhu Kanda V. 5.2).
791
.

- .
( , .. )
( , )
: Sunce gleda a Suncu govori arko Sunce, rastupi stupove ... i rastupi
(Sunce) velike stupove; arko Sunce, moj zlatan barjae, - ti rastupi stupove oblane.29
2. -

.
,
,
, ,
(7: 1).
(
, .. ),
, , , (7: 1).

.
() (7: 3).

.
(
). ,
. ,
, , ,
, .30
Mont Bego, Alpes Maritimes () (7: 2).
, .
, (
). ,
, , , .
, (.
).31
,
,
( 7: 1 2, 3).
-
,
.
, ,
(7: 6, 7).

( : 7: 4, 5).
, ,
(7: 9).
29
N. Nodilo, Stara, 226.
30
. Anati, Magourata, 96 100.
31
M. Gimbutas, The Language, 127 Fig. 204: 5; : R. Baumeister,
Glaubenssachen, 42.
792
()
793
.
,
(7: 8).32

, (4: 1, 2).
, -
.
, , ,
( 8: 1 4). (7: 1)
( ) , ..
,
, . . , ..
,
(8: 4).33

Podrgaa Benkovac ()
(9: 19).
, ,
.34

. , ,

.
3.
? ,
.
(
)
, .. :
;
; ;
, .. (
58: 5).
?
( )
?
, , ,

( ).
,
.
.
- .
- (,
), - .
32
N. Chausidis, Myth. Representations, 9 ; . , , 154 ;
. : . , , 89, 90, 113 T.VI; : . ,
, 43.
33
( )
, .
34
I. Marovi, Nekoliko, 267 269, Sl.1, TI, TII.
794
()
795
.
- , ..
( ) .
4.
, ,
,
. ,
( ) , (. )
, .. 8. 7. . .. (9: 1
3). .
.
, Boboushti-Tren Ku i Zi
I, ,
.
Villanova , ..
.35
-
(.. - ).
, ( )
.
,
,
. ,
(9: 1).
. ( ,
) . ,
.. .36
, , . , ,
,
.37
,
,
Vergina, 900 . . .. , (
), (76: 2; 9: 7, 8
1 8: 1 4).38
( ) . ,
, , ,
, ( 9: 7,
8 8: 10).

, ,

( )
35
. , , 300 302; . , , 210, 211 . 2: d; I. Mikuli, Pelagonija, 28, 29,
T.VII: a; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 86, 87 Taf. 9; Taf. 10; . , . , , 54, . 270; M.
Garaanin, Razvijeno, 796, T. CX: 7; J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 193, 194; . , , 120, T. XXXVI: 1; A.
Papazovska-Sanev, Matt-Painted; . -, , 169, 170.
36
M. Garaanin, Praistorija, 109; M. Garaanin, Razvijeno, 796.
37
J. Bouzek, Macedonia, 126; J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 194; : . ,
, 227, 228.
38
: . , . , 251 254, . 88, Pl. 101: -III;
: J. Bouzek, The Aegean, 118 Fig. 54: 1, 170, 174 Fig. 87: 11.
796
()
.39 , ,
, ,

.
,
Perugia, (6. . ..), ( 8:
11 1 3 9: 7, 8).
.
,

, , ,
, .. , ,
.. . ,
,
. ,
, , ,
, (21: 1).

- (75).40
.

(9: 14 1 8: 2, 3).

-.41

(9: 9 11, 13) (9: 12). ,
,
(9: 15) (
. 841).42

.
, ,
(8: 9; 9: 4 6 5: 3).
, ,

(ma, mama) , , .43

( ) (8: 6).
.

,
.

. , , ,
, .. ,
39
: . , , 155 256; . ,
, 133 205.
40
. , ; . , , 176 179; . , a.
41
. . , . . , , 200.
42
E. Brann, Late Geometric, 105, Pl. 16: I 12.
.
43
. , , 103.
797
.
798
()
.44

(8: 10).
,

.

, .. ,
, (3: 4).
,
- .

.45 , ..
,
, ,
.

,
( ).
,
, .. (
, ) ,
.
,
.
,

, .. ,
.
,
( ) (
. 512).46
B.
I.

, , (
9: 17, 18; 10: 1 3 1 4).47 ,
/Axioupolis /Kilkis ( ),
. 13 (9: 17, 18; 10: 1, 2),48
(. ) (10: 3).49
,
44
N. Chausidis, Juggling, 102, 103.
45
M. Vassileva, First, 672; . , , 35, 121, 136, 137 141, 147.
46
(Aristoteles, Politica 7.1324-b.15 17).
47
. (. , , 83; R. Vasi, The Decorative, 177).
48
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 209, 210, Taf. 74: 1307, 1308; N. G. L. Hammond, A History, 353, Fig. 19: c; J.
Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 59, 52 Fig. 15: 6; . , ' , 619 . 2, 624 . 16; R. Vasi, The
openwork, 2, T.II: 15; V. Lahtov, Problem, 60, T.XX: 1.
49
. , , 245 . 88 ( ,
).
799
.
800
()
, ,
. , .

(composed pendants)
, , ,
.50 ,
,
.51
,
, .
, . ,
: ;
;
; ,
. ,
. , ,
. .
- ,
.
(
)
(9: 17, 18; 10: 1, 2). ,
, (10: 3).
,
, ,
( 10: 4 1 3).52 ,

.

,
,
.53 , ,
.
II.

,
( 10: 1 3 1; 2; 3). ,
,

(, ) ( 10: 4; 58).
, , ,
, ,
(8: 1 4), ( 10: 1
3 11 13 11: 3 7). ,
. ,
,
50
D. Mitrevski, Northern, 113.
51
, (
) . 7. . .. (. , , 245 . 88).
52
: . , . , . , , 45 . . 260; R. Vasi, eveliska.,
T. LXXIII: 1.
53
: A. Benac, B. ovi, Glasinac, T.XXIV: 8; A. Koka, Kultura, 250 T. II: 11.
801
B.
10
802
()
(9: 17, 18; 10: 1, 2).

,
.

,
(eye idols).
, (10: 5 10, 14).
Tell Brak ( Eye Temple) 3000 . . ..,
. , ..
, ,
.
, , .

,
( 10: 5, 6,
10 1, 2).54
( )

. ,
, ..
(10: 7 10, 14 7).

(10: 8, 14 9: 4 6).
(
).

(10: 7, 9, 14).
, ( )
(, )
, ..
( 10: 7, 9 7: 6 11: 8, 9, 12, 13).
,
( )
(10: 6). ,

, .
-
, . ,
.
( )
.55 , ,
,
. , ,
, , ,
, ,
( )
( 5: 3 1; 2; 10: 1, 2 5, 6, 8, 14).
,
.

, ?
54
. M. E. L. Mallowan, Alabaster; . G. S. Crawford. The Eye;
: C. Quigley, The Eye; : Unique 2014.
55
: M. Gimbutas, The Language, 55 57.
803
B.
, .

.
, . ,

.56

? ,
, .57

(10: 1 3).
, , .. .
,
, , , ,
, .. ( ),
, ( 5: 4).
, .
, ..
(9: 17, 18), (10: 3).
, ..
, .
?
, , -
, (28: 2).
, ( ),

: , , , .

(8: 11; 21: 1 3), - ( . 715 721).
,

, , ,
.
, ( )
,

(8: 3 5).
C.
I.
Mati
, , .
10
(11: 1, 2; 12: 1, 2).58
. ,
.
56
. , , 320; ( , ...): A. M. Potts, The
World's; : . 544, 557, 803 804.
57
. , .
58
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 209, 210, Taf. 74: 1310; F. Prendi, Un aperu, 123, 134 Pl. V: 17; N. G. L.
Hammond, A History, 354, 375, Fig. 20: f.
804
()
11
805
C.
,
, . ,
, , ,
. , ,
, , ,
, .59
,
.60
,
, .

. ,
. ,
, ,
.

-.61 ,
, , Mati
(11: 1, 2 3
7). ,
. ,

( ), , ..
( . 327, 350 356).
( ),

, , (11: 10, 11; 20: 1 7).62
II.
Mati,
,
.
, ,
,
(11: 1, 2). ,
, .. .
, -
- (, )
, .. , ,
.63 ,
, ..
.
59
. . . (N. G. L. Hammond, A History, Fig. 20: f)
(11: 1).
60
I. Kilian-Dirlmeier Glasinac-Mati (I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 210).
61
. , , 161, 162 T.XXI: 14; . , , 135 137, 3: 8; . ,
, 65, 91 T.X: 9; . , , 263, T.III: 14. I. Kilian-Dirlmeier
,
(abgewinkelten Armen) (I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 210).
62
( ): B. Raunig, Umjetnost, 119, 120, 163 (T.XXIV: 6 10); S.
Kuko, Japodi, 144, 145, 168 (Sl. 245: 1 5), Sl. 172.
63
. , , 234 236; . , , 120, 121, 22.
806
()
(11: 8, 9, 12, 13 1). ,

,
- , ,
.. , .. . ,

.64
Mati
,
, ( . 715, 774 27).

(12). , ..
, .. (12:
11), ,
, (12: 9, 10, 13, 15).
(12: 12).
, ,
(12:
3, 4, 6, 7, 14 1).

, ,
, ..
, .. (- -).
,
, -
( : ).65

.
Mati .
Carcare, , ,
(12: 4, 5).
Mati,
(12: 3).

(12: 6, 7).
(
) , (54: 13) ,
,
. , ,
,
(54: 7, 11) , ,
.

.

. , ,

. ,
. , ,
, , .
, .
, , . ,
64
. , , 124, 31.
65
. , ; . , , 374 383.
807
C.
12
808
()
, .66
,
, .67
, - (pita Dyaus)
(mama Prithivi) . ,
().
. ,
(= ) .68
,
. , () ( ),
(-), , , . ( ,
),
. , () ().
, , (),
, .
( )
( ), ,
, .. .69 , ,
, :
,
;
,
,
;

. .70

:
: , , (= !),
(= !).
.71
.72

, .
(
, .. 8. 7. . ..,
).

( . 866).
Mati
,
(12: 1, 2). ,

66
. . , , 29.
67
. . , , ( F.20. ).
68
. , , 287, 288; . . . 1, 417; . 2, 329, 336.
69
: . , , 52 55, 92, 93, 118, 125 128, 158, 159;
. . , , 268 273; . , , 138, 353.
70
: . , . (M. N. uri, Istorija, 12).
71
(Plato, Timaeus 239); : M. N. uri, Istorija, 12.
72
. . , , 162. ( ): J. Frazer, The Golden,
Chapter 31 (Adonis in Cyprus).
809
C.
(, ...) ,
- . ,
( 11: 1
8, 9). ,
( ) ,
(49).
,
. ,
( )
, , , ,
.
D. V

.
.
I.
1. V-

9 10 cm. - ,
, ,
(13). (13: 1, 6, 10, 11, 15;
22: 4). , ,
. ,

(13: 2 5, 10, 15). ,
, , .

( 14: 1 7, 12).
. .
. : , (
) (13: 7 9);73 ,
(13: 2 4);74 , (13: 12 14)75 , (13: 15),76
; (13: 10);77 ,
(13: 5);78 , (13: 11).79
. , (13: 1, 6).80
73
. ., , 59 . . 598; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 42, : Taf. 101 B.
74
. , , 15 . . 26, 27, 28; . , , 298; D. Mitrevski,
Pogrebuvanja, 567 Fig. 4: 1.
75
. , , 15, 16 . . 29, 30, 31; D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 567 Fig. 4: 2; . ,
, 149, 152 (T.I: 4); . , . , , 60, 61, 74 (.II: 4).
76
. , . , , 63, 78 (T.VI: 13).
77
. , . , , 122 T.IV:1 (
); . , , 149.
78
. , , 298, 311; 1992, 45.
79
S. Temov, An Iron Age, 660, 661 Fig. 6, 7; D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 571 Fig. 10, 572 Fig. 11.
80
N. Slavkovi-uri, Ilirski, 544, T.II: 6; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 92, Taf. 71: 9; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 42,
Taf. 17: 270.
810
()
13
811
D. V
() , .
(22: 4).81
. (
). . - V- (V-
frmige durchbrochene Anhnger), . . (
V). .
(privezak u obliku sidra), . W ,
, , .82
, . -,
II,
IIA.83 .
7. . ..84 .
.85 12 , V- , .
8. 7. . ..86
. - (13: 1, 6)
, , ,
.87
, (E13: 11) in situ,
. 12 40 .
,
(15: 1, 2).88
, .
.
, , ,
.89 . ,
.90
12
. , (13: 11; 15: 1, 2)
.91
. ,
, , , ( )
. .
2. V-
7 10 cm
(14: 1 7, 12).
, ,
, ,
( 15: 3). ,
,
. /Chauchitsa
(14: 8).
,
.

(14: 10).
, , (14: 10, 12),92
/Bohemitsa /Kilkis (14: 1)93 Vergina,94
. (14: 2 7), (
).95 . ,
Chauchitsa I B, Vergina Vergina III C. 96
81
. , , 32 (20.2).
812
()
(ankerfrmige Aufstze),
. (anchor-shaped objects).97
, , ,

.
( , ) ,
.

. ,
,
.
, ,

.
(anchor-shaped hooks), ,
, III.
(16: 14 - 17) ,
. Keryneia (16:
13), Lerna .98
Armenochori, Kritsana, Servia, Kozani, Saratse Anchialos
/Thessaloniki (14: 8, 9, 13, 16; 17: 6).99
, , , Pylos ()
(76: 5).

.100
,
, , ,
(17: 8, 9) ( . 916).101
82
. , . . II, 483; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 42; . , . , ,
60, 61, 63; 78; A. Stipevi, Kultni, 142; . , , 149.
83
84
. , , 149.
85
. , , 15, 16 (. . 26 31).
86
S. Temov, An Iron Age, 657, 658.
87
88
S. Temov, An Iron Age, 660, 661 (Fig. 6, 7); D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 570, 571 (Fig. 10), 572 (Fig. 11).
89
. , . . II, 483, .102.
90
91
D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 570 572; : . ,
, 149.
92
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 48 (Fig. 14: 9, 10), 98, 100; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 76, 77, Taf. 34: 19.
93
. , ' , 614, 623 (. 15), 624 (.16).
94
K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 76.
95
. , , 245 . 88 (
). .
(14: 3, 6) (.
, ).
96
K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 75, 76.
97
K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 76, 77; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 98, 100.
98
W. A. Heurtley, Prehist. Macedonia, 87, 203 Fig. 67; Clay anchors 2014; Arch. research 2014; J. Bouzek, The
Aegean, 24 (Fig. 4: 8), 25.
99
W. A. Heurtley, Prehist. Macedonia, 87, 203 Fig. 67; . , . , . , , 141, 144
. 11; . -, , 869, 874 . 19.
100
(. , . , . ,
, 141).
101
. , , 10, 13, 28, 29, 31, 54, 86 (II b), 121: kat. br. 66; J. Makkay, A Peculiar, 12 Fig. 2: 3, 4.
813
D. V
14
814
()
15
815
D. V
(Naqada I
II, 4. . . ..) Double Bird (Pelta) Palette,
- (16: 1 6).102
,
, .
,
(anchor-shaped pendants) /Velikent ()
(17: 1 4). ,
.103
V-.
(nchorshaped, shaft-hole ceremonial
axes) ( 3. . . ..)
, ( 17: 11). ()
(17: 10).
()
, , . 104

, (17: 10, 11
14: 1 7, 12). ,
- -
.
,

, , 2. . ..
.105
II.
1.

, V-
. . ,
,
, . ,
,
,
, .

. ,
(
) .106

. .107 , ,
(13: 1, 6), . ,
(14: 10, 12) ,
, , .
102
H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. II, Taf. 15: 20 22, 26, 29; F. Raffaele, Corpus.
103
P. L. Kohl, The Making, 108, 109, 111 (Fig. 3.26). .
(J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 332 60).
104
P. L. Kohl, The Making, 117 (Fig. 3.29), 118. . , . , 51; : H.
Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. III, Taf. 315: 18, 19.
105
. . , , 114; . , , 11 29.
106
107
. , , 84, 85.
816
()
, ..
, .. ,
, .
( )
, .. , , ,
, .. (15: 7).
,
.

.
,
,
.108
, ,

.
2.
a)
.
,
V-
.

(14: 10, 12), . .
, . ,
.
,
, , , V-
. , . . (S. Casson)
, (ressembling a chape)
. (14: 12),
(14: 1 7) , ,
( 15: 3),109 , ,
.
.
.110
.
( 18: 13).
,
( ) . ,
, Cyrene
, , YPATO (/).
(
, ). (
, .. )
, . ,

.
108
. , , 84, 85.
109
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 48 (Fig. 14: 9, 10), 98, 100.
110
A. Stipevi, Kultni, 142 (... ni u Grka, ni u Rimljana ili drugih naroda tog vremena sidro nije predmet sa izrazito
simbolikim sadrajem).
817
D. V
16
818
()
17
819
D. V

Anchora Sacra ( ).
.
, ,
. ,
. , ,
,
.111

(, , ). ,
Olbia, ,
.112

(16: 14 17).
.
I (20. . ..). e

.113
,
(16: 18;
18: 2). , I (358 281 . . ..)
, ,
, , , .
.
.114
,
. ,
a (
) ,
.

,
. , , ,
, (
: 16: 7 11).

, .
, ,
: . Sacram anchoram solvere ( ),
; . Ultima ancora ( ),
; . Rednings anker ( ); . Ancre dÈsprance ( ), Ancre
dèmisricorde ( ), Ancre sacre ( ), Làncre de salut ( ),
Maitresse ancre ( ) ( ).115
,
( . ),
,
. ,
(. ).
( , ),
111
. , , 41, 45.
112
. . , , 164, 165.
113
. , , 202.
114
(Iustinus, Epitome 15.4); J. Bardil, Constantine,180, 181; . , , 202, 203.
115
. , , 47; . , , 202 207.
820
()
18
821
D. V
(18: 1, 3, 4).
,
( ) (18: 7
12).116

V
, . ,

(13; 14: 1 7, 12
18: 2, 13; 16: 7 11, 18).

(18: 13). (
)
, ,
.

(14: 10). ,
,
(18: 5, 6).
, ,
. .
, , , 2000 .117

.
b)
V- ,
,
,
(19: 2, 3 1). ,
, , ,
, , ,
.
( )
(19: 2 5 1, 7 9).

, .. .
V-
,
, (19: 1).
,
, .
,
, V-. ,
.

. (7. 3. . ..)
116
: A. Stipevi, Kultni, 142 96 ( ); . .
, ; . , , 202 207.
117
. , , 58, 137.
822
()
19
823
D. V
20
824
()
(20: 1 6; 11: 10, 11).118

:
= ; =
; = ;
=
( 20: 7).
(19: 1 5) ,
( ).

V-
.
. Upavistha konasana shtanga yoga
(19: 7).119
, .

(20: 12 14).120
.
. ,
,
(20: 8, 9, 10).121 , ,
, ,
V-.
, (
19: 1 5 10 20: 12 14). ,
, .

,
(20: 12, 14).
, , ,
, .
( ,
, , , )
(21: 1 3; 20: 11) , ,
(21: 4, 6 8).122

(21: 1; 15: 4, 6).
British Museum , , ..
(21: 2, 3; 20: 11).

, ,
.123 , (
)
118
( ): B. Raunig, Umjetnost, 119, 120, 163 (T.XXIV: 6 10); S.
Kuko, Japodi, 144, 145, 168 (Sl. 245: 1 5), Sl. 172.
119
C. Horton, Ashtanga Yoga.
120
M. Olender, Aspects; G. Devereux, Bauba; : M. Robbins Dexter, V. H. Mair,
Apotropaia.
121
. (.
, , 34), , 2. 1. . .. (. ,
, 159 . 106); ( 1992, 62) (.
, . , . , , 89 . . 494);
: . , , 61.
122
. , , 170 205; N. Chausidis, Myth. Representations, 13, 16; L. D. Graham, Mother Earth.
123
: . , , 58 63.
825
D. V
21
826
()
, (21: 5) , , ,
,
, .. ( ) ( ),
, , .
V-
,
.
, ,

(15: 1, 2).
, , ..
. ,
, , ,
.

,
:
, .. ;
( ) ;
.

V-
.
c) , ..
V-
,
, ..
(15: 3).
, ( 15: 4 6),
, , ,
. ,
( . 496 498).
( )
, ..
(22: 8 11).
V- (
), , , ,
( 22: 8 11 1 7, 12 18 15: 3).

, ..
.
, , ,
. , ,
, , ,
( ,
/ ().
, ,
.
III , , ,
, : ,
,
827
D. V
22
828
()
, .124

.
, ..

(15: 1, 2).
:
,
( )
;125 ,
(
- -).126

,
, , , , .
,
( ), ,
()
.
d)
.

(18: 4, 7 12). ,
, ,
, .
, ,
(18: 4, 11; 16: 7, 8, 11, 18),
, , ( V-
13; 19: 1 5) ( )
.
- (21: 1 3). ,

, ,
.127

, ( )
(17: 5, 7).128
,
(17: 10, 11
21: 1 4),
( . 684 686, 687 696).

, ,
,
124
(Plutarchus, Alexander109,184); . , , 47.
125

.
126
(. 705 - 709).
127
. , , 170 205; N. Chausidis, Myth. Representations, 13, 16; L. D. Graham, Mother Earth.
128
. , , 189 191 (T.XL); . , , 185 187, 31.
829
D. V
,
.
,
(21: 1 3).
, -
, .
,
, .. ( ),
,
,
.
E.
I.
, ,
. , :
, ( ),
(23: 1). II,
7. 6. . ..129
(23: 2 5).
( 3 cm) .
,130 , , ,
.131 . , .
.132
, , .

,
. ,

.
. ,
, , ,
( ?).

, , , ,
.
.
Brinjeva Gora Zree,
, (23: 6).
(1. . ..)
( 23: 8, 9).133
129
. , , 210, 212 . 3: c; I. Mikuli, Pelagonija, 28, T.IX: c; K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, 87
Taf. 60: 11; . , . , , 57, . 297; . ., , 57 . . 547; J.
Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 100, 142 Fig. 45: 14; . , . , . , , 38 .
. 201; . , , 309, 310.
: . , .
130
. , , 210; I. Mikuli, Pelagonija, 28.
131
. , . , , 57; . ., , 57 . . 547; . , .
, . , , 38 . . 201.
132
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 100; . , , 73.
133
J. Dular, D. Boi, ivinoreja, 125.
830
()
23
831
E.
,
.
Ljubljansko Barje,
. , , ,
(3,9 cm) , ,
(23:
11). ,
.
. P. Koroec J. Koroec ( ),
. .134 ,
, ,
( . 839).
,
, ,
.. . ,
, ,

( , ), (
), (, , ).

.

.135
II.
1.
, ,
, .
, ,
, , .. (
), ( )
, .. .
, , , ,

. (
23: 7; 24: 4, 6, 7),
(24: 5), , , (24: 2).

(24: 5, 8).
, ,
, .. ,
, , , (24:
2).
(24: 4, 6).
( ), , ,
( , .. , , ..
134
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 77; : M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 347.
135

( ): R. Vasi, Figural.
832
()
).136 , , ,
.137
. .
, ( )
, (24: 7).138 ,
,
(24: 1).139
.140
, ,
, ,
. -
,
:
; ;
; (
) .
, , (
). (Sementiva)
(Terra Mater) .
Eleusis Knidos,
.141 ,
, ,
.142
, ,
,
.143
, ,
(24: 9, 10).144
,
, (
Kerameikos Agora ).145
Villa Clara, Matelica, Picenum ()
.
.146 ( )
136
: M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 77 98; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 146, 147; M.
Gimbutas, The Gods, 208 215; : M. Garaanin, Vatinska, 516, T. LXXIX: 8, 9.
137
, , ..
(. . , , 203).
138
M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 213 Fg. 216.
139
M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 211 214 (Fig. 214, 216); M. Gimbutas, The Language, Pl.11, 146 (Fig. 225); M. Hoti,
Prethistorijski, 80, 81.
() ,
, (. . , , 575).
140
. , , 78, 108 (. 100: 1), T.IX: 5.
141
M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 88 98; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 146, 147; M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 214 - 215; .
, , 34, 35, 67 70; . , , 654 661; Sementiva (Ovidius, Fasti
675 694).
142
(Herodotus 2.47).
143
(Aristophanus, Acharneses 729 817) choiros (= )
(M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 94); . , ,
325, 326; . , , 230.
144
. , , 325, 326; G. Devereux, Bauba, 8 Sl. 1.
145
146
S. Kuko, Japodi, 75; J. Dular, D. Boi, ivinoreja, 125.
833
E.
24
834
()
Olbia Pontica.147
5. . ..
Apolonia Pontica, (23: 10).148
, ,
( )
.
, -
,
, .. .149 ,
( )
.150
, (
) ,
( )
.

.151
, ,
, , , , (!)
, ,
( . 357 362, 862).152
2.

. , ( ),
, ,
. ,
( = ; =
; = ).153
:
(
); , .. (, ..
); ( , ..
); , ( );
( ,
); (

); .

. ,
, (25: 3).
,
147
. . , , 216, 253.
148
. , , 654, 660 . 1;
, : . -,
.
149
: . , , 659, 661.
150
. , , 166 170.
151
(Callinicus Vita S. Hypatii 97); : . , , 326; . , ,
93; . , , 188. (. ,
, 655).
152
(Herodotus 5.12, 13); : . , , 201; . , , 93, 94.
153
J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 280 282; . , , 43 ; . ,
, 19, 25 26; . , . , 291 294.
835
E.
25
836
()
, , ,
.154 6.

, (= axis mundi)
(25: 7).155
, : ( )
;156
(46: 1).
,
.
, .157
o
(--) ,
.
( )
, ( , )
.158
a a, ,

.
, , .159
. ( )
, .. .
,
( ?).160
2. .. ,
(26: 9),
, ( , .. )
(kerykeion).161
, , ,
. , ,
- .

, ,
( . 775, 776, 827).
.
Mgura
Gorgana Pietrele () .162 ,
154
. , , 383, 384; Z. Krzak, Swieta gora, 126; . , , 26, 27.
: . , . , 291 294; , . : . . ,
, 11.
155
. . , , 366 368.
156
. . , , 330, 331.
157
. , . , , 457; S. Slapak, enske, 194 198. , ,
,
(. . , , 162, 223, 253, 302, 330, 331).
158
. , , 71; . , , 180 182.
159
. , , 27: 4, 22: 10, 11, 12 2, 4, 6, 7 9 21.
160
. , . , .
, , ,
, , .. (. , , 511; . . , , 576).
(.
, , 64 66).
161
. , .
162
S. Hansen, Kleine, 438 Abb. 3.
837
E.
26
838
()
Tegea (26: 2)
Artemis Orthia Sparta (26: 1), , , ,
.

.163 Egina,
550
. . ..
(26: 4 23: 2),
(26: 5).164
,

.
,
() (26: 10). 5. . ..,
.165

Artemis Orthia Sparta (26: 8),
(26: 7).166
,
19. 20. . (
) : ;
;
; ;
; (25: 6);
.167
, (, ),
( ) (25: 2). ,

(25: 8, 9).168
3.
,
, ,
.169
. , , ,
( , ).
( )
, .170

, ,
, , ,
163
J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 100, 142 Fig. 45: 12, 16; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 215, Taf. 73: 1332, 1333;
Y. Thomassen Flognfeldt, Sanctuaries, 75, 76 Fig. 23 B ( ,
Mavriki).
164
G. T. Anderson, Greek Turtles.
165
B. Kirigin, Grko-helenistika, 48, 49 kat. Br. 21, 22.
166
: . . , , 253; V. Biki, S. Nikoli-orevi, Z. Simi, Istraivanja, 202 Sl. 19: 1;
(6. . ..) : M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 179 Fig. 136.
167
. , , 168, 169; . . , , 499; . , . , 291 294;
: M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 179 Fig. 137: 3.
168
. , , 343 348; . , , 123, 136, 142, 146, :
30: 5, 10; 31: 6.
169
170
M. Gimbutas, The Language, 185, 251, 256 258, 262.
839
E.
27
840
()
. .
,
, .. .

( 27: 7).171 , (27: 4, 8)
(6. 5. . ..)
( 27: 6) ( - 27: 2).172
, ,
.
- ,
,
.
- Ljubljansko Barje, (27:
9)173 ,
, .
,
, (38: 1 3),
.174

.
, .

, . ,
,
( ) .
, ,
, .
, , ,175

(27 23).
4.
,
, ,
.176
,
,
( , ). ,
, ,
.
,
,
( 28: 16, 17; 28 8: 6 11 20). ,

(8: 7; 28: 7, 8).
171
M. Gimbutas, The Language, 257 258; 9 Fig. 3: 9, 10.
172
M. Gimbutas, The Language, 257 258.
173
( ): M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, 77.
174
: P. Georgieva, P. Milanov,
Eneolitic, 20.
175
. , . , 193 196; . , , 174 177.
176
. , , 165 167; . , , 176 181; N. Chausidis, Myth. Representations,
13, 16.
841
E.
28
842
()
28
, .. ,
( , ,
).
(28: 3, 5, 6)
, .. (28: 11), ,
.
, , .
, ,
, .
(, ,
, ) , ,
,
, , (28: 3, 7 9, 13).
,
(, ,
843
E.
), (, ..
) ( ,
).

,
(28: 4).
.
, (28: 5, 6).
( )
.
(28: 10), (28: 11).

. (
) 6. 5. . ..
( ) (
).177

,
. Palatitsa () Vergina ,
, ( ).
Artmis Digaia Blaganitis
( Mtochi Palatitsa)
. Blaganitis
(/) (
/),
* ( ).
Artmis Digaia Blaganitis
.178 ,
, (*blaga-)
(.*vlga, . vlaga) *wel-
.179
,
, , ,
.
.
,
( )
, (28: 3, 7 9).

(28: 3, 8) , , ,
(28: 7, 9).
, , , ,
, .
,
, , (
,
). ,
, .. , ,
177
. . , . . , . . , .
178
M. Hatzopoulos, Artmis; . , , 137.
179
: A. Gluhak, Hrvatski, 675 (vlaga);
: J. Pokorny, Proto-Indo-European, 3288 (uelk-2, uelg-). /
(, , , ),
: M. Hatzopolulos, Artmis, 401; . , , 107, 108.
844
()
,
.180

. , , ,

(28: 1, 2 ).
, ..

(28: 1, 2 3, 5, 6, 8, 13).

, (28: 14, 15).181

(, ), ,
.
,
.
:
( ); , .. (
); (
, .. ).
180
. , , 166, 167, 23.
181
: J. Curtis, M. Kruszyskinna, Ancient, 14, 15 Fig. 8: 15, 16.
845

-
-

Chapter 8
CULTURAL-HISTORICAL TRACING
OF MYTHICAL AND RELIGIOUS
PHENOMENA CONTAINED WITHIN
MACEDONIAN BRONZES
() - -

()
-
-

,
,
, ,
.
,
( , )

.

( , .. ).

, . ,
,
. ,
,
.

- . , ,
.
- -
.
.
849
A. - -
A. -
-
.. - ,

, . ,
, , ..
, , .
,
,
. , ,
,
.1
, , (
) -
, ( )
.2

, ,
, .. . ,
,
. - ,
, , ,
, . ,
( - 10) , .
.. - . .
. ( ). .
. ,

.
, ,

, .

,
: ; ()
( , ,
, ); ;
.
(-
), . ,
. ,
. ,
-
7. . ..
( )
/ (transmitted) .3
1
: B. lsen, Od predmeta, 29
43, 116 121, 159 174.
2
. . , , 58. ,
, .. (. . ,
, 238, 239; . . , . . , , 51, 52).
3
J. Bouzek, Caucasus, 89; J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 335.
850
() - -
.

. . , . -
, ..
.
, , ,
( 8. 7. . ..), .4
I.
, ,
, ,
, ,
. , ..
.
,
.
, ,
. , , ,
, ..
( ,
, )
( , ).
, -
, ,
, , .5
-
,
, .
,
, , , (, ) .
, ,

.6
, ,

.
, ,
, ,
.
, , , , , ,
, ,
( ,
).
, ,
. , ,

. ,
.
.7
4
5
() : . . , , 55, 56.
6
. . , , 39 46.
7
. . , , 59. . . , , 43, 44.
851
A. - -
, -

.

, .

, , ,
.
,
, , ,
. , ,
,
. ,
(, , , .). ,
, ,
.
II.

,
, ,
,
,
. ,

, ( ,
, ).
, ,
,
. ,
,
, ,
.
,
, ,

, .
, , ,
, .
,
,
,
. , , ,
.
, - , (
)

.
, , .
, ,
-.
(
)
852
() - -
,
, .

, , ,
(
) .

, () (1: 3, 4, 6), Libna Krko () (1: 1, 2).8
, Marlik
( Guilan ) (1: 5). ,
: ,
, ,
.

, ,
.
, .. , ,
,
, .. , , .
* * *
8
,
, , ( . 635 - 640).
853
A. - -
, ,
.
20.
.

. , ,
,

. ,
, , ,
. ,
.

.
B.

,
, .. -
.
, ,

, .
( ..
), 6. . . ..,
(2).9 ,
. ,

. ,
,
.

, ,
8. 7. . .. .
. . . ,10
,
(2).11 .
, ,
( ) ,
, , (,
) (2).12 ,
, , , ,
- .13 . . .
9
. , , 210, 211, : 213, 214; . , Thraco-Peonica, 83,
84.
10
. , , 82; . , . , , 48 50.
11
. , , 227, 228; R. Vasi, eveliska, 710, 711; . , , 64; . ,
, 98, 99; . , , 33.
12
J. Bouzek, Addenda, 45; J. Bouzek, Macedonian, 108.
13
: . , , 82; . , , 9, 10, 28 33; : . ,
Thraco-Peonica; . , . , , 48 50.
854
() - -
, , ,

.14
20. ,
, ,

, .
.15
.16

, .. ,
.17
, ,
( . 860, 902, 903) (2). ,
.. ,
- .
,
, .. ,
. -
,

. , ,

.18
:
( .. )
( ) Vergina
( ) (2);19 ,

; ,
,
.20

,
,
.
, ,
, (, ..
) . , , ,

14
N. G. L. Hammond, A History, 407 418; : .
, , 99, 100, 149 156.
15
: . , . , , 48 50; A. Stipevi, Kultni; :
A. Benac, O etnikim.
16
: Z. Andrea, Kultura; S. Aliu, Aspekte.
17
. , . , , 48 50;
( : . , , 193, 198).
18
. , , 206 214; , ,
, (Strabo 7. fr.38).
19
. , , 213 215; N. G. L. Hammond, A History, 65 67.
20
. , , 149 151; : M. Vassileva, King Midas; : .
, ; : . . , , 148, 149; . . , , 20.
855
B.
( ) , ,
.21
, , ,
, .. , ,
(2). ,
( ) , , .

( )
(2).
,
.22 ,

.
(10: 18, 19). ,
(10:
10, 11 8, 9) , ,

(2) ( . 476 478).
21
- : . , , 216; R. Vasi,
eveliska, 710, 711; : . , .
22
. , , 100, 149 156; . , , 73, 74.
856
() - -
.
, ,
. ,
, ,
(2).23
,
.. ,
- .24
, ,
, . , , ,
,
( )
(2).25

.26 ,
, ,
. , ,
, , ,
.27
, ,
,
(, )
.28

, , ,
, (.. )
. ,
,
,
, , ,
, .
,

.
, ..
.
,
, , ,
. ,
, ,
.
:
- , .. ( ,
).
- , ,
, (),
23
. , , 72, 73; . , , 158, 159.
24
. , , 228, 229.
25
. , Thraco-Peonica, 75, 76.
26
. , ; . , , 63; . , , 64.
27
. , ,145, 149; . , , 194 196; M. Garaanin, Der Basarabi; D.
Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja; S. Temov, An Iron Age.
28
. , , 194 196; . , , 141, 142; . ,
; M. Garaanin, Der Basarabi; N. Tasi, Die Verbindungen.
857
B.

(2).29
- , .. -
.30
- , ,
, .31

, , (2).

. , ,
(21: 1, 2, 4, 5), (2: 1)
(35: 1, 2) ( Ku i Zi Kor
), (
) .32
-

.
,
( ), ( ), (
), ( ), ()
.33
- .
(, , Pherai, Philia
.). , ,
:
, ;

;
, .. ,
.
C. -
-
,
I.

. , , (31).
,
(32).

.
, , - ,
29
: . , , 14 18, II; III.
30
: . . ,
, 55
31
. 7. . .. (.
, , 80).
32
. Ku i Zi
(. , , 203 205).
33
R. Vasi, Makedonske; ( 32: 10): J. Bouzek, Greece, 62,
Fig. 230: 4.
858
() - -
(, ,
).
,
( . 170).34
, ..
.35 .
,

, .36
1.

, ,
. , ,
, ,
, (3).
,
(),
() () (3).37
( ),
, .
, ,
(), (), , ..
(3).38
1400 . . ..
. , Bottike
. -/-,
/ , , ( , ).39

, ()
( )
.40 - ,
( Paiawon, . 269 271)
(Axios, Gortynia, Europos, Messapion
.) .

,
,
.41
34
S. Langdon, From Monkey.
35
J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 332 335; . , , 217 226.
36
37
R. Katii, Enhelejci; A. Kaljanac, Legenda; M. ael Kos, Cadmus; . , , 26; . ,
.
38
(Strab 7.11); : Bottiaeans 2015.
39
. , , 26, 29; . , , 70, 71; . , , 65 70; .
, , 134; J. Bouzek, Addenda, 43; . , , 211, 216, 217; D.
Mitrevski, On the Ethno-Cultural, 18; . , , 186, 195, 196.
40
: . , .
41
. , , 26; . . , , 32 34; . , , 66 69; J. Bouzek,
Addenda, 43; J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 334, 326; J. Bouzek, Macedonia, 123, 124; . , , 53
61, 65 70; D. Mitrevski, Genesis, 91; D. Mitrevski, New Aspects; Z. Videski, Mycenaean.
859
C. - -
2.

, , ,
, (2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9).42
( ),
. . . (R. S. P. Beekes) , ,
.

, .. , , ,
1200 . . ..
(16).43
, .. ,
(2; 3). -

(21). ,
(25: 1 5; 3).44

,
42
: . , , 68, 69; D.
Mitrevski, Genesis, 89, 91; D. Mitrevski, On the Ethno-Cultural, 18.
43

(Gordunia), (Gortun), , (R. S.
P. Beekes, The Origin, 55).
44
/ : R. S. P. Beekes, The Origin, 37.
860
() - -
,
.
--

, (75:
4, 7) , , Sindos Archondiko (29: 4).45
3.
, ,

: ( , .. ),
(35; 38); ()
(37; 38; 41); , ,
.
, ,
, , , , ,
kdm = , (3). , , ..
.46

, o
(2).
(
) .
, ,
.47 , , ..
.48
(Pittacus) E 423 . . ..49
,
. ,
(. ) (, )
, ,
(41). .50

(), , ,

(33: 9 27). , ,
(31).
.
.

.
,
. , ,
, (37).
45
. , , 24, 26; N. Theodossiev, The dead. I; N. Theodossiev, The Dead. II; . ,
, 85 88; . , , 18, 19.
46
: M. ael Kos, Cadmus, 117, 125 129; A.
Kaljanac, Legenda, 57, 58; . , , 279, 389, 390; . , ;
: . , , 389, 390; . , , 85.
47
(Diodorus Siculus 5.64.3 5).
48
(Pausania 5.7.6); . , Thraco-Peonica, 65.
49
(Thucydides 4.107.3); . , , 152, 154; Pytakos
(. , , 90).
50
(Herodotus 3.37); . , , 70, 228, 237.
861
I.
, ,
, ,
, -
.51
( ), ,
, .
( )
(?)
.. - (5. . ..) (40: 4,
5) (?)
(40: 6, 7; 2).
,
. ,
(2),
sintis . (W. Tomaschek).52
II.

,
- (52; 53) ( . 258 261).

,

( ), , , (4).
, ,
- - .

2. 1. . ..
(2). , ,
, , , ,
(4).
,
.53 ,
,
,
.
.
,
(37; 39).54
1.

( ) .55

,
51
M. Elijade, Kovai, 33 43.
52
. , , 155, 186 69.
53
. , ; . , , 65 67; . . , , 123 128, 146 162, 258 266; . .
, . , VI. 2; . , , 222 228.
54
. , ; . , .
55
N. G. L. Hammond, A History, 407 418; J. Bouzek, Addenda, 42 46; . , , 98, 99;
. , , 224, 225; . , , 203 205.
862
() - -
(,
) (52; 53; 54). ,

. (, ). ,
(= )
(= ).56

(= ),
( 19: 2 20: 4).

, (2;
3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9), , ..
(21; 25; 26: 1, 2, 4, 7).
(/)
(16), , ,
( ) ,
. :
? .
.
2. . .. ,
(6).57 ,
(/) /..
.
.
, ,
(4).
, (10; 30: 1 3, 7, 8).
, ,
, (2: 1, 2). ,
, .. ( -)
.
2.
- .
(15. 13. . ..)
,
, .

,
, (2; 4).
- . ,
, , ,
( ) .

/, (4).58
,
15. 13. . ..

, . ,
56
: . , , 18 20.
57
. , ; . . , . , VI; . . , , 52 110.
58
(Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 3.12.1 2).
863
II.
(drdn) II (1286 .
. ..), ,
(4).59
3.

( . 95). , ,

, -
.
-
(3600 2800 . . ..) (46: 3, 5).
, ,
59
, : . . , , 35
41; . . , , 56; . , , 62 64, 125, 145, 146 148, 180, 181, 186; . ,
; F. Papazoglu, Srednjobalkanska, 101 208.
864
() - -
Svodin ( Lengyel, ), , (38: 7, 8; 39: 1, 2, 5, 6).

, II (2600 2300 . . ..)
(46: 6 9, Lemnos 4; 4).60

,
(= )
. ,
, ,
, , ,
. ,
, .. .

.

, ,
,
.
, . ,
,
( , ),
.
( ) ,
.

3. . .. , ,
.61
,
. ,
, ,
(46: 4, 6 - 9). , .. ,
, , ,
.
III.

.
, . ,
e
, (10).
,
,
.
,
, .
- ,
60
: . . , , 84 88, 91; . . ,
. , VII. 8; M. Gimbutas, The Language, 190, 191 . .
.
61
: . . , , 60.
865
III.
.

.
1. -
,

. ,
,
, ,
.

(= , .
) ,
, .
,
866
() - -
(5).
- , ,
. , ,
, .62
) ,

,
. ,
,
, .. , , (5).
,
2. . . .. ,
:
16. . .. , 15. . .. ;
2. 1. . (5).63
. .

, , , .
,
, 1.
. .. ( )
.
(, , .)
.
,
.64
,
. ( ),
,
, . ,
( ), .
, ( )
.65
) , ,
. . ,
, ,
- .
. . .
. ,

. ,
,
,
62
. . , ; . . , , 171 174, . 33; . . -, . . ,
, 16, 159 202.
63
. . , , 165 222; . . -, . . , , 166 167; . . ,
Indoarica.
64
. . , Indoarica.
65
. . , Indoarica, 61 65 ( ), 16, 17, 42 ( ), 192, 218, 219, 238 ( ).
867
III.
, (6).66 ,
3. , ,
- , , ,
, (6).
, -
, ( amta
) - ( gandharva
).67 . . ,
, , ,
.68
,
, ,
66
. . , , 53 110, 119, 123 162.
, (. , ).
67
. . , , 103 110, 115 145 , 463 465.
68
.. , , 21.
868
() - -
. , ,
- :
3 . , 2. .
, 2. . ..
(6).

(
)
(10). - ,
, , - :
15. . .., 13. . .. (5).
,
,
-
. ,
1. . ..,
, -
(5; 6).
,
.. .
(10).

, , ,
.
, ,
,
.
2.
a)
.
,
,
.
, .

(69: 4).
( , ) 13. 12. . ..
(7: 1 4; 9: 3, 5). .
,

.69

, , , ,
, . ,
, , , (7: 1 4; 9: 3,
5).70 ,
69
. , , 61; . , , 21 23, 30 32, 35 40, 202, 203, 226; .
, , 32 37, 81 85.
70
. , , 35 40; . , , 32 37, 81 85; . ,
, 39.
869
III.
, ,
.71
,

, , .
,
71
: . , . , ;
, : . , .
870
() - -
(7: 5, 6; 10).72

- .
.
, , ,
, - , ,
( ). ,

(, , ).
, , ,
.

.
Tiszapolgr
Bodrogkeresztr 4400 3700 . . ..
, , , (10).73
(Corded Ware culture),74 ,
(2900 2350 . . ..),
.
, -
.
,
, ,
,
.
,
,
. 32 (8: 4).
13. 12. ,
.75
(8: 6 8), (8: 5), (8: 1 3).
.
,
(
) (8: 4 7, 8),
, , () (8: 5)
(). , , , :
;
, ; ,
, .
, ,
,
(8: 4 1 3): ,
, ;
72
. . , (. .), 79, 83; . . , , 107.
73
. , , 43, 45; D. Srejovi, Arheoloki, 134, 1044, 1045.
74
. . , . , VII. 7; . . , , 277.
75
. , , 39, 40 (. 7), 199, 317;
13. 12. .., .
, ,
, (D. Mitrevski, New Aspects, 453).
871
III.
872
() - -
; ;
, , ..
.76
, (),
, , ( 150 km )
( 13. 12. ..) (8: 6 4).77
, , (,
) . ,
, ,
,
.

.
, ,
.
, ,
( 3. . . .., , ,
).
,
, ,
.
, ,

( ).

,
. ,
( )

.

, in
situ. .
13. 12. ,
. ,
: ;
, , ,
, ,
.
-
. . .
( )
2. . . .. 13. 12. ,
, ,

(, , .. ; ,
) (6; 10).78
76
: . . , , 269 298; . .
, . , V; . . , . ; . . , ;
: . , ; . , ;
: J. Arnal, Les Statues-menhirs; The megalitic 2016; Statues-menhirs 2016.
77
. , .
78
. . , . , : 83 86,
( ): 88.
873
III.
, , 3. . . ..,
,
,
.. (6). . , .
,79 , .
,
..
.
79
. , , 6, 7; D. Mitrevski, New Aspects, 451, 453.
874
() - -
b)
, , , ..
. 7 (46: 9)
. 12 (15: 1, 2)
.
( )
,
( Vergina - 6: 6).
,
. (
, , ) ( ,
, ) (5) (
) 20 ( 9).
( ),
,
,
( . 758 760).
c)

, ..
, .. .
- (8)

( ).
-
( ) (2; 3; 4; 5; 6)
, .. ,
.
- (1: 1 3)
, ..
/ ( ) .
- (2; 3; 4; 5)

, .. /,
.
- (8; 9; 10)
,
/ .
-
( ) ,
(36).
- - ( )

.
- (1; 2)
,

(7).
,
(
) ,
875
III.
( , ),
( // . 381).

Hauma-varga,
( haoma varga ).

, , , ,
-
.80
/
, , ,
(5).
3.

a) -
-
-
, , ,

.
, , ..
. ,

: - , -
, - , - , - .81
- -
. .

, , , .
, , (
10), .. ,
- ,
. , ,
,
: ; ..
(bird cages); ; .. (horns); ;
.

.82
,
( ) ,
.83 ( . ) ,
80
R. Schmitt, Haumavarg; Soma 2012.
81
, : R. Vasi, Trakokimeriski, 559 563; : .
, . II, 456 464; . , -, 27, 30; . , , 336
342; D. Srejovi, Kulture; H. Potrebica, Pontic-Caucasian; : C. Metzner-Nebelsick,
Der "Thrako-Kimmerische".
82
J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 328 332; J. Bouzek, Greece, 200, 201; J. Bouzek, Caucasus.
83
. , , 216 219; . . , , 119 125 ( ), 123
125 ( ), 13, 14, 24, 25, 170, 199, 202 ( ); D. Mitrevski, Genesis, 94; .
876
() - -
,
.84 . -,
( )

. ,
(4: 4; 10), , ,
, ,
.
, ,
1000 750 . . .. .
, ,
.85
, -
. -
. ,
- (, ?) 8. . ..
( )
.86
, ,
. .
. (
) (10).87 . (B. Hnsel) .
( ). .
, -
.88 -
, .. ,
(Samos )
.89 ,
( )
, , ,
(10).
( , Ga-mir) ,
, ,
.
, ,
, ( )
, , ,
, , 132; . , , 82, 83;

: . , , 12 15.
84
R. Vasi, Trakokimeriski, 561, 563.
85
86
J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 334, 335.
87
W. A. Heurtley, Prehist. Macedonia, 125, 126, 129, 130; , .
( )
(D. Mitrevski, Northern, 109; . , , 58); .
. . (D. Garaanin, Kastanas).
88
( ): R. Vasi, eveliska, 709.
89
R. Vasi, Trakokimeriski, 563; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 87, 89; J. Bouzek, Greece, 200, 201; J. Bouzek,
Addenda, 46.
877
a) -
10
. 8. . .. , ,
, , , ..
(10). , 714 . . .., 8. 7.
, :
( ,
, ); , ,
; ( )
644. . . ..; 7.
. ..; ,
. 6. 5.
, .90

. ,
(5),
90
: A. Ivantchik, Cimmerians; S. R. Tokhtasev, Cimmerians; J. Bouzek,
Cimmerians; : . . , ; M. J.
Olbrycht, The Cimmerian; . , ; I. G. de Boer, The Cimm. Invasion;
: . . , , 228 254.
878
() - -
,
. (
13/12. 6. , , , ),
(12. 11. , ),
(9. 7. ) (
18/16. 12. , ), (900.
650 ., - ) (10).

.91
,
, , .
(
).
, . .
,
9. 6. . ..
.
.
, ,
, .92
- ( )

.
, ,
.
, , , ,
- (10).
, -
.93

(10).
,
.
. ,
94 , ,
.95
, ,
91
, : . . , , 88 97; . . ,
; J. Bouzek, Cimmer. and Early; J. Bouzek, Cimmer. in As. Minor; . . ,
; . . , ; M. J. Olbrycht, The Cimmerian, 94, 95;
: . . , ; . . , . ; . . , . .
, , 6 73; . . , . .
92
R. Vasi, Trakokimeriski, 561.
93
D. Srejovi, Kulture; . . , . (
, ).
94
(Strabo 1.3.21; 12.3.24; 13.4.8).
,
( ).
95
(Strabo 1.3.18; 12.8.7; 13.1.8; Thucydides 2.96.4); . . , , 234.
(Strabo 1.3.18)
.
879
a) -
( ) (10).96
K.
K T ( )97 ,
.98
( )
. ,
(6; 10).99
K
,
.
,
Priena Samos Ephesos (10).100
() , ( 7. . ..)
Antandros , Ida,
(10).101 5.
3. . .. (Ephesos, Xanthos) Kimmerios,
Tenos, Cleiton,
.102
( ),
, .
3. . ..,
. ,
,
.
- ( )
, ,
,
.
e
. . e (H. Mbi us), . (U. Jantzen) . (A. Bammer)
,
Ephesos, Samos (10).
. , . j-.103 ,
,
. . ,
, (, ) .104
.
, .
96
(Thucydides 2, 96; Plinius 4.10.35); : . . , .
, 90.
97
... (Strabo 1.3.21); . . , . . ,
, 37 45.
98
(Strabo 14.1.40);
(M. J. Olbrycht, The Cimmerian, 92).
99
(Arrianus, Bithynica. Fr. 19 Roos = Eustathius ad Dionysii Orbis Descriptionem, 322. P. 201 407. . er. 44 =
Eustathius, Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam. P. 1671); : . , , 34;
. . , , 234 2; . . , . , 90.
100
. , , 96, 97.
101
(Hecataeus Abderites fr. 5; Stephanus Byzantinus s.v. ); : . . , ( 4),
145; ( 7), 640; . . , , 234.
102
A. I. Ivantchik, 'Scythian' Archers, 223.
103
J. Bouzek, Grece, 200, 201; I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, 261, 262.
104
. . , , 96, 97.
880
() - -
( ,
) .

,
.
, . . ,
, , , . ,
, Samos
, (4: 4 1 3)
.105
Ephesos, , ,
, (11: 1).
.
. ,
.
( ) .
, 8. 6. . ..,
(11: 2).106
, (11: 3),
/Axioupoli /Kilkis
(11: 4).107 , ()
, , , .. . ,

. ,
Samos ,
, ,
(4: 7).
( ,
, ) ,
Ephesos Samos Antandros ,
, (10). ,
.
. -. :
(
) . , ,
,
.108

K.
, (
) -
(10).109 .
7. . .. , ,
.
T. ,
.
(Eusebios),
105
: . . , , 75 (. 5: 1 3); : J. Curtis, M.
Kruszyskinna, Ancient, Pl.11a; Pl.11b.
106
. , , 33 (21).
107
B. Husenovski, E. Slamkov, Archaeological, 17 Pic. 20; . , , 245 . 88; .
, , 55 . 20; . , , 315 . 13.
108
109
J. Bouzek, Cimmer. and Early, 38, 39; : . . , , 234.
881
a) -
11
882
() - -
300 , 11.
1076 . . ..110
-

, ,
, :
(10); , ..

, .111
.
- .

- , , ,
.
Strymon () ,
8. . ..
(2; 10). ,

: Tracian Treres and Edoni were, according to Strabo, allies of the
Cimmerians.;112 The main sources of inspiration of Macedonian bronzes can still be seen in the North
Caucasian area (Kuban group); this phenomenon can probably be connected with the alliance of Thracian
Edoni and Cimmerians recorded by Strabo.;113 This was suggested by Strabo, in his reference to an
alliance between the Cimmerians and the Thracian Treres and Edoni, tribes later occupying Central Bulgaria
(Treres) and Chalcidice (Edoni).114 ,
.115
,
, , ,
.
. ,
,

,
, , ( ) (2).
, ,
( ) .116
, ,
( ) .
, ()
.
Antandros, Ida
110
. . , . , 90, 91; . , , 99, 100; : . . , ,
234, 235.
111
. . , . , 91, 92; . .
.. (. . , ,
239).
112
J. Bouzek, Addenda, 45; 51 ( : Strabo, C 329, fr.11).
113
J. Bouzek, Macedonian, 99, 108; 7 (Strabo, C 329, fr. 11).
114
J. Bouzek, Cimmerians, ( : Strabo, I.1.10, I.3.21, VII figs. 11 and 36, XII.3.34, XII.8.7, XIII.4.8).
115
J. Bouzek, Cimer. and Early, 38, 39; J. Bouzek, Greece,110, 112, 200; J. Bouzek, Cimmer. in As. Minor; H.
Potrebica, Pontic-Caucasian; . , , 132; D. Mitrevski, Genesis, 94 (
).
116
J. Bouzek, Macedonia, 125 - 128; J. Bouzek, Addenda, 45; J. Bouzek, Macedonian, 99, 108; J. Bouzek, Cimer. and
Early, 38, 39.
883
a) -
...
T ,
... (10).117 , , .118
,
,
.
--
, ( . 476).

5. . ..,
, (10:
10, 11 8, 9).
, ,
Batina () ..
- (10: 12 17 18 20). ,
, , -,
- ( )
( 10: 21 12
17) ( . 476).

, . , ,
-
.119 . .
,

.120 ,
, . . .121
-

,
. ,
, (= , ) .122

Antandros ,
o (10).123
(
) o ,
(2). ( )

. ,
117
(Stephanus Byzantinus, Ethnika); : . . , ( 7), 315/640;
.
118
rursus in litore Antandros Edonis prius vocata, dein Cimmeris (Plinius 5.123).
119
. . , . , 91 93; . . , Indoarica. 16, 17, 42;
2012.
120
. . , , 241; ,
- 1. . . ..: . . ,
; C. Metzner-Nebelsick, Wo sind.
121
. . , ; . . , . ( ,
, ).
122
S. R. Tokhtasev, Cimmerians; . . , . , 91 93.
123
(Stephanus Byzantinus, Ethnika); , : (Plinius
5.123).
884
() - -
-, , .124
, .
,
(*kers-mar/*kir-(s)-mar-io) / .125
. . . .
. , ,
.126
--
, , , (
uul ) Malorossa ( mal
mal(i) ).127

.

( ).
Erigon ( ) (2) erek (, ..
).128
- -

. ,
, ..
. /Cumae (
) (16) , ,
,
(12: 12).
, ().
,

. ,
.129
, ,
. ,
.
,
, , , .130
.
Argilos , , ,
, (2).131

(, , ), : , ,
; ; ; , .132
,
,
. , .
124
. . , Indoarica, 11, 16, 17, 42, 136, 137.
125
. . , Indoarica, 11, 16, 17, 42, 136, 137; : 2015.
126
. . , . . , , 24.
127
. . , Indoarica, 42.
128
. . , (1992); . . , Indoarica, 296. . . , . , VI.
129
(Strabo 5.4.5); : . . , . . , , 30.
130
(Eusthatius, Ad D.P. 1166); : . . , . . , , 30, 31.
131
(Stephanus Byzantinus 112.13); : . . , . . , , 31.
132
. . , . . , , 30.
885
a) -
12
886
() - -
,
Argilos
.133
(Cumae)
() ,
(16).
,
.134

,
, ,
.135
, , ()
, .136
,

(12: 1).
.

.

-,
.
a ,
,
.
,
( )
. (
) .
.
.137
,
,
,
3 , 7 .
,
, .138 ,
, ,
,

(12: 1). , ,
133
. . , . . , , 31, 32; . . , Indoarica, 17.
134
. , , 50 53.
135
(Homeri Odyssea 11.10 20); A. Ivantchik, Cimmerians, 323; M. J. Olbrycht, The Cimmerian, 85 88; . ,
, 51.
136
. . , , 229; M. J. Olbrycht, The Cimmerian,72 75.
137
J. Bouzek, Greece, 111.
138
(Herodotus 4.94 96), ,
. : .
, , 2.
887
a) -
( Samothraki Lemnos),
Argilos (16).
,
( ), .
1988 .
( , ) (12: 2).
250 , .
( , 1,5 m),
( , 4 m)
, .
, , 5
, , .. . ,
. ,
, 9. 10.
.., -
, .139
, ,
. ,

.
- ,
,
. ,
.140 , ,
,
.141

-
, , .
- , ,

. ,
, -
(5).
-
. , , ,
.
* * *

,
,

2. 1. 1. . ..
139
. , . . , .
140
. . , , 239 242; 2015; . . , . . , , 25;
S. R. Tokhtasev, Cimmerians; . . , . , 92.
141
. . , , 96, 97; S. R. Tokhtasev, Cimmerians; J. Bouzek, Cimmer. in As. Minor; . .
, . . , , 43.
888
() - -
(6).

, , ,
, , ,
, . ,
, (
), ,

. , ,
.142
, ,
,
.
b) /
- sinth-, .. sith-
sinth-,
.. sith-
(13). ,
() .143
( ) (2;
13).144 () ,
, .145
Sindonaioi , ,
.146 Sinti/Sintia/
, , ,
.147 ,

.148 ,
.149 , .. ,
. (W. Tomaschek) / ,
sintis .150
( )
. Sintia
V 211 . . ..151 , .
. ,
142
. . , , 237 238; . . , . . , , 47 50.
143
(Herodotus 7.122); ( ) (.
, . , , 387; . , , 66, 73, 74); : . , , 21,
25, 26.
144
: . , , 155, 156; : J.
Bouzek, Addenda, 45.
145
(Herodotus 7.123); . , , 149; . , , 25, 26;
: . , , 150, 186 68.
146
(Hecataeus, fr. 146, 147); . , ., 25, 26; N. Theodossiev, The dead. I, 353; N. Theodossiev, The
Dead. II, 191; . , , 18, 247.
147
. , , 68, 69; : . , , 90 115; .
, . , Civitas.
148
(Homeri Ilias. 1.592 594).
149
. , , 26.
150
. , , 155, 186 69.
151
(Livius, b urbe condida 26.25.3).
889
a) -
13
, ,
(2; 13).152 , ,
.153
-
sind-
. .
sind- . ,
, sindu- .
, (),
(), (13).
- , ,
. ,
. . (P. Kretschmer),
*sindu, , ..
( , ),
*sinda(va) . , sindhu,
hindu, (),
(
152
F. Papazoglu, Srednjobalkanska, 116, 117, 192, 194, 367; . , ,
(. , : , 6, 8).
153
F. Papazoglu, Srednjobalkanska, 117, 192.
890
() - -
Sindhi ). , Sinu ( Sindhu),

(.. ) Tanais () (13). ,
, ..
, .154
( ) , ,
.155
( ) ()
.156
. . ,
, .

.157
. .
(13).
sind-, , ,
.158
-

sind-. ,
,
. , sind-,
, .
:
Haliakmon, Echedoros, Axios, Strymon Nestos (2).
, , ( ),
, (
),
. , ,
.
( )

. ,
.

. Axios ( aki ),
( vari ; *kali-vardi ) (2).159
.
sind-
sindi, , ,
(2).
( )
Demir Hisar,
( ).
, ,
,
, , ,
154
. . , Indoarica, 15 41, 69, 163, 275, 276; . .
(. . , , 182, 183).
155
. . , Indoarica, 13, 28, 30, 106.
156
. . , , 111.
157
( ): . . , .
158
. . , Indoarica, 22, 106.
159
: . . , Indoarica, 9, 223, 245, 269, 287.
891
b) /
,
(6).
,

.
,

(5).

-.
?
, :
- :
, /
.
- : /
, ,
,
.
c)
. ,

- .
.
-
,
, ,
, , , ..
(14).160 ,
(= Boreas), ,
. Boreas
, , ,
, ( ),
K .
.161

. ,
, . ,
.
, ,
, ,
.
- ( )

.
,
160
(Herodotus 4.13).
161
: Hyperborea 2015; . . , ; . . , ;
: S. Verger, Des Hyperborens.
892
() - -
14
()
(14). .
: , , , () ,
, , Dodona, , Eubea, Karystos, Tenos Delos.
.
( , )
. ,
,
. ,
,
.
, ,
.162

, , ,
( ) . , ,
,
, ,
.
162
(Herodotus 4.33 35).
893
c)
,
, (
), ,
. ,

(14). ,
.163

, , ,
( ),
, , ..
:
- ,
, , ,
, , , ,
?
, , ,

,
. , ,

.

.164
-
?(14)
-
?
- , ,
( ) ,
?

.
. ,
,

.165
, ,
,
( , .) (14).
.
-
=
. .
, , ,
( ).166 j
163
(Diodorus Siculus 2.47); . . , .
164
(Diodorus Siculus
2.47),
.
165
. . , . . , 410;
(. . , , 237, 238).
166
(Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromateis I, p. 305 ); : . . , .
894
() - -
.167
(Cumae)
.
, , ,
,168
, .
,
, ,

. -
, , ,
8. 7. ..
, 150
(14).
Ephesus Samos .

.

. , j
, , ,
( )
. ,
,
.

.169 -

,
, .170
-

.
Philia (11: 7 5) Samos (14),171
.

, .
,

(4: 4 1 3).

,
2. 1. . . ..

, ,
167
(Arrianus, Bithynica fr. 43 Roos = Eustathius ad Dionysii Orbis Descriptionem 791); : . ,
, 45.
168
: (Strabo 5.4.5); : (Platon, Charmides
158 b); . , , 2 ( ); ,
(. , . , , 485).
169
(Diodorus Siculus 2.47).
170
(Herodotus, 4.33, 35).
171
S. G. Schmid, ; Fortetsa : O. W. Muscarella, Bronzes.
895
c)
(11: 8 6).

( )
( ),
.

6. . ..,
. (
) - ,
, ,
.
,
?

(
). ,

, (14).
, ,
1. . ..

.172
.173

, ,

.
-

.

, :
: ;
.174

,
(barhis).
200
, . ,
, , ..
.
172
, , .
: ,
, - , ,
1. . . .. (J. Bouzek, Greece, 179 205).
173
. . (
)
.
, (Calisia
Eburodunum Vindobona Scarbantia Poetovio Emona Aquiela). , ,
(. . , . . , 409 416).
174
(Herodotus 4.33).
896
() - -
, ,
. ,
(, )
(, ). , .. , .. ,
.
.

. , ( . 126,
127, 413, 414, 421, 424, 426), .

,
.
( )
(. 359 362).175
, ,
,
.
.176
-
.
, , ,
.
,
,
.
, ,
, ,
.

. ,
, - , ,
, ,
. ,
, ..
( pars pro toto) ,
.
,
.177
,
, ,
.

, ,
,
.
175
. , , 134.
176
(Herodotus 4.33).
177
. , , 215, 216; . , , 192, 193.
(. , . , 68).
. ,
, , , ,
.
897
c)

.

( , ),
).
,
,
. ,
- ,
.178

, , (2; 16).

, , , , .179
,
,
( , , , )
- . , , ,
, , .
d)
Bithyniaca (Lucius Flavius Arrianus) (1 2. ..),
(6. ..) ( ) (12.
..) (13).180
, (
airya-, rya-, ariya-)
. . . ,
. ,
, : , , (,
); , , (); ,
(); ().
,
, , .
3. . . ..
,
.181
, ,
,
2. . . .. 1. . . .. (6).

(airya-, rya-),
.

, ..
.182 , ,
178
: . , , 216.
179
( . ., III, 24 (13) . 25 [28]); . . , .
180
: . . , . , 202, 203.
181
. . , . , 203, 204.
182
. , . , 20, 28, 123 125, 130, 132; . . , . , 92.
898
() - -
(arya) ..
, .183
,
2. 1. . . . .
1. . . .. , , .
19. ,
, .. ,
.

, , , ,
-, .
, , , ,
.
. ,
- .184
19. 20.
, ,
, ,
. (
) . , ,
(
) .
, ,
() . , 20.
,
, , , ,
.
, .
IV.
1.

.
,
. , :
-
- (64; 65).
- - (. ) (21: 8, 9),
(24)
(25: 1, 2, 5, 6).
-
(, ) (13: 6 8)
(13: 2, 9).
- ,
, (56; 57: 4, 5, 7 10) (57: 1 3, 11).
e
(, , , ) ,
183
iron, allon (. . ,
, 245 246; . . , , 244).
184
V. Gordon Childe, The Aryans.
899
d)
15
. ,

.185

:
- (12: 9, 10),
(8;
9; 10).
185
: S. Kuko, Japodi; M. Blei Kavur, Japodske; P. Gleirscher, Ein ltereisenzeitliches; R. Vasi, Figural,
46.
900
() - -
- (2: 1, 3, 4, 7 9),
(8:
1 7).
- (14)
(7; 16).

Kuffrn (). (
). ,
(15: 5),
(15: 2, 3).
,
(15: 4)
, .
,
.
2.
,
-
,
2. 1. . ..

. , ,
, .. , , ,
(16). (
) , , ,
. , Samothrace , ,
, ,
(16).186 ,
, , , Palena ( )
.187 ,
. , ,
Cyrene, ,
( ) Patavium
(16). ,
, .. .188

(56; 57: 4, 5, 7 10). , ,
, : Torre del Mordillo
Spezzano Albanese (Calabria); S. Andrea Cupra Marittima (Ascoli Piceno); Mandrio, Correggio (Emilia
Romagna) (57: 1 3, 11). (
) .
, (
),189 Calabri (
Calabria ) Daunii ( Apulia).
186
: . , , 164, 165; . . , ; . . , , 149, 150.
187
(Hellanikus, FGrH 4 F 31); : R. S. P. Beekes, The Origin, 46, 47.
188
(Livius, Ab urbe condita 1.1);
: . , , 165, 166; : Adriatic 2015.
189
(Strabo 7.5.7).
901
IV.
16
Dardi , Apulia
(16).190
, , ,
, , , (4).191 ,
.
a) (/)
,
,
( ). , 12. . ..,
, ..
, , /
( )
(16).
Lesbos, Lemnos, Imbros Samothrace, . , ,
, ,

(16).192
190
(Plinius 3.104).
191
: F. Papazoglu, Srednjobalkanska, 103, 104.
192
: R. S. P. Beekes, The Origin.
902
() - -
, (2):

...; ...
....193 . . . ,
,

(Crotone) (16).194
, a
K, . ,
, , , T, ..
, K (2).

. (Acte),
, ,
Lemnos ,
, (2).195
b)

, .. ,

, (14) (13).
, ..
( , Lemnos, Samos, Samothrace, ) (10).
, ..
?
, , (=
/) , .
,
.196 ,
,

.
8. . .. (10) (16).
. ,
, .. ,
, (16).
,
, , , -
, .

, .. .
(Cumae) (16).
, ,
. , ,
Palatinus .197

193
(Herodotus 1.57).
194
R. S. P. Beekes, The Origin, 38.
195
(Thucydides 4.109).
196
R. S. P. Beekes, The Origin.
197
(Dionysius Halicarnassensis 1.43; Solinus 1.15)
903
IV.
17
(= ) ,
.198

, ,
(16).199

. , 1993 .,
.200
. , ,
- ,
(-) .201
c)

-
.
.
198
(Herodotus 5.9).
199
(Herodotus 1.196).
200
J. Dowding, The Elusive, 48 56.
201
G. Facchetti, Appunti di morfologia etrusca, Firenze, Olschki, 2002; : 2015.
904
() - -
- Benvenuti
, ,
,
. Benvenuti
,
(17: 1, 2).
( )
/ (.. ),
- ( . 401 409).

-
(18: 1 4).
,
.

- (18: 5 7;
57) ( . 103, 112).
--
( .
853). Libna ( Krko )

(1; 16).
. , ,
, ..
- .
,

, , , ( . 643).
d) --
- :
,
, ,
.
(Equos October) ,
, . :
, ,
.
, ,
. , , Regia ( )
.202
202
. Dimezil, Drevna, 174 184; October Horse 2015.
905
IV.
18
906
() - -
- :

, (asvamedha),
. () ,
. ( ), ,
, , . ,
, , (
), 100 .

. , ,
4 , ,
. , ,
.
, .

.203
.
.204
-
.
- (
, ).
- ,
,
.
- , ,
.205
,
.
.
,
1000
.

.

( ).

(5; 16).
( )
.206
203
2015.
204
. Dimezil, Drevna, 174 184; ( )
(. , , 365, 366; . Dimezil, Drevna, 36).
205
( )
: . . -, . . , , 102, 103; . , , 368.
206
. Dimezil, Drevna, 175; (, )
. (. , , 367, 368).
907
d) --
- -

- .
, .207
M, , , ,
.208
,

.209
. ,
( )
, , .210

.211 ( )
( )
()
, .212
-
.
( , ) 4. . .., ,
, . ,
:
( ) (19: 4);
(
) (19: 5); /; (19:
6).213
, (13),
6. . .. 360 ( 20
18 ) . . .
.
,
.214
- -

Benvenuti.

(19: 1, 2).
.
,
207
(Herodotus 4.60,61).
208
(Herodotus 1.216).
209
. . , , 379.
210
: . . , , 50, 65, 168, 169, 174, 225, 227, 239, 484, 486, 797, 798.
211
. Dimezil, Drevna, 177 ( , ).
212
. , , 10;
: . . , , 49, 50, 58.
213
. , , 240 247; . . , ; . . , ; . ,
, 368 370.
214
: . . , , 185, 186.
908
() - -
19
909
d) --
(19: 1 3).215 ,
( 19: 1, 3 4),

Equos October, .
,
,
.
, , ,
(19: 2).
.
.
(12. ) (
) .216
.

, ,
, .
,
, .
, ,
.
, ,
(16).217

, .. ,
.218 ,
(Brezje, Stina, Magdalenska Gora
) .
(,
)
- .219

.
, ,
,220 ,
.221
,
.222 ,
, ,
,
.223
215
( ): S. Verger, Die frhe Situlenkunst, 60, 62; S. Verger, La
situle Benvenuti, 59.
216
(Strabo 5.1.8 9); : R. Katii, Diomed, 66.
217
. , . , , 114 116.
218
Dolenjska () : J. Dular,
Pferdegrber.
219
J. Dular, Pferdegrber, 743, 744.
220
, , (Pausania 8.7.2)
, .
Cleiton,
Kimmerios (A. I. Ivantchik, 'Scythian' Archers, 223).
221
S. Kuko, rtvovanje; R. Katii, Diomed; . , , 370, 371.
222
(Herodotus 7.113).
223
: . . , , 59.
910
() - -
20
911
e) , -
e) , -

, , , ,

. Kuffarn ( ) 400
. . ..,
, .. (20).
- .
, . .
, .. . ,
5 , ,
Arnoaldi, Bologna () (21: 1). ,
, ,
.
Vae ()
(21: 5).224

6. 5. . .. , ,
(22: 3, 4). ,
, Franois Vase (
Kimmerios 22: 5, 6). ,
Angers , ,
(22: 2).
(,
) . ,
. . , ,
, .

( )
, .
, .. , .
, ..
,
.225 ( )
( )

I (21: 8; 22:1),
- .226
224
Kuffarn ,
.
: O. H. Frey, Die Situla von Kuffarn; O.- H. Urban, Gedanken; F. E. Barth, O. H. Urban,
Neues, 394, 395; L. C. Koch, Zu den Deutungsmglichkeiten, 357, 361. Vae .
(P. Turk, Images, 34, 37).
225
A. I. Ivantchik, 'Scythian' Archers; . . , ; . . , , 98 113;
: . . , , 248, 249; . . , . . ,
, 185, 186.
226
. . , , 248 . 42; 149 . 43.
912
() - -
21
913
e) , -
-
Kuffarn (20) Arnoaldi (21: 1)
, . .
. , -,

. ,
, , ..
7. . ..

, , .
( , .. )
.227
, . . ,
.
(
-) , ,
,
, , .

. ,

. , ,
, , ,
(21: 4).
.

, - (21:
2, 3, 6, 7). , ,

.228
.

,
,
.229
-
,
: ,
, , , ,
, , (16).
,
. , ,

. , ,
, ,
.

.
227
O. H. Frey, Die Situla von Kuffarn, 9 11.
228
: G. P. Tabone, I bronzetti, Tav. 1, 7, 8, 49, 50.
229
. . , 44, 45.
914
() - -
22
915
e) , -
, , (103/102 .
. ..) (16), ,
, - .230
( ),

,
.231
, , ..

.
()
, 6. . .. ,
( ) .

(16).232 ,
6. 4. . ..
,
, .233
D.

I.

,
. ,
, ,
(10), , , .
, ,
, .

.
, ,
, ,
.
II.
, ,
,
. ,
- ,
( ).
, .

230
(Gaius Marius11.5 7; Strabo 7.2.2).
231
M. J. Olbrycht, The Cimmerian, 88 90; . , , 45; o ,
: S. Verger, Des Hyperborens.
232
P. Turk, Images, 22.
233
, : . , ;
. , , 386, 387.
916
() - -
23
917
D.
24
918
() - -

(30; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29).
( )

.

.
.
.
,
, .. (3: 2, 3; 39: 7).234

.
- (23: 1, 4 8, 10)
(23: 2, 3, 9; 1; 2).
- (24: 7, 11, 12) (24: 1
6; 9; 10; 11).
- (25: 3 10, 13)
(25: 1, 2).
- (26: 4 8)
(26: 1) (26: 2, 3; 41).
- (27: 4 7)
(27: 1 3; 2; 3; 4; 5).
- (28: 4 8)
(28: 1; 17)
(28: 2, 3; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23).
- (29: 1, 2) a V-
(29: 3 7, 10, 12, 16) ,
.
1.

,
.
. , ,
( 3 )
,
, .

.

. ,
.
.
, ,
.
, ,
, .. .
(, , , )
.
234
: . , ;
: . , . , . , .
919
D.
25
920
() - -
26
921
D.
27
922
() - -
, ,
.

. :

(
23: 9 10). ,
.
.

. ,

(27: 1 3 4 7).

.
,
, , , (:
23: 8, 10; 26: 6; 27: 6, 7; 29: 2). ,
, .

, , .
2.

.

.
(24: 8, 9, 13) (25: 11, 12)

( ) ( )
, , ,
(30).
,
(23: 11; 13; 13: 12, 13).
a V-
. ,
(29: 9,
13 15; 17: 6) (29: 8, 11; 16: 13 17).
,

.
,

: , , , .. , ,
1. . . ..
.

,
,
.
,
.
923
D.
28
924
() - -
29
925
D.
30
III.

, ,
- :
- (34: 3 10)

(27).
- (49: 1
4, 9, 11, 12)
(49: 5 8, 10).
- (38: 7, 8;
39; 46)
(36).
-
(8; 9) (1; 2;
3) (9: 17, 18; 10: 1 3).
926
() - -
* * *

, ,
,
, ,
(30). -

,
, .
- ,

(4; 6).
(, , ) (, ,
, , , ).
:

(30; 24: 8, 9, 13;
25: 11, 12); - , 11.
10. . .. (24; 25).
927
Summary
MACEDONIAN BRONZES AND
THE RELIGION AND MYTHOLOGY
OF IRON AGE COMMUNITIES
IN THE CENTRAL BALKANS
Macedonian Bronzes and the religion and mythology of Iron Age communities in the Central Balkans
Nikos Chausidis
MACEDONIAN BRONZES AND THE RELIGION AND MYTHOLOGY

OF IRON AGE COMMUNITIES IN THE CENTRAL BALKANS
(Summary)
Introduction
The phrase Macedonian bronzes refers to a pretty copious category of Iron Age bronze objects,
dated mainly between 8th and 6th centuries BC. The majority of them are considered being used as jewelry
with an emphasized symbolical i.e. magical and religious purpose. Macedonian as adjective is absolutely
suitable, Macedonia being the nucleus of their distribution areal, even though certain items were found in its
surrounding or even in remote territories. There were attempts to supplement or to change this name, by J.
Bouzek (Graeco-Macedonian bronzes) or D. Mitrevski (Paeonian bronzes), as well as by other researchers.
However, they were not accepted in scientific terminology, despite the fact that a significant part of them were
indeed found in contemporary and in Ancient Greece and the Paeonians were considered one of their main
wearers.
This book is not designed as a typical archaeological Macedonian bronzes monograph. Its main
purpose is not presentation of material aspects of these objects, i.e. their typology, chronology, distribution
and manufacture technology. Regardless of the fact it also contains these information, its focus is on the
spiritual (symbolical, mythical and magical/religious) aspects, in our belief immanent to the very component
because of which, in fact, these objects were created and used.
It could be said that Macedonian bronzes are not even the main goal of this monograph. Within our
approach, they could only be conceived as means for revealing a phenomenon which is much more
substantial in our opinion, namely the spiritual culture of the people who wore these objects, i.e. their
symbolical, mythical and magical and religious or the global semiotic system. Those were many peoples, i.e.
tribes which settled the Macedonian soil in Iron Age, whose ethnonyms, territories and rulers we find in
ancient written sources. Since they contain only modest information regarding the spiritual culture, with their
clearly expressed symbolical and mythical and religious character, Macedonian bronzes present a good base,
which once analyzed could verify the known information and supplement them with new data and
interpretation.
931
Introduction
Such a character of Macedonian bronzes could be indirectly supported by numerous quotations of

ancient authors which refer to other cultures close to the Iron Age communities from Macedonia in terms of
period, territory, as well as cultural landmarks. Here, we chose to quote the story of Herodotus about the
Scythian sage Anacharsis (). Returning from one of his many travels around the world, in Cisicus,
on the southeastern shore of Sea of Marmara, he participated in a magnificent festivity dedicated to the
Mother of Gods. There, he pledged to this goddess that he would perform the same ritual in her honor, with
sacrifice and vigil, once he arrived home safe and sound. Upon his arrival in Scythia, he organized the same
festivity in the region of Hylaia, during which he stroke a small drum (), while he had various
statuettes/gems () on his clothes. As soon as the Scythian king learnt what was happening, he
personally killed him as a punishment for performing foreign rituals (Herodotus, 4,76).
The relation of this quotation and our topic is that while performing the ritual, pursuing the one of
Cisicus, Anacharsis was hanging images about himself. Even though the Ancient Greek lexeme
most often refers to statues i.e. sculptures, it also bears other significances, which are more probable in this
very case: gems, jewelry, sacral objects and pictorial presentations. This fairly correlates to the luxurious
garnitures of Macedonian bronzes (which also comprise statuettes) which were hung on the body
supplementing their wearers garments, mostly women, priestesses according to some researchers (62: 5).
Even though situated in Ancient Greece, this action could not be considered as typically Greek, something
which can be justified with the foundation of Cisicus by Pelasgians from Thessaly, a territory in which, the so-
called Thessalian bronzes were then (Anacharsis lived 605-545 BC) widely distributed, objects synchronous
and very similar to the Macedonian bronzes (56; 67; 62).
Other ancient written sources and archaeological finds also contain information on similar aspects of
jewelry (mainly female) that correlate the shape and context of these objects. Especially distinguished among
them are customs in which women offer their jewelry to certain goddesses (very often protectors of women,
fertility and birth) in turn for health, especially during pregnancy, so they could protect the fetus and provide a
successful delivery (J. Whatmough, Rehtia). Moreover, this aspect of Macedonian bronzes is clearly
confirmed with their presence in ancient sanctuaries in Greece, Delphi, Olympia, Philia, Pherai, to name just a
few.
Having the spiritual culture as the focus of this monograph, during our research, in certain cases, we
were forced to surpass the scope of the given title. So, it now includes objects found in Macedonia and in
neighboring regions which cannot be considered Macedonian bronzes given their chronology. For example,
such is the case with belt garnitures with strung double axes which belonged to the Late Bronze Age
communities from the Central Vardar valley (9: 1, 2), for which we believe that had been predecessors, i.e.
that they inspired the later similar Iron Age objects, much closer to the Macedonian bronzes. We also
processed some objects, which, even though synchronous with Macedonian bronzes, can be traced in much
wider territories, whereupon in certain cases it is believed that their nucleus and point of origin were not in
Macedonia. Such examples are the ajoure belt garnitures (1; 2; 3; 4), pendants and applications shaped
as concentric circles (56), and to some extent, also the cross-shaped strap dividers (9; 10).
In some cases, the comparative analyses of iconography and symbolism of these objects indulged us
in topics distant of Macedonian bronzes and made us enter the spheres of some ancient cults (Cybele, Attis,
Silenus etc.), specific iconographical compositions (mythical character with hands shaped as animal protomes,
four-faced mythical character etc.) and some other phenomena (cross, wheel, distaff, thyrsus etc.). We find the
sense of these excurses in two complementary aspects of a single relation. On one hand, it is the consideration
of these later, and better known, phenomena as paradigms of revealing the significance of relevant
Macedonian bronzes, and on the other, the use of the latter as more archaic and more original models of the
former.
- Principles and methodology

Herewith, we decided not to elaborate the methodology applied in this research, but rather to refer to
our previous texts in which it is more thoroughly presented. Here we only give the basic methods and
principles on which it rests upon. Our basic principle could be determined with the stand that myth, religion
and symbolical phenomena are products of mythic consciousness that is mythic i.e. mythopoeic thought,
especially typical for the member of ancient cultures (E. Kasirer, Filozofija, Tom II). Mythical and symbolical
as a basic landmark of such cultures is manifested in all media: in verbal, as mythical stories; in the medium
of action, as rites; in visual, as mythical image; even in the medium of social relations as a system of social
organization. Thus, these phenomena can, in fact, be mutually compared and supplemented as elements of a
932
unique system. It means that we do not accept that the verbal medium is the primary i.e. basic myth medium,
but rather just one of the many manifestations of myth, i.e. mythical thought. These principles, among other
things, justify the application of the interdisciplinary method, i.e. using methods which cover the
aforementioned media within relevant scientific disciplines: art history, archaeology, anthropology, ethnology,
philology, linguistics, psychology etc.
Our analyses are largely based on comparing the Macedonian bronzes with relevant phenomena of
other cultures, often very distant in time and space. We could justify this with two aspects. First, the remote
cultural and historical relations of the cultures compared, that could be due to their genesis of some common
nucleus, or, to some later contacts. Second, these correlations can also be based on archetype character of
the compared phenomenon, i.e. its mutuality for all humanity, which, in fact, is based on two invariables. The
first one is the archaic man, who, despite local cultural specific features, is basically the same all over the
planet, having the same body and the same sensory and psychic apparatus, motivated by same drives and
having the same mechanisms of perception, orientation and reaction towards environment. The second
invariable is the world that encircles him, which, despite local geomorphologic, climate and ecological
features, is composed of the same cosmic elements and the same spatial structures and functions (earth, sky,
sun, water, biosphere, constant astronomic and ecological cycles). We base the use of the comparative
method in our research upon these principles.
Development of humanity is not some determined and intentional process whose dynamics is
universal for all cultures. Because of it, also the development stadium of a certain cultures does not depend
on its chronology i.e. the epoch or period in which it existed (for example, prehistory, antiquity or
contemporary period), but on its exact cultural landmarks. Thus, for example, it is much more relevant to
compare a certain phenomenon within a prehistoric culture to an analogous expression seen in a certain
traditional village community today, rather than some developed ancient civilization, despite the latter being
chronologically closer to it. These cultures, being undetermined in a temporal sense, justify our diachronic
comparisons, that is comparisons of manifestations of a certain phenomenon, centuries and millennia distant
one from another. Sometimes these comparisons provide diachronic tracing of certain specific expressions
which reveal entirely new aspects, invisible to the synchronous approaches (especially typical for
archaeology), which do not surpass the timeframe of a given period i.e. epoch.
The aforementioned stand of pictorial medium being only one of the several native media for
displaying the mythic is in the base of our method of symbolical i.e. semiotic analysis performed in the
pictorial medium. It means that the content and the significance of a pictorial presentation are not based only
on verbal interpretation of this image in a given culture. They could also be approached by the very image,
based on some other general principles of pictorial expression and the significance of pictorial elements which
are universal for the whole mankind or for some specific geomorphological, climate and ecological areals of
the planet.
While analyzing the iconography of Macedonian bronzes, we often apply the concept of
cosmological interpretation, which considers the premise that those who wore this jewelry incorporated their
(mythical) ideas of the universe into its iconography. This approach can be supported by the fact that in some
Indo-European languages the root of lexemes related to ornamenting, dressing and decorating the body as also
contained in words signifying cosmos i.e. universe. In Greek, they are (jewelry) and (world),
correlating to the Latin ornamentum and ordo/ordino. It is believed that this relation is based on the order, as
a mutual component of both spheres, namely the comprehension of universe and dressing, i.e. decorating the
body not as a mere appearance and shape, but rather as systems in which order rules. It signifies that the
archaic man did not search for the basic sense of putting jewelry onto the body and adding elements to the
garments in covering, warming and decorating the body, but in its organization, implying presence of certain
paradigms of that order. Elements of this relation can also be detected in Slavic languages which demonstrate
that the semantics of lexemes signifying slender/beautiful (girl) is based on her body having order i.e. ideal
standards of nature or being supplemented with garments and jewelry according to customs (rules) of the
given culture.
If we consider these relations only superficially and only from aspect of equipping the human body,
the universe i.e. macrocosmos appears as a paradigm. However, a more profound analysis demonstrates
something else. Images of universe in archaic man are far from exact and objective. Some basic assumptions
and feelings regarding the human body, namely its structure, spatial orientation of certain elements and their
functions, played an important role in their shaping and organizing (1; 2; 3). Hence, the conclusion that
in a dialogue between man and his body and the universe the primary element which served as a paradigm in
933
Introduction
perceving the other could not be distinguished. Such a model could only be found in human mind as an image
of the world or an image of the body which was created as a product of interaction of both systems and their
paralel perceiving with the mythical conciousness. In this context, we can perceive the thought of M. Eliade,
according to whom the symbolism of garments (we would add, and jewelry as well), in fact, unites man and
cosmos in one whole.
Acknowledgments of analytical psychology (S. Freud and C. G. Jung and their successors) offered a
new dimension to the researchers of ancient and archaic cultures, without which their members and the objects
which encircled them could not be comprehended. Here we think of the component of the subconscious
through which a fair number of phenomena related to Macedonian bronzes would be interpreted as structures
i.e. acts that not always were conscientiously and intentionally done by their wearers and creators. In many
cases they took place mechanically only because they satisfied the need and the affinities of people of the
epoch, motivated and dictated by subconscious urges that avoided or manipulated their rationality.
Moreover, in the same manner, various phenomena are being selected and developed in gigantic proportions
in contemporary mass media, most often with no previously designed global strategy.
For the member of traditional i.e. archaic cultures there is no clear distinction between mythical
and rational, between sacral and utilitarian, metaphysical and practical, something which is so common for
the contemporary member of Western civilization. Therefore, the Macedonian bronzes discussed herewith
should not be considered only as a jewelry with a practical purpose (used for ornamentation, designation of its
wearer, as trade goods and something of material value), nor exclusively as a cult, i.e. magical object
(talisman for stimulation and prophylaxis as well as item bearing mythical and religious contents). In this
context, we refer to them as junction of two spheres, whereupon in certain situations one of its two sides or
some exact function dominates.
During the long time of work on this book, a belief that we intuitively felt before was crystalized, of
which I believe other researchers came upon as well. It is the complete invalidity of the stand (or a great
prejudice) on the primitivism i.e. rudimentary culture of prehistoric communities in Europe (in this case
mostly in the Balkans and Eastern Europe), which were not part of developed Mediterranean and Near Eastern
civilizations. Numerous insights discussed in this book completely reject this stand, referring to the high
degree of spiritualism of its members, their focus on mythical and religious phenomena, not only towards bare
existence, but also towards passionate philosophical interest in great metaphysical aspects of the beginning,
creation, order, function and sense of the universe, life in it and the man as the highest representative of life. If
we accept the insight discussed in the forthcoming chapters, one could see that Bronze Age and Iron Age
cultures from Eastern Europe and the Balkans originate from the same nucleus that would later shape religious
and philosophical beliefs of great Asian civilizations, such as the Iranian and Hindu. Invisibility of these
spiritual achievements in prehistoric Europe is a result of the fact that here they were not witnessed in written
and that in antiquity they were in the shadow of Greek and Roman cultures. It was not only due to the physical
and spiritual power of these two Mediterranean civilizations, but also to the domination of different principles
in them which are more focused on the material, pragmatic, rational and the exact.
In archaeology worldwide, even in Macedonian archaeology, there is a tendency to approach this
discipline towards the exact sciences which, of course, deserves acclamation. However, as a byproduct of this
tendency, there is a certain depreciation and marginalization of interpretative aspect of archaeology i.e.
denial of the attempts to reveal the spiritual spheres of ancient cultures which could not be inspected with the
forensic methods of archaeometry, which could not reach to the mind, thoughts and feelings of the archaic
human, with their digits and charts. This book is exactly about that, something which is clearly declared in the
methods and aims of semiotic i.e. cognitive archaeology, considering that mythical i.e. symbolical is crucial
for understanding the archaic man, i.e. archaic communities. We are aware that no part of this sphere, not even
the arguments stated in this book, can be definitively confirmed once and for all, but they would eternally be
subject of criticism, denial, questioning, repetitive confirmations and reinterpretation.
The germ of this monograph was an article entitled Symbolism and cult purpose of Macedonian
bronzes published at the very beginning of my scientific career, which, I must confess, remained almost
unnoticed in scientific circles dealing with Macedonian bronzes (. , ). The main
incentive for another, more thorough opening of this subject were my students of archaeology, art history, as
well as those undergraduate students of Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje to whom I teach Semiotics of
artifacts and Pictorial semiotics and the MA students listening to Semiotic archaeology as well as Pictorial
and visual semiotics. In fact, this book was designed in this manner, in this format and in such e-version,
foremostly for them and because of them.
934
- Technical information and explanation

The book in front of you has a vast and complex structure. In its main part, divided in eight chapters,
the exact types of Macedonian bronzes are discussed, analyzed and interpreted. The forth chapter is an
exception, where an attempt is being made to relate these objects to the holy potion, as well as the eighth
chapter, in which certain cultural and historical implications stemming from the comparative analyses of our
research are discussed.
The eight chapters are marked with capital Cyrillic letters: chapter 1 (A), chapter 2 (), chapter 3
(), until the final, chapter 8 (). The same letters accompany the table numbers with illustrations of the
relevant chapter (for example, 23: 5, 6; 15: 3; 9: 10). These chapters are subdivided in sections and sub-
sections, marked with Latin letters and with Roman and Arabic numbers. The extensive English summary
that follows is supplemented with references to relevant illustrations, as is the main text. In addition, there is a
catalogue of illustrative material which contains the basic information and the source of the illustrated
objects and diagrams, and also a bibliography at the end composed of titles quoted in the main text and in the
catalogue.
Ancient sources are quoted in footnotes, in brackets, in their Latin transcription. Those that we could
not find directly are quoted next to the reference of which they were taken from, marked with according to.
Other references are also given in footnotes in a short version with an initial of the authors name, his/her last
name and the first words of the title of the quoted work (J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian). References with no
authors, including those from Internet, have abbreviations composed of the first words of the title and the year
of their publication or access by the author.
The monograph contains large number of illustrations taken from print and electronic media, as well
as from Internet. Each illustration is signed with the source, given in the catalogue in its abbreviated version,
while the complete information, relevant for the moment of access, is stated in the bibliography. The greatest
part of these illustrations is inserted in the tables with a significant visual adaptation: reframing, changing the
background, graphic emphasis of certain elements, all with the aim to focus not on the very object, but its
iconography and semiotics. We believe that in this way the copyright of the authors and owners of the items
was not infringed since we used them in strictly scientific and educational purposes, in an edition which is a
teaching material available on-line free of charge.
This book and the five years of research that preceded it did not receive subventions of any public
projects and funds, and are based solely upon personal activities and finances of the author.
Models of Macedonian bronzes and other similar items, made by the author himself based on some of
the objects and their types incorporated in the research, were used for the ambience photos for the cover of the
book as well as for the separate chapters. The author wishes to acknowledge prof. Vladimir Janevski of the
Music academy at Goce Delev University in tip for letting us use Macedonian national costumes from his
private collection for the photos. Combination of contemporary costumes from the end of the 19th or the
beginning of the 20th century should be considered as our experiment and an artistic reflection related to the
topic of this book. Behind it is also the desire to enliven Macedonian bronzes, i.e. their descent into an
ethnographical ambience, still considered as past in which we have a direct insight in the Balkans.
Moreover, behind it is also a certain protest towards the tendency of archaeologists to create an unsurpassable
millennium gap between ancient cultures and their transcendent and mystical cult objects that will remain
eternally incomprehensible to the modern human. Our stand is quite the opposite. It is based on the belief that
nowadays we could reach the essence of these objects exactly through the perspective of ethnography and
traditional folklore.
- Instruction for printing and e-reading of this book

We have decided to publish this monograph as a PDF document for several reasons. Besides the
aforementioned, one of them is the impossibility to obtain finances for color printing of such an extensive
monograph, so as the potential high retail price of such an edition that would prevent its availability and
distribution to a larger number of interested readers. In fact, such a possibility is an option for each reader who
could print the book himself/herself. If they wish to keep the planned pagination of left and right pages, one
should leave the first page blank while printing. Having in mind that readers and researchers of the new
generations do not consider hard copy books as basic, but rather their computers and displays of various
gadgets which have many advantages, this e-version becomes even more convenient.
935
Introduction
This monograph contains a vast illustrative material to which we often refer in the very text and
whose mechanical review makes the reading difficult. Therefore, we provided a possibility to hyperlink the
images by clicking the number of the exact table marked in blue, whereupon it shows in a separate window,
without leaving the text page. A prerequisite for this is to have the illustration folders in the same folder with
the PDF of the whole monograph, without replacing or renaming the folders and the files. During the first
click a Launch file might emerge in a window, which youd disable if you select Do not show this message
again.
Chapter 1: A BIRD AND A VESSEL
This chapter examines several categories of pendants belonging to the Macedonian bronzes which
encompass the combination of a bird and a vessel. The chapter is divided according to the different
relationships between these two elements and the typology of the presented objects.
A. Bird carrying a vessel

Pendants shaped as birds (a duck, a goose or a swan) with hollow jugs with protuberant spouts and a
vertical handle, which was also used as a hanging loop, are examined in this section. So far, we know of only
three such finds, all of them from Macedonia (1: 1 3). We give several prehistoric ceramic examples from
the Mediterranean and the Near East as their iconographic analogies where the small vessel is placed on the
back of a bird, a horse or some hybrid creature in shape of a bird-horse (1: 4, 5, 7 12; 5: 6). We suggest
the scene of the Macedonian examples to be linked with the mythical activity (which is most typical for the
Indo-Aryan cultural circle) in which the mythical bird transfers the vivifying liquid, i.e. the holy potion from
the hereafter to this world.
B. Bird identified as a vessel

Pendants shaped as waterfowls represent this iconographic type shown with hypertrophied, i.e. swollen
bodies whose bellies are hollow and pierced with a circular opening on both sides. They were spread mainly
in Macedonia and rarely in the surrounding areas (2: 1 3, 7, 8; 3: 3 6; 4: 5, 6, 8, 9; 5: 1 - 3). The
new such objects found in situ (Buinci, Skopje, R. of Macedonia) show that they were placed on womens
groins or thighs in combination with other pendants (2: 7; 3: 5; 62: 6). Similar and almost synchronous
objects are known in Central Europe (2: 5, 6), Caucasus and Transcaucasia (4: 1 3, 10 12). With the
hollow body and the pair of lateral openings in mind, we suggest a thesis according to which they might have
been miniature pendants-containers in which a certain substance (most probably a liquid) was put for some
symbolic reasons. Moreover, the shape of a bird should have referred to the dynamism, i.e. the transfer of the
given substance through cosmic zones, while its bloated body the space where it rested. The lateral opening
could have been used for pouring or dripping of the substance during the ritual swinging of these objects. In
favor of such a function we point numerous prehistoric and early antique ceramic vessels rhytons, shaped as
birds, often with hypertrophied bodies (Balkans, Aegean territories, Apennine Peninsula, Asia Minor, Near
East) (2: 4; 3: 7 9; 5: 5, 7, 8; 6). Our experiments refer to the use of these pendants (or of some of
their prototypes) even as whistles (A5: 1, 2). Namely, while blowing into ceramic models of these objects a
whistle is produced through the lateral openings which transforms into a bird twitter once a bit of water is
poured into the cavity. In favor of this we point some ritual traditions from the folklore of Slavic people in
which ceramic whistles shaped as birds are blown into in order to stimulate the arrival of spring and fertility,
which according to the belief were carried by visitant birds (5: 4, 9 - 13). Additional argument in favor of
this function is the etymology of the word ocarina (Italian expression for a spherical whistle), whose literal
meaning is a gosling, i.e. a small goose. We consider that these pendants from the Iron Age and other similar
bird-shaped objects manifested the zoomorphic hypostasis of a female mythical character, i.e. deity whose
function was to nurture and who was credited for the creation and the transfer of vital fluids through the
universe (compare to 7).
C. Bird standing on a vessel

Among Macedonian bronzes this iconographic type is present through the category of ajoure hollow
pendants supplemented with birds, in literature known by the names of bird-cage pendants, bird-on-cage
936
and geschlossene Bommeln mit Vogelaufsatz (8; 9; 10). They have a hollow body with spherical or
biconic shape whose walls are pierced with different openings. In this chapter we focus on those types with
bird(s) above the body, while the presence of the latter can be justified with those examples where we can
recognize a vessel with spherical or biconic body (compare to schemes 8: 5 and 6; 9: 11 and 12; 10: 5
and 6). In favor of this interpretation we refer to ceramic objects and relevant pictorial presentations in which
one or more birds are shown on the rim of the vessel (12). So far, these Balkan pendants were treated as
pieces of female jewelry (necklaces or belt garnitures) combined with other pendants. They were found as
female grave goods and as gifts in Greek sanctuaries, most probably as elements of costumes of those who
contributed them. Types not containing hanging loop could have been used as votive objects. Synchronous or
older items with similar shape were traced on the territory spanning from Central Europe to Iran, while
especially close to the Macedonian finds are the so-called Trach-Cimmerian and Luristan bronzes, as well as
the ones from Amlash (11: 4, 8, 10 13). There are clear indicators that some of these analogies were used
as elements of horse tack or tops placed on rods, most probably scepters (Scythian analogies 11: 1 3, 7, 9).
It refers to such a possible purpose of the Macedonian finds as well (11: 5, 6). Some of the given analogies
have massive ball on the hollow body which point to them being used as sleigh bells or rattles (11: 4, 9, 10,
12, 13), even though this element hasnt been registered among Iron Age pendants from Macedonia. We think
that the purpose of the iconographic constellation Bird on a vessel should be sought for in the mythical
action in which the above mentioned mythical bird, transporting the holy fluid from heaven to earth in its own
body, stops on the vessel in order to pour it, so as to ennoble, i.e. to consecrate the potion in it, whose function
is to enhance life, fertility and well-being. This transfer of vivifying liquid through cosmic zones would also
be coded through the speculated use of the Macedonian ajoure pendants as sleigh bells, so that the sound
theyd produced would refer to rain drops an ideal paradigm of the mediation of vivifying liquid through
cosmic horizons.
D. A vessel placed on a bird-drawn carriage: miniature carriages

supplemented with birds
Found in Metal Age cultures from the Balkans (13: 6 8), Italy (13: 2, 9), Central and Northern
Europe (13: 3 5), the most interesting items shaped according to this paradigm are presented. The two
aforementioned functions of the bird here are more explicitly stressed: a container on one hand, whose body
contains holy fluid (in this case represented by the vessel embedded in the carriage) and a dynamic factor on
the other, which provides its transfer throughout cosmos (represented with the carriage wheels and the
waterfowls that draw it). This mythical structure is implicitly presented in Southern Balkans through two
different categories of objects: the transport function of birds through stylized carriage models supplemented
with birds (without the vessel) (62: 1; 63: 7, 8) and their role of containers through the bronze goblets
supplemented with bird protomes (without the wheels) (14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21).
E. Vessels with bird protomes: little bronze goblets, i.e. pyxides with bird protomes
I. General aspects. This section deals with the general information about these very well spread and
remarkable Macedonian bronzes (14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21). Even though they are known
in literature by the name of pyxis pendants and Protomengefse, Macedonian researchers most often
choose the following: pendants-small vessels with lids and pendants-small vessels shaped as poppies. Most
of these objects are spread in Macedonia as grave goods, while sporadic finds were noticed in Serbia, Albania
and some sanctuaries in Greece. In a separate chapter we present the complex typology of these objects made
by several authors (R. Vasi, J. Bouzek, I. Kilian-Dirlmeier and D. Mitrevski) who date them between 8th and
6th centuries BC. So far, researchers offered different hypotheses regarding the character, i.e. the purpose of
these finds. According to some they were containers, while to others they were amulets for keeping some
sacral, magic or precious items, substances with cult purpose, plants or cosmetics. Macedonian researchers
prevail with the thesis that they were used for narcotic substances made of poppies. They rely on the shape of
these objects which, according to them, resembles the poppy capsule, but also on some chemical analyses of
the content found in them (particularly the one from Lisiin Dol, Marvinci, R. of Macedonia) that allegedly
showed presence of ingredients of opium tar, i.e. morphine (22). There is no doubt that the even openings at
the lateral supplements of the body and the lid of the vessel were used for threading small ropes that fixed the
lid to the body, while the whole object was hung (15: 17; 22). Even though elderly scholars were
convinced that they hung on deceaseds neck, several newly discovered grave goods show that they hung
937
Chapter 1: A bird and a vessel
between the pelvis and thighs of female decedents. Based on the aforementioned item from Lisiin Dol, D.
Mitrevski concludes that they were not elements of common female clothing, but a cult prop that local
priestesses held (and swung) in their hands (22).
At the end of this section, we give the past interpretation of iconography of these pendants-small
goblets and the genesis of their iconographic elements. R. Vasi, continuing the stand of G. Kossack, sees
their bird protomes as reminiscence of the so-called solar barque, while searching their origin in the Late
Bronze Age cultures in Central Europe. D. Mitrevski shares a similar opinion. Further, we point our
interpretation of iconography and semiotics of these objects that also constitute the base of our new theses
presented in the forthcoming sections.
II. Iconography and Semiotics. Three hypotheses are discussed within this analysis regarding the
basic shape of the pendants in focus, according to which they present a vessel, a poppy capsule and a female
figure identified with a vessel.
1. Vessel. Elaboration of this hypothesis commences with presentation of the past theories according
to which these objects represented a vessel, i.e. a container, a box or a pyxis. Different ceramic vessels with
similar shape are presented, dated in more or less the same period, while a special significance is given to the
small ceramic vessel from Dedeli, Valandovo, R. of Macedonia with analogous shape (21: 8, 9) and the
vessel from Nov Koarisk, Slovakia (23: 9; 39: 3, 4). Ceramic handmade globular pyxides from Greece,
Italy and Cyprus are pointed as possible prototypes of the Macedonian bronze goblets (24; 25; 25).
They were dated between Sub-Mycenaean and Late Geometric period, both of which reflect the archaism, i.e.
the conservative traditions of the aforementioned regions that persisted among the female members of the
community throughout the centuries. Most often they are found as grave goods in womens or girls graves
and they were considered for keeping equipment used in textile production, something that was predestined
for women. According to the resemblance degree in regard of the Macedonian goblets the examples from
Agora and Kerameikos in Athens are distinguished for the following elements (24: 2, 8, 10, 12): egg-like
recipient, same dimensions, semispherical lid with vertical handle, perforated lateral rim elongations aimed
for lid fixation, ornamentation with carved parallel lines, punctures and impressed circular motives.
Differences of the objects from both groups are mostly result of the use of different materials and
technologies. We searched for analogies and possible prototypes of Macedonian small bronze goblets in the
handmade ceramic vessels i.e. pyxides from the following Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age cultures
from Eastern Europe (Romania, Moldova, Ukraine and Russia): Monteoru, Noua, Saharna-Solonceni,
Babadag, Gava-Goligrady and Cuban cultures (26; 27). In our comparisons we refer to the already
mentioned similarities among these Eastern European and Mediterranean examples (26: 1 compare to 24:
2, 8, 10, 12) and their similarities with the Macedonian Iron Age pendants-small goblets even regarding the
protuberant protomes (A28). In one section we even make an attempt to explain these relations through some
migration or cultural (and thus religious) influences on the following line: Eastern Europe Balkans
Aegean territories Mediterranean which was already discussed (G. Kossack, K. Reber, J. Bouzek). We are
prone of justifying the absence of immediate analogies among these objects with their immense production
shaped as wooden pyxides only small part of which would have occasionally been made of ceramic or bronze.
That is why the preserved examples made of sustainable materials reflect some sudden leaps in regard of their
shape and the territory where they were spread, something that archaeologists cannot explain. Moreover, the
still unexplained high resemblance of the Macedonian small goblets with bird protomes (17; 17) and the
miniature bronze carriages from Bujuru, Romania and Ortie, Transylvania (13: 6, 7) also refer to these
Macedonian-Eastern European relations.
2. A Vessel and a poppy capsule. This section thoroughly analyzes the theory of D. Mitrevski and
other, mainly Macedonian researchers according to which the Iron Age bronze goblets represent a poppy
capsule. First, we analyze the argument based on the alleged similarity between the small goblets and the
poppy capsule, while it shows that it is relying exclusively on the identification of the spherical fruit of this
plant with the analogous recipient of the goblets and on the fact that they both have an elongated handle
(29: 7 compare to 11 13). As a counter-argument we present other fruits (also pregnant with symbolic
and cult significance) with similar constitution, such as pomegranate (29: 8 compare to 3, 4, 11 13) and
henbane (29: 9 compare to 5, 11 13). One of the decisive counter-arguments regarding this relation is the
absence of the rim of the poppy capsule on the Macedonian goblets that is regularly shown as its most
remarkable element in other ancient presentations (29: 7 compare to 1, 2, 6, 10). We are also doubtful
regarding the chemical analyses that allegedly proved presence of opium, i.e. morphine in the content of the
goblet found in grave no. 15 in Lisiin Dol (22), since the results were not published entirely and by
938
competent researchers, but are quoted by archaeologists, superficially and without relevant and verifiable
references. Furthermore, we question the purpose of the goblets, if proved that they were used for keeping and
consuming narcotic substances made of poppy. These hypotheses havent been aptly elaborated by their
proposers and proponents. So far, no facts have been published regarding the heating of opium in the small
goblets and their usage for inhaling the steam. Thus, a possible oral consumption of poppy preparations or by
mucous application has a better probability. If the poppy theory proves correct, it could justify the funerary
context of the small goblets, considering that in Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultures poppy symbolized
death and was even used for suicides and euthanasia. It does not exclude its positive aspect as a symbol of the
afterlife that offered men near-death, i.e. metaphysical experience as its precursor due to the hypnotic and
hallucinogen features.
3. Supplements shaped as bird protomes. This elaboration commences with identification of
protomes of the bronze goblets that most often are of waterfowls (swans, geese and ducks), while certain
sporadic examples, with some doubt, refer to snakes, horses and lions. Moreover, all positions of these
elements on the very goblets are noted, always paired: laterally, on the lower lid ends (14); on the top of its
handle (17: 13; 20: 4, 5); laterally from the recipient rim (16); on the lateral segments below the
recipient (17; 17). Finally, the numerical incidence of protomes present in one, two or three pairs is
stated. A greater attention is given to their third position: located below the recipient, whereupon in most of
the examples the protomes lost their significance turning into undetermined arcuate protuberances (17;
17). As argument in favor of their once protomic appearance we suggest examples where they are
preserved better (17: 10; 30: 6 9). Based on this element, we suggest a constitution of a new
typological group of small goblets that recently has outnumbered 20. Within this group we suggest organizing
the existing examples in a certain global developing line, i.e. scheme of transformations and interactions of
different types that also indicates a chronological continuance of the examples (31). We believe that the
stated transformations took place as a result of forgetting and/or changing the original significance of the
zoomorphic protomes, such as their transfiguration from bird into snake for example (36: 3, 5). In one sub-
type they will transform in some concave-rhombic motive (31: 10, 15, 17) which in relation with its female
symbolism apparently acquired new meaning related to earth, vulva and fertility. These elements can be traced
in another category of Macedonian bronzes known by the two examples from R. of Macedonia (Suva Reka,
Gevgelija and Lisiin Dol, Marvinci 30: 1 4), but also by the similar example from Vinul de Jo in
Transylvania (30: 5). As analogies for the presence of animal protomes in Macedonian Iron Age small
goblets we could also point other metal and ceramic vessels close to them chronologically. Examples from the
Apennine Peninsula, presented with the Etrurian ceramic urns deserve a special attention (32: 3, 5), so as the
luxurious bronze cauldrons imported from Near East (32: 1, 2, 4). We find the bronze vessels-thuribles from
Novilara necropolis (Pesaro-Urbino) and Banecci Caprara (Bologna) of special interest (20: 7, 8; 65: 3, 4,
7, 8), very similar by shape to the Macedonian examples, but also to the aforementioned carriages from
Bujoru and Ortie (13: 6, 7).
We begin interpreting goblet protomes with criticism of the past theories (R. Vasi, D. Mitrevski) that
automatically connect the pair of zoomorphic protomes with the solar barque and the transport of sun
throughout universe. Even in our previous analyses of this object we have stressed that the undoubtfull role of
waterfowls as mediators among heaven, earth and chthonic regions here is not directed towards the dynamism
of sun, that is not present in them at all, but to transport of elixir of life and the prolific liquid for which their
capsule was intended. The absolute domination of waterfowls could be justified by the fact that they are really
capable of moving freely in all three universe levels (flying in the air, walking on the ground and diving into
water), and thus crossing the boundaries of these zones (33). This exact function of these animals unites all
previously mentioned Macedonian bronzes into a single semiotic whole, in which the basic iconography
comes to the birds transferring the holy liquid throughout cosmic zones, most probably from heaven, i.e.
hereafter to earth, i.e. human world (33). It could be assumed that it was really present in the cavity of some
of the mentioned objects, represented with a specific liquid based on water, some plant juice or fluid excreted
by some animal. Protomes in Macedonian small goblets as well as in the other given analogies can be justified
with the two already mentioned functions of birds, the first depicting them as containers that receive the holy
liquid in their bodies (maybe even produce it there), while the second as dynamic factors that transport it
throughout the universe. Thus, the goblets with protomes do not necessarily have to be interpreted as vessels
supplemented with bird protomes, but also as vessels shaped as hybrid mythical creatures from whose bodies,
identified with the vessel, their multiplied necks and heads extend. Meanwhile, we shouldnt completely
939
exclude the identification of these small vessels with barque, i.e. boat to which a certain specific sub-type of
small goblets especially refers (21: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7).
In some of the Macedonian examples, the protuberant pair, especially the one of the lid, does not
resemble bird, but rather snake protomes (16; 20: 4). In this regard, we give several examples of ceramic
vessels, mainly from prehistory, supplemented with plastically made or painted snakes (34; 35). Despite
the wide plethora of significances of snake, its combining with the vessel and the assumed content in it (most
probably some liquid) was aimed at symbolization of its mediation i.e. transfer through cosmic zones by the
example of cosmic waters as paradigm of all the other liquids in nature. Only the basic meanings of the
zoomorphic protomes of the miniature goblets are noted in these sections. They continue within analyses of
anthropomorphic iconography of these objects in the forthcoming parts.
F. Woman- i.e. godess-shaped vessel

This section focuses on proving our previously stated hypothesis that the Macedonian Iron Age
pendants-small goblets supplemented with zoomorphic protomes represented a hybrid character in a shape of
a woman-vessel in one of their several iconographic levels, whereupon all its elements signified parts of that
figures body (36): the body of the vessel = figures torso; the recipient = its womb; motives with circles and
a dot = multiplied breasts; line bundles = streams of milk flowing from them; lid and its vertical handle =
shoulders and neck; goblet stem = joined legs; two semi-circular strands instead of a leg = spread legs,
somewhere with ends shaped as bird protomes; pair of bird protomes laterally of the capsule = figures arms
ending with zoomorphic protomes.
I. The Woman and the Vessel. Identification of the vessel and the woman is a world-wide archetype
phenomenon originating from the concepts of a mythical thought universal for the whole humanity and based
on the real resemblance of the space structure and the functions of the vessel and the female body. In both
cases there is a cavity aimed at receiving, keeping, preserving and improving a certain content that ought to be
brought back to the outer space. Moreover, identification of pregnancy, i.e. the fetal development in mothers
womb with the boiling and fermentation of food in the vessel imposes. Further on, there is the relation of the
vessel and the womens breasts, i.e. udders of some animals that are containers in which food i.e. liquid is
being produced and kept, from where humans or animals consume it. These identifications are reflected in the
overlap of words signifying these elements. Especially important for our research are the visual manifestations
of these identifications, thus we include a selection of anthropomorphic vessels, mainly prehistoric, found in
Europe, Asia Minor and Near East, shaped like female figures whose sexual features are emphasized either
through their hypertrophy either by reduction of the remaining body parts (37; 38; 39; 40). The
character of this phenomenon common to all mankind is illustrated with several examples from cultures that
did not communicate with the ancient world (40: 4 7). We put a special emphasis on the vessel from Nov
Koarisk (39: 3, 4) and the sacral vessels of kernos type, which were treated as goddesses according to
ancient sources.
1. Goddess-vessel in the Balkans in Antiquity, Middle Ages and contemporary folklore. We
begin this theme with the traditional rite Ivanka which is being performed in the town of Resen (R. of
Macedonia) even nowadays. A vessel filled with water is masked as a doll (a bride) and is carried around,
while ritual songs are being sung (40: 1 3). Afterwards, the vessel-doll is dismantled and the girls, who are
the main performers of this rite, drink the water wishing for health, fertility and especially for recent marriage.
Further, we note some rites from India, similar to this one, where the vessel signifies a goddess. Finally, we
point another contemporary Macedonian folklore activity the traditional ritualized production of crepna
(shallow clay pan commonly used for baking bread 45: 7) performed by women, whereas numerous
elements refer to identification of these vessels with women and uterus, and of the bread with the fetus.
Moreover, we give several ancient manifestations of this symbolic relation that also refer to Macedonia. First,
the bronze craters from Trebenite (near Ohrid, R. of Macedonia) whose volutes are supplemented with a pair
of female figures resembling Gorgon Medusa, with emphasized birth-giving attributes (spread legs
metamorphosed into snakes) (61: 4, 5, 8, 9). Second, several stone reliefs from Roman period (vicinity of
Veles, Sveti Nikole and Prilep) which demonstrate a vessel (probably partly anthropomorphized) elevated on
an ara (altar) and flanked by a pair of snakes a constellation that once again refers to its deification, i.e.
elevation to the level of an epiphany of the deity (41: 1 3). We finish this review with several Christian
examples present in Macedonia that reflect the identification of the vessel with the deified woman. First, there
are the Early Christian presentations of vessels with tall foot (kantharos) or a fountain from which water
streams flow or vines grow (42: 1 3, 5, 7). Animals and birds approach the vessel and by receiving what
940
emerges of it symbolize the souls of believers who procure eternal existence in heaven through Eucharist. The
genesis of the vessel from which vines grow can be traced in pre-Christian tombs in Central Balkans, focused
on the same eschatological symbolism, probably in context of Dionysian mysteries (42: 4, 6, 8). This proves
that these symbols reached Christianity from the archetypes fundus which is universal for the whole humanity.
Despite domination of stands that these centrally placed vessels or fountains symbolize Christ, there are many
facts referring that they might have also represented Mother of God. Later mediaeval Christian scenes confirm
this very well, in which Virgin Mary is shown as spring of life together with Christ in a kantharos-like pool,
i.e. fountain from which water flows, drunk by believers (43). Same identification can be found in Christian
scripts where she is identified with the holy spring or well, but also with the ecclesiastic goblet, a vessel full of
manna, even the Holy Grail as salvation factor.
With numerous prehistoric vessels shaped as a woman with emphasized breast function we argument
the thesis that the bunches of slant lines, often carved on Iron Age small goblets, could have denoted spouts of
holy liquid flowing from the goddess-goblet (36). It was made either by multiplication of these organs (45:
7 11) or by their perforation so the liquid from the vessel could be poured, identified with the milk of the
goddess it represented (44: 3 5, 6, 8, 9). Same function was also suggested through depiction of parallel
and spiral lines stemming from the breasts (44: 1, 2; 45: 7, 11). These vessels demonstrate the tendency to
double the pair of breasts in order to suggest goddess duality, as well as her supplementation with bird
elements so her bird hypostasis could be presented and thus the heavenly home and the cosmologic dimension
of the spouts shown i.e. their identification with rain (7). Finally, we come to the question of prehistoric urns
shaped as female figures whose shape, actually, follows the eminently female function of these vessels to
receive the remnants of the deceased in order to revive them and give their birth in another world or shape
(urn = uterus). We present some examples of such feminomorphic urns from Central Europe (Baden culture)
(46: 3, 5), Poland (Pomeranian culture) (47: 4), Apennine Peninsula (47: 3, 6), Aegean territories and
Asia Minor (Troja) (46: 4, 6 9; 47: 5).
II. Shoulders, neck and head. As previously said, these elements were represented with the lid of the
goblet and its vertical handle (36). In addition, the absence of any head allusions in most of the samples (48)
can be justified with the clear tendency of not showing or marginalising these elements in prehistoric
anthropomorphic vessels and female figurines (49; 50: 2, 4, 7, 8). In some of the given parallels an exactly
analogous solution was applied as in Macedonian small goblets head being replaced by an unreal vertical prop
that could also be seen as unnaturally elongated neck (48). In Neolithic and Eneolithic it was especially
typical for Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria (49: 1 4, 9, 11, 12), while later for the southern Balkan areas,
illustrated with Early Minoan anthropomorphic vessels (50: 2) and the Boeotian bell-shaped idols from the
Geometric period (50: 4, 7, 8). Justification of these elements ought to be searched for in the cosmisation
of the goddess-vessel (compare to 50: 3, 6), i.e. identification of her neck with Axis mundi, i.e. the world
pillar. In some Iron Age goblets from Macedonia there is a spherical bead placed on this handle that, besides
the mechanical function of fixing the lid, could also have represented this characters head (16: 1, 2; 17:
3; 22).
III. Arms
1. Anthropomorphic vessels with elevated arms. Identifying the pair of protruded protomes of the
Macedonian Iron Age small goblets with elevated and spread arms of the hybrid figure-vessel could be
confirmed with numerous examples of anthropomorphic ceramic vessels with female features supplemented
with tubercles shaped like arms in orans position (36). Besides the example from Nov Koarisk (39: 3,
4) we give the Neolithic pithoi from Tisza culture (39: 5, 6 compare to 45: 4, 5), vases from Svodin
belonging to the Neolithic Lengyel culture (38: 7, 8), and Eneolithic Baden culture (39: 2; 46: 3, 5) as
well as the Iron Age vessel from Marz (39: 1). Location of all these in Central Europe and the lack of such
finds elsewhere could refer to the original point of origin of inspiration for the Iron Age small goblets in
Macedonia.
IV. Mythical character with arms shaped as zoomorphic protomes. Combination of arms in orans
position with the pair of zoomorphic protomes in relation with anthropomorphism of the Macedonian small
goblet results in transformation into an unusual mythical character identified with it, with its arms ends
shaped as animal protomes (36). Given the oddity of this hybrid character, almost unknown in the literature
so far, we decided to give visual and other data in this section that would confirm its existence.
1. A diachronic review. We start this review with pendants-pectorals from Iron Age cultures from
Western Balkans and Northern Italy (6th till 3rd c. BC) (51). They are ajoure plates with triangular,
trapezium-like or quadrangular shape (= body of the hybrid figure), supplemented with a hinge for hanging on
941
the upper part (= head), a pair of laterally placed animal protomes, most often equine (= zoomorphised arms)
and chains with pendants hung in the lower part. This was female jewelry that hung on the chest, fixed with a
fibula. Even though sporadic, similar Iron Age pendants can be seen in Macedonia (66: 6, 7 compare to 2,
5). Synchronous pendants with slightly different shape, but analogous iconography were found in Slovenia
(51: 10 12) and in Italy (51: 4, 14; 52: 17, 18). Sporadic bone examples with similar appearance were
used in Ancient Greece (Sparta) (52: 1, 2). So far, researchers have recognized the celestial i.e. solar
barque or the figure of Mistress of the animals (Potnia Theron) in these objects, whereas the indicated
character with zoomorphic arms was only briefly noted or not spotted at all. It is very surprising that more
than a millennium later, almost analogous pendants appeared in the eastern outskirts of Europe, in medieval
cultures of the Finno-Ugric populations (7th-11th c. AD), this time also aimed for womens chest (53: 1 7).
Unlike the Iron Age example, here there is one with completely shaped human head that rounds out the
anthropomorphism of the whole hybrid figure. Character with same features is also spotted on anthropo-
zoomorphic two plate fibulae (6th-7th c. AD) from Eastern Europe that are mainly linked with Slavs and Antes
(54). This figure covers the semi-circular plate of fibulae that, within their cosmologic iconography,
represented heavenly spheres (54: 5 7). Same characters can be traced in Eastern Europe (in combination
with analogue zoomorphic legs) on Mediaeaval jewelry, for example on one Finno-Ugric application (53:
13) or the ancient Russian amulets zmeeviki (53: 11, 12). We finish this review with figures of the Apsara,
the mythical dancers, in older cult reliefs shown with specific hand gestures turned into bird protomes (56:
11 13, from Angkor temples, Cambodia). Such zoomorphized hands are also present in traditional dances in
India and Indo-China, in which even nowadays they pay special attention to hand gestures and movements
called hasti or mudra aimed at transforming dancers hands and fingers into bird protomes (56: 1 7, 9, 10).
We can confirm this with the gesture names, for example: Hamsasya (swan), Mrigashirsha (deer),
Simhamukha (lion), Tamrachuda/Sukatunda (rooster) and Garuda (eagle).
2. Semiotic analysis. Several researchers, however, have so far succeeded recognizing the character
with hands shaped as animal protomes, whereas they also tried to reveal its nature, mainly referring to certain
cosmological meanings, of mistress of the animals, mistress of nature and certain Mediterranean and Near
Eastern goddesses. Considering the real function of the hands and their subconscious perception by men, we
concluded that transformation of palms into animals heads (carriers of personality) was aimed to present the
hands of the given character as separate entities with their own will and nature (compare to 52: 3, 4, 12
15, 19). The fact they were presented in pairs and on the opposite sides of the body gives them character of
entities with opposite signs that could personalize good and evil, progress and regress, life and death, male
and female principle. United in a dual creature, projected in cosmological frames, these elements constitute a
zoomorphised picture of the heaven, whereas one protome signifies the progressive half of the heaven to
which we owe the elevation of sun from underground to zenith, while the other signifies the regressive one,
merited for its descent behind the horizon (54: 7). The fact that in this case the protomes are actually hands
of a macro-cosmic character relativizes their opposition and animal unpredictability. Belonging to an
anthropomorphic creature, they become susceptible to its unique will that has power over them, analogous as
over its hands. Through this image the dual heaven fusions into a unique entity (deity) whose function is to
manage and to ensure harmony in universe (54: 5, 6). This triple structure can be recognized in the
primordial bisexual Iranian god Zurvan whose anthropomorphic figure is often shown with a pair of
symmetrical zoomorphic elements that often refer to its hands (57: 1 3, 6, 9 12, possible parallels from
Northern Italy: 5, 7, 8).
Besides symbols of dynamism of sun, i.e. light, zoomorphic hands of this hybrid character could also
code the movement of water throughout the universe, in whose favor we could point the choice of waterfowls
and horses. In the first case, it is due to the real connection of waterfowls with water, but also their ability to
move through all three universe horizons, for which they acquire the role of mediators, i.e. transporters (in this
case of the water) among these zones (33). Horse coded the same function, as with its taming it became a
paradigmatic symbol of transport, whereas its water component would be embodied in a separate mythical
character a hypocamp (a water horse) (51; 52: 1, 2; 53: 1 7; 54). Identification of these zoomorphic
water mediators exactly with hands can be justified with the fact that these organs have the function of
transferring, carrying and giving. All these interpretations lead to the conclusion that the Macedonian Iron
Age small goblets in one of their iconographic layers represented certain hybrid female character with macro-
cosmic dimensions (36; 50). This characters womb was shown as a giant goblet, identified with heaven,
full of invigorating heavenly liquid (= celestial waters), whereupon the foot of the goblet represented axis
mundi that supported the sky (42: 8). We believe that the zoomorphic hands of this goddess code both her
942
essential aspects, in this case connected with giving and taking water, i.e. its presence and absence in human
world (36). In most of the goblets, not one but two pairs of protomes are shown in the upper part, which by
analogies, can be justified with the thesis that the second pair actually coded the wings of the given character
(compare to 59: 1, 4, 8) or the animals (most probably snakes) that he holds in his arms (60).
V. Legs shaped as zoomorphic protomes. In one separate category of goblets the pair of protomes
extends below the cup (17; 17; 31), so, within the anthropomorphic interpretation of these objects, the
image of a goddess-vessel whose legs are spread, arcuately folded (= birth-giving pose, coitus) with ends
shaped as animal heads is encircled (36: 3, 4, 5, 8, 9). Based on our previous research and the material
presented (pictorial presentations, written sources from Prehistory till Middle Ages, folklore traditions 59)
we could suggest that these objects, apart from other images, also coded this hybrid goddess (types with bird
and snake legs), for which we could give explicit ancient analogies, among other things found in the same
Central Balkan areas of which the Iron Age small goblets originate (61: 4, 5 compare to 1 3, 6; 62: 2).
VI. Identification of the goddess-vessel with limbs shaped as animal protomes. In this section we
make an attempt to compare the figures we have obtained as a result of iconographic and semiotic analysis of
the Macedonian Iron Age goblets and certain mythical characters and deities belonging to some ancient Indo-
European cultures: Apsara (56: 11 13), Sarasvati, Aredvi Sura Anahita from the Hindu culture; Mokosh
from the Slavic culture (55); Ambrosia (8: 9) and the snake-legged goddesses from the ancient Old Balkan
cultures (61: 4, 5; 62: 2). The base of all these characters is the auspice of cosmic waters represented by
rain, rivers and other earthly waters and the holy potion, all of them identified with the milk excreted from
their breasts (50: 1 compare to 6). Moreover, besides other functions, their role of nurturers of humanity
and nature, spring of life and carriers of immortality is primary. From geographic and cultural aspect
regarding Macedonian objects, in greatest focus is Ambrosia (8: 9), nurturer of Dionysus, whose milk in
myths is identified with wine, considered as holy potion of immortality, which is actually given in its name
(Ancient Greek equal as Sanscrit amta = immortality). It is important that this character refers to
Edonians, people that in Iron Age and Early Antiqutiy existed in the periphery of the area where the
Macedonian bronzes were spread. Similar functions could also be projected in the snake-legged goddess
shown on the bronze kraters found in the luxurious rulers tombs in Trebenite in R. of Macedonia (61: 4,
5).
G. Function of bronze objects where bird and vessel are combined
Based on vast analyses, at the end we decided to present a wide array of functions that these
Macedonian bronzes might have had.
I. Small vessels recipient as a container. All of the above objects shaped as some kind of recipients
could have functioned as small vessels containing something that due to the small capacity was only symbolic.
It could also have been some items, i.e. artifacts (amulets, objects used for textile production) or certain liquid
or solid substances. If liquid, it could have been consecrated (scented) oil, organic cosmetics or various
consecrated beverages (beer, wine, infusions or tinctures from different plants). If solid, it could have been
various sacred or medicinal plants and their modifications (ointments, powders, curdled resins).
II. Vessels recipient as element for delivery of certain contents. The above ingredients, depending
on their state of matter and the other features, could have been delivered through them into human bodies
orally (drinking and eating), applied by spraying, soaking or spreading it over the body or by inhaling. These
last two options are especially probable if we consider the similar shape of the small goblets and some
synchronous or more contemporary objects used as thuribles (Thymateria) (compare 62: 5 to 4; 63: 2 4
to 5, 6, 8, 9; 64: 1, 2, 7 to 3 6; 65: 5 to 3, 4, 6 8).
III. Miniature vessels and swinging. Most of the above items were used as pendants, which clearly
indicate hanging and swinging as substantial aspects of their use, which have an important ritual/magical
character in traditional cultures (compare 62: 4 to 5 and to 64; 65).
IV. Minature vessels and sound generation. Most of the above objects generated rapping or rattling
while they were carried as body ornaments or while they hung elsewhere (compare 62: 5 to 66: 1, 3).
Moreover, a penetrative whistle was obtained if the hollow pendants were blown into (2: 1, 2, 8; 3: 3 6;
5: 1, 2). Based on the given analogies (5: 4, 9 - 13) we can conclude that these actions were of symbolical
nature with apotropaic or stimulative function. We have seen that ajoure pendants (= small vessels?) could
have been used as sleigh bells (compare to 11: 4, 9, 10, 12, 13).
Considering the finding of most of the above presented Macedonian bronzes in funerary context we
believe that a significant part of the suggested functions was focused on the well-being of the deceased and
the positive outcome of his/her afterlife (62: 6).
943
Chapter 2: CLUSTER PENDANTS

OR THE SO-CALLED JUG-STOPPERS
The greatest part of this chapter is dedicated to a specific type of Iron Age pendants belonging to the
Macedonian bronzes. Usually 10 cm long, they are composed of a vertical body supplemented with rows of
button-like protrusions on all four sides (1).
A. Basic information
According to their technical features these objects are divided in two main sub-groups: (a) massively
cast ones (mainly older), vividly modeled and with more realistically shown elements (2; 3); (b) slightly
newer and with simplified manufacture, their body shaped as ajoure tube, the shown figures as well as the
other elements being highly stylized (5; 6). On the top of their bodies different motives are presented that
determined their sub-types, classified mainly by J. Bouzek, M. Vickers and I. Kilian-Dirlmeier. The first type
has a figure sitting on the ground, resting on its elbows, whose hands are directed towards its head (1:1; 2;
3; 4: 2, 6, 7), whereas in more recent examples the figure is schematized to such a degree that it is
unrecognizable (5; 6). The second type has a small pitcher with a vertical handle and a distinguished spout
in its upper part (1: 2; 8: 1 7; reduced variant 10: 1 6). The third type has a loop for hanging (1: 4;
7: 1 11), while the fourth type, with a stylized animal on its place, is known for two examples so far (1:
3; 4: 3, 4). Besides these standard ones, there is one more complex example, organized in some dual
structure that could hardly have been used as jewelry, i.e. pendant (4: 5). Cluster pendants were spread
mostly in Macedonia, but there are also examples in Albania, Serbia and Bosnia. Unlike these territories
where they were part of female jewelry (commonly found in graves), in Ancient Greek sanctuaries they were
registered as votive offerings. Different variations were dated between 8 th and 5th centuries BC. In science,
they are commonly referred to as jug-stoppers, rod pendants or Kannenverschlusses originating from the
assumptions (nowadays disclaimed due to their invalidity) they were used as jug-stoppers. After this and
several other unsuccessful interpretations they are now considered as pendants, based on several in situ finds
in female graves attached to belts, hips or thighs of the deceased: Ku i Zi, Albania (10: 7; 11); Dedeli, R.
of Macedonia; Bohemitsa, Greece; Donja Dolina, Bosnia and Herzegovina etc.). In this monograph we chose
to use cluster pendants (orig. grozdoliki privesci), phrase suggested by R. Vasi, since it suitably represents
the shape of the objects without referring to their probable character and purpose.
B. Iconography and Semiotics

I. Review of past stands on iconography and semiotics
These objects were extensively elaborated, mainly basically and factographically in regards of their
typology, distribution, dating and purpose. The attempts to analyse their representations and their meanings so
far have been marginal. Among them is also S. Langdon, who deserves a greater attention since she relates the
figure sitting on the top of the pendants with the Greek metal statuettes from the Geometric period presented
in the same pose and in the same manner (27; 28 compare to 31). Moreover, she refers to the monkey as
their key paradigm, based on the real presence of these animals in the Aegean territories and elsewhere in
Balkans, or on oriental objects with their illustrations (compare to 32: 2 6). In both cases she considers
that they could have been brought from Near East (primarily Egypt and Phoenicia) and not only due to profane
(leisure and ornament), but also due to religious motives. Moreover, she puts the prop of the cluster pendants
in relation with the Tree of Life. Among the analyses of J. Bouzek we focus on the sitting figure with
Peloponnesian flute-players, as well as with shamans (male and female) and their climb on the magical tree.
In this section we also present a succinct review of our previously published stands in this regard that are
thoroughly presented in the forthcoming sections.
II. New insights into iconography and semiotics. This section contains the focus of our research,
i.e. iconography, semiotics and cult purpose of the Iron Age cluster pendants. We begin with analysis of
distinguished elements comprising their iconography.
1. Phytomorphic components of the prop of cluster pendants. In our previous research we have
defined the elongated cluster prop of these pendants as a presentation of the Axis mundi, i.e. the Cosmic tree
or the Tree of Life, which in certain extent matches the interpretation of some previous researchers, brought
on incidentally and with no arguments. Several years ago, upon the presentation of A. Papazovska Sanev
944
(Archaeological museum of Macedonia), K. Ristov (Museum of the City of Skopje) discussed that the body of
the pendants actually represents pokeweed berries, a well-known plant in Macedonia (compare to 14). With
his assent, I continued investigating this relation and the results are presented in a separate chapter. It was
pokeberry, i.e. Poke Root in the pokeweed family Phytolaccaceae, from which Phytolacca mericana is the
most spread species in the world. Moreover, in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East there are the
autochthonous Levantine Pokeweed (Phytolacca pruinosa Fenzl) and African soapberry (Phytolacca
dodecandra) (14: 1 3). The essential element of this plant is the intensely red juice of its berries, the
significance of which can be noticed in its names in different languages: Southern Slavic: krmez, krmes,
krmus, vinoboj, grozdoboj; Russian: lakonos; German: Kermesbeere. It was used as body paint and as textile
dye, as well as for coloration of alcoholic beverages originally for healing or magical reasons. In ancient
cultures it was used as remedy for certain diseases and as magical enhancer of vitality and fertility. Even now,
the fruit of this plant is sold on markets in Macedonia and the Balkans, fresh or dry (15: 1). Despite
skepticism of the official medicine, diluted in brandy or honey it is used as home remedy for improving blood
flow, measles in children, enhancing potency in men, menstrual regulation, but also for infertility of both
spouses. With personal experiments we have verified the procedure of juice extraction, its dissolving in wine
and brandy and the ability for dying textile or painting skin (15; 16).
The emphasized symbolic character of pokeberry juice and its magical use is based on the
identification of the intensely red juice with the blood and the red color as symbols of life and fertility. In this
regard, we analyzed logical constructions, common for the mythical consciousness, that present the base of
different phenomena in the ancient cultures worldwide. In particular, we have in mind the following:
prehistoric traditions of coloring the deceased and their tombs with mineral red pigments (ochre, hematite and
cinnabarite) in order to regain their flush and thus life; drinking red colored beverages due to rejuvenation and
obtaining immortality; painting bodies, clothes and other use of the organic red pigments (of Rubia tinctorum,
Murex brandaris and Dactylopius coccus) for similar reasons. In this review we also include other plants
containing red juice, such as grapes, pomegranate and rosehip, which provided them the status of sacred plants
in the past. They were related with mythical characters (Dionysus, Agdistis and Adonis) whose symbolism is
based on their periodical death and resurrection.
We try to argument the identification of the disjoined body of the cluster pendants via specific
morphological analyses supported with relevant comparative charts (14). Thus, this action is also
semiotically finished through the identification of this very part of the objects with Cosmic tree and Tree of
Life. The fact that pokeberry juice was also used for coloration of beverages justifies the presentation of a
pitcher on the top of their bodies (8: 1 7), shaped exactly as this plants fruit. In this context, it could be
understood in two manners: (a) as an allusion of the blend of pokeberry juice and the beverage in the pitcher
that is presented (wine, beer or some other most probably alcoholic beverage colored with its red juice); (b) as
identification of this fruit with the Cosmic tree that elevates the pitcher containing the beverage to heavenly
heights where the divine vital energy is transferred onto it, turning it into a remedy and stimulant. Further on,
we review some specific beverages (perhaps colored with pokeberries?), noted in the ancient written sources
that refer to the ancient Balkan peoples, striving to relate the given hypotheses and the potential users of the
Macedonian bronzes and these very pendants. We have in mind the beers and kamon, as well as the
potion, registered within Paeonian communities, but also cervisia, which, among other things, is also
related to Dardanians.
- Bronze jugs with vertical handle. This section is a digression focused on analysis of a special type
of Macedonian bronzes shaped as small vessels (height between 3 and 7 cm) with a recipient, a vertical handle
and a protruded spout, cast in bronze as miniature copies of the actual ceramic jugs from the same period
(17: 1 12 compare to 13 16). Some of them were discussed in the previous chapter (pendants with birds
carrying such vessels on their backs 8: 13 15), while others are discussed in this one (placed on top of
cluster pendants 8: 1 7; on top of the body made of joint biconic or spherical elements 18: 3, 4, 5, 19).
After we present chronology and distribution of these objects, most probably used as pendants, we discuss
several possibilities for their symbolical purpose as libation vessels or vessels where certain liquids were kept
and ennobled. Given the small capacity of the very vessels, the liquid must have been precious and with an
emphasized sacral status, perhaps used as a concentrate which, once diluted, was used for preparation of some
beverages or other products. Having in mind the frequent finding of such vessels in graves, we suggest the
possibility that filled with certain substance they could have been placed besides the deceased due to some
beliefs related with their afterlife. We discuss their possible relation with Eiresione () custom
945
Chapter 2: Cluster pendants or the so-called jug-stoppers
registered in Ancient Greek sources that, among other things, included decoration of ritual branches with
small vessels filled with honey, oil and wine.
- Vessel placed on a vertical body. The motive for discussing this iconography constellation is the
mentioned sub-type of cluster pendants with a small vessel on their top (8: 1 7; 10: 1 6), whereas we
refer to some hymns of Rigveda as a paradigm of interpreting their iconography, as well as analogous Indian
and Slavic rites. In their base is the elevation of the holy vessel on a high column (= Axis mundi, Cosmic tree)
in order to connect it with the heavenly forces or for its identification with heavenly waters and amrita, the
potion of immortality. Moreover, we give other items of the Macedonian bronzes, as well as other Iron Age
finds based on the same paradigm: decorative pins whose head is vessel-shaped (18: 9 18) or pendants
where the small vessel is placed on a body shaped as a vertical line of biconic or spherical segments (18: 3
5, 19). Based on relevant analogies, we suggest an interpretation of the body of the latter as vessels that,
arranged one over another, reach the sky in order to bring the holy heavenly fluid from the highest vessels to
earth (by pouring it in cascade) (compare to 18: 1, 2, 6).
- Pokeberry as a colorant. The intensely red pokeberry juice and its ability as a colorant (15; 16)
could justify the almost inevitable presence of reel-like elements among cluster pendants, often one on the
upper and one on the lower part of the body (2; 3; 4; 7; 8 compare to 19: 5). Separate items with
such a shape are known among the Macedonian bronzes, whose true purpose remains unrevealed, even though
they are being called reels (19). Comparisons with contemporary folklore indicate that reels, separately or
as part of cluster pendants, could have been used for coiling threads dyed with pokeweed berries, whose
purpose could have been to transfer the life-invigorating aspects of its bloody red ink onto the person wearing
the jewelry for health or fertility (19: 5). In Macedonian and wider in the Balkan folklore, there are still
traditions of wearing red and white threads, especially in children and youngsters, or hanging braided red and
white threads on trees growing in holy places (24: 1, 3, 8, 9 compare to 2). This is mostly due to aspects of
matrimony, fertility of partners and health of women and children. Red and white are interpreted as symbols
of male and female facets, of heaven and earth or of life and death. Similar rituals are noted in ancient written
sources. We find the rites of decorating holy trees and holy pillars in the folklore of some peoples from
Central and Western Europe (Maypole 47) of special interest given the fact that they represent the Axis
mundi alike the body of the Iron Age cluster pendants.
2. Ithyphallic components of the cluster pendants. The distorted figure on the top of the body of
the cluster pendants from Ku i Zi is shown with erect phallus (2: 1; 5: 1). Even though it is a unique
example, we consider it as sufficient to argument that such figures in the remaining pendants of this kind had
analogous ithyphallic character (27: 28). The vast comparative material presented in the forthcoming
section speaks in its favor (32: 8, 9; 35; 36; 37). Moreover, the male sex organ in these objects is much
more often shown elsewhere. It hasnt been noticed by archaeologists previously, albeit its obviousness. In
fact, the very prop has a phallic shape, i.e. it is the very axe of the cluster pendants in a more realistic or more
stylized manner (3; 4; 9; 21; 22: 1 6). The rounded segment shaped in the lower part of certain sub-
types has a shape of a glans penis. In some cases, a small granule is shown on its top and we believe it
represents a drop of semen, i.e. ejaculation, in fact the very moment when the organ achieves its basic
function (3: 2, 4, 5; 4: 5). These ithyphallic features are confirmed with some pendants being found on
bodies of female decedents placed on their hips, i.e. between the thighs (10: 7 11: 7 9). We validate this
interpretation with numerous traditions worldwide and in all epochs, comprised of worship of the phallus as
idol or cult object and glorification of its invigorating function (21; 22; 23; 24). Such traditions can be
traced in the Balkans since Neolithic until Roman times and afterwards in the folklore (25; 26; symbolical
identification of phallus and emphasized nose 20).
3. Figure sitting on the top of the prop. A man is shown sitting on the ground on top of the
pendants from the first sub-type, his elbows resting on his knees and the forearms elevated towards his face
(1: 1; 27; 28). In the several forthcoming sections we define all iconographic components of this figure,
such as the body elements, clothes, cap (29), ithyphallicism and the dilemmas regarding its zoomorphism or
anthropomorphism. We pay a special attention to its pose and the potential actions it might suggest, such as:
thumb sucking, playing a musical instrument, eating, drinking from a vessel, contemplating, grieving, i.e.
crying and praying (30: 1 4). Unfortunately, these functions cannot be determined on the very pendants
due to the high degree of stylization. However, there is something more substantial behind these alternatives:
the fetal position in the mothers womb and the pose in which the deceased was buried in Prehistory (30: 5
9). Moreover, the latter also depicts fetal position aimed at returning the deceased in the womb of Mother
Earth for resurrection. Hence, we believe that this figure represents a child, a beginning, a birth, life and
946
fertility on one hand, and old man, termination, disappearing and death on the other. We believe they were the
primary motives of the figure sitting on top of the cluster pendants upon which the other previously
mentioned actions follow, both on visual and semiotic level. We confirm these analyses and interpretations
with vast iconographic parallels of almost all epochs and from different parts of the world, those from Ancient
Greece and the Mediterranean having shown as the most intermediate (37), but also the older ones from the
Greek Geometric style (31). Very close are also the ones from Egypt and Near East (especially Phoenicia),
whereupon more often a monkey is shown in the same pose (32: 1 7), but also a man with a giant phallus
(32: 8, 9). Much older parallels of this figure can be traced in Europe, dated even in Neolithic and
Eneolithic. They were modeled in ceramic and in a pretty realistic shape they represent a man in a pose that
resembles contemplation, uneasiness, sadness or generally, a frustration (34). Archetype i.e. trans-cultural
character of this presentation was also shown in Mediaeval European examples (35) and especially the
exotic examples from Sub-Saharan Africa, India and the Far East (36).
4. Mythical character sitting on top of cluster pendants: Balkan-Mediterranean comparisons. In
this section we analyze basic semiotic components of the mythical character of the cluster pendants, based on
all previous analyses and its comparison to relevant mythical characters from the Mediterranean, Europe and
Near East: sitting on the ground fetal position a child birth; old man dying death; drinking trance
wisdom shamanism; music; ithyphallicism and nudity. These analyses demonstrate that despite their
complementarity, all these functions often relate to a specific category of mythical characters and deities.
Such ancient mythical characters are Silenus, Satyrus, Pan, Priapus, Bes, Dionysus, Pais (37; 38; 39;
40) and Kabeiroi (41), in all of whom categories of a child, life and ithyphallicism are especially
confronted with those of old man and death. Moreover, the function of drinking alcohol (38: 1; 39: 3, 8, 9)
is emphasized, not for pleasure, but for obtaining holy wisdom that results in shamanic dimensions. The
mythical characters from Asia Minor, that is Attis (52: 1, 2, 4 6), Agdistis and Marsyas (53: 1, 3, 6),
constitute a separate group in which the emphasis is on sacrifice visually coded as grieving, i.e. crying
because of the forthcoming death. The sacrifice is performed beside the Cosmic tree as a precondition for
their resurrection that is coded through fetal position. Music is an important component of these characters,
most often denoted with some wind instrument, an enhancer and manifestation of vital force and its eternal
regeneration, but also its transposition from one shape into another (death of a deity his transfiguration into
a plant music production and vice versa) (54). Kabeiroi, Pygmaei, Bes and Silenus reflect this relation of
the figures from the cluster pendants and the monkey, but also similar forest, black and hairy deities that
represent savageness, animality and immaturity as preconditions for their fertility and efficiency (36; 37;
38; 40; 41). Coins of the Thrace-Macedonian type, some of which were minted in Lete in Mygdonia
(where Macedonian bronzes were used) represent precious mediators between the enigmatic distorted
character of the cluster pendants and the well-known Greek characters. In these coins figures of a monkey and
Satyr, i.e. Silenus alternate, both shown in analogous distorted pose (40: 4 7).
5. Mythical character on top of axis mundi (diachronic review). Iconography of one of the cluster
pendants sub-types has motivated us to make a diachronic review of traditions (mythical tales, images and
rites) based on the anthropomorphic character placed on top of axis mundi. First, we determine axis mundi as
a symbol and a mythical element in all its basic types (Cosmic pillar, Cosmic tree, Tree of Life etc.) and
functions: supporting, withholding and separating heaven and earth, enabling communication between them,
acting as axis of cyclic processes in universe etc (42: 8). We pay special attention to mythical images of
axis mundi on whose top there is a circle or a wheel (as symbols of heaven, sun and some cyclic processes)
and then in their manifestations of rites (42; 43). Further on, we also analyze travelling of mediators or
people with shamanic features through axis mundi in order to communicate with the hereafter, with deities
and other supernatural creatures so messages or exact elements could be transferred throughout cosmic levels
(22: 10; 43: 1, 3; 44: 4; 51: 5; 54; 55: 5, 6). In this regard, we give various pictorial examples of
these images from different epochs and parts of the world, primarily Europe and Asia. We are especially
interested in different types of sacrifice performed on the Cosmic pillar, i.e. Cosmic tree. Besides the already
mentioned myths of Adonis, Attis (52: 1, 2) and Agdistis, as well as the myth of Odin who sacrificed
himself on the tree Yggdrasil, we elaborate the punishment and execution props, regularly based on the
concept of a pillar: a gibbet; crucifixion cross (48: 2, 3, 5); pyre (wood and hay stag, around a prop); stake;
pillory and breaking wheel (42: 1; 43: 5; 44: 2, 3). The law upon which these tortures were based was
god-given. That is why punishment or execution of the ones who broke it were actually performed in name of
those exact gods, whereupon the tree or the execution pillar get the significance of the axis mundi through which
the divine punishment descends from heaven or is being a mean with which the sinner is sent to gods as a kind of
947
sacrifice. In this context we emphasize Christian examples, such as the crucifixion of Christ and the
anchorites, based on climbing axis mundi as an act of surpassing the earthly and reaching the heavenly (44:
6; 48: 1 3, 5). Further, we continue with a historical review of different acrobatic moves on a vertical rod,
pole or similar prop present worldwide (44: 7; 45; 46; 48: 4; 49; 50; 51). This insight
demonstrates that all over the world climbing and anchoritic life on holy pillars and trees has the aim of
enlightening, i.e. approaching gods and mystical secrets of the universe. This is explicitly confirmed in
archaic cultures and is preserved nowadays, mostly within certain eastern mystical techniques (51: 3, 4).
With desacralization these phenomena will result in acrobatic skills, mentioned above, in which, with time,
leisure function will prevail the sacral.
6. Sacrifice of deity on the Cosmic tree, i.e. on Axis mundi. Analyzing numerous iconographic
elements of the Iron Age cluster pendants in relation with the comparisons mentioned previously has brought
us to the mythical abstract about the god who revives upon his tragic death, i.e. sacrifice. In the presented
objects both actions are coded through the distorted pose of the character in their upper part, which is related
to the fetal position in the mothers womb and to the position of the deceased in prehistoric graves and to a
certain tree or a column represented with the disjoint body of the pendants (30; 54). In this section we
compare the sacrificial aspects of several mythical characters that have features of this distorted figure: Odin,
Agdistis, Attis (52), Mars, Ares, Marsyas (53: 1, 3, 6), Orpheus (53: 2) and Dionysus. We cannot
determine the name of the Central Balkan god shown in these pendants with certainty. However, we can
identify his parallels in the neighboring countries in the same period. Even though Orpheus and Dionysus
(both with Central Balkan origin) are close to him according to numerous features, still he mostly resembles
two Phrygian gods, a county that has many intermediated cultural and historical relations with the Central
Balkan and the Bryges who populated part of it in 2nd and 1st millennia BC. Attis is the first one, for he dies
and resurrects beside the holy tree (52: 1, 2), with which he is identified, obviously as a cyclic impregnatr,
son and lover of the Great Goddess, i.e. Cybele (compare to 52: 3). Not less apposite is Marsyas, similar to
Silenus (37: 3, 5 7, 9 11), a genius player who was hung on a tree and flayed alive (53: 1, 3, 6).
Perhaps behind the figure of our Iron Age pendants is the god Dyalos (dryalus, , dyalis), who was the
Paeonian Dionysus according to Hesychius. His existence is also confirmed on epigraphic monuments found
in Macedonia (Kilkis and Stobi). This interpretation becomes probable if we consider that the densest
concentration of cluster pendants is exactly in Paeonia. In the case of Germanic Odin, besides his sacrificial
features, the shamanic ones are also emphasized. He hung for nine days on Yggdrasil, pierced with his own
spear, where he discovered the runes upon drinking the holy potion. Finally, all features of these mythical
characters, with highly emphasized sacrificial hallmark, are present in the image of crucifixion of Christ. It
represents the tragic death of the son of god as an act of his self-sacrifice in order to resurrect and achieve
divine status and also as paradigm of the salvation of mortals. The pictorial examples where this is not
performed on Calvary cross, but on a tree identified with it are especially important (48: 2, 3, 5).
These analyses allow the basic mythical actions to be synthesized along with the components that
could be attributed to the distorted figure of the cluster pendants (2; 3; 4; 5; 6): a god that dies and
resurrects; god male genitalia life; god vital fluids tree/plant; music drinking shamanism. The
cosmological dimension of these pendants, but also of the mythical characters on their tops, can be seen
through comparisons (54). The pendant prop, along with its button-like additions represents the World tree,
i.e. the Cosmic column often depicted as macro-cosmic phallus which, extending from the underworld to the
heaven supports and holds its separate zones and shapes the universe axe. On its top seats the god-mediator
whose principal role is the transfer of all key categories through the cosmic zones. Light, warmth, water,
cosmic fertility travel through him: he resurrects the dead, i.e. he himself is a paradigm of resurrection in his
fetal position; he is a psychopomp, the one transferring the deceased to the Afterlife; he gives fertility to
married couples, plants and animals; he is a mediator between this world and the hereafter, between gods and
men. These parallels demonstrate strong links with shamanic and ecstatic priests in archaic cultures
worldwide, who with music, dances and narcotic substances fall in trance and by climbing the shamanic tree
or the shamanic column communicate with heaven, underground, with gods and the deceased. These features
probably more intermediately relate this character with Orpheus and Paean/Paion (hypothetical god-singer)
whose name perhaps contains the ethnonym Paeonians (= the ones that worship Paion). We have seen that the
body of the cluster pendants has a phallic shape, even shown in ejaculation (22: 1 6), whereupon an
ithyphallic figure in fetal position is shown in its upper part, evidently representing a local male deity (2: 1;
5: 1). It is quite logical that these symbols were present in the laps of the women who wore the cluster
pendants in order to stimulate their fertility, to take part in their impregnation or in the protection of their
948
fetuses (10: 7; 11: 7 9). On the role of gods in impregnation of women we read in ancient written
sources which are only two or three centuries newer than this jewelry, and which refer to the Central Balkan
population that could have used it. In one of them, Olympias, on the day her son Alexander the Great was
conceived, dreamt of a thunder (= the God of Thunder) striking her womb. Laodice, mother of Seleucus I
Nicator, dreamt of her coitus with Apollo on the day her son was conceived.
C. Hollow and perforated spherical pendants with a human sitting figure

We analyze these objects in this section dedicated to cluster pendants, even though we suggested their
classification, according to the iconography of their body, among vessel-shaped pendants discussed in the
previous chapter (56). It was based on the anthropomorphic figure shown on them, which according to the
sitting position, ithyphallicism and the carved motives resembles the figures presented on top of cluster
pendants (60: 2, 7, 12 compare to 8).
I. Basic information and past insight. In this section we present the only five examples of this type
that we are aware of with their main landmarks (56). In science they are usually called man-on-cage or are
referred to with other descriptive names. Most of the finds were collected with no information on the site and
the context. Further, we present the actual theories regarding their origin, character and purpose.
II. Iconography and semiotics. We suggest an analogous identification of the iconography of these
objects as in another type of this jewelry (with a bird above the perforated body) discussed in the first chapter
(8; 9) as an image of a man sitting on an amphora. Some researchers have suggested interpretation of the
lower part of these pendants not as a vessel, but as poppy capsule. In all of the examples the hands of the
figure are on the knees, with one exception from Kozani (Greek part of Macedonia) where the left hand is
elevated and with the tip of the palm laterally touches the head (56: 1, 4). The sex of the figures can be
determined as male, based on lack of female body or clothes features, but also explicitly noting a beard
(56: 6, 7) and erect phallus in the example now in Muse du Rodin, Paris (56: 2).
1. Hand touching the head (iconographic analogies). We begin researching iconography and
semiotics of this group by analyzing their most remarkable element seen on the example from Kozani (56: 1,
4). It is the elevated hand where the palm touches the head. Thus, we present numerous metal statuettes from
the Minoan period shown in the very same or in similar hand position (58: 2 4, 6 8, 10; 59: 11). All
examples are in standing position, mostly male, whereas their right hand is elevated instead of the left. Male
examples are mostly shown with erect phallus, which refers to an additional proximity with our Iron Age
pendants through the mentioned ithyphallic example (58: 2 4, 6, 7). Regarding the sitting position, two
ceramic analogies are closer to these ones (58: 5, 9), while similar metal parallels can be seen in Cyprus
(61: 4). Minoan statuettes with this hand gesture are interpreted as humans (priests, believers or nobles) or as
mythical characters, i.e. deities in a position that in both cases apparently has a ritual character. Compared to
the later traditions, it is linked with saluting (59: 12, 13) as a specific gesture in which the head is slightly
thrown backwards (shown in Minoan statuettes) and directed above (to heaven and/or sun). In favor of this
speaks the later custom, noticed in ancient Mediterranean cultures, to express prayer and a request with
elevation of the right hand. The frequent finding of the Minoan statuettes in peak sanctuaries as votive
offerings refers to their sacral character. The proximity of the Iron Age figure and the Minoan finds is not
necessarily result of some intermediate influences, but of their common Balkan prototype to which the
presented Neolithic figurine refers (58: 5). Regarding other similar pictorial examples, we believe that the
significance of this gesture is based on identification of the head of the character and his hand with the sun
(59). We suggest remains of these traditions in Macedonia to be searched for in the statue of Satyr from
Stobi (3rd 1st c. BC) shown with similar hand gesture (58: 11). It is important to note that the figure on the
pendant now in Muse du Rodin in Paris with its ithyphallicism refers to relations with the distorted character
from cluster pendants, which, according to the find from Ku i Zi, had the same landmark (60: 7 compare
to 8).
2. Relations with Mediterranean myths. Nature and function of the male character from the
discussed Iron Age pendants should be looked for in his comparison with mythical characters i.e. deities from
the Mediterranean cultures whose profile is much better defined through ancient written sources. This could
be done with the following hallmarks stemming from the actual context of this character in iconography of
these objects: male (ithyphallic) mythical character in certain relation with some vessel (put, closed, tied or
chained in it). The results of the comparisons refer to several characters with some of their landmarks. During
13 months Ares was held in an underground tomb, i.e. a bronze vessel and then he was released by Hermes,
whereupon identification of Ares with wolf and a dog would be presented in our pendants with alternation of a
949
male figure and the animal with canine, i.e. wolf features (60: 1, 6, 11 compare to 2, 7, 12). Helios, after
travelling the skies, arrived in West where he entered the golden winged chalice that transports him by sea to
East from where he continues his celestial journey (Heracles also used this method in order to get to the
hereafter, see 61: 3). Some myths and images depict the birth of the Italic god Mars from a big pot, which,
according to some interpretations, is actually illustration of his initiations (61: 8). Orpheus coincides with
our presentations with the depictions of his grave shaped as a column which had an urn (= vessel) on its top,
containing the ashes of his cremated body (compare to 8: 1 7). In favor of this connection are
ithyphallicism and the tragic death of this character, related with the emphasized phallus of the figures from
the spherical and the cluster pendants, as well as their distorted position (= typical for deceased in prehistoric
burials) (60: 8, 9). We could relate the hand gesture and these significances with the legend which has it that
Orpheus, considering Helios the greatest of all gods, climbed the summit of Pangaean mountain by night in
order to welcome (= greet) the sun which he originally called Apollo. In this context, we find the Edonian
king Rhesus interesting, who like Orpheus, looks at the sun while hiding in the caves of the same mountain.
Apollo is close to our iconographic matrix through the images in which he is sitting on the Delphic tripod,
actually a holy cauldron (= vessel) placed on legs, which provides his resurrection, after he was being killed
by Python (62: 3 5 compare to 6). At the end, we present the Hittite god of thunder chained by the
monster Hahhima in some vessel from which he would be later released by the god-smith.
3. Identification of the anthropomorphic character. Based on the analyses we made, we could
distinguish the crucial actions of the male character sitting on top of the Macedonian spherical vessel-shaped
pendants (56). We believe that this character has a symbolic death related to his closing in some giant vessel
that could have symbolized the periodic ceasing of his functions, a symbolic incubation aimed at their revival.
While looking for paradigms of this pendants figure, the same characters as in the cluster pendants impose
(Mars, Ares and Orpheus) (61: 3, 5, 8; 62). Their common components are their vital energy that spreads
in nature in different modes, manifested through ithyphallicism, the vegetal code and music (especially in the
case of Attis 52 and Marsyas 53: 1, 3, 6). Helios and Apollo are included through light and warmth
emanated by the male prolific force. In this mythical structure the vessel has a negative context, referring to
earths womb, i.e. grave pit that kill this character (62: 3, 4, 5). On the other hand, related to the uterus, it
gets positive significance as a factor that relives it. Hence, the closing of these characters in the vessel can be
seen as a metaphor of their initiation aimed at perfection, rebirth, resurrection, rejuvenation, enforcement of
certain abilities and providing certain supernatural powers (62: 6). The fact that the character is shown
sitting on the vessel and not in it, can be justified with the inability of the manufacturers to picture him within
the vessel, so they chose to present him prior the entering or upon his escaping from it. Besides these
functions, we could also attribute the following to the figure sitting on top: owner, keeper, manufacturer,
consumer, thief, robber or even an equivalent, i.e. personification of the beverage or some other substance
in it.
4. Hollow and ajoure spherical pendants with quadruped animal. We finish analyzing this
category of Macedonian bronzes and the significance of the anthropomorphic character on them with
presentation of a sub-type in which there is a quadruped animal instead of a human or a bird on top of the
hollow body that resembles a vessel more or less (63; 57: 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11 compare to 1, 5, 9; 64). In
the exact examples we can clearly identify a deer, a goat and a horse, but also a dog, i.e. a wolf, in some cases
supplemented with carved motives of concentric circles, circle with a dot and zigzag. Comparison of all types
of these pendants and the cluster ones demonstrates a significant level of overlap, i.e. alternation of similar
anthropomorphic and zoomorphic characters. We present several diagrams which illustrate all possible
combining variations of the iconographic elements (a human, an animal, a vessel and a cluster fruit) (65: 1
5; 60). Interaction between both groups is further justified, if we agree that the body of the cluster pendants
symbolized pokeweed berry (of which the holy potion was made), while the hollow body of the spherical
ajoure pendants symbolized a vessel (aimed at preserving the same beverage).
5. Animal on top of cluster pendants. Once again returning to the iconography of these objects we
point to the possibility that even the rare zoomorphic examples of this type, analogous as in anthropomorphic
could have coded the sacrifice of the shown animal which happened on the Cosmic axis (60: 3, 5). In favor
of this we give analogous pictorial examples and other traditions from different parts of the world based on
sacrifice of some animal (most frequently horse or a dog) usually next to a vertical object (a prop, a column or
a tree) which signifies the Cosmic axis (66). Alternating the figures of a human and an animal shown either
above the vessel or on top of pokeweed berry could refer to presence of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic
epiphany of the same character (65: 1, 2, 4). Moreover, pendants with presentations of wolves deserve a
950
special attention, as in archaic cultures wolf was a paradigmatic offender, i.e. equivalent of the mythical
dragon which in myths and rites is usually sacrificed on or beside some of the symbols of the Cosmic axis
(66: 9). Presentation of this character above the vessel refers to several mythic actions traced in the verbal
versions of the myths. One of them is the abduction of the holy potion (represented with the pokeweed berry
of which it was made or the vessel in which it was kept) by a chthonic mythical character with negative
landmark. Second possibility is his presentation as a keeper of that potion. It is possible to connect the
alternations of human and animal figures with specific mythical characters registered in the written sources
linked with ethnicities that very probably wore Macedonian bronzes. We think of several anthropomorphic
mythical characters with negative i.e. ambivalent landmark, in whose behavior and name their wolf epiphany
is coded. The most paradigmatic is Candaon, god of Crestonians, determined as warrior-wolf so as Lycurgus,
the mythical king of Edonians, who tried to attack, abduct and rape Ambrosia, nurturer of Dionysus
(personification of the holy potion). Wolf epiphany of Lycurgus is contained in his name ( wolf), while
the sacrificial aspect reflects the action in which he was punished, so that he was entangled in vine branches
(= sacrifice of wolf near the Cosmic tree) (8: 8, 9). We could interpret the alternation of a human and a wolf
figure above the vessel or the pokeweed berry as transformation of the young warrior into a wolf upon
drinking the holy potion as a sign of his initiation (65: 1, 2).
The presence of a herbivore (a horse, a deer, a goat or a ram) above the same object can be justified in
several ways (63): (a) as its sacrifice during preparation of the holy potion; (b) as illustration of characters
participating in transfer of the holy potion from heaven to earth; (c) as illustration of mythical characters in
which and of which the holy potion is created, identified or ennobled with some of their bodily fluids (blood,
semen, milk). The zigzag motive carved on some figurines (63: 7), probably signifying water, rain or
other liquid that is poured from them into the vessel speaks in favor of this (12: 6).
The bird on top of the cluster pendants reflects the mythical image of the holy bird on top of the
Cosmic tree or the Cosmic pillar (67: 1). Even though we know of only one such scene so far, its more
frequent presence on the Iron Age jewelry from Central Balkans is reflected by similar objects from Greece
where the prop on which the bird stands is shaped as some rhythmically profiled tube (67). Segments in
which it is disjoint refer to the elongated and similarly modeled body of another type of pendants previously
discussed, which we interpret as illustration of vessels placed one over another, thus reaching heaven (18: 3
5, 19 compare to 67: 11, 12). Within these images the bird could denote the upper universe zones, i.e.
heaven or be a symbol of some sacral component of the cosmic center (B68). In this context combining this
element with pokeweed berry should be interpreted as a bird landing on holy tree in order to receive the
invigorating juice by eating the berries, which will later be brought to people. We confirm these
interpretations with analogous traditions traced in verbal, pictorial and ritual manifestations of the myth.
Chapter 3: CONE-SHAPED OBJECTS

WITH A PAIR OF ELONGATED SEGMENTS ON TOP
This chapter is dedicated to a specific category of bronze objects (4.4 to 12.7 cm high) with a hollow
body shaped as a cone with two elongated segments that are gradually narrowed as they approach the top (1:
1 8; 2: 1 5, 8). These segments are symmetrical and curved in several manners: almost flat or arched,
their tops folded inwards or outwards, the latter resembling stylized animal protomes. An opening with a
diameter of about 0.5 cm is pierced on the upper body part, between the protuberances.
A. Basic information
So far, we know of 15 examples of these objects, all of them found in Macedonia, mostly as grave
goods. In literature they are referred to as: horns, bird-protomae on a tree, Doppelprotomen-Aufztze,
Tllenaufstze, a double horn, oblong case with two horns, pendants-horns and votive offerings
Horns of Consecration. We suggest the above expression due to its neutrality, i.e. for it does not refer to their
interpretation. According to the actual information, they are dated within 8th and 7th c. BC. Seven such objects
were found recently in Milci necropolis (Gevgelija, R. of Macedonia) in a grave that belonged to a woman
according to the remaining finds. J. Bouzek supposes they were used as pole tops, while K. Kilian considers
them as Doppelprotomen-Aufztze, i.e. as Spindelknauf (spindle heads) and D. Mitrevski as cult tools used
by the Paeonian priestesses. No theses have been brought up so far regarding their origin. J. Bouzek considers
951
them as derivatives of the Koban and the Trach-Cimmerian bronze production. In favor of these, but also of
some other relations, we refer to similar synchronous objects from the Urnfield (2: 6), the Koban (2: 7) as
well as the Majkop cultures (1: 10; 4: 15). We suggest that the genesis of the Macedonian cone-shaped
objects in general should be searched for in their resemblance with the Neolithic two-armed amulets, despite
their existence 3000 years prior to these, within Vina culture, mainly on territory of contemporary Serbia
(3: 1 5; 4: 2 4; 5: 2 6 compare to 1; 2). Even though they were ceramic objects with massive
bodies, almost the same shape and the dimensions refer to their resemblance with the Iron Age counterparts.
Moreover, their differences, such as the massive body and the short prongs, could be justified with the
limitations of ceramic as a material and the technology of its processing. The channel pierced through the
body, corresponding the opening and the cavity of the Iron Age examples, refers to the use of the objects from
Vina as pendants (3: 2, 3).
B. Iconography and semiotics

I. Review of past stands on iconography and semiotics. Some of the past researchers have
identified the protrusions of these objects with horns of an ox i.e. a bull and some of them opted specifically
for Horns of Consecration. Others have treated them as animal protomes, bird protomes to be exact, or as
snakes placed on some column or a tree. Relations with the Bronze Age female figurines with elevated arms
from Egypt, Cyprus and Aegean territories have also been suggested. Our past insight was focused on
identification of human figure of these objects in its code dimension expressed mainly with the arms upraised
in orans posture. The insight given, enriched with much more relevant arguments, also constitutes the base of
our new interpretations presented in the forthcoming sections.
II. New insights into iconography and semiotics
1. Horns of consecration. This interpretation is either supported or tolerated by the majority of past
researchers of Iron Age cone-shaped objects, even though they do not confirm their stand with some serious
arguments. Hence, in this section we estimated the degree of resemblance among these objects that proved
justified only regarding the overall composition, but not regarding the specific details. We support this
conclusion with several most typical examples from different periods, beginning from the monumental
Neolithic objects from atal Hyk made of actual ox horns (5: 10 12; 6: 11), through the miniature
ceramic models found in the Balkan from the same period (3: 6, 7, 10), finishing with several most typical
examples from Bronze and Iron Age (5: 7 9). Even though these comparisons refer to a greater proximity
of the Macedonian finds with their older parallels, we still explored the possible more intermediate Minoan-
Mycenaean-Macedonian relations (6; 8: 1 5) to which the find from Bay of Bones (Ohrid, R. of
Macedonia) greatly points (8: 6, 7). These examples raise the question regarding the purpose of the opening
that is inevitably present between the prongs of the Iron Age cone-shaped objects. It could have been used for
embedding different actual objects with certain symbolic significance, among other things, or for embedding
their pictorial presentations (7). We finish the presentation of the Horns of Consecration with a synthetic
illustration of their symbolic and cult purpose seen with the following semiotic aspects: (a) horns new moon
boat; (b) crescent horns phallus; (c) horns as substitute of the skull of an ox (bucranium); (d) horns as
symbol of sacrifice, of abundance, progress, wealth and welfare; (e) horns as symbol of certain deity with
emphasized male character (semen = water relation). We pay a special attention to the Egyptian sign dhew
(sign of horizon) which apparently is somehow related with the Cosmic mountain shown as two hills
between which the solar disc floats (8: 9, 10). In this context, we also suggest a cosmological interpretation
of the Balkan horns of consecration, including Macedonian cone-shaped objects, as symbols of the Cosmic
mountain personalized as the god-bull. Moreover, the additional symbols between the horns (a rosette, a
wheel or some floral element 7) would represent some of the celestial goddesses, thus coding the hierogamy
between the deified earth and the deified heaven.
For the sake of verification of these theses a review follows of the presence of the holy bull and the
holy horns-rhytons among the ethnicities from Central Balkan that could have used the Iron Age cone-shaped
objects. First, we point several details from the ancient written sources in which different remarkable oxen are
mentioned on the territory of Paeonia and wider of Macedonia. A special attention is dedicated to the
Paeonian wild ox whose giant horns were mounted in silver and gold by the Paeonian kings who
used them as drinking vessels. Some sources which also refer to Ancient Macedonians are in favor of this, as
well as the archaeological finds represented with the golden or gilded luxurious rhytons found in Trebenite
(Ohrid, R. of Macedonia) and elsewhere in the Balkans (9: 2 4). Worship of oxen as holy animals is also
952
reflected in the gift of a bronze ox head to the oracle in Delphi by the Paeonian king Dropion, but also in the
frequent presence of the bull on the Paeonian coins (9: 5 9). We point to the possibility that behind these
phenomena lays the zoomorphic hypostasis of some mythical progenitor of Paeonians, who, according to
Homer, was identified with Axios (contemporary Vardar), the main river that flew through Paeonia. The circle
is closed with the fact that in Balkans and in the wider area deified rivers were most frequently personalized
through the figure of the bull. Dionysus Tauros could also manifest this phenomenon (9: 1), as several
archaeological finds and toponymes with the root taur-, signifying an ox, refer to his cult in Macedonia. The
same significance can be attributed to the root bo- found in numerous ancient toponymes and ethnonyms from
the territory where Macedonian bronzes were spread.
2. Human figure in orans posture. First, we estimate this interpretation in general, within several
suggested parallels, upon which we identify the exact elements of the figure. The body of the Macedonian
cone-shaped objects could have represented the garments, i.e. the skirt of the shown anthropomorphic
character, but it also refers to identification of its torso and the vessel, which was previously discussed in the
first chapter (37; 38; 39). Given the specific mildly concave shape, we also point cult vessels with
similar shape as analogies. We begin with Mesopotamian examples (probably partly anthropomorphized
10: 1, 2, 4), then moving to early ancient cult vessels of beaker/gobelet type, found in prince graves in
Trebenite, as well as in Thrace (10: 6, 10), whose origin is also looked for in the Near East. Finally, we
focus these comparisons towards the wooden mortar with analogous concave shape used for pestling certain
products (10: 5, 7 compare to 1 4, 6, 10). Moreover, we especially refer to its anthropomorphisation, i.e.
identification of a female body in its shape as an hourglass (11). The symbolic relations pestle = phallus/
man; mortar = vulva/woman refer to the same significance, while the pestling signifies a coitus, i.e. a
hierogamy (10: 7) that bears relevant cosmological aspects (mortar = earth; pestle = cosmic axis). Some of
these significances are confirmed with relevant pictorial presentations and the verbal versions of the myth
(20: 1; 21: 1, 4). Within this identification, the pair of elongated protuberances on Macedonian cone-
shaped objects signifies arms of the figure shown in several positions: (a) orans posture; (b) with joined palms
so they form a circle around the head; (c) their ends folding outwards, they resemble zoomorphic protomes
(compare to 4). Even though the head is not presented on these objects (1; 2), the opening pierced on the
top of their body refers to the possibility that its presence was suggested via some additional element embedded
in it. Based on the comparative material given while presenting horns of consecration, we suggest several
hypothetic models as a reconstruction of this element accompanied by photomontage and argumentation (7):
(a) head labrys;(b) head disc/rosetta; (c) head moon; (d) head different floral elements.
We argue the anthropomorphic interpretation of these objects through comparative analyses with other
synchronous examples from the Balkan region. First, there are the painted motives from Magurata cave, dated
almost synchronously with the Macedonian finds (11th-7th c. BC). In this case, we focus our interest towards
anthropomorphic figures with elevated arms whose outline (especially in more stylized examples)
demonstrates a high level of resemblance with the Macedonian cone-shaped objects (11). It is of high
importance that this figure is determined as a female mythical character, a goddess i.e. priestess, standing in a
prayer or while performing some ritual dance. Mediterranean iconographic parallels, composed of Egyptian
(12: 1, 7, 9, 10; 20: 4, 13), Minoan, Mycenaean and Cyprian examples (13; 13: 12 14), constitute
the following comparison. Due to the great geographic and chronological proximity we pay special attention
to Minoan and Mycenaean ceramic figurines (types and ), whereas their frequent finding in graves
refers to additional resemblance with the Macedonian Iron Age objects. Female mourners from the Tanagra
larnax (13th c. BC) shown with hand gesture analogous of the one of the cone-shaped objects also refer to the
funerary context (13: 7). Because of the high degree of stylization, closest to the Macedonian finds are the
ceramic figurines from Cyprus (3: 9; 13: 10, 11; 13: 13) and several other examples from Greece (2:
9; 13: 2 4, 6), which also match their chronological proximity. Among Near Eastern (Levantine) parallels
we emphasize some figures in orans posture that are linked to the culture of Ugarit, Phoenicia and to some
Semitic people, where it is identified as a prayer gesture directed to heaven or the god of heaven (12: 6;
13: 15, 16). Moreover, transition of these traditions in the Old Testament can be traced.
A special attention is given to the relations among Macedonian cone-shaped objects and some
pictorial motives from the Benvenuti Situla (Italy) where we believe one of their phytomorphized parallels can
be identified (14). Palmette motive is repeated several times on this situla, showing high resemblance with
one of the hypothetical models of the cone-shaped objects supplemented with a cluster fruit (pokeberry?)
embedded in the opening between two prongs (16: 13 15 compare to 10). The purpose of the situlas
would be in favor of these relations, as they were used for holy potions (most probably beer).
953
Chapter 3: Cone-shaped objects with a pair of elongated segments on top
In these comparisons we also include Iron Age trapezoid belt clasps from Western Balkans that are
linked with the Iapydes culture (10: 11; 15). Within the complex analysis of these objects iconography,
complemented with apposite comparisons with Hellenic and Hindu mythical traditions, we focus on hybrid
motives placed above the anthropomorphic winged head (15: 4 7). They are composed of a central floral
element and a pair of symmetrical zoomorphic motives. We consider them very similar to the analogous
motive of the presented situla and also to one of the suggested phytomorphic reconstructions of the cone-
shaped objects (16: 9 compare to 10 15). It is our belief that in the base of this hybrid motive lays some
plant that signifies it as Tree of Light representing a symbol of some luminous phenomenon in the sky.
Probably, it is a phyto-zoo-anthropomorphic female personification of dawn, identified with the holy potion
that entices resurrection, focused on rebirth of sun, but also of the deceased (in whose grave the clasps were
deposited). Head of Medusa, of whom this figure is born, could have belonged to the mythical character
heavenly proxy, i.e. daylight, most probably presented not in his male, but his more archaic female version
(15; 17). We discuss the possibility for connecting these interpretations with the Ancient Macedonian
goddess Adraia/Aithria given the epithet Phosphoros, who was spouse of Dion, Macedonian Zeus and is
considered as equivalent of Athena (compare to 17).
In the third comparative research we analyze one very specific category of tombstones from Roman
times (2nd till 3rd c. AD) found in the central part of Republic of Macedonia (18: 5 9). After presenting the
past interpretations of their iconography and religious significance, we direct our attention towards the hybrid
motives found in their reliefs which demonstrate high resemblance with the previously discussed objects, but
also with the Iron Age cone-shaped objects (16: 4 8 compare to the remaining items of the same plate) and
especially the model supplemented with a pinecone or a similar fruit (7: 4 6). We suggest that it might
have been a trias of phyto-anthropomorphic characters whose heads were replaced with a pinecone or with
another element with similar shape: lily bulb (Lilium martagon, Lilium carniolicum), hop fruit (Humulus
lupulus) or the field horsetail (Equisetum arvense) (18: 1 4). We search the justification of presence of
these characters in their role in the positive outcome of the deceaseds afterlife. Among other things, it could
have been due to the sacral character of the plant they represented, perhaps even used in preparation of the
holy potion that was usually considered as immortality enhancer.
3. Significance of the figure on the Iron Age cone-shaped objects. Within their microcosmic
significance, in general the arms spread reflect human willingness to embrace other human being, due to
which at this level they reflect his/her emotional, i.e. spiritual receptiveness. Related with the spread legs, this
pose becomes symbolical equivalent of coitus and birth-giving as typical for the female mythic characters
under whose auspices these actions are performed (19: 4, 8 13). Arms, elevated, folded and with joined
hands maintain these significances, especially the latter, whereas the circle, i.e. ellipse they shape is identified
with vulva, i.e. uterus (20). In favor of this are the given pictorial examples, especially due to the presence of
a male ithyphallic character beside these figures (11: 20 26; 12: 1, 2; 20: 4, 5). Arms stretched above
reflect humbleness, worship, drawing attention and expression of a desire to contact the heavenly forces or
some deity. The macrocosmic significance of these poses is looked for in the identification of arms with
heaven based on their direction upwards and implication of their gesture to categories typical of heaven
(circle, semi-circle and wide). In some examples such significance is coded by additional elements as symbols
of heaven, of celestial bodies, celestial fluids, rain etc. (12: 5, 7, 9; 13: 4, 8, 9). In a separate section we
discuss the significance of Christian figures in orans posture in which the reduction of their sexual and
reproductive aspects is evident as well as their elevation on another spiritual level (19: 5, 6). The first figures
in such a position were noted in early Christian funerary objects representing the deceased or their immortal
Christian soul in an eternal unity with God after death. The first type of Mother of God Orans (as part of the
scene of Ascension of Christ) will become a base for her presentation as personification of Church itself (19:
5). Regardless of theological interpretation, there are clear inditions of survival of this pose of primordial
significance openness of Virgin Mary to receive Logos, i.e. Holy Spirit in her.
4. Context and use of Iron Age cone-shaped objects. In this section we discuss the following
potential functions of these objects: (a) as items used as pole tops or scepter tops (21: 2, 3); (b) as figurines
aimed for standing on a flat base; (c) as pendants or pendants-bells (20: 2, 3). In favor of each hypothesis we
provide relevant arguments and parallels. In the forthcoming section we analyze some relations of these
objects with certain sacralized spheres, characters and items that could be chronologically and geographically
compared to Macedonian bronzes. First, we analyze the story of Herodotus about the remarkable Paeonian girl
who while walking down the road was also holding her horses reins, was carrying water and was spinning.
The spinning as part of this scene, but also included in the interpretation of Macedonian cone-shaped objects,
954
is a motive for a more succinct discussion of the relation of women and sacralized textile activities within
archaic cultures (21: 5 8). Despite the dominant utilitarian aspects of this sphere, in traditional cultures the
symbolic ones are also strongly emphasized as elements of differentiation of women in relation of men.
Moreover, the activity itself, as well as the elements involved (distaff, spindle and weaving mill) become
symbols of her virginal (maiden/virgin), and then matrimonial (bride/spouse) status. Apotropaic functions of
spinning, weaving and embroidering also constitute around these significances as factors of protection of
women of all negative influences especially those directed at their sexuality. The quotation of Herodotus,
along with the analogous quote of Callinicus referring to Bithynia, indicate that a giant goddess might have
been behind the image of this spiner, who could also been recognized in the given analogies (11: 24 26;
12: 1; 20: 4, 5). It could have been Bendis (or Artemis Basilea), who is mentioned as goddess of Paeonians
and their neighboring Trachians in the ancient sources. The core of this goddess includes tying, also present in
the etymology of her theonim (bend), in the meaning of marriage (tying of a man and a woman), impregnation
(tying the fetus in womans womb) and giving birth (its untying), death and resurrection (as tying and untying
of human soul of the body and this world).
Macrocosmic significance of Iron Age cone-shaped objects in relation of the distaff. The above
comparisons refer to this significance, as well as the fact that the shape of Iron Age cone objects reminds of
distaff tops (21: 2 4; 22). Moreover, their very top signifies heaven, the vertical pole on which it is put
the Cosmic axis holding the sky, while the yarn on the distaff signifies clouds, the thread descending from the
distaff signifies rain and/or sunrays descending from heaven, whereas the spindle signifies earth (21: 4). We
take the focus of our analyses at distaff as a motive for a digression in which we discuss possible relation
between distaff (23: 1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14 16) and ajoure pendants elaborated in the previous chapters
(23: 2 5, 8, 10, 13, 17). We found the motive in the work of N. G. L. Hammond who refers to them as
distaff-shaped pendants. The given distaffs, from ancient Egypt (23: 9, 12), through the mediaeval ones
(23: 11) until those of the contemporary folklore (23: 1, 6, 7, 14 16), demonstrate a surprisingly high
resemblance with this type of Macedonian bronzes. In favor of this is the emphasized presence of birds in
objects from both categories (24). All this gives us right to determine them as miniature models of distaff
tops that could have been used in many ways: (a) as jewelry with amuletic function; (b) as cult objects
included in rites; (c) as props for certain ceremonies and (d) as toys for girls. They could have been actual
distaffs with small dimensions, to which the actual use of such tools in antiquity and in later times refers
(23: 11; 24: 6, 13).
Relations between Iron Age cone-shaped objects and thyrsus. We chose this relation starting from
the very indicative similarity between distaff and thyrsus on one hand and due to the similarity of the top of
some types of distaffs (22) and thyrsi (25) with the Macedonian Iron Age cone-shaped objects on the other
(1; 2). Striving to argument this relation as good as possible, we give a very succinct review of thyrsus in
general, encompassing its shape, its genesis and its functions. Moreover, we paid special attention to its floral
elements (pinecones and other similar or cluster fruits or flowers) (25). Their common ground is also their
semiotics which gravitates towards the significance of Cosmic Tree and the Tree of Life, also present on them,
and certain ithyphallic features (26: 1). In favor of these relations is the use of thyrsus and the distaff mostly
by women. Also, treating both objects as weapons, of course symbolically (21: 1; 26: 1, 3, 5), is consistent
with the apotropaic function of spinning as a manner of magical protection of women from different negative
influences. This function of thyrsus is reflected in the story of Argaeus, the Ancient Macedonian king, who
will defeat Galaurus, the king of Taulantii, so he would introduce young girls armed with thyrsi in the battle.
There are indications that this was a reminiscence of some myth or rite that was later thought of as an actual
event in history.
Relations between Iron Age cone-shaped objects and the funerary spheres. Presence of bronze
cone-shaped objects in Iron Age graves initiates assumptions on their funerary aspects. We have seen that
within anthropomorphic reading of these objects a figure emerges in several versions of orans posture with a
dominant female landmark and significances related to fertilization and birth (19). If we accept these
assumptions as veritable and thus the possibility that these objects encircle a figure of some goddess, then
their presence in the grave (reinforced with the given floral components) could have been aimed at
resurrection of the deceased understood as a new conception and birth in/of her womb. In favor of this we
emphasize the frequent inclusion of female figure in orans posture in different funerary contexts, from
prehistoric urns with elevated arms (46), through the mourners from the Tanagra larnax (13: 7), the
Maenad from Tetovo (R. of Macedonia) (19: 2, 3), caryatide from the tomb of Sveshtari (Bulgaria) (19: 7),
all the way to orans presentations in early Christian tombs. Liaising these poses and the act of mourning of the
955
Chapter 3: Cone-shaped objects with a pair of elongated segments on top
deceased is justified with the identification of tears with rain whose presence would provide resurrection, as
the rain is a prerequisite for repetitive growth of the seed implanted in the ground (compare to 14). Figure
in orans posture could also represent the mythical spinner as goddess of fate who determines the life of the
deceased. This coincides with the triple phyto-anthropomorphic figures of the analyzed tombstones in relation
of the triple goddesses of fate (18: 7 9). In archaic cultures death is identified with the marriage of the
deceased and the chthonic deity, whereas his/her soul regardless of the sex of the deceased is commonly
presented as a girl whom the god of the underworld abducts in order to make her his bride (Persephones
abduction by Hades is an ideal example). Having this in mind, it is possible that Iron Age cone-shaped objects
could have coded the soul of the deceased presented in this manner. We could point Egyptian Ka, the symbol
of one of the several human soul parts, as an ideal paradigm, shown with an ideogram shaped as pair of arms,
spread and elevated (12: 3, 4).
Regardless of which of the given images, functions or meanings these objects represented, their
presence in graves could be reduced to three basic functions: (a) as indicators of female sex, age and social
status of the deceased (a maiden, a bride or mater familias); (b) as elements of protection of the deceased and
(c) as factors f her resurrection.
Chapter 4:
MACEDONIAN BRONZES AND THE HOLY POTION
Analysis of several types of Macedonian bronzes in the previous chapter demonstrated that their
iconography consists of numerous elements shaped as vessels: a jug or a man drinking from a vessel are
shown on top of some cluster pendants (1: 3, 6, 7); pendants shaped as small goblets, along with the animal
protomes, actually constitute anthropomorphized vessel (1: 1, 2; 36); miniature hollow jugs pretty
explicitly represent vessels (1: 4; 17); in one variant of the bird-shaped pendants a miniature jug is placed
on the back (6: 5 - 7); the hollow body of bird-shaped pendants could have been used as a recipient (7: 4
6); ajoure pendants resemble a vessel with a bird, a quadruple animal or a sitting man on their top (1: 5, 8,
10; 8: 1 4; 9: 8, 9). Our research has shown that behind such emphasized presence of a vessel there had
to be certain substance for which they were aimed, evidently of huge importance for the ones who wore this
jewelry. Through comparisons we came to the assumption that it could have been a liquid representing holy
potion. Given the generalization and the speculation of the obtained knowledge as well as the lack of
historical sources regarding this and which would refer to the users of the Macedonian bronzes, we have
decided to dedicate the fourth chapter of this monograph entirely to the holy potion.
A. Holy potion in ancient Balkan peoples
Based on ancient written sources, beer and wine made with fermentation of certain grains, honey and
grapes were used as holy potions in the Balkans and the Mediterranean. In some cases floral ingredients with
certain psychoactive features were added, which caused their inevitable considerable dilution. Common ivy
(Hedera helix) and/or henbane (Hyoscyamus niger) were added to the wine served at symposia, while
wormwood (Artemisia absinthium) was added to apsintitis, the Thracian wine. Used in Eleusis mysteries,
Greeks had kykeon, made of soaked barley grains (Hordeum) or flour with added mint (Mentha), goat cheese
or honey. Its narcotic features were due to the ergot fungus (Claviceps purpurea) which grows as a parasite on
cereal plants. Among people from the northern parts of the Balkan Peninsula, determined as Illyrians in the
sources, mead is mentioned, as well as beer made of barley, known by the name of sabaium/sabaia, which
bears certain religious (mysterial) landmark due to the relation with the name of the god Sabazios. The still
enigmatic green wine (zelas, zilai, zeila) and the holy potion made of hemp (Cannabaceae) are associated
with the Thracians.
Several quotations of the ancient sources refer to Paeonians, Dardanians and the Bryges that could be
related most intermediately to the Macedonian bronzes. According to Hecataeus, Paeonians drank beer made
of barley, called bryton (), but also another beverage called parabie () made of millet and
horseweed (, i.e. elecampane, a plant of Inula genus). Thracians made bryton of rye solution, fermented
by some fungus. Even though there is no information on the sacral character of the Paeonian bryton, in
Triptolemos, a tragedy by Sophocles, the same beverage is directly related with the Eleusis mysteries.
Moreover, the name linked with the ethnonym Bryges refers to its Central Balkan origin. Sextus Julius
Africanus stated that Paeonian drank kamon, probably a beer made of wheat, barley or millet, which under a
956
similar name (camun), is also related to other peoples. Jonas of Susa claims that Dardanians (who also
populated northern parts of Macedonia) and Scordisci were the first who invented cervisia, beverage made of
brewed barley or wheat.
In highly civilized cultures, such as the Greek, holy potions (mostly grape wine) lost their archaic
mystical and sacral dimension since they were abused as substances for pleasure. This dimension was erased
to the extent that Greeks had not even comprehended it, thus they had to take it once again from their northern
neighbors. The inscription of the golden tablet from Pelina clearly states the eschatological role of wine within
burial beliefs. Traces of such wine status could be noted in the phenomenon of feast seen in ancient Balkan
cultures, as well as in mythical images of the holy potion and the holy sustenance of gods (ambrosia and
nectar) the prerequisite of their eternal youth i.e. immortality.
B. Soma and haoma holy potion in Rigveda and Avesta

Much older, more original and more authentic information about the archaic holy potion of the Indo-
European people we acquire from traditions of Indian Aryans and Iranians, as we receive them as an integral
part of their holy hymns. Here we have in mind the Indian Rigveda and the Iranian Avesta and their later
products, where whole units of verses dedicated to the holy potion are preserved. Our analyses point to the
very close relations of these hymns and the mythical/symbolic aspects of the Macedonian bronzes. As
justification of these comparisons, besides the fact that the aforementioned and the Balkan people belong to
the Indo-European range, three more arguments can be stressed. First, there is the chronological proximity
between Macedonian bronzes (8th till 6th c. BC), Rigveda (15th till 6th c. BC) and Avesta (13th till 6th c. BC).
The geographic component fits well in these comparisons, considering that Indian Aryans and Iranians
composed a unique pan-Aryan, i.e. Proto-Indo-Iranian language and cultural community, which all until its
division in the first half of 2nd millennium BC existed in border areas of Eastern Europe and Northwestern
Asia, a region not so distant from the Balkans. Third justification can be sought in the theses regarding
migration of Indo-Aryans from the northern coast of Black Sea to the Balkans which took place in several
occasions during the second and the beginning of the first millennia BC (see Ch. 8).
In the next few sections we present basic facts regarding soma and haoma. Their names, soma
(Sanskrit sma) and haoma (Avestan haoma), refer to a plant, its juice as well as to gods names (Soma and
Haoma) personificating this plant and the beverage. The same name also denotes the cosmic element i.e.
principle referring to the following categories: liquid, invigorating fluid, water, cosmic celestial and/or earthly
waters, rain, vital fluids in living creatures. Science still has dilemmas regarding plants of which soma i.e.
haoma was made. It is due to the fact that a juice i.e. extract of various plants was used, since the successors
of the Indo-Aryans populated regions in which, due to climate and ecological differences, plants used in their
original homeland for these beverages could not thrive. In this regard, ephedra (Ephedra) was the most
affected plant (5: 15), but also fly amanita (Amanita muscaria), hemp (Cannabaceae), henbane
(Hyoscyamus), mandrake (Mandragora), ginseng (Panax ginseng) etc. The name haoma is also linked with
hop (Humulus) (18: 1). Based on Rigveda one could conclude that soma grew in mountainous regions, had a
woody reddish trunk which smelled pleasantly. In some hymns, soma juice is determined as red i.e. reddish-
brown and astringent, while soma as finished product was yellowish and tawny with sweet and honey taste.
These colors of soma and haoma are in a way also typical of the Balkan ambrosia. In Iliad it is called
red nectar which once put in Patroclus nostrils prevented his body of decomposing, which implicates the
relation with blood and red wine (the first vine grew of gods blood). Another quotation of the same epic
refers to the yellow-golden color of ambrosia, according to which no blood flows in gods veins, but some
kind of a tawny fluid (ichor), for they consume ambrosia instead of ordinary food and wine. This relation is
also seen in other European peoples. In Slavic popular traditions there was a belief that fairies ate golden food
which was usually associated with immortelle (Helichrysum arenarium), a plant with intensely yellow
flowers, to which both its English and Slavic names refer (Slav. , ). This relation
is implicitly shown in the Phrygian myth of Midas who could not feed himself, as all he touched turned into
gold.
Soma preparation consisted of the following procedures: soaking the plant and its swelling; squashing
in two-stone press or pestling in mortar; straining the juice in a colander; blending the juice with water, milk,
yogurt and grinded barley grains. Soma i.e. haoma was used in a manner that only believers themselves drank
it or they gave it as offering to gods pouring it over the holy fire. Both drinks caused positive emotions, joy,
euphoria and pleasure, they enhanced life, sexual and combat forces, cured diseases, extended life, carried
immortality, provided communication with gods, universal knowledge, they encouraged poetic and musical
957
Chapter 4: Macedonian bronzes and the holy potion
creation, they created the mythical hymns and provided sacredness. However, they had negative aspects as
well: intoxication, palsy and hallucinations. Moreover, they could impair the body functions and even cause
death. It was believed that not only they influenced people, but also gods, providing them immense power.
Rigvedic hymns describe a shamanic celestial journey caused by an ecstasy upon drinking soma. They make a
clear distinction between soma as a sacral beverage and sura as ordinary profane alcohol drink which even has
negative hallmark. Analogous differentiation applies for haoma as well.
C. Comparisons between soma/haoma and the Balkan holy potions

1. Holy potion itself. The etymology of amrita (amta), a synonym of soma, is immortality (a
negation of *mer = to die). The same applies to the Greek ( = without, = mortal) and is
also suggested for the synonym (*nek- = death and *-tar = to resist). In hymns of Rigveda and Avesta
it is not always clear whether soma implies the plant, the beverage or the mythical character. These
uncertainties are even more difficultly solved within the pictorial medium where the absence of display of the
very drink is compensated by the image of the vessel in which it is prepared, kept or of which it was
consumed, but also by the display of plants (and animals) whose ingredients are used for its preparation. In
Rigveda the juice, i.e. soma as beverage is evoked through the vessel (made of wood) in which it is kept,
whereupon it often obtains macrocosmic significance as a kind of a barrel, a bucket i.e. a tank of celestial
waters identified with the raincloud, but also with the moon. These concepts can be linked with the frequent
presence of the vessel in the iconography of the aforementioned types of Macedonian bronzes. One could
relate the thesis that the hollow ajoure bodies of pendants represented a perforated vessel with the important
role of straining the soma/haoma which was done in such vessels filled with wool (8: 1 4; 9: 8, 9
compare to 7: 2). After that, the drink changed its earthly and profane status transforming into a celestial
and holy substance.
In the verbal, and especially in the pictorial medium, the plant of which the holy potion was prepared
is often represented as its symbol. Thus, in the latter case, some specific element of it was selected (leaf,
flower or fruit) which could be transposed pictorially with its typical shape. In the case of Macedonian
bronzes, this concept was reflected in cluster pendants and the small goblets, if we accept the assumption that
the body of the first ones was shaped as pokeweed berry (1: 3, 6; 2: 5, 6 compare to 5: 14; 14) and of
the latter as poppy capsule (1: 1, 2; 29: 7, 11 13). These objects, in fact, contain combination of two
symbols of the holy potion: the plant of which it was made and the vessel in which it was kept. Relating to the
hymns of Rigveda, we propose an interpretation of numerous archaeological finds containing groups of three
cult vessels or a triple vessel (5: 1 3; 5: 8 13). Such shape coincides with the verses about three types
of soma put in three buckets, three full vessels, but also about the three habitations of soma which are
associated with the three skies through which soma arrives on earth. These verses are also related with the
triple filtration of soma through vessels with three recipients (trikarduka). Such vessels were also found
within Iron Age cultures for which Macedonian bronzes were common, like the one from Ku i Zi (5: 1)
and many other examples from the same period (often bird-shaped 5: 8, 9, 11), typical for the so-called
Greek geometric pottery (5: 10 an example of the Koban culture, Caucasus). These concepts could be
traced in one type of Macedonian bronzes with a miniature jug on the top, if we agree that once the image of
vessels, arranged one over another, laid behind their disjoined body (18: 3 5, 19 compare to 1, 2, 6).
Moreover, we find triple presentation of cult vessels accompanied by specific ritual actions in the situlas from
Northern Italy and the North-West Balkans (4).
2. Habitation of the holy potion. In this section first we present hymns of Rigveda and Avesta which
speak of the celestial habitation of soma and haoma, identified with the mythical mountain that also codes
both the cosmic center and the axis of the universe, which intermediates between heaven and earth. We could
trace remnants of this mythologem in the ancient Balkan myths that speak of the location of ambrosia on the
Atlas Mountain and the origin of the nymph Ambrosia from the lineage of Atlas, the mythical character. In
some hymns soma is located on the column of heaven, whereas it is presented as tree of all seeds. In later
Iranian traditions, located on the holy mountain, haoma is alternated with Hom, tree of immortality. These
mythical structures can be identified in the iconography of cluster pendants, whereupon the aforementioned
axial significance would be presented by their body, shaped as pokeweed berry and the drink itself would be
coded in the small vessel on top (1: 6; 2: 5; 8: 1 7) or in the human figure as its personalization (1: 3;
19: 1 4, 9; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6). The celestial habitation of the holy potion can also be reflected in other
Balkan Iron Age objects in which a vessel and the sky composed of pair of animal protomes are combined
(3: 6, 7 compare to 5). This element can also be seen on the aforementioned situlas implying location of
958
the very situla below the sky (= a bucket hanging from the sky 3: 8). This image is consistent with
respective actions from Rigvedic hymns associated with the holy potion.
3. Grabbing and transporting the holy potion
- Grabbing by a mythical bird. Depiction of grabbing soma and haoma from heaven and its
transporting to earth have a significant part in Rigveda and Avesta. They were performed by a hybrid creature
in the shape of a bird with parts of other animals, in Hindu traditions known as Shyena and Garuda and as
Saena and Senmurv/Simurgh in the Iranian. Moreover, it is not always clear whether grabbing of soma the
plant or the drink with the same name are depicted or the abduction of god Soma (5: 4; 6: 1, 3; 8: 7).
Traces of the same plot can be noted in Odyssey, where ambrosia is being brought to Zeus by doves. In the
myth of the abduction of Ganymede by Zeus (transformed into an eagle) two elements refer to Ganymede
having features of a personalized holy potion (6: 2, 4): (a) he will serve gods as cupbearer, i.e. he will pour
them ambrosia; (b) a golden grapevine will be given to his father as compensation for his son. In the first
chapter we suggested that several types of Macedonian bronzes should be related with this action: (a)
pendants shaped as birds with jugs on their backs (transport of potion contained in them) (6: 5 8; 1); (b)
pendants shaped as birds with swollen hollow bodies (the bird drinks the potion and carries it in its womb)
(7: 1, 4 6; 2; 3; 4; 5); (c) pendants with hollow ajoure bodies combined with a bird (the bird lands
at the vessel/colander and pours the holy juice i.e. potion in it) (8: 1 4 compare to 5, 6; 8; 9 compare
to 12). A scene from the Benvenuti situla speaks of presence of similar mythical activities in Europe in
which a giant bird (= Shyena/Saena) pecks a berry/fish of some plant (= soma/haoma), while a centaur attacks
it with a knife from the back (= Gandarewa who is the guardian of soma in Rigveda) (9: 1, 2 compare to 4;
17).
Transport of the holy potion with a carriage. In Hindu traditions, soma or the plant of which it was
prepared were transported in a vehicle-vessel (camasa), which in sacrifice rites was represented with two
carriages (havirdhana) to which a female hallmark is given. These traditions can be related with miniature
carriages in European Bronze and Iron Age cultures, which have a central part shaped as vessel supplemented
with bird protomes, in some cases conceived alike Macedonian miniature goblets (10: 4, 5, 7, 8 compare to
6, 11; 13). In early antiquity, similar rite was practiced in the Thessalian town of Krannon, during which, in
drought season, a ritual carriage was drawn around with loaded vessel of which water was splashed in order
to cause rain. This ritual carriage, supplemented with birds, is also perpetuated in the coins of this town (10:
1 3).
Grabbing of the holy potion by a wolf. This action, in which the wolf acts as an epiphany of the
mythical opponent, is confirmed in hymns of Rigveda and Avesta. It is also reflected in the name of a family
from the Achaemenides family (saka haumavahrka), which signified saki transformed into wolves through
haoma juice. Among Macedonian bronzes this structure can be identified on the hollow ajoure pendants
above whose body, shaped as a vessel i.e. colander, a quadruple animal is shown with wolf features (9: 8, 9)
with occasional alternations of a sitting man (13: 10 13; 56; 63; 65: 1). We have seen that verbally
this structure is best reflected in the myth about the abduction of Ambrosia by Lycurgus (8: 8, 9).
D. Symbolic relations
1. Holy potion water rain milk semen. Soma is paradigm of all fluids, of celestial and
primordial waters and the rain, for it arrives on earth from above, i.e. from heaven or the hereafter. It is
identified with earthly waters (a stream, a river, a sea or an ocean). It originates from goddess Sarasvati i.e.
Vach which implies identification with her milk (it/she is represented as tuneful cow that gives food and
water). Soma is shown as child of waters and as retas (= semen). Small jug on top of cluster pendants can
be related with the holy potion identified with heavenly waters located on top of Cosmic pillar i.e. Cosmic tree
(1: 6; 2; 5; 8: 1 7). Myth about the urn of Orpheus might refer to these meanings as it was placed on
top of a column and its fall caused a great flood. The pair of oblique line bundles descending from the spouts
of jugs with zoomorphic protomes can refer to streams flowing of them, identified with the rains and even
milk flowing from the womb of the macrocosmic goddess identified with the vessel (36; 44; 50: 1, 6).
2. Holy potion honey. Even though we havent identified traces of this relation in Macedonian
bronzes, its presence among the potential users of these items in Central Balkans can be sensed in the role of
Dionysus as the one who not only discovered vine, but honey as well. In favor of the funerary aspects of this
959
relation is the presentation of a bee on one of the funerary masks from Trebenite (75: 4, 7) and the traces of
honey found in cult vessels from the prince grave in Novi Pazar.
3. Holy potion light. Light, glitter and glow are the most frequent symbols of soma in hymns of
Rigveda, whereupon its golden-yellow color is presented as sun in water and as streams of sunrays.
Enhancing sight, comprehension and discovery of truth, knowledge, vigilance and defeating darkness and
night are attributed to it. These light and golden features are also present in gods Soma and Haoma, who are
called golden-eyed, luminous and radial. In the Balkans, they can be noted in the luminous epithets of
Dionysus. On Macedonian bronzes, this component could have been coded through the motive of a circle and
a dot impressed in the miniature goblets with protomes, if we consider the dominant interpretation that it was
a solar or a luminous ideogram. It is also impressed on the body of other pendants shaped as animals (a bird or
a horse) supplemented with a vessel or themselves shaped as recipients (11; 12).
E. Holy potion personalizations

1. Male personalizations of the holy potion. In Indian and Iranian traditions, holy potion is shown as
mythical character i.e. deity with features of a young man, king of rivers and plants. We can relate him with
the figure in fetal position on cluster pendants by representing Soma as child of heaven, child of great
rivers, who while crying, descends into the wooden vessel, conception of waters, infant which sucks
Waters or is nursed by a cloud (1: 3; 13: 1 4; 27; 28 compare to 30). Sitting of this character
into the soma vessels is consistent with ajoure pendants above whose body, shaped as a vessel, a figure of a
sitting man is shown (13: 10 13; 56). Location of this figure above the body of the cluster pendants
correlates the climbing of Soma of the ashvattha trunk and the Iranian myths of a child (equivalent of Haoma)
who lives in bird Simurghs nest, evidently located on the Cosmic tree (54).
2. Female personalizations of the holy potion. In Hindu and in Iranian myths, Soma and Haoma,
both the beverage and the mythical character by the same name, originate from the womb of a goddess
(Sarasvati i.e. Vach and mother of Haoma) by being born of it or by being expressed as breastmilk which
implies her identification with a cow or another female animal. This relation could be looked for in ajoure
hollow pendants which have a quadruple animal above the body which signifies a vessel, if we accept the
possibility that some of them might have represented a female animal (a cow, a goat, a mare or even she-
wolf). Ideograms (zigzag = liquid; circle and a dot = light) impressed in them would point this (12; 63).
Ideal representative of a female personalization of the Balkan holy potion is Ambrosia (8: 9), the nymph
who nurtured Dionysus (lexically speaking an equivalent of amrita), but also Amaltheia, the nymph who
nurtured Zeus of Crete, also known by her zoomorphic epiphany (goat). Myths of Romulus and Remus and of
the bitch of Orion i.e. Orestheus refer that female wolf i.e. bitch also performed these functions. Showing
tears in cows on the Trebenite krater refers to identification of tears with milk aimed at resurrection of the
deceased (14: 1, 5 7 compare to 2, 3). This relation is most vividly represented through transformation of
small goblets with protomes into a goddess-vessel with zoomorphic hands in which the Balkan equivalent of
Apsaras (water women) and the Indo-Aryan Sarasvati and Harahvait can be identified (15; 36 compare
to 56: 11 13).
F. Holy potion and sacrifice

In Hindu and Iranian traditions preparation of holy potion is identified with killing i.e. sacrifice of a
human or an animal mythical character that personificated it. In the Balkans this is presented with Dionysus,
whose killing, i.e. sacrifice is associated with phases of winemaking (harvesting, crushing, pressing, straining
and fermenting the grapes) and the resurrection as maturation of the drink. Linos (a tragic character,
personification of a wine press) has a similar status and so does the act of killing Orpheus with pestles, sickles
and skewers which code the phases of holy potion preparation. In Odyssey, rocks which doves need to push
through in order to bring ambrosia to Zeus are consistent with stones that crushed and strained soma. This
aspect is also present in other mythical characters that we associated with cluster pendants: Marsyas (18),
Lycurgus (8: 8, 9), Agdistis and Attis (52). It can also be sensed in the Paeonian custom to reward the
bringing of the head of the enemy with a golden chalice filled with wine. We propose that zoomorphic figures
from the situla from whose mouths floral elements and parts of human bodies stem should be interpreted in
this context, perhaps shown gluttoning animals or mythical characters representing the holy potion (16; 17:
1 3, 8, 9).
960
G. Holy potions stimulating functions

1. Holy potion as prerequisite of immortality. In Rigveda soma is explicitly depicted as elixir of
life, a function also contained in its etymology. We have seen that it corresponds the Balkan ambrosia, which
with nectar acts as a factor of purification, rejuvenation, beautifying and extension of youth.
2. Holy potion as knowledge and creation enhancer. In India and Iran it was believed that soma,
i.e. haoma provided divine inspiration to those who drank it, enticing universal knowledge, expressiveness,
poetic and musical creation, most probably based on the divine light (light vision knowledge) as its
ingredient. These aspects can be projected onto the figure of cluster pendants via given analogous mythical
characters either shown in the same pose and distinguished with wisdom, power to perceive the future and the
cosmic secrets (Silenus, Marsyas, Thoth, Bes) or located on top of Cosmic tree (Odin). The creation potential
of this beverage can be detected in the same characters presented through their image as great poets and
musicians with emphasized shamanic hallmark (Orpheus, Marsyas) (18).
3. Holy potion as fertility enhancer. In Rigveda soma represents male principle, mostly presented
by some male animal (bull or stallion) which inseminates i.e. impregnates cows, stimulates fertility of
women, and identified with rain, it enhances fertility of earth. In the Balkans, these aspects are most clearly
manifested through ithyphallic features of Dionysus and other mythical characters of his environment. On
Macedonian bronzes they are most explicitly presented with the ithyphallic body of cluster pendants
identified with the male sex organ (= macrocosmic phallus) shown in ejaculation (19: 1, 2, 5 7; 21: 1
4), but also with the sitting figure on their top which, according to the example from Ku i Zi and its
analogies, was perceived with erect phallus (19: 3, 4, 9 compare to 8, 10, 11). This significance rounds out
with the location of these pendants on thighs and hips of female decedents (10: 7; 11: 7 9). It can also be
identified in the ithyphallic figure on one of the hollow ajoure pendants which implies spilling of his semen
into the vessel he is sitting on (13: 10). This concept and the holy potion as its component are reflected in
the iconography of some North Italic situlas aimed for such drink: a scene in which a couple in a sexual
intercourse is being offered a drink of such a situla (20: 3, 4); sexual intercourse beside a mortar in which
probably products are crushed in order to prepare a holy potion (20: 2 compare to 1) (cosmogonic
connotations: stupa = earth, pestle = Cosmic pillar, coitus = hierogamy 21: 1, 4).
4. Holy potion as enhancer of military force. This function is clearly present in Indo-Aryan
traditions, but so far, traces of it cannot be found on Macedonian bronzes. Its presence in the Balkans and
wider in Europe can be traced in some written sources and pictorial presentations: it was registered that
Thracians used to drink wine prior to going into battles; on situlas aimed for the holy potion often warriors are
depicted in military actions combined with scenes of potion preparation and its drinking (4: 1).
Chapter 5:
CROSS-SHAPED OBJECTS
Several categories containing cross in their base are distinguished among the Iron Age metal objects
found in Macedonia and its near surrounding which are explicitly manifested through their shape, i.e.
appearance or implicitly through the inner structure. These objects can be classified into three basic groups:
(a) free cross (cross-shaped strap dividers; applications shaped as crosses with widened arms); (b) three-
dimensional cross (pendants shaped as three-dimensional crosses; hollow spherical objects with six circular
apertures; scepters i.e. maces with four protruded segments) and (c) cross inscribed in a circle (applications
shaped as wheels, i.e. a circle with an inscribed cross; wheel-shaped pendants, i.e. circle with an inscribed
cross).
A. General review of semiotics and symbolism of the cross

The cross is an archetype symbol common to all mankind, based on the architectonics of the human
body: head, neck, spine, legs = vertical arm of the cross; spread arms = horizontal arm of the cross (1: 5);
961
four limbs = four arms of the cross (1: 6); orientation system based on the sensory and perceptive apparatus
(front-back, left-right, up-down) (1: 1, 3, 4); balance apparatus based on the horizontal (= surface of earth
and water), the vertical (gravity direction) and the right angle as their correlate (2: 4). Man projects his
personal quadripartite bodily structure into the environment which manifests itself in the four cardinal
directions, the square habitats, the four cosmic elements and seasons etc. Three elements constitute the cross:
two arms perceived as two axes or as four directions and the center as an abstract point of their crossing i.e.
joining. From a spatial point of view the cross can be perceived in two manners. The horizontal one is thought
of as laid on ground, symbolizing extension of earth in four directions (2: 6). On a cosmological level, the
vertical i.e. the erect cross can be perceived as junction of earth, represented by its horizontal arm, and sky
represented by the vertical one (2: 5), whereupon interacting with biological spheres it could also represent
the hierogamy or the androgyne in which the first arm represents the female and the second the male principle
(1: 2). Hence, horizontal arms of the cross, seen on an esoterical level, represent the material (= axis of
spread arms), while the vertical arms represent the spiritual (= axis among the genitalia, the heart and the
brain) (1: 5). Erect cross codes the elevation of earthly i.e. material towards heavenly i.e. spiritual or vice
versa, which is performed through the symbols of the Cosmic axis (2: 5). The vertical cross contains the
scale, while its horizontal arms correlate the scale arms representing dually structured and inter-conditioned
principles and categories (good-bad, life-death), while the vertical arms correlate the neutral which is
represented by their determinant i.e. conceptualizer and the point of their juncture and balance. By combining
the laid and the erect cross we get the three-dimensional cross, which instead of two has four horizontal arms
directed to all cardinal points (2: 3). Thus, a cross with six arms is formed oriented according to the
directions of space (front, back, left and right, up and down), its intersection being also coded by the center.
Hence, the cross joins and divides, synthetizes and dismembers, differentiating i.e. defining the cardinal
points, heaven and earth and the measurement of space and time. Man and world in which he resides
(perceived as micro- and macrocosm) intertwine in the cross, as well as heaven and earth, space and time. It
hierarchizes space, denoting the center as the most valuable and the holiest place, while the periphery as the
least valuable and the least holy. In archaic cultures the pure i.e. free cross is rare. More often it is inscribed in
a square or a rhombus, mostly as a symbol of earthly plate with its directions and the center (3: 4; 4: 4, 7 -
14). Inscribed in a circle it mainly represents dynamic heaven perceived as a wheel (3: 4; 4: 1 3, 5, 6, 12,
13), based on the rotation of starry sky around Pole Star (67: 7). The four arms of the cross become spokes
of this wheel, a symbol of cyclical time and determinants of its basic phases (spring, summer, autumn, winter;
summer and winter solstice, spring and autumn equinox; sunrise, noon, sunset, night). A cross inscribed in a
circle also symbolizes solar disc identified with cart wheel. The oblique i.e. diagonal cross (2: 2) and the
swastika (3: 5, 6) are dynamic symbols whose significance stems from their very unstable appearance. Upon
introduction of cross in Christianity marginalization of the given archetype significances began as well as
emphasizing of its exclusively Christian genesis and meaning.
I. Cross cosmos. In this section we present several most eminent manifestations of this relation. In
Hindu culture vertical arms of the cross signify purusha (the male principle), while the horizontal one prakti
(the female principle), but also the summer and winter solstices and the spring and autumn equinoxes.
Moreover, in China its arms also represent the male and the female principle (yin and yang), while the center
represents the unchanging environment (chong yong) and the wholeness denoted by the number 10. Similar
significances of the cross can be found in traditional cultures of Africa, Mexico, North America (Navajo
people 5: 1) and the Slavic population (cosmological ornaments of Easter eggs 3: 2). We also refer to the
significance of the eight-armed cross which can be treated as a symbol of the four cardinal and the four
ordinal directions, or as a juncture of the regular and the diagonal cross perceived as hierogamy (3: 3). Two-
dimensional six-armed cross is inseparable from the circle as it is shaped by its autonomous division through
placing the radius of the latter over it. Its manifestations are the Wheel of Taranis and the Wheel of Jupiter,
the Slavic thunder sign, the six-armed crosses of the Kabbalah and even the Christs monogram inscribed in a
cross (3: 7 - 9). The three-dimensional cross also bears emphasized cosmological meaning (2: 3).
II. Cross earth. Inscription of a cross in a quadrilateral is focused on coding the four cardinal
directions or, to be precise, the four sides of the earth plate (most often presented as four winds, rivers, doors
or trees) (2: 6; 3: 1, 4; 4: 4, 7 - 14). In China, for example, these images signify earth and stability. The
intersection of these transversals signifies center of the earth which is mostly emphasized with a distinct
symbol (a circle, a rosette or a rhombus). It could also be overlapping of several quadrilaterals placed
concentrically one into another (= disjoining of earth in horizontal or in vertical zones) (4: 10, 11; 5:
6 - 8).
962
III. Cross heaven, sun, fire and life. We have seen that the four-spoked wheel i.e. the cross
inscribed in a circle represents the dynamic sky, but also the sun. Considering that in Assyria the cross
represented the sun with the four directions in which it shone, then the circle around it could represent the
space (in this case, the sky) in which this takes place. Circles on the cross ends could signify the phases of sun
path, sometimes accompanied by the moon (6). Swastika, which in early days had semi-circular arms, has
gone through the same transformation from a celestial into a solar symbol (3: 5, 6; 6: 6). The solar
significance of the cross is also sought for elsewhere, in a pair of crossed sticks used for obtaining fire (=
earthly emanation of sun) with their friction, and even in the stylization of a flying bird as a zoomorphic
symbol of the sun. The connection of sun and the diagonal cross is very interesting as in many cultures the
latter will become a sign numerically denoting 10 or phonetically denoting h, x and k. This is especially
indicative having in mind the inclusion of these phonemes in theonyms of numerous deities with emphasized
solar, luminous, fiery and celestial character, such as the Egyptian Horus, the ancient Balkan Heros ( =
spring, summer), the Slavic solar god Hors (), the Iranian xwar/xorid (signifying sun) and,
indirectly, in the Vedic hrsu (sexual arousal = life force). , Christs Greek name rounds out this list.
These phonemes are contained in the lexemes that signify cross in European languages, but also fire. In this
context, the ethnonym Crestonian becomes indicative, which, according to the ancient written sources,
referred to certain people (most probably a tribe within Paeonian ethnic areal) which inhabited the territory
north of Chalkidiki (2), a region especially rich in Macedonian bronzes to which some of the cross-shaped
objects discussed here can be related. We suggest a verification of the possibility to interpret it as the ones
that worship the cross, the fire and/or the sun, especially if we consider the quote of Aristotle on the
phenomenon of a huge flame in their temple dedicated to Dionysus and the prophecies made based on it. In
favor of this is also the quote of Maximus of Tyre according to which Paeonians (compatriots of Crestonians)
worshiped the sun shaped as a disc placed on a rod.
IV. Cross dwelling. Frequently, the cross is contained in structures of houses, cities and cult objects
(7). Often it is not explicitly visible, rather embedded into the quadrilateral structure of the buildings, but
also in communication and ritual activities performed in them. Almost inevitably the center is clearly marked
in these objects, coded as cross-shaped hearths or altars. A special attention is given to cross-shaped plans of
temples in which, besides cosmos, the human body can also be contained as a paradigm (5: 3 - 5).
V. Cross body. There are clear indicators that long before Christianity people from different parts
of the world added various cross-shaped motives to their bodies, whether painted on their skin, tattooed,
woven into their clothes or as cross-shaped jewelry (for examples, crosses that Assyrian aristocracy used to
wear or the Egyptian Ankh) (8: 5, 7 - 9). It was believed that they would provide extension of life on earth to
the living people, dead would obtain afterlife, while women used to place them on their necks as infertility
remedies. Such examples were registered among Navajo members, Vestales in Rome, worshipers of Mitra and
Artemis Ephesia which can be traced as far as the Minoan and the Mycenaean cultures (8: 3, 4), and even
earlier in the Chalcolithic and Neolithic (8: 6).
B. Free cross
I. Cross-shaped strap dividers. These are hollow bronze cast cross-shaped objects whith tubular
arms (9; 10; 11: 2, 5). Their ends are profiled as a wreath composed of a single or multiple ring-like
disjoints. In the back, the arms and the central part are partly or completely cut off, so the hollow inside of the
object is visible and accessible for various manipulations. A special sub-type is distinguished in which a
crescent plate is formed at the elongation of one arm (or instead of it) (11: 9 12; 12; 13: 5, 7). In
literature they are referred to as hollow crosses, kreuzfrmige Riemenkreuzungen, equine forehead
ornaments, cross-shaped objects or strap dividers. Objects with such a shape were dispersed in several
cores in Euroasia, from Northern China in the east, through Caspian region and the Balkans, all the way to the
Iberian Peninsula and Britain in the west. Balkan finds deserve a special group with its own typological and
chronological features. In Bosnia and in Macedonia they were found as grave goods, while in Greece as
sanctuary gifts. Balkan finds are dated between 8th and 6th century BC. J. Bouzek relates the genesis of these
finds to the so-called Cimmerian bronzes referring to similarity with certain Caucasian finds (9: 10). It
seems probable that the Macedonian examples were produced locally, while those from Greece arrived from
the northern parts of Balkans. As in the case of the cone-shaped objects, their parallels can be traced among
ceramic amulets from Neolithic Vina culture, this time the four-armed amulets with button-like widened
arms (11: 1, 3, 6, 7). Instead of hollow, they have massive arms through which tunnel-like apertures were
pierced, which refers to their usage as strap dividers, i.e. points of intersection for some small ropes. The
963
Chapter 5: Cross-shaped objects
cronological as well as the geographical hiatus between them and the Iron Age strap dividers is annuled to a
certain extent through the similar Bronze Age examples found in Northern Macedonia (11: 4, 8).
Iron Age cross-shaped objects from a wider Euroasian region are treated as horse harness strap
dividers, which, most probably, were placed on the animals forehead, while the context in which Macedonian
examples were found (as grave goods) refers to their use as jewelry i.e. as part of the apparel most probably
worn by women. In this case, again, it would be belt strap or ribbon dividers to which their supplement with
bronze saltaleoni refers (9: 3). Several such objects were found on the torso or the abdomen, to be more
exact. We consider that the reverse of these objects was cut off, so straps or ribbons could be threaded through
the arms in order to be tied in the center with a fixed nod (14: 3, 4). It seems more probable that bands
placed in them could have been used as suspendors for the garments, the belt or some other equipment.
Considering the possible use of these objects as strap components, as well as the female sex of the deceased
on which they were found, we think it is probable they were worn on the body in a shape of a diagonal cross
in order to provide better stability of the bands they crossed and to avoid their unpleasant touch of the breasts.
Such use would request another analogous strap divider on the back, which in some cases is confirmed with
the fact that they are commonly found in pairs (14: 1, 2, 5, 6; another type 18: 4). We believe that besides
utilitarian, these objects also had a parallel symbolic function which is discussed in the forthcoming sections.
- Digression: cross-shaped strap dividers and the coins of Edonians. We found the cross-shaped
objects discussed in this chapter in a completely unexpected place the reverse of the Edonian octo-drachmas
signed by the king Getas (c. 479-460 BC) (10: 10, 11 compare to 8; 10: 18 - 20). We think of the cross-
shaped motive, amazingly similar to our strap dividers, in this case as part of a four-spoked wheel, which in a
simpler shape (quadratum incusum) can be seen on other coins as well (73: 9, 10). This match becomes
even more indicative given the location of Edonians in immediate proximity with the region in which these
strap dividers were spread, as well as the dating of these coins just a century later (2). The absence of a
circular part around the cross-shaped strap dividers could be explained with the possibility that it could have
been made of organic material, which we confirm with a find from Baranya region (North Croatia) of the so-
called Traco-Cimmerian circle, where the central cross-shaped part, completely resembling strap dividers, is
inscribed in a bronze loop thus shaping a wheel (10: 12 17 compare to 19, 20). This Cimmerian-
Edonian-Southern Balkan relation has its historical background discussed in the last chapter of this
monograph (10).
Iconography and semiotics. The basic iconography of standard cross-shaped strap dividers reduces
the interpretation of their spiritual aspects to the general symbolism of the cross discussed previously.
Examples supplemented with a sickle-shaped i.e. crescent segment represent a possibility to narrow the wide
array of their potential significances, so as finding some of them on torsos of the deceased, but also the
relation of certain finds with horse harnesses. Past research has suggested only certain symbolic interpretation
of strap dividers with crescent-shape supplement. Moreover, two protomes at its end enticed A. Jovanovi to
recognize the solar chariot in it and a deity with a solar crown above it. R. Vasi brought the solar barque to
attention as well as oxen heads seen in some examples.
Cross and moon. In our analyses we begin with the identification of the sickle-shaped elements as a
moon, even though, despite its obviousness, such significance has not been discussed previously. Having this
in mind, in a significant part of the objects there is a combination of a cross and a moon which according to
one of the significances of the first element is resumed to the sun-moon relation (11: 9 12; 12; 13).
Combination of these two celestial bodies is universal for all mankind, whereas they are found as
representatives of different inter-complementary categories: day and night, heaven and underworld, warmth
and cold, life and death, this world and the hereafter. Their combining could also code certain spatial (sun
up, moon down) and temporal categories (annual i.e. solar and monthly i.e. lunar cycle), as well as certain
aspects of mutual confrontation in whose base is the shift of day and night. Sun could represent the male
principle, while moon the female, but also vice versa, whereas their common presentation symbolizes the holy
marriage (hieros gamos) between heaven and earth. However, the relation of moon and the female principle is
more dominant due to interference of moon phases with women (menstrual cycle) and water (flux and reflux).
- Sun in a lunar barque i.e. boat. This mythical image appears through numerous pictorial
manifestations in European Bronze and Iron Age cultures whose core is considered the Urnfield culture, even
though rarely in some examples the boat could unambiguously be identified as the moon (15: 6 8; 16: 1 -
3, 6 - 9). Such exact examples were known earlier in Eneolithic Cucuteni-Trypillian culture (15: 2 - 5). In
these images sun participates through a circle, a rosette with an inscribed regular or a diagonal cross, with
bigger number of spokes, but also through certain phytomorphic and anthropomorphic symbols (15; 16;
964
17). Ancient sources inform us of the presence of a solar barque even in ancient Egypt (16: 4, 5), as well
as in hymns of Agni in Rigveda. Presentation of a boat as a lunar barque implicates the night journey of sun to
the underworld and the subterranean ocean, somewhere depicted as subterranean sky. There are inditions for
the existence of two such boats one for the day and the other for the night phase of the solar cycle (16: 4,
5). In some cases, some cross-shape pendants included, their bows are shaped as animal protomes (11: 9
12; 12: 5, 6, 8, 9), thus identifying the very moon-boat with a two-headed dragon, the most eminent symbol
of underworld, darkness and death (15: 2 8; 16: 1 7; 21). Thus, moon restoration would correlate
beliefs regarding snake rejuvenation manifested through her skin shedding. We suggest liaising of the two-
headedness of the lunar boat and her dual nature i.e. function one head as personalization of the negative
principle credited for the sunset (its eating), while the other for the positive one its new rise (vomiting of
dragons mouth). Boat-moon, supplemented with two animal protomes, combined with the cross, is present in
strap dividers from Osovo, Glasinac (Bosnia and Herzegovina) (11: 10 12; 12: 5, 8) and Novgrad
(Bulgaria) (12: 6). It is shown most clearly on the example from Lisijevo Polje, where the usual cross is
replaced by a radial rosette (11: 9; 12: 9). Finds with similar compositions were also found in the Republic
of Macedonia (Drenovo, Dedeli and the region of Valandovo and Gevgelija) (13: 1 - 5).
- Hierogamy of the sun and the moon. Despite the sun being the representative of the male principle
in the Indo-European areal, there are numerous exceptions when the moon has this very status, whereas the
crescent spikes acquire phallic significance. Identifying the moon with the female principle also refers to the
barque, i.e. boat due to its hollow interior and the function of carrying i.e. transporting men analogous of how
mother provides transition of the newborn to this world. This paradigm could be identified on the strap divider
from Dedeli which has oxen horns applied on its cross-shaped part and strongly schematized bird image on its
lunar part (13: 3 - 5). In this context, the first element could be representing the male principle (horn =
phallus), while the bird would represent the female principle, hereby not excluding the other way round: bird
up sky sun; horns down moon dark chthonic. The application from Sofronievo refers to the second
possibility, where the ox head is placed on the lower lunar part, while the upper is supplemented with a
triquester, an eminently celestial symbol (13: 6). We also discuss the possibility that these horns do not code
a bull, but rather a cow based on the relation between cow horns and the moon, between moon phases and
menstrual cycle in women, as well as identification of milk with the milky white lunar light. In favor of this
we refer to the myth of Cadmus related to the Central Balkan territories and people which are related to the
Macedonian bronzes. The myth has it that Cadmus was supposed to build a town on the spot where a cow
would direct him, a cow which had a white sign resembling full moon on both flanks. These marks can be
related to some types of Macedonian and Thessalian bronzes where an animal is represented with a circle and
a dot (sun or perhaps a full moon) impressed on its flanks (30: 4; 63; 64). Especially interesting is an
example with a goat (63: 8) which correlates with the versions of this myth where the ancient Macedonian
kings established a town on a location suggested by a goat.
In several strap dividers the crescent is supplemented with a border of tiny spherical segments that can
be interpreted in different ways: as ornament showing the moon rays, but also as some drops of a fluid
excreted from this celestial body (11: 9 12; 12: 5, 6, 8, 9). The last assumption can be confirmed with
Hindu mythical presentations in which rain falls from the moon, as well as some Chinese traditions in which
moon dew lights the view and enables immortality. Having in mind the identification of soma and haoma with
cosmic waters and treating the moon as a cup that contains them, the stated segments could denote drops of
the holy drink used by the people who wore these objects.
Other iconographic patterns can be noted in several examples: anthropomorphized sun travelling in a
lunar boat (22: 4 6, 9); goddess-birth giver whose spread and arcuately folded legs finish with animal
protomes (22: 8 compare to 7). If objects are rotated for 180 degrees a picture of capsized lunar boat
appears in them, that could represent the very moment when sun, crossing the threshold between visible and
chthonic regions, transfers from one boat into another (22: 11 compare to 2). The dually zoomorphised
celestial sphere can be recognized in the same constellation, where the cross could denote the sun at noon or
daylight filling the lower sky located below the celestial sphere (22: 10 - 12).
- Mediaeval iconographic parallels. A fully silver cast pendant dated in 10th century AD originates
from Fossi (Iceland), its body shaped very similarly to the cross-shaped strap dividers, but this time
supplemented with animal (wolf) head (23: 1, 2 compare to 4 6). On one hand, it is interpreted as
Christian cross-shaped pendant, and on the other hand, as pendant in a shape of Mjlnir, the hammer of the
Scandinavian god Thor (23: 3, 7, 8, 10). Similar shape, but also relations among thunderbolt, light and sun
965
on one hand, and moon and wolf on the other, induced us to project some distant common roots of this object
and the Balkan strap dividers, as well as to introduce some new aspects in the semiotics of the latter.
- Crossbands on the chest. Based on the shape of the cross-shaped strap dividers and their position in
the graves, we have assumed that the shown crossband dividers were worn on female chest with diagonally
oriented arms (14). Given the stated significance of the cross, we believe that besides utilitarian, this jewelry
also had a symbolic i.e. semiotic function. This section contains a diachronical review of crossbands as a
motive, largely based on the research of R. Gicheva-Meimari. Within prehistory they appeared more often as
hallmark of female figures, whereupon past authors treated them as emblems of the Great goddess, but also as
symbol of earth as a quadruple, that would be redirected to solar spheres in later epochs (24; 25; 26;
27). Some authors relate them to tudittu, a female jewelry related to goddesses Inanna, i.e. Ishtar and
, the magical jewelry of Aphrodite, both enhancing erotic sentiments and fertility. Crossbands can also be
identified in Macedonian bronzes on the figure-vessel represented by the miniature goblets with animal
protomes (25: 1; 15: 16), but also indirectly on some of the kneeling figures on the cluster pendants (25:
4 - 7, 8, 11) and the sitting ones on the hollow ajoure pendants (visible only on the back) (25: 12). Such
crossbands were quite dispersed in Western Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean, and a bit later on the
Apennine Peninsula as well. In Ancient Greece and the neighboring cultures they appeared as landmarks of
people and mythical characters who were not considered members of Hellenic culture: heroes, kings and
soothsayers, supernatural creatures (Amazons, Sirens, Maenads); goddesses with maiden (Athena, Artemis
and Bendis) or bridal (Hera and Aphrodite) status; chthonic gods (Hades, Dionysus and Eros) (26). Many of
these characters are related to mysterial cults, whereupon their presence in the body of an ordinary man refers
to his status of a servant or slave of deity. Numerous archaeological finds of this jewelry are known (28:
1 - 3), of which the crossed golden ribbons from the rich graves of Archondiko near Pela (Greek Macedonia)
dated between 5th and 3rd c. BC deserve to be mentioned due to their chronological and geographical
proximity with Macedonian bronzes (29: 4). Crossbands can also be seen in Christianity and the Balkan
folklore (27: 3 - 5).
- Horse harness female jewelry. We have seen that strap dividers were used as female jewelry in
Macedonia and the surrounding Balkan regions (14), while in the remaining Euroasian regions they were
used as elements of horse harnesses. We believe that this contradiction was not due to the regular mechanical
re-adaptation, but the symbolical identification of the woman and the horse. In traditional patriarchal societies
the relation of man and his spouse was very similar to his relation with the horse (mare included). Husband
was her absolute master, she on the other hand was a part of his property that could have been bought or
traded. Finally, this relation is most explicitly reflected during intercourse, whereupon he literally rides his
spouse, thus also manifesting a material domination over her body. To be more exact, in communities which
wore the Macedonian bronzes this relation is confirmed in one quote of Herodotus which refers to some
people who lived above Crestonians (north of Chalkidiki where they were located) (2). Namely, they had
a custom, upon the death of a dignitary man, one of his several wives, whom he loved the most, to be
slaughtered at his grave. There is a vast material based on ancient Greek sources which confirms that in the
Balkans and in the Mediterranean, the horse, i.e. the mare represented wild nature of the girl who was not
trained for a marital life and was not bridled with marital bridles. Many myths depict virgins as wild and
furious mares which, at the end, would be tamed and later married (daughters of the Messenian king
Leucippus; enraged mares of Diomedes; some of the Amazons). And vice versa, bridling wild horses was
performed by heroes experienced in marital life under the auspices of Hera Zygia and Athena given the epithet
Chalinitis (= on the bridles). Not a few ancient goddesses had an equine nature, such as Black Demeter,
Artemis given the epithet Hippon, Athena and Hera given the epithet Hippia, as well as Cybele. This feature is
also present in ancient people from Macedonia, as well as in other cultures (Celts, Skythes, India). In favor of
this is the etymology of lexemes denoting spouses. In Slavic languages it is soprug, sopruga (Proto-Slavic
*sprg, *sprga) based on: Proto-Slavic *prgnti, *prgti, *prg = to yoke, to strain; Proto-Slavic
*prg and Old Church Slavic prg = yoke; Indo-European root *spreng-, from *(s)p(h)erg-. In ancient
Greek is likewise: , , signifying husband/wife = to yoke, to join, to bond. All this refers to
two identifications: woman + riding equipment = mare (= wild = maiden); woman + riding equipment =
bridled mare (= tamed girl = wife).
Acceptance of these relations offers possibilities to explain the presence of the discussed cross-shaped
strap dividers in graves (especially the female ones) as a jewelry which, imitating an element of horse harness,
was aimed to symbolically identify the female decedent (a girl, a bride or a spouse) with the bridled horse, i.e.
mare. Perhaps it was part of a bridal dress in which women were buried even later in the Balkans, regardless
966
of their age at death. Transforming the female decedent into a bride perhaps reflects her marriage with the god
of the underworld denoting her passage from this world to the hereafter (by the example of Persephone and
Hades). Aristotle confirms this indirectly, as in Macedonia young fellows had an analogous equine status.
They had a law upon which a man who has not killed a single enemy (= was not a man) had no right to carry a
true male belt, but belt made of horse bridles.
- Cross-shaped strap dividers function. Recapitulating the presented analyses and the functions of
the strap dividers in this case, we could segment them in four different directions. Their semantic function, as
part of crossbands, would be composed of the signification of the female sex of the one who wore them or of
her closeness i.e. virginal status. Stimulative function would stem from the actual function of this jewelry
(joining, connecting, holding of different parts of clothes and equipment together) transpositioned in the
marital spheres, as joining, connecting and holding of spouses together, perhaps under the auspices of Bendis,
the tying goddess. Stimulative function could also have been based on solar, celestial or axial symbolism of
the cross. If we consider the meaning of the diagonal cross as a sign of interdiction, negation, liquidation,
deletion and diversion of any approach (confirmed until today), then strap dividers become apotropaions
aimed at protection of a girl i.e. a woman of different negative factors during life, but also in afterlife (14: 2,
5, 6). Majority of the stated significances of this jewelry refer to its eschatological function. Based on the
solar, luminous and celestial meanings of the cross, strap dividers could have symbolized human soul as part
of the divine soul integrated in his/her earthly body. Their location refers to their relation with solar plexus
(literally interlace). Italic people used this term for the central point of human torso referring to its relation
with sun as center of heaven and as heart of the universe. These meanings correlate chakras in Hindu
culture: placing strap dividers on the chest, related to heaven and air, would refer to Anhata chakra; relation
with sun and fire would refer to abdomen and Maipra chakra; presence of moon in some strap dividers
would be related to water, Svdhihna chakra and organs related to excretion and reproduction. Considering
solar i.e. luminous dimension of cross and its identification with the soul, strap dividers with a lunar
presentation could have symbolized the soul of the deceased that sails to the hereafter in a lunar boat (11:
9 12; 12; 13). Supplements shaped as drops around the lunar segment can be related to eschatological
spheres if we accept the possibility that they might have represented water excreted by the moon as dew or
rain, but also the holy beverage as their epiphany and immortality inducer.
II. Bronze cheek-pieces (digression). Symbolical identification of jewelry worn by men with horse
harness was a motive to discuss this category of Macedonian bronzes in this chapter, regardless of the fact that
they do not contain any cross-shaped elements. Objects (dated in 7th-6th c. BC) were cast in bronze, shaped as
arcuately folded bars (20 cm in length) supplemented with a hinge, animal figures and impressed linear and
circular motives (30; 31: 1 3; 32: 6 8). In science they are referred to as Bumerang Anhngen,
bumerangfrmige Anhngen mit Ringse, trenzle, cheek-pieces, sickle-shaped pendants and lunula-
bended pendants. All of them were found in the flow of Vardar River (R. of Macedonia), part of them as
goods in female graves, either as single deposits, hung on the belt, or in pairs, as part of a more complex
garniture supplemented with a small goblet with protomes (31: 1; 77: 6). We also know of an example of
Lower Austria (32: 10). N. G. L. Hammond, J. Bouzek and R. Vasi approach these objects as cheek-pieces,
i.e. elements of horse harness, even though none of the Macedonian finds was found in a context that would
refer to horses, jockeys and riding in any way. Even though these items resemble cheek-pieces indeed, they
could not have been used as such due to their hollow and frail body. It gave D. Mitrevski reason to treat them
as objects of cult nature, worn on the belt as pendants or used as handles of complex garnitures used in cult
purposes. Past iconographic analyses of these objects can be resumed to identification of ornaments and
zoomorphic motives (snake, bird, ox and dog) shown on them.
- Iconography, semiotics and cult purpose. We realize our interpretation within cosmological
context, whereupon the semi-circular body could have signified the celestial sphere, the zigzag and the wavy
motive celestial waters (perhaps represented with the snake in the latter case) (30: 1 3, 5), while the
hinge could have represented solar disc. The above mentioned animals would symbolize the sun or the
separate phases of its path throughout the universe (sunrise, noon, sunset, spring, summer etc.) or the factor
i.e. the force that enables this motion (a horse or a deer carrying sun either on its back or pricked on the
antlers) (30: 1, 4; 31: 3; 32: 8). As most appropriate parallel of this concept we give the motives
engraved on a category of Late Bronze Age razors of Jutland (fish = morning, bird = noon, horse = evening,
snake = night) (15: 1). As for the Marvinci example, interpreting animals as a cow and a mare, combined
with the vertical hatches, could also refer to water aspect of heaven (rain = milk) (30: 4; 32: 8). Traditions
of identification of a woman with untamed mare and of the married woman with tamed i.e. bridled or yoked
967
horse, give us right to explain these objects in the same context as the cross-shaped strap dividers, especially
to their presence in female graves.
III. Cross-shaped applications with widened arms
1. Cross-shaped applications with a central round part and triangular arms. These objects are
shaped as small bronze plates with outlines of a Maltese cross and a center shaped as semi-spherical button
(33). Distance between the arms is at point reduced to a thin space, which results in lost shape of the cross
and bringing its square shape into the foreground (33: 9, 10, 12, 13). On the reverse, these objects have a
loop, most probably aimed for their threading on belts or ribbons. These finds are not exclusive for the
Macedonian bronzes, but also for other Iron Age complexes from the wider region.
2. Cross-shaped application with concave arms. These are several different types of plate objects,
all of them having arms, which, extending towards periphery, widen concavely, whereupon their ends are
arcuately protruding. Only several Macedonian examples have been discussed of the great fund of similar
finds, which are treated as clothes buttons (32: 1 - 5).
3. Iconography and semiotics. Past literature gives the Maltese cross a significance of a solar
symbol, a symbol of the universe or of the quadruple world, something we basically agree with based on
previously presented meanings of the cross as a symbol of four spatial directions (34: 1 10; 3: 1). In
context of verbally presented myths, widening of the arms of this cross towards periphery could be related to
four directions of spread i.e. extension of earth surface or the cosmic space. The quadrangular appearance of
these applications would refer to the first significance, whereupon the central protruded segments could
denote the primordial hill (emerged from the Cosmic ocean) of which the genesis i.e. expansion of earth
began. Having in mind the display of this motive on the navel of the figure-vessel from Yarim Tepe (34: 8;
24: 7), we think that some of the Iron Age buttons could also have been placed in the same body zone,
identifying the navel with the original hill that also appeared in the center of the universe (= the Navel of the
World). We could treat concave cross-shaped applications in two ways: (a) as a cross melted into a circle and
(b) as a juncture of two double axes i.e. two crossed labryses i.e. as four-bladed labrys (40) (see chapter 6).
C. Three-dimensional cross
I. Six-armed pendants from Ku i Zi. The best representative of this type of crosses is the pendant
found in grave number 62 at the Iron Age necropolis near Ku i Zi (Albania), simultaneously being the only
such example from the Balkans that we know of (35: 1, 2). We include it in our research since objects
belonging to Macedonian bronzes were found at the same necropolis (11). Similar examples dated in the
same period have been found in Abgarhuk and the Klivanskij mogiljnik (Caucasus), which could be an
argument in favor of the Eastern European genesis of the Balkan example (38: 3 5 compare to 1, 2). Even
though the exact position of the find from Ku i Zi on the deceased has not been determined, it is hard to
believe that it stood on the chest due to its three-dimensional shape. We believe it was more probable that it
hung around the palm base and that perhaps it was used as a cult object that was hold or swung in some sacral
space. Three-dimensional cross with similarly conceived arms, though not in such a pure shape, can also be
recognized in various Balkan Iron Age objects (35 compare to 67).
II. Hollow bronze balls pierced with six circular apertures. These are bronze cast objects in a
shape of a hollow ball with ajoure walls (36). They were found mainly on the territory of Republic of
Macedonia. Dated in 7th and 6th c. BC, in science they are referred to as beads, durchbrochen gearbeiteter
Perlen, ball-like ajoure pendants or bird cage pendants. We are doubtful regarding the treatment of these
finds as pendants due to the lack of hanging loop, while the relatively great dimensions and the large diameter
of the circular apertures on the poles are not in favor of their usage as beads. Some analogies of the Koban
culture (36: 15) entice us to presume that a wooden handle was placed in the apertures which turned these
objects into mace, i.e. scepter heads. Even though tiny at first glance, the dimensions of these objects would
not discrepant significantly from the standard maces of that time, whereupon we do not exclude the possibility
that they might have been symbolical maces i.e. scepters shaped as miniature models (a hypothetical
reconstruction 35: 8). According to the ajoure body, neither would we exclude the possibility that they were
distaff tops (compare to 21: 5, 6; 24: 13).
1. Iconography and semiotics
- Three-dimensional cross-shaped pendants. As iconographical parallels of the three-dimensional
cross from Ku i Zi we could point the analogously conceived ceramic pendants-amulets from the Neolithic
Vina culture (dimension between 3 cm and 7 cm) (38: 6 14 compare to 1, 2; 39: 3, 4, 10, 11).
Differences among them refer to the arms width and the lack of hanging loop which can be justified with the
968
limitations of ceramic as a material and the technology of its production. The lack of hanging loop was
compensated through tunnel-like apertures pierced in some of the arms, which, evidently, were used for
placing cords for their hanging. The millennium hiatus between Neolithic and Iron Age examples can be
overcome with two analogous ceramic Bronze Age objects found in Serbia and the northern part of
Macedonia, especially because the latter was discovered in a cult object (39: 1, 5, 6). As a paradigm for
interpreting these objects symbolism we take the example from Vedic and other Hindu religious and
philosophical thoughts representing the three gunas. In a dynamical sense, it represents the spread of rajas,
whereupon its vertical axis represents sattva, the higher celestial conditions of the being (close to purusha by
their significance), while the horizontal arms represent tamas, its lower, i.e. earthly conditions (equivalent to
prakrti). Verbal interpretation of these structures can also be found in Christianity (39: 13, 14). According to
Clement of Alexandria the unlimited vastnesses stem from God (The Heart of the Universe), directed up,
down, left, right, forward and back, so as the six periods of time. According to St. Irenaeus, Christ placed
height, depth and length from east to the west and from north to the south in the world. Similar traditions can
be found in the Kabbalah and most probably in the pagan Slavic mythical and religious system.
- Hollow bronze balls. Four lateral circular apertures on these objects, apart of which two additional
triangular perforations have been pierced, resemble an open eye with a centrally positioned pupil (36).
Accepting this interpretation would signify a presence of these objects in the image of four cross-shaped eyes
directed at the cardinal points. We focus the meaning of this image in two directions: the positive and the
negative significance of the eye. Given the funerary context in which these objects were found, the shown
eyes could have coded the dark or the lethal view of the god of underworld and of death, to which, actually,
the deceased is submitted. The second significance, completely different, would be based on the eyes-light-
life-existence relation. In this context, the eyes would have belonged to some mythical character that creates
and sustains the universe with his look, as well as life in it and thus the rebirth of the deceased. Direction of
the eyes of those objects towards all four sides referred to the omnipresence of divine view, which in other
cases was also represented through the whole face of the deity. The eye and the view could also serve as
apotropaions, focused on magical protection of all evils. Considering the resemblance of these objects with
distaffs, their four eyes could have served for protection of yarn from all sides, which, according to the belief,
was especially susceptible to negative influence. This iconographical constellation can be traced in the
Balkans with glass beads with small eyes (37: 5) and on the Hellenic vessels with two pairs of painted eyes
(37: 1 - 4).
III. Four-armed bronze object from Brazda near Skopje. This object is cast in bronze (3 cm x 2.9
cm) with a tubular body whose mildly widened central part has four protuberances, arranged in a shape of a
cross, which have button-like nubs (35: 4). This find is considered as unique, but similar shapes can be
detected within other Iron Age objects from the Balkans (35). Even though in past literature it was
considered a pendant or a bead, its great weight and the diameter of the opening of 1 cm speak against this.
We believe that, as in the previous case, it could have been a mace i.e. scepter head, numerous similarly
conceived objects from the same period being in favor of this (40; 41; 42). Hence, there are two possible
solutions regarding the fixation of the handle: (a) a direct one, through its placement in the aperture (41: 12)
and (b) second one with placing a rope in that aperture that would have been fixed on the handle (41: 17).
Small dimension of this object should not be treated as a counter-argument for these presumptions,
considering that the force of the stroke of the mace is not based on the weight of its head as it is on the length
of the handle or of the rope to which it is attached. At least, it could have been a scepter shaped as a miniature
mace that would represent not the physical, but the social power of its holder.
1. Iconography and semiotics. We disclose the significance of the Brazda find by a diachronical
review of objects that were similarly conceived. We begin with the already mentioned multi-armed Neolithic
ceramic objects from Vina culture among which there is one type with especially high resemblance to the
Macedonian example, mostly because of the specific lateral button-like nubs. In this case as well openings
were pierced through some arms in order to place cords for hanging (38: 13, 14; 39: 7 9; 40: 11
compare to 10). We propose to search for their basic significance, and probably genesis, among the similarly
conceived stone maces that are especially typical for Eastern Europe, starting from the Neolithic up until Late
Bronze Age (40: 2 6, 8, 9). Science also interprets them as hammers with cross-shaped heads which didnt
have utilitarian but rather symbolical i.e. a ritual function, as insignia of rulers and priests. In the same areas,
bronze variations of these objects will show later (40: 1, 7, 12, 13). Especially indicative for us are the
relations with similar objects from the Caucasus region (Koban as well as the Colchian culture) and
the neighboring Iranian regions (Luristan bronzes) (42: 2, 3, 6 11 compare to 1). Moreover, worth
969
mentioning are the miniature bronze objects with similar shapes, but with a central opening instead of the
vertical pole, which, through quite identical examples, are present in Macedonia and in Eastern Europe (40:
7, 12, 13; 41: 1 3, 8, 15 compare to 4, 5, 7, 13, 16). Same shapes can also be traced in mediaeval maces
(42: 4, 5).
Analyzing the object from Brazda and its parallels shaped as four-headed maces-scepters we came to
a category of analogously conceived cult objects in which the aforementioned lateral protuberances are turned
into human heads pointed at the four cardinal directions (42: 1). Even though this element is not present in
the Macedonian find, we have decided to bring a more detailed diachronical review of this iconographical
type within this section. The presence of similar objects within Balkan Iron Age cultures (41: 11; 48: 8, 9)
motivated us to do so, as well as the possibility that this element could have been present in the Brazda object
as supplement of the four protuberances made of organic material or as a mental image in the mind of its
users.
- Multifaceted god anthropomorphic paradigm of the three-dimensional cross. This mythical
image is a human phenomenon confirmed by several examples from the exotic parts of the world (Mali,
Gabon and Mexico) (43: 3; 44: 5, 6). The oldest examples from the ancient world are stone objects from
Armenia, from the 2nd and the beginning of the 1st millennium BC (44: 3, 7). Then, the Luristan bronzes and
the Amlash bronzes follow, in which the number of head varies between two and six (43: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9).
We suggest that the Iranian god Zurvan given the epithet Tetraprosopos (four-faceted) should be looked for
among these, whereupon this landmark will later be transferred to Mitra and to the Manichean Father of
Greatness. This image is also present in the Balkans through Iron Age glass beads (of eastern origin) and the
heads of some bronze pins from Dalmatia (48: 8, 9). Within Hindu culture, closest to our paradigm are
presentations of Lingam, i.e. Shivalingam (flaming phallus of Shiva shown as a Cosmic axis i.e. Cosmic
pillar) accompanied by four heads i.e. four faces (caturmukhalinga). Thus, heads on these objects could
represent the four aspects of Shiva Mahesvara (Brahma, Kala, Rudra and Vishnu). They coincide with the four
main characters from the hymns of Rigveda, placed in the five basic spatial points: Soma in the north, Indra or
Yama in the south, Agni in the east and Vishnu in the center, identified with the Cosmic pillar (45). In the
ancient world this constellation appears as landmark of cult column-like statues known as hermai, of which
the ones with four heads i.e. faces are especially interesting in our case, identified as Four-headed Hermes
(Hermes Tetrakefalos) in Hellenic (44: 2, 9) and as Ianus Quadrifrons in the Roman culture. In this review
we also include hekataion, multiplicated presentations of goddess Hecate, which, even often triple, sometimes
(apparently, mostly in Asia Minor) appeared in quadruple variations as Meter Tetraprosopos (44: 4, 10).
Four-headed column-like idols can also be traced in European mediaeval pagan traditions especially those of
the Slavic, Baltic or the Scandinavian people. They are present in three categories of finds. The first one is
comprised of bigger column-like stone objects with four (but, also three) faces which stood in some temples
and sanctuaries (46: 2 - 5). Historical sources which depict the cult objects of the West Slavs also speak of
such multifaceted idols and of gods they represented (Svantovid and Perun). The second group consists of
small spiked objects carved of bone or antler (47: 1 4, 6 - 9). There are various assumptions regarding their
purpose, tools for writing on a birch core to name just one. Whetstones constitute the third group, made of
relevant stone type, but also wood, often supplemented with a metal top with a hinge (48: 1 - 6). They are
frequent in the Baltic region to which the exclusive find from Sutton Hoo could be genetically related.
Interpreting the complex iconography of the most interesting monumental Slavic idol found in the Zbruch
River, B. A. Rybakov comes to solutions relevant of the aforementioned (46: 4). According to him, the base
of the idol represents a macrocosmic phallus extending from underworld to heaven; four faces reflect the
omnipresent view of the supreme god directed at the four cardinal directions (Svantovid = one who looks
everywhere). Millennium sustenance of this mythical image will determine its integration even in Christianity
adapted in accordance of principles and dogmas of this religion. It is manifested as three-dimensional column-
like objects (46: 1 compare to 43: 5, 7; 48: 7), while in the pictorial medium its three-dimensional
cross-shaped structure will be reduced to a two-dimensional, shaped as a cross with four or eight
anthropomorphic heads on its arms (49). Models of these pictures can be traced outside Christian traditions
(49: 5, 9).
More argued stands on the symbolical and potentially cult purpose of the four-armed bronze object
from Brazda are still not possible (42: 1). Perhaps it was a scepter top used by a man of high sovereign
and/or priest status as a mace model or as an image of a four-headed deity representing the Cosmic center that
surveils and controls universal and social order.
970
D. Cross within a circle

In Iron Age, these two elements were combined in metal objects worn as jewelry, in similar cult
objects and in ceramic and metal vessels. We propose several principles of classification of the first two
categories which are in focus of our research based on the following parameters: purpose, i.e. mode of use or
wearing the objects (applications, buttons and pendants); size (large, medium and small objects); shape of
their front i.e. visible part (shape and number of arms of the cross); shape and proportions of the cross as well
as of the surrounding ring; relation between two elements; number of cross inscribed in a circle motives;
various elements which supplement the cross within a circle as a motive (phytomorphic, zoomorphic and
anthropomorphic); iconography of the objects.
I. Applications shaped as a circle with an inscribed cross. This group constitutes of bronze objects
shaped as a flat or mildly convex disc whose middle part is pierced with apertures shaping a cross with four or
more arms and a protuberance in the center (50; 51; 52). In literature they are referred to with several
names: shield bosses, decorative bosses, wheel-shaped ornaments, Makedonischen Votivrder mit
Speichen, Radanhnger mit erhabener Mittelplatte/mit Wulstkranz, circular plate phalera or belt clasps,
while the smallest examples are referred to as buckles. Several such larger applications (from 10 cm to more
than 30 cm) were found in the southern parts of Macedonia in rich female graves, placed on the abdomen of
the deceased (Chauchitsa, Vergina, Lisiin Dol, Milci) (52: 1, 2, 5). Such middle-sized applications
(diameter between 5 and 7 cm) were the most popular of the Macedonian bronzes and the surrounding Iron
Age complexes, but also in the Greek sanctuaries (50; 51: 1, 4 9, 12). Smaller examples, with diameter
of about 4 cm, appear in Central Balkan areas (51: 2, 3, 10). Macedonian finds are mainly dated between 8th
and 6th c. BC, while they are related to similar jewelry from Eastern and Central Europe (the so-called Traco-
Cimmerian bronzes) (53: 4, 9 - 11), but also to the more sophisticatedly made wheels from the Greek
sanctuaries, present as votive objects (54: 1 5, 11). Examples from Macedonia significantly differ from the
ones from the western parts of the Balkan, of which great part belonged to horse harnesses (53). Numerous
such examples, placed on the abdomen of the female decedents, appeared in Central and Northern Europe
(77: 10), but also in Minoan and Mycenaean Greece (51: 11). Dilemmas exist regarding the character i.e.
the purpose of Macedonian finds, the treatment of the largest examples as jewelry i.e. decorative shields to
be exact and the theses (D. Mitrevski) about their use only in special ritual and other ceremonial occasions
(cult of the sun) by priestesses (52: 1, 2, 5). Thus, attempts are being made for associating these objects with
the quote of Maximus of Tyre regarding the worship of sun shaped as disc by Paeonians, not considering that
according to him, it was placed on the top of a rod, which does not correspond to the aforementioned objects
that were placed at the waist, apparently on a belt. Middle-sized applications often do not have a loop on the
back which refers to them being fixed to the apparel through sewing of the four apertures, similar to the
contemporary perforated buttons (50; 51). Most of the applications have a protuberance in the center,
somewhere pretty convex, which alludes to the wheel boss, which determines them as models of the actual
cart wheels.
II. Pendants shaped as circles with inscribed cross. This category differs from the applications due
to the hanging loop in the upper part. These objects are very rare and unstandardized on the Macedonian
territory, unlike Western, Central and Eastern Europe where this jewelry was much more spread in Bronze
and Iron Age (55: 8). So far, two similar finds with a semi-spherical profile, supplemented with rustling
pendants, refer to the existence of a specific Macedonian type (55: 1, 2). The four-spoked wheel on the
labrys-shaped pendant from Beranci (Bitola, R. of Macedonia) is worth mentioning (55: 6). It is discussed in
the forthcoming chapter. It is very indicative that similar pendants from Eastern Europe and the Balkans will
reappear in Early Middle Ages (55: 9 - 12). Within this category, pendants and applications shaped as
concentrical rings with inscribed cross deserve a special attention (56). One such example was recently
discovered in Zlokukjani (Skopje, R. of Macedonia) (56: 1; 69: 7). I. Kilian-Dirlmeier refers to them as
Radanhnger mit freiem Mittelring, while A. Stipevi uses the following depiction: pendants composed of
many concentrical circles mutually joined with bars. Objects similar to the Macedonian one have also been
found in Serbia, Albania and elsewhere in the Balkans and Italy (56; 57). We propose their classification
in three groups based on their dimensions and the number of rings: large (with 5 or more rings) (57: 7, 10,
11); medium (with 3 or 4 rings) (56; 57: 1 - 3) and small ones (with 2 rings) (57: 4, 5, 8, 9). Based on the
presence of loop or its absence, these items can be determined as pendants or applications, the latter, clearly,
sewn on the garments or some kind of a belt. Balkan finds are dated in 8 th and 7th c. BC. Zlokukjani find was
discovered as good in a cremated grave, so we do not know, as for the most part of these finds, where on the
body exactly it was worn. There are inditions that large examples could have been used as pectorals or as
971
applications placed on the abdomen, to which the finds from Italy especially refer (57: 11). I. Kilian-
Dirlmeier seeks for the genesis of these objects in the Bronze Age proto-types from Central and Eastern
Europe, but also the ones from Southern Italy (57: 1, 2, 11). Other researchers also point to relations
between Albanian and Balkan and Italic finds. Some finds indicate certain relations with Caucasus and
Armenia (compare to 57: 6; 69: 1, 2). So far, iconography and semiotics of these finds have been touched
only marginally, whereupon their possible solar and celestial significance were stressed.
III. Applications shaped as multiplied circles with inscribed cross. Among Macedonian bronzes
this category is represented with two almost identical objects from Dedeli (Valandovo, R. of Macedonia)
shaped as a large perforated semi-spherical part with three smaller wheels interconnected with rods above
(58: 2 - 4). In the back, there is a clutch for putting the object on some kind of a belt. Almost identical
example, from the Vassil Bojkov collection (Bulgaria), is accompanied by other elements referring to the fact
that these three finds belong to belt garnitures (58: 6; 59: 1). I. Marazov considers them as buckles of
military belts. D. Mitrevski refers to the first two finds as pendants with pierced circles regardless of the lack
of hanging loop, while he associates the four circular elements with a body, arms and a head of a stylized
human figure. Even though different from a typological perspective, pendants from Suva Reka (Gevgelija, R.
of Macedonia) (58: 1) and Chauchitsa (Kilkis, Greek part of Macedonia) (60: 5) can be included in this
group due to the similar triangular composition, this time of massive circular segments instead of ajoure
wheels. Regarding the triple clustering of wheels, we point several randomly chosen iconographical parallels
from different epochs (60). Due to the concept of wheel multiplication, we should mention two more objects
belonging to the Thessalian bronzes. Composed of six wheels, organized in two columns, they have a horse
figure on their top (62: 8 10). Objects with similar constellation appear in Greece, with rings instead of
small wheels, also supplemented with quadruple animal or a bird (62: 7; 63: 4, 10). Multiplication of the
wheel i.e. circle with inscribed cross as a motive performed with puncture or carving also appears on different
metal bands considered as belt mounts aimed for wearing them at the waist or the forehead (76). Closest to
the Macedonian bronzes are such bands (diadems) from Vergina (76: 2) and Pylos (76: 5), as well as the
belt from Bogdanci (R. of Macedonia), whereupon the latter has ajoure wheels (76: 1). The concept of wheel
multiplication is frequently present in Late Bronze Age and in Iron Age jewelry, but also in similar cult
objects from Europe and the Near East (61). It is well spread on metal and ceramic vessels from the same
epochs, while these traditions can be traced all the way to the Neolithic and the Eneolithic (66).
IV. Applications shaped as a circle with an inscribed cross supplemented with zoomorphic
elements. Among Macedonian bronzes several objects appear in which the wheel i.e. the cross inscribed in a
circle is accompanied by an animal figure in the upper part, a deer to be exact, an undetermined animal (dog
or a wolf?) and a bird. These examples are typical for the southern parts of Macedonia, perhaps created under
the influence of Thessalian bronzes for which this combination is very common (62: 2, 3, 5, 8 - 10). It is
also present in other parts of Greece, whereas instead of ajour wheel, there is a circular plate with a carved
cross below the animal (or bird) (63: 1 - 3). Moreover, it can be found among bronze pendants that were
used as small stamps (pintaderas) and on the three-dimensional miniature carts found in Greek sanctuaries
(63: 5 - 9, 11, 12). The circle i.e. the ring with animal figure (a horse in this case) above it appears on
handles of ancient Greek bronze cauldrons from Geometric period (64: 13). Combining animal and a wheel
is not uncommon within Urnfield culture and later Iron Age cultures from Europe and Near East, whereupon
the animal (most frequently a waterfowl) does not appear only in a single form (64), but also as
multiplication (65). As in the previous case, this concept reappears in Eastern Europe and the Balkans in
arly iddle ges (64: 7, 10; 65: 9, 10).
V. Wheel shown on vessels. This is a vast material that we merely register herewith, for, due to the
vastness and the specific characters, it would request separate research. Hence, such motives of ancient Greek
painted pottery from Proto-Geometric period are worth mentioning as well as the vessels from the Balkan Iron
Age cultures (66). Synchronous presence of similar motives on ceramic and toreutics ornaments poses
dilemmas regarding their primary medium. Perhaps the solution should be looked for in possible use of
organic materials in their creation and transmission.
VI. Iconography and semiotics
1. Semiotics and symbolism of the wheel
- Wheel and cart between symbol and utilitarian object. In science, the wheel is referred to as one
of the most significant innovations of men which had a great impact on the development of human culture.
Even though the utilitarian dimension of this artifact is commonly or mostly considered, we give much greater
significance to its usage as a matrix for cognition of the universe. Hence, the wheel within archaic cultures
972
should not be treated merely as element providing more efficient transport, but also as a paradigm i.e. a
concept for comprehension of cyclical processes in the most general sense (as time) or their specific
manifestations taking place in human bodies and nature i.e. cosmos: the cycle of life and death; menstrual
cycle; vegetative cycle; lunar (monthly), solar (circadian and annual) cycle etc. We can conclude, quite
certainly, that the wheel itself, and thus the cart, i.e. the carriage, didnt appear intentionally as utilitarian, but
foremost as symbolical i.e. cult objects. The carriage of Trundholm (Denmark) illustrates this very well, as it
was aimed for a ritual transport of the golden (solar) disc placed on it (59: 5, 6). More inditions witness that
utilitarian carriages, would, actually, be created through desacralisation of such ritual objects.
- Wheel, cosmos and time. On a spatial level the wheel could represent the whole universe (center of
the wheel = center of universe; felloe = rims, i.e. world boundaries; spokes = cardinal points; various other
elements = earth, earthly waters, sky) (69: 9; 78: 4). On a temporal level, it represents circular processes in
their dynamical aspect (periodic repetition; rhythmic switch of two opposite principles as prerequisite of
dynamics and time). Thus, separate phases of these cyclical processes could be coded through the spokes or
other wheel elements. Wheel also functions as a symbol of wholeness, in its spatial-temporal dimension,
whereas its center could code the category up (= sky) and the stationary cosmic center; in temporal sense, it
could code the beginning, while its periphery would code the categories of down and earth as manifestations
of materiality and transiency. The number of spokes (360, 28, 7 or 4) could code the phases of a given
temporal cycle. We confirm the given significances of the wheel through examples of Rigvedic hymns (a
wheel that does not wear out neither breaks), as well as of Chinese and other ancient Mediterranean cultures.
We place a special emphasis on the wheel of the law which figures as a symbol of cosmic order on a
macrocosmic level, while as a symbol of destiny on a microcosmic one. In Hindu culture it is represented by
the dharmacakra wheel, moved by Buddha himself, or sasra the circle of periodic births and deaths
(64: 12; 82: 1), represented in Western culture by Wheel of Fortune or Wheel of Existence under the
auspices of goddess Fortuna (80: 2, 5).
- Wheel sky. In science, this significance of the wheel is often marginalized in the expense of the
solar one. The real paradigm of this identification is the rotation of the starry sky around the stationary Pole
Star (67: 7; 68: 1). In myths worldwide such significance is coded through identification of sky not only
with the wheel, but also with various objects, such as the potters wheel, the threshing floor and the spindle
and not only due to the circular shape, but also their dynamical aspects, i.e. rotation around a central axis. The
best known manifestation of this is the zodiac, literally meaning wheel of life or wheel of animals (68: 7;
82: 7). In the east, this significance is most explicitly reflected by Tantric klacakra, basicly signifying
wheel of time. This meaning rounds up with the so-called cosmic cross, its midnight arm shown through
Narayana, who represents the sun setting from midnight till dawn; eastern arm represents Brahma, the god
Creator (sunrise); Vishnu, as god of preservation and representative of the balance principle is identified with
the noon arm; Shiva, as god of destroy (with the moon as his symbol) is identified with sunset i.e. western
arm (compare to 49). An important role in these presentations is given to the Pole Star, shown as a center
and axis of wheel-sky rotation (68: 1). In Indian mythology Brahma places it above the cosmic Mount
Meru; in Iranian mythology it is meh-i mayan asman (a peg in the middle of the sky) put by Ahura Mazda
on Hara Berzaiti Mountain; in Chinese mythology Pole Star is identified with Tao category. In the pictorial
medium wheel-sky rotation is presented in several manners. One of them is the rhythmic multiplication of
various geometrical, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic elements placed on the wheel rim (as representatives
of categories or objects rotating in the sky) (64: 7; 65: 1, 2, 3 - 6, 12). Thus, the animal on the top of the
wheel or in its center functions as a symbol of the force i.e. the entity enabling rotation (62; 63; 64). The
second manner is through supplementing or metamorphosing the wheel with two animals (as symbols of dual
components of the previous category) (79: 8, 11; 81: 1 3; 59: 4). Supplementation or metamorphosing
the wheel with human figure also represents the notional rotation instigator, i.e. a subject that creates it,
manages and controls it (79; 81: 1 3, 5, 6, 8, 9).
- Sky segmenting. This concept is most clearly manifested through verbal and pictorial myth forms in
all parts of the world as a vertical and horizontal segmenting of sky. The first comprises of its organization in
layers one over another, of which the one above always has a greater degree of sacrality compared to the ones
below (68: 2). The second is based on the concentrical principle, where everything closer to the center has a
greater value i.e. greater degree of sacrality and vice versa (68: 1). We could name the third concept a radial
segmenting for it is performed according to the radial axes of the circle, i.e. the wheel spokes, encompassing
the space they limit (80: 1, 3, 4, 6). We continue with a scope of different parts of the world which illustrate
these concepts. We pay special attention to the phenomenon of multilayers of sky i.e. its division of low i.e.
973
athmospherical sky, visible to men, and the high sky, the invisible, where the world of gods is located and
where the deceased reside. Trajectories of moon, sun, planets and stars were also related to these celestial
layers. They are also reflected in the stories about the journeys of shamans or other sacred characters which
included passage from one sky to another (compare to 68: 4, 6). We believe that the Iron Age ajoure
objects shaped as concentrical rings manifested the first and the second concept, whereupon the arms of the
cross reflect the implementation of the human quadruple orientation system on a celestial level (56; 57).
These objects could also represent the whole cosmos within its horizontal i.e. flattened projections, whereas
the peripheral ring would represent the lower zones (earth, underworld) and the ones in the center the upper
zones (sky, world of gods, paradise) or vice versa (69: 9; 78: 4). The same concept can be found in the
spatial organization of Iron Age burial mounds tumuli (also present in Central Balkans and in Macedonia),
whose semi-spherical shape could represent the Holy Mountain as a symbol of sky or the entire universe
(69: 4 - 6, 8). Graves in them, with a radial disposition and in lines forming concentrical circles could have
reflected the social hierarchy of the community buried there: the ruler in the central and thus the highest point
of the mound, his closest associates in the first circle and the remaining members behind them. As a late
manifestation of this structure we could consider the sacrificial feast in Persepolis in honor of the
posthumously deified ancient Macedonian kings Phillip II and Alexander III. According to Diodorus Siculus,
participants of the feast were lined in huge concentrical circles according to the social hierarchy within
Macedonian army. Except for the highest cosmic zone, the central and the smallest circle of the
aforementioned pendants could have denoted the celestial gate through which one enters from this world to
the hereafter.
- Multiplied solar wheel. Mythical images in which the sun is a wheel rotating throughout sky and
underworld are known to all mankind, whereas the identification of both elements is based on their circular
shape, the ability to move and the radial aspect (sun rays = wheel spokes). In the pictorial medium, the
multiplication of the wheel within certain unique structure i.e. composition can be justified with the endeavor
for dynamization of sun i.e. denoting separate phases of its path along the trajectory. In this context, semi-
circular formations would represent the actual vertical projection of sky with the day trajectory of the sun
(67: 1, 4), while the circular would rather reflect the conceptual (the actually invisible) circular trajectory
within the circadian or the annual solar cycle (67: 2, 5, 6). Triangular compositions are based on the three
crucial phases of the daily sun path (sunrise, noon and sunset) and on identification of sky with the house roof
(60). This paradigm could be used for interpretation of the aforementioned applications from Dedeli and the
Vassil Bojkov collection, in which the three smaller wheels, dispositioned as triangles, would signify these
three phases, while the fourth semi-spherical segment below them could have represented the Cosmic
Mountain (58). On the example from the stated collection this segment is composed of numerous
concentrically organized geometrical images (58: 5, 6, 7): a square (= earth plate), surrounding circle (=
cosmic ocean surrounding the plate) and another circle (= sacral center) in which a cross is inscribed (= axes
of the cardinal directions) with small circles at the ends (= phases of the solar cycle). Triple sun can also be
searched in the three wheels of the Dupljaja carriage (Serbia) (60: 11) which demonstrates a very direct
relation to the analogous three-wheeled chariot of Ashvins (Rigveda I.183) (compare to 65: 7, 8, 11).
Circular presentations of the solar cycle placed on the background of the horizontal image of the universe are
performed on the Iron Age bronze chest armors (70: 3 5) and the disc-shaped objects (70: 2, 6) from
Bosnia, Croatia and Albania with very close iconographical analogies from Poland (70: 8, 9).
2. Rites including cart wheel. Very popular in the folk culture of Slavic population, rites of rotating
flaming wheels on hill ridges can be treated as manifestation of the aforementioned structures. They were
mainly organized during summer festivities, aimed at stimulating the proper development of solar cycles.
Moreover, the act of wheel rotation is reflected in some actions related to Ossetian myths and Irish epics, but
its pictorial manifestations are also present (74: 3, 5; 78: 7; 42: 7). As a reflection of similar rite
manipulations with a symbolical wheel we can treat the presence of votive wheels in Greek sanctuaries
(Dodona, Delphi and Olympia) where they were hung on holy trees or in sacral buildings, where oracles were
made based on their swinging in the wind (65: 2; 54: 11). Some of those wheels ( ) were used
in love magic.
Wheel on top of a pillar. Maximus of Tyre, Greek rhetoritian and philosopher, said that: Paeonians
worship Sun; Paeonian presentation of Sun is a small circle () on a long rod. This quote is inevitable
while researching Macedonian wheel-shaped bronzes, even though it does not explicitly mention a wheel, but
a circle. Placing the solar disc on a rod, seen on a cosmological level, codes the mythical image regarding the
position of the sun on top of the Cosmic pillar. Even though many authors attempted to finds this quote in
974
various archaeological objects related to Paeonians, such a direct connection still cannot be established. Far
more relevant objects can be found in the more distant territories, such as some categories of decorative pins
from Dalmatia (72: 8) and Germany (71: 3, 7, 8, 11). Perhaps the closest is the object from B Skla,
with bigger dimensions, found in a clearly cult context (71: 2). Very similar is the presentation of cult
objects on the relief of the altar of the temple of Ishtar in the town of Assur, built by Tukulti-Ninurta I (72:
11 compare to 1, 4). Analogous traditions were also present in Hindu culture manifested in the vajapeya rite,
aimed at restoration of kings govern, which comprised of the kings climb toward the sacrificial pillar called
yupa, the top of which was wheel-shaped. Moreover, pictorial manifestations of a similar ritual wheel of the
Amarvati stupa (pillar of life as a symbol of Buddha) are known (72: 9, 10). Analogous presentations of
sun placed on a stake are present in Slavic folklore, but also in actual ceremonies (during summer and winter
solstices) composed of elevating the flaming cart wheel on a high pillar (prehistoric analogies 71: 1, 4, 5;
78: 7). Macedonian story of the erratic wheel clearly demonstrates that wheel does not necessarily denote
sun, but also the entire sky. We have already mentioned execution wheels placed on pillars whose genesis is
also in ritual spheres (71: 6; 72: 7; 42: 1; 43: 3, 5). Some researchers associate the quote of Maximus
of Tyre with Paeonian coins in which a radial rosette resembling a sun is shown. Its solar character and the
relations with the solar wheel cannot be excluded, even though in these cases rosettes are not placed on a
vertical pillar, but on the back of an animal (ox) (73: 4, 6 - 8). Our past research and the vast comparative
material demonstrate that this picture is focused on dynamisation of the solar disc (demonstration of the force
that performs its motion throughout the universe) (compare to 73: 12 15; 64: 1 3, 6) or on its spatial
coding (ox down earth : sun up sky). Similar motive is seen on Celtic coins (with presentation of a
horse and a wheel) (73: 1 - 3, 5) and the coins of the town of Asido (Spain) which are related to the
Phoenician cultural areal (73: 11).
b) Wheel and death. This aspect acquires an exceptional importance, considering that the greatest
part of Macedonian wheel-shaped bronzes were found as grave goods, which refers to their possible use as a
funerary jewelry (50: 51; 52; 58). Funerary status of the wheel is reflected by cart wheels in Bronze
and Iron Age grave objects from Eastern Europe deposited on their own, not as parts of funerary carriages of
the deceased, because their thin bronze spokes would not withhold the exertion in such a use, among other
things. This is in favor of the stand that cross-shaped wheel spokes also originally appeared as symbolical
elements, representing sun or its rays extending to the cardinal directions. Presence of such wheels in graves
can be explained with the initiation of the deceased in processes of constant renovation, which upon his/her
passage into the underground, as in case of the sun, will provide rebirth, i.e. resurrection (a tumulus plan 69:
6). Moreover, one should not forget that the cyclical aspects of the wheel and the sun do not exclude their
negative significance as symbols of destroy and death. It refers to solar deities which are usually protectors
not of life only, but also death (74: 4; 78: 10; 80: 2, 5). This circle of life and death can be identified in
the iconographical structures of bronze kraters from Trebenite (Ohrid, R. of Macedonia), which appeared
merely a century after the Macedonian bronzes. On the neck of one of them four naked horsemen (= heroised
decedents) are presented, who, in gallop, move between two goddesses-birth givers with spread snake-like
legs and agape beast mouths (75: 1, 6 compare to 5, 9). One of them is probably incarnation of death which
eats the deceased, while the other is incarnation of resurrection which enables rebirth. Moreover, wheel-
shaped jewelry was also found in the same necropolis (75: 2, 3). In Macedonia, wheel can also be traced on
Roman tomb stones of the so-called Kavadarci i.e. Tikve group (R. of Macedonia) (75: 8). Wheelss
funerary context is also manifested as a component of the burial cart represented by numerous miniature
bronze carriages deposited in Bronze Age burials north of the Alps. Some of them were used as urns,
witnessed by ashes in their recipient (A13: 3 - 5). They are also known within Balkan Iron Age cultures, but
without any information regarding their possible funerary context (A13: 6 8; 62: 1; 63: 7, 8).
c) Wheel placed on a body. It is quite probable that Macedonian Iron Age wheel-shaped pendants
were meant to hang either on the neck or chest (mostly in women) as part of some necklaces (55: 1, 2).
Some of the ribbon-like applications ornamented with wheels were worn on the head as diadems or wreaths,
while others on the waist as belt mounts (76). Of the Macedonian examples, such features had the Vergina
diadem (76: 2) and the Bogdanci belt, supplemented with 8 ajoure small wheels (76: 1), both found in
female graves. Some of the ajoure applications from this region, wheel-shaped i.e. cross inscribed in a circle,
were found placed on the abdomen of female decedents, as part of some belt garnitures with apparently
symbolical function (50; 51; 52). The presence of a wheel on the abdomen of a woman with numerous
examples is traced even in Iron Age cultures from the territories of Croatia, Bosnia (77: 1, 2), Northern
Europe (77: 10) and Apennine Peninsula. Moreover, it can be identified on a category of Iron Age pendants,
975
dispersed from Italy via Western Balkans to Austria, presenting human (probably female) figure in a long skirt
with four-spoked wheel on the abdomen (77: 3 - 5, 7). Bronze Age stone idol from Lisichansk (Ukraine) is
also worth our attention with such a motive on the torso (77: 9). Past researchers have related this
constellation to the sun, sky, light, life force, segmenting space and time and to eschatological spheres.
Continuing this line of thought, we emphasize the relation among these cycles in nature and female
reproductive organs. We could consider the wheel on the abdomen of a woman as symbol of her uterus the
exceptional organ which provides i.e. sustains the circle of life. We could also compare it to Svdhihna
chakra located in hypogastric plexus, representing water as element in whose domain are the internal organs
and foremost, secretion and reproduction.
3. Zoomorphised wheel. This combination can be achieved by supplementing the wheel with
zoomorphic figures (62; 63; 64; 65), by supplementing the animal figure with a single or multiple
wheels (62: 8 - 10) or by metamorphosing the wheel into an animal. If the wheel represents celestial circle,
then in such a picture the animal could represent the force i.e. the factor which enables its rotation i.e. the
cyclical processes it represents, providing its rotation with the strength of its own legs. Presence of two
animals on a single wheel could reflect both progressive and regressive phase of the celestial or the cosmic
cycles (sunrise and sunset, spring and autumn), or the forces i.e. principle standing behind them (64: 7, 12;
79: 8, 11; 81: 1 3). If we consider the wheel as a symbol of the solar disc itself, then the animal on which
it is placed (mainly a horse and a deer) acquires the significance of force i.e. factor that transports it (carries,
draws or pushes) sun throughout cosmos (64; 73). As already said, ox in this constellation could also
symbolize the earth, i.e. category down, athwart wheel representing sun-sky-up relation (73: 4, 6, 7, 8, 11).
Iron Age small wheel supplemented with birds (62; 63) can also be related to the nymph Iynx of the Greek
mythology, who, due to participating in the love affairs of gods, was turned into the bird and named after it
(Eng. wryneck). In antiquity, love magic was performed, composed of tying these birds to wheels, which
reminds of the aforementioned objects called (as well as the epithet four-spoked)
associated with Aphrodite and the same love affairs. Numerous animals, regularly dispositioned on the felloe,
could signify phases of a certain cosmic cycle (morning, noon, evening and night; summer and winter solstice,
spring and autumn equinox; seasons, weeks, months), but also constellations in the sky, considering that in
ancient cultures they were identified with animals (65). We propose a zoomorphic interpretation of a
specific type of a cart wheel shown independently on coins related to Paeonians and their kin tribes (Ichnae or
Tynteni) (78: 1, 2 compare to 73: 9, 10) or as part of a carriage (coins of Derrones and Laeaeans) (73:
4, 6 compare to 78: 5, 9). We believe that the specific type of inner spokes of this wheel could be identified
as a stylized lizard, frog or a turtle. On a cosmological level, such a position could be justified so that the hub
of the wheel with this very motive would represent lower zones of the universe (earth, earthly waters), while
the felloe would represent the upper ones (sky) (compare to 78: 4; 25; 26; 28).
4. Anthropomorphised wheel. This concept is manifested through the supplementation of the wheel
interior with an anthropomorphic figure (identification of the four limbs with four spokes) (79) or through
the metamorphosing of the wheel into a human figure (81: 1 3, 5, 6, 8, 9). Even though there are no such
examples among Macedonian bronzes and similar objects from surrounding regions, we refer to them hereby
in order to finish discussing wheel semiotics. The closest such examples are from the Iron Age cultures from
Western Balkans (79: 6; 81: 1, 5, 6), the ones attributed to the Celts (79: 4), those from the Luristan
bronzes (79: 2; 81: 2, 3) and older, Bronze Age ones from Russia (79: 1, 7). As in the previous cases,
later they reappeared in early mediaeval cultures of Eastern Europe, Macedonia and Albania (79: 8, 9, 11
12). Unlike zoomorphic wheels, here the presence of a human figure can be justified through the function of
this character to manage the cycle represented by the wheel, providing permanence, rhythm i.e. balance of its
rotation. Hence, he himself represents the stationary center, the axis (pillar) around which the cyclical
processes of the sky and the whole universe are performed (Hindu examples 79: 10; 81: 9). In this section,
we review the exact mythical characters and deities who are put in context of the wheel in various manners
(80; 82). Finally, we touch upon wheel types supplemented with multiplied human heads (81: 4, 7, 10)
or whole figures (81: 11, 12), as representatives of the aforementioned separate phases of a given cycle
represented by the wheel.
VII. Cult purpose of Macedonian bronzes shaped as a circle with an inscribed cross i.e. a wheel.
As part of the semantic function of the previously discussed objects (mostly jewelry) we bring the question
regarding their possible use as ethnicity or tribe indicators of the people who wore them. Within this aspect, a
question arises whether the presence of similar types of wheel-shaped jewelry in wider Balkan areas should be
considered as a product of the high degree of ethno-cultural proximity of the populations of the given regions,
976
their common ethno genesis, akin languages, culture and the direct and lasting cohabitation, or as a result of
the intense trade activity and the fashionable i.e. esthetical dimension of these objects including their role as
indicators of the social and the economical rang of the persons who wore them. Stimulative function of wheel-
shaped objects could have been associated with the identification of the human body part on which they were
put (heart, chest, solar plexus, abdomen, navel or uterus) with certain macrocosmic elements and transposition
of power onto the latter to entice and maintain the processes taking place in the relevant part of the human
body. One example of such action would be the inclusion of sun (as center of the universe and cosmic soul
bearer) into the conception of a fetus in womans womb or in maintaining the vital processes of the human
body in general. Same macrocosmic significance could have been focused on the apotropaic functions of this
jewelry aimed at a general protection of the person wearing it or exactly the organs in whose proximity it was
worn. This function especially befits large wheels placed on the abdomen of female decedents, which actually
resemble shield bosses (50; 51; 52; 77). Within the same identification, eschatological function of this
jewelry can also be projected. If we consider the signification of the wheel as the sun, center and soul of the
sky and the universe, it could refer to identification of the same significance on a bodily level, the body being
the microcosm, navel being the center of human body, while the heart and solar plexus center and seat of its
soul, respectively. In this context, liaising of these elements could signify introduction of the human soul in
the cyclical processes of the universe as a determinant prerequisite for transcending death.
CHAPTER 6:
DOUBLE AXE-SHAPED OBJECTS
Objects shaped as double axes, i.e. labryses, as archaeological finds are not specific for the
Macedonian bronzes, but rather items present in the remaining Balkan Late Bronze Age and Iron Age
complexes.
A. Late Bronze Age and Iron Age double axes from Macedonia
I. Massive bronze and iron double axes. These objects are not in the focus of our research due to
their treatment above all as utilitarian items, i.e. as tools or weapons, even though opinions exist that in many
cases they could have also functioned as symbolical i.e. cult objects (1; 3: 12, 13; 6: 1).
II. Pendants-razors shaped as double axes. The first of the discussed objects was found in the
central grave of the tumulus in Beranci (Bitola, R. of Macedonia) (2: 1, 2), where the deceased (probably a
local headman) was in a contorted pose (plan of the tumulus 69: 4). According to the past researchers, this
was a pendant (11th century BC), which, besides its symbolical purpose, was also used as a razor. It is
classified in the group of Central European razors (Gromugl type, Mesi sub-type), for which as closest
parallels, mostly because of the ajoure circle with inscribed cross, we give examples from Austria, Croatia and
Albania (2). Dilemmas exist whether the find was based upon northern (Central European) or southern
(Mycenaean) influences. The second object, very damaged, was found in a cremated grave from Kluka
Hipodrom (Skopje, R. of Macedonia), accompanied by remains of a Mycenaean helmet with boars teeth (3:
2).
III. Garnitures with three double axes
1. Monolith garnitures of three double axes. We know of 6 such objects shaped as a flat bronze
plate (about 20/25 x 10 cm) with outlines shaped as three double axes lined on a vertical axis (4; 5; 6: 2,
4 - 7). In some examples, there are carved concentrical circles or the tremolo ornament on the surface (4: 5,
6). All finds were discovered in inhumated female graves within tumular necropolises from Vergina (Greek
part of Macedonia), dated in 11/10th-9th c. BC (5; 6: 4, 6). They were placed in the upper part of the body,
on the head or the shoulders, their handle oriented upwards or downwards. There are two hypotheses
regarding their purpose: (a) that they were used as pendants (N. G. L. Hammond) and (b) as scepter tops (M.
Andronikos). We consider the latter more probable, since in our opinion their very position in the graves
refers to such a purpose, so as the triangular hole on the handle (4: 1, 2, 6) and the damage and the repair of
that very part (4: 4, 5), which we believe were made due to the exertion of the material the labrys was made
of with the pole to which it was fixed. S. Pabst-Drrer believes they were used by women with high status
within the community (analogous of the Homeric Geraien), which stemmed from the social rang of their
spouses (Gerontes). Moreover, related to Minoan and Mycenaean traditions, it also touches the aspects of
977
Chapter 6: Double axe-shaped objects
triplication of the labrys and the double segmentation of its top (4: 1, 2, 4, 5), which, in her opinion,
represents a stylized lilly (compare to 36: 7).
2. Garnitures of three separate double axes. Unlike the previous, these are separate labryses
(diameter of around 10 cm), cast in bronze in a shape of plates with a central hole for the handle, ornamented
with linear or tremolo bordures (7; 8: 1). There are indications of their clustering in triads. So far, they
have been found only in R. of Macedonia at the following sites: Beranci near Bitola (7: 6, 7), Vojnik near
Kumanovo (7: 1 - 5) and Tremnik near Negotino (8: 1). They are dated between 10th and 8th centuries BC.
Other similar finds could be joined nominally to this group (8: 13). Even though there are no other direct
analogies for these objects, similar and synchronous labryses shaped as pendants or applications (sometimes
in triple groups) can be found in Greece (8: 2, 7, 11, 12) and Panonia (8: 3 6). Of the finds from the R. of
Macedonia, only the context in which the triple labrys from the female grave no. 16 in Beranci was found is
known (7: 6, 7; plan of the tumulus 69: 4), whereupon we believe that the presence of a spear found there
could refer to the mentioned ritual killing of the widow during her husbands funeral, reported by Herodotus.
D. Mitrevski believes that the formation of these objects was under Mycenaean i.e. Minoan influences.
IV. Belt garnitures of strung double axes. These garnitures are composed of numerous bronze
models of double-bitted axes strung in a single rope accompanied by beads (9: 1, 2). So far, they have been
found at the Ulanci necropolis (Gradsko, R. of Macedonia) in cist graves (13rd-12th c. BC) placed on the waist
of inhumated female decedents (9: 3 - 6). The strings found in grave no. 54 and 80 contained 14 and 26
labryses, respectively, their dimensions gradually rising from one end of the string to the other. Z. Videski
believes that besides decorative, these objects also had a cult purpose as symbols of the household goddess,
whereas he refers to the women who wore them as religious leaders i.e. priestesses. We believe that labryses
from Tremnik (8: 1) might have belonged to this category, to which the resembling appearance (compare to
9: 1, 2) and the presence of hinge-like pendants, also found in Ulanci, refer (9: 7 - 9).
B. Iconography and semiotics of the double axe

In this section we make an attempt to summarize the past knowledge on the phenomenon of the
double axe which will serve as our base in the research of the spiritual aspects of the aforementioned
Macedonian material. Despite the research of many years even nowadays numerous dilemmas exist on this
matter. We believe that many of them are based on the confusion of three categories of finds: (a) the actual
tools shaped as double axes; (b) other objects with similar shape and (c) various pictorial presentations
depicting or resembling a double axe.
I. Historical-geographical review of the double axe. The double axe appeared for the first time in
7th-6th millennium BC, in Near East, not as a tool, but probably as a votive object i.e. amulet made of stone.
Somewhere later it was also found in Central and in Northern Europe (10). First tools with such a shape
appeared in Elam and in Sumer civilizations around 4000 BC and towards the beginning of Bronze Age they
arrived in Crete via Asia Minor. Dilemmas exist whether the cult significance of the labrys on this island was
based on its use as a weapon (used in sacrifices) or the primordial symbolical status (1: 5; 3: 13; 11: 2).
There are opinions that it arrived as a shaped sacral object, first used not as utilitarian, but rather as votive
object and as a pendant either worn during lifetime or as grave and sanctuary goods (11). Its pictorial
presentations appear on ceramic vessels, glyptics, building stone blocks and as a sign of early Minoan script
(12). It is not quite clear whether the labrys arrived on Greek soil from Crete, from the northern Balkan
regions or Europe. The first thesis prevails, thus believing that with the weakening of Cretan influences,
within Mycenaean Greece it will alter and even completely lose its original symbolical significance. In some
regions it will persist until Geometric period as a votive gift in sanctuaries or painted on pottery in a
schematized manner. There are ongoing discussions whether its symbolical status was based on the relation
with female mythical characters or its use as a sacrificial tool. It will persist until antiquity as a motive painted
on vases (as a weapon in the hands of certain mythical characters 18: 5, 7) or as emblem on coins minted in
the towns from the periphery of the Greek world (18: 1 4, 6; 21; 25; 26). In this period, the cult
aspects of the labrys in Asia Minor were quite present, which can be deduced based on written sources, coins
and public monuments. It appeared as attribute of various local deities, often renamed with Greek equivalents,
which is considered a product of indigenous traditions (21; 25). This is witnessed with its presence in the
hands of gods (Teshub, Adad and Baal) of the older Anatolian civilizations (the Hittite and the Hurrian
civilizations) (20: 5 - 9). In the Apennine Peninsula, double axe is especially present on Etruscan painted
vases, urns, bronze mirrors, tombstones and coins (43: 1, 4, 5), but separate objects are distinguished, most
probably of votive character, used as grave goods. Some researchers treat the labrys among the Etruscans as
978
evidence of their Aegean i.e. Anatolian descent (16). Its presence in Balkan regions north of Greece is
considered a result of a southern takeover as an import of products or as a local imitation of the southern
models. These influences are not contextualized only regarding the simple exchange of material goods, but
also regarding the dispersion of the cult of the double axe from Aegean territories. N. G. L. Hammond
supposes that labrys was brought to Macedonia by Cretan Bottiaei, who settled there in the 14 th century BC,
thus continuing to spread further throughout northern Balkan regions (3). However, there are also
indications for its much earlier presence in these areas, even within Eneolithic Baden culture and the Vuedol
culture, to which the aforementioned razor-amulets, dated a bit later, refer (10: 3, 5; 2). Presence of Bronze
Age (bronze or ceramic) labryses in Thrace is considered a result of communication of this region with
Aegean territories during the second half of the 2nd millennium BC (14). These traditions can be traced even
in Iron Age through various votive objects, grave goods and pictorial presentations. In early antiquity, it
appeared as a motive on pottery, helmets, armours, horse harnesses and coins of Thracian governors as well as
among the painted elements in their graves (13: 3, 4, 6; 15: 2, 6 - 9). Moreover, votive labryses with
inscriptions referring to their relation with the cult of Zeus are known (42: 8 - 10). It is believed that in 5th
century BC double axes turned into a dynastic emblem of the Odrysian rulers as insignia of their mysterial
inauguration (15: 7, 8).
II. The labrys between a symbol and a tool. It shows that the double axe made of stone is
inapplicable for utilitarian activities, for it cannot be joined firmly with the handle, unless a hole is pierced
through it. Moreover, the piercing would require a strong thickening of the body, which cannot be confirmed
in stone labryses (10: 2, 3, 5 - 8). In this regard, there are two currents in science, one that prefers the
utilitarian and the second which prefers the symbolic genesis of the double axe. Here, we present the dilemma
whether labrys the symbol precedes labrys the weapon, i.e. the tool, or the holiness of the labrys stems from
the weapon or the tool. Within utilitarian concepts, presence of two blades is justified with the necessity of
lumberjacks, carpenters and other craftsmen to use combined tools with two different blades, for example, one
with a thin blade for chopping and the other, wedge-shaped, for splitting the wood. Based on contemporary
insight, one could conclude that the double axe, even though formed as a symbolical stone object, besides its
cult purpose, began being used for certain ritual-utilitarian activities which did not require its great resilience
(strokes due to sacrifice, punishment, ceremonial breakage of certain objects or resound). With the occurrence
of bronze and later of iron, conditions will be fullfilled for production of firm labryses for purely practical use,
whereupon such tools i.e. weapons will not completely lose their symbolical landmark (1; 3: 12, 13; 6: 1;
11: 2).
1. Etymologies. In favor of the discovery of genesis and essence of the doubleaxe, we give several
hypotheses regarding the etymology of its names: Labrys which refers to a relation with the labyrinth
(labyrinthos), Zeus Labraundos/Labrandeus and other lexemes with Hellenic and Anatolian origin. We
believe that the following significances are distinguished: a narrow and dark subterranean room, a hall, a
narrow passage, a building/grave of stone, a cave. According to some authors, they refer to the mythical space
in which the god dies and resurrects or to the initiation space. This correlates well with the significance of the
labrys, discussed further, as a juncture of two triangles that shape the body of a woman, perceived as a space
for passage from this world into the hereafter (28: 2). Other authors seek for the significance of the labrys in
the light, which justifies the relation of the labrys and the thunder i.e. lightning or the stone of which the oldest
such examples were made.
2. Visual labrys presentations. Three components dissociate the three-dimensional double axe
models of the utilitarian ones: the choice of material, brittle on one hand and rare, remarkable and expensive
(precious stones, bone, amber, ceramic, and noble metals) on the other; small dimensions unsuitable for its use
as a tool; shape (holes, loops) which refers to their use as pendants. Two-dimensional pictorial presentations
of the labrys encompass various motives which do not necessarily have to have that significance. Mainly,
those are a pair of triangles (= pair of blades of the double axe), with tangent or near apices, occasionally
supplemented with a transverse line or an elongated motive (= handle of the double axe). These images were
used as graphic symbols and written signs in different civilizations, such as the Proto-Elamite, the ancient
Egyptian and the Harappa cultures and within Neolithic and Bronze Age Aegean cultures in Europe (12;
13; 5, 6; 15: 1, 9, 10; 30; 32: 5).
3. Other components of the stylized picture of the labrys
- Labrys female figure hourglass. This is a picture of two vertically placed triangles with
joined apices resembling a stylized human figure, especially if supplemented with a head and limbs (16: 4
10). M. Gimbutas paid a special attention to this motive, present since the early Neolithic, considering that
979
there is a presentation of vulva in its base. Thus, she suggests that, often supplemented with other symbols, it
should be interpreted foremost as a figure of a woman or a goddess of death and rebirth. One should consider
the name hourglass only nominally, since shaping this device as two cones with joined apices will happen
later. It is, actually, the simplest schematization of the human (especially the female) figure to which other
significances will be added.
- Labrys winged creature butterfly. This identification was proposed by A. Evans as an emblem
of the afterlife, while the double axe in this motive was recognized by M. P. Nilsson. M. Gimbutas unites both
interpretations, adding the aforementioned presentation of the Great goddess, supplemented with wings
resembling a double axe (12: 14 16; 16: 1 3; 33). These interpretations are focused on eschatological
spheres, while transformation of the soul of the deceased (by the example of larva metamorphosis into a
butterfly or a bee) might stand behind the first one, so as the goddess whose body it is performed through.
III. Labrys woman
1. Pictorial presentations of female figures accompanied by a labrys. These are especially frequent
in Bronze Age cultures from Crete and the wider Aegean region, whereupon they can be classified in three
iconographical types. In the first one, the figure holds one or a pair of labryses and is interpreted as a goddess
or as a priestess, while both axes are associated with her rule over life and death (17: 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10). In the
second type, an assembly of symmetrically folded segments (the so-called snake frame) is shown above her
head with a centrally placed double axe on a handle (17: 3, 4). Both types are mostly found on seals,
whereupon the figure is often accompanied by a pair of griffins or lions. The third type is present in one of the
Boeothian figurines of the Geometric period, the double axe painted on her right thigh (17: 9). It is believed
that in these presentations the labrys is not merely an attribute, but also epiphany of the goddess. In antiquity,
the character of these presentations altered. Various female figures with labrys in their hands occurred,
whereupon, based on accompanying inscription and comparisons, theistic character was revealed, and even
the name of the character. Numerous such presentations are noted on coins of Anatolian towns (up until
Roman times) accompanied by local goddesses (Ma, Cybele, Athena etc.) (18: 1 - 3). In the Classical period,
Thracian women, Amazons, Clytemnestra and Cassandra were shown with labryses in their hands, while the
use of this tool acquired a certain sacrificial hallmark (18: 5, 7; 47: 9).
2. Labris vulva. We have already mentioned the thesis of M. Gimbutas according to which the
labrys blade draws its symbolism from the triangle as a symbol of female genitalia (16: 4 - 10). Hence, it can
be seen as two joined vulvas, one of the mother and the second of her daughter, as symbols of life duration
that they provide (29: 5, 8 - 10). We suggest that the motive for such identification should be looked for in
the identification of the axe hole and the vulva and that of the handle piercing it with the phallus, not only due
to the simple analogy of their shape, but also the painstaking process of piercing these holes in the stone axes,
which seems to have been accompanied by relevant magical and ritual allusion of sexual intercourse (19: 5).
As a confirmation, we give several examples in which this hole is accompanied by pictorial motives that can
be interpreted as a vulva (19: 1 - 4). We also present some myths and rite activities which confirm such
character of the axe hole and of other similar tools. In light of these theses, the famous plot of the Odyssey
acquires new meaning, in which Ulysses, returning to Ithaca, reclaims his status of Penelopes spouse, master
of his property and ruler of Ithaca by throwing an arrow of his bow, which goes through the holes of 12
double axes stabbed in the ground one behind another. We are convinced that, actually, it was a repetition of
the nuptial ritual, the hierogamy with the Great goddess being in its base, in this case represented by axes,
whose epiphanies are Penelope, as well as the land of Ithaca. Similar significance can also be detected in the
archery contest in honor of Patroclus of the book 23 of the Iliad.
IV. Labrys man
1. Pictorial presentations of male figures accompanied by a labrys. In science, there are still on-
going discussions whether labrys is primarily a symbol of female or male deities. In favor of the first option is
the quite rare presence of male characters shown with this tool, at least in the Aegean region (20: 1 - 4).
There are assumptions that the masculinization of the labrys, i.e. its transition from the domain of female
deities into the one of the male will happen at the end of Late Minoan period, or even later, under the
influence of Indo-European religious traditions of Mycenaeans or those from the east, with Anatolian
mediation. We suggest the following line of transformation of the labrys significance within this process: (a)
matronal phase (ancient Minoan religion) in which the labrys represented the goddess master of life and death,
whereupon her male companion (shown as a bull) appeared as a representative of the very life, coming out of
her (as her newborn son) and returning into her (as a deceased) in order to impregnate her (as her husband)
and be reborn by her; (b) transitional period in which the center of gravity is gradually transferred onto the
980
male companion of the goddess, so he himself is beginning to be recognized in the labrys as a sacrificed god
(again shaped as a bull) who periodically dies (one blade of the labrys) and resurrects (the second blade); (c)
patronal phase, in which the labrys becomes attribute of one of the male gods as a symbol of his eminently
male functions (the power to impregnate, to battle and to govern), on a macrocosmic level identified with the
heavenly forces manifested through thunder and lightning, light, sun and/or rain. In ancient period, the axe
(one-bitted, as well as the hammer) was attribute of the male god in the Near East, as his scepter and symbol
of his power (Teshub, Sharuma, Adad and Baal) (20: 5 7, 9). It was likewise in ancient Egypt, where as a
hieroglyph it signifies king and god, while there are indications to relate it to Ptah and Horus. These traditions
are clearly traced also in Asia Minor, represented with the local male deities later identified with the Hellenic
ones, of which we find out through the local coins (21: 2, 3, 4, 6 - 8). Such is the case with Zeus given
various epithets (Labraundos, Stratios or Olympios), Men, Heracles, Apollo, Baaltars and Jupiter Dolichenus
(20: 8; 21: 10, 11). Teshub Theseus relation fits well in this structure, whose etymology is traced in the
root *teks = axe and hammer, resulting in both theonyms signifying the ruler of the axe. In the Eastern
Mediterranean Hephaestus is often presented with a labrys, which is not considered a Greek tradition given his
relations with the island of Lemnos (22: 1, 2, 6) and the Cabeiri cult (21: 1). Moreover, other mythical
characters with metalsmith or artisan landmark (Daedalus) were presented with it, but also chthonic characters
(Vulcan, Charun or Tuchulcha) (23: 1, 6; 22: 3, 4). Relations of Dionysus and the double axe are
especially emphasized (22: 5), clearly registered on the islands of Tenedos (25: 1 - 5) and Keos, where
sacrifice in his honor was performed using a double axe which in different manners was presented as his
personification i.e. epiphany. Of the Anatolian carriers of the double axe, we should mention the local god of
the town of Thyatira, shown on their coins as Apollo Tyrimnaios, but also other local gods, probably with a
landmark as thunderers. We should also point to the tetradrachms of the ancient Macedonian king Demetrius
Poliorcetes, minted in Salamina, where, besides Poseidon with a trident in his hand, a stylized labrys is shown
(24: 3). Apart from Lycurgus and Tereus, of the male carriers of labrys in Thrace we should also point the
naked figure from Aleksandrovo Tomb (Bulgaria) (26: 9). Numerous arguments refer to the axe (double or
single-bitted) symbolizing thunder i.e. lightning in most of the given male presentations, which is mostly
evident in the case of Jupiter Dolichenus (20: 8; 21: 10, 11), Indra, Baltic Perknas and the Slavic Perun
(23: 9).
2. Labrys thunder/lightning. Some researchers (J. E. Harrison and A. B. Cook) consider this a
primary i.e. original (and even unique) significance of the double axe, while others consider it secondary,
acquired upon the breakage of its primordial relation to the female deity. We have already mentioned that in a
historical sense these processes are associated with the arrival of Indo-Europeans in the Bronze Age Aegean
territories or with the influence of the eastern cultures. We suggest a verification of the relations between the
lexeme pereky found on inscriptions written with the Linear B script (= Greek pelekis double axe) and the
theonyms of the Indo-European thunderers: Baltic Perkunas/Perkons, Vedic Parjanya and the Slavic Perun
(23: 9). M. C. Waites proposes relation of lightning and thunder with Minoan columns with doubled
labryses (Hagia Triada larnax etc.) (32; 34; 35). In favor of the thunder relation, the supplementation of
labryses with zigzag motives is considered, which some researchers recognize as lightning (23: 4, 5).
Ancient lead models of double axes from Odesos with the inscription (the name of the ancient
thunderer Zeus) also refer to this relation (42: 8, 9). Pictorial presentations of thunder i.e. lightning
representatives holding an axe (a single or a double-bitted) in one hand and some other tool in the other cause
great misunderstandings (20: 5 9; 21: 10, 11). Long ago we offered a solution for this contradiction,
suggesting that these tools, actually, symbolized various manifestations of thunder which man didnt perceive
simultaneously with his senses, due to which, in the past, he treated them as separate elements. Hence, the axe
appears as a symbol of thunder perceived as a striking i.e. sound manifestation. The visual aspect (manifested
through the light of the very lightning) and the active i.e. energetic (shown with fire ignited at the striking
point) were presented with arrow, spear and flint tools (the latter were, actually, used for fire ignition). The
motives for the presence not only of male, but also female thunderers, often united in pairs, should be
searched for in this phenomenon. Female deities deserve a special attention, especially present on coins,
accompanied by a keraunos, a thunder arrow (Athena, Aphrodite, Artemis etc.) (24: 8 - 10). In this context,
hermaphrodite deities become clear, shown with a head with two faces, a male and a female, often combined
with a labrys on coins (25: 1 5, especially 1). This phenomenon is well preserved in Balkan folklore,
represented with St. Elijah as a thunder patron and St. Marina The Great Martyr (known as Ognena Marija i.e.
Fiery Maria in the Balkan), representative of celestial fire i.e. lightning (47: 2, 5, 7, 8).
981
V. Labrys: woman + man. Many authors have tried to perceive the double axe as conjunction of a
male and a female deity conceived as unification of the spheres of their influence in one entity. This duality
can be treated as an essential bisexualism i.e. hermaphroditism (26: 4, 7) or as a matrimonial unification i.e.
sexual intercourse perceived as an occasional return to the primordial cohesiveness in which one blade
represents the male, while the other the female principle (29: 1 4; 27: 3, 4 compare to the remaining
ones). We have seen that somewhere this conjunction was presented as two-faceted head, one male and one
female (25), but also with chopping of a tree identified as a Goddess with a double axe (26: 1 - 2) or as
striking of Mother Earth with hammers (26: 5, 6). Thus, these tools represent the male principle or the
phallus. This significance can also be sensed in wedding songs of contemporary Macedonian folklore which
sing of cutting the dough of the bridal bread (= the bride) with a splitting axe in order to see whether it hides a
boy or a girl (= newborns). The similar ritual of cutting the bridal bread (this time with a sword) at the
wedding of Alexander the Great and Roxana demonstrates the relation with prehistoric Balkan traditions. The
same key might explain the presence of double axe models embedded in the stalagmites of Minoan cave
sanctuaries in Crete (11: 4 - 8). It is essential that we remind of the aforementioned relation of the double
axe, representing the female principle, and the handle embedded in its hole, representing the male principle.
VI. Duality of labrys as common denominator. Each of the aforementioned interpretations is
convincible in its own manner, whereas the biggest problem is their contradiction i.e. affiliation of two
spheres (an axe and a woman), which apparently have nothing in common. However, despite this impression,
they have a common denominator, which is the duality i.e. the bipolar symmetry which past researchers have
treated as a unity of male and female principles or of the celestial and earthly spheres of action of the Great
goddess (29: 1 - 4). Within identification of labrys with the so-called hourglass i.e. the woman, in both
blades M. Hoti recognizes both the upper and the lower part of its figure identified with the overground and
the underground world, light and darkness, but also give and take or arrival and departure (15: 3 5; 16: 4
- 10). J. Campbell identifies these two aspects in the seal of Mycenae, one of its sides signifying life, the other
death (28: 5 - 7). Destructive aspects of double axes are shown through the mentioned sacrificial labryses
(18: 4 - 8), while their inseparability with the creative ones is presented by the labrys of Hephaestus, which
he used to split the head of Zeus so Athena could be born of it (23: 6). Here we get to the very essence of the
double axe as a symbol of passage of life and death in both directions, whereas death acquires significance of
an inevitable prerequisite for life. If we accept that its blades represent two vulvas, their symmetrical
disposition could also refer to a complementary significance vulva as symbol of life and anti-vulva (vagina
dentata) as a symbol of death (28: 1 compare to 30: 9). Once again projected onto the female figure, on a
three-dimensional level they can be also shown as a double funnel, its entrances denoted with a vulva as
representative of birth and life, and a mouth representing gluttony and death (28:2). Thin waist of women,
often too emphasized in Minoan figurines (29: 6), codes the tunnel, the narrow door or the basic point which
codes the strenuous and dangerous process of crossing both spheres shown as human existence in this world
and the hereafter (28: 1, 2 compare to 3, 4 and 30).
VII. Combining the labrys with other elements
1. Labrys and a pivot, a tree or other plant. Presentations of double axes placed on top of vertical
herbal stalks or on some artificial pivots can be seen on Minoan ceramic vessels and funerary larnakes (31;
35: 1, 4 7; 37: 1, 2, 4). On the Hagia Triada larnax, apart from these, libation and sacrifice are shown
(35: 6, 7). Based on these pictures, a reconstruction is suggested of relevant cult objects of which only stone
pediments and bronze tops are archaeologically registered (32: 6; 34: 1). These presentations are usually
related to the symbolical identification of the double axe with the holy tree. Some of them acquire an
appearance of a phyto-anthropomorphized double axe supplemented with a head and arms in orans position
(33: 9, 10, 13) referring to relations with Eastern Mediterranean symbols of life and regeneration the
sacral knot (33: 5, 6) and ankh. Some researchers associate the labrys columns with the God Thunderer,
others with his unity with the Goddess-Earth, while third with the Mother-goddess, her daughter and the
aforementioned dual aspects. Alternation of such a column with a female figure and a labrys above her head
can be seen in certain presentations (34: 10, 11 compare to 8, 9). There are indications for a cosmological
interpretation of these objects, whereupon the pyramid pediment would signify the earth i.e. the Cosmic
mountain, the pivot the Cosmic pillar, while the labrys would signify the sky or some essential category
associated with it. On top of some of those columns a bird is presented (32: 3; 35: 1, 5 - 7), which,
depending on its species, is interpreted as a delegate, an epiphany i.e. sign for the presence of Zeus or the
Great goddess. We believe that within a cosmological reading, it works as a classifier of heaven i.e. the upper
zones of the universe, to which, among other things, the shamanic columns of Siberia refer, also with a bird on
982
top (45: 6; 67; 68). Pivots with labrys are frequently supplemented with horns of consecration or
bucranions which are mainly identified as symbols of the god-bull (35: 4, 5; 36: 4, 7, 9, 10; 37: 1, 2, 4).
If column and labrys are interpreted as symbols of the Great goddess, in that context they could represent her
husband, son and young lover. Hence, their union could refer to hierogamy, especially if horns are related to
the Egyptian sign djew (sign of horizon), which is related to the Cosmic mountain (37: 6 compare to 3, 5).
2. Four labryses or a four-bitted labrys coding the categories center and omnipresence. It
seems that on scenes from Hagia Triada, but also in other cases, a double labrys i.e. a four-bitted axe is shown,
its blades oriented towards cardinal points (35: 1, 6, 7; 38: 2). Apart from this three-dimensional type
(38: 4, 5), there are also types in which the same combination is flattened and stretched out in two
dimensions (11: 9; 38: 6, 7). Even though such three-dimensional objects have not been confirmed with
exact finds (hypothetical reconstruction 38: 1), one later such example from Bulgaria with a triple labrys
refers to them (38: 3), but also various pictorial presentations which include four labryses (32: 1, 2). This
combination as well some researchers interpret as: (a) Father-Heaven and Mother-Earth; (b) presentation of
four phases of sun path; (c) strengthening of the power of labrys as a symbol of thunder; (d) protection
directed towards all cardinal points of which it might strike. Continuing the presented interpretation of
prehistoric stone four-faceted maces (40: 4; 40) and their anthropomorphic variances (43), we believe
that in this case as well four blades of the double labrys are present for the dispersion of some sacral
components it contains in all directions. Those components can be used offensively due to their active
operation directed to all sides of space, or defensively, as protection from negative influences that could also
come from all directions. Moreover, the four sides could also code all the space and thus define its center. In
Slavic and Balkan folklore ritual activities are noticed in which the axe (single-bitted) is given exactly such
functions. They consist of encircling the dwelling or the commercial facilities due to success and protection of
different evils (especially of storms) or encircling and a symbolical incision of the deceased in order to
prevent his/her return to this world. This circle of labryses can be identified on Minoan ceramic (39: 10;
40: 12 compare to 7 - 10) and on other finds and a relevant interpretation of two additional categories of
finds among the Macedonian bronzes (applications shaped as crosses with concave arms 40: 1 3, 5) and
the button rosettes similar to them) can be suggested based on it (39: 1 4).
3. Labrys and threefoldedness. Clustering the labrys in triple structures can be traced within Bronze
Age Aegean cultures, but also even earlier, either through real objects shaped as double axes or their pictorial
presentations (35: 6, 7). The same phenomenon is also detected in the remaining Balkan regions (4; 5;
6; 7; 8: 1, 2, 13). M. C. Waites believes that a triad of gods structured as a family composed of the god-
father, the goddess-mother and their divine child are behind it. Seen from a cosmological perspective it could
reflect the tripartite vertical structure of universe with heaven, earth and underworld. It could also be
explained through the relation of labrys with number six perceived as a duplication of threefoldedness.
4. Labrys and number six. Not only number three is behind the triple clustering of labrys, but also
number six, if one counts the blades in such garnitures their basic mechanical, visual and symbolical
element. Several exact finds refer to this senary organization, such as the models of labryses with three blades
on each side, placed one behind another (40: 6), as well as the group finds composed of six labryses (40:
11). We suggest a thesis according to which the symbolical identification of the double axe with the thunder
would be behind this phenomenon. As a proof, we give several senary symbols of thunder present among
Indo-European people. Within ancient Greek culture it is keraunos (), symbol of thunder i.e.
lightning, shaped as a pair of symmetrical bundles each containing three (or more) elongated segments
resembling tridents or some herbal elements (24: 8 10; 41: 1, 2, 5, 6, 9; 42: 12). Most often, it was
shown in hands of Zeus, beside his figure or as his equivalent and symbol of thunderbolts with which he
strikes (41: 3, 5). In Greece, this motive arrived from the Near East via Asia Minor, and would later spread
all over the Mediterranean and Europe (41: 7, 10; 20: 7, 8; 21: 10). Based on the oldest eastern
presentations, it is believed that it originally represented a triple whip, in our opinion due to the identification
of the sound it makes with the sputtering preceding the thunder strike (20: 5, 6; 41: 8). Within Hindu and
some other eastern religions vajra bears the same shape and significance, in this case as a weapon and a
symbolical equivalent of god Indra (41: 4). First, it was represented as a stone weapon and as a trident later,
its prongs becoming blunt as it entered Buddhism (42: 1, 5 - 7; 45: 12). Moreover, there are also double,
cross-shaped structured vajras (42: 4). In Celtic culture thunder is shown with the wheel of the god Taranis,
most often with 6 spokes, which correlates the wheel of Jupiter among Romans (45: 5; 82: 3, 4), due to
the sound produced by the chariot wheels resembling thunder. From pagan traditions, this symbol will also
983
enter Christian iconography (44: 1 16; 45: 2). Within Slavic culture, it is present with the so-called
thunder wheel shaped as a six-leafed rosette formed by drawing the radius of a circle in its interior (43: 7
10; 45: 1, 4). It was used as an apotropaion for protection of thunder, among other things. The relation of
this rosette and the double axe is reflected in their mutual combination, for example on Mycenaean seals
(43: 2, 6) and Etruscan coins (43: 4, 5 compare to 1). The inscrutable relation of keraunos and the other
thunder symbols with some flowers is clarified by the flower perunika (Iris germanica), its name containing
the theonyme of the Slavic thunderer Perun (42: 11 compare to 12; 45: 7, 10 to 11). We justify the
selection of this flower exactly with its shape, which, seen laterally, reflects the structure of keraunos (45:
10, 11), while seen from above reflects the six-leafed rosette (45: 1, 4, 7). The motives of the relation
between thunder and the senary symbols are looked for far and wide: the spherical lightning phenomenon,
the hexagonal crystal structure of snowflakes, the hexagonal cells of the beehive (45: 3, 6), the six main
directions in space (2: 3) and some astronomic phenomena. We suggest searching for an answer also in the
three manifestations of the thunderclap: the thunder (sound), the lightning (light) and the fire ignited at the
point of stroke (action) in their opposite (productive and destructive) aspects. Hence, the following
metaphysical categories should not be ignored: proto-shape, self-creation, cosmogony, cosmic order, referred
to by the creation of the hexagonal rosette per se (45: 4).
VIII. Labrys and funerary spheres. As a base for these analyses we present numerous examples of
double axes or their pictorial presentations from graves in the following contexts: within Bronze Age Aegean
cultures; stone examples of European Neolithic/Eneolithic cultures; Balkan prehistoric and ancient cultures
outside Greece (28: 3, 4; 43: 1). Some of these funerary aspects of the labrys can be traced even in
Geometric period. In some cases, it i.e. the hourglass can be identified in the shape of the very grave object,
probably as a result of the discussed identification of the grave and the female body, as they are both used for
passage from this world to the hereafter (28: 1, 2). The aforementioned customs of incision of the deceased
with an axe or putting an axe in the grave, common in Slavic, Balkan and other folklores refer to the survival
of this relation until nowadays.
- Ascia and funerary traditions. The presentation of ascia on ancient tombstones, present in
Macedonia as well, should be considered a manifestation of these traditions (46: 3 - 8). At the Iron Age
necropolis in Buinci (Skopje, R. of Macedonia), in graves no. 7 and 12, the custom of sacrificing a widow
can be witnessed, as mentioned by Herodotus. In the latter, a woman was discovered with rich finds belonging
to Macedonian bronzes (15: 1, 2), who suffered a violent death with several hits of a sharp tool in the head.
In the first grave, located next to hers, an adult male was buried with an ascia beside, believed to have been
used in the woman's murder (46: 9). Apart from these, we also point other female graves of the same period
(Beranci and Vergina) where weapons were found, probably as a result of the same ritual (6: 6). There are
information regarding similar actions also within Iron Age cultures from Slovenia and Eastern Europe
(Andronovo culture as well as the Catacomb culture).
C. Semiotics of Iron Age double axes from Macedonia

We believe that the succinct review of the labrys semiotics, performed in the previous section,
represents a solid base for revealing the significance of such Macedonian Iron Age finds.
I. Numerical aspects of the labrys
1. Threefoldedness. This component is immanent to most of these Macedonian finds, manifested
through threading of three separate labryses on a single axis (6: 3; 7; 8: 1, 2, 13) or through casting three
labryses into a single monolith object (4; 5; 6: 2, 4 - 7). Lacking facts, it could be assumed that this
threefoldedness was aimed either towards stimulation or protection of certain three separate spheres that could
have referred to the human body, the space in which he/she lived or the social spheres. The second possibility
is that it worked as a symbol of inclusiveness in a spatial (the whole body of the deceased, all the space
surrounding it) or in temporal sense (permanent i.e. continuous stimulation and protection since past via
presence till future). Perpendicularity of Macedonian examples can refer to the three horizons of the universe
(heaven, earth and underground).
2. Sixfoldedness. Threefoldedness of Macedonian labryses can be justified with presence of six
blades on them, clustered in three pairs which in this case can be explicated in a spatial sense as a
stimulation (or protection) of the six sides of space (front, back, left, right, up and down), this time also
performed on the level of the body (1: 4) or the surrounding space (2: 3). The aforementioned relation of
the six blades with thunder and lightning could have been focused on protection of various negative factors,
considering that they were the main weapons used by gods fighting their mythical opponents (39: 1, 2).
984
Moreover, it could have referred to the protection of the one who wore them during life or of the deceased,
whereas the aforementioned folklore traditions of incising the deceased refer to the latter, as a symbolical
cutting of his relations with this world and passage to the hereafter. Symbols of thunder i.e. lightning, more
exactly, six-bitted labryses could have represented the celestial light, i.e. celestial fire, so wearing these
objects on the body or their placement into the house could have been seen as transfusing these components
perceived as a vital energy into it. This celestial and solar aspect would be reflected by the circular motives
seen on finds from Beranci (Bitola, R. of Macedonia) (2: 1, 2) and Vergina (Greek part of Macedonia) (4:
6). Considering the dominantly female sex of the wearers of these objects, they could have also functioned as
symbols of male principle and the fertilizing power of Heavenly god or the God thunderer, but also of his
power to resurrect the deceased.
3. Fourfoldedness. Among Macedonian labryses, this component can be found on the early antique
necklace from Sindos, which can be treated as a reminiscence of the Macedonian Late Bronze and Iron Age
traditions (13: 1). It can implicitly be detected on buttons shaped as crosses with concave arms, if we
perceive them as a pair of crossed labryses (40: 1 3, 5 ). Moreover, applications with widened concave
arms can also be discussed from the same perspective as a multiplied labrys shaped as a circle with 6 or more
blades (39: 1 - 4).
4. The calendar aspects of labrys. These aspects are clearly present on belt garnitures from Ulanci.
One of them is composed of 14 labryses, i.e. 28 blades (9: 2), which correlates the number of days in a lunar
month, while the second is composed of 26 labryses, i.e. 52 blades (9: 1), correlating the number of weeks in
a solar year. Given the disposition of this jewelry at the waist i.e. the hips of the female decedents (9: 3 - 6),
the significance of this numerical aspect of labryses could have been directed towards reproductive organs
located in this area and their function according to the same numerical systems, based on the lunar cycle.
More precisely we could perceive it as a presence of divine impregnating force due to stimulation or
protection of those organs each day of the month or each week of the year. The gradual increase of labrys
dimensions in these strings can be justified as a symbol or stimulation of fetal growth in the womb. Calendar
aspects can also be detected in the 12 axes through which Ulysses launched arrows, in this case, probably,
related to the number of months in a year. Labrys can be detected as ornament of traditional female costumes
from the Republic of Macedonia (called "axes") in those parts of the garment worn in the same part of the
body as the garnitures of Ulanci (24: 1, 2).
II. Labrys axis, column. Triple labryses from Vergina, and perhaps some of the other previously
discussed finds, were most probably threaded to some vertical pivot symbolizing the Cosmic axis (4; 5;
6: 2, 4 - 7). They were used as scepter tops, perhaps analogous of the later thyrsi carried by ordinary women
or priestesses as symbols of a certain deity, and probably as signs of their social rang. Or, it could have been
more common objects distaff tops in which yarn was kept during spinning, which would not exclude their
sacral aspects. Here, we have in mind the use of the distaff as an apotropaion i.e. a symbolical weapon (=
thunder/lightning) for womans protection, but also as sign of her sex and social status. Different orientation
of the labrys handle in graves in Vergina could refer to some magical inversion, perhaps in context of life-
death and this world-hereafter oppositions, which would have been accompanied by dismantling i.e.
breaking the scepters i.e. distaffs prior to depositing them in the grave. If the triple labryses (foremost, the
ones from the R. of Macedonia 7; 8: 1) were hung on a horizontal and especially on a vertical string (8:
8, 9), they could have evoked the image of the double axe hanging or descending on some cosmic rope
extending from heaven to earth, for which relevant Minoan parallels can be taken as a paradigm (26: 3, 8;
36: 3, 6).
III. Labrys woman. In this section we summarize the facts about the relation of the double axe and
the woman, to which Macedonian finds clearly refer. In this aspect, their obvious relations to the archaic
Minoan traditions could be looked for in the theses brought by N. G. L. Hammond that the cult of the double
axe in Lower Macedonia was brought in 14th century BC by Cretan Bottiaei who moved there (3).
1. Relief of Cappadocian Ma from Pretor (Resen, R. of Macedonia). This find reflects the
persistence of the female aspect of the double axe in Macedonia until Roman times (47: 4). Made of bronze
in 3rd century BC, it represents the Cappadocian goddess Ma with a labrys elevated in one hand, accompanied
by a radiant halo, a sword and dogs. After being accepted in Greece, she was identified with Athena, Enyo and
with Bellona in Rome (47: 6). In Macedonia, she is confirmed in numerous inscriptions found in Edesa. The
potential local affinity towards this cult is also reflected by the altar of Bellona found in the Roman town of
Scupi. Even though it is believed to have been brought in this part of the Balkan from the expeditions of
985
Alexander the Great in Asia Minor, we suggest that one should also look for the root of affinity towards it
between the two regions based on the distant migrations of the Bryges i.e. Phrygians from Macedonia to Asia
Minor (4).
2. The Cult of Fiery Maria i.e. St. Marina. Relations of women and axes are also manifested in the
scene depicting St. Marina the Great Martyr killing the devil with a hammer, a small axe or a similar tool
(47: 2, 5, 7, 8). The oldest such presentation is from the island of Corfu from the 11th century AD,
Macedonia, besides Epirus and Albania, being one of the main nuclei of her cult. Iconographical paradigms of
this presentation can be traced as far as the ancient period (47: 9), whereas her Pre-Christian layers and the
cosmological dimension are reflected in the aforementioned mythical character Fiery Maria. In Slavic and
Balkan folklore, some ancient patron of lightning and a counterpart of the God thunderer, represented by St.
Elijah stand behind her presentation. St. Margaret, her western variance, represents these aspects through her
fight with the dragon as a zoomorphic epiphany of the chthonic (47: 1, 3).
IV. Labris thunder. Among Macedonian labryses, the carved zigzag motives (tremolo) of the finds
from Beranci and Vergina could refer to such a relation as potential symbols of lightning (4: 5; 7: 7). One
more direct relation between some Ancient Macedonian goddess identified with Athena refers to it, shown on
coins with a keraunos in her hand, obviously as a symbol of thunder i.e. lightning (24: 10 compare to 8, 9).
Probably, it is Adraia/Athria, to which the etymology of this theonym refers, which, according to the sources,
signifies light and is in direct relation with the similar epithet of Athena (phosphoros). The relation with the
double axe could be finalized if the aforementioned acceptance of the cult of Cappadocian Ma (labrys carrier
with luminant halo encircling her head) is justified with her identification with some analogous local goddess
(47: 4).
- Ceramic hammer from Mauite (Prilep, R. of Macedonia). Only one half of the object is
preserved, with two carved inscriptions, one of them reading / (48: 5 - 11). The production of
this object in ceramics refers to its sacral character, of course aimed at some symbolical hammering, perhaps
a sound indication during some rite. Similar ritual ceramic tools can be traced as far as the Bronze Age in the
Balkans (48: 4; 14). The relation with Dionysus is reflected by several Aegean cultures (in Tenedos, Keos
and Pegasai), which even include personalization of this tool (a double axe in this case) (22: 5; 25: 1 - 5).
Based on iconographic analogies, it could be assumed that the other half of the object contained an inscription
dedicated to some goddess with a complementary character. It could have been a goddess with whom
Dionysus was married (hierogamy) or a god (Zeus or Apollo) as a thunderer, who was opponent of the
chthonic Dionysus (compare to 25: 1 - 5). In favor of both versions is the fact that on the summit of
Zlatovrv, located above the site where this object was found, an ancient sanctuary was discovered where the
cult of Artemis and Apollo Eteudaniskos (thunderstriker) was confirmed with inscription.
V. Social aspects of the labrys. The pendant shaped as a labrys-razor was found in the central and
the oldest grave of the tumular necropolis in Beranci (Bitola, R. of Macedonia) (2: 1, 2; plan of the tumulus
69: 4). Based on this and on the other finds of the grave, the deceased buried there could be considered a
progenitor, a governor or a religious leader of the community buried there, whereas the object could have been
used as a sign of his rang and as insignia of his authority (it is believed that labrys had a dynastic emblem
among Odrysian rulers). We have already mentioned that, according to S. Pabst-Drrer, women from the
Vergina necropolis (Greek part of Macedonia), inhumated with triple labryses (4; 5; 6: 2, 4 - 7), could
have had the status of Geraien, acting as priestesses, based on the high social status of their spouses
(Gerontes). According to N. G. L. Hammond, besides priestesses, they could also have been queens (queen
or/and a priestess). Z. Videski assigns this status to the women from the Ulanci necropolis (Gradsko, R. of
Macedonia) who wore the labrys belts (9).
CHAPTER 7:
OBJECTS WITH FEMALE FEATURES IN THE ICONOGRAPHY
This chapter analyzes several types of objects belonging to the Macedonian bronzes containing a
stylized figure with spread legs, probably representing a woman in a birth-giving pose or in a sexual
intercourse. Moreover, a similar zoomorphic figure appears whose interpretation again refers to relations with
the woman.
986
A. Ajoure belt garnitures

I. Facts and past insight. The main part of these objects is either triangular or pentagonal, with a
perforated circular part on top and a quadrangular field with a rhombic bordure at the bottom. The integral
version was accompanied by additional segments analogous of those of the lower zone (1; 2; 3; 4; 5:
1; 9: 16). These elements are backwardly folded so they could be threaded to some kind of a belt (3: 4).
They were dated between the end of the 7th and the beginning of the 5th century BC and were distributed on
the territories of Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, only one example
being found in Greece. They are associated with some finds from Northern Caucasus, Asia Minor, with the
culture of Thracian or some Central Balkan ethnicities as well as with the movement of the so-called Thrace-
Cimmerian populations. The former assumptions that they were sword scabbard mounts are nowadays
rejected, as there are fresh perceptions according to which they were clasps which, supplemented with
additional applications and saltaleons, were part of belt garnitures. Some finds were confirmed as goods in
female graves, placed at the waist. Focusing on the geometricity of these objects, R. Vasi and V. Fol
researched their visual aspects, thus the latter referring to possible relations with the vertical structure of man
and cosmos.
II. Iconography and semiotics
1. A geometrized image of the universe. Within this interpretation (also presented in our previous
publications), the triangular i.e. pentagonal part of the clasps would represent the sky shown as a gable roof
(6: 1 compare to 2). Hence, the circular element would represent the sun in zenith, while the lower
quadrangular segment with rhombic bordure would represent the earthly level. In this constellation, the
vertical bar extending between them would signify the Cosmic axis i.e. Cosmic pillar sustaining the sun or the
whole sky. This image coincides with the abovementioned quote regarding the Paeonian worship of the sun as
a disc on a rod. On a different iconographical level, this bar, along with the two lateral ones, could also
represent the rays descending from the solar disc, for which we give relevant parallels within the pictorial and
the verbal media (6: 4 10 compare to 11). One of them is the Egyptian hieroglyph Sun-shining-with-
rays (6: 3, 8). Moreover, presentations of aten, the deified sun, are another example (5: 6; 6: 12
compaire to 11). Triangular perforations could have evoked the same significance, which is most convincible
on the example from Volkovo (5: 1; 6: 11). Presence of light is also coded by numerous impressed motives
of circle and a dot (1; 2) and by numerous ajoure wheels on the Bogdanci clasp (R. of Macedonia) (4: 2;
76: 1). Two triangular segments placed laterally could be identified as mountains (especially 1: 1, 2; 2:
3). All of the aforementioned cosmological elements could be united in a single geometrized human half-
length figure, extending from the earth to the sky, whereupon these cosmic elements are identified with the
parts of the body composing some macrocosmic character (7: 1 2, 3 compare to 6: 1). This interpretation
would coincide with the primordial macrocosmic characters such as Purusha and Ymir, of which the world is
created according to cosmogonic myths.
2. Geometrized image of the Goddess-Earth. If the aforementioned waist-length figure is perceived
with the quadrangular segment representing lower cosmic zones we get a scene in which it is either half-
length dug into the ground or emerges of it (7: 1). This image could have represented goddess Mother-Earth
whose lower part of the body, including birth-giving organs, is identified with the soil (woman gives birth :
soil gives birth). We refer to several prehistoric analogies with a high level of stylization, as well as ancient
ones with a higher degree of realism (7: 2 9 compare to 1). The pair of triangular segments (= mountains)
can be included in this interpretation, which now acquire the significance of the knees i.e. the figures legs
which are spread either in a birth-giving pose or in a sexual intercourse and partly embedded into the ground
(8: 1 - 5 compare to 6 11).
3. Ideal models of both suggested images. We believe that the original medium of existence of both
suggested mythical images was of unsustainable material (textile, wood etc.). Hence, the high degree of their
stylizations can be justified with transition of these presentations into the domain of metalsmithing, while their
production of bronze confronted difficulties or lack of interest of the new producers (professional
metalsmiths) regarding the contents they evoked (8: 1 5).
4. Iconographic analogies. In a slightly more realistic manner the aforementioned figure with spread
legs is shown in other two finds which, according to the time and territory of their origin could be related to
the Macedonian bronzes. First, there are three identical motives painted on a vessel (probably an urn) from
ivojno (Bitola, R. of Macedonia), which belongs to the so-called matt-painted Geometric pottery (9: 1 3
compare to 8: 1 5). It is dated in the 8th-7th century BC and is associated with the Boboushti-Tren i.e.
987
Ku i Zi I culture, also containing Macedonian bronzes. The second analogy is a bronze diadem from
Vergina (Greek part of Macedonia), dated around 900 BC, its ends having two presentations of a similar
figure (9: 7, 8; 76: 2). Within analysis of these motives, we focus on the key element the figures legs,
spread and folded in the knees, shaping a M-motive. We give several analogies, from prehistory until the
folklore of contemporary exotic people, demonstrating that in certain environments this motive achieved
status of an ideogram of which later the aforementioned letter will stem (9: 4 6, 9 15). Such is the case of
Phrygian inscriptions in which it signifies the ligature of the Phrygian Goddess-Mother (9: 14). These
significances make more sense considering that this motive, as part of the analyzed clasps, was worn on the
female waist exactly where the birth-giving organs are, whereas its presence can be justified with the desire to
denote, stimulate or protect their functions (3: 4).
B. Ajoure triangular pendants

I. Facts and past insight. These objects, very similar to the aforementioned clasps, originate from the
Iron Age and are classified as Macedonian bronzes (9; 17, 18; 10: 1 3). They are composed of a main
part containing bars shaping a triangle, with a pair of circular supplements on top and hinges in the lower part
holding drops. The loop on the top clearly demonstrates they were used as pendants. So far, we know of three
such examples, two of which were found in a single grave in Axioupolis (Kilkis, Greek part of Macedonia),
probably worn in pair (9: 17, 18; 10: 1, 2).
II. Iconography and semiotics. Morphological resemblance with the aforementioned clasps also
refers to relations on iconographical level (10: 1 3 compare to 1; 2). Resemblance of these objects
with another, already discussed, category of pendants in which the circular motives at the angles were
identified as three phases of the sun path (sunrise, noon and sunset) refers to the identification of the
triangular composition and the sky shown as a roof (E10: 1 3 compare to 4; 58; 60: 5, 6). On an
anthropomorphic level, analogous as for the clasps, the vertical bar would represent the torso, the oblique bars
would represent the lowered arms, while the horizontal would represent legs spread in a straddle position
(10: 1 3 compare to 11 13). In two samples, there are elements on top in favor of the stated
anthropomorphism. They are two circular segments with an impressed circle and a dot motive, signifying
over-emphasized eyes of the figure and a loop which coincides with her open mouth (10: 1, 2). If the lower
bar signifies spread legs, then the three hinges coincide with the genital area, whereupon the drops could have
denoted what is being born of it. In favor of this interpretation of the unusual facial elements we give several
miniature examples of the so-called eye idols from Mesopotamia that, besides the great chronological and
geographical distance, demonstrate significant proximity with the eye concept of our objects (10: 5 10,
14). It is very indicative that these idols, found mainly in Eye Temple in Tell Brak, are also identified as
presentations of a female deity, most probably the goddess Earth. We look for justification of such
emphasized eyes in these, as well as in Macedonian bronzes, in the function of the presented goddess who
should overlook and sustain the existence of the universe with her eternally awake look, for which we find
analogy in the Hindu goddess Dev, who could cause the whole world to vanish along with all the remaining
gods, should she blink even once. The widely open mouth of the character on the pendants could be justified
with the destructive side of the goddess presented, who, besides birth i.e. creation, was also in charge of
destroy, in this case coded exactly with the open mouth. As a parallel of this aspect, we could point the beasty
mouth of Gorgon Medusa (8: 11; 21: 1 - 3) and Kali-Durga, who, actually, carry the meaning of anti-
vulva i.e. vagina dentata which periodically devours all that was born of it previously. Regarding the legs in
a straddle position, we could give numerous prehistoric analogies, although with a different position of arms
(11).
C. Pendant from Mati (Albania)

I. Facts and past insight. This object is composed of a main part shaped as two quadrangular plate
segments placed one over another, joined with a short junction and supplemented with angle bars (11: 1, 2;
12: 1, 2). Four chains made of a large number of mutually connected segments descend from it. The hinge in
the upper part clearly served as a loop, speaking in favor of this item being used as a pendant. The find was
discovered in an Iron Age necropolis and no analogies for it have been given yet.
II. Iconography and semiotics. In our previous research, we have identified an anthropomorphic
figure in a birth-giving position and in orans pose in the main body of these objects, whereupon we only
988
considered the upper part of the body of the object. Herewith, analogies induced us to also include the lower
part that could be interpreted in two manners. First, it could have been a presentation of one more similar
figure shown below the spread legs of the first one, perhaps her daughter who is coming out of her womb in
that very moment (11: 1, 2 compare to 8, 9, 12, 13). On a pictorial level, this mythical image codes the
continuous birth i.e. creation, duration and change of life cycles, the perpetual existence and the permanent
grace all perceived through the prism of the female principle and the female line of continuance. The
second figure could also be perceived as a duplication of the first, but rotated 180 degrees, whereas such an
even presentation would code the dispersion of the act of giving birth i.e. creation throughout the whole space
i.e. the whole universe. The pair of antithetically placed figures could have also represented a sexual
intercourse i.e. a hierogamy between a male and a female deity (representing the sky and the earth),
whereupon the short junction between them would signify the phallus. For the sake of argument of this
interpretation, we give several pictorial analogies and verbal mythical forms, some of them Balkan, in which
this act is shown as a primordial non-segmentation of sky, earth and deities representing these cosmic
elements (12: 1, 2 compare to 3 15). The absence of head in the second figure of our pendant could be
justified with the fact that, according to myths, this pair originally composed a single deity which, on a
pictorial level, signifies their presentation with only one head i.e. only one personality holder.
D. Ajoure V-shaped objects

Two groups of finds can be distinguished among Macedonian bronzes which, even though they are
referred to by a single name in the science, here are discussed separately due to their significant differences
regarding their shape and the territory where they were found.
I. Facts and past insight
1. Ajoure V-shaped pendants with longitudinal perforations. These objects are cast in bronze,
their width being 9-10 cm (13). Their body is composed of two parallel ribs fractured almost at right angle,
distant one from another, but joined with transverse junctions at the ends and in the middle. Above, they have
a hanging loop, a short protuberance below and some of them have lobular leafy supplements. They were
spread in central and northeastern regions of the Republic of Macedonia and one object was found in Kosovo.
In literature, they are referred to as ajoure split open pendants, V-frmige durchbrochene Anhnger, V-
shaped pendants, anchor-shaped pendants or W-shaped pendants. They are dated in the Iron Age II or at
the end of 8th and 7th centuries BC, to be more exact. They were used as female jewelry that, probably, hung
on the chest and the waist, accompanied by other pendants, the latter being clearly confirmed at the Buinci
necropolis (15: 1, 2). Even though these objects are related to Illyrians in older literature (M. Garaanin, A.
Stipevi), new insight (D. Mitrevski) refers rather to Paenonians as their main wearers.
2. Ajoure V-shaped objects with widened ends. Objects of this type are cast in bronze, their
dimension ranging from about 7 cm to 10 cm (14: 1 7, 10, 12). They are composed of a sickle-shaped
body, its ends flattened and widened in a shape of an axe blade, while a joint with triangular perforation, its
upper part socket-shaped, supplements the central part. It was probably aimed for placing it on some kind of a
pivot, perhaps a wooden helve or a handle which would indicate that these objects perhaps were not used as
pendants at all (hypothetical reconstruction 15: 2 compare to 4 - 6). They were found around the lower flow of
Vardar and the surrounding areas of Lower Macedonia. In science they are referred to as ankerfrmige
Aufstze or as anchor-shaped objects. They are dated in Iron Age i.e. the Chauchitsa I B phase, which in
Vergina correlates the Vergina III C phase. The territorial discrepancy of these objects compared to the
previous (13), located in far northern areas, is indicative. Similarly shaped ceramic objects, known as
anchors or anchor-shaped hooks, dated in Early Bronze Age in Lower Macedonia and in Early Helladic III
period in the southern parts, can be of great importance regarding the genesis and the character of these
objects (14: 8, 9, 13, 16; 16: 13 - 17). Their presence in Olympia (16: 14 - 17) and in the remaining
Greek sanctuaries refers to them being used as votive offerings. Finds from Armenochori, Kritsana, Servia,
Kozani, Saratse and Anchialos near Thessaloniki are the nearest ones to the Macedonian Iron Age objects
(14: 8, 9, 13, 16; 17: 6). As parallels, we could also point similar ancient Egyptian objects from the
Predynastic period (Naqada I II, second half of 4th millennium BC) known as Double Bird (Pelta) Palette,
most probably used as pendants-pectorals (16: 1 6). Finds with similar outlines can be found among
ceramic Vina amulets (17: 8, 9). Analogous metal pendants (anchor-shaped ones) were found as grave
989
Chapter 7: Objects with female features in the iconography
goods in Caucasus (17: 1 - 4). Here we should also mention the nchorshaped, shaft-hole ceremonial axes,
existing in the same region in Bronze Age, the Near East (17: 11), but also on the territory of Bulgaria (17:
10), not as utilitarian, but rather as symbolical objects.
II. Iconography and semiotics
1. Past interpretation. Even though J. Bouzek and K. Kilian named these objects anchors (probably
by random association), we know of only one interpretation that considers such a significance. Its the stand of
A. Stipevi that Ilyrrians (according to him, their wearers) included these items in their cult of the
deceased. Having this consideration in mind, in our previous research we assumed that the category weight
lies in the base of these objects, itself being in the base of the anchor symbolism. We suggested a hypothesis
that this significance was used for a symbolical tying of the body of the deceased to the ground i.e. the grave
which would prevent him/her leaving the grave i.e. becoming a vampire on one hand, and would facilitate
liberation of the soul from the body on the other (15: 7).
2. New interpretation
a) Anchor. In this section, we decided to research profoundly this potential significance of the
aforementioned objects. In this regard, we reviewed the shape, the symbolism and the cult aspects of the
anchor through history. Despite the opinion of A. Stipevi, it showed that among ancient people the anchor
had an emphasized sacral meaning, witnessed not only by written sources, but also by discovered specimens
of actual anchors with inscriptions which either mention Zeus or present Gorgon Medusa not only because of
the relation with Poseidon, but also her character of a very important goddess who protected sailors (16: 7
11, 18; 18: 1 - 3, 13). Anchor production and manipulation in antiquity were accompanied by various sacral
procedures. We find the quote of Pompeius Trogus especially important, since an achor was shown on coins
of ancient Macedonian kings of the Seleucid genus due to a family saga (16: 18). It has it that Laodice, the
mother of Seleucus I Nicator dreamt of the conception of her son by Apollo. Upon waking up, she found a
ring with an engraved anchor in her bed, which she also saw in her dream. The anchor also appeared as a mark
on her sons thigh afterwards. We believe that this legend contains several local (Macedonian or Central
Balkan) traditions of anchor worship and its relation with Apollo, fertility and conception. Moreover,
sacralised relation towards anchors was preserved in Latin phraseology, as well as in later European
languages. It will also become part of Christianity where it will signify a symbol of soul salvation, whereupon
the anchor-shaped cross will be interpreted as a symbol of Christ being born of Virgin Marys body (18: 4, 7
- 12). Back to our Iron Age finds, we have to conclude that items of the first group, V-shaped, actually, do not
resemble an achor due to the lack of a vertical pivot and the unspiked arms (13). Resemblance of another
group of Iron Age pendants, discussed in Chapter 5, should not be neglected, namely the cross-shaped strap
dividers with crescent supplements (18: 5, 6).
b) Human figure with spread legs. Seen from an anthropomorphic perspective, one could find a
human figure in V-shaped pendants, its loop signifying her head, while the lower ribs of the body figures
legs which are spread and elevated diagonally (19). The upper ribs would signify the arms, also spread and
elevated diagonally, whereupon the joint of the ribs could suggest that the figure, actually, holds her feet with
both hands, thus balancing this position, otherwise very hard to achieve. These poses are more typical for
female figures and code the poses specific for the sexual intercourse as well as the labor. We cannot quite
discard the possibility that the figure is male, whereupon the protruded segment at the lower end would
signify the phallus. As parallels regarding the spread legs we point to a category of Iron Age pendants from
Northwestern Balkans, even though the legs there are in a slightly different position with folded knees
(20: 1 7 compare to 19: 1 5). As a more direct iconographical analogy we give the ancient bronze and
ceramic figurines representing a woman with legs in a straddle position, usually related to the mythical
character Baubo (20: 8 10, 12 14). Besides the geographical distance, Upavistha konasana, practiced in
ashtanga yoga, is the most relevant parallel (19: 7). It can be justified with its generally human character
(19: 8, 9), but also the exact cultural-historical processes that are discussed in the last chapter. The same
components also appear in composite female mythical characters such as Medusa, Echidna, Siren etc. depicted
holding their spread zoomorphic legs with their hands (20: 11; 21). In a geographical sense, as nearest such
parallels we could consider the Trebenite kraters (Ohrid, R. of Macedonia) (21: 1; 61: 4, 5), as well as the
late masculinized type from Heraclea Lyncestis (Bitola, R. of Macedonia) (21: 5). All these interpretations
become more convincible if we consider that in Buinci such a pendant was found in a female grave, placed
exactly in the genital area of the deceased (15: 1, 2).
c) Stylized axe i.e. hammer. If a handle is embedded in the cylindrical vertical socket-shaped pivot
of V-shaped objects of the second group (14), the objects appear as some miniature models of a tool a
990
double axe or a hammer (15: 3 compare to 4 6). Even though the diagonal disposition of the arms
opposes this interpretation, Mjlnirs from Northwestern Europe can be in favor of it, as symbols of thunder
and lightning and attributes of the god Thor (22: 8 11 compare to the rest). This becomes more
convincible in relation with the aforementioned association of the anchor and Zeus as patron of thunder and
lightning. Apollo from the dream of Seleucus I Nicators mother fits well in this relation considering that in
Central Balkans local thunderers (for example, Apollo Eteudaniskos from the Kolobaisa sanctuary near Prilep.
R. Of Macedonia) are behind the image of Apollo. Similarly as Seleucus I Nicator, Alexander the Great was
conceived, upon his mother Olympias dreaming a thunder striking her womb and igniting a fire. The two
ancient Macedonian legends coincide in one more aspect with the objects discussed here, regardless whether
they represent an anchor or some symbol of thunder i.e. lightning. We think of the fact they were found in
female graves especially in the genital area of the deceased (15: 1, 2).
d) Anchor or a birthgiver figure. This dilemma makes no sense considering the congruence of the
shape of the common anchor and the human figure with spread legs (18; 20). This relation acquires its
semiotic i.e. symbolical justification with the fact that the figure in such a position evokes that of a labor
typical for the goddess Mother-Earth. Hence, we have in mind the identification of the anchors function to
fixate, to tie, to keep the ship static with the essence of the earth which in the mythical consciousness acts as a
paradigm of weight, static and stability. The salvation function of the anchor accompanies these, in relation to
the aforementioned goddess who, apart from giving birth, is also in charge of death and resurrection i.e.
salvation of the human soul upon death. There are theories that the typical anchor shape, actually, is not
derived from its functionality, but rather of imitating the figure of the goddess Mother-Earth, shown in her
typical pose with spread legs.
E. Bronze zoomorphic figurine from Rape

I. Facts and past insight. Cast in bronze (3 cm long), this find was discovered as goods in an Iron
Age grave dated in 7th-6th century BC (Bitola region, R. of Macedonia) (23: 1 - 5). Different researchers
identified it as a figure of a pig, a turtle or a frog, based on its inconclusiveness i.e. presence of features of all
these animals, especially the spiked snout reminding of boars canines and the back resembling turtles shell.
As parallels, we give several similar finds which, besides the close features, refer to the pig (23: 6 - 10), but
also the hedgehog (23: 11). It is interesting that all suggested animals are associated with the female
principle and act as zoomorphic fertility symbols which represent female reproductive organs and their
regenerative functions on a biological level, the welfare of the community on a sociological level while on a
cosmological level they are related to earth and water as well as fertility stemming from them. In the
forthcoming sections we present the semiotics and the cult aspects of all the above mentioned animals in order
to estimate the probability of each of the potential identifications.
II. New interpretations
1. Pig. Even since the Neolithic this animal is considered a symbol of fertility, abundance, but also of
woman and its genitalia, which is due to the actual affinity of both to rapidly enlarge their volumes and
deposit fats (in women, especially during pregnancy). Among pigs, this feature was used in food accumulation
i.e. transforming products of the lowest quality (often oddments) into a high calorie food (meat, lard). In
prehistoric Balkan and Eastern European cultures this animal appeared as ceramic vessels or figurines which
most probably had some symbolic purpose (24: 1, 2, 4 - 8). Significant number of such finds has been
discovered in Macedonia as well (24: 1, 7). A special attention deserve figurines with embedded grains (pig
= earth; embedding grains = planting i.e. grain investment) (24: 4, 6). In ancient Mediterranean culture pig
worship was focused on the cult of Demeter and Persephone, most clearly manifested through Thesmophoria,
rite including sacrificing piglets in caves, mixing their decomposed bodies with grains aimed for sowing,
accompanied by models of sex organs. The pig, actually, also acts as a zoomorphic epiphany of these two
goddesses, which among Romans was manifested in the rites of sowing, when a pregnant pig was sacrificed to
Ceres and Tellus (Terra Mater), as well as some offerings of pies and grains. In ancient sanctuaries pig models
i.e. figurines (as a replacement of the real ones) were also offered. Moreover, identification of pig and female
genitalia existed, reflected in the vocabulary, but also in the pictorial presentations of mythical Baubo, who
was depicted sitting in provocative poses on the back of a pig (24: 9, 10). We find of special interest her
sacrifice or offering of her figurines during funerals. In this context, the Rape find (if representing a pig)
could be explained in two manners. Based on the identification of the pig with the female genitalia and the
goddess Mother-Earth, it can be treated as a factor providing resurrection for the deceased i.e. passage to the
hereafter through a rebirth of its womb or through a marriage with it.
991
Chapter 7: Objects with female features in the iconography
2. Turtle. This is one of the most frequent zoomorphic classifiers of the earthly and the female,
and in some cases also representative of the whole universe (plastron = earth plate; carapace = the sky as a
dome covering it; the hollow part between them = space in which life exists). Moreover, the chthonic
symbolism of the turtle is based on its relation with the lower spheres of the universe, the static (immanent
both to the earthly and the female) (25: 7), the attachment to the shell perceived as a dwelling and an uterus,
laying eggs as symbols of fertility and life etc. Because of all this, it is considered a base upon which the
whole universe rests, a personification of moisture, soil and house (mythical ancient Greek Chelone is an
example of the latter). In many aspects the symbolism of this animal corresponds that of the frog, among other
things, also reflected in its designations as frog with a shell. Numerous finds, since the Neolithic up until
antiquity, refer to the presence of these traditions in Macedonia (26: 9). In Greek sanctuaries, turtle-shaped
pendants were found, chronologically consistent with the Rape find, even though their shape does not
correlate much to the latter (26: 1, 2, 8 compare to 3). In antiquity, the aforementioned biological functions
of the turtle will be transposed also in the social spheres, especially in economy, for which the best witness is
its presence on coins (26: 4, 5) and weights (26: 10). In the Balkans, these features can be traced until
folklore, manifested with the use of parts of the turtle body as remedies and apotropaions (25: 6), taboos
related to its killing and molestation, as well as with the ornaments called turtles, most frequently based on
the rhombus which is mainly treated as fertility ideogram (25: 2, 8, 9).
3. Hedgehog. In archaic cultures, hedgehog is given a significant importance, very often as wise
consultant, teacher and inventor of crucial cultural inventions (agriculture, fire making techniques etc.). Its
great popularity in prehistory is searched for in the relation with death, but also life, birth, rejuvenation and
healing (analogous as with the frog, the turtle and the fish). The justification for this is sought in the feature of
the hedgehog, analogous of the turtle, to retract, thus its spinal shell signifying a womb protecting the life in it.
In European prehistoric cultures these traditions are reflected through Neolithic and Eneolithic hedgehog-
shaped vessels (27: 3, 7, 9). Similar vessels also appeared in Bronze Age and early ancient Mediterranean
cultures, most often aimed for offering balsams in graves, which again relates these animals to death and
resurrection (27: 2, 4, 6, 8). As in the case of the turtle, in Slavic and, wider, in European folklore, parts of
the body of the hedgehog were used as remedies and apotropaions, whereupon a tendency exists to identify it
with the pig, which, actually, correlates the analogous ambiguity of the Rape find (27: 1).
4. Frog. In this section we only summarize the semiotics of this animal presented in our previous
publications. Like the previously mentioned animals, the frog represents the lower (chthonic) zones of the
universe, or precisely the earth and the water, as a result of its life there and affinity towards these
environments (28: 10, 11). Moreover, it is associated with the woman and her biological functions due to the
following reasons: resemblance of their bodies, especially the voluminous legs; their pose evoking sexual
intercourse and labor; moisture i.e. mucousness of the skin evoking vulva. Hence, in the pictorial medium
their bodies are often mixed and hybrid characters with both features appear (28: 16, 17), but also the frog
is combined with motives denoting vulva (28: 3, 5, 6, 8, 13) or with rhombus as its geometrical version and
fertility symbol (28: 11 compare to 12; 27: 9). Like the turtle, in cosmogonical myths frog represents the
primordial creature creator of the world and/or the earth. In ritual and magical spheres, live or stuffed frogs,
but also their models, are used as stimulative or apotropaic elements aimed at providing fertility, birth and
prosperity on the following levels: body (mainly female), house and family as well as the microcosm. Since
the Neolithic, through antiquity, up until contemporary folklore, frog figurines (made of metal, ceramics,
stone, bone or wax) were used as votive offerings in sanctuaries mainly by women (28: 3, 4, 7 9). Such
objects sometimes have a loop which refers to their use also as jewelry i.e. pendants. We give two such
examples from the Koban culture which chronologically, culturally and historically can be somehow related
to the Rape find (28a: 14, 15). On the territory of Macedonia, this animal could, potentially, be identified
on coins of the town of Eion, located somewhere in Eastern Macedonia and Southwestern Thrace, minted in
6th-5th century BC. An ancient inscription from Palatitsa near Vergina (Greek part of Macedonia) points to
cult actions of some frog goddess ( ), which some researchers associate with Artmis
Digaia Blaganitis confirmed in the same region, especially because her epithet correlates the Ancient
Macedonian gloss * translated as frog by Hesychius. The Rape find, especially if seen from above,
correlates typical frog stylizations (28: 1, 2 compare to the rest). Moreover, the inexplicable ribs on its
back could be related to the suggested motives of frog presentations (frog = vulva = fertility) (28: 1, 2
compare to 3, 5, 6, 8). If we accept the possibility that the Rape figurine demonstrated a frog, the motives of
its presence in the grave would not differ from the previously discussed animals, given the similar symbolism
and the cult character of this animal.
992
CHAPTER 8:
CULTURAL-HISTORICAL TRACING
OF MYTHICAL AND RELIGIOUS PHENOMENA CONTAINED
WITHIN MACEDONIAN BRONZES
In the previous chapters, while interpreting the Macedonian bronzes and the other Iron Age objects,
we often compared them to items, pictorial presentations and mythical and religious traditions of other
cultures, pretty distant from them in time and space (Asia Minor, Egypt, northern coast of Black Sea,
Caucasus, Iran and India). It proved that part of the resemblances could not have been based only upon some
trans-cultural and trans-historical generality, but they were also secondary to exact mutual historical processes
that involved Macedonia and the aforementioned regions. In this chapter, we have decided to contribute
towards the disclosure of these processes i.e. discovery of the historical background of the comparisons made
in the previous chapters.
A. The role of the mythical-religious phenomena in tracing the ethno-cultural processes
In this section, we discuss two concepts of the cultural-historical archaeology, according to which the
archaeological cultures are more often indices of certain ethno-cultural entities of the past and that they can be
traced through space and time via elements of their material culture. In this regard, we give such interpretation
related to the genesis of the Macedonian bronzes associated with the following: Thraco-Cimmerian from the
northern coast of Black Sea and the Coban culture (J. Bouzek); the raids from Central Europe and the Lusatian
culture (W. A. Heurtley); raids from the intermediate northern neighborhood of Macedonia (W. Hensel and
M. Garaanin); the settlement of Cretans in Lower Macedonia (N. G. L. Hammond). None of these theories
did succeed to fully prove the aforementioned concept, due to the chronological and typological inconsistency
of the finds from the compared regions.
I. Objects easily cross from one culture into another. Material culture is not a good indicator of the
identity of a community, i.e. a factor of its differentiation regarding some other community, as people easily
discard certain items and accept others better than the previous. The aforementioned theories most often are
not derived from the archaeological finds, but the historical sources or the global scientific (and even political)
strategies, whereupon they are aimed at mere confirmation of those strategies. Contemporary insight
demonstrate that movements of an archaic community by land, between two distant territories, cannot be
confirmed with same finds, as it is performed very gradually, mostly during a period of several generations.
While moving, a certain community takes over new features from the territory it crosses, so it arrives at the
final destination with a material culture very distinct compared to the one of its original homeland. This
foremost refers to utilitarian objects (weapons, tools and ceramics), produced by professional craftsmen and
placed on the global market. Much more resistant were elements made of organic materials (textile, leather
and wood) made either by the local artisans or within a family, mostly by women, who are more conservative
in general. Moreover, these elements, along with the non-material culture (language, rite, music, dance etc.)
are also more permanent carriers of the identity of the archaic communities, even though, unfortunately, they
are almost unobtainable to the archaeology.
II. Geographical and chronological tracing of prehistoric communities through symbols, myths
and religion. Symbols, myths, rites and other forms of religion are considered one of the most sustained
components of identity of a community of which it most difficultly gives up. Although they belong to the
spiritual culture, they are objects of an archaeological interpretation as they also manifest in the material
culture. Considering that myths and religion are also shaped in the pictorial medium, in this chapter, we
actually make an attempt to trace through space and time via Macedonian bronzes and other objects compared
to them, the spiritual culture of their wearers as well as their interaction with other closer and more distant
cultures. As a most illustrative example we could take the ajoure wheel-shaped pendants supplemented with
zoomorphic and anthropomorphic elements from Libna in Slovenia (1: 1, 2) and Luristan, dated almost in
the same period, but located several thousand kilometers apart (1: 3, 4, 6). Regarding the aforementioned
concept, we believe that the high degree of resemblance among these objects is not due one of them being
proto-types, while the others their derivatives, but due to the fact that they both, independently one from
993
Chapter 8: Cultural-historical tracing of mythical and religious phenomena contained within Macedonian bronzes
another, are modeled according to the same iconographical matrix present in the consciousness of the people
(of course with akin culture i.e. religion) that mainly sustained in the media of organic materials.
Regardless of the critical relation of contemporary science towards ethnic interpretations of the
archaeological material, in the forthcoming sections we will make an attempt to relate the concept of tracing
religion in elements of material culture to some exact ethnicities towards which written historical source
direct.
B. Past ethnic determination of Macedonian bronzes

The scientific term Macedonian bronzes is based on Macedonia as the main region where these
objects were distributed (30). Today, the stand that Paeonians were their main wearers dominates (I.
Venedikov, M. and D. Garaanin, D. Mitrevski) (2). J. Bouzek believes that besides Paeonians,
southwestern Thracians also used them, maybe even invented them, thinking foremostly of the Edoni and the
other neighboring tribes from Chalkidiki (2). Thracian affiliation of Macedonian bronzes is a priori
accepted by the majority Bulgarian researchers, treating Paeonians as Thracian or Thraco-Illyrian ethnicity. N.
G. L. Hammond rejects the Paeonian attribution, preferring Briges as their wearers. In Yugoslavian
archaeological literature from the past century, ethnicities from the territory of the Republic of Macedonia,
and thus Macedonian bronzes, were given an Illyrian landmark. Such interpretation was especially insisted
upon by the Albanian researchers. In theories regarding the affiliation of Macedonian bronzes, Pelasgians
were also included, due to their presence in Chalkidiki and the Aegean territories on the east. Even though
ancient Macedonians (2) so far have not been considered as the main wearers of the Macedonian bronzes,
their role should not be neglected (especially in the later period) as a main component of the Briges-
Paeonians-Macedonians triad which reflects a high degree of mutual cultural proximity based on akin
ethnogenesis, cultural and linguistic symbiosis and mutual assimilation to which later ancient sources refer.
Actually, a complex culture is behind the Macedonian bronzes, which emerged as a result of the symbiosis of
numerous ethnicities on the territory of Macedonia. The aforementioned Thracian component, present mainly
via Edoni, is conditional, as many facts indicate their Briggian character, the Thracian landmark emerging
later, upon their assimilation by the Thracians. The complete absence of Macedonian bronzes in Thrace refers
to this on one hand, while on the other, the presence of cross-shaped strap dividers on Edonian coins,
supplemented with a surrounding ring (10: 8, 9 compare to 10, 11; 10: 18 20) which can also be
confirmed on the so-called Cimmerian bronzes from Panonia (10: 12 - 17).
Attempts were being made to relate some areas of the Macedonian bronzes with exact Paeonian
tribes, such as the finds of the Lower Vardar group with Derrones, or those from the Bregalnica and Skopje
regions with Doberes and Laeaeans (D. Mitrevski). To a certain division of Paeonians in two groups also
refers the fact that in the Iliad they have two leaders: Pyraechmes leads the southern ones, from Amydon in
the lower course of Axios, while the northern ones are led by Asteropaios from the line of Pelagon, an
eponym of the ethnicity by the same name as well as the region (2). The increasing number of Macedonian
bronzes from the Skopje region, formerly considered Dardanian or Tribalian, are now related to the expansion
of Paeonian Agrianinans and their interaction with the local Central Balkan Iron Age communities (2).
Although sporadically, these objects are also found outside of Macedonia, whereupon several models of
explanation can be offered: (a) as dispersion of these objects with migrations, i.e. expansion of their wearers
(by the example of Paeonian Agrianians in the Skopje-Kumanovo region and neighboring Kosovo); (b) as a
result of expansion of the spiritual culture, i.e. mythical-religious traditions integrated into the Macedonian
bronzes without the ethnicity to whom they originally belonged (perhaps the presence of Macedonian bronzes
in the regions of Ohrid and Prespa where Briges, Enchelei and Dassaretae existed who are not considered
Paeonian) (2); (c) as elements of trade and fashion, which travelled through the Balkan as goods transported
without their original wearers and without the parent culture in which they were produced (isolated finds in
Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Transylvania and Austria); (d) as elements discovered in Greek sanctuaries
(Olympia, Delphi, Pherai, Philia etc.) offered due to religious reasons as ritual offering of their original
(Non-Greek) users or simply as components of garments i.e. perceived as elements of the fashion of the time.
C. Mythical-religious aspects of Macedonian bronzes related to the ethno-cultural

movements in Europe, the Mediterranean and the Near East
I. Macedonian bronzes Aegean territories Phoenicia Egypt. While researching the Geometric
figurines from Greece, S. Langdon also referred to their role in shaping the cluster pendants (31 compare to
27). Thus, she referred to the role of this process in Egyptian monkey statuettes that arrived from the
994
Balkan during Mycenaean and Geometric periods, with a Phoenician or Cyprian intermediation (32).
Although she foremostly gives this process a trade-craftsmen landmark, she does not discard the possibility
that these influences might have been supplemented with relevant religious traditions associated with the cults
of Thoth and Bes (35: 9; 38: 4 6, 8). The last links of these relations are touched upon by J. Bouzek.
Ancient myths and legends of Cadmus and his migration from Thebes to the Enchelei in Lichnidos and thus in
Bouthoe to the Illyrians, around the mouth of Drilon River into the Adriatic Sea refer to Phoenician presence
in Central Balkan and in Macedonia. In science, they are referred to as metaphors of Phoenician colonization
of the Balkan Peninsula within their metalsmith campaigns (3). Mycenaean i.e. Minoan component of this
process can be argued with the aforementioned theory regarding the settlement of Cretans in Macedonia. It is
based upon Strabos reports and other sources as well which claim that the region of Bottiaea and the Bottiaei
in Emathia i.e. Lower Macedonia were named after Botton, the leader of Cretans who settled there in 1400 BC
(3). In favor of this, same toponymes in Macedonia and Crete are being mentioned (Axios, Gortynia,
Europos, Messapion etc.), but also such containing the root -/- (signifying an ox), found in legends of
Cadmus. Moreover, presence of Pelasgians i.e. Tyrrhenians/Tyrsenians in Chalkidiki is also consistent with
this, considering the thesis of R. S. P. Beekes that actually the Minoan Cretans are behind this, whose great
enclave was in Maionia (Asia Minor), from where, after 1200 BC, suppressed by the Phrygians, they would
move in the northeastern coast of the Aegean territories (16). Several already discussed examples can be
taken as a religious manifestation of these processes. First is the cult of the double axe which, as we have
seen, is very typical of the Minoan Crete in Bronze Age (Chapter 6), while in Macedonian Late Bronze Age
necropolises emerged in 13th-12th century BC, i.e. soon after these two migrations (9). As a product of the
Egyptian-Phoenician-Cretan line, the custom of placing golden funerary masks is also mentioned, seen only
about hundred years later than Macedonian bronzes (Trebenite, Ohrid, Prilepec, Sindos and Archondiko)
(29: 4; 75: 4, 7). Second is the Cabeiri cult which we have seen that contains the greatest part of characters
and symbols used in the analysis of the distorted figure from cluster pendants (41): Cadmilus and Cadmus
(kdm = one who arrived from east); Mygdonus (= Mygdonians), who arrived in the Balkans along with
Dactyls of Mount Ida; the second of Dactyls was named Paionaios (= Paeonians); the name of the Edonian
king Pittacus is related to (Greek monkey) and Pateians black, dwarf-like characters related to
Pygmies, Ethiopians and Cabeiri. The base of these relations is a dwarf figure in fetal pose (as well as the
monkey imperfect man) which in archaic metalsmithing symbolizes ore which should be transformed into a
pure metal (= perfect man) (30). We find it on coins of the so-called Thraco-Macedonian type and those
minted in Lete in Mygdonia (40: 4 - 7). Neighboring Sintians also refer to this metalsmith base, whose
ethnonym is related to the Phrygian lexeme sintis = hammersmith (2).
II. Macedonian bronzes Balkan Brigs and Dardanians Asia Minor. The science has already
accepted the theory that Anatolian Phrygian ethnogenesis is based upon several migrations of some of the
Balkan Briges (foremost from Macedonia) that were taking place during 2nd-1st millennium BC (4). As their
reflection we could consider numerous Macedonian-Anatolian comparisons suggested in the previous
chapters. First, there are the relations of the distorted figure on top of cluster pendants (fetus, wind instrument
player) and the Phrygian gods Attis, Agdistis and Marsyas, sacrificed at the Cosmic tree (52; 53).
Moreover, there are resemblances with the Central Balkan and Anatolian Bendis i.e. the legend of the giant
goddess of Bithynia and the great girl from Paeonia who walk along the road spinning and leading cattle. As a
result of these relations we could consider the affinity of Macedonian population towards Anatolian cults of
Cybele, Silenus (37) and Ma (47: 4) in the ancient period. The cult of the double axe fits well in this line
in two manners. According to the first one, upon arriving of Briges in the Balkans from the Middle Danube
basin, towards the middle of the 2nd millennium BC (6), they could have taken it over from the indigenous
Proto-Indo-Europeans i.e. Bottons Cretans, who, as we have seen, could have arrived in Macedonia also from
Asia Minor (16). According to the second one, Briges could have brought this cult from Central Europe,
which is consistent with older labryses examples found there (10). Toponymy and some ancient sources
clearly refer to relations between Dardania and Dardanias from Central Balkan and the regions surrounding
Dardanelles. They are presented in sources by the character Dardanus, who travelled towards Samothrace and
then Troad. There, he established the city Dardanus/Dardania, where his offspring would later built Troja.
These legends reflect the actual migrations of Dardanians towards Asia Minor that happened between 15 th and
13th centuries BC, confirmed (under the name of drdn) as allies of Hittites in the war with Ramesses II (1286
BC) (4). These movements from the Middle Danube basin towards Central Balkan and then to Asia Minor
can be confirmed through the mythical-religious traditions integrated into the material culture. We think of
anthropomorphic vessels shaped as a stylized female figure found at the end points of this trajectory. On one
995
hand, there are the ceramic urns typical mostly of the Baden culture (3600 2800 BC) and similar older
funerary vessels from Late Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures from Central Europe (Lengyel culture, Slovakia).
The second group consists of vessels with analogous shape found in the layers of Troja II (2600 2300 BC).
What makes them especially close are the stylized hands typical only for the prehistoric cultures north of
Danube (4; 38: 7, 8; 46). A single nucleus is missing in order to finalize this line, which in a spatial and
in a temporal sense could be expected somewhere midway between its end points.
III. Macedonian bronzes North coast of Black Sea Caucasus
1. Cultural and historical bases of relations among Macedonian bronzes, Rigveda and Avesta.
Some contemporary theories strongly justify our frequent comparisons of Macedonian bronzes and the Hindu
and Iranian mythical and religious traditions. According to them (O. N. Trubachyov, L. S. Klejn, G. M.
Bongard-Levin, and E. A. Grantovskij) the primary fatherland of Proto-Iranians is located between the rivers
of Ural and the lower course of Volga, while Indo-Aryans are located much closer to the western world in
the course of Dnieper, Dniester and Don (5). There, in the steppes northern of the Black Sea coast, in the
first half of 2nd millennium BC the aforementioned proto-people dispersed, upon which some of them would
later migrate to their new homelands. In 16th century, Indo-Aryans were noted in West Asia, while in the 15th
century BC they were already in India, whereas the tribes who spoke Iranian languages moved to Iran on the
turn of the 2nd into the 1st millennium. A significant part of the Indo-Aryans continued living in the northern
coast of Black Sea, the lower course of Danube and Caucasus during the 2nd and the 1st millennia prior to
settling at the Balkans in few turns (5). The first such Indo-Aryan surge took place in the second half of the
2nd millennium, so Macedonian bronzes and Late Bronze Age finds that precede them directly could be
considered their consequence. On a historical level, they coincide with the first historical sources of
Cimmerians and Treres. In these processes one should search for justification of Indian and Iranian parallels
of Macedonian bronzes. If we consider that very similar mythical systems of Rigveda (written around the 15 th
century BC) and Avesta (written around 13th century BC) were established in the European proto-homeland of
these peoples, prior to their migration, then it is possible that the very system could have reached the Balkans
through the same migration, participating also in the creation of Macedonian bronzes, among other things
(5).
We should emphasize that migrations towards the Balkans from the same nucleus were also taking
place before, in times when it comprised of cultures with different linguistic features. Somewhere in the
middle of the 2nd millennium ethnicities with Briggo-Aryan linguistic features spread to Central Balkan
represented by Briges and Moesi, part of whom also went to Anatolia, but even further to Iran and India (6).
It is believed that a millennium earlier also Graeco-Aryan arrived from there, while as indicators of this Indo-
Hellenic cohesion (6), among other things, we take the relations of the potion of immortality (Sancrit amta
Ancient Greek ) and the hybrid mythical character shaped as a man-horse (Indian gandharva
Ancient Greek ).
2. Exact religious manifestations. We could consider the sexual differentiation of the deceased
buried in a contorted pose as the first religious manifestation of this Indo-Aryan presence in the Balkans. It is
confirmed in the Late Bronze Age necropolises in Macedonia from the 13 th-12th centuries BC, situated in the
middle course of Vardar River (Vodovrati, Ulanci and Tremnik in R. of Macedonia), where the female
decedents were placed on their left thigh, while the male on their right thigh (7: 1 4; 9: 3 - 6). As a
counterpart of D. Mitrevskis thesis regarding Helladic origin of this burial ritual, we give parallels of
identical praxis common for the Coban culture in the Caucasus (7: 5, 6), but also the older cultures
Tiszapolgr and Bodrogkeresztr as a common Central European proto-nucleus from which this custom could
have arrived in Macedonia and the Caucasus. As a second example, we give the stone stela from Ulanci
(Gradsko, R. of Macedonia) dated in the same period (8: 4), whose analogies, via Bulgaria and Romania,
lead to the same north coast Black Sea areal (8: 5 - 8), but with significant proximities also regarding such
Western European finds (8: 1 - 3). They are stelae most probably placed on burial mounds. They were
made mostly of wood, with rare stone examples, justified with the great geographical and chronological gaps
among the now known nuclei of these finds. The Ulanci stela and the one from Kalishte (Pernik, Bulgaria)
similar to it (8: 4, 6) are conditionally dated in the 13th-12th centuries BC, so, depending on their more exact
dating, they could reflect some of the older aforementioned Black Sea-Balkan migrations waves (6).
As a further manifestation of Indo-Aryan presence in the Balkans is the ritual slaughter of the widow
over her husbands grave, clearly confirmed by Herodotus regarding people who settled north of the
Crestonian, who, by the way, are part of the very nucleus of Macedonian bronzes. First such examples are the
graves no. 12 and no. 7 from Buinci necropolis (Skopje, R. od Macedonia), a violently slaughtered woman
996
being found in the first grave with several strokes in her head with a sharp object (probably an axe) (15: 1,
2). In the grave no. 7, there is a skeleton of an adult male, besides which a double axe of ascia type was placed
that was probably used in the slaughter (46: 9). Other female graves (Beranci, Vergina) could also be related
to the same custom, as weapons (a spear and a sword) have been found in them (6: 6). Links with Eastern
European Indo-Aryan nucleus in this regard can be established through traditions of murdering the widow
witnessed in Andronovo and Katacomb cultures, but also manifested in other manners by burying a man and
a woman in a single grave placed in intimate poses (9). Among Aryans in India, this custom is represented
through analogous rites known by the names of diksha and sati.
Some of the most impressive indicators of Indo-Aryan-Balkan relations are the mythical traditions of
the holy potion (known by the names of soma, haoma and amrita among Indo-Aryans), pictorial
manifestations of which we found in the iconography of several categories of Macedonian bronzes (see
Chapter 4).
3. Relations with exact ethnicities registered in the historical sources
a) Cimmerians and Thraco-Cimmerians. Similarities among Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age
finds from Caucasus-Black Sea regions and the Balkan regions related to the historical sources are referred to
with several names containing the prefix Cimmerian or Thraco-Cimmerian in their base (Cimmerian bronzes,
Cimmerian migrations, Thraco-Cimmerian culture and Thraco-Cimmerian style etc.). Regarding Macedonian
bronzes, J. Bouzek especially insists on these resemblances, including the bronze object from the Coban
culture in the same koine, but also the Luristan and the Thracian bronzes and some synchronous finds from
Greece. Other researchers also accept these relations, whereupon some of them (R. Vasi) do not project
migrations of the exact people behind them, but rather a global expansion of cultures from Eastern Europe
towards the Balkans. Others (I. Kilian-Dirlmeier) consider the resemblance of the objects of these regions
secondary to indirect influences. Thus, besides northern and northeastern ones, the southeastern line is also
suggested, through Asia Minor, to which some Cimmerian find from Eastern Aegean territories (Ephesus,
Samos and Rhodes) refer.
- Cimmerians in Western Asia and Anatolia. Although, there are ongoing debates regarding the
parent territory of Cimmerians, it is believed that it extended in the steppes north of the Black Sea, i.e. the
coast of Sea of Azov and the Crimean Peninsula, from Dniestar in the west to Volga and the north Caspian
coast on the east (10). At the beginning of the 8th century BC, some of them, under Scythian pressure,
crossed Caucasus and entered Western Asia, battling with Urartu and Assyria, clearly noted in the cuneiform
scripts from the 8th and the 7th centuries BC (Akkadian Ga-mir). Then, crossing Phrygia and Lydia, in 644 BC
they attacked Greek towns on the western Anatolian coast, witnessed in the Greek sources (Ancient Greek
) (10). At the end of the 7th century BC Cimmerians were defeated by Scythians and Lydians,
upon which their existence by the same name cannot be confirmed in sources. Archaeologically, the presence
of Cimmerians in the north coast of the Black sea is related to several cultures, namely the Coban, Belozerka,
Chernogorovka, Sabatinovka and Novocherkassk cultures (10). Today, besides the exact ethnicity, by the
name of Cimmerians the science refers to all Pre-Scythian population in the region north of Caucasus between
Black and Caspian Seas.
- Cimmerians in the Balkans. Discussions regarding Cimmerian presence in the Balkans are still on-
going (10). Strabo indirectly refers to it, as well as other ancient authors, according to whom, on one hand
Cimmerians were also called Tretes (or some tribe of theirs), while on the other, Treres are considered a
Cimmerian people. Some sources indirectly refer to their crossing of Balkans towards Asia Minor.
Indirectly, this could be referred to by their presence mentioned in Ionic and Eolian towns on the east coast of
Aegean Sea. According to Hecataeus of Abdera and Stephanus Byzantinus, Cimmerians ruled the town of
Antandros situated on the coast of Troad for about hundred years (in 7th century BC), which was thus called
Cimmeris. Probably as a result of these events, the personal name was spread in Greek towns
(22: 5, 6). There are also discussions regarding archaeological confirmation of Cimmerian presence in the
Balkans. Some authors have referred to such a character of the bronze bells and the hollow ajoure bird-shaped
rustling pendants found in Ephesus, Samos and Rhodes, which was accepted by some (J. Bouzek) and denied
by others (A. I. Ivantchik). We believe that one of the most convincible such finds is the hollow ajoure bird-
shaped pendant from Samos, which has analogies within Coban culture and the synchronous cultures from
Armenia (4: 4 compare to 1 3 ). Herewith, we give several other examples from Ephesus and Lower
Macedonia produced in the same technique and style. Absence of such objects elsewhere in the Balkan
Peninsula could refer to this southeastern line that would have extended between Macedonia and Cimmerian
properties on the eastern Aegean coast (11: 1 - 4).
997
- Cimmerians Tretes Edoni. This relation is of a special importance for us due to inlusion of
Edoni (lower course of Strymon River) among ethnicities of the areal of the Macedonian bronzes (2).
However, their presence in this triad is not quite certain, regardless of J. Bouzek, who in several works refers
even to their participation in the Cimmerian-Thrace tandem, even referring to some alliance of Treres, Edoni
and Cimmerians allegedly mentioned by Strabo. Even though several authors accept and further develop
these statements, our review of this ancient author has not confirmed these quotes. However, we found
indicators of certain relations among these ethnicities in Aristotle (quoted by Stephanus Byzantinus and Pliny)
according to which the town of Antandros, located in the base of Mount Ida, on the coast of Propontis was
called Edonis, secondary to Thracian Edonis being settled there, or Cimmeris according to Cimmerians who
inhabited it for hundred years (Stephanus Byzantinus, the Ethnika) (10). The aforementioned presence of
Macedonian bronzes on Edonian coins from 5th century BC (cross-shaped strap dividers supplemented with a
surrounding ring) could refer to these relations, analogies of which can be found in the so-called Cimmerian
bronzes from Panonia (10; 10). Moreover, there are also discussions regarding Cimmerian or Thracian
affiliation of Treres and Edoni. As already said, according to the location, toponymy and neighboring
ethnicities, it is believed that Edoni were of Briggian descent, whereupon their Thracian features are due to the
later Thracian assimilation.
- Balkan features of Cimmerians. Several components are considered in favor of the significant
proximity of Cimmerian and Balkan languages, starting from the theses regarding a Thracian base of the very
ethnonym Cimmerians (*kers-mar/*kir-(s)-mar-io = people from the Black Sea). The only Cimmerian
preserved lexeme, , also refers to it. Speaking of Cimmerians living in the mystical ambient of the
Lake Avernus in Cumae (Italy), Strabo quotes the Ephorus statement that they live in mud huts which they
call (12: 1; 16). They communicate through hallways and spaces buried deep underground
where they host foreigners who come there to ask the oracle. None of the ministrants at the oracle is allowed
to see the sun, so they go out of their caves only at night. In the work of Hesychius, signifies Ancient
Macedonian building (underground?), which is heated and used for bathing, while according to Eustatius
denotes a type of earth suitable for building underground dwellings, which are thus called .
According to Stephanus Byzantinus, the same word in Thracian signifies a mouse, of which the name of the
town of Argilos located at the mouth of Strymon River (Edonia) was derived (2). Words with similar roots
and significance are also present in contemporary Balkan languages. Presence of Cimmerians and this word,
theirs and Balkan, in Italy are related to the city of Chalcis, its inhabitants being founders of Cumae on one
hand and of Greek towns in Chalkidiki on the other. With mediations of inhabitants of Chalcis these traditions
could have been transferred from Macedonia to Italy (16). Moreover, the presence of Cimmerians in the
mystical chthonic landscape of Cumae is also very indicative, given that in Odyssey this people is associated
with a similar ambient (the dark brim of Ocean, at the entrance of the kingdom of the dead) (12: 1). We
believe that a mystical cult typical for the Cimmerians (= northern European people) is behind both quotes,
practiced in underground cult objects, in Odyssey generalized as a single ambient where all Cimmerians live.
Cults of such type were confirmed in the Balkans as well, through the stay of the great mages Zalmoxis and
Pythagoras (of Samos) in underground rooms in a period of several years, as an act of their mystical journey
in the Underworld, returning from it and thus resurrecting i.e. surpassing death. As an example of such a
facility, we give a subterranean sanctuary-labyrinth from Vlasovska (Voronezh Oblast, Western Russia),
which, even though from Early Middle Ages, according to its concept and location, could be considered a
later reminiscence of the analogous older prehistoric (Cimmerian) sanctuaries (12: 2).
- Iranian, Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan features of Cimmerians. In science, the stand regarding
Iranian, Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan linguistic and cultural affiliation prevails, mainly based on their rulers
names and the supposed Cimmerian archaeological finds, which, actually, cannot be differentiated regarding
the so-called Scythian material. This could be considered as a cultural and a historical proof of our
interpretation of Macedonian bronzes in relation of Rigveda and Avesta, having in mind the role of
Cimmerians in establishment of these objects (5). Hence, this Cimmerian component should not be treated
literally as presence of Cimmerians in Macedonia, but rather as a label that encompasses some Indo-Aryan
or populations that spoke Iranian languages who came to the Balkans from the aforementioned regions of
Eastern Europe at the turn of the 2nd into the 1st millennium or in the first centuries of the latter (6). A
similar labeling of various peoples under a single name could be noted in Persian sources, where all nomads
are Saka, or in Byzantine, where all barbarian people from the north are Scythians
b) Sinti/Sindi. Several ethnonymes and toponymes containing sinth-, i.e. sith- are mentioned in the
ancient written sources, their location being consistent with the areal of distribution of Macedonian bronzes or
998
its intermediate surrounding: Land of Sitonia () in the middle of the Chalkidiki Peninsula; Sithones
tribe, along with Mygdonians being part of Edoni kingdom; town of Sindos () in Mygdonia in
Thermaic Gulf; Sindonaioi tribe with no clearly determined location, which some researchers associate with
Sindos and its inhabitants; Sintians who populated the island of Lemnos (W. Tomaschek relates them to the
Phrygian lexeme sintis signifying hammersmith); town of Sintia in Dardania (near the northern borders of
Macedonia) (13; 2). O. N. Trubachyov pays a great attention to ethnonymes and toponymes containing
the root sind- found in the north coast of Black Sea: Sindi people (), referred to as Indi () by
Herodotus and as Indian people by other ancient sources. Following the theories of P. Kretschmer, he
associates the Indo-Aryan sindu river/great river, referring to the Kuban River, once probably called ,
of which *sinda(va) signifying river people was derived, which in Indo-Aryan would sound like sindhu and as
hindu in Iranian. Analogously, as Sinu (reduced of Sindhu), also sounded the Scythian (i.e. Pre-Scythian)
name of Tanais River (Don). In the Kuban region, ancient authors located Sindian Scythia, referred to as
old, i.e. primordial Scythia by Herodotus (13). A tomb stone found at Taman Peninsula with an
inscription India () contributes towards these analyses, denoting the name of the deceased. According
to Trubachyov, some sources also mention Sindi along Danube (13). We suggest interpretation of evident
resemblance of toponymes and ethnonymes of both areas in three manners: (a) as migrations of the Sindi from
the region around the Black Sea to Central Balkans (in the context of the aforementioned processes); (b) as
movement of some other Indo-Aryan ethnicities who, settling in Macedonia, would call themselves Sindi due
to the location of a nearby river or region rich in rivers; (c) as migration of peoples containing sind- in their
names in the region surrounding the Black Sea and Macedonia from some other common point of origin,
perhaps on the Danube shore. In favor of these interpretations are the Indo-Aryan parallels of some other
Macedonian hydronymes: Axios (from aki black), its contemporary name Vardar (from vari water; *kali-
vardi black water) which coincide the most frequent epithet of this river nowadays muddy Vardar and its
greatest tributary Crna Reka (literally Black River).
c) Hyperboreans. In ancient sources, this people is noted along with the Arimaspi, Issedones,
Scythians and Cimmerians, inhabiting the outskirts of the world located in the unapproachable northern
regions behind the home of Boreas (= North Wind) meaning north of Thrace, i.e. in Dacia. Some ancient
works locate them behind Rhipean Mountain (probably todays Ural Mountain), while others associate it with
Danube and Celts or the Alps (14).
- Hyperboreans in the Balkans (sending votive gifts to Delos). Even though Hyperborean
homelands location is unidentifed, their actions in the Balkans are extremely exact and pedantic therefore we
do not consider them doubtful. Here, we have in mind the depiction of Herodotus of sending votive gifts to
their distant land in the sanctuary of Apollo at the island of Delos that took place in the following line:
Scythians, their neighbors, other (unquoted people), Adriatic Sea, Dodona, Malian Gulf, Eubea, Karystos,
Tenos and finally Delos (14). Gifts were wrapped in wheat straw and sent accompanied by two girls from
Hyperborea and five more compatriots. At Delos, these worshipers were called Perpherees, whereupon graves
of the girls who died at the island were treated with respect. Later, gifts were being sent unaccompanied, so
Hyperboreans gave them to their neighbors and they gave them to their own until they reached Greece.
According to the Diodorus Siculus, the great Hyperborean sage and healer Abaris ( )
stayed in Greece and renewed the friendship and the relationship between Greeks and Hyperboreans, some
Greeks having even traveled to the Apollo temple in Hyperborea (14). This clarifies that Hyperboreans had
quite a clear vision of Greece and the island of Delos where they sent gifts, which does not imply to Greeks
for whom Hyperborea is undetermined, even non-existing country. There are no dillemmas that ethnonyme
Hyperboreans is Greek and denotes a land or people located north of regions known to them, meaning they
had their own ethnonyme, maybe even Cimmerians, given the location (10).
- Hyperboreans Cimmerians. Vegetarianism of both peoples, among other things, also refers to
this relation, of which several ancient sources witness (them not eating meat or eating grass). These ascetic
aspects relate them to Cimmerians of Cumae and the great sages Zalmoxis, Pythagoras and Abaris.
Considering the aforementioned facts about Cimmerians, the genesis of the Hyperborean custom of sending
gifts to Delos could be related to Cimmerian presence in Greek towns on the eastern Aegean coast (Ephesus,
Samos, Antandros etc.) (10). Residing there during the siege of Asia Minor and somewhere later
(Antandros was occupied 100 years), Cimmerians could have developed an affinity towards the sanctuary in
Delos and to establish a custom of sending votive gifts there (14). Quite logically, upon the defeat, the
retreat from Asia Minor and returning to original territories surrounding the Black Sea, they wished to proceed
with these traditions, probably as a legacy of their ancestors. Since the ancient eastern route was not possible,
999
due to enemies with whom they previously battled, Cimmerians chose the western one, where obviously
friendly ethnicities lived, probably also close to them by language and culture (14). Consistent with this is
also the stay of Abaris in Greece, who thus only renewed friendship and relationship between Greeks and
Hyperboreans, which demonstrates that it evidently existed previously, but was ceased due to something. As
an archaeological manifestation of these processes we could give several finds from Greece with obvious
eastern origin, close to the Coban culture, the Iron Age cultures south of Caucasus and from Luristan. The
fact they were found in sanctuaries (Philia in Thessaly and in the Hereon of Samos) could refer that they were
visited by Cimmerians (11: 5 - 8).
- Sacrificial straw of Hyperborean votive gifts. Describing the Hyperborean gifts wrapped in straw,
Herodotus claims that both Thracian and Paeonian women never make offerings to queen Artemis without
wrapping them in wheat straw. This, certainly, refers to some additional cultural connections of these Balkan
people and Hyperboreans which also apply to female practitioners of both cults, as well as presence of
Artemis in both cases (graves of female Hyperboreans at Delos are located near her temple). Considering the
theses about the Indo-Aryan landmark of Hyperboreans and Cimmerians, the very important place of
sacrificial straw in Rigvedic hymns becomes indicative, where they are mentioned even 200 times by the
name of barhis. This time, the straw placed below votive offerings is not of wheat, but of various plants. We
suppose that even Hyperboreans wrapped gifts in the same straw placed below them during the act of
consecration which must have preceded their sending in Greece. Perhaps it was done in order to preserve the
holy time-space in the parent spot of worshipers, so it could be transferred to the final destination in Delos
through the straw.
d) Aryans. Fragments of Bithyniaca by Lucius Flavius Arrianus (1st-2nd centuries AD), preserved in
Stephanus Byzantinus (6th century AD) and Eustathius of Thessalonica (12th century AD) witness of an
information that the oldest names of Thrace are and (13). In this case, we are interested in the
latter, due to the remarkable relations with the ethnonym Aryan (Avestan airya-, Old Indian r a-, Old
Persian ariya-) referring to the peoples of ancient Iran and India who spoke Aryan. A. G. Cherednichenko
gives several possible answers regarding meaning and origin of this oronyme (= land of the best, the noble,
the free or the land of oracles), whereupon he relates its origin with the end of the 3rd millennium BC. In light
of the remaining material presented hereby, we would like to suggest future researchers to verify this name
with the ethnonyme Aryans (airya-, r a-), of which the significance of Land of Aryans would be derived.
Moreover, its possible later dating in the 2nd or the turn towards the 1st millennium BC should be verified,
perhaps related to Cimmerian presence or some other Indo-Aryan or Iranian ethnicities on the Balkan
Peninsula. Due to well-known abuse of this term in nazist and other racist ideologies, it was unfairly
marginalized and replaced with other scientific terms, more undetermined, but more neutral from a scientific
point of view (Indo-Aryans, Indo-Iranians and Proto-Indo-Iranians). Herewith, we emphasize it as a possible
indicator of presence of these ethnicities in the Balkans.
IV. Macedonian bronzes Asia Minor Italy
1. Parallels among Macedonian bronzes and analogous finds from the Apennine Peninsula.
Iconographical resemblances among Macedonian bronzes and other Balkan objects from the same period with
some Iron Age finds from the Apennine Peninsula refer to this relation: (a) miniature vessels with bird
protomes (64; 65); (b) handmade ceramic small vessels-pyxidae (21: 8, 9 compare to 25: 1, 2, 5, 6);
(c) chariot models (13); (d) bronze jewelry shaped as concentrical circles (56; 57). Relations with
several motives from the north Italic situlas constitute a separate unit: (a) a bird standing on a vessel (12: 9,
10 compare to 8; 9; 10); (b) a vessel place on top of a disjoined pivot (2: 1, 3, 4, 7 9 compare to
8: 1 7); (c) anthropomorphized palmette (14 compare to 7; 16). The presentation of situla shaft from
the Kuffarn situla can be added here, demonstrating relations with the double variance of the cluster pendants
through the figures on its top (15: 5 compare to 4).
2. Ethnic and cultural communications among Asia Minor, the Balkans and the Apennine
Peninsula. The aforementioned Balkan-Apennine relations can be associated with intense ethnic and cultural
communications among Asia Minor, the Balkans and the Apennine Peninsula by the end of the 2 nd and the
turn of the 1st millennium BC. Macedonian context is derived from the Central Balkan component of the
majority of Anatolian ethnicities (16): (a) Tyrrhenians/Tyrsenians who deserted Lydia during the Trojan
war and were also present in the Balkans; (b) Oeneus (descendent of Dardans family tree), who along with
his compatriots left Troja and via Thrace, Macedonia, Greek islands and Epirus sailed to Italy where in Lazio
his offspring would establish Rome; (c) Antenor, who via Cyrene or via Thrace and Illyria guided his
Paflagonian Eneti from Troja to Northern Italy where he established Patavium and became a progenitor of
1000
Veneti (with a possible Briggian or Mysian descent). Of the numerous proximities among the ethnicities from
both coasts of the Adriatic, here we mention and , Central Balkan Dardanian tribes, their
names coinciding with the Italic Calabri from Calabria, as well as Daunii and Dardi from Apulia.
a) Etruscan ethnogenesis (Tyrrhenians/Pelasgians). Relations among Italy, the Balkan and Asia
Minor can be associated with the theory of Etruscan ethnogenesis based on their migrations from east.
According to R. S. P. Beekes, in 12th century BC, Tyrrhenians/Tyrsenians (= Pelasgians) from their old
homeland Maionina (northwestern part of Asia Minor) migrated towards the northern regions of Aegean Sea
(16). Historical sources confirm their presence in Lesbos, Lemnos, Imbros, Samothrace, but also in
Chalkidiki, next to the local Crestonians and Edoni. Then, by naval routes established by Myceneans, they
would commence migrating in Italy, finally resulting in the establishment of the Etruscan civilization (16).
b) Cimmerians in Italy. The aforementioned zones of initial migration of Tyrrhenians overlap
teritorries indicated for Cimmerian presence (Antandros/Cimeris, Lemnos, Samos, Samothrace, Chalkidiki)
(10; 16) and perhaps of other northern (Indo-Aryan) peoples, manifested with Hyperborean and Sindi
ethnonymes. We can not directly relate these people with Tyrrhenians/Etruscans on one hand, as the latter are
considered members of Proto-Indoeuropean Balkan population, and on the other hand because Cimmerians
are mentioned for the first time even four centuries upon the first migrations of Tyrrhenians to Italy. Hence the
possibility that two or three centuries after Tyrrhenians, Cimmerians also migrated to Italy, using this already
established route (16). Thus, we do not exclude the possibility of a certain Aegean and/or Italic symbiosis
or mutual assimilation of both peoples. Besides the aforementioned Strabos quote regarding Cimmerians in
Cumae, other sources also refer to their presence in Italy, such as those of the genesis of Latins from the
relationship of Hercules and Palanta the Hyperborean, or the eastern features of Veneti and their neighboring
Sigynnae.
c) Indo-Aryan parallels of several iconographic presentations from the Apennine Peninsula.
Three mythical images that were thoroughly discussed in the previous chapters refer to these parallels. The
first is the scene of a collision of the giant bird and the centaur of the Benvenuti situla, related to Vedic and
Avestan hymns about the mythical bird Saena/yena, which steals soma, the holy plant (actually, its juice),
from the hereafter, kept by Gandharva, mythical character shaped as a man-horse (17; 9). The second is
the image of a man with a face on his chest, present in several Iron Age pendants from Northern Italy, but also
in Luristan bronzes, coinciding with the Avestan myth about god Zervan and the birth of his sons Ohrmuzd
and Ahriman, the latter being born of his fathers chest (18). The third is the already mentioned image of an
anthropomorphized wheel supplemented with a pair of animals, seen in extremely similar pendants from
Luristan and those from Libna (Slovenia), the latter in the peripheric zone of the wider north italic
ethnocultural areal (1).
d) Italic-Balkan-Indo-Aryan parallels of the equine sacrifical rite. The aforementioned
Cimmerian i.e. Indo-Aryan-Italic relations are also reflected in the equine sacrificial rite, in Italy registered
in Roman times by the name of Equos October, while in India as asvamedha. G. Dumzil, as well as other
authors, referred to the high resemblance of both rites, clearly with significant differences, considering the
geographical and the historical distance between the two civilizations. Most essential are the following mutual
components: (a) selection of the best horse through a race; (b) dismemberment of the body of the sacrificed
horse in three pieces; (c) transposition of the power of the horse to fire; (d) role of the rite in the rulers status.
So far, this kindred has been justified with the mutual Indo-European descent, which, given the intermediate
resemblance, should be pushed forward, perhaps in the time of the aforementioned migrations of population
from around the Black Sea, the Balkan and the Anatolian ethnicities with Indo-Aryan features denoted as
Cimmerians towards Italy (5; 6; 16). Consistent with this is the fact that in the sources the Roman
custom is associated with the Trojan War. On the presence of a similar custom in the presumed Black Sea-
Caucasus proto-homeland of Indo-Aryans witness numerous examples of sacrificing horses (or donkeys), in
sources associated with ethnicities living there (Scythianss, Massagetae, Amazons and Hyperboreans).
Archaeological finds also verify this, such as the Kurgan of Uljap in Kuban region, with 360 sacrificed equine
skeletons, which researchers relate to Indo-Aryan population and the asvamedha rite. Analysis of the scenes
of the silver amphora from the 4th century BC found in Chortomlyk demonstrates that they also depict rite
similar to asvamedha, finishing with strangulation of the sacrificed horse (19: 4 6). One of the scenes
depicts a man checking horses legs, obviously in order to verify its impeccable condition, necessary for the
selection of the animal to be sacrificed (19: 4). It demonstrates significant relations with a similar scene of
the Benvenuti situla (Italy) which is also placed in a clearly ritual context (19: 1 3 compare to 4).
Presence of similar sacrifice is noted also in the Balkans in sources and archaeological finds.
1001
e) Cap with an elongated and pointy top, Italic-Iranian and Indo-Aryan parallels. This unusual
garment accessory can be seen in scenes of horse races in the Kuffarn situla (20), and in a slightly moderate
shape, also in the Arnoaldi and the Vae situlas (21: 1, 5). Moreover, it can be seen in scenes of Greek vase
painting, where in certain cases, such figures are signed as Kimmerios. According to other features, it is
clear that all these figures represent characters of non-Greek i.e. eastern descent (22: 2 6). A. I. Ivantchik
is skeptical regarding the Cimmerian or Scythian affiliation of these characters, believing that signatures
denote personal names of the presented warriors, members of some of the eastern armies, and that those are
stereotypes lacking a significant historical value. However, this sceptisicm cannot refer to presentation of Saki
on Persepolis reliefs and the Behistun inscription of Darius I, one of whose tribes was called Sak tigraxaud,
literally meaning Saka with pointy hats/caps (21: 8; 22: 1). The aforementioned scenes of the north
Italic situls describe local ritual actions due to which this element should be considered indigenous, rather
then present under the influence of the Greek vase painting (20; 21: 1). Haruspices in Italy wore similar
caps, referring to its emphasized sacral context (21: 2, 3, 7). Numerous indicators refer to this element as a
hallmark of the ethnic and the religious identity of its wearers, considering that the cap, given the remarkable
place, would continue having such a function in the forthcoming period.
- Cimmerians in Northern Italy and neighboring Apline regions. Besides the aforementioned
southeastern i.e. Mediterranean line, Cimmerian i.e. Indo-Aryan components in Italy could have reached the
northern coast of the Black Sea and Caucauss through Carpathian Mountains, Panonia and the Alps (16). In
favor of this are archaeological finds which in the regions southern and eastern of the Alps noted presence of
Cimmerian i.e. Thraco-Cimmerian or Scythoid material. During 6th-4th centuries BC, archaeological finds
witnessed a critical period that some researchers associate with Scythian raids and ravages in these areas.
Historical sources report about the attack of the Roman teritorries by Cimbri from north (103/102 BC), who
were then considered a Germanic people, not discarding their relations with Celts, Celto-Scythians and
Cimmerians due to the similar name (16).
D. Macedonian bronzes Balkan Bronze Age/Enelolithic/Neolithic cultures

We have seen that several theories have been given so far regarding the genesis of the Macedonian
bronzes, which seek for their origin on different sides, depending on the shape and the character of specific
types. Some researchers are trying to prove through the appropriate parallels the Caucasian or Northern Black
Sea origin for some of them, by connecting them with the so-called Traco-Cimmerian movements. Other
finds (models of double axes) are put in relation to the Bronze Age cultures from the Aegean area (Minoan
and Mycenaean cultures). This section provides evidence in favor of one so far insufficiently promoted thesis
about the indigenous Central Balkan Iron Age component of some objects from the mentioned groups. This
theory is based upon the so-called Vina amulets, an expression denoting few types of small ceramic objects
from the Neolithic period, which are mainly linked to the northern parts of the peninsula primarily from the
circle of Vina culture (30; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29). Most of them are referred to by
this expression due to the fact that, based on the shape and the apertures, it is assumed that they were designed
to hang on cords on the human body functioning as pendants with a certain magical or symbolic purpose (3:
2, 3; 39: 7). Within these comparisons we review several types of objects from this group with the
corresponding categories of Macedonian bronzes and other similar Iron Age objects from Macedonia and
neighboring Central Balkan regions. In some cases there was also a possibility to supplement these
comparisons with appropriate ceramic analogies from the Bronze Age.
Two-armed Vina amulets (23: 1, 4 8, 10) are compared to Iron Age conical objects with a pair
of elongated segments (called horns) (23: 2, 3, 9; 1; 2) whereby Bronze Age anthropomorphic
ceramic figurines in orans-pose from the Aegean and Cyprus are suggested as mediators (13; 13: 12, 13).
The four-armed amulets (24: 7, 11, 12) are compared to cross-shaped strap dividers present within the
Macedonian bronzes (24: 1 6; 9; 10; 11), but also in other Iron Age cultures of the Balkans and
beyond. Both categories were intended for division and crossing of rope or leather cords. In this case Bronze
Age ceramic objects from northern Macedonia, consistent with those from Vina culture, are also attached
(24: 8, 9, 13). Six-spoke Vina amulets in the form of a three-dimensional cross (25: 3 10, 13) are
compared to a bronze pendant from Ku i Zi in Albania (25: 1, 2) and to other similar finds from Eastern
Europe (38: 3, 4). In this case, analogous ceramic objects from southern Serbia and northern Macedonia are
suggested as Bronze Age mediators (25: 11, 12). Amulets with four horizontal round spokes, presented in
Vina and neighboring Neolithic cultures (26: 4 8) were related to the corresponding bronze pendants
from the Central Balkans of which a special proximity is indicated to those in Brazda near Skopje (26: 1).
1002
Vina ornitomorphic ceramic amulets (27: 4 7) were compared to several types of bronze pendants from
the group of Macedonian bronzes formed as full or hollow casted birds (27: 1 3; 2; 3; 4; 5).
Neolithic amulets shaped as biconal vessels with openings for suspension (28: 4 8) were compared to
Macedonian bronzes, various types of vessels participating in their shape. Such are the miniature jugs with a
vertical handle and obliquely excised rim (28: 1; 17), as well as small cups i.e. pyxis supplemented with
protomes of birds or other animals (28: 2, 3; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23). At
the end, the analysis focuses on the possible proximity between some Vincha amulets with upwardly curved
hooks (29: 1, 2) and the bronze V-shaped objects with extended ends, known as the anchor-shaped objects
(29: 3 7, 10, 12, 16). In this case, ceramic objects with a similar form are stated as a possible Bronze Age
mediator. They are referred to as anchor-shaped hooks and can be found in the Greek part of Macedonia and
in southern part of Macedonia (29: 8, 9, 11, 13 - 15).
Justifications for the imperfect match between the compared object can be found through the great
chronological and cultural distances between the communities which have produced them, as well as in the
differences of the materials and technologies of their production (clay transformed into ceramic through firing
and bronze casted through a wax model) (23: 9 compare to 10). Contrary to the fact that the hiatus
between the Neolithic and Iron Age object has been filled in some cases by the relevant Bronze Age samples,
such inter-components of the other compared types of objects are yet to be found. The possible absence of
such cases for some of the finds could be justified in using analogous objects crafted in organic materials
during this period. These relations can be supplemented with other Neolithic parallels thoroughly presented in
the previous chapters, which even though are not part of the Vina amulets refer to the same Neolithic-Iron age
relations: (a) male figurines sitting on the ground in a fetal pose (34: 3 10) related to a figure of the cluster
pendants in the same pose (27); (b) female figurines with elongated necks and a reduced or eliminated head
(49: 1 4, 9, 11, 12), related to the elongated handles of the lids on the bronze pendants shaped as a small
vessel with zoomorphic protomes (49: 5 8, 10); (c) anthropomorphic vessels with hands in orans pose
(38: 7, 8; 39; 46) related to the zoomorphic hands of small goblets with animal protomes (36); (d)
geometrized silhouette of a woman, her legs folded in a birth-giving pose (8; 9), related to the stylized
motive of the ajoure clasps (1; 2; 3) and the triangular pendants (9: 17, 18; 10: 1 3).
1003

ILLUSTRATIONS
CATALOGUE

:
_____________________________________________________________________
1
, , :
1. Axioupoli (), Kilkis (), . . , , 55 . 21.
2. Chauchitsa (), Kilkis (), . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 47: 836.
3. Chauchitsa (), Kilkis (), . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 15 Fig. 1: 2.
6. . . . , , 38 . . 141.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4, 5. , , Fortetsa, , . J. Bouzek, Die Anfnge, 116 Abb.
6: IIA, III(B).
7. , ( 9. ..), Knossos, , . J. N.
Coldstream, Knossos, 590 Fig. 30.4.
8. , , (Louvre Museum, , ), J. Bouzek, Greece,
Pl.11; : Mule 2015.
9. , 12. 8. .., . The Habib 2013.
10. , (8. ..), Kerameikos, , . J. Bouzek, Die
Anfnge, 120 Abb. 12.
11. , 1000 . .., Amlash, . A red buff 2013.
12. , 1000 . .., . A grey buff 2013.
2
, , :
1, 2. , , . . : R. Vasi, eveliska, T. LXIX: 15; . , , 62 T. I:
10; : . , , 40 . 10.
3. . Bronze bird 2013.
7. in situ , , , , , . . S. Temov, An
Iron Age, 662 Fig.11.
8. , , . . . , , 42 . 23.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. , 3. 2. . .., . A Bactrian 2013.
5. , , iarovce, . V. Podborsk, Nboenstv, 280 75: 12.
6. , , National Museum, , . Duck 2013.
1007
.
A3
1. Eion, 6. 5. .., / . . .
, . . , . . , , 18 . 1-.
2. Eion, 480 . .., / . Macedon. Eion 2015.
, , :
3. , , . . . , , 36 . . 134.
4. , , . . . , , 36 . . 133.
5. , , , . . . , , 246 . 90.
6. , , . . . , , 43 . 24.
:
7. 4. .., Chiusi, (Louvre Museum, , ). O. J. Brendel, Etruscan, 351 Fig. 273;
: The Etruscans 2013.
8. , Agia Photia, Sitia, . Bird 2013.
9. (15. ..), Hatvan, Mindszent, . Zoomorphic vase 2013.
A4
:
1 - 3. , , . . . , , 75 . 5: 1 3.
4. , Samos, J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 84 Fig. 25: 9, 2.
5. , . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 45: 808.
6. , , . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 42: 769.
7. o, 6. 4. .., / . Bronze Double 2013.
8. , Perachora, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 44: 789.
10. , . . . , , 111.
11, 12. / , , . . . , , 120.
5
1, 2. , ,
; . : . ; : .
3. , , . . . , ,
37 . . 135.
4. , 20. .., . . , .
:
5. 1. . .., Amlash, Gilan, . Amlash Culture 2013.
6. , Gilat, Negev (Israel Museum, ), . Woman 2013.
7. 1. . .., Amlash, Gilan, . Rython 2013.
8. 1000 800 . .., Amlash, Gilan, . Burnished 2013.
9 13. - (), , ( -
, ), . : .
6
:
1. , , , , . . D. Zdravkovski, Neolitska, No. 68.
2. , Villanova, Bologna, . D. Strong, Etrurski, 172 Sl. 3.
3. , 8. .., , . D. Boi, Zakladi, 96.
4. , Cerveteri (Cerveteri Museum), . Cerveteri 2013.
5. , 13 12. .., , , . . , , 37.
6. , 10. .., Skyros, (N. P. Goulandris Collection). Protogeometric 2013.
7. 10. 8. .., Amlash, (Collection M. Mahboubian, New York). Autruche 2013.
8. , . Philistine Askos 2013.
7
1, 2. , (1500 1450 . ..), Zakros, , . M. Gimbutas, The
Language, 37 Fig. 60: 1, 2.
3. - , ( 1600 . ..), Zakros, , . A. Evans, The
Palace. Vol. I, 705 Fig. 529: c.
:
4. 5. .., , , . 2013.
1008

5. 3000 o. .., . M. Gimbutas, The Language, 40 Fig. 67: 1.

6. 500 . .., , . M. Robbins Dexter, The Monstrous, Ill. 10.
7. 1500 . .., Santorini/Thera, . M. Gimbutas, The Language, 40 Fig. 67: 2.
8. 16. . .., Akrotiri, Santorini/Thera, . M. Gimbutas, The Language, Pl. 8; : Jug 2013.
9. (), 3. .., , , . . .
, . -, , 13 . 7.
10. , 7. .., Metropolitan Museum, , . Vase 2013.
11. 16. . .., Santorini/Thera, . I. Ruxandra, Kali.
8
, , :
1. Potidaea, , . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 27: 534.
2. Tegea, , . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 27: 527.
3. Philia, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 67 Fig. 20: 3.
4. . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 31: 598.
5. Ku i Zi, Kor, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 27: 535.
6. . : . .
7. Aiane, Kozani (), . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 28: 537.
8. , . : Bronze pendants 2013; : J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 64 Fig. 19: 10.
9. Philia, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 27: 530.
10. , . . . , , 38 . . 143.
9
, :
2. Ithaka, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 30: 586.
3. Vergina, , Aigai 2015.
6. (?). I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 30: 585.
8. Pherai, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 25: 488.
11. . : . .
12. , , . . . , , 39 . . 145.
10
, :
1. Aetos, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 67 Fig. 20: 7.
3. , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 58 Fig. 17: 4.
4. Kozani (), . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 67 Fig. 20: 9.
6. . : . .
9. , . K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 3: 1.
10. . Samml. Geom. Bronzen 2013.
11. , Kastoria (), . 2013.
11
, :
1 3, 7. , . . , , 126 . XIV: 7, 8, 19 22.
4. , . Openwork 2015.
5. , Philia, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 34: 645.
6. , (National Archaeological Museum, ), . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier,
Anhanger, Taf. 28: 539.
8, 11. Amlasyh, 8. 7. .., . An Amlash bronze 2013.
9. 7. 6. .., , , . . . , , . 1.
1009
.
10. Amlasyh, 11. 10. .., . Grelot 2013.

12. Bex, . J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 327 Fig. 20: 17.
13. Ttno, . J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 327 Fig. 20: 15.
12
2. ( ), , 1300 . ..,
Peckatel, Schwerin, . V. Podborsk, Nboenstv, 282 Obr. 83.
6, 7. , , . . . , , 126 . XIV: 16, 17.
8. , , . 4. .., Villa Giulia, , . O. J.
Brendel, Etruscan, 333.
9, 10. , , , Museum of the Rhode Island School of
Design, Providence, . O. H. Frey, Der Ostalpenraum, 57 Abb. 6.
:
1. , Turie Dvorie, Domainec, . K. Vinski-Gasparini, Grupa, T.XXI: 1.
3, 4. , Vounous, . H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. III, Taf, 342: 19, Taf. 343: 13.
5. , , . J. N. Coldstream, Geometric, 100 Fig. 37-c.
13
1. , , Bhemkirchen, Niedersterreich (Doln Rakousko), V.
Podborsk, Nboenstv, 280 Obr. 75: 7.
2. , , Este, . A. Hnsel, Die Kultwagen, 275
Abb. 2: 3.
:
3. (1300 . ..), Peckatel, Schwerin, . S. Kuko, Japodi, Sl. 229.
4. , Scallerup, , H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. IV, Taf. 521: C5.
5. Urnenfelder (1300 800 . ..), Acholshausen, . H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. IV, Taf.
429: 1.
6. 7. .., Bujoru, Teleorman, . Carul 2013.
7. Szszvrosszek (Ortie), . G. Kossack, Studien, Taf. 4: 7; : Birds 2016.
8. (7. ..), Glasinako Polje, Sokolac, (Naturhistorisches Museum,
, ). Two birds 2015.
9. Villanova (7. ..), Tarquinia, Viterbo, Lazio, . D. Strong, Etrurski, 192 Sl. 2.
14
, , :
1. , (Ex-Bruce McNall Collection, Los Angeles, CA; Ex- Steve Rubinger
Collection, Los Angeles CA; Ex Private Denver Colorado Collection). Lg Greek 2015.
2. , , , . A Greek Geometric 2014.
3. , , . . . , , 25.
4. , , . . . , , 58 . 4.
5. , , . . . , , 42 . 23.
6. Chauschitsa, Kilkis (), . E. Kypraiou, Greek jewellery, 58 Fig. 46.
7. Chauschitsa, Kilkis (), . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 85: 1519.
8. , , . . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 83: 1493.
15
, , :
1. Vitsa, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 82: 1471.
2. Axiokastron, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 85: 1533.
7. Chauschitsa, Kilkis (), . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 85: 1519.
1010


16. Chauchitsa, Kilkis (), . E. Kypraiou, Greek jewellery, 58 Fig. 46.
17. ( ), . (Benaki Museum, , ). J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 32
Fig. 8: 1; : Benaki 2013.
18. , . Aphrodite 2013.
16
, , :
1, 2. , , , . . . , , 75 . 7; 80 T.III: 6.
3, 4. , , . . . , , 88 . 5; 85 T.I: 5.
5, 6. , , . . : . , , 33 . . 119; : .
, , 85 T.I: 6.
7, 8. , , . . . , , 88 . 2; 85 T.I: 8.
17
, , :
1. , , . . . , . , , 18, 48 . . 48.
2. , , . . . , , 89 T.II: 2
3. , , . . . , . , , 49 , . 55.
4. , , . . , , 32 20/1.
5. , , . . , , 32 20/3.
6. , , Gorny & Mosch 2014, 242 (382).
7. , I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 89: 1540; , , . (: J.
Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 30 Fig. 7: 5); , , , (:
. , , T.III: 19).
8. . . , , 139.
9. , I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 89: 1539; , .
(Benaki Museum, , ). J. Bouzek, Addenda, 52 Fig. 4: 2; . , , T.II: 1.
17
, , :
10, 11. , , (
, ), . .
12, 13. , , Muse Barbier-Mueller, , . Trois pyxides 2016.
14. , , Muse Barbier-Mueller, , . Pyxide 2016.
15. , . (Ex-European
Collection). Geom. Bronze 2013.
18
, :
2. . ( ). I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 87: 1536.
5. , , . . : . ., , 58 . . 584;
( . )
6. , , Muse Barbier-Mueller , , . Trois pyxides 2016.
7. , . . Arch. Gr. Container
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. , , , . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 89: 1547.
4. , , , . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 89: 1546.
19
, , :
1, 2. , 8. 7. .., ,
, Shelby White And Leon Levy Collection. Aphrodite 2013
4. Aigai, . Aigai 2015.
1011
.

6. . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 32 Fig. 8: 5.
7. Lindos, , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 34 Fig. 9: 2.
8. Axiokastron, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 34 Fig. 9: 5 7.
9. Amphipolis, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 88: 1532.
10. , , Shelby White And Leon Levy Collection. History Contained
2014.
11. , / (?), , , . . . ,
, 142 . 1.
20
, , :
1. (- ), . . . , , 245
. 88.
2, 3. Axioupoli (), Kilkis (), . . , ' , 623 . 15; 624 . 16.
4, 5. , , . . : . , , 42 . 22; : .
, , 89 T.II: 1.
6. Pyra Heracleous, Fokis, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 88: 1542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. , 8. .., Novilara, Pesaro-Urbino, . Censer 2015.
8. , 8. .., Benacci Caprara, Bologna, . Corredo 2014.
21
, , :
1. , , . . . , , 59 . 6.
2. , , . . . , , 247 . 92: 3.
3. , , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 34 Fig. 9: 8.
4. Bashtova, , . H. Myrto, Dy varse, 59 Fig. 1a.
5. Vogl, , . H. Myrto, Dy varse, 59 Fig. 1b.
6. Aegina, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 34 Fig. 9: 4.
-----------------------
8, 9. , , , , . . . , , 30, T.XIV: 10.
10. , , , , Ny Carsberg Glyptotek, , . M.
Guggisberg, Vogelschwrme, Taf. 15: 2.
22
. 15, , , , , . :
1. . . , , 75 . 7.
2. . . ,
, 84 T. IV.
3, 4. . : . , , 80 T.III: 6; : .
, , 40 . 11.
5. , . : . .
23
, , :
1, 2. , , . . : . , , 61; : J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian,
27 Fig. 6: 7.
3. , , . . . ., , 58 . . 584.
6 8. Axioupoli (), Kilkis (), . . , , 55 . 21.
, :
:
9. , , Nov Koarisk, Dunajska Luzna, Bratislava, .
10, 11. , , , . . . , , 68 . 4.
1012

24
, :
1. , Agora, , . E. L. Smithson, The protogeometric, Pl. 30 P 14873.
2. , Kerameikos, , . K. Kbler, Neufunde, Taf. 31 Grab 33: Inv. 962.
3. , Lindos, , . I. Martelli, Women, 325 Fig. 7.
4, 5. , , . I. Martelli, Women, 326 Fig. 9.
6, 7. ( ), Kerameikos, , . E. L. Smithson, The protogeometric, Pl. 31
Grave 113: 2168; I. Martelli, Women, 325 Fig. 5.
10. , Agora, , . E. L. Smithson, The protogeometric, Pl. 30: P 6695.
11. , Kerameikos, , . K. Kbler, Neufunde, Taf. 31 Grab 33: 961.
12. , Agora, , . I. Martelli, Women, 325 Fig. 1.
25
, :
1. , Alianello, Basilicata, . I. Martelli, Women, 334 Fig. 29.
2. , , Lipari, Italija. I. Martelli, Women, 329 Fig. 16.
3, 4. , Kerameikos, , . I. Martelli, Women, 325 Fig. 3.
5. , S. Stefano di Groteria, National Museum of Reggio Calabria, . I. Martelli, Women, 330 Fig. 21.
6. , S. Stefano di Groteria, National Museum of Reggio Calabria, . I. Martelli, Women, 330 Fig. 22.
7. , Acropolis, , . I. Martelli, Women, 326 Fig. 8.
25
, :
8, 9. Agora, , . J. Bouzek, The Attic, Pl VI: 2, 6.
10, 11. , Agora, , . J. Bouzek, The Attic, 9 Fig. 3: 8.
12. Eleusis, , . J. Bouzek, The Attic, 9 Fig. 3: 4.
13. Agora, , . J. Bouzek, The Attic, 9 Fig. 3: 7.
14. , Agora, , . J. Bouzek, The Attic, 9 Fig. 3: 6.
15. Argos, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 110: 1.
16. 9. . 8. .., Torre Galli, Calabria, . I. Martelli, Women, 330 Fig. 19.
17, 18. 9. . 8. .., Torre Galli, Calabria, . I. Martelli, Women, 330 Fig. 20.
26
, , :
1. , Babadag, Tulcea, . . . , , 37 . 2: 6.
2. , "Mljitul Florilor" - Garvn, Tulcea, . G. Jugnaru, Pixidele, 72 Fig. 1: 2.
3 - 5. , "Mljitul Florilor" Garvn, Tulcea, . G. Jugnaru, Pixidele, 73 Fig. 2: 4, 5,
6.
6. , Babadag, Tulcea, . G. Jugnaru, Pixidele, 73 Fig. 2: 7.
7, 8. , Babadag, Tulcea, . G. Jugnaru, Pixidele, 73 Fig. 2: 1, 3.
9. , "Mljitul Florilor" Garvn, Tulcea, . G. Jugnaru, Pixidele, 73 Fig. 2: 2.
10. Alcedor, . G. Jugnaru, Pixidele, 74 Fig. 3: 8.
12. Babadag, Tulcea, . G. Jugnaru, Pixidele, 72 Fig. 1: 4.
13. Babadag, Tulcea, . G. Jugnaru, Pixidele, 72 Fig. 1: 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. , 6. 5. .., Brauron, . Brauron 2015.
27
1. -, , Fjerd, . G. Kossack, Studien, 43 Abb. 2.
3. , 2. .., , , , . . Oldest shoes 2015.
, , :
2. , . . . , , 77 . 7: 42.
4. , , . . . , , 70 . 4: 24.
5. , , . . . , , 71 . 5: 23.
6. , , . 2013, 612 . . 306.19.28.
7. , , . 2013, 612 . . 306.19.29.
1013
.
28
1. , , Kerameikos, , . K. Kbler, Neufunde, Taf. 31 Grab
37: Inv. 1075.
2. , , Axioupoli (), Kilkis (), . . , , 55
. 21.
3. , , , ,
. . . , , 71 . 5: 23.
4. , , Babadag, Tulcea, . . . , , 37
. 2: 6.
5. , , , , . . . , , 25.
6. -, , Fjerd, . G. Kossack, Studien, 43 Abb. 2.
7. - . : . .
8. , , , , . . . , , 30.
9. , , , . . , , 148 . 6: 3.
10. , , Alcedar, . G. Jugnaru, Pixidele, 74 Fig. 3: 8.
11. , , , , . . . , , 61.
29
1. (), , Gazi, Herakleion, , . Eidola 2013.
2. (), 4. .., , . 2013.
3. (), 1 2. .., El Ghorfa, Alexandria, . Stles de La Ghorfa 2013.
4. , , 4. .., Hinton St Mary, Dorset, . Heritage 2013.
5. (), , 620 . .., , . History 2013.
6. , 19- , Biban el-Moluk, . Nat. Mus. Scotland 2013.
7. (Papaver somniferum). Papaver 2013.
8. (Punica granatum). Pomegranates 2013.
9. (Hyoscyamus niger). Henbane 2013.
10. , . . -, , 7.
11. , . Aphrodite 2013.
12. , , , . . . , , 42 . 22.
13. , (Chauchitsa), (Kilkis), . Bronze pendant 2015.
30
, :
1. ( ), , , . . . , , 42
. . 162.
3. ( ), , , , . . . ,
, 80 T.III: 5.
2, 4. . : . .
6. , , , . . . ., , 58 . . 584.
7. ( .
)
8. , , . J. M. Eisenberg, Royal-Athena.
9. ( .
)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. ( ), , Vinul de Jo, . R. Vasi, Makedonske, 157 Sl.4:
1.
31
, , :
1 10. . :
. .
12. , , . . , , 32 20/3.
13. , , . . D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 570 Fig. 9: 3; : B.
Husenovski, E. Slamkov, Archaeological, 20 Fig. 33.
14. , , . . , , 32 20/1.
15. , , . . , , 32 20/3.
1014

16. , , . (Benaki Museum, , ). J.

Bouzek, Addenda, 52 Fig. 4: 2; . , , T.II: 1.
17. , , . (: J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 30 Fig. 7: 5) ,
, (: . , , T.III: 19).
18. , , . . . , , 89 T.II: 2
19. , , . . . , . , , 18, 48 . . 48.
32
1. , Barberini, Praeneste. . Iron Age Italy 2013.
2. , , , 7. .., Barberini,
Praeneste. . Iron Age Italy 2013.
3. , , Paolozzi, Chiusi, . O. J. Brendel, Etruscan, 105 Fig. 72.
4. , 8. .., Salamis, . . . , .
5. , , Valdichaina, . ENG Fondazione 2013.
6. , , 8. .., , . . , . I, 47
. 15.
7. , , , Samos, . M. Shanks, Art, 223 Fig. 12.
8. -, , . J. N. Coldstream,
Geometric, 346 Fig. 114.
9. , , , Boston Museum of Fine Arts, ,
. M. Shanks, Art, 213 Fig. 6.
33
1. / . . .
2. -, (7. ..), Glasinako Polje, Sokolac, ,
Naturhistorisches Museum, , . . , , 302 . 172.
3. , , , , , . . , , 42 .
22.
4. , , , , . . . , , 43 . 24.
5. , Chauchitsa (), Kilkis (), . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 15 Fig. 1: 2.
34
1. , , Alaka Hyk, . H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. III, Taf. 312: 25.
2. , , . . , , 75 . 10.
3. , Florentine codex, 13. .., E. Neumann, The Great Mother, Pl. 57.
4. , , Teiu, , . M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 293 Fig. 460.
5. , , , , . . . , . , , 42
. 149; : . , , 21.
6. , , -. . ii 2004. 1. . 2, 269.
7. , , Dvory nad itavou, . J. Pavk, Umenie, 51 Fig. 43.
8. , , 0 . . ii 2004. 1. . 2, 258.
35
1, 2. , , Narona, Metkovi, . M. Prusac, Hybrid, 13 Fig. 17.
3. , , Cosa, , . M. Prusac, Hybrid, 13 Fig. 18.
4, 5. , , Knossos, , . H. Harissis, V. Harissis, Apiculture, 33 17 : 1, 2.
6. , , , . E. Neumann, The Great Mother, 144 Fig. 28.
7. , , , . E. Neumann, The Great Mother, 143 Fig. 27.
8. , , 8. .., Dipylon, , . . . 1981, 62.
9. , , , , . . :
, .
A36
1 3, 5. -
. : . .
4. , , , , .
. : , .
6. , , . . . , , 42 . 23.
7. , . Aphrodite 2013.
1015
.
9. , , . . D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 568 Fig. 5: 18. : . , .

, , 18, 48 . . 48.
A37
:
1, 2. , , . . M. Garaanin, Centralno, T.XIV: 1a, b.
3. , , , . . . , , 97 . 81.
4. , . Pinterest 2013.
5. , Vidra, . H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. II, Taf.177: 11a.
6. , , . . . , , 90 T.II: 1.
7. , , . . M. Gimbutas, The Language, 7 Fig. 8.
8. , Yarim Tepe, . . . , . . , , 252 . 98.
9. , Bkasmegyer, . M. Gimbutas, The Language, 22 Fig. 35.
10. , , . . , ( ).
A38
:
1. /, Mgura Jilavei, . C. L. Rdoescu, Typologies, 26 Fig. 3: 6.
2. /, Gumelnia Culture, . Gumelnita 2013.
3. /, Cscioarele, . C. L. Rdoescu, Typologies, 26 Fig. 3: 5.
4. , 4. 3 .., Lavello, Basilicata, . S. Kuko. Solarni. T.IV; : A. Remollino, Il
Museo, 77.
5. /, Gumelnia Culture, . R. R. Andreescu, Gumelnia.
6. , , , . Anthropomorphic (Banat) 2013.
7. , Lengyel, Svodin, . Anthropomorphic 2013.
8. , Lengyel, Svodin, . J. Pavk, Umenie, 39: 24.
A39
:
1. , Marz, . M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 483 Abb. 1
2. , , Rckeve, . H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. III, Taf. 476: A1.
3, 4. , Nov Koarisk, Dunajska Luzna, Bratislava, ;
.
5. , Szentes, . . . , , 179 . 107: 1.
6. , Kunszentmrton-Jaskor, . . . , , 179 . 107: 2.
40
, :
1. ( ), , . .
: . .
2. , , . . . , , 21.
3. , , . . 2013.
4. , , . Muz. afr. umetnosti 1989, 368 3.
5. , Mangbetu, . Brooklyn Museum 2013.
6. , , . E. Neumann, The Great Mother, Pl. 40.
7. , , 800 1200 . ..), . Barakat 2013.
41
, :
1. , , . . S. Dll, Die Gtterkulte, Abb. 29.
2. ( ?), , . . S. Dll, Die Gtterkulte, Abb. 30.
3. , , . . . 1996, 359.
4. , , . . . , , . IX: . 14.
5. , , . . S. Dll, Die Gtterkulte, Abb. 52.
6. Heraclea Lyncestis, , . . S. Dll, Die Gtterkulte, Abb. 28.
42
1. , , , , , . .
. , , 93.
1016

2. , , , Stobi, , .
. W. B. Dinsmoor, The baptistery, Fig. 1.
3. , , San Apollinare Nuovo, Ravena, . . , ,
124 . 70.
4. ( , , 2. 3. .., , . N. Feri, Tipoloke, 585 Sl.
11.
5. , , , , , . . .
, , 97 . 13: a, b.
6. ( ), , 2 3. .., , . N. Feri, Tipoloke, 585 Sl.
10.
7. , , , Heraclea Lyncestis, , .
. . , , 70, 71.
8. , , 2. 3. .., , . N. Feri, Tipoloke, 582 Sl. 4.
43
1. , . E. Neumann, The Great Mother, Pl. 174.
2. -, 15. .., , . G. Naumov, The Objectified, 109 Fig. 6: 4.
3. , , -, , . . . , ,
180 . 9.
4. -, , , . . G. Naumov, The Objectified, 109
Fig. 6: 2.
5. Livre des figures hiroglifiques, 16. .., . E. Neumann, The Great
Mother, Pl. 171.
6. -, 17. .., , . , , . G. Naumov,
The Objectified, 109 Fig. 6: 3.
7. , (?). Bright Friday 2016.
44
1, 2. , , Gumelnia, . : . . , . . , 169; :
Eur. Virt. Museum 2013.
:
3, 4. , Tell Qasile, , . H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. IV, Taf. 114: E3; :
Philistine vessel 2013.
5, 6. , Mallia, , . M. Gimbutas, The Language, 38 Fig. 63; : C.
P. Christ, The Language.
7. , Gilat, Negev, . Vessel 2013.
8, 9. , Mochlos, , . H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. III, Taf. 368: 31; : C.
P. Christ, The Language.
10, 11. , Myrtos, , . M. Gimbutas, The Language, 86 Fig. 140b; :
Goddess of Myrtos 2013.
45
:
1. , 7. .., Thebes, , (Louvre Museum, , ). Aryballos 2013.
2. , Despilio, Kastoria (), . . , . , T.VII: 3.
3. . 3. . .., , . 2013, . . 135.12.
4. /, Sultana, . C. L. Rdoescu, Typologies, 26 Fig. 3: 4.
5. /, Hotrani, . C. L. Rdoescu, Typologies, 26 Fig. 3: 4.
6. a , , 6. .., Chiusi, (Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, ). O.
J. Brendel, Etruscan, 140 Fig. 96.
7. , , , . : . .
8. , . 2. . .., /, , . 2013, . .
143.2.
9. , , , . M. Garaanin, Praistorija, 76 . 47.
10. , 2. . .., /, , . 2013, . .
143.1.
11. , , . . . , . . , 167.
1017
.
46
:
1, 2. /, Hotrani, . S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil II, Taf. 430: 17.
3. , , zd, . H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. III, Taf. 476: :1 3.
4. , , . M. Gimbutas, The Language, 191 Fig. 292: 1.
5. , , Velince, . Middle Aeneolithicum 2013.
6 - 9. , , . H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. III, Taf. 335: 6, 7, 8, 12.
47
1. , , 13. . .., Susa, . A. Parrot, Sumer, 324: 401.
2. , a , Bardo museum, , . Amphore 2013.
3. , , 650 600 . .., Museo Archeologico, , . Villanovans
2013.
4. , , Friedensau, . M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 531: 8.
5. , , , . M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 361: 7.
6. (, ), , 6. .., Chiusi (Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Chiusi),
. Canopic 2013.
7. , 6. .., (Louvre Museum, , ). E. Neumann, The Great Mother. Pl.
33 A.
8. Ke , 1. . .., Amlash, Marlik, . Ceramic 2013.
9. , , Yerasa, Limassol, . V. Karageorghis, Starodavna, 1987, 33
kat. br. 86.
48
, , :
1. - /. : .
.
2. , , . . . , , 42 . 22.
3. , , . . . , , 88 . 2.
4. , , . . . , . , , 18, 48 . . 48.
6. , , . . . , , 88 . 5.
7, 8. , . Aphrodite 2013.
49
, :
1, 2. , , . S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil II, Taf. 224: 9, 7.
3, 4. , Cernavod, . S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil II, Taf. 222: 9, 11.
9. , Cernavod, . Terracotta idol 2013.
11. , Krs, Szajol-Felsofld, . S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil II, Taf. 126: 6.
12. , , , . Clay female 2013.
, , :
5. , , . . . , , 42 . 23.
6. , . Aphrodite 2013.
7. , , . . . , . , , 18, 48 . . 48.
8. , , . . . , , 25.
10. , , . . . , , 89 T.II: 2.
50
1. - /. : .
.
2. , , Myrtos, , . Goddess of Myrtos 2013.
3. Bhavani-Trimursti-Mother, 19. , . E. Neumann, The Great
Mother, 235 Fig. 51.
4. , , Thebes (?), , . Alternative 2013.
5. , , Koumasa, , . M. Gimbutas, The Language, 229 Fig.
353.
6. Maya, . J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 412.
7. , , 700 . .., Thebes, , . Goddess 2013.
8. , , 700 . .., Thebes, , . Bell idol 2013.
1018

A51
, :
1. Kastav, Istra, . M. Gutin, La Tene, 47 Fig. 6: 1.
2. Jezerine, Biha, . A. Stipevi, Kultni, T.XXI: 1.
3. Drenov Klanac, Otoac, Lika, Hrvatska. S. Kuko, Japodi, 178 Sl. 254: 1.
4. Sanzeno, . S. Kuko, Japodi, 193 Sl. 283: 2.
5. Vinica, rnomelj, . S. Kuko, Japodi, 194 Sl. 286: 3.
6. Prozor, Otoac, Lika, . R. Drechler-Bii, Japodska, T. XLIV: 17.
7. Kastav, Istra, . S. Kuko, Japodi, 193 Sl. 284: 3.
8. Prozor, Otoac, Lika, . R. Drechler-Bii, Japodska, T. XLV: 19.
9. Jezerine, Biha, . R. Drechler-Bii, Japodska, T. XLVII: 8. 10, 11. Vinica, rnomelj,
. F. Stare, Upodobitev, T.II: 3, 1.
12. Ulaka, Stari Trg, Lo, . D. Boi, Zakladi, 164.
13. Kastav, Istra, . S. Kuko, Japodi, 193 Sl. 284: 2.
14. Picenum, . . , , 128 . 60.
15. Kompolje, Otoac, Lika, . R. Drechler-Bii, Japodska, T. XLV: 11.
52
1. , , Artemis Orthia, Sparta, . D. Glogovi,
Gospodarica, 265 Sl. 12; : L. F. Fitzhardinge, The Spartans, 51 Fig. 39.
2. , Artemis Orthia, Sparta, . D. Glogovi, Gospodarica, 265 Sl.
11; : L. F. Fitzhardinge, The Spartans, 64 Fig. 63.
3, 4. . 19. . H. Bursill, Hand Shadows.
5. , , Kompolje Vlako Polje, Otoac, Lika, . S. Kuko, Japodi, 168
Sl. 243: 10.
6. , , Prozor, Otoac, Lika, . S. Kuko, Japodi, 168 Sl. 243: 9.
7. , , , , . . , , 21 .
8.
8, 9. , , La Tne, . M. Gimbutas, The Language, 301 Fig. 480: 2, 3.
10. , , , . . , , 169
. 3: 18.
11. a a/a, , 6. 4. .., . O. J. Brendel, Etruscan, 219
Abb. 145.
12 14. , . Hand Jive 2013.
15. -, . A. L. Alperovich, Guido.
16. () , , 19. .., . . .
, . . , , 321 . 68.
17. , , Bologna, . M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 459.
18. , , Este, . M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 49.
19. Muppet show. How Muppets 2016.
53
, , - , :
1. , . 1987, 330 T.LXXXII: 21.
2. , . 2013.
3. . . . , , T.XI: 1.
4. , . 1987, 299 T.LI: 8.
5. , e , (). . -, , . 21.
6. , . 1987, 299 T.LI: 1.
7. , . . . , , 222 T. XIV: 5.
8. , , (?), . G. Kiss, A ks, 485 Abb. 8: 14.
9. , , Schweitzingen, Rhein-Neckar-Kreis, . K. Banghard, Ein
bemerkenswertes, 45 Abb. 1.
10. , , , . . . , , . 31.
11. , 11. 12. .., , . . , .
12. , 11. .., , . . , .
13. , , -. , , .
1987, T. LXXXII: 5.
14. , , 18. .., . F. Eber-Stevens, Stara. T.VII: 276.
1019
.
54
, 6 7. :
1. , . . . , . . , , 286 . 101: 2.
2. , . F. Daim, Reitervlker, 292.
3. , , . : . . , . . , 199 . 38.
4. , , . W. Menghin, The Merovingian, 365 III.20.4.
8, 10. , . . . , , 622 . 32: 4; 623 . 33: 7
9. , . . . , , 677 . 87: 7.
11. , , . . . , . . , 199 . 38.
13. , , . J. Werner, Slawischen, Taf. 41: 45.
5 7. - , 6 7. .
: . , , 24: 16 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. , 11. .., St. Bnigne, Dijon, . B. Rupreht, Romanika, Sl. 1.
55
, :
1. Sparta Lunkuhnen Cosoveni, 6 7. ..,
: . , , 39: 1.
2. ( ), 6. 7. .., , , . :
. , , 30: 15 .
3. Nea Anhialos Orlea, 6. 7. ..,
: . , , 40:12.
4. , 6. 7. .., , Museum Stockholm, . J. Werner, Neues. Taf.
28: 3.
5. , 6. 7. .., , , . J. Herrmann, Welt, 42.
6. , , , , . . . , . . , 202
. 39.
7. , 500 . .., Museum fr Vor- und Frhgeschichte, Berlin, . W. Menghin,
The Merovingian, 572 IX.6.7.
8. , , 6 7. .., Z. Vinski, O nalazima, T.XVIII: 2.
9. , Nea Anhialos, , . J. Werner, Neues. Taf. 29: 4.
56
1 - 5, 10. / , . Dancing 2013.
6. / , . List of mudras 2013.
9. / , . Hand Yoga 2013.
7. , Bharatam . . Classical 2013.
8. -, . A. L. Alperovich, Guido.
11. , 9. 15. .., Angkor Thom, . Fronton 2013.
12. , 9. 15. .., Angkor Wat, . Bas-relief 2013.
13. , 9. 15. .., Angkor, . A 2013.
57
, 1. . ..:
1. , , . N. Engel (et al.), Bronzes, 190.
2. , , . Luristan bronze 2013.
3. , , . P. Watson, Luristan, 8 Fig. 3c.
6. , , . E. de Waele, Bronzes ( ).
9. : . ,
, 26: 6.
10. , , . Iran. Quiver 2013.
11. , , , Cincinnati Museum of Art, Cincinnati, . R. Ghirshman,
Notes, 40 Fig. 2.
12. , , (Collection J. Coiffard). A. Godar, Umetnost, Crt. 38.
, :
5. Mechel, . S. Kuko, Japodi, 194 Sl. 287: 1; B. Raunig, Umjetnost, 264 Sl. 9.
7. . : celtic 2013; : S. Kuko, Japodi, 194 Sl. 287: 2.
8. Sanzeno, Trento, . Pendaglio 2013.
1020

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. , 7. .., Velestino, , . J. Werner, Slawishe, Taf. 3: 7.
58
1 - 6. (: .
, , 147 T. XXVIII).
7, 8. - (), 14. .., . , , , . . . .
, , . XXXIII.
9. (), , Jszberny, . . . , . . , , 219
. 8: 3.
10. , 12. 13. .., . . . , . . , 721 . 138.
59
1. , , -, , . A gold ornament 2013.
2. , , . (
).
3. , , -. , , .
1987, T. LXXXII: 5.
4. , , ( ). . . , .
5. ( ), 6 7. , , , .
: . , , 30: 15.
6. , 11. .., , . . , .
7. , 11 12. .., , . . , .
8. , (7. ..), Bomford Collection. A. C. Brown, Ancient, 34
Pl.X: d.
9. (), 6. 7. . , , . . . , . 7,
25 (7-2-58-2).
10. , , 18. .., . F. Eber-Stevens, Stara. T.VII: 276.
11. (), 6. 7. . , : Crypta Balbi, ,
. Slavic fibula 2013.
12. (), 1. . .., , . N. Engel (et al.), Bronzes, 191:
191.
13. (), 1. . .., , . E. de Waele, Bronzes (
).
60
1. , , , . , , 50 . 5.
2. - . : . .
3. , , , , . . . , . . , 202
. 39.
4. , 6. .., , Korkyra, , . J. Charboneaux, R. Martin, F.
Villard, Grece, 26: 24.
5. . . Naga-Kanya 2013.
6. , , Knossos, , . Minoan 2013.
7. , 5. .., , , . 2013.
8. , 9. 15. .., Angkor, . A 2013.
9. (), 400 600 . .., Smiss, Gotland, . Snake-witch 2013.
10. , , Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, . Statuette 2013.
11. (), , San Pietro, Gropina, Arezzo, . Ambo 2013.
61
, , :
2, 6. - . : .
.
3. , , . . . , . , , 18, 48 . . 48.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. , 6. 5. .., , , . . . ,
, . XXVI.
1021
.
5. , 6. 5. .., , , . . . , ,
T. VII.
7. , 6. 5. .., , , . . .
, , T. VIII.
8. , 6. 5. .., , , . . . . , , 28 . 1;
: . , , 159 T. I: 6.
9. , 6. 5. .., , , . . 2013.
10. , , Fjerd, . G. Kossack, Studien, 43 Abb. 2.
62
1. ( ), , 800 700 . .., J. E. Harrison,
Themis, 77 Fig. 10: b.
2. (), 4. .., Aigai, Vergina, . 2015.
3. , 3. .., , , . . , .
4. . : Holy Smokes 2015.
5. . 15, , , , , . ,
. . , , 84 T. IV.
6. . 12, , , , , . . . , , 246
. 91: 1.
A63
1. , , Philia, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 34: 645.
2. , , (?), . . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 83:
1495.
3. , , , , . . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 83: 1494.
4. , , , , . . . , , 25;
a : . .
5, 6. , , , , . M. Besnier, Turibulum, 542 Fig.
7178.
7. , , , National Archaeological Museum, , . I.
Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 28: 539.
8, 9. (.. Ludovisi throne), , 5. .., Museo Nazionale Romano,
, . Ludovisi 2015.
64
1. , , , , , . . .
, , 40 . 11.
2. , , , , . . . , , 42 .
22.
4. , 8. .., Novilara, Pesaro-Urbino, . M. Besnier, Turibulum, 542 Fig. 7174.
5. , (?). Bacchette 2015
6. , 8. .., Novilara, Pesaro-Urbino, . Censer 2015.
7. , , ( ), . (Benaki Museum, , ). J.
Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 32 Fig. 8: 1; : Benaki 2013.
A65
1. , , Gabinetto Segreto del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli, ,
. Tintinnabulum 2015.
2. , , . . . , , 7 . 3.
3. , 8. .., Banecci Caprara, Bologn, . J. P. Thevenot, Sur la function, Fig. 2: 4.
5. -, , Axioupoli (), Kilkis (), . . , '
, 623 . 15.
6. , 8. .., Novilara, Pesaro-Urbino, . M. Besnier, Turibulum, 542 Fig. 7174.
7, 8. , 8. .., Novilara, Pesaro-Urbino, . : Censer 2015; : J. P.
Thevenot, Sur la function, Fig. 2: 8.
1022

66
1. ( ), 8. 6. .., Cupra Marittima, Ascoli Piceno, . N.
Negroni Catacchio, Le vesti, 544 Fig. 15: b.
2. , , Kompolje, Otoac, Lika, Hrvatska. R. Drechler-Bii, Japodska, T. XLV: 11.
3. ( ), , Loreto Aprutino, Pescara, . B. Fath, B.
Glunz-Hsken, Textilien, 265 Abb. 13.
4. , 20 21. .., , (?). 2015.
5. , , Kompolje, Otoac, Lika, Hrvatska. S. Kuko, Japodi, Sl. 216: 1.
6. , , , (?), East Coast USA collection. Bronze
Pectoral 2015.
7. , , Axioupoli (), Kilkis (), . . , ' , 622
. 12.
:
..
_____________________________________________________________________
1
, , :
1 4. . : . .
5 9. . : . .
2
, , :
1. Ku i Zi, Kor, . Shqip. Arkeologike 1971, 48.
2. Trilophon-Messemeri, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl. IV: 11.
3. , Fitzwillian Musseum, Cambridge, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl.
VI: 19.
4. Agia Paraskevi, Aiani, Rymnio, . Bronze personal 2014.
5. , (?). Samml. Geom. Bronzen 2013.
6, 7. , , Michael C. Carlos Museum, Atlanta, . Michael C. Carlos
Museum 2013.
8. Ku i Zi, Kor, . Z. Andrea, Tumat, 230 Tab. XV: 3.
9. , Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Kassel, . S. Langdon, From Monkey, 413 Fig.
1: 2.
3
, , :
1, 2, 3, 5. , , , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl. VI: A,
B, C, D.
4, 6. , Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, . M. Vickers, Some Early, 20 Fig. I:
2, 3.
4
, , :
2. Stobi, , . , . , , 224 Fig. 4.
3. Ku i Zi, Kor, . P. Lera, Gjurm, 178 Fig. 1.
6, 7. Mavropiyi, Kozani (), . . -, , 368 . 34.
5
, , :
1. , Ku i Zi, Kor, . Shqip. Arkeologike 1971, 48; : . .
2, 3. . . , , T.IV: 3, 4.
4, 5, 6. , , . . . , , T.X: 4.
1023
. ..
7. , , . . : . , , 30 . 102; : R. Vasi,
eveliska, T. LXXIII: 12.
8. , , . . : . , , 30 . 104; R. Vasi, eveliska, T.
LXXIII: 13.
9, 14. , , . . . , , T.X: 5.
10. , , . . . , , T.IX: 1.
11, 13. , , . . . , , T.III: 5.
12. , , J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 78 Fig. 23: 3.
15. , , , . . . , , T. I: 6.
16. , , . . . , , T. I: 8.
6
, , :
1. , Amphipolis, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 70: 1262.
4. , Poteidaia, , . K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr,Taf. 30: 5.
5. , Poteidaia, , . K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr,Taf. 29: 1.
7. Poteidaia, , . K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 29: 7; : Potidaea 2013.
8. , . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 62: 1173
10. Poteidaia, , . K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 30: 3.
11. , , . . . , .
12. Poteidaia, , . K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 30: 7; : Potidaea 2013.
13, 14, 15. Poteidaia, , . Potidaea 2013.
7
, , :
6. , . . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 72: 1296.
7, 8. ( ?). . , , 16 . 2, .I: 2.
9, 10. ( ?). . , , 20 . 3, .I: 3.
11. Trilophon-Messemeri, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl. III: 2.
____________________________________________________________
/ (?), :
12. , , , . . : . , , 65 . 275.
13. , , , . . : . , , 64 . 274.
14, 18. , , J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 329 Fig. 21: 1, 2.
15. Trilophon-Messemeri, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 73 Fig. 22: 5.
16. Adaevci, . J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 329 Fig. 21: 5.
19. , , 1/3 1. . . ., . 2013, 617 315.2.
8
, , :
1. Ku i Zi, Kor, . Z. Andrea, Kultura, Tab. LXIII: 11.
2, 3. Ku i Zi, Kor, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 72: 1290; : Z. Andrea, Kultura
( ).
4. , , Michael C. Carlos Museum, Atlanta, . Michael C. Carlos Museum
2013.
5, 6, 7. Olynthus, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 73: 1303; J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 73 Fig. 22:
11.
___________________________________________________________
8. , , , , . . R. Vasi, Pelagonija, T. LXXIV: 1.
9. , , , , . . R. Vasi, Ohridska, T.LXXVII: 3.
1024

10. , . . , , 29 . 17.
12. , , Plakari, Karystia, , . S. A. Paspalas, A Macedonian, 533 Fig. 3.
13. , , Axioupoli (), Kilkis (), . . , ,
55 . 21.
15. , , Chauchitsa (), Kilkis (), . J. Bouzek, Graeco-
Macedonian, 15 Fig. 1: 2.
9
, ( ), :
3. , , ( ?). . ,
, 20 . 3, .I: 3.
4. , , ( ?). . ,
, 16 . 2, .I: 2.
5. Ku i Zi, Kor, . J. Bouzek, Bronzes, Z. Andrea, Kultura, .
6, 7. , , , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl. VI: D, B.
8. , Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, . M. Vickers, Some Early, 20 Fig. I: 2.
11. , Fitzwillian Musseum, Cambridge, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian,
Pl. VI: 19.
13, 15. , , , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl. VI: A, C.
17. Olynthus, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 73 Fig. 22: 11.
19. , Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, . M. Vickers, Some Early, 28 Fig. III:
1.
21. , , . . R. Vasi, eveliska, T. LXXIII: 13.
22, 23. Amphipolis, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 81 Fig. 24: 3, 2.
24. , , . . . , , 30 . 100.
26, 27. Poteidaia, , . Potidaea 2013.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. , , , Louvre Museum, , .
Pendeloque 2015.
10
, , :
1, 2. Plakari, Karystia, E, . S. A. Paspalas, A Macedonian, 533 Fig. 3.
5. , , . B. ovi, Donja, T.XXVII: 6.
7. . 14, , Ku i Zi, Kor, . Z. Andrea, Tumat, 173 Fig. 7.
11
. 14, , Ku i Zi, Kor, :
1. . Z. Andrea, Tumat, 218 Tab. III: V.14 3.
2, 3. . Z. Andrea, Tumat, 218 Tab. III: V.14 4, 5.
6. . J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 317 Fig. 17: 5; : Z. Andrea, Kultura. Tab. LXIII: 5.
7. . Shqip. Arkeologike 1971, 48.
1025
. ..
8. . Z. Andrea, Tumat, 230 Tab. XV: 3.

9. . 14. : Z. Andrea, Tumat, Fig. 4.
12
, :
1, 2. , , ( ?). . , , 20
. 4, .I: 4.
4. Scutari, (?). J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 70 Fig. 21: 11.
5. . . . , , 20 . 50.
6. Ku i Zi, Kor, . Z. Andrea, Kultura, 325 Tab. LXIV: 6.
7. , . . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 58 Fig. 17: 5.
8. , Vinul de Jo, . C. Metzner-Nebelsick, Der Thrako-Kimmerische, 299 Abb. 137:
3.
9, 10. Ku i Zi, Kor, . Z. Andrea, Tumat, 222 Tab.VII V.45: 4, 230 Tab. XV: 5.
13
1. , , Nahal Mishmar, . Treasure 2013.
2. , , Nahal Mishmar, . H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. II, Taf. 107 (A: 3 10).
3, 5. , , , , , . H. Mller-Karpe,
Handbuch. III,Taf. 688: 5, 1.
4. , , , , . H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. III,Taf. 688: 2.
6. , . 2. . . ., ,
( ), . 2013, 619 318.1.
7. , 1. . .., , .
. . , . . 161.
8. , . 1. . .., . . . , , . 69.
9. , . 1. . .., , . . . , , . 80.
10. , . 1. . .., . . . , , . 90.
14
1, 2. (Phytolacca americana), : Phytolacca americana 2012.
3. (Phytolacca pruinosa Fenzl), . Phytolacca pruinosa 2016.
, , :
5. , , , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl. VI: A.
8, 9. , , ( ?). . ,
, 16 . 2, .I: 2.
10. Ku i Zi, Kor, . Z. Andrea, Kultura ( ).
11. , , ( ?). . ,
, 20 . 3, .I: 3.
13. , , , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl. VI: C.
1: 2.
2013.
15
1. , 2013. : .
( : . ,
2013).
2, 3. .
4 6. , .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. , , Poteidaia, , . Potidaea 2013.
1026

16
( : . , 2013).
1 5. .
8. .
9, 10. .
11. .
, , :
1: 2.
12. ( ?). . , , .I: 3.
17
, , :
1. Poteidaia, , . K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr. Taf.31: 12.
2. , , . . , , 89 T.II: 3.
3. Amphipolis, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 46 Fig. 13: 6.
5. Pateli, Amyntaio, Florina (), . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 43 Fig. 12: 3.
6, 7. , , . . , , 33 . 22.
9, 10. , . . : . , , 61: . 3; : J. Bouzek, Graeco-
11. , , , . . . ., ., . 546; :
.
12. , , , . . . , . , . , , . 216.
, .
13. , , . . . , , 62: . 3.
14. , , , . . . ., , . 545; :
.
15. , , . . R. Vasi, eveliska, T. LXXII: 2.
16. , , . , . ., , . 599.
18
1. , , Areopagos, , . J. Bouzek, Greece, Fig. 153: 1.
2. , , Samos, . J. Bouzek, Greece, Fig. 153: 3.
, :
3. Tuma, Psar, Erzek, . S. Aliu, Tuma, 146 Tab. VII: 3.
4. Pateli, Amyntaio, Florina (), . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 78: 1387.
5. Ku i Zi, Kor, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 78: 1389; : Z. Andrea, Kultura. Tab.
LXIII: 5.
19. Trilophon-Messemeri, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl. IX: 32.
, :
9. , . P. Watson, Luristan, 14: 24 (7d).
10, 11, 12. Ku i Zi, Kor, . Z. Andrea, Kultura, Tab. LV: 1 3.
13. , , , . F. Stare, Bronaste, 51 Sl. 2.
14. Jaruge, (?). K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, Tab. 26: 18.
15. Sisak, . K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, Tab. 26: 7.
16. . S. Gabrovec, Zaetek, 346.
17, 18. , , . . . ., , . . 519, 520.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. , , Udaipur, . Folk Dance 2013.
19
, , :
1. 10. Ku i Zi, Kor, . Z. Andrea, Kultura ( ).
1027
. ..
5. .
: . .
7. . Gorny & Mosch 2014, 222 (333).
, :
3. , , . . R. Vasi, eveliska, T.LXXIII: 2.
4. , , . R. Vasi, Oblast, T.LXXI: 12.
6. , , . . . , , 72 . 2.
8, 13. , (?). Samml. Geom. Bronzen 2013.
9, 10. , , . , : . ., , 60 . 621; : K. Kilian,
Trachtzubehr, Taf. 58: 1.
11. Valanida, Larissa, . K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 27: 15.
12. , , . K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 67: 9.
20
1. , 2. .., , , , . . . , .
4. , , ( ?). I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger,
Taf. 34: 662.
5. (), , 5. .., Tarquinia, . . . ,
, 17.
6. , 4. .., Vatican Museum, , . . .. 1, 367.
7. , , Scupi, , , . . . ,
, 285 . 4.
8. , , , , , . . . , . ,
, 32 . 34; : .
9. ( Sotades), , Spina, Ferrara, . H. Hoffmann, Sotades, 104 Fig.
58.
10. , , Knidos, . . -, , 628 . 4
11. , , Stobi, , . . . , , T.V: 2.
21
, , :
1. Ku i Zi, Kor, . Z. Andrea, Kultura ( ).
2, 3. , , , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl. VI: B, D.
5. , , , , , . . E. Maneva, A pagan (
).
6. , 12. .., Svenborg, . N. Profantova, M. Profant, Encyklopedie, 212; : Halla
2013.
7. , , , Delos, . Yunanistan 2013.
8, 9. , 10. .., , , , . ,
: . .
10. , , 12. .., czyca, . . , , 202 . 22.
22
, , :
1, 2, 3. , Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, . M. Vickers, Some Early, 20 Fig.
I: 2; ( . ).
4, 5, 6. , , , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl. VI: D;
( . ).
7. .
: . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. , 11. .., , , . . . , . .
, 41.
9. . : Royalty 2013.
10. , , , . Four 2013.
11. , , 3. .., . , , 271.
1028

23
1. , 8. 7. .., , . Idoli 1986, 52 br. 55c.
2, 3. (standard), 8. 7. .., , . Idoli 1986, 50; (: .
).
4. Shiva Lingobdhava, , , 10. .., British Museum, London,
. V. Ions, Indijska, 27.
5. Shiva Lingodbhava, 2. .., Gudimallam, Chittoor, . Venerated 2013.
6, 8. , Komaki, . Incredible 2013.
7. Shiva Lingobdhava, . C. Bright, Columns.
24
1. , , , . .
: ( ).
2. .
: . .
3. , . . 2013.
4 6. , , . Bangkok 2013
7. (Lingam-Yoni), . C. Bright, Columns.
8, 9. , , , . . :
.
25
1. , 6. 8. .., , , . . . , , 137 . 58: .
2. , (?), , ( . , ), . . .
, , 345 T.LXXXII: 4.
3. ( ), 4. ..,
, , , . . : ( ).
4. , 14. .., . , , , , . . . ,
. . 66.
5. , 4. 1. .., Archaeological Museum of Pella, Pella, .
: ().
6. , , , , . . A. Fowler, S. Blazevska,
Description, 21 MN18.4.3.
7. , , , . . . , . , , 81.
8. , , , . M. Mesnil, A. Popova, Le four, 248 Fig. 2.
9. (), , , . . . , , . 44.
10. a (), , , . . . , . 111 . 91.
26
1. , , , , . , .
, . , IV: 9.
2. , , Antigonos Gonatas (277 239 . ..). Macedon Antigonos
2015.
3. , , Stybera, , , . . . ,
, .42: 3.
4. , 470 . .., Antikensammlung, Staatliche Muzeum, , . The
Naked 2015.
5. , . The cult 2015.
27
, ( ), :
2. , . . . , , 33 . 1.
4. , Fitzwillian Musseum, Cambridge, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl.
VI: 19.
1: 2.
7. . Gorny & Mosch 2014, 222 (333).
1029
. ..

2013.
10. Stobi, , . , . , , 224 Fig. 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. , . E. Neumann, The Great Mother, 266 Fig. 61.
28
, ( ), :
1, 2, 3, 4. , , , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl. VI: A,
B, C, D.
5, 6. , Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, . M. Vickers, Some Early, 20 Fig. I:
3, 4, 5.
8. Poteidaia, , . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 66: 1224.
10. , , Wrzburg, . M. Gimbutas, The Language, 14 Fig. 22.
29
1. , . The Petasos 2013.
2. , . Petasos 2013.
3. , , Poteidaia, , . Potidaea 2013.
4. , , 5. .., Krater 2013.
5. , , , , . B. Raunig,
Umjetnost, 61 T. X: 1.
6. , , , , . B. Raunig,
Umjetnost, 61 T. X: 2.
7. (), , Stobi, , . . S. Dll, Die
Gtterkulte, Abb. 55.
8. , , , , . . : . ,
, 30 . 104; : R. Vasi, eveliska, T. LXXIII: 13.
9. , , Szarvas, . S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil I, 189 Abb. 90.
30
1, 2, 3, 4. . : .
.
5. , . K. G. Jung, Pristup, 89.
6, 7. ( ), , atal Hyk, . I. Hoder, atalhyk, Res.
13, 14.
8. . External 2013.
9. . Almost 2016.
31
, , :
1. Artemis Ortheia, Sparta, . Athen 2013.
2. Mavriki, . S. Langdon, From Monkey, 409 Fig. 3.
3. Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Chieti, . S. Langdon, From Monkey, 412 Fig. 9.
6. , Kameiros, , . S. Langdon, From Monkey, 411 Fig. 6.
7. Kameiros, , . S. Langdon, From Monkey, 413 Fig. 11.
8. Arthur. M. Sckler Museum, Cambridge, . S. Langdon, From Monkey, 412 Fig. 8.
11. , , Louvre Museum, , . S. Langdon, From Monkey, 408 Fig. 1.
12. Eretria, . S. Langdon, From Monkey, 410 Fig. 5.
13. Alpheios, S. Langdon, From Monkey, 411 Fig. 7.
, ( ), :
4, 5, 9. , , , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl. VI: B, C,
.
1030

32
1. , . K. G. Jung, Pristup, 89.
2. (?), 1352 1336 . .., El Amarna, (Brooklyn Museum, , ). Figure of
Monkey 2013.
3. , , Fondation Custodia, coll. F. Lugt, Institut Nerlandais,
, ). S. Langdon, From Monkey, 417 Fig. 14.
4. , , 664 525 . .. Lapis Lazuli Monkey 2013.
5. , , Brooklyn Museum, , . Seated Monkey 2013.
6. (?), 1075 656 . .., , The Smithsonian`s Museums of Asian Art. Vervet monkey
2013.
7. , , 664 332 . .. Monkey Amulet 2013.
8. , , 4. .., Ithyphallic dwarf 2013.
9. , , 1. .. 2. .., Ancient Art 2013.
33
:
1. , , Artemis Ortheia, Sparta, . Athen 2013.
2. , , Mavriki, . S. Langdon, From Monkey, 409 Fig. 3.
3. , 1. .. Grotesque 2013.
7. 10. 6. .., , . . -, , 47, . 1: 3.
8. , , 10. 6. .., Archaeological Museum, Heraklion, ,
. Bard 2013.
9. 8. 7. .., , , . 2013.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. , , Naqada I period ( 4000 . ..), Rijksmuseum,
, . Clay figure 2013.
5. , , , . . .
, , 33 . 1.
6. , , ( 450 . ..), , .
Terracotta figure 2015.
34
1. , . Oh God 2013.
2. (), , Trilophon-Messemeri, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl.
IV: 11.
3. , , 3. 2. . .., ,
, . 2013.
4. , , , . S. Marinescu-Blcu, A propos, 120 Fig. 2: 2.
5. , , , , . M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 42 Abb. 11, 12.
6. , , Cernavoda, Romanian National Museum of History, , . S.
Hansen, Bilder. Teil II, 181 Abb. 85; : Art History 2013.
7. , , Trpeti, . The Lost 2013.
8. , , , , . E. H. Cline, Monkey, Pl. I c.
9. , , Vidra, Ilfov, . S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil II, Taf. 398.
10. , , , , . S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil II, Taf. 338: 13.
35
1. , 10. 11. .., . T. A. , , . 2 .
2. , 10. 11. .., Lund, . J. Graham-Campbell, The Viking, 182; : T. A.
, , . 2 .
3. (), , , (?). Samml. Geom. Bronzen 2013.
4. , 10. 11. .., Rllinge, ATA, Statens Historika Museum, Stockholm, . The Sun
2013.
5. (), , Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, . M. Vickers,
Some Early, 20 Fig. 1: 1.
6, 7. , 14. .., . , , , , . . . ,
, . 67, . 66.
8. , - , 2. .., Hada, Gandhara, Khyber Pass,
Jalalabad, . The Titan 2013.
9. , , 750 730 . ..,
1031
. ..
(Private Old French Collection). Thoth 2013.

10. . Big 2013.
36
1. , , . R. Cavendish, T. O. Ling, Mitologija, 226.
2. , Sherbro, (Muse du quai Branly, ,
). Nomoli 2013.
3. , , (Barbier Mueller Museum, , ). J. P. Barbier, Artifacts,
157 Fig 7.
4. ( ), , Ngaju, . Borneo 2013.
5. , , , . Muz. afr.
umetnosti 1989, 236 sl. 365.
6. , , , . Muz. afr. umetnosti 1989, 397 sl. 51.
7. , . Hanuman
2013.
8. (), , , Ashmolean Museum, Oxford,
. M. Vickers, Some Early, 20 Fig. I: 2.
9. , (). Wooden
2013.
10. , . Thailand 2013.
11. (Thai amulet I-ngang), . Phallic 2013.
37
1. , . . , , 272.
2. , , Sindos, , . . , , 271.
3. , , Antikensammlungen, , . Satyros 2013.
4. (), , Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, . M. Vickers,
Some Early, 20 Fig. 1: 1.
5. , 5. .., , . M. Dgi, A Sicilian.
6. , . S. Mollard-Besques, Catalogue, Pl. L: B539.
7. , , 5. ., British Museum, London, . S. Perowne,
Rimska, 10.
8. (), , Ku i Zi, Kor, . Shqip. Arkeologike 1971, 48.
9. , , . . , , 68.
10. , . S. Mollard-Besques, Catalogue. Pl. L: B540.
11. , . Eros kalos 2013.
38
1. , , 5. .., Naxos, . E. Lucie-Smith, Erotizam, 19 - Sl. 14.
2. , , National Archaeological Museum of Florence, , .
2013.
3. , 1. .. Fig. of Silenus 2013.
4. , , , 1400 1185 . .., Walters Art Museum,
Baltimore, . Egyptian Thoth 2013.
5. , , . . . . 1, 204.
6. , , 750 650 . .., Egyptian Museum, , . Bes
2013.
7. , 3. 2. .., , , . . . , , 60 T.I:
3.
8. , , Colli Albani, Colonna (Museo Barracco, ),
. Museo Barracco 2013.
39
1, 1. , 4. .., , . M Dgi, A Sicilian.
2. ( ), , , . . . ,
, 229 . 2.
3. (), , , . . .
, , 33 . 1.
4. , 8. 7. .., Stricum, Prov. Latina, . F. W. von Hase, Die goldene, 272 Abb.
15a: 11A.
1032

5. , 8. 7. .., Vetulonia, Prov. Groseto, . F. W. von Hase, Die goldene, 272

Abb. 15a: 1.
6. , 8. 7. .., Narce (Falerii), Prov. Roma, . F. W. von Hase, Die goldene, 272
Abb. 15a: 5.
7. (), 7. .., Tragliatella, Latium, . F. W. von Hase, Die goldene, 270 Abb.
13.
8. , 4. .., Apulia, . Drunken Silenus 2013.
9. , 1. .., (). roman 2013.
10. na , . . , , 77.
11. , 1. .. 1. .., Vis, . M. Kati, Antropomorfna, 102 Sl. 1.
40
1. , , , , , . . . , , 32 .
4.
2, 3. (), 6. .., , , . . .
, .
4. , .. - , . 5. .. Forum 2013.
5. , .. - , 5. .., , .
NumisBits 2013.
6. Lete, , . The Anc. Coinage 2013.
7. Lete, , . Coinproject 2013.
8. , 4. .., Coofeneti, Prahova, . . , , 310.
9, 10. , , . , , . . .
, , . 4.
11. , 7. . 6. .., , , .
2013.
12. , 8. 7. .., Marsiliana dÀlbegna, Grosseto, . F. W. von Hase, Die goldene,
272 Abb. 15a: 15.
41
:
1. , . . , , 28.
2. Hermitage Museum, , . . , , 252.
3. , . . , , 30.
4. , . M. DAUMAS, Cabiriaca, 52 Fig. 10.
9. Volterra, . . . , , 160 . 3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. , , , , . . . , , 35.
6. , , , , . Shqip. Arkeologike 1971, 47.
7. , 3. .., . . , , 171 . 199.
8. , 2. .., , , . 2013.
42
1. , Johann Stumpf, Augsburg 1586 . .., Klassisches 2013.
2, 6. , / , . J. Vlkova, Enciklopedie, 205 f, h.
3. , (?), -, , . . . , , 106 .
34.
4. , , . E. Neumann, The Great Mother, Pl. 99.
5. , (?), Peterborough, Ontario, . E. Anati, The state, 28.
7. , , 1338 1344 . .., Bodleian Library, Oxford,
. . . , , 236 . 2: 3.
8. ;
. . , . 6: 1.
9, 10. , 19. . 20. .
43
1. , , , . J. Campbell,
The Way, 158 Fig. 276.
2. , , . . . , , 184.
3. , , . . , .
1033
. ..
4. , 19. .., . The Rise 2012.

5. , , 1562 . .., Prado Museum, , ).
2013.
44
1. , , 2. .., , . H. Stierlin, The
Roman, 128.
2, 3. , . 1976.
4. , Mapuche, . J. Campbell, The Way, 159 Abb.
281.
5. , , Janky, . V. Podborsk, Nboenstv, 306 Tab. 82: 5a.
6. . . , . 15. .., , , .
2013.
7. . 2013.
45
1. , Kampala, . Pole-Climbing 2013.
2. , , Brze Kujawsky, Woclawek, . I. Gabriel, Hof- und Sakralkultur, 186
Abb. 33: 2.
3. , 12. .., , . . . , . 176 . 75.
4. , 12. .., Opole, . B. Gediga, Relikty, 105 Ryc. 10.
5. , , Oldenburg, . I. Gabriel, Hof- und Sakralkultur, 186 Abb. 33: 1.
6. , , Kunstkamera, , . . , .
7. (), , , . . . , , . 44;
: . , . , , 151 T.II: 1.
46
(, ), , 6. 4. .., :
1. British Museum, , . O. J. Brendel, Etruscan, 219 Fig. 145.
2. Vulci, Gregorian Etruscan Museum, . O. J. Brendel, Etruscan. 217 Fig. 144.
8. The Pomerance Collection, , . O. J. Brendel, Etruscan, 298 Fig. 217.
9. Todi, Villa Giulia, , . O. J. Brendel, Etruscan, 334 Fig. 258.
10. Villa Giulia, , . O. J. Brendel, Etruscan, 333.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3, 4. , , Pompei, . E. Saglio, Candelabrum, Fig. 1097, 1098.
5. , , Vetulonia, . O. J. Brendel, Etruscan, 91 Fig. 60.
, , :
7. Ku i Zi, Kor, . J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 317 Fig.17: 6.
47
1. , , 1. 3. ... ; ; ,
. . . , , 144 . 2: 1, 5, 146 . 3: 4.
2. , . 2013.
3. , . Maibaum 2013.
4. , , . 18. .., . J. Simpson, Evropska, 119.
5. , Harmanschalg, Bezirks Bltter, . Maibaum in Harmanschalg 2013
6. , Krnberg, .
Rund 2013.
7. , (?). Maypole 2013.
48
1. , , . , . 2003, 509.
2. , cerkva Svetega Kria pri Belih vodah, . Z. mitek, Mitoloko, 81.
3. Giovanni da Modena (1409 1455 . ..), San Petronio, Bologna, . C. G. Jung (i dr.), ovjek, 80;
Scalarchives 2016.
4. . Pole dance 2012.
5. Pasino da Guido, 14. .., . . . . 1, 405.
1034

49
1. Danza de los Voladores, Teotihuacan, . Danza 2013.
2. , 17. . .., . . . , , 22 . 5.
3. (), 13. .., . . . , , 238 . 4: 1.
4. , 11. .., . , , . 2012.
5. (), 13. .., . . . , , 237 . 3: 1.
6. (), 13. .., . . . , , 237 . 3: 5.
8. (), 14. .., . . . , ,
238 . 4: 2.
7, 9. , 12. 14. .., . J. Baltruaitis, Fantastini, 104 Sl. 81.
10. , 8. .., , , . . . , ,
26 . 6.
11. , , 14. .., British Museum, ,
. . . , , 23 . 4.
50
1. , Linquan, Anhui, . National Post 2012.
2, 3. , , Jszberny, . Szer-tarts 2013; Lehel
2013.
4. .
5. Hashigo-nori Dezome-shiki, , . Dezomeshiki 2012.
6. .
7. (), , 5. .., (The Pomerance Collection,
New York, ). O. J. Brendel, Etruscan, 299 Fig. 218.
8, 9. , 1. . .., , , ,
. 2013, 622 321.6.
51
1. , 1680 1700 . .., Rijiksmuseum, , . Plaat 2013.
2. , (), 1655 . .. 2013.
3. Malakhamb, . Nco o historii 2013.
4. , , 19. . 20. . Acrobats 2012.
5. , , . . , .
52
1. , , 3. .., Museum of Roman Civilisation, , . Altar 2013.
2. , . Felix 2013.
3. , , Cernavoda, , Romanian National Museum of History, ,
. S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil II, 181 Abb. 85; : The Original 2013.
4. , 100 . .. 100 . .. (Ex-private New York Collection). Greek Terracotta
2013.
5. , 200 150 . .., Amphipolis, (Louvre Museum, , ).
Attis syrinx 2013.
6. , Hadianopolis ( Louvre Museum, , ). Attis leaning
2013.
53
1. ( ), , 4. .., Louvre Museum,
, . Marsyas 2012.
2. ( ), , Regional Archeological Museum, Palermo, .
Clement 2013.
3. (Marsyas sarcophagus), , Basilica di San Paolo fuori, , .
Rom 2013.
4. , . Ku i Zi, Kor, . Shqip. Arkeologike 1971, 48.
5. (), , XII , II. . . ,
, . 62.
6. , 1. 2. .., Louvre Museum, , . Marsyas 2013
1035
. ..
54
1. , ,
. : . .
55
1. j , . , . 15. ..,
. . 2013.
2. , ( Vilanova), Vetulonia, . M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 499 Abb.
8.
3. , 1. ., Gundestrup, Himmerland, . The Dangerous 2015.
4. , , . J. Campbell, The Way, 140, 141 Fig. 246.
5. , , ,
. . . , , 398.
6. , . . .
, , 398.
56
/ , :
1, 4. Hag. Anargiroi, Leukothea, Kozani (), . : 2013; : I. Kilian-
Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 28: 545.
2. , Muse du Rodin, , . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 28: 542.
3. Agrilia (Smolia), Trikala, , . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 28: 544.
5. , Eric de Colb, , . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 28: 546.
6, 7. Metropolitan Museum, , . : I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 28: 543; : J.
Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl.VII: 24.
57
. , .
1. Hag. Anargiroi, Leukothea, Kozani (), . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 28: 545.
2. , , Kastoria (), . 2013.
3. , . Greek geom. br. horse 2014.
5. , Eric de Colb, , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 70 Fig. 21: 1.
9. , Metropolitan Museum, , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl.VII: 24.
10. . : . .
13. , , . . . , , 39 . 145.
58
1. , , Hag. Anargiroi, Leukothea, Kozani (), . 2013.
5. , , Larissa, , . M. Andronicos, Muse National, 34
Fig. 2.
9. , 1300 1200 . .., Heraklion Archaeological Museum, Heraklion, ,
. Clay rhyton 2015.
11. , 3. 1. .., Stobi, , . . Godinjica 2015.
, :
2. British Museum, , . Worshipper 2013.
3. Metropolitan Museum, , . A Late Minoan 2013.
4. Tilis, , Heraklion Archaeological Museum, Heraklion, , . Klasina 1978, 27.
6, 7. Archaeological Museum of Chania, Chania, , . Worshipers 2013.
8. Miho Museum, Kyoto, . Female Statuette 2013.
10. Metropolitan Museum , . Bronze Female 2013.
59
1. , , , . . . , , 17 . 2: .
1036

2. , , , , . M. Wenzel,
Ukrasni, T.LXXXV: 8.
3. , , , , . M. Wenzel,
Ukrasni, T.LXXXV: 12; : Steak 2013.
4. , 600 . .., Morken, , . F. Eber-Stevens,
Stara, T.XXI: 612.
5. , , Alcorisa, Cabezo, .
Poblado 2013.
6. (), , Suessula, Campagna, . M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 499 7.
7. (), , Campagna, . M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 499 3.
8 10. , , -, /. 1982,
T.LVI: 20; T.LXI:20; T.LXXIV: 20.
11. , , Knossos, , . . . , , 232 . 48.
12. . Manduki 2013.
13. , , 2008 . Salute 2013.
60
, , :
4. , National Archaeological Museum, , . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 28:
539.
9. Stobi, , . , . , , 224 Fig. 4.
12. , Metropolitan Museum, , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl.VII: 24.
2013.
14. , . : Bronze pendants 2013.
61
, , :
1. , , Hag. Anargiroi, Leukothea, Kozani (), . J. Bouzek, Graeco-
2. , 7. .., Tenos, . . , , 234.
3. , , 350 . .., , (Hermitage
Museum, , ). Helios 2013.
4. , 1300 . .., Kourion, . A. Durman, Simbol, 45.
5. , 640 630 . .., Cerveteri, Caere (Museo Archeologico Nazionale
Cerite), . Iconiclimc 2013, Image 1/1: 8457X001.jpg
6. (Metropolitan Museum, , ). J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl.VII: 23, 24.
7. , Eric de Colb, , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 70 Fig. 21: 1.
8. , 4. 3. .., Praeneste, . . . , , 22
. 1.
62
, :
1. Agrilia (Smolia), Trikala, , . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 28: 544.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. , , Hamilton collection. A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 203 Fig. 143.
4. , , 480 . .., Vatican Museums, . A. B.
Cook, Zeus. II, 205 Fig. 144.
5. (), , , . A. B. Cook, Zeus. II, 202 Fig. 142.
1037
. ..
6. , , Leyden, . A. B. Cook, Zeus.

II, 214 Fig. 148.
7. , , , Samos, . Votive offering 2015.
8. , , , . . , , 148 . 6: 3.
63
, , :
6. Vergina, . Aigai Odysseus 2015.
8. , , Kastoria (), . 2013.
64
, , :
1. , G. Ortiz. I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 32: 609.
2. Pherai, ( Eric de Kolb). I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 32: 610.
7. Thermon, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 60: 1152.
9. Proerna, Monasterion, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 60: 1145.
65
, , :
1 5. .
: . .
6, 7. Amphipolis, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 36 Fig. 10: 1, 2.
8. , , . . . , , 59 . 6.
, .
9. Pherai, I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 77: 1348.
10. Pherai, I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 77: 1351.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. , 16. . .., Akrotiri, Santorini, . M. Gimbutas, The Language, Pl. 8; :
Jug 2013.
66
2. , , 1. 3. . , , . . . ,
, 144 . 2: 1.
3. (?), , Nesactium, Istra, . S. Kuko, Japodi, 195 Sl. 288: 2.
4. , , Vetulonia, . A. Naso, Antichi, 9 Fig. 6.
5. , . 4. .. . , , 19.
6. ( ), , Gyngys, . T. Kemenczei, Zur Frage, 172
Abb. 2: 5.
7. ( ), , , , . T. Kemenczei, Zur
Frage, 172 Abb. 2: 2.
8. , , (National Archaeological Museum, ), . I.
Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 28: 539.
9. , , , , , . J.
Campbell, The Way, 175 Fig. 304.
10. , , 8. .. . . , . . 51.
1038

67
1. , , Pherai, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 73: 1302.
2. , , , (British Museum, , . J.
Curtis, M. Kruszyskinna, Ancient, 39 Fig. 21.
, :
4. , I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 53: 982.
7. Pyla, Messenia, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 58: 1103.
(?), :
8. Agrinion, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 51: 940.
67
13, 16. , , , (British Museum, , ).
J. Curtis, M. Kruszyskinna, Ancient, 114 Fig. 6a: 115, Fig. 6b: 115.
14, 15. , , , (British Museum, , ).
J. Curtis, M. Kruszyskinna, Ancient, 114 Fig. 6a: 116, Fig. 6b: 116.
68
2. , , Trilophon-Messemeri, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl. III: 1.
3. , , 27. .., , . . . , , . 25.
4. , , . U. Holmberg, Der Baum, 24 Abb. 8.
5. , , Lascaux, . Lascaux 2015.
6. , , Giofyrakia, Heraklion, , . J. A. MacGillivray,
The Minoan, 124 Fig. 7.
7, 8. , 10. .., Knossos, , . J. N. Coldstream, Knossos, 583 Fig. 30.1.
9. , , 1370 1320 . .., Hagia Triada, , .
Sarcophage 2014.
10. (), 1370 1320 . .., Hagia Triada, ,
. A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. I, 440 Fig. 317.
11. , , 1450 1300 . .., Hagia Triada, , . Woman sitting
2014.
:

______________________________________________
1
, , :
1, 2. , , , . . : . , , 42 . 23; : J.
Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 48 Fig. 14: 13.
3. , , , . . K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 49: 9.
4, 5. , , , . . : D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 573 Fig. 13: B/2;
: K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 49: 10.
6 8. , , . . : . , , 40 . 10; : R. Vasi,
Srednja, T.LXIX: 10; : K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 57: 14.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. , , Philia, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 48 Fig. 14: 12.
10. , , , ( ,
), . . . , , 207 . 55: 7.
1039
.
2
, , .
2, 3. , , . . - : D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 572 Fig.
12; -: . , . , , 49 . . 53.
4. Vergina, . Aigai 2015.
5. , , . . . , , 245
. 88.
8. , , . . . , , 250 . 21.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. , , Brodski Varo, Slavonski Brod, . K. Vinski-
Gasparini, Kultura, Tab. 56: 46.
7. , , (Eeri), . J. Bouzek, The Belozerka, 250 Fig.
4: 5.
9. , , Tegea, , . Y. Thomassen Flognfeldt, Sanctuaries, 48 Fig.
14A.
3
(.. ), , , :
1. , , , . . , , 159 . . 218.
2, 3. (). . , , 29: 8 (), 10
().
4. , , , . . , , 158 . . 216 (: . 7).
5. , , , . . , . , . , , 131 . . 163.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. , , , , . M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 92 Fig. 53.
7. , , Zorlenu Mare, . S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil II, Taf. 272: 1.
8. , , , , , . . :
.
9. , , Komissariato, Limassol, .
A. Bernard Knapp, Prehistoric, 183 Fig. 33.
10. ( ?), , , , , . .
: .
11. (Tauros), Maremmana x Pajuna, . Tauros Project 2015.
12. , , Chioda Veche, , . S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil. II, Taf. 267.
4
, , :
8. , , . . . , , 245
. 88.
(.. ), , , .
2. , , , . . , . , . , , 145 . . 191.
3. , , , . . , . , . , , 138 . . 179.
4. , , , . . , . , . , , 139 . . 178.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. -, , ( , , ). A Greek
Geometric 2014.
5. , , Tegea, , . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 75: 1323.
9. - - , . :
. .
10. , , Prozor, Otoac, Lika, . R. Drechler-Bii, Japodska, T. XLV: 19.
11. , , Bologna, . M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 459.
12. , , Prozor, Otoac, Lika, . S. Kuko, Japodi, Sl. 210.
13. , , Thermon, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf 25: 489.
14. , , Ithaka, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 59: 1114.
15. , , , , , . . . ,
, 207 . 55: 11.
1040

5
1. , , , , , .
. . , , 42 . 23.
(.. ), , :
2. , , , . . , . , . , , 147 . . 195.
3. , , , . . , . , . , , 132 . . 165.
4. , , , . . , . , . , , 133 . . 168.
5. , , , . . , . , . , , 131 . . 164.
6. , , , . . , . , , 133 . . 167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. , , Mondidole, Zrich (Alpenquai), . M. Hoti, Prethistorijski,
Sl. I, 96.
8. , , , Homolka, . M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, Sl. I, 86.
9. , , Kotsiatis, . Cyprus 2013.
, , atal Hyk, :
10. J. Mellaart, atal Hyk, 118 Fig. 30.
11. E. Pegler, atalhyk.
12. J. Mellaart, atal Hyk, 121 Fig. 33.
6
1. , , , , .
. R. Vasi, Srednja, T.LXIX: 10.
2. , , Vafio, , . M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, Sl. I, 29.
3. , , Malia, , . M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, Sl. I, 28.
4. , , Salamina, . M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, Sl. I, 42.
5. (), /, Gumelnia Culture, Cascioarele, . M. Hoti,
Prethistorijski, Sl. I, 67.
6. (), , Mitrou Pigades, . M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, Sl. I, 48.
7. , , Knossos, , . A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. II II, 619 Fig. 388.
8. , , , . M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, Sl. I, 49.
9. , , , , , .
. D. Mitrevski, Pogrebuvanja, 573 Fig. 13: B/2.
10. , , , . D. Serindag, Gold.
11. , , atal Hyk, .
J. Mellaart, atal Hyk, 127 Fig. 40.
7
1 6. , , . .
, , . . . , , 42 . 23.
(: . ).
8
1. , , Patso, , . A. J. Evans, Mycenaean
Tree, 136 Fig. 19.
2. , , Vrokastro, , . M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, Sl. I, 36.
3. , , Pina, Malorca, . M. Hoti, Prethistorijski, Sl. I,47.
4. , , Giofyrakia, Heraklion, , . J. A. MacGillivray,
The Minoan, 124 Fig. 7.
5. , , Knossos, , . A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. II II,
622 Fig. 390.
6, 7. , / , , - , , .
. . , . , 381 . 56; T. XXVI: 13; . , , 211 .
68: 24.
8. , / , , , , . . . ,
. , T.XII: 12.
9. , , , Dendera, Qena, . The Egyptian 2015.
10. , The Book of the Dead of Khensumose, , 10. .. The Book
of the Dead 2014.
1041
.
9
1. Dionis Tauros, 1. .., , . . , , 60.
2. , 6. 5. .., , , . . . , , . XX.
3. , 6. 5. .., ( ). . , , 16 .
. 2.
4. , 6. 5. .., , , . . . , , 29.
5. , , 479 460/450 . .. . , , 16.
6. , , 500 480 . .. . , , 14.
7. , , 400 380/370 . .. . , , 18.
8. Stobi ( ), . , . .
, , 94.
9. Stobi, Publius Septimius Geta (189 211 . ..), . . .
, , 97.
10
1. Shamash (), 2000 . .., Susa, . . . , , . 49.
2. (), Ur-Nammu, , 2047 2030 . .., . . . ,
, . 50.
3. , , , . S. Kuko, Japodi, 218 Sl. 341.
4. , 21. .., , . . . , , . 48.
5. (), , . 2013.
6. , 6. 5. .., , , . . . , , 29.
7. , 7. . 6. .., Alpago, . Mille anni 2013.
8. (), , , , . . S. Dll, Die
Gtterkulte, Abb. 29.
9. (), , , , . . .
1996, 359.
10. , - , 4. .., (Metropolitan Museum, ,
). Beaker 2013.
11. , , , , . S. Kuko, Japodi, 218 Sl. 341.
11
, 11. 7. .., , , , :
1 14. B. Hnsel, Hhlen, 114 Abb. 2.
18 23. B. Hnsel, Hhlen, 115 Abb. 3.
24 26. . Anati, Magourata, 96 Fig. 55, 53, 54.
, , :
15. , , , . . : . , , 42 . 23.
16. , , . . R. Vasi, Srednja, T.LXIX: 10.
17. , , . . . , , 245
. 88.
12
1. , 4. . .., . E. Neumann, The Great Mother, 115 Fig. 12.
2. , , . E. Neumann, The Great Mother, 114 Fig. 11.
3. , . Imaginary 2013.
4. (), , , M. Vii,
Egipatska, 123 Tab. 2.
5. , (?), , . M. Kica, Vypravy, 244.
6. (), . D. M. Calabro, Gestures, 113 Fig. 4.
7. , , , Gerzeh, . H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. II, Taf.
25: 2.
8. , , , , . M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 92 Fig. 53.
9. , , , Naquada, . H. Mller-Karpe,
Handbuch. II, Taf. 11: 22.
10. , , , Mohammerije, . H. Mller-Karpe,
Handbuch. II, Taf. 23: 1.
1042

13
, , :
1, , , , . . : . , , 42 . 23.
5. , , . . . , , 40 . 10.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. , , 13. 12. .., , . Mycenae
2013.
3. , , (Archaeological Museum of Mycenae),
. Mycenaean figurine 2013.
4. , , Agora, , R. S. Young, Late Geometric, 54 Fig.
36.
6. , , 1400 1100 . .., Naxos Museum, Naxos, .
Terracotta female 2013.
7. , , 13. .., Tanagra (Archaeological Museum of Thebes, Thebes),
. Ancient Final 2013.
8. , , 12. .., Perati, ,
. K. Demakopoulou, Das mykenische, 201: 177; ( ): Mycenean PHI idol
2013.
9. , , 1400 1200 . .., . Three terracotta 2013.
10. , - , 7. .., . Cypro-Archaic 2013.
11. , 6. .., Ayia Irini, . S. P. Morris, Daidalos, Fig. 23 a.
13
12. , 600 . .., , (Charles Gillet Collection). Two Boeotian 2015.
13. , , 1050 750 . .., (Joseph Klein collection). Greek Cypriot
2015.
14. , , Karphi, , . H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. IV, Taf. 220: 7.
15. , Nimrud, . D. M. Calabro, Gestures, 113 Fig. 3.
16. Horemheb, , Memphis, . D. M. Calabro, Gestures, 115
Fig. 6.
17. , , 3. .., . Gorny & Mosch 2014, 239 (376).
18. ( ), , , , . 2015.
19. ( ), , . 19. .., , ,
. 2015.
14
1, 8. , 7. . 6. .., Hallstatt, . P. Turk, Images,
18 Fig. 14: 3.
2, 3, 4, 7. Benvenuti, 7. .., Este, . O. - H. Frey, Der Ostalpenraum,
61 Abb. 9.
5. , , , , , .
. . , , 42 . 23; : . .
6. Benvenuti, 7. .., Este, . Venetkens 2013.
15
, :
1, 2, 4, 5. , . S. Kuko, Japodi, 218 Sl. 341.
3, 7. , , . S. Kuko, Japodi, 220 Sl. 343.
6. , , . S. Kuko, Japodi, 218 Sl. 341.
16
1. (), Ur-Nammu, , 2047 2030 . .., . . .
, , . 50.
2. , 11. 7. .., , , , . B. Hnsel, Hhlen,
114 Abb. 2.
3. , , 13. 12. .., , . Mycenae
2013.
, , . :
4. , . N. Proeva, Les stles, 466 Fig. 6.
1043
.
6. . N. Proeva, Les stles, 462 Fig. 3.

9. , , , . S. Kuko, Japodi, 218 Sl. 341.
10. , , , , ,
. . . , , 42 . 23; : . .
11. , , , , . S. Kuko, Japodi,
220 Sl. 343.
12. , 7. . 6 .., Hallstatt, . P. Turk, Images, 18
Fig. 14: 3.
13 15. Benvenuti, 7. .., Este, . O. - H. Frey, Der Ostalpenraum,
61 Abb. 9.
17
1, 2. (), , , . S. Kuko, Japodi, 218 Sl. 341.
3. (), 7. .., Tenos, . . , , 234.
4. ( ), , 570 565 . ..,
Louvre Museum, , . The birth (Louvre) 2013.
5. , 3. .., , . M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 161 Fig. 154.
6. ( ), , 560 . ..,
British Museum, , . The birth (British M.) 2013, K7.9.
18
1. (Humulus lupulus). Humulus lupulus 2015.
2. (Pinaceae).
3. (Equisetum arvense). Equisetum arvense 2013.
4. (Lilium martagon, Lilium carniolicum). Lilium 2013.
, , . :
7. . N. Proeva, Les stles, 462 Fig. 3.
19
1. , , . . Mariovska tresenica 2013.
2. ( ), 6.
.., , . . . , , 249 . 11.
3. , 6. .., , . . . , , 75.
4. , 8. .., . , . . , , 129.
5. , 1295 . .., . , , . . .
, , 91.
6. , 1377 . .., . , , , , .
. . , , 123.
7. , 3. .., , , . . , .
8. , , Vlastelinski Brieg, Sarva, Osijek, . S. Dimitrijevi, Problem, T.IV: 9.
9. , , , atal Hyk, . J. Mellaart, atal Hyk, 155 Fig. 45.
10. , , , . . , , T.XXIX: 8.
11. , , Kasteli Pedeada, Knossos, , . M. Gimbutas, The Gods, 182
Fig. 140.
12. , , , , . . . , . .
, 477.
13. , , Kompolje, Otoac, Lika, . R. Drechler-Bii, Rezultati. T. XIII: 2.
20
1. , , , , , , .
. : . , , 42 . 23.
2. , , , , .
. R. Vasi, Srednja, T.LXIX: 10; ,
(: . )
1044

3. , , , , .
. R. Vasi, Srednja, T.LXIX: 10; ,
( : . )
4. , 4. . .., , . Y. Garfinkel, Dancing,
255 Fig. 11.15: a.
5. , 11. 7. .., , , , . . Anati,
Magourata, 96 Fig. 55.
6. , , (Eeri), . J. Bouzek, The Belozerka, 250 Fig.
4: 5.
7, 8, 9. , 11. 7. .., , , , . B. Hnsel,
Hhlen, 114 Abb. 2.
10. , 4. .., , , . . . ,
, 340 . 86.
11. , , Kilvalay, . E. Neumayer, Lines, 199 Fig. 533.
12. , 4. .., , -, . . . , , 342 . 90.
13. , 4. . .., , (The Museum of Mediterranean
and Near Eastern Antiquities, , ). Y. Garfinkel, Dancing, 255 Fig. 11.15: a.
21
1. ( ), , . Medieval Tuesday 2013.
2. , . , , .
3. , . , , .
. R. Vasi, Srednja, T.LXIX: 10; (: . )
4. : (: .
)
5. , , Arsenale Militare, Bologna, . B. Fath, B. Glunz-
Hsken, Textilien, 268 Abb. 17.
6. ( , Amasis), , , . Lekythos 2015.
7. , , . Costume 2013.
8. , . Greece 2013.
22
1. , . , , .
2. , . , , , .
. J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 48 Fig. 14: 13.
, :
3. , , . . . , , 38: 19.
4. , , . . . , , 45: 142.
5. , , . . . , , 38: 51.
6. , , . . . , , 38: 25.
7. , , . , . , , 27: 7.
8, 9. . Distaffs 2013.
10, 11. Kynouria, Arcadia, , . Greece 2013.
12. . . . , . . , 243.
13. . . . , . . , 241.
14. , , . . . , , 43: 107.
15. , , . , . , , 43: 105.
23
1. , 19. .., , (?). Ancient distaff 2015.
6. (?), , , . Strumenti 2015.
7. , 19. .., , . French distaff 2015.
9. , , (British and Berlin
Museums). Woodcut 2015, 4.
11. , ( ), Gvle, . A hand made 2015.
12. , , (British and Berlin Museums). Woodcut 2015,
1.
14, 15. , . 20. .., , . Spanien 2015.
1045
.
16. , , (?). Quenouille 2015.

, :
2. Potidaea, , . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 27: 534.
5. , . . . , , 38 . . 143.
13. Aiane, Kozani (), . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 28: 537.
24
:
1. , 6. 7. .., . Gorny & Mosch 2014, 243 (386).
5, 6. , 6. 7. .., . Europe 2015.
8. , 5. 7. .., . Fingerkunkel aus Bronze 2015.
9. , 5. .., , Archologisches Museum Westflische Wilhelms-
Universitt, Mnster, ). Fingerkunkel mit figrl. 2015.
14. , 6. 7. .., . Gorny & Mosch 2014, 243 (386).
16. , 6. 7. .., . Gorny & Mosch 2014, 243 (386).
, :
2. (?). I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 30: 585.
12. , . Bronze pendants 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. , 1. 3. .., , Corning Museum of Glass, , .
Distaff bird 2015, QNL-4002.
13. , . Fingerkunkel 2015.
15. ( ), , Aquincum,
, . A. R. Facsdy, Glass Distaff, 168 Fig. 6.
17. , 1. 3. .., Sardis (Archaeological Museum, Manisa), .
Distaff Aphrodite 2015, QNL-4009.
25
, :
1. A. Reinach, Thyrsus, 288 Fig. 6921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
, :
2. , , . , . , , 27: 7.
4. , , . . . , , 38: 51.
14. Kynouria, Arcadia, , . Greece 2013.
16. , , . . . , , 38: 19.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. , , , , , .
. . , , 42 . 23; : . .
7. Benvenuti, 7. .., Este, . O. - H. Frey, Der Ostalpenraum, 61
Abb. 9.
9. Naxos, 5. .., . Tetradrachm Naxos 2015.
17. , , , , ,
. . . , , 42 . 23; : . .
1046

26
1. ( ), . Dionysus 2015.
2. , . A. Reinach, Thyrsus, 289 Fig. 6922.
5. ( ), , . Sleeping 2015.
6. (Phytolacca americana), . Phytolacca americana 2012.
7. ( ), , 4. .. (NG Prague Kinsky),
. Askos 2015.
:

_____________________________________________________________________
1
, :
1. , , . . . , , 61.
2. , , . . . , , 42 . 23.
4. , , , . . . ., , . 545; : .
5. , . Bronze pendants 2013.
2013.
7. Trilophon-Messemeri, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl. IX: 32.
8. Vergina, . Aigai Odysseus 2015.
2
, :
1, 7, 8. Museum of the Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, . O. - H. Frey, Der Ostalpenraum, 57 Abb.
6.
2. Benvenuti, Este, . O. - H. Frey, Der Ostalpenraum, 61 Abb. 9.
3. Kranzbichl, . S. Kuko, Japodi, 64 Sl. 86.
4. Sanzeno, . J. Lcke, Das Lappenbeil, 604 Abb. 3.
9. Vae, . S. Kuko, Japodi, 44 Sl. 61.
, , :
3
, :
1. Museum of the Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, . O. - H. Frey, Der Ostalpenraum, 57 Abb. 6.
2. Vae, . S. Kuko, Japodi, 44 Sl. 61.
3. Kranzbichl, . S. Kuko, Japodi, 64 Sl. 86.
4. Sanzeno, . J. Lcke, Das Lappenbeil, 604 Abb. 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. - , 6. 7. ..,
: . , , 24: 16.
6. (), , Shtoji, Shkodr, . A. Koka, Kultura, 250 Tab. II: 11.
7. , , Brodski Varo, Slavonski Brod, . K.
Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, Tab. 53: 9.
8. , . An Etruscan 2013.
4
, :
1 4. Museum of the Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, . O. - H. Frey, Der Ostalpenraum, 57 Abb. 6.
1047
.
5. Benvenuti, Este, . O. - H. Frey, Der Ostalpenraum, 61 Abb. 9.

6. Kuffrn, . O. H. Frey, Die Situla von Kuffarn, 11.
5
1. , , Ku i Zi, Kor, . Z. Andrea, Kultura, - . 1.
2. , , Nov Koarisk, Dunajska Luzna, Bratislava. .
3. , 16. 12. .., , , . 2013.
4. , 6. 7. .., . . . -, . . , , 63.
5. , . . . , , 88 . 2.
6, 7. , , . . . , , 30: . 1.
5
8. , 2. . 1. . .., collection Gamalakis, Archaeological
Museum, Heraklion, , . M. Guggisberg, Vogelschwrme, Taf. 13: 1.
9. (), , Knossos, , . M. Guggisberg,
Vogelschwrme, Taf. 14: 4.
10. , , , (British Museum,
, ). J. Curtis, M. Kruszyskinna, Ancient, 112 Fig. 4c: 95.
11. , , Albate, Como, Milano, . M. Guggisberg, Vogelschwrme,
Taf. 15: 4.
12. , (?), , . R. Washbourne, Out
of the mouths, 206 Fig. 101.
13. 7. 5. . ., Quirinal, , (Berlin State Museums, ,
). Duenos 2015.
14. /Levantine Pokeweed (Phytolacca pruinosa), . Anatolian 2016.
15. (Ephedra vulgaris). 2016.
6
1. , . Hindu god 2013.
2. , 3. .., , Paphos, . Ganymedes 2012.
3. , , 12. .., Angkor Wat, (Brooklyn Museum,
, ). Garuda 2015.
4. , , , , . . . , . , ,
80
, , :
8. . . . , , 38 . . 141.
7
, , :
1. Perachora, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 44: 789.
4. , , . . . , , 43 . 24.
5. , , . . . , , 40 . 10
6. . . . , , 37 . . 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. (), , Lord of the Manor, Ramsgate, . Incense
2015.
3. , , 6. ., , . . . -, . .
, , 130.
7, 8. , , , . . . , , 120.
8
, , :
1. , . : Bronze pendants 2013; : J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 64 Fig. 19: 10.
3. . : . .
4. , , . . . , , 39 . . 145.
1048

5, 6. , , Museum of the Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, .

O. - H. Frey, Der Ostalpenraum, 57 Abb. 6.
7. , , , 2. 3. .. . . -, . .
, , 128.
8. , , 4. .., British Museum, , . . .
, .
9. , , Herculaneum, National Archaeological Museum, , . Mosaic 2013.
9
1, 2. Benvenuti, 7. .., Este, . O. - H. Frey, Der Ostalpenraum, 61 Abb. 9.
3. , 14. .., . , , . . , ,
. 13.
4. , 6. .., Bold Dolfin, Este, . H. Parcinger, Inandiktepe, 24 Abb.14.
5. , , Magdalenska Gora, Preloge, . P. Turk, Images, 25
Fig. 28.
6. , , . . , , . 1.
7. , , Appiano, . J. Lcke, Das Lappenbeil, 602 Abb. 1.
10. (), 6. 4. .., , . . , , 147
. 117.
11. (), 6. 4 .., , .
. , , 147 . 116.
, :
10
, 5. 3. .., Krannon, , :
1. Gerhard Hirsch 2013.
2. Krannon 2013.
3. Kotyora 2013.
:
4. , Szszvrosszek (Ortie), . G. Kossack, Studien, Taf. 4: 7.
5. Urnenfelder, 1300 800 . .., Acholshausen, , . H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch.
IV, Taf. 429: 1.
7. , 7. .., Glasinako Polje, Sokolac, (Museum of Natural History,
, ). . , , 302 . 172.
8. , 7. .., Bujoru, Teleorman, . . , , 85.
, :
6. -, , , . . . , , 42 . 22.
9. , , , . . . , , 43 . 24.
10. , . . . , , 37 . . 135.
11. -, , . . . , . , , 18, 48 . . 48.
11
, :
1. Poteidaia, , . K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr. Taf. 31: 12.
2. , , . . , , 89 T.II: 3.
3, 4. Amfipolis, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 36 Fig. 10: 1.
6. , , . . . , , 85 T.I: 6.
8. , , . . . ., , 58 . . 584.
9. Axiokastron, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 34 Fig. 9: 5-7.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. , , Perachora, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 44: 789.
7. , , , , , . . . ., , . 545.
: .
12
-, :
1. Proerna, Monasterion, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 60: 1145.
1049
.
3. Thermon, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 60: 1152.

, :
4. ( G. Ortiz). I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 32: 609.
5. Pherai, ( Eric de Kolb). I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 32: 610.
6. . : . .
8. , , Kastoria (), . 2013.
9. Pherai, . K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 28: 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. , , , , . . . , .
, , . XXIV.
11. , , , , , . . .
, . , , . XXIII.
13
, , ():
1. , . . . , , 33 . 1.
3, 4. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, . M. Vickers, Some Early, 20 Fig. I: 1.
7. . : .
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. , 4. .., Apulia, . Drunken Silenus 2013.
6. , 1. .., , . roman 2013.
8. , , 5. .., Naxos, . E. Lucie-Smith, Erotizam, 19 Sl. 14.
9. , 1. .. 1. .., Vis, . M. Kati, Antropomorfna, 102 Sl. 1.
/ , , :
11, 12. , Metropolitan Museum, , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl.VII: 23,
24.
14
, 6. 5. .., , , . ( , ,
).
1. . : . , , 159 .I: 1.
5. . : . , , 159 .I: 6, : . . , , 28
. 1.
6, 7. . : . . , , 50 . 20 ;
( ): . , , 159 .I: 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. , , Hacilar, Burdur, . S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil II, Taf. 64: 4.
3. , , Hassuna, . S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil II, Taf. 40: 1.
4. II ,
, , 1430 . .., Egyptian Museum, , . . .
. 2, 585.
15
, , :
3. , , . . . , . , , 18, 48 . . 48.
2, 5. - . : .
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. , 6. 5. .., , , . . . ,
, . XXVI.
6. , 6. 5. .., , , . . . , ,
T. VII.
7. , 9. 15. .., Angkor, . A 2013.
8. , , 13. . .., Susa, . A. Parrot, Sumer, 324: 401.
1050

9. , , Myrtos, , . Goddess of Myrtos 2013.

10. , 4. . .., Sofia, Drochia, . C. - M. Lazarovici, G. - C.
Lazarovici, S. urcanu, Cucuteni, 208: 398, 309.
16
, :
1. Certosa, Bologna, . L. C. Koch, Zu den Deutungsmglichkeiten. 348 Abb. 1.
2. Certosa, Bologna, . P. Turk, Images, 36 Fig. 54: 1.
3. Vei, , . P. Turk, Images, 36 Fig. 54: 1.
4. Vae, . P. Turk, Images, 36 Fig. 54: 1.
6, 7, 8. Benvenuti, 7. .., Este, . O. - H. Frey, Der Ostalpenraum, 61 Abb. 9.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5. , , Magdalenjska Gora, Preloge, . P. Turk, Images, 73
Fig. 112.
17
1, 3. Benvenuti, 7. .., Este, . O. - H. Frey, Der Ostalpenraum, 61
Abb. 9.
2. , 7. . 6. .., Hallstatt, . P. Turk, Images, 18
Fig. 14: 3.
4. , , San Apollinare Nuovo, Ravena, . . ,
, 124 . 70.
5. , , , , , .
. . -, , 93.
6. , , , Stobi, , ,
. . W. B. Dinsmoor, The baptistery, Fig. 1.
7. , , , Heraclea Lyncestis, , .
. . , , 70, 71.
8. , Este (Fondo Rebato), . O. - H. Frey, Der Ostalpenraum, 59 Abb.
8.
9. , , Vae, . H. Parcinger, Inandiktepe, 22 Abb. 12.
18
, ( ), :
2. Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Kassel, . S. Langdon, From Monkey, 413 Fig. 1: 2.
3. , Fitzwillian Museum, Cambridge, . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl.
VI: 19.
4. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, . M. Vickers, Some Early, 20 Fig. I:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. , , . . , , 68.
6. , 5. .., , . M Dgi, A Sicilian.
7. , , 5. .., British Museum, London, . S.
Perowne, Rimska, 10.
8. (), 4. .., Louvre Museum, , . Marsyjas 2012.
9. Certosa, Bologna, . L. C. Koch, Zu den Deutungsmglichkeiten. 348 Abb. 1.
10, 11. , , Museum of the Rhode Island School of Design, Providence,
. O. - H. Frey, Der Ostalpenraum, 57 Abb. 6.
19
, , :
1. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, . M. Vickers, Some Early, 20 Fig. I: 2. ( .
)
2. ( , , ). J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, Pl. VI: D;
( . )
3, 4, 9. Ku i Zi, Kor, . : Shqip. Arkeologike 1971, 48; : . .
5. , Ku i Zi, Kor, . J. Bouzek, Bronzes, Z. Andrea, Kultura ( ).
6. , Ku i Zi, Kor, . Z. Andrea, Tumat, 230 Tab. XV: 3.
7. , , (?). Samml. Geom. Bronzen 2013.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1051
.
8. , . Eros kalos 2013.

20
1. (.. ), , . S. Kuko, Prizori, 62 Sl. 1.
, :
2. 7. . 6. .., Alpago, . Mille anni 2013.
3. Montebelluna (Museum in Treviso, Treviso), . O. - H. Frey, Eine figrlich, 68 Abb. 1: 1.
4. Sanzeno, . O. - H. Frey, Eine figrlich, 70 Abb. 3
21
1. , 18. .., (Victoria and Albert Museum, ,
). V. Ions, Indijska, 113; : Kurma 2013.
2. , - , 4. .., (Metropolitan Museum, ,
). Beaker 2013.
3. , 7. 6. .., Alpago, . Mille anni 2013.
4. , , 12. .., Angkor, (Guimet Museum, ,
). Soma-haoma 2013.
5. (), , . 2013.
6. , , , , , .
. . , , 42 . 23; : . .
7. , 6. 5. .., , , . . . , , 29.
8. , , Indian Museum, Kolkata, . J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant,
Rjenik, 651; . , , . 1.
:
_____________________________________________________________________
1
1. .. .
: . .
2. , Gallehus, , 4. 5. .. D. Ellmers, Zur Ikonographie, 258 Abb. 67.
3, 4. . : .
.
5, 6. - . : . .
2
1, 2. . : .
.
3. . : . .
4. : =
; = . : . .
5. . : . .
6. . : . .
3
1.
. : . .
2. , , . 20. ..,
, . . , , 29 . 19.
3. - . : . .
4. -
. . , , 6: 1.
5. , . J. Lechler, Vom Hakenkreuz, 77 Abb. 14.
6. , 2. . .., Valcamonica, Brescia, . The motif 2014.
1052

7 9. , 6 . : . ,
, T.XCI: 1, 4, 5.
4
1. , , Lengyel, Nove Zamky, Svodin, . Rondely 2015.
2. , , Crvljevica Planina, Mostar, . A. Stipevi, Kultni, T. III: 2.
3. , , Taskovii, Mostar, . A. Stipevi, Kultni, T. III: 1.
4. , , . K. Moszynski, Kultura. T.II/2,
187 Ryc. 124: 46.
5. , 19. .., . C. G. Jung (i dr.), ovjek, 171.
6. , Chartres, . C. G. Jung (i dr.), ovjek. 171.
7. , , . E. A. Volis Bad, Amajlije, 190.
8. , 7. .., , . Klasina 1978, 82.
9. , , , , . . -, , 92 .
206.
10. , , , -, . . , , 261 . 4: 8.
11. , , . . -, . 182 . XXXIX: 9.
12. , / , . J. Vlkova, Enciklopedie, 205 m.
13. , , , , . . . , , 181 . 7: 1.
14. , , Ljubljansko Barje, . M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte,
347.
5
1. , , , Pollen 2014.
2. (Quetzalcoatl), Codex Bordianius, . G. D.
Matlock, Was Mexico's.
3. Santiago de Compostela, , / . Santiago 2014.
4. (Kandariya Mahadeva), 11. . .., Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh, .
Hindu 2014.
5. , , ernn, . V. Podborsk, Nboenstv, 248 .64: 8.
6. , 5. 4. . .., . . , , . 169: 2.
7. . Mandalas 2014.
8. (Borobudur), 9. .., Megelang, Java, . Borobudur 2014.
6
1. , 13. .., , Konark, . V. Vukovaki-Savi, Stara
Indija, 69 Sl. 65.
2. , 1600 . .., Knossos, , . Cross 2013.
3. , , . J. Klemenc, Starokranska,
132.
4. , , , Sarva, Vlastelinski Brijeg, Slavonija, . A.
Durman, Vued. rion, 125, 149, kat. br. 3.
5. , , , . H. Schliemann, Mykenae, 225 Nr. 294.
6. , , . . . , -, 171 .
8: 5.
7. , e , Gammertingen, Sigmaringen, . K. Bhner, Die frhmittelalterlichen,
Taf. 62: 3.
8. , , Lengyel, . . . , , 375 . 227: 2.
9. , , . 1981, . 64: 103.
10. , . A 2002, 13.
11. , (9. 8. ..), , ,
. M. Kica, Vypravy, 284.
12. - (), Istra, . V. Girardi Jurki, Histri, 71.
13. , , . , , , . . . , , 61 . 2:
2.
14. , , , , . . .
, , . 65.
1053
.
7
1, 2. , , -, , . ii
2004. 1 .2, 171, 173.
3. , , Maltas, . . , , T.LIV: 3.
4. Ming-ang Ksijan ( ), , . B. Brentjes, Gradovi, 35
Sl. 12.
5. , , Yazlkaya, orum, . . ,
, T.LIV: 1.
6. . Urban 2014.
8
1. , Bargala, , , . . .
, , 232 . 29.
2. , , 4. 3. .., Seuthopolis, , . A.
, , . 7.
3. , , Knossos, , . A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. I, 515 Fig. 374.
4. , , Knossos, , . A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. I, 515 Fig. 375.
5. , . A. Kareem, The Pagan.
6. , , 3. . .., Pomos, (Cyprus Museum, , ). Euro Cypr
2014.
7. (Thutmose) IV, , Metropolitan Museum, , .
Objects 2014.
8. (Shamshi-Adad) V (824 811 . ..). Ancient Man
2014.
9. (Ashurnasirpal) II (883 859 . ..). Ancient Man
2014.
9
, :
1. , , . . . , , 29 . . 96; : . ,
, 247 . 93: 8.
2. , , . . . , , 29 . . 97; : . ,
, 247 . 93: 3.
3. , , . . R. Vasi, eveliska. LXXII: 7.
4, 5. - , . . . , , 28 . . 93, 94; :
. , , 242 . 84.
6. , , . . . , , T. XVIII: 71/12.
7. Valanida, Elassona, . K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, . Taf. 27: 29.
9. , , . . . , , T. X: 34/6.
10. , (), , -. . , ,
159 T.XXI: 12.
10
, :
3. Hallstatt, Salzkammergut, . M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 24 Abb. 22.
4. Schomlauer Berg, . M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 24 Abb. 19.
5. itluci, Glasinac, . A. Benac, B. ovi, Glasinac, T.XXXI: 18.
6. Nagyenyed, . M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 24 Abb. 20.
7. Legrad, Podravina, . K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, T. 127: 16.
8. , , . . R. Vasi, eveliska. LXXII: 7.
9. Greda M. Petrovia, Donja Dolina, Gradika, . B. ovi, Donja, T. XXVIII: 3.
10, 11. ( ), 5. .., . Thrachian coins
2014.
1054

10
, , Batina/Kiskszeg ,
(Romano-Germanic Central Museum, Mainz, ):
12, 13. S. Foltiny, ber die Fundstelle, Taf. 70: 1.
14, 15, 16. C. Metzner-Nebelsick, Der "Thrako-Kimmerische", Taf. 120.1.
17. . , -, 32, . 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
18 20. ( ), 5. .., e . Thrachian coins
2014.
21. , , Scupi, , , .
. . , , 17 . 3.
11
, :
2. , , . . . , . , , 52 . . 70.
5. Vlashnje, Prizren, . K. Luci, Bronze, 126 . . 165.
9. , (), . A. Kapii, V. Vujai, Vodi, 201.
10, 11, 12. Osovo, Glasinac, . Z. Kujundi-Vejzgari, Masivna, 75 Sl. 4.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. , , , , , .
. , , 172 . . 171.
3. , , - I. . , , 50 (.2703).
4. , , , , , . ( , ),
. , : ( ).
6. , , , , . . , . , . , ,
143 . . 186.
7. , , , , , . . , . , .
, , 136 . . 173.
8. , , , , , . . ,
: , .
12
, :
1. Taline, Glasinac, . . , , 5 . 3: 5.
2. Valanida, , . . , , 5 . 3: 7.
3. Rehov, Psar, Kolonj, . S. Aliu, Aspekte, 280 T.II: 9.
4. itluci, Glasinac, . A. Benac, B. ovi, Glasinac, T. XXXI: 19.
5. Osovo, Glasinac, . A. Benac, B. ovi, Glasinac, T. XXVI: 3.
6. , , . . , , 5 . 3: 6.
7. Valanida, , . K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 27: 21.
8. Glasinac ( , ), . , , 308 . 178.
9. , (), . . , , 5 . 3: 8.
13
, :
1. , , . . . : , .
2. - , . . . , , 33 . . 117; : .
, , 24 . 84.
3 5. , , . . : . , , T. XX: 81/4; : . ,
, 24 - . 84.
6. , , . . , , 39.
7. Osovo, Glasinac, . . , , 5 . 3: 4.
8. , , . . . , , 5 . 3: 2.
9. Kaptol, Poega, . V. Vejvoda, I. Mirnik, Istraivanja, T.XIII: 4.
14
1, 2. , .. . : . .
3, 4. . : .
.
5, 6. , .. . : . .
1055
.
15
1.
. F. Kaul, Reading, 331 Fig. 7.
2. , , -. . ii 2004. 1 .1,
73.
3, 4. , , -, , ,
. . ii 2004. 1 . 1, 422 . 1: 1, 2.
5. , , -, . .
ii 2004. 1 . 1, 423.
6. , , , . G. Kossack, Studien.
Taf. 9: 3.
7, 8. , , . G. Kossack, Studien. Taf. 8: 15.
16
1. , . . . , , . 172: 2.
2. , . . . , , . 32: 3.
3. , . . J. Vlkova, Enciklopedie, 205: .
4, 5. , , . . . ,
, 24 . 17, . 18.
6. , / , . G. Kossack, Studien. Taf. 10: 10.
7. , 14. 13. .., , . . .
, . . , , 98 . 1: 2.
8. , 1. . .., Kalenderberg, Chorvtsky Grob, .
Moon-shaped 2013.
9. , , Doln Rakousko, . V. Podborsk, Nboenstv, 322 T.86: 24.
17
1. e , , itluci, Glasinac, . A. Benac, B. ovi, Glasinac,
T. XXXI: 19.
(?) :
2. , 3. . .. . , , . 71: 10.
3. 2. . .., . . , , . 71: 13.
4. 4. . .., . . , , . 71: 11.
5. / , , . . , , . 71: 9.
6. , , Siteia, , . A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. I, 514.
7. (), 5. .., , Nora, Capo di Pula, , . A. J. Evans,
Mycenaean Tree, 139 Fig. 22.
14. , 1600 . .., Nebra, Saxony-Anhalt, . V. Podborsk, Nboenstv, 237
Obr. 60.
15. , 4. 2. . .., , , , . . . ,
, 19 . 10.
:
8. , , , . Gold 2014.
9. , -. . , , . 73: 5.
10. , , Knossos, , . A. Evans, The Palace. Vol. I, 699 Fig. 522 b.
11. , 5. .., . . , , . 72: 5.
12. , 3. .., , Archaeological Museum of Ostia, , . . . ,
-, 250.
13. , 2. .., Asido, Medina Sidonia, . . . , -, 251.
18
1. , , . . . , .
, 108 . 10.
2. , , . . . , . ,
108 . 9.
3. , 6. .., . . , , . 71: 3.
4. , ..
. : . .
5. , 3. 4 .. (?), , , . . .
, , 137 . 1.
1056

6. , , , . , , . 338: 5.
7, 8. , 10. .., , Man, . D. Coenen, O. Hozapfel,
Germanishe, (Steinriesen).
9. , , 1400 1000 . .., Vorderasiatisches Museum, , .
A cross 2015.
19
/:
1. , . . , , . 71: 6.
2. . . . , , 248.
3. (), , Nimes, . B. Gabrievi, Studije, 56 Sl. 6.
4. (), , , . . . , . .
LVIII, 88.
5. (), , , , . . . , . . LXXVII,
362.
6. , ,
Taline, Glasinac, . . , , 5 . 3: 5.
7. (), , Lon, . B. Gabrievi, Studije, 38 Sl. 2b.
8. (), ,
Qocho, . E. Esin, The Conjectural, Pl.II: b.
9. (), , 15. .., Tiryns, . . . 1981,
45.
10. , 2. .., Exohi, . K. G. Chatzinikolaou, Locating, Fig. 26.
20
1. , 12. .., Abbazia di San Clemente a Casauria, Pescara, . .
. , , 248.
2. , 6. .., . . , , . 72: 2.
3. , ,
Glasinac ( , ), . . , , 308 . 178.
4. , , Bivolje Brdo, apljina,
. M. Wenzel, Ukrasni, T.XXXIX: 17.
5. , , Radimlja, Stolac, . M.
Wenzel, Ukrasni, T.XXV: 20.
6. , 12. .., , , . . . ,
.
7. , 11. .., , , . . , , 333 . 6: 1.
8. , 11. .., , . Z. Vinski, O postojanju, 55, T. IV: 6.
9. , 6. .., . , , . . . , , 248.
10. (), , , . . . , . .
LXXVII, 133.
11. ( ), , , , . . . 2004,
.
12. , , Brajkovii, Travnik, . M.
Wenzel, Ukrasni, T. XXXIX: 29.
13. , , . , , , . . . , , 61 . 2:
2.
14. , , Osmaci, Zvornik, . M.
Wenzel, Ukrasni, T.XXX: 8.
15. , , . . . , , 225.
16. , 19. 20. (?), . . . , , 61 . 2: 3.
21
1. , 1827 . .., . (
, ), . . . , . 412 . 9; :
2014.
2. , 14. .., , , . . . , , 121.
3. , 15. .., . E. Neumann, The Great Mother, Pl. 120.
4. , 18. .., . , , . . . ,
, 288.
1057
.
5. (), 19. .., . . . , , 98 . 17.

6. , 11. .., . E. Neumann, The Great Mother, Pl. 119.
22
, :
3. , , . . , , 5 . 3: 6.
4. Taline, Glasinac, . . , , 5 . 3: 5.
6. , (), . . , , 5 . 3: 8.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
, ,
. : . :
1. .
2. .
5. .
8. - .
11. .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7. , 6. 5. .., , , . . . ,
, . XXVI.
9. , , Suessula, Campagna, . M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte,
499.
10.
. : . .
12. , , () , , . . . ,
, 332 . 3.
23
1, 2. , 10. .., Fossi, . : J. Harding, Thor's Hammers; : J. Graham-
Campbell, The Viking, 187.
3. , 10. 11. .., . A Viking 2014.
4. , , Schomlauer Berg, . M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 24 Abb. 19.
5. , , Nagyenyed, . M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 24 Abb. 20.
6. , , , , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 90
Fig. 27: 8.
7. , 800 1000 . .., Eyjafjrur (National
Museum, Reykjavk), . J. Lyman, Thorshammerrings, 7.
8. , 9. .., Lund, . J. Harding, Thor's Hammers.
9. , , Tegea, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 20: 305.
10. , , Dorset, . J. Harding, Thor's Hammer.
24
1. , , Demircihyk, . S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil II, Taf. 82: 4.
3. , , Hacilar, . M. Gimbutas, The Language, 8 Fig. 9: 1.
4. , , Vinkov vrh pri Dvoru, . F. Stare, Upodobitev, T.IV.
5. , , 3. . .., Nudra, Ispatra, . M. Gimbutas, The Language, 90
Fig. 148: 1.
6. , , . . , , . 215: 2.
7. , , Yarim Tepe, . . . , . . ,
, 252 . 98.
9. , , Vuedol, Vukovar, . S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil II, Taf. 82: 1.
10. , , Ljubljansko Barje, . M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 347.
25
1. , , , , , . . . , ,
110 T.VIII: 5.
2. , , , Rckeve, . H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch.
III, Taf. 476: A1.
3. , , , . M. Hoernes, Urgeschichte, 361 Abb. 5.
1058

9, 10. , (Fritzens-Sanzeno-Kultur), Landeck, Perjen, Tirol, . L.

Zemmer-Plank, Zwei, 341 Abb. 9.
, ( ), :
4. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, . M. Vickers, Some Early, 20 Fig. I: 2.
8. Poteidaia, , . : Potidaea 2013; : K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 30: 3.
11. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, . M. Vickers, Some Early, 20 Fig. I: 5.
26
1. (: ), 4. .., Apulia, . . , , 45.
2. , 2. 1. .., Kozani (), . G. Chatzinikolaou, Locating, 211 Fig.
25.
3. (: ), 4. .., Apulia, . R. Gicheva-Meimari, Chest, 816 Fig. 3.
4. (: ), 4. .., , . . , , 78.
5. (: ), 4. .., Apulia, . . , , 47.
6. (: ), 4. .., Apulia, . . -, , . 5.
7. (: /), 4. .., Apulia, (Louvre Museum, ,
). R. Gicheva-Meimari, Chest, 816 Fig. 1.
8. , 4. .., Gela, . . , , 47.
9. , (?) (), 1. , .. , . . . ,
, 66 . 21 .
10. , La Tne, Ulaka, . M. Gutin, Kronologija, 483 Sl. 3: 11.
27
1. , (?). V. Podborsk , Nboenstv, 412 T. 118: 7.
2. , , 14. .., Tut Ankh Amon 2014.
3. , (: ), 16. 17. ..,
, , . 2014.
4. . , 13. .. , . . -, , . 11.
5. , , , . . -,
, 48.
6. , 3. . .., (Museum of Anatolian Civilisations, ), . R. Gicheva-
Meimari, Chest, 817 Fig. 9.
28
1, 2. , 4. 5. .., Hoxne, . R. Gicheva-Meimari, Chest, 818 Fig. 10.
3. , 3. .., Abdera (Archaeological Museum of Abdera), . R. Gicheva-Meimari, Chest, 816
Fig. 4.
4, 5. , , Tell Judeideh, Gath, . S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil I, 356 Abb. 199: 4, 5.
6. , . 2. . .., Gundestrup, . Fact 2014.
29
1. , 5. .., la, Wrocaw, . . . , . .
, 299.
2. , 4. 6. .., . . , , 134 T.III.
3. , 4. 6. .., , Benaki Museum, , . . , ,
134 T.II.
4. , 5. 3. .., Archondiko, Pella, . Trsors macdoniens 2015.
5. (3,9 2 cm), 4. .., , , . . . , .
, , 126 . 135.
6. , 2. .., , , . . . , ,
182 . 13.
7. , 2. .., , , . . . , ,
181 . 12.
8, 9. , , , , , . . Z. Videski, Religious,
318 Fig. 9.
1059
.
30
, , :
1, 2. , , . (Benaki Museum, , ). .
, , 93 T.III: 1, 2.
3. , , . . . , , 93 T.III: 3.
4. , , , . . . , , 80 T.III: 1.
5. , , . . . , , 93 T.III: 4.
6. , , . . . , , 93 T.III: 5
7. , , . . . , . , , 49 . . 56.
8. , , , . . . , , 80 T.III: 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. (), , , . . . ,
, 89 T.II: 2
31
. 15, , , , , . :
1. , . . , , 80 T.III: 6.
2. , in situ. . , , 77 T.I.
3. , , , . . B. Husenovski, E. Slamkov,
Archaeological, 17 Pic. 21.
4. , 1. . .., , ,
. 2013, 606 (. . 306.18.18).
32
/ , :
1. Philia, . K. Kilian, Bosnisch-herzegowinische, Taf. I: 10.
2, 3. , , , . . : . , , 78 T.II: 2;
: . , , 69 . . 293.
4. Dalj, Erdut, . K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, Tab.119: 10.
5. Vitsa, , . N. G. L. Hammond, A Hystory, Fig. 20: h.
, :
6. , , . . . , , 245 . 88.
7. - , . . . , , 245 . 88.
8. , , , . . . , , 72 . 3.
10. . J. Bouzek, Greece, Fig. 230: 4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. , , , . . . , , 199
. 95: 1.
, .
11. , , . . . , , 72 . 2.
12. , , . R. Vasi, Oblast, T.LXXI: 12.
13. , , . . R. Vasi, eveliska, T.LXXIII: 2.
33
/ , :
1. , , . . . , , 33 . . 115; : . ,
, 241 . 84.
2. , , . . . , , T.VII: 26/12.
3. , , . . . , , 33 . . 116.
4. , , . . . , , T.V: 19/7.
5 , , . N. Slavkovi-uri, Ilirski, T.II: 5.
6. , , . . . , , T.I: 4/13.
7. , , . . . , , 32 . . 113.
9. , , . . R. Vasi, eveliska, LXXIII: 9.
10. , , . . R. Vasi, eveliska, LXXIII: 8.
11. Osovo, Glasinac, . B. ovi, Glasinaka. T.LXII: 2a.
12. , , . . . , , 32 . . 114; : . ,
, 242 . 84.
13. , , . . . , , T.V: 20/14.
1060

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. , 6. .., , , , . . V.
Lili, An Attempt, 599 Fig. 39.
34
1. , , 3. . .. . , , . 208: 9.
2. , 6. . .., . . , , . 157: 2.
3. , 5. 4. . .., . . , , . 197: 5.
4. , , 3 000. . .., Susa, . J. Chevalier, A.
Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 313.
5. , , . . , , . 170: 5.
6. , 5. 4. . .., . . , , . 197: 3.
7. , , , , , . . K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 46:
5.
8. ( ), , Yarim Tepe, . . . , . .
, , 252 . 98.
9. , 6. . .., . . , , . 157: 3.
10. M od Fejrvry-Mayer Codex, , . J. Wicherink, Great.
11. ,
, 5. 6. .., , , . . : .
( . , , . IV).
35
, :
1, 2. Ku i Zi, . : Z. Andrea, Kultura, 325 Tab. LXIV: 6; : Z. Andrea, Tumat, 224 T.IX:
V.62 3.
3. , . . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 58 Fig. 17: 5.
5. / . . . , , 20 . 50.
7. Ku i Zi, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 34: 652.
9. , , . . , , 10 . 14.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. , , , , . . . , , 60 . 10.
8. ( ),
, , , . . : . , , 42 . . 164;
: . .
10. , , , (?).
Samml. Geom. Bronzen 2013.
11. , Ku i Zi, . Z. Andrea, Tumat, 226 T.XI: V.97 1.
36
, :
1. , , . . . , , 43 . . 166.
2. Lindos, , . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian. 67 Fig. 20: 6.
3. , , . . . , , 89 T.II: 6.
4, 5, 9. , , . . : . , , 42 . . 164; : .
, , 89 T.II: 12.
6, 7. , , . . . , , 89 T.II: 10.
8, 12. , . . . , , 89 T.II: 11.
10. , , . . . , , 31 . 39.
11. , , , (?). Samml. Geom. Bronzen 2013.
13, 14. , , . . . , , : 88 . 5; : 89
T.II: 13.
15. , 8. 7. .., , , , . . . ,
, 82 T.XXI: 18.
37
1. , , Regional Archeological Museum Antonio Salinas Palermo, . A.
Cermanovi, Grke, 68 Sl. 42.
2. (), , 530 520 . ., , . History Contained 2014.
1061
.
3. (), , 530 . ., , . Kylix 2014.

4. (), , 6. .., . Attic 2014.
5. , 6. 5. .., , , . . . , ,
. XXXII.
6. , , , , . . .
, , 42 . . 164.
7. , -, 4. . .., Valea Lupului, . M. Gimbutas,
The Language, 58 Fig. 95: 2.
8. , , -. . . , . . , 201.
38
1, 2. , , Ku i Zi, . : Z. Andrea, Kultura, 325 Tab. LXIV: 6;
: Z. Andrea, Tumat, 224 T.IX: V.62 3.
3. , 6. 5. .., (Abarchuk), , . : .
. , , 39 (. 7: 7).
4. , 6. 5. .., (Abarchuk), , . : J.
Bouzek, The Belozerka, 250 Fig, 4: 6.
5. , 5. .., , . . , , 30 . 1: 18.
, , :
6. , , , . . , . , . , , 150 . . 200.
7. , , , . . , . , . , , 149 . . 199.
8. , , , . . , . , . , , 140 . . 180.
9. , , , .. , . , . , , 141 . . 183.
10. , , , . . , . , . , , 141 . . 182.
11. , , , . . , . , . , , 149 . . 198.
12. , , , . . , ,170 . . 263.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. , /, Zorlenu Mare, Cara-Severin, . S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil II,
Taf. 273: 2.
14. , /, Zorlenu Mare, Cara-Severin, . S. Hansen, Bilder. Teil II,
Taf. 273: 3.
39
1. , , , , , . . . .
, , 448 23: 48.
2. , , Ku i Zi, . : Z. Andrea, Kultura, 325 Tab. LXIV.
3. , , Donji Klahar, . J. Makkay, A Peculiar, 17 Fig. 7: 6.
4. , , Donji Klahar, . J. Makkay, A Peculiar, 17 Fig. 7: 5.
5, 6. , , , , , . . , , 31 . 28
( ), 181 T. XLVIII: 15 ( ).
7. ( ), , , , .
. , , 30 . 14, 144 . .157.
8, 9. , , , , . J. Makkay, A Peculiar, 17 Fig. 7: 7 a, b.
10. , , , J. Makkay, A Peculiar, 18 Fig. 8: 5.
11. , , Zengvrkony, Baranya, . J. Makkay, A Peculiar, 16 Fig. 6: 4.
12. , ( -),
, (?). . ii 2004. 1 . 2, 177.
13. Temple del Sagrat Cor, Tibidabo, 20. .., Barcelona, . Tibidabo 2014.
13. a , , , . 2014.
40
1. /, , 3. . .., , , .
2013, 62 . 4.
2. /, , , , 3. 1. . ..
, . 2014.
3. , , 3. 2. . .., . . . 2013, 400 (82.1).
4. / ( Decea Muresului), , , Sard, Ighiu, Alba, . Preh. of
Transylvania 2014.
5. /, , , , , . .
ii 2004. .1 .1, 484.
1062

6. /, , , Wietenbergkultur, Wietenberg, Sighioara, Mure, .

K. Horedt, Die Wietenbergkultur, 131 Abb. 14: 8.
7. , , (?). .
2014.
8. , , . 2014.
9. /, , 18. 17. .., - ,
, , . . 2013, 162 . 7.
10. ( ), , , , . . .
, , 60 . 10; : . .
11. , , , , , . . , . , . ,
, 143 . . 187.
12. /, , , . 2. . .., , ,
. 2013, 619 (319.1).
13. , , (?). .
2014.
41
/, :
1, 2. , 1. . . ., , .
2013, 617 (315.2).
3. , , (?),
. Quote 2014.
4. , , , . . : . , , 65 . 275.
5. , , , . . : . , , 64 . 274.
8, 15. , . J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 329 Fig. 21: 1, 2.
13. Adaevci ( ). J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 329
Fig. 21: 5.
16. , , . . . , . , , 37.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. , , , , . . , , 112 . . 31.
10. , , , , . . , , 63 . 34.
11. , , Gorica, Grude, . . , , 261 . 146 .
12, 17. ( ),
, , , . . : . , , 60 . 10; : . .
14. , 6. 5. .., , , . . . ,
, 286 . 13.
42
1. , , , , . . . , , 60 . 10.
2, 3. , 16. 10. .., , . . . , . ,
. 35.
4. , 9. 14. .., . Central Asia 2014.
5. , 11. 15. .., Doncaster, Yorkshire Humber, . Mace 2014.
6. , , 900 700 . .., , . Luristan Br. Mace 1,
2014.
7. , 1. . .., . 2013, 603
(306.18.7).
8 10. , / , , . . . , .
, . 90.
11. , . 1. . .., , , . . . ,
, . 32.
43
1, 2. , , , (Sackler collection). Ancient fertility 2014.
3. , , . Muz. afr. umetnosti 1989, 144 Sl. 146.
4. , 2. . .., Dr. Khateeb collection, ,
. A Western 2014.
1063
.
5. , 15. .., , . . ,
, 149 . 2.
6. , 9. 8. .., Amlash, . E. D. Filips, Isezle, 236.
7. , , Allinge, Bornholm, . J. P. Lamm, On the Cult, 225 Fig.
13.
8. (standard), 8. 7. .., Luristan, . Idoli 1986, 53 (kat. br. 55c).
9. (standard), 8. 7. .., Luristan, . Idoli 1986, 53 (kat. br. 55a).
44
1. () , 6. .., , Metropolitan Museum, , . Greek
art 2014.
2. , , (?), , , . . . ,
, 54 . 39.
3. , 13. 8. .., Navur/Itsakar, Tavush, . . . , , 269 -
. 1.
4. , . 2. .., Appia, Beskaris Hyk, . Monumenta. Vol. X, no. 53.
5. 4 , , (Stanford University Museum of Art,
Stanford, ). Helmet Mask 2014.
6. 4 , 13. 15. .., Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, . Heilbrunn 2014.
7. , 13. 8. .., Yayji, Goris, . : . . , , 269 . 2: 1;
: 2016.
8. , 12. 13. .., , . . . , , . 4.
9. , , 4. .., Ponce Fabricio, . Four-faced 2014.
10. , , (?), Benaki Museum, , . Attic marble 2014.
45
1. , 9. 10. .., Phnom Bok, Siemreap, . Brahma 2014.
2. 4 , . 19. .., . Four headed 2014.
3. , . The four faces 2014.
4. Shivalingam, 9. 10. .., Uttar Pradesh, . Shivalingam 2014.
5. , 12. 13. .., Bayon, Angkor Thom, . Bayon 2014.
6. Linga, 900 1000 . ,., (Asian Art Museum, , ). Nepalese 2014.
46
1. 4 (), 12. .., , , . . . ,
, 93 . 58.
2. , (?), Bribir, Vaani, Dalmacija. A. Miloevi,
Slika, 57 Sl. 39.
3. , , Plave, .A. Pleterski,
Wie auf der Erde, 131 Abb. 15.
4. , 10. .., , , , . : .
, , 38: 3.
5. , 4. 5. .., , - , . . . , . . ,
, 66 .1: 5.
47
1. , 12. .., Svenborg, . N. Profantova, M. Profant, Encyklopedie; : Halla 2013.
2. , , , , , . . E. Maneva, A pagan,
.
3. , 10. .., , . . . , . . , 357 . 68.
4. , , Wilica, Busko-Zdrj, . . . , . . , 357 . 68.
5. , 12. 13. .., , . . . , , 131 . 32: 3.
6. , 10. .., Vsby, Vallentuna, Uppland, . J. P. Lamm, On the Cult, 228
Fig. 24.
7. , (?), Skne, . J. P. Lamm, On the Cult, 229 Fig. 27.
8. , (?), . . J. P. Lamm, On the Cult, 229 Fig. 27.
9. , 10. .., Tunby, St. Ilian, Vstmandland, . J. P. Lamm, On the Cult, 228
Fig. 22.
10. , , , . . . , , 192 .150.
1064

48
1, 2. , 7. .., Sutton Hoo, Woodbridge, . Whetstone 2014.
3, 4. , , Szczecin, . J. P. Lamm, On the Cult, 223 Fig. 6.
5. , 8. 9. .., Wolin, . A. Miloevi, Slika, 58 - Sl. 40.
6. , , Wolin (Muzeum Regionalne, Wolin), . J. P. Lamm, On
the Cult, 224 Fig. 9.
7. (), 14. .., , . . . ,
, 212 . 103.
8. , , , , Lika, . R. Drechler-Bii, Japodska, T. XLV: 5.
9. , , , , Lika, . A. Stipevi, Kultni, T.XXXIV: 5.
49
1, 2. , 8. 9. .., drijac, Nin, Dalmacija, . : A. Miloevi, Slika, 60
Sl. 43.
3, 4. , 8. 9. .., Mikulice, . : A. Miloevi, Slika, 62 Sl. 46;
: . , , T.IV: 3.
5. , 5. 4. .., Weiskirchen, Ldkr. Merzig-Wadern, . S. Seiffert, Die
Frstengrber, 4 Abb. 7.
6. , , Milano, . G. Haseloff, Die Langobardischen, 151 Abb 5.
7. , , Calvisano, Brescia, . G. Haseloff, Die Langobardischen, 152 Abb 6.
8. , 9. .., Blatnica, . . , , 134 . 75.
9. , , . . , , 128 . 4.
50
, , :
1. , , . . 1992, 45.
2, 5. , . . : . ., , 60 (. . 620); : K. Kilian,
3, 6. , , . . : . , , 95 . 66; : K. Kilian,
7. , , . . . , , 76 . 3.
9. -, , , . . . , , 73 .IV: 3.
12. , , . . . , , T.XXII: 13.
51
, , :
1. Megara Hyblaea, . K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 1.
2. / . . . , , 28 . . 90.
3. , , , . . . , , 28 . . 92; -: .
, , 242 . 84.
5. Pateli, Amyntaio, Florina (), . N. G. L. Hammond, A Hystory, Fig. 18 a.
7. , , . R. Vasi, Moravsko-Timoka, T.LXVIII: 10.
8. Ku i Zi, . Z. Andrea, Kultura, T.XXXVI: V.122 3.
9. , , . . B. Husenovski, E. Slamkov, Archaeological, 15 Pic. 10.
10. , , . . . , , 26 . . 83.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. , , , . H. Schliemann, Mykenae, 234 Nr. 316.
52
, , :
2, 5. , , , . . : . , , 80 T.III: 3;
: . , , 69 . . 295.
1065
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3, 4. , , Beravci, Slavonija, . K.
Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, T.109: 20, 21.
53
, , , :
1. Donja Dolina, Gradika, . B. ovi, Donja, T.XXIV: 6.
2. Ilijak, Glasinac, . B. ovi, Glasinaka, T.LXI: 7.
3. Ilijak, Glasinac, . B. ovi, Glasinaka, T.LXI: 11.
4. Nagyenyed, Kakasdomb, . J. Bouzek, Bronzes, 329 Fig. 21: 24.
5. Ilijak, Glasinac, . A. Benac, B. ovi, Glasinac, T.XX: 5.
6. aganj-dolac, Bra, Dalmacija, . B. ovi, Srednjodalmatinska, T.XLVIII: 21.
7. Donja Dolina, Gradika, . B. ovi, Donja, T.XXVI: 7.
8. Ljubljana, . S. Gabrovec, Dolenjska, T.II: 1.
9. , , . . . , , 218 . 106: 58, 59.
10. marjeta, marjeke Toplice, . S. Gabrovec, Dolenjska, T.II: 5.
11. , , . R. Vasi, Trakokimeriski, T. LIV: 1 3.
54
1. , , 550 525 . .., Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, .
Miniature 2014.
2. , 6. 5 .., . Black Sea 2014.
3. , , 750 700 . .., The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore,
. Votive Wheel 2014.
4, 5, 11. , , 8. .., (Archaeological Museum
of Olympia, ), . Bronze votives 2012.
6. , , Smiljan, Gospi, Lika, .
S. Kuko, Japodi, Sl. 212.
7. , (?), . Handman 2014.
8. , , National Archaeological Museum, Yvelines, ,
. Taranis 2014.
9. , , 6. 5. .., Aspendos, Antalia, . J. Lechler,
Vom Hakenkreuz, Taf. 38: 2.
10. , J. Lechler, Vom Hakenkreuz, Taf. 38: 10.
55
, :
1. Axioupoli (), Kilkis (), . . , ' , 613, . 13.
2. , . . . , , 245 . 88.
3. Megara Hyblaea, , . K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr, Taf. 1.
5. Perachora, . I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger, Taf. 4: 55.
6. , , , . . M. Garaanin, Razvijeno, TCIX: 7.
7. Ivanec Bistranski, Zaprei, . K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura, T113: 15.
8. ( ), / , . G. Kossack, Studien. Taf. 16:
1 18.
, :
9. 8. 9. .., . 1981, 181 . 64: 104.
10. , , . . , . T.I: 2.
11. Lezhe, . F. Prendi, Nj varrze, T.XXI: 1.
12. Kruja, . S. namali, H. Spahiu, Varreza, T.X:13.
56
, :
1. , . . 2014.
2. , , , . R. Vasi, Oblast, T.LXX: 10.
3. Dobova, . A. Stipevi, Kultni, T. IV: 1.
6. , , . . , , 41 T.II: 5.
1066

7. , , . A. Stipevi, Kultni, T. III: 2.

10. Katundas, Berat, . M. Korkuti, Marrdhniet, 97 Fig. 5.
11. Katundas, Berat, . M. Korkuti, Marrdhniet, 102 Tab. I: 8.
12. Katundas, Berat, . M. Korkuti, Marrdhniet, 102 Tab. I: 7.
57
, :
1. Museo Provinciale Sannitico, Campobasso, . Pendaglio 2015a.
2. Museo Provinciale Sannitico, Campobasso, . Pendaglio 2015b.
3. Mandrio, Correggio, Emilia Romagna, . S. Bellei, Gli insediamenti, 33 Tav. 13.
4. Pula, Istra, . A. Stipevi, Kultni, T. IV: 9.
5. Picug, Istra, . A. Stipevi, Kultni, T. IV: 4.
7. Hamallaj, Durrs, . M. Korkuti, Marrdhniet, 96 Fig. 4; 97, 102 Tab. I: 6.
9. Pobreje, Maribor, . S. Pahi, Maribor, 25 Sl. 5.
10. , , . A. Stipevi, Kultni, T. III: 1.
11. Torre del Mordillo, Spezzano Albanese, Calabria, . La necropoli 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. , , 9. 8. .., . . . ,
, 123 . XIII: 7.
58
, , :
1. , , , . . R. Vasi, eveliska., T. LXXIII: 1.
2. , , . . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 135 Fig. 43: 5.
3, 4. , , . . . , , : T.XIX: 75 5, : 35 . 44.
5. . : . .
6, 7. , , . : . , , 30
(18.3); (): . .
59
1. , , , , . . ,
, 30: 18.
2. , 5. 2. .., , . . . , , 243 . 27.
3. , 5. 2. .., , . . . , , 243 . 28.
4. , . J. Chevalier, A. Gheerbrant, Rjenik, 773.
5, 6. ( ), , 1300 . .., Trundholm,
. : H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch. IV, Taf. 509: G; : Chariot 2014.
7. -, 6. 5. .., , , . . P.
Kuzman, Le masque, 553 Ph. 7.
8. , / , Siteia, , . H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch.
IV, Taf. 219: E-2.
60
1. , , , , . . . , , T.XIX: 75 5.
2. , , , , . . J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian, 135
Fig. 43: 5.
3. , La Tne, . T. G. E. Powell, Varvarska, 365 Sl. 18.
4. , , , , . D. Boi, Relativna, T.11: 8.
5. , , Chauchitsa (), Kilkis (), (?). .,
, 315 Eik. 13.
6. , , , , . . R. Vasi, eveliska., T. LXXIII: 1.
7. , , , Frg, Rosegg, . Celtic Burial 2014.
8. , / , Casimirsborg, Smland, . Chariot 2014.
9. (), 9. 8. .., Radolinek, Gmina Czarnkw, . . .
, . . , 341.
10. , / , . J. Vlkova, Enciklopedie, 205 a.
1067

Makedonski Bronzi (Macedonian Bronzes) - Nikos Čaušidis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Makedonski Bronzi (Macedonian Bronzes) - Nikos Čaušidis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Publisher

CPR Center for

English translation of the summary

MACEDONIAN BRONZES AND THE RELIGION

F. Holy potion and sacrifice ..... 960

(ILLUSTRATIONS CATALOGUE) .. 1007

(BIBLIOGRAPHY) .... 1103

(17; A17a; 18: 7). , ,

(23: 10, 11).98 , , ,

Vinul de Jo (30: 5).148

(Artemis Orthia), (Potnia Hippon).

Simhamukha (), Tamrachuda/Sukatunda (), Garuda (), Mushica (), Bhramara

. . . (N. G. L. Hammond), herb cups,

(37: 1, 2; 38; 41). (

Orlanais). 24-25 , grand mondart

, (37; 38; 39; 40; 41).

(Baccho Edono) (Bacchi sithoniae).269

(Ku i Zi, 60: 3).341

(60: 14; 57: 12, 13).

- (Adaios Makedon, 4. . ..)

Eeri/ () (2: 7; 20: 6),

(distaff-shaped pendants) (8; 9; 10; 63).153

(Hedera helix) / (Hyoscyamus niger),

(3: 5) (3: 4).

( 25: 12; 56: 6).129

(30: 1, 2); , , (30: 4, 8; 31: 1, 2;

. 62 Ku i Zi, Kor (),

Hlne Stathatos Benaki

(15: 7; 66: 11, 12).405 (

(1: 7); (); ( ).

(25: 9; 42: 8 10, 13).

5, 7, 10).96 Zakros Hagia Triada

10, 13), (23: 3, 11).

( 4 cm) (39: 3, 4) ( . 529).352

1), Vergina (4: 3, 5: 3, 4).

, (47: 2, 5, 7), , , (18: 8).

(9: 17, 18; 10: 1, 2).

(11: 8, 9, 12, 13 1). ,

(20: 1 6; 11: 10, 11).118

Svodin ( Lengyel, ), , (38: 7, 8; 39: 1, 2, 5, 6).

, , 132; . , , 82, 83;

Sindhi ). , Sinu ( Sindhu),

MACEDONIAN BRONZES AND THE RELIGION AND MYTHOLOGY

Such a character of Macedonian bronzes could be indirectly supported by numerous quotations of

- Principles and methodology

- Technical information and explanation

- Instruction for printing and e-reading of this book

Chapter 1: A BIRD AND A VESSEL

A. Bird carrying a vessel

B. Bird identified as a vessel

C. Bird standing on a vessel

D. A vessel placed on a bird-drawn carriage: miniature carriages

F. Woman- i.e. godess-shaped vessel

Chapter 2: CLUSTER PENDANTS

B. Iconography and Semiotics

C. Hollow and perforated spherical pendants with a human sitting figure

Chapter 3: CONE-SHAPED OBJECTS

B. Iconography and semiotics

B. Soma and haoma holy potion in Rigveda and Avesta

C. Comparisons between soma/haoma and the Balkan holy potions

E. Holy potion personalizations

F. Holy potion and sacrifice

G. Holy potions stimulating functions