Група теракотових фігурок архаїчного періоду в музеї Самсуна
This study focuses on a group of terracotta figurines discovered during a rescue excavation conducted in 2009 at Çakalca-Karadoğan Mound, located in Atakum District of Samsun (ancient name Amisos), situated on the southern coast of the Black Sea in northern Turkey. A total of 11 figurin...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Археологія |
|---|---|
| Datum: | 2026 |
| Heft: | 2 |
| Сторінки: | 62-80 |
| ISSN: | 2616-499X |
| Автори та афіліації: |
|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine
2026
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online Zugang: | https://arheologia.com.ua/index.php/arheologia/article/view/450 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Назва журналу: | Chemistry, Physics and Technology of Surface |
| Завантажити файл: |  |
Institution
Chemistry, Physics and Technology of Surface| _version_ | 1872824669261791232 |
|---|---|
| author | Temür , Akın Kanca, Selahattin |
| author_facet | Temür , Akın Kanca, Selahattin |
| author_institution_txt_mv | [
{
"author": "Akın Temür ",
"institution": "Associate Professor, the Ondokuz Mayıs University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, the Department of Archaeology, Turkey",
"orcid": "0000-0001-9777-5256"
},
{
"author": "Selahattin Kanca",
"institution": "Deputy Director, the Samsun Archaeological Museum",
"orcid": "0000-0001-7742-6884"
}
] |
| author_orcid_str_mv | 0000-0001-9777-5256 0000-0001-7742-6884 |
| author_sort | Temür , Akın |
| baseUrl_str | https://arheologia.com.ua/index.php/arheologia/oai |
| collection | OJS |
| container_end_page | 80 |
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 62 |
| container_title | Археологія |
| container_volume | |
| datestamp_date | 2026-07-07T18:29:26Z |
| description | This study focuses on a group of terracotta figurines discovered during a rescue excavation conducted in 2009 at Çakalca-Karadoğan Mound, located in Atakum District of Samsun (ancient name Amisos), situated on the southern coast of the Black Sea in northern Turkey. A total of 11 figurines found in a votive pit have been analysed and dated through typological and iconographic evaluations. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.15407/archaeologyua2026.02.062 |
| first_indexed | 2026-08-07T01:06:26Z |
| format | Article |
| fulltext |
НАЦIОНАЛЬНА АКАДЕМIЯ НАУК УКРАЇНИ • IНСТИТУТ АРХЕОЛОГIЇ НАН УКРАЇНИ
НАУКОВИЙ ЖУРНАЛ – ЗАСНОВАНИЙ У 1947 р.
ВИДАЄТЬСЯ ЩОКВАРТАЛЬНО
КИЇВ 2 2026
АРХЕОЛОГIЯ
Головний редактор
ЧАБАЙ В. П., член-кореспондент НАН України, Iнститут археологiї НАН України
Редакцiйна колегiя
БОЛТРИК Ю. В. – кандидат історичних наук, Інститут археології НАН України
БУЙСЬКИХ А. В. – доктор історичних наук, Інститут археології НАН України
ГАРДІ С. Е. – PhD, Альянс для боротьби зі злочинністю в інтернеті, Велика Британія
ДЖІНДЖАН Ф. – професор, доктор хаб., Університет Сорбонни, Париж-1, Франція
ЗАЛІЗНЯК Л. Л. – професор, доктор історичних наук, Інститут археології НАН України
КАЙЗЕР Е. – професор, доктор хаб., Вільний університет Берліна, Німеччина
МОТУЗАЙТЕ МАТУЗЕВІЧУТЕ (КІН) Ґ. – професор, PhD, Вільнюський університет, Литва
ОТРОЩЕНКО В. В. – професор, доктор історичних наук, Інститут археології НАН України
ПЛАВІНСЬКИЙ М. О. – кандидат історичних наук, Варшавський університет, Польща
ПОТЄХІНА І. Д. – кандидат історичних наук, Інститут археології НАН України, Україна
РАБІНОВІЦ А. – PhD, Техаський університет в Остіні, Сполучені штати Америки
ФОРНАСЬЄ Й. – професор, доктор, Галле-Віттенбергський університет імені Мартіна Лютера, Німеччина
ШЕВЧЕНКО Т. М. – кандидат історичних наук, Інститут археології НАН України (відповідальний секретар)
ШНЕЕВАЙС Є. – доктор хаб., Центр археології Ляйбніца, Німеччина
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF UKRAINE • INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY NAS OF UKRAINE
SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL – FOUNDED IN 1947
FREQUENCY: QUARTERLY
Editor-in-Chief
CHABAI V. P., Corresponding Member of the NAS of Ukraine, Institute of Archaeology
of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Editorial Board
BOLTRYK Yu. V. – PhD in History, Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine
BUISKYKH A. V. – DSc., Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine
DJINDJIAN F. – Professor, Dr. Hab., University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, France
FORNASIER J. – Professor, Ph.D., Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
MOTUZAITĖ MATUZEVIČIŪTĖ (KEEN) G. – Professor, Ph.D., Vilniaus universitetas, Lithuania
HARDY S. A. – PhD., Alliance to Counter Crime Online, United Kingdom
KAISER E. – Professor, Dr. Hab., Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
OTROSHCHENKO V. V. – Professor, DSc., Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine
PLAVINSKI M. O. – PhD in History, University of Warsaw, Poland
POTEKHINA I. D. – PhD in History, Institute of Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine
RABINOWITZ A. – PhD in Classical Archaeology, The University of Texas at Austin, USA
SHEVCHENKO T. M. – PhD in History, Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine (Executive Secretary)
SCHNEEWEISS J. – Dr. Hab., Leibniz-Zentrum für Archäologie, Germany
ZALIZNIAK L. L. – Professor, DSc., Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine
ARHEOLOGIA
KYIV 2 2026
ЗМIСТ CONTENTS
Articles
DE LARA LÓPEZ H. Culture Clash in Atlanterra
Cave (Cadiz, Spain): Diachronic Interactions
between Palaeolithic and Post-Palaeolithic Graphic
Traditions
BROVENDER Yu. M. On the Problem of Food Re-
sources of the Kartamysh Inhabitants
BAUKOVA A. Yu. Artemis Anahita. Persian Trace
in the Culture and Identity of the Roman City
LAPTIEV O. O. «Fire-Steel Brooches», «Tongs» or
«Ducks»? An Attempt at Attributing a Category of
Saltiv Artefacts
Publications
of Archaeological Materials
TEMÜR A., KANCA S. A Group of Archaic Period
Terracotta Figurines in the Samsun Museum
SYMONENKO O. V. A Red-Slip Amphora from a
Sarmatian Grave in the Cherkasy Region
KRYZHANOVSKYI V. O. Non-Ferrous Metal-
working in Kyivan Podil (10th — First Half of the
13th Century)
SOROKIN S. O., SYTYI Yu. M. Materials of the
Second Half of the 13th–15th Centuries from Desna Ri-
ver Chernihiv Region
Статтi
ДЕ ЛАРА ЛОПЕЗ, У. Взаємодія культур у печері
Атлантерра (Кадіс, Іспанія): діахронні зв’язки між
графічними традиціями палеолітичної та постпа-
леолітичної доби
БРОВЕНДЕР Ю. М. До проблеми харчових
ресурсів мешканців Картамишу
БАУКОВА А. Ю. Артеміда Анаїта. Перський
слід в культурі та ідентичності римського міста
ЛАПТЄВ О. О. «Фібули-кресала», «щипчики»
чи «качечки»? Спроба атрибуції однієї категорії
салтівських артефактів
Публiкацiї
археологiчних матерiалiв
ТЕМУР А., КАНЧА С. Група теракотових
фігурок архаїчного періоду в музеї Самсуна
СИМОНЕНКО О. В. Червонолакова столова
амфора із сарматського поховання на Черкащині
КРИЖАНОВСЬКИЙ В. О. Обробка кольо-
рових металів на Київському Подолі (X — перша
половина XIII ст.)
СОРОКІН С. О., СИТИЙ Ю. М. Нові матеріали
другої половини ХІІІ–ХV ст. з Чернігівського
Подесення
5
21
29
42
62
81
88
112
Iсторiя науки
СТАНИЦІНА Г. О. Листи Богдана Ханенка
в науковому архіві Інституту археології НАН
України
ЛИСИЙ І. О. Історіографія архітектурно-
археологічних досліджень галицького замко-
вого комплексу в період незалежності України
History of Science
STANYTSINA H. O. Letters of Bohdan Khanen-
ko from the Scientific Archive of the Institute of
Archaeology of the National Academy of Sciences
of Ukraine
LYSYI I. O. Historiography of Architectural and
Archaeological Research of the Halych Castle Com-
plex during the Period of Ukraine's Independence
128
144
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 262
Публiкацiї
археологiчних матерiалiв
УДК: 904.23(560)-033.64
https://doi.org/10.15407/arheologyua2026.02.062
© TEMÜR Akın, 2026 – PhD, Associate Professor, the
Ondokuz Mayıs University, Faculty of Humanities and
Social Sciences, the Department of Archaeology, Turkey,
ORCID: 0000-0001-9777-5256, akintemur@yahoo.com
© KANCA Selahattin, 2026 – Deputy Director, the Samsun
Archaeological Museum, Turkey, ORCID: 0000-0001-
7742-6884, selahattin2055@gmail.com
© The Institute of Archaeology, the National Academy of
Sciences of Ukraine, 2026
A GROUP OF ARCHAIC PERIOD TERRACOTTA
FIGURINES IN THE SAMSUN MUSEUM
A. TEMÜR, S. KANCA
ships and reached the rich raw material resources of
the Black Sea, they began to use the term “Pontos
Euxeinos,” meaning “hospitable sea,” in place of
“Axeinos” (Tarhan 1972, p. 36; Işık 2001, p. 2;
Arslan 2006, p. 82). The names used by the Greeks
for the Black Sea eventually became widespread
and favoured by other peoples as well. It is quite
challenging to provide a definitive answer regarding
when the Greeks commenced their colonisation
activities in the Black Sea (Tsetskhladze 1992;
2008). One of the primary reasons for this difficulty
is the conflicting information in ancient sources
and the insufficiency of excavations in the region
(Atasoy 1997, p. 2). Nonetheless, the general view
is that they began their colonisation endeavours
around the 11th to 9th centuries BC (White 1961,
p. 443), primarily colonising the Aegean and
Mediterranean coasts, and later the Marmara and
Black Sea coasts (Işık 2001, p. 5). It is known that
the first Greek colonisation movements in the Black
Sea were carried out by the Milesians, who sustained
colonisation activities between 750 and 550 BC and
established approximately 90 colonies in the region
(Işık 2001, p. 6; Tsetskhladze 2005, p. 10).
The first cities established by Miletos, which
expanded the trade area in the Pontus Region,
include Amisos, Sinope, and Trapezus. Çakalca-
Karadoğan Mound, where the figurines examined
in this study were found, is located in Amisos, in
present-day Samsun province, which the Milesians
reached in 564 BC for colonisation purposes
(Tsetskhladze 2010, p. 80).
Çakalca Karadoğan Mound Excavation
During the construction of the tram line in
2009 in the Kurupelit area of the Atakum district,
Samsun province, several archaeological artefacts
were discovered, which led to a rescue excavation
conducted by the Samsun Museum Directorate.
Excavation work was carried out in 12 trenches
This study focuses on a group of terracotta figurines
discovered during a rescue excavation conducted
in 2009 at Çakalca-Karadoğan Mound, located in
Atakum District of Samsun (ancient name Amisos),
situated on the southern coast of the Black Sea in
northern Turkey. A total of 11 figurines found in a
votive pit have been analysed and dated through
typological and iconographic evaluations.
K e y w o r d s: Southern Black Sea region,
Amisos (Samsun), Çakalca-Karadoğan Mound,
archaic period, terracotta figurine.
The Black Sea region, with its natural defense
system provided by its topography and geographical
location, its rich subterranean and surface resources,
and the sea that hosts many species, has been home
to numerous populations throughout the ages.
Historically, it has also been at the heart of major
power struggles. The true significance of the Black
Sea region, which extends back to the prehistoric
periods of human history, began to emerge with
the arrival of Greek colonists. In early periods,
the Greeks referred to the Black Sea as “Pontos,”
meaning “sea” (see: Allen 1947, p. 86-88; Arslan
2006, p. 75-87). This term, which first appears in
the works of Homer, was used alongside “Axeinos”
meaning “hostile, unwelcoming sea,” to denote the
dangerous and turbulent character of the sea due to its
misty conditions and the scarcity of islands and safe
harbours (Tarhan 1972, p. 35; Arslan 2006, p. 80).
Over time, as the Greeks constructed more durable
This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.en
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 2 63
within an area of 10 m2. In the region where remains
of rubble stone walls and traces of fire were observed,
alongside terracotta figurines, numerous pieces of
black varnished Attic ceramics dating to the Archaic
and Classical periods, as well as ceramic pieces
decorated using black- and red- figure techniques,
were found lying densely in the excavation area
(see: Şirin, Kolağasıoğlu 2016; Şirin 2020).
Since the rescue excavations lasted four months
and could not be fully completed, the functions of
the spaces that emerged could not be definitively
identified. However, based on the random disposal
of terracotta figurines and ceramic fragments from
different periods, it was concluded that the area
where the terracotta and ceramics were found was
a dedicatory pit. It is known that when sacred areas
are filled with votive figurines, the older ones are
sometimes buried in pits to make room for new
ones and occasionally broken to prevent their
reuse (Higgins 1963, p. 9; Tavukçu 1999, p. 36-
37). Excavations in Crete, Tarsus, Rhodes, Attica,
Boeotia, Sparta, Argos, Corinth, Perachora, Euboea,
Sicily, and South Italy have revealed large heaps of
terracotta figurines (Richter 1984, p. 192).
Although figurines buried in pits provide
valuable information about the characteristics of
the period in which they were made, dating them
is problematic due to their absence from a specific
cultural layer. When considering that the artеfacts
discovered in the Çakalca Karadoğan Mound
excavation point to a period ranging from the mid-
6th century BC to the 2nd century BC, the difficulty
in dating becomes apparent.
Figurine Types and Iconographies
During the excavation work conducted at the
mound, fragments of heads, bodies, and bases
belonging to terracotta figurines were found.
However, the typological identification of these
fragments was quite challenging. Therefore, only
intact figurines have been included into the current
study (Appendix 1). The figurines discovered during
the excavation can be categorised into three groups:
seated goddesses, korai, and draped kouros figurines.
Since similar examples have not been
encountered in the city of Amisos or its surroundings,
dating proposals have primarily been made in light
of examples from Eastern Ionian centres, including
Miletos. Like in Amisos, terracotta figurines have
also been found in surrounding cities such as Sinop
and Kastamonu; however, most of these figurines
have reached museums via purchase and belong
to the Hellenistic Kingdom of Pontus. Over a
thousand terracotta figurines from Amisos are
currently displayed at the Istanbul Archaeological
Museum (for Hellenistic period Amisos terracottas,
see: Summerer 1999). Although the figurines —
understood to be products of terracotta workshops
in Amisos — provide evidence of Hellenistic
sculptural activity in the region, dating them
is challenging due to their origins from illegal
excavations. However, it is possible to reach a
conclusion through typological evaluation. The
fact that the terracotta figurines found at Çakalca
Karadoğan — the subject of this article — are
documented excavation finds is quite valuable from
this perspective.
Figurines of Goddesses Sitting on Thrones
The earliest examples of female figurines
sitting on thrones are found in the art of Egypt
and Mesopotamia. These figurines are considered
a variation of the Eastern queen type adapted
to terracotta (Tavukçu 1999, p. 49). Numerous
examples of this type exist in sculptural art, and the
earliest examples can be traced back to sculptures
produced in the Daedalic style. In the Archaic
period, it is possible to trace the development of
this type in sculptural art from early to late periods.
The seated goddess statues from the Crete Prinias
Temple, dated to around 630–620 BC, are among
the earliest examples of this group (Demargne 1965,
S. 352, Abb. 456; Fuchs 1969, S. 247, Abb. 269;
Hampe, Simon 1980, Abb. 433–431; Fuchs, Floren
1987, S. 134,Taf. 6: 4; Stewart 1990, p. 107, fig. 29;
Pedley 1993, p. 132-133, fig. 5.16; Boardman 2001,
p. 16, fig. 32–33; Bol 2002, S. 93, Abb. 166: a–c).
Similarly, the stylistically closest examples can be
found in the Branchid figures placed on either side
of the sacred road of the Didyma Apollo Temple,
dated to around 560–550 BC (Löwy 1911, Abb. 8;
Langlotz 1927, S. 105, Taf. 58a; Akurgal 1961,
S. 221-224, Abb. 187–192; Charbonneaux, Martin,
Villard 1969, S. 138, Abb. 169; Richter 1969, p. 5,
res. 60, 69; Richter 1970, fig. 67, 278; Papaioannou
1977, Abb. 265; Boysal 1979, p. 53-56, res. 195–
199; Stewart 1990, fig. 104–107; Boardman 2001,
p. 76, fig. 94–95; Bol 2002, S. 154, Abb. 231–233).
It is known that the copies of the seated female type
seen in Didyma also became widespread in Miletus
around the mid-century (Blümel 1964, S. 55,
Abb. 55-59; Tuchelt 1970, S. 217; Papaioannou
1977, Abb. 267).
The production of these terracotta figurines
was influenced by the larger sculptural works
representing seated goddesses (Tuchelt 1970,
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 264
S. 217). These figurines are known to have been
used both as offerings in sacred spaces and temples,
and in household cults and funerary practices.
Specifically, those made as offerings were dedicated
to the sacred areas of various deities (Назаров
2001, с. 163). Among the figurines discussed in
the article, six belong to this group. These figurines
have been classified into two types according to
their headdress: those wearing a polos and those
wearing a veil.
Figurines Wearing Polos (cat. nos. 1–4).
These types of figurines, which are of Anatolian
origin, became increasingly common in the mid-
6th century BC and continued to exist until the mid-
5th century BC (Higgins 1986, p. 94; Назаров 2001,
с. 162). It is accepted that the earliest examples of
this type can be traced back to the Archaic period
(Mendel 1908, p. 128; Charbonneaux 1936, p. 8;
Mellink 1983, taf. 59, fig. 12).
The identification of the goddess figurines
wearing a polos (a tall headpiece) by the
excavation team as representations of Kybele is
an important interpretation. However, it is stated
that this identification lacks definitive evidence.
Kybele is an ancient Anatolian mother goddess
associated with fertility and nature, commonly
depicted with a polos headdress. Nevertheless,
more archaeological and historical evidence is
needed to conclusively determine the identity of
these figurines. Such interpretations should be
supported by careful examinations in their context
and especially by comparisons with other art
pieces from the period. Considering that the seated
goddess figurines are associated with various cults,
such as those of Dionysus, Demeter, Artemis, and
Aphrodite, a cautious approach is necessary to
reach a definitive conclusion regarding the identity
of the goddess figurines without any distinct
characteristics (Shevchenko 2021, p. 184). There
is no reliable criterion to define the seated goddess
figurines in the Greek pantheon (Назаров 2001,
с. 162).
Among the terracotta figurines discovered at
the Çakalca-Karadoğan Mound excavation, four
belong to this group (fig. 1–4). In these figurines,
the round and plump faces, an archaic smile, seated
posture on a throne, hands resting on the knees,
position of feet on the base, distinct garment folds in
front of the knees, prominent breasts, and features
of the eyes, nose, and mouth exhibit similarities
with the polos-wearing goddess figurines found at
Tyritake (Денисова 1981, с. 125, т-2), Borysthenes
(Shevchenko 2021, p. 180, fig. 4–5) and Histria
(Alexandrescu-Vianu 2000, p. 201, fig. 3), dated
to the second half of the 6th century BC. The
polos-wearing figurine head unearthed at Berezan
(Кобылина 1970, табл. 8: 3; Соловьев 2005,
рис. 188), dated to the 6th century BC, exhibits
similarities including the polos worn on the head,
round facial structure, thick lip craftsmanship, an
archaic smile, hands positioned on the knees, and
the stance of the feet on the base.
Several other figurines in museum collection
also share these features. They include pieces
from the Çanakkale Archaeological Museum
(Kaplan 2009, p. 206, cat. no. 4), the Metropolitan
Museum (Christine 1935, p. 178, fig. 1), Erythrai
(Bayburtluoğlu 1977, cat. no. 5), the British
Museum (Winter 1903, S. 43.5; Chesterman 1974,
p. 35, fig. 21), the Archaeological Museum of
Istanbul (Hekimoğlu 2010, p. 20-21, cat. nos. 5–7),
Kestner Museum (Liepmann 1975, S. 42, T. 13),
Samos (Tsakos, Viglaki-Sofianou 2012, p. 184-
185), Rhodes (Higgins 1970, fig. 64–74), Reggio
(Langlotz 1963, S. 61, Abb. 22; Charbonneaux,
Martin, Villard 1969, S. 141, Abb. 172), Palermo
(Langlotz 1963, S. 65, Abb. 34), and Lindos
(Blinkenberg 1931, p. 513-515, pl. 96). These
figurines share notable similarities, such as wearing
a polos, having a round facial structure, being seated
on a throne, wearing chiton and himation garments,
the placement of hands on the knees and foot on
a base, and exhibiting an archaic smile. Polos-
wearing seated goddesses can be found across a
wide geographical area, from Rhodes to Sicily.
This type, attributed to the Eastern Greek centres, is
regarded as a repetition of Branchid figures in terms
of posture (Bayburtluoğlu 1977, p. 16). As a result
of comparative studies, the polos-wearing goddess
figurines found at Çakalca Karadoğan Mound can
be dated to the second half of the 6th century BC, in
light of similar examples.
Veiled Figurines (cat. nos. 5–6). Two figurines
found at the Çakalca Karadoğan Mound belong to
this type (fig. 5–6). When we examine the goddess
figurines seated on thrones and wearing a veil, we see
that they exhibit a similar structure to those wearing
a polos such as: chiton and himation garments, their
posture on the throne, the positioning of hands resting
on their knees, their round facial structures, archaic
smiles, the shape of their eyes and eyebrows, the
structure of their noses and chins, and the fullness
of their lips. Some researchers associate these types
of figurines with Demeter and Kore (Русяева 1979,
с. 35-39), while others relate them to the cult of
Kybele (Şirin, Kolağasıoğlu 2016). One should be
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 2 65
Fig. 1. Figurine of a goddess sitting on a throne, photo. Samsun Museum Archive
Fig. 2. Figurine of a goddess sitting on a throne, photo. Samsun Museum Archive
cautious in linking the figurines of a seated goddess
that lack any distinctive features to a specific
goddess cult. After all, a figurine of a goddess
with her hands resting on her knees and bearing no
identifying marks may have been designed for use in
various cultes (Шевченко 2021, с. 56). The seated
female figurines wearing a veil from the Çakalca
Karadoğan Mound bear similarities to figurines
in several other collections, including those from
Nadlymanske (Кобылина 1970, табл. 7: 1),
Tyritake (Денисова 1981, с. 125, т-3; Шевченко
2014, с. 537-359, рис. 1–2), Berezan (Соловьев
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 266
2005, рис. 187), Histria (Alexandrescu-Vianu 2000,
p. 204, fig. 10–11), Olbia (Русяева 1979, с. 41; 2005,
с. 322), the British Museum (Winter 1903, S. 43.4),
the Kocaeli Archaeological Museum (Coşkun 2016,
p. 17, res. 9), Berlin (Winter 1903, S. 43.2), Samos
(Boardman 2001, p. 78), Lindos (Blinkenberg 1931,
p. 513-517, pl. 96–97), Klaros (Gürbüzer 2012,
p. 243, cat. nos. 47–48), Kos (Himmelmann 1987,
S. 175, Taf. 1: a–b), the Çanakkale Archaeological
Museum (Kaplan 2009, p. 37-38, cat. nos. 6–7) and
the Istanbul Archaeology Museum (Hekimoğlu
2010, cat. nos. 9–11).
Fig. 3. Figurine of a goddess sitting on a throne, photo. Samsun Museum Archive
Fig. 4. Figurine of a goddess sitting on a throne, photo. Samsun Museum Archive
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 2 67
Fig. 5. Figurine of a goddess sitting on a throne, photo. Samsun Museum Archive
Fig. 6. Figurine of a goddess sitting on a throne, photo. Samsun Museum Archive
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 268
Kore Figurines (cat. nos. 7–8)
The term “kore,” meaning “young girl,” refers
to kore figurines that serve a similar function to
kouros statues, although very few are known to
have been used as grave markers. Typically, they
are dedicated statue offerings placed in sacred
areas of goddesses such as Artemis, Hera, Athena,
or Demeter (Boardman 2001, p. 30). It is not
clear whether these sculptures represent specific
goddesses; however, it is evident that they adorned
sacred spaces as symbols of the goddesses. Kore
sculptures also exemplify noble women of society,
who played significant roles, as showcased through
their elaborate clothing. While very few are life-
sized, most are about half the height of a human.
The feet of the kore are often placed on oval, square,
or rectangular bases; in early examples, the feet are
aligned, while later ones show one foot slightly
advanced, allowing for a display of garment folds
and bodily contours. One arm holds the fabric folds
while the free hand often holds an object like fruit
or a bird.
Regarding clothing, they predominantly wear
the chiton, which, in early examples, features wave-
like drapery over the shoulders and breasts, while
the folds extending downwards reach the feet in a
cylindrical, straight line (Boardman 2001, res. 89,
92). It can sometimes be observed that kore statues
dressed in chitons wear himations. The himation,
made of a rectangular piece of fabric, usually
emerges from under the left arm, crosses over the
right arm, wraps around the body, and hangs down
in zigzagging curves from the right arm. One
group of the garment’s folds emerges from under
the left arm and gathers in the middle of the torso
(Boardman 2001, p. 74-75).
When we examine the hairstyles of kore statues,
we see a shift from the most common “wig” hairstyle
of the Daedalic and Archaic periods to curls draping
over the chest, accompanied by a “bead string”
hairstyle at the back of the head. The “Nikandre” and
“Auxerre” statues, dated to the mid-7th century BC,
are considered the earliest kore statues (Löwy 1911,
Abb. 1; Ahrem 1914, S. 46, Abb. 41; Zervos 1937,
pl. 84–85; Lullies 1956, S. 36-37, Abb. 6; Buschor
1958, S. 19; Demargne 1965, S. 354, Abb. 463–
464; Richter 1968, fig. 25–27, 78–79, pl. XXII: a;
Fuchs 1969, S. 155, 157, Abb. 151, 153; Richter
1969, p. 44, res. 57–58; Richter 1970, fig. 276–277;
Boardman et. al. 1976, S. 90, Abb. 68; Papaioannou
1977, Abb. 201; Boysal 1979, p. 23-24, res. 80–
81; Hampe, Simon 1980, Abb. 431, 438; Fuchs,
Floren 1987, S. 155-156, Taf. 8.1–8.2; Stewart
1990, p. 107-108, fig. 27–28, 34–35; Pedley 1993,
p. 139, 142, fig. 5.27–5.29; Borbein 1995, S. 252;
Boardman 2001, p. 16, 30, res. 28, 71; Bol 2002,
p. 84, abb. 160: a–c, 170:a–f; Hölscher 2002, p. 184,
abb. 46; Gürbüzer 2019, p. 302-303, fig. 1, 3).
These statues, like the early kouros statues, have
a rigid posture similar to “xoana” statues. The
placement of one hand on the chest, as seen in the
Auxerre statue, recalls poses frequently observed in
Archaic-period terracotta figurines. Moving to the
mid-6th century BC, one of the prominent examples
is the “Cheramyes Hera” found at Samos (Ahrem
1914, S. 46, Abb. 42; Langlotz 1927, S. 104,
Taf. 57; Lullies 1956, S. 43, Abb. 32–33; Akurgal
1961, S. 237, Abb. 201; Richter 1968, fig. 183–187;
Charbonneaux, Martin, Villard 1969, Abb. 163;
Fuchs 1969, S. 161, Abb. 159–160; Richter 1969,
p. 50, res. 67; Boardman et al. 1976, p. 105, Abb. 104;
Papaioannou 1977, Abb. 262; Boysal 1979, p. 28,
res. 90–91; Fuchs, Floren 1987, S. 131, Taf. 6: 5;
Stewart 1990, fig. 93–96; Pedley 1993, p. 176,
fig. 6.48; Borbein 1995, p. 252; Boardman 2001,
p. 75, 77, res. 87; Bol 2002, S. 158, Abb. 224: a–d;
Hölscher 2002, p. 184, abb. 47). Standing 1.92 m
tall, the statue has a broken head and chest section,
including the left arm. The statue dressed in a
chiton and himation, has a column-like, cylindrical
body structure, and although parallel pleated folds
are present, zigzagging curves have not yet been
developed.
Kore statues of Samos (Blümel 1964, S. 42,
Abb. 94–98; Richter 1968, fig. 186–189; Boysal
1979, p. 28, res. 92–93; Bol 2002, S. 158,
Abb. 227: a–b), Miletus (Akurgal 1961, S. 237,
Abb. 203; Blümel 1964, Abb. 120–132; Richter
1968, fig. 190–193; Papaioannou 1977, Abb. 264;
Boysal 1979, p. 28, res. 94; Boardman 2001, p. 77,
res. 89; Scholl, Platz-Horster 2007, S. 36, Abb. 13),
and the Acropolis (Richter 1968, fig. 194–200;
Boysal 1979, p. 29, res. 95; Boardman 2001, res. 98;
Bol 2002, S. 189, Abb. 268: a–c) display similar
features. In all three examples, figurines dressed
in a himation over a chiton have the left hand
holding a bird and placed on the chest. The Miletus
Kore is distinguished by its zigzagging folds that
fall downward from the left side of the himation,
indicating a production date in the 550s BC. Since
the heads of all four examples are missing, the head
of the Acropolis Kore no. 677 from the same period
gives us an idea about the facial and hair structure
(Langlotz 1927, S. 122, Taf. 71; Zervos 1937,
pl. 197–199; Lullies 1956, S. 42, Abb. 27; Akurgal
1961, S. 215, Abb. 181–183; Richter 1968, fig. 198–
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 2 69
Fig. 7. Kore figurine, photo. Samsun Museum Archive
200; Fuchs 1969, S. 163, Abb. 162; Boardman et al.
1976, S. 105, Abb. 106; Papaioannou 1977,
Abb. 285; Boysal 1979, p. 29, res. 86; Fuchs, Floren
1987, S. 157, Taf. 9.6; Stewart 1990, fig. 114–116;
Boardman 2001, p. 79, res. 99; Bol 2002, S. 189,
Abb. 267: a–c). The kore statue has divided, wavy,
superficial curls on the forehead. The hair extends in
this manner from the top of the head and beneath the
diadem, a braided pattern descends to the shoulders.
Occasionally, this braid is fashioned in the shape of
a bead. By the mid-6th century, this braided hairstyle
transformed into wavy hair. When we examine the
face structure, we see large eyelids and almond-
-shaped pupils. The nose is also quite large, and
there is a slightly uplifted "Archaic smile" on the
lips. The face has prominent cheekbones and a round
chin. The ear is proportionally large and protrudes
relative to the head. After the mid-6th century BC,
chitons and himations show more intricate folds,
hair braids appear looser, eyes and ears adopt more
natural proportions, and lips exhibit a slight smile.
These stylistic features observed on marble kore
statues are also reflected in terracotta figurines.
However, they are not as detailed as the larger
sculptural works because of the material they are made
of. Two figurines found at the Çakalca Karadoğan
Mound are classified within this group (fig. 7–8).
These figurines have the right arm bent at the elbow
and closely attached to the body at the chest while
holding a bird. The left hand is stretched holding the
garment. The hair is prominently arranged in curls
over the chest. Figurines holding objects like birds
or pomegranates are mostly interpreted as Aphrodite
(Alexandrescu-Vianu 2013, p. 30). Many of these
kore statues holding birds were found in Ionia during
the Archaic period (Boysal 1979, p. 38-39).
Aside from the objects they hold in their hands,
another common feature of these figurines is that
one hand holds an object on the breast in front, while
the other hand gathers the garment at the side of the
body (Kaplan, 2009, p. 48). Similar features can be
seen in figurines found in Rhodes (Winter 1903,
S. 41.1; Richter 1968, p. 88, fig. 462–465; Rohde
1969, S. 14, Taf. 6a, 7; Higgins 1970, fig. 49, 57, 58,
59; Boysal 1979, p. 39, res. 155), Athens (Winter
1903, S. 41.3), the Çanakkale Archaeological
Museum (Winter 1903, S. 54.3; Kaplan, 2009,
p. 50, cat. no. 25), the Palermo Museum (Winter
1903, S. 41.2), Berlin (Winter 1903, S. 42.3),
Histria (Alexandrescu-Vianu 2000, p. 202, fig. 6–7;
Alexandrescu-Vianu 2013, p. 30, fig. 12), Berezan
(Соловьев 2005, рис. 184), Kassel (Sinn 1977,
cat. nos. 24, 26), Samos (Tsakos, Viglaki-Sofianou
2012, p. 183), and Lindos (Blinkenberg 1931,
p. 519-520, 524-525, pl. 97, 99). In contrast, some
figurines have an attachment at the neck for a vase
indicating that they were used as perfume bottles.
Taking into account the curls falling over the
chest, the holding of a bird with one hand, the
placement of the other hand holding the garment at
the side of the body, the stance on a pedestal, the toes
visible from under the garment, and the richness of
the folds, it would be appropriate to date the bird-
holding kore found at the Çakalca Karadoğan
Mound to the second half of the 6th century BC.
Draped Kouros Figurines (cat. nos. 9–11)
Another group of figures found alongside kore
statues in the Archaic period consists of kouros
statues. Generally defined in Greek as youthful men,
kouros statues are predominantly nude (Boysal
1979, p. 12). There is much debate regarding what
these statues represent and what their function is.
As many sculptures of the Archaic period, they
could have served both as votive offerings and as
grave markers. However, it is known that there is no
close correspondence in gender or age between the
deity to whom the offering is made and the person
presenting it when it comes to kouros statues used
in this way. Although they are frequently seen in
regions associated with Apollo, they are also found
in the temples of other deities. Regardless, it is
evident that they represent the pinnacle of youthful
male depiction and, considering their production
costs, reflect the tastes of the upper class (Stewart
1990, p. 110).
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 270
Fig. 8. Kore figurine, photo. Samsun Samsun Museum Archive
Fig. 9. Draped kouros figurine, photo. Samsun Museum Archive
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 2 71
When we look at their typology, we observe
that early kouros statues feature a frontal, muscular
torso structure, while over time, sculptors tried to
convey movement by depicting the figure with one
leg stepping forward (Stewart 1990, p. 109-110,
fig. 43–57; Boardman 2001, res. 104–107). The
kouros statues from New York (dated to the late
7th century BC) are among the earliest examples
of such works (Lullies 1956, S. 17, Abb. 11–
13; Buschor 1958, S. 23; Richter 1960, fig. 25–
30; Charbonneaux, Martin, Villard 1969, S. 22,
Abb. 20; Richter 1970, fig. 20; Boardman et al.
1976, S. 94, Abb. 79; Boysal 1979, p. 13, res. 21;
Hampe, Simon 1980, Abb. 454–456; Stewart
1990, fig. 49–54; Pedley 1993, p. 166, fig. 6.33;
Boardman 2001, p. 28, res. 63; Bol 2002, S. 122,
Abb. 190: a–e; Hölscher 2002, p. 184, abb. 43),
Sunion (Richter 1960, fig. 33–39; Charbonneaux,
Martin, Villard 1969, S. 24, Abb. 21; Boysal 1979,
p. 13, res. 22; Richter 1970, fig. 18; Boardman et al.
1976, S. 90, Abb. 80; Stewart 1990, fig. 44–45;
Pedley 1993, p. 166, fig. 6.34; Boardman 2001,
p. 29, res. 64; Bol 2002, S. 122, Abb. 193: a–e)
and Dipylon (Zervos 1937, pl. 113–115; Richter
1960, fig. 50–53; Charbonneaux, Martin, Villard
1969, S. 19, Abb. 18–19; Richter 1970, fig. 144;
Boardman et al. 1976, S. 95, Abb. 80; Papaioannou
1977, Abb. 253; Boysal 1979, p. 13, res. 23–25;
Hampe, Simon 1980, Abb. 460; Stewart 1990,
fig. 47–48; Boardman 2001, p. 28, res. 62; Bol
2002, S. 122, Abb. 191: a–c). While these works
exhibit the general characteristics of early kouroi,
their representation of body limbs lacks naturalism.
By the middle of the 6th century, there had
been considerable progress in the transition from
schematic to a more natural representation, with
the anatomical features of muscles being more
accurately portrayed and the movements of arms
and legs adding dynamism to the pose. Alongside
these changes in the depiction of body anatomy,
artists also modified facial features and hairstyle
replacing the stylised bead-like strands with more
natural forms, and shaping features like mouth, ear,
and nose, according to realistic proportions.
Fig. 10. Draped kouros figurine, photo. Samsun Museum Archive
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 272
While such development is observed in nude
kouroi, the draped kouroi that emerged in Ionia
during the 6th century BC show different features
(Gürbüzer 2019, p. 305-306). Draped kouros statues
are represented by more than 35 examples from the
Aegean Sea and islands (Barletta 1987, p. 233-234,
fig. 3). The origins of this type are thought to have
spread from the Miletus/Samos region (Barletta
1987, p. 307; Gürbüzer 2019, S. 307). These kouroi,
who are predominantly depicted wearing chitons
and himations, include the Paris Kouros, dating to
the mid-6th century BC (Boysal 1979, p. 20, res. 73;
Boardman 2001, p. 102, res. 174; Gürbüzer 2019,
fig. 8, 307). The hands, placed alongside the body in
a fist, echo the frontal structure seen in early kuroi,
while the curvaceous, feminine body contours and
round face resemble kore figures. Another example
of a draped kouros known as “Kap Phoneas” is found
at Samos (Langlotz 1927, S. 105, Taf. 57a; Akurgal
1961, S. 229, Abb. 193–194; Charbonneaux, Martin,
Villard 1969, S. 251, Abb. 290; Boysal 1979, p. 20,
res. 71–72; Borbein 1995, S. 254; Boardman 2001,
p. 76, res. 84; Bol 2002, S. 201-202, Abb. 280: a–b;
Gürbüzer 2019, p. 306, fig. 6). This statue, dated
to circa 550–540 BC, resembles kore figures that
hold birds with the right hand while gathering their
drapery with the other. Its plump body, thick neck,
round facial structure, and clothing are reminiscent
of the Branchids (Boardman 2001, p. 76). Langlotz
compares the Samos Kouros, due to its feminine
features, to the Branchids standing up from their
thrones and defines it as an Eastern Ionian type
(Langlotz 1927, S. 105-106; Bol 2002, S. 201).
The other statue that closely resembles the
Samos example is the Pitane Kouros (Akurgal
1961, S. 229, Abb. 195–197; Boysal 1979, p. 20,
res. 70). This statue, with a feminine upper body
and disproportionately thin legs, shows the curling
folds of the himation that cascade from the left
shoulder, though it is very worn. In comparison
to the Samos Kouros, the neck appears slightly
thinner, and the body is not as full, suggesting a
slightly later date, around 540–530 BC.
Another draped kouros statue found at Myus
continues this tradition (Blümel 1964, S. 64,
Abb. 217–219). The hairstyle, composed of locks
cascading onto the neck, the chiton with sleeves
extending to the elbows, and the himation with
curves extending to the sides and back while forming
zigzag patterns at the front, together create a sense
of movement similar to that of Samos Kouros. The
difference is that the Myus Kouros exhibits a much
more tense and solid posture. Additionally, the
unusual movement observed in the Samos Kouros,
where the garment droops down on the side of the
body, is absent in the Myus example. In Myus, the
hands are also placed in fists at the sides of the body,
reminiscent of early kouroi. For these reasons, it has
been dated to around 530 BC.
Inspired by the large-sized draped kouros statues
that emerged in Eastern Ionian centres like Samos
and Miletos, terracotta draped kouros figurines were
also produced. Three figurines discovered at the
Çakalca Karadoğan Mound have been categorised
in this group (fig. 9–11). Among them, the most
striking is undoubtedly the example in cat. no. 9.
The hair, combed back from the forehead into large,
horizontal curls extending down to the waist; the
facial features including an archaic smile, almond-
shaped eyes, and full lips; and the garment folds at
the back characterized by zigzag patterns, show that
the figurine embodies all the stylistic characteristics
of the Archaic period. The closest comparable
example, with hair extending into horizontal curls to
the mid-back and ending in a straight line, is housed
at the Metropolitan Museum (Christine 1935,
p. 178-179, fig. 2–3). However, the surface folds
of the garment suggest that the Çakalca Karadoğan
example dates to an earlier period.
The Carthaia example, dated to the mid-
6th century BC (Bournias 2015, p. 24, fig. 3), also
has a similar wig hairstyle. The hair divides at the
forehead and falls behind the ears, covering the
Fig. 11. Draped kouros figurine, photo. Samsun Museum
Archive
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 2 73
shoulders and back in horizontal strips. In addition
to this similarity, the figurine exhibits features such
as almond-shaped eyes, a wide nose, thin closed
lips, full cheeks, and a thick neck, as well as a chiton
that extends diagonally from the left shoulder to
the right arm and a himation with zigzag folds
reaching the feet, all of which present comparable
characteristics.
Similar features are also observed in the
figurines in cat. nos. 10 and 11. The clustered hair
on the forehead, a full face, a broad nose, and a
slight archaic smile, the facial structure, as well as
the arms hanging at the sides, the hands holding
the garment, the folds created by the chiton and
himation, exposed feet beneath the garment, and
full body contours, collectively point to a strong
similarity with Kassel examples (Sinn 1977,
cat. no. 50), the British Museum (Higgins 1970,
p. 30, cat. no. 151), the Kestner Museum (Liepman
1975, S. 43, T. 14), Pantikapaion-Phanagoreia
(Кобылина 1961, табл. IV, рис. 4), the Basel
Museum (Cahn, Cahn 1998, Abb. 10), and Rhodes
(Rohde 1969, S. 14, Taf. 6b). In light of these
features, it would be appropriate to date each
figurine to the mid-6th century BC.
Conclusion
In this study, terracotta figurines discovered
during rescue excavations conducted by the
Samsun Museum Directorate in 2009 at the
Çakalca Karadoğan Mound, located in the Atakum
District of Samsun (known as Amisos in ancient
times), were examined. These figurines, found in
an area thought to be a votive pit, are categorized
into three groups: figurines of goddesses figurines
seated on thrones, kore figurines, and draped kouros
figurines. The studies indicate that the density,
diversity, and quality of the terracotta figurines
found at Çakalca Karadoğan Mound suggest that
Amisos, a colonial city, was long settled by Greeks
from Eastern Greece. Although there are significant
functional and technical differences between these
figurines and the larger sculptural works of the
period, a typological assessment shows that they
exhibit parallel development and interaction. From
this perspective, terracotta figurines possess their
own dynamics in terms of type, iconography, and
function, which play a crucial role in understanding
the ancient people and their lives. The data
obtained suggest that this interaction continued to
intensify during the Archaic period, particularly in
the 6th century. When exploring which areas were
pioneering in this interaction, it becomes evident
that the seated goddess, kore, and draped kouros
types were influenced by large-scale statues
that emerged in Eastern Ionian centres such as
Samos and Miletos, leading to their production
in numerous quantities and centres. The figurines
found at Çakalca Karadoğan Mound, a colony of
Miletus, are indeed a continuation of this same
tradition.
Terracotta figurines are primarily made of clay,
although mica and fine sands were sometimes
added to increase strength. Due to the lack of clay
analysis for the terracotta figurines found in the
Çakalca Karadoğan Mound excavations, it is not
possible to determine whether these terracottas
originated from a single production centre or
multiple centres.
When evaluating the production techniques
of the terracotta figurines discovered at Çakalca
Karadoğan Mound, it is evident that they
demonstrate a high quality of craftsmanship.
Researchers studying the terracottas of Hellenistic-
period Amisos suggest that the figurines may
have been produced in workshops by local
artisans. Given that the ancient city of Amisos
is situated beneath modern-day Samsun and that
excavations have been limited, determining the
exact production site of these figurines is currently
not feasible. However, the continuous practice
of terracotta production from the Archaic period
through the Hellenistic period strongly supports
the existence of local workshops. This enduring
tradition of terracotta production serves as
significant evidence of local craftsmanship and the
thriving cultural practices associated with it.
Appendix 1. Catalogue of terracotta figurines in the Samsun Museum
1 (fig. 1). Museum inv. no: 2009-92(A).
Figurine of a goddess sitting on a throne.
Dimensions: height 18.6 cm, width 7.6 cm, base
width 8 cm. Clay colour: 7.5 YR 6/4 (light brown),
Paint: 2.5 YR 5/4 (reddish brown).
Description: made using the mould technique
and well-fired. The left eye and left side of the face
are missing. Cracks are present on the neck, body,
and base. The figure has red paint traces, and lime
and residue remnants can be seen on its surface.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 274
It is positioned sitting on a throne with a roughly
smoothed backrest, with hands placed on her knees.
The head features a cylindrical, tall polos. The
back of the polos was polished using the scraping
method; a covering drapes over the shoulders. A
round, distinct face with an archaic smile and a
fleshy lip structure is observed beneath the polos.
The figure wears a chiton and himation, and the
breasts are not very pronounced. The fingers are
also vaguely shaped. Clothing folds extend from the
knees to the feet placed on a square base. The figure
has two steam holes: one circular on the right arm
and the other elliptical on the base.
Similar examples: Winter 1903, S. 43.5;
Blinkenberg 1931, p. 513-515, pl. 96; Christine
1935, p. 178, fig. 1; Langlotz 1963, S. 61, 65, Abb. 22,
34; Charbonneaux, Martin, Villard 1969, S. 141,
Abb. 172; Higgins 1970, fig. 64–74; Кобылина, 1970,
табл. 8: 3; Chesterman 1974, p. 35, fig. 21; Liepmann
1975, S. 42, T. 13; Bayburtluoğlu 1977, cat. no. 5;
Денисова 1981, с. 125, T-2; Kaplan 2009, p. 206,
cat. no. 4; Hekimoğlu 2010, p. 20-21, cat. nos. 5–7;
Tsakos, Viglaki-Sofianou 2012, p. 184-185.
2 (fig. 2). Museum inv. no.: 2009-93(A).
Figurine of a goddess sitting on a throne.
Dimensions: height 14.6 cm, width 5.1 cm, base
width 7.2 cm. Clay colour: 7.5 YR 6/4 (light
brown), Paint: 10 YR 8/1 (white), 2.5 YR 5/4
(reddish brown).
Description: made using the mould technique and
well-fired. The solid figure has traces of white and red
paint. It is positioned sitting on a throne with hands
on her knees and a cylindrical, tall polos on its head.
The face is round and distinct, with less pronounced
eyes; the nose is quite large. The lips show a slight
smile and are fleshy. The breasts are defined in a
figure dressed in a chiton and himation. The clothing
folds extend from the knees to the feet placed on a
square base. The figure has two circular steam holes:
one on the back and the other below the base.
Similar examples: Winter 1903, S. 43.5;
Blinkenberg 1931, p. 513-515, pl. 96; Christine 1935,
p. 178, fig. 1; Langlotz 1963, S. 61, 65, Abb. 22, 34;
Charbonneaux, Martin, Villard 1969, S. 141, Abb. 172;
Higgins 1970, fig. 64–74; Кобылина 1970, табл. 8: 3;
Chesterman 1974, p. 35, fig. 21; Liepmann 1975, S. 42,
T. 13; Bayburtluoğlu 1977, cat. no. 5; Денисова 1981,
с. 125, T-2; Kaplan 2009, p. 206, cat. no. 4; Hekimoğlu
2010, p. 20-21, cat. nos. 5–7; Tsakos, Viglaki-Sofianou
2012, p. 184-185.
3 (fig. 3). Museum inv. no.: 2009-106(A).
Figurine of a goddess sitting on a throne.
Dimensions: height 19.3 cm, width 6.7 cm, base
width 8.3 cm. Clay colour: 7.5 YR 5/4 (brown),
Paint: 2.5 YR 5/4 (reddish brown).
Description: made using the mould technique and
well-fired. There are missing pieces in the left eye,
neck, body, and back of the throne due to assembly.
Traces of red paint can be seen in places. The
figure is positioned sitting on a throne with hands
on her knees and features a cylindrical, tall polos.
The hands exhibit more detailed workmanship.
The breasts are more pronounced than in other
examples. The folds of clothing extend to the feet
positioned on the square base, with distinct folds
over the knees. The base part with the steam hole
has missing pieces.
Similar Examples: Winter 1903, S. 43.5;
Blinkenberg 1931, p. 513-515, pl. 96; Christine 1935,
p. 178, fig. 1; Langlotz 1963, S. 61, 65, Abb. 22,
34; Charbonneaux, Martin, Villard 1969, S. 141,
Abb. 172; Higgins 1970, fig. 64–74; Кобылина
1970, табл. 8: 3; Chesterman 1974, p. 35, fig. 21;
Liepmann 1975, S. 42, T. 13; Bayburtluoğlu 1977,
cat. no. 5; Денисова 1981, с. 125, T-2; Kaplan
2009, 206, cat. no. 4; Hekimoğlu 2010, p. 20-
21, cat. nos. 5–7; Tsakos, Viglaki-Sofianou 2012,
p. 184-185.
4 (fig. 4). Museum inv. no.: 2009-121(A).
Figurine of a goddess sitting on a throne.
Dimensions: height 16.5 cm, width 5.7 cm, base
width 7.5 cm. Clay colour: 7.5 YR 5/4 (brown),
Paint: 7.5 YR 6/4 (light brown).
Description: made using the mould technique
and well-fired. There are missing pieces in the base
and around the body. The left hand is broken. The
surface shows lime stains and damage in places.
Like other examples, the figure is positioned
sitting on a throne with hands on knees and has a
cylindrical, tall polos on her head. The face is very
damaged, so details are not visible. The breasts
are slightly pronounced, and finger details are not
finely modelled. The clothing folds can be seen
extending from the knees to the feet positioned on
the base. It is unclear if there was a steam hole
due to missing parts in the base. Similar Examples:
Winter 1903, S. 43.5; Blinkenberg 1931, p. 513-
515, pl. 96; Christine 1935, p. 178, fig. 1; Langlotz
1963, S. 61, 65, Abb. 22, 34; Charbonneaux,
Martin, Villard 1969, S. 141, Abb. 172; Higgins
1970, fig. 64–74; Кобылина 1970, табл. 8: 3;
Chesterman 1974, p. 35, fig. 21; Liepmann 1975,
S. 42, T. 13; Bayburtluoğlu 1977, cat. no. 5;
Денисова 1981, с. 125, T-2; Kaplan 2009, p. 206,
cat. no. 4; Hekimoğlu 2010, p. 20-21, cat. nos. 5–7;
Tsakos, Viglaki-Sofianou 2012, p. 184-185.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 2 75
5 (fig. 5). Museum inv. no: 2009-95(A).
Figurine of a goddess sitting on a throne.
Dimensions: height 13.4 cm, width 5.7 cm, base
width 6.9 cm. Clay colour: 7.5 YR 6/4 (light brown),
Paint: 7.5 YR 6/4 (light brown).
Description: made using the mould technique
and well-fired. It has been discovered as a single
piece. In places, lime and burn marks can be seen
on the surface. The figure is positioned sitting on
a throne, with hands on her knees. It is dressed
in a chiton and himation, and the veil covers the
entire body, extending to the ankles. Unlike polos-
wearing figurines, this one has a covering on the
shoulders. The face is plump and round, with a
large nose and lips, and distinguished eyelids . The
breasts are slightly pronounced, and finger details
are observable. Parallel scraping lines on the veil
create a draping effect on the clothing, while the
roughly modelled clothing folds extend from the
knees to the feet positioned on the base. The figure
does not have a steam hole.
Similar examples: Winter 1903, S. 43.2,
43.4; Blinkenberg 1931, p. 513-517, pl. 96–97;
Кобылина 1970, табл. 7: 1; Денисова 1981,
с. 125, T-3; Himmelmann 1987, S. 175, Taf. 1: a–b;
Boardman 2001, p. 78; Kaplan 2009, p. 37-38,
cat. nos. 6–7; Hekimoğlu 2010, cat. nos. 9–11;
Gürbüzer 2012, p. 243, cat. nos. 47–48; Coşkun
2016, p. 17, res. 9.
6 (fig. 6). Museum inv. no: 2009-94(A). Figurine
of a goddess sitting on a throne. Dimensions:
height 11 cm, width 4.6 cm, base width 5.5 cm.
Clay colour: 7.5 YR 6/4 (light brown), Paint:
7.5 YR 6/4 (light brown).
Description: made using the mould technique
and well-fired. The figure shows damage and lime
traces on its face and body. It is depicted sitting
on a throne while wearing a chiton and himation,
with the covering extending to the ankles. The face
is plump and round, characterised by an archaic
smile; the nose and lips are large, the eyelids are
unpronounced. The breasts are faintly visible and
details of the fingers are not apparent. The clothing
folds extend from the knees to the feet positioned
on the base and are quite roughly modelled. The
figure does not exhibit a steam hole.
Similar examples: Winter 1903, s. 43.2, 43.4;
Blinkenberg 1931, p. 513-517, pl. 96–97; Кобылина
1970, табл. 7: 1; Денисова 1981, с. 125, T-3;
Himmelmann 1987, S. 175, Taf. 1: a–b; Boardman
2001, p. 78; Kaplan 2009, p. 37-38, cat. nos. 6–7;
Hekimoğlu 2010, cat. nos. 9–11; Gürbüzer 2012,
p. 243, cat. nos. 47–48; Coşkun 2016, p. 17, res. 9.
7 (fig. 7). Museum inv. no: Study Sample. Kore
figurine. Dimensions: height 15 cm, width 5 cm.
Clay colour: 7.5 YR 6/4 (light brown), Paint:
2.5 YR 5/4 (reddish brown).
Description: made using the mould technique
and well-fired, the upper part of the figure is
missing. The figurine holds a bird against her chest
with one arm while holding its garment with the
other. Notably, large curls of hair slide down to
the chest. The figure stands on a rectangular base,
slightly leaning forward with the left foot, although
this movement is not reflected in the body.
Similar examples: Winter 1903, S. 41.1-41.3,
54.3; Blinkenberg 1931, p. 519-520, 524-525,
pl. 97, 99; Richter 1968, p. 88, fig. 462–465; Rohde
1969, p. 14, taf. 6a, 7; Higgins 1970, fig. 49, 57–
59; Sinn 1977, cat. nos. 24, 26; Boysal 1979, p. 39,
res. 155; Kaplan 2009, p. 50, cat. no. 25; Tsakos,
Viglaki-Sofianou 2012, p. 183; Gürbüzer 2019,
p. 304, fig. 5.
8 (fig. 8). Museum inv. no: 2009-123(A).
Kore figurine. Dimensions: height 14.4 cm, width
5.1 cm. Clay colour: 7.5 YR 6/4 (light brown),
Paint: 2.5 YR 5/4 (reddish brown).
Description: made using the mould technique and
well-fired; the arm, back, foot, and base sections are
missing. The figure holds a bird pressed against its
chest with its right arm, which is bent at the elbow.
Braided hair extends to the chest at the front and
down to the waist at the back. Despite wear, thick
eyebrows, almond-shaped eyes, a large nose, and an
archaic smile on the lips are visible. Similar Examples:
Winter 1903, S. 41.1-41.3, 54.3; Blinkenberg 1931,
p. 519-520, 524-525, pl. 97, 99; Richter 1968, p. 88,
fig. 462–465; Rohde 1969, S. 14, Taf. 6a, 7; Higgins
1970, fig. 49, 57–59; Sinn 1977, cat. nos. 24, 26;
Boysal 1979, p. 39, res. 155; Kaplan 2009, p. 50,
cat. no. 25; Tsakos, Viglaki-Sofianou 2012, p. 183;
Gürbüzer 2019, p. 304, fig. 5.
9 (fig. 9). Museum inv. no: 2009-105(A).
Draped kouros figurine. Dimensions: height
25 cm, width 9.1 cm. Clay color: 7.5 YR 6/4 (light
brown), Paint: 2.5 YR 5/4 (reddish brown).
Description: made using the mould technique
and well-fired. The lower part of the figure is
missing at the front, while the back section is
also missing below the hips. Traces of red paint
can be observed in the facial area and the clothing
descending from the hip. The head exhibits detailed
workmanship, with wavy lines swept backward
on the forehead and horizontal curls on the back.
The face features an archaic smile, almond-shaped
eyes, detailed eyelids, a large nose, and slightly
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 276
smiling lips. The clothing folds hang zigzagging
down from the left shoulder across the left hip.
Similar Examples: Christine 1935, p. 178-
179, fig. 2–3; Кобылина 1961, табл. IV, рис. 4;
Rohde 1969, S. 14, Taf. 6b; Higgins 1970, p. 30,
cat. no. 151; Liepmann 1975, S. 43, T. 14; Sinn
1977, cat. no. 50; Cahn, Cahn 1998, Abb. 10;
Bournias 2015, p. 24, fig. 3.
10 (fig. 10). Museum inv. no: 2009-120(A).
Draped kouros figurine. Dimensions: height
18.9 cm, width 5.5 cm, base width 5.7 cm. Clay
colour: 7.5 YR 6/4 (light brown), Paint: 7.5 YR 5/4
(brown).
Description: made using the mould technique
and well-fired, the figure has missing parts in
the neck and upper body. The head appears
considerably larger than the body. Hair is collected
at the forehead, and the back features horizontal
curls extending down to the waist. Despite
damage, the figurine’s thick eyebrows, large eyes,
and archaic smile can be observed. The arms cling
closely to the body while holding the garment and
a slight forward placement of the left foot create a
dynamic effect . The folds of the himation woven
through the hands form zigzag patterns toward
the hem, while the deep folds of the chiton extend
down to the feet placed on the base.
Similar examples: Christine 1935, p. 178-
179, fig. 2–3; Кобылина 1961, табл. IV, рис. 4;
Rohde 1969, S. 14, Taf. 6b; Higgins 1970, p. 30,
cat. no. 151; Liepmann 1975, S. 43, T. 14; Sinn
1977, cat. no. 50; Cahn, Cahn 1998, Abb. 10;
Bournias 2015, p. 24, fig. 3.
(fig. 11). Museum inv. no: 2009-108(A). Draped
kouros figurine. Dimensions: height 11.5 cm, width
4.9 cm. Clay colour: 7.5 YR 6/4 (light brown),
Paint: 2.5 YR 5/4 (reddish brown).
Description: made using the mould technique
and well-fired, the figure has a missing lower part
and back. Surface erosion is evident. The arms
cling closely to the body like in the previous
example. Hair is gathered at the forehead and
extends in horizontal curls down to the waist.
Despite damage, the round face features thick
eyebrows, large eyes, a large nose, and an archaic
smile. Similar Examples: Christine 1935, p. 178-
179, fig. 2–3; Кобылина 1961, табл. IV, рис. 4;
Rohde 1969, S. 14, Taf. 6b; Higgins 1970, p. 30,
cat. no. 151; Liepmann 1975, p. 43, t. 14; Sinn
1977, cat. no. 50; Cahn, Cahn 1998, abb. 10;
Bournias 2015, p. 24, fig. 3.
Received: 11.09.2025.
Accepted for publication: 06.10.2025.
Published: 28.06.2026
Денисова, В. И. 1981. Коропластика Боспора (по
материалам Тиритаки, Мирмекия, Илурата и сельской
усадьбы). Ленинград: Наука.
Кобылина, М. М. 1961. Терракотовые статуэтки
Пантикапея и Фанагории. Москва: Наука.
Кобылина, М. М. 1970. Терракотовые статуэтки
Северного Причерноморья. Свод археологических
источников, Москва: Наука, Г1–11, с. 6-22.
Назаров, В. В. 2001. Святилище Афродиты в
Борисфене. Вестник древней истории, 1, с. 154-165.
Русяева, А. С. 1979. Земледельческие культы в Ольвии
догетского времени. Киев: Наукова думка.
Русяева, А. С. 2005. Религия понтийских эллинов в
античную эпоху. Киев: Стилос.
Соловьев, С. Л. 2005. Борисфен-Березань: начало античной
эпохи в Северном Причерноморье: к 120-летию археологических
раскопок на острове Березань. Санкт-Петербург: Гос. Эрмитаж.
Шевченко, Т. Н. 2014. Коллекция ранних терракот из
раскопок Тиритаки в 2005–2010 гг. В.: Зинько, В. Н. (ред.).
Тиритака. Раскоп XXVI. ІІ. Археологические комплексы
VI—V вв. до н.э. Симферополь; Керчь (б. в.), с. 537-550.
Шевченко, Т. М. 2021. Богині на троні з Бористена,
Борисфеніка IІ: пам’яті В. В. Крутілова (Археологічні до-
слідження острова Березань у контексті європейської іс-
торії). В: Смирнов, О. І. (ред.). Матеріали Міжнародної
Наукової Конференції, Миколаїв, Україна, 5–6 травня
2021 р. Миколаїв (б. в.), с. 54-57.
Ahrem, M. 1914. Das Weib in der Antiken Kunst. Jena:
Eugen Diederichs Verlag.
Akurgal, E. 1961. Die Kunst Anatoliens von Homer bis
Alexander. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Alexandrescu-Vianu, M. 2000. Cronologia și tipologia tera-
cotelor arhaice descoperite la Histria. Potica, 33–34, p. 199-210.
Alexandrescu-Vianu, M. 2013. Considérations sur le
culte D’aphrodite a histria. In: Avram, A., Bîrzescu, I. (eds.).
Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne à la mémoire
de Petre Alexandrescu. Il Mar Nero VIII, 2010–2011.
Roma: Edizioni Quasar di Severino Tognon s.r.l., p. 23-38.
Allen, W. S. 1947. The Name of the Black Sea in Greek.
The Classical Quarterly, 41, 3/4, p. 86-88.
Arslan, M. 2006. Pontos’tan Karadeniz’e: Bir Adlandırman-
ın Ardındaki Önyargılar, Varsayımlar ve Gerçekler. OLBA, XIV,
p. 75-91.
Atasoy, S. 1997. Amisos, Karadeniz Kıyısında Bir Kent.
Samsun: Koç Yayınları.
Barletta, B. A. 1987. The Draped Kouros Type and the
Workshop of the Syracuse Youth. American Journal of
Archaeology, 91 (2), p. 233-246.
Bayburtluoğlu, C. 1977. Erythrai II Pişmiş Toprak
Eserler. Ankara: TTK Basımevi.
Blinkenberg, C. 1931. Lindos. Fouilles de l’Acropole
1902–1914. I. Les Petits Objets. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Blümel, C. 1964. Die archaisch griechischen Skulpturen
der staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Boardman, J., Dörig, J., Fuchs, W., Hirmer, M. 1976. Die
Griechische Kunst. München: Hirmer Verlag.
Boardman, J. 2001. Yunan Heykeli, Arkaik Dönem.
İstanbul: Homer Kitabevi.
Bol, P. C. 2002. Die Geschichte der Antiken Bildhauerkunst.
I. Frühgriechische. Mainz: Ph. v. Zabern.
Borbein, A. H. 1995. Das alte Griechenland. Kunst und
Geschichte der Hellenen. München: C. Bertelsmann Verlag.
Bournias, L. C. 2015. A New Ionian Kouros Terracotta
Figurine from the Temple of “Athena” at Karthaia (Keos
Island). In: Muller, A., Laflı, E., Huysecom, S. (eds.).
Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine,
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 2 77
2: Iconographie et contextes. Paris: Presses Universitaires du
Septentrion, p. 23-30.
Boysal, Y. 1979. Arkaik Devir Heykeltraşlığı. Ankara:
Selçuk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları.
Buschor, E. 1958. Die Plastik der Griechen. München:
R Piper& Co Verlag.
Cahn, H. A., Cahn, D. 1998. Griechische und etruskische
Kunstwerke archaischer Zeit, 600–480 v. Chr. Basel:
Amerbach Verlag.
Charbonneaux, J., Martin, R., Villard, F. 1969. Das
Archaische Griechenland 620–480 v. Chr. München:
C. H. Beck Verlag.
Charbonneaux, J. 1936. Les terres cuites grecques. Paris:
A. Zwemmer.
Chesterman, J. 1974. Classical Terracotta Figures.
London: Ward Lock Ltd.
Christine, A. 1935. Three Archaic Greek Statuettes. The
Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, 30, 9, p. 178-179.
Coşkun, S. 2016. Kocaeli Arkeoloji ve Etnoğrafya
Müzesi’nde Sergilenen Terrakotta Figürinler. Master Thesis.
Atatürk University.
Demargne, P. P. 1965. Die Geburt der Griechischen
Kunst. Die Kunst im ägäischen Raum von vorgeschichtlicher
Zeit bis zum Anfang des 6. vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts.
München: C. H. Beck Verlag.
Fuchs, W. 1969. Die Skulptur der Griechen. München:
Hirmer Verlag.
Fuchs, W., Floren, J. 1987. Die griechische Plastik. Band I. Die
geometrische und archaische Plastik. München: C. H. Beck Verlag.
Gürbüzer, E. D. 2012. Klaros Kazılarında Bulunmuş
Olan Pişmiş Toprak Figürinler ve Kültler Açısından
Değerlendirilmeleri. Ph.D. Thesis. Ege University.
Gürbüzer, E. D. 2019. Pişmiş Toprak Figürinler ve Anıtsal
Heykeller: Bağımsız Mı Takipçi Mi? Cedrus, VII, p. 299-331.
Hampe, R., Simon, E. 1980. Tausend Jahre Frühgriechische
Kunst, 1600-600 v. Chr. München: Hirmer Verlag.
Hekimoğlu, H. A. 2010. İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzelerindeki
Pitane Toprak Figürinleri. Master Thesis. Muğla University.
Higgins, R. A. 1963. Greek Terracotta Figures. London:
Trustees of the British Museum.
Higgins, R. A. 1970. Catalogue of the Terracottas in the
Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities British Museum.
London: The Trustees of the British Museum.
Higgins, R. 1986. Tanagra and the Figurines. London:
Trefoil Books.
Himmelmann, N. 1987. Ostgriechische Thronfiguren.
Akurgal’a Armağan, Anadolu, XXI, 1978–1980, S. 175-81.
Hölscher, T. 2002. Klassische Archäologie: Grundwissen.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftl. Buchges.
Işık, A. 2001. Antik Kaynaklarda Karadeniz Bölgesi.
Ankara: Türk tarik Kurumu Yayınları.
Kaplan, D. 2009. Çanakkale Arkeoloji Müzesi Frank
Calvert Koleksiyonu Terrakotta Figürinleri. Ph.D. Thesis.
Ankara University.
Langlotz, E. 1927. Fruehgriechische Bildhauerschulen.
Nürnberg: Ernst Fromann&Sohn.
Langlotz, E. 1963. Die Kunst der Westgriechen in Sizilien
und Unteritalien. München: Hirmer Verlag.
Liepmann, U. 1975. Griechische Terrakotten Bronzen
Skulpturen. Hannover: Des Kestner Museums.
Löwy, E. 1911. Die Griechische Plastik. Leipzig: Klinkhardt
und Biermann Verlag.
Lullies, R. 1956. Griechische Plastik. Von den Anfängen
bis zum Ausgang des Hellenismus. München: Hirmer Verlag.
Mellink, M. J. 1983. Archaeology in Asia Minor. AJA,
87, p. 427-442.
Mendel, G. 1908. Musees Imperiaux Ottomans, Catalogue
des figurines grecques de terre cuite. Constantinople: Typ. et
lithographie A. Ihsan
Papaioannou, K. 1977. Griechische Kunst. Freiburg:
Herder Verlag.
Pedley, J. G. 1993. Greek Art and Archaeology. London:
Prentice Hall PTR.
Richter, G. M. A. 1960. Kouroi: Archaic Greek Youths:
a Study of the Development of the Kouros Type in Greek
Sculpture. London: The Phaidon Press.
Richter, G. M. A. 1968. Korai: Archaic Greek Maidens, a
Study of the Development of the Kore Type in Greek Sculpture.
London: The Phaidon Press.
Richter, G. M. A. 1969. Yunan Sanatı. İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi.
Richter, G. M. A. 1970. The Sculpture and Sculptors of
the Greeks. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Richter, G. M. A. 1984. Yunan Sanatı. İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi.
Rohde, E. 1969. Griechische Terrakotten. Tübingen:
Ernst Wasmuth Verlag.
Scholl, A., Platz-Horster, G. 2007. Die Antikensammlung:
Altes Museum / Pergamonmuseum. Berlin: Philipp von
Zabern in Herder.
Sinn, U. 1977. Antike Terrakotten. Volständiger Katalog.
Kassel: Staatliche Kunstsammlungen.
Shevchenko, T. M. 2021. Terracotta Figurines of Goddesses
on Thrones from Borysthenes. EMINAK, 3 (35), p. 179-200.
Stewart, A. 1990. Greek Sculpture: An Exploration, I.
New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
Summerer, L. 1999. Hellenistische Terrakotten aus Ami-
sos. Ein Beitrag zur kunstgeschichte des Pontos gebietes.
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Şirin, O. A., Kolağasıoğlu, M. 2016. Çakalca-Karadoğan
Höyüğü: Arkaik Dönemde Amisos ve Kybele. Samsun: Kültü,
Samtab Yayınları.
Şirin, O. A. 2020. Çakalca-Karadoğan Höyüğü Kurtarma
Kazısı: Amisos’ta Miletos Kolonizasyonuna Dair Buluntular.
AMİSOS, 5/9, p. 513-551
Tarhan, M. T. 1972. Eskiçağ’da Kimmer Problemi.
Ph.D. Thesis. İstanbul University.
Tavukçu, A. Y. 1999. Troas Bölgesi Terrakotta Figürinleri.
Ph.D. Thesis. Atatürk University.
Tsakos, K., Viglaki-Sofianou, M. 2012. Samos: The Archaeological
Museums. Athen: John S. Latsis Public Benefit Foundation.
Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1992. Greek Colonization of the
Eastern Black Sea Littoral (Colchis). Dialogues d’histoire
ancienne, 18, 2, p. 223-258.
Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2005. Karadeniz’in Tarih ve
Arkeolojisi Üzerine. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları.
Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2008. Greek Colonisation an Account
of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, 2. Boston:
Brill.
Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2010. Hellen Kolonizasyonu
Karadeniz. Aktüel Arkeoloji Dergisi, 18, p. 76-83.
Tuchelt, K. 1970. Die archaischen Skulpturen von
Didyma, Beiträge zur frühgriechischen Plastik in Kleinasien.
IstForsch, 27. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.
White, M. E. 1961. Greek Colonization. The Journal of
Economic History, 21, 4, p. 443-454.
Winter, F. 1903. Die antiken Terrakotten im Auftrag des
Archäologischen Instituts des Deutschen Reichs, herausgegeben
von Reinhard Kekulé von Stradonitz. Band III1. Die Typen
der figürlichen Terrakotten. Berlin; Stuttgart: Verlag von
W. Spemann.
Zervos, C. 1937. L’art en Grece des temps préhistoriques
au début du XVIIIe siècle: Troisieme Edition. Paris: Éditions
Cahiers d’art.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 278
Акін Темур1, Селахаттін Канча2
1 PhD, доцент, Університет Ондокуза Маїса, факультет гуманітарних та соціальних наук, кафедра археології, Туреч-
чина, ORCID: 0000-0001-9777-5256, akintemur@yahoo.com
2 Заступник директора, Самсунський музей, Туреччина, ORCID: 0000-0001-7742-6884, elahattin2055@gmail.com
ГРУПА ТЕРАКОТОВИХ ФІГУРОК АРХАЇЧНОГО ПЕРІОДУ В МУЗЕЇ САМСУНА
Це дослідження зосереджено на групі теракотових фігурок, виявлених під час рятувальних розкопок, проведених у
2009 році на кургані Чакалджа-Карадоґан, розташованому в районі Атакум міста Самсун (давня назва Амісос), що
знаходиться на південному узбережжі Чорного моря в північній Туреччині. Загалом 11 фігурок, знайдених у вотивній ямі,
були проаналізовані та датовані за допомогою типологічного та іконографічного аналізу.
Встановлено, що ці фігурки демонструють паралелі розвитку з великими скульптурними творами того періоду, що
ця взаємодія посилювалася та продовжувалася протягом архаїчного періоду, особливо в VI ст. до н. е. Незважаючи на
значні технічні відмінності між скульптурою і теракотовими фігурками, використання обох типів як вотивних пожертв, їх
хронологія і типологічна схожість підкреслюють ступінь цієї взаємодії. З огляду на те, що монументальні скульптури були
важливими артефактами, які демонстрували статус у релігійному та соціальному житті людей в античності, отримані дані
свідчать, що теракотові фігурки відігравали подібну роль. Їх аналіз показує, що типи богині сидячи, кори та одягненого
куроса, знайдені в цій групі, аналогічні монументальним скульптурам, створеним у східноіонійських центрах, таких як
Самос та Мілет, що свідчить про поширення цих стилів із вказаних центрів і що фігурки з Аміса, зокрема з кургану
Чакалджа-Карадоґан, продовжують цю традицію.
Теракотові фігурки, знайдені на кургані Чакалджа-Карадоґан, служать важливим ресурсом, що відображає як
художній розвиток того періоду, так і культурні взаємодії того часу. Розуміння місця цих фігурок у художньому та
релігійному житті Аміса сприяє ширшому розумінню соціально-культурної динаміки того періоду, виходячи за межі їх
ідентичності як суто археологічних артефактів.
К л ю ч о в і с л о в а: Чорне море, Амісос (Самсун), курган Чакалджа-Карадоґан, архаїчний період, теракотові фігурки.
References
Denisova, V. I. 1981. Koroplastika Bospora (po materialam Tiritaki, Mirmekiia, Ilurata i selskoi usadby). Leningrad: Nauka.
Kobylina, M. M. 1961. Terrakotovye statuetki Pantikapeia i Phanagorii. Moscow: Nauka.
Kobylina, M. M. 1970. Terrakotovye statuetki Severnogo Prichernomoria. SAI, G1–11, p. 6-22.
Nazarov, V. V. 2001. Тhе Sanctuary of Aphrodite in Berezan. Vestnik drevnei istorii, 1, p. 154-165.
Rusiaeva, A. S. 1979. Zemledelcheskie kulty Olvii dogetskogo perioda. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.
Rusiaeva, A. S. 2005. Religiia pontiiskikh ellinov v antichnuiu epokhu. Kyiv: Stilos.
Solovev, S. L. 2005. Borysthenes-Berezan: The 120th Anniversary of Archaeological Investigations of the Ancient Settlement on
Berezan Island. St. Petersburg: Hermitage.
Shevchenko, T. N. 2014. Kollektsiia rannikh terrakot iz raskopok Tiritaki v 2005–2010 gg. In: Zinko, V. N. (ed.). Tiritaka.
Raskop XXVI. ІІ. Arkheologicheskie kompleksy VI–V vv. do n. e. Simferopol; Kerch (n. p.), p. 537-550.
Shevchenko, T. M. 2021. Bohyni na troni z Borystena, Borysfenika II: pamiati V. V. Krutilova (arkheolohichni doslidzhennia
ostrova Berezan u konteksti yevropeiskoi istorii). In: Smyrnov, O. I. (ed.). Materialy Mizhnarodnoi Naukovoi Konferentsii,
Mykolaiv, Ukraina, 5–6 May 2021. Mykolaiv (n. p.), p. 54-57.
Ahrem, M. 1914. Das Weib in der Antiken Kunst. Jena: Eugen Diederichs Verlag.
Akurgal, E. 1961. Die Kunst Anatoliens von Homer bis Alexander. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Alexandrescu-Vianu, M. 2000. Cronologia și tipologia teracotelor arhaice descoperite la Histria. Potica, 33–34, p. 199-210.
Alexandrescu-Vianu, M. 2013. Considérations Sur le culte D’aphrodite à histria. In: Avram, A., Bîrzescu, I. (eds.). Mélanges
d’archéologie et d’histoire ancienne à la mémoire de Petre Alexandrescu. Il Mar Nero VIII, 2010–2011. Roma: Edizioni
Quasar di Severino Tognon s.r.l., p. 23-38.
Allen, W. S. 1947. The Name of the Black Sea in Greek. The Classical Quarterly, 41, 3/4, p. 86-88.
Arslan, M. 2006. Pontos’tan Karadeniz’e: Bir Adlandırmanın Ardındaki Önyargılar, Varsayımlar ve Gerçekler. OLBA, XIV, p. 75-91.
Atasoy, S. 1997. Amisos, Karadeniz Kıyısında Bir Kent. Samsun: Koç Yayınları.
Barletta, B. A. 1987. The Draped Kouros Type and the Workshop of the Syracuse Youth. American Journal of Archaeology,
91 (2), p. 233-246.
Bayburtluoğlu, C. 1977. Erythrai II Pişmiş Toprak Eserler. Ankara: TTK Basımevi.
Blinkenberg, C. 1931. Lindos. Fouilles de l’Acropole 1902–1914. I. Les Petits Objets. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Blümel, C. 1964. Die archaisch griechischen Skulpturen der staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Boardman, J., Dörig, J., Fuchs, W., Hirmer, M. 1976. Die Griechische Kunst. München: Hirmer Verlag.
Boardman, J. 2001. Yunan Heykeli, Arkaik Dönem. İstanbul: Homer Kitabevi.
Bol, P. C. 2002. Die Geschichte der Antiken Bildhauerkunst. I. Frühgriechische. Mainz: Ph. v. Zabern.
Borbein, A. H. 1995. Das alte Griechenland. Kunst und Geschichte der Hellenen. München: C. Bertelsmann Verlag.
Bournias, L. C. 2015. A New Ionian Kouros Terracotta Figurine from the Temple of “Athena” at Karthaia (Keos Island).
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 2 79
In: Muller, A., Laflı, E., Huysecom, S. (eds.). Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine, 2: Iconographie
et contextes. Paris: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, p. 23-30.
Boysal, Y. 1979. Arkaik Devir Heykeltraşlığı. Ankara: Selçuk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları.
Buschor, E. 1958. Die Plastik der Griechen. München: R Piper& Co Verlag.
Cahn, H. A., Cahn, D. 1998. Griechische und etruskische Kunstwerke archaischer Zeit, 600–480 v. Chr. Basel: Amerbach
Verlag.
Charbonneaux, J., Martin, R., Villard, F. 1969. Das Archaische Griechenland 620–480 v. Chr. München: C. H. Beck Verlag.
Charbonneaux, J. 1936. Les Terres Cuites Grecques. Paris: A. Zwemmer.
Chesterman, J. 1974. Classical Terracotta Figures. London: Ward Lock Ltd.
Christine, A. 1935. Three Archaic Greek Statuettes. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, 30, 9, p. 178-179.
Coşkun, S. 2016. Kocaeli Arkeoloji ve Etnoğrafya Müzesi’nde Sergilenen Terrakotta Figürinler. Master Thesis. Atatürk
University.
Demargne, P. P. 1965. Die Geburt der Griechischen Kunst. Die Kunst im ägäischen Raum von vorgeschichtlicher Zeit bis zum
Anfang des 6. vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts. München: C. H. Beck Verlag.
Fuchs, W. 1969. Die Skulptur der Griechen. München: Hirmer Verlag.
Fuchs, W., Floren, J. 1987. Die griechische Plastik. Band I. Die geometrische und archaische Plastik. München: C. H. Beck
Verlag.
Gürbüzer, E. D. 2012. Klaros Kazılarında Bulunmuş Olan Pişmiş Toprak Figürinler ve Kültler Açısından Değerlendirilmeleri.
Ph.D. Thesis. Ege University.
Gürbüzer, E. D. 2019. Pişmiş Toprak Figürinler ve Anıtsal Heykeller: Bağımsız Mı Takipçi Mi? Cedrus, VII, p. 299-331.
Hampe, R., Simon, E. 1980. Tausend Jahre Frühgriechische Kunst, 1600–600 v. Chr. München: Hirmer Verlag.
Hekimoğlu, H. A. 2010. İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzelerindeki Pitane Toprak Figürinleri. Master Thesis. Muğla University
Higgins, R. A. 1963. Greek Terracotta Figures. London: Trustees of the British Museum.
Higgins, R. A. 1970. Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities British Museum. London:
The Trustees of the British Museum.
Higgins, R. 1986. Tanagra and the Figurines. London: Trefoil Books.
Himmelmann, N. 1987. Ostgriechische Thronfiguren. Akurgal’a Armağan, Anadolu, XXI, 1978–1980, p. 175-81.
Hölscher, T. 2002. Klassische Archäologie: Grundwissen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftl. Buchges.
Işık, A. 2001. Antik Kaynaklarda Karadeniz Bölgesi. Ankara: Türk tarik Kurumu Yayınları.
Kaplan, D. 2009. Çanakkale Arkeoloji Müzesi Frank Calvert Koleksiyonu Terrakotta Figürinleri. Ph.D. Thesis. Ankara
University.
Langlotz, E. 1927. Fruehgriechische Bildhauerschulen. Nürnberg: Ernst Fromann&Sohn.
Langlotz, E. 1963. Die Kunst der Westgriechen in Sizilien und Unteritalien. München: Hirmer Verlag.
Liepmann, U. 1975. Griechische Terrakotten Bronzen Skulpturen. Hannover: Des Kestner Museums.
Löwy, E. 1911. Die Griechische Plastik. Leipzig: Klinkhardt und Biermann Verlag.
Lullies, R. 1956. Griechische Plastik. Von den Anfängen bis zum Ausgang des Hellenismus. München: Hirmer Verlag.
Mellink, M. J. 1983. Archaeology in Asia Minor. American Journal of Archaeology, 87, p. 427-442.
Mendel, G. 1908. Musees Imperiaux Ottomans, Catalogue des figurines grecques de terre cuite. Constantinople: Typ. et
lithographie A. Ihsan
Papaioannou, K. 1977. Griechische Kunst. Freiburg: Herder Verlag.
Pedley, J. G. 1993. Greek Art and Archaeology. London: Prentice Hall PTR.
Richter, G. M. A. 1960. Kouroi: Archaic Greek Youths: a Study of the Development of the Kouros Type in Greek Sculpture.
London: The Phaidon Press.
Richter, G. M. A. 1968. Korai: Archaic Greek Maidens, a Study of the Development of the Kore Type in Greek Sculpture.
London: The Phaidon Press.
Richter, G. M. A. 1969. Yunan Sanatı. İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi.
Richter, G. M. A. 1970. The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Richter, G. M. A. 1984. Yunan Sanatı. İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi.
Rohde, E. 1969. Griechische Terrakotten. Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag.
Scholl, A., Platz-Horster, G. 2007. Die Antikensammlung: Altes Museum / Pergamonmuseum. Berlin: Philipp von Zabern in
Herder.
Sinn, U. 1977. Antike Terrakotten. Volständiger Katalog. Kassel: Staatliche Kunstsammlungen.
Shevchenko, T. M. 2021. Terracotta Figurines of Goddesses on Thrones from Borysthenes. EMINAK, 3 (35), p. 179-200.
Stewart, A. 1990. Greek Sculpture: An Exploration, I. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
Summerer, L. 1999. Hellenistische Terrakotten aus Amisos. Ein Beitrag zur kunstgeschichte des Pontos gebietes. Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner Verlag.
Şirin, O. A., Kolağasıoğlu, M. 2016. Çakalca-Karadoğan Höyüğü: Arkaik Dönemde Amisos ve Kybele. Samsun: Kültü, Sam-
tab Yayınları.
Şirin, O. A. 2020. Çakalca-Karadoğan Höyüğü Kurtarma Kazısı: Amisos’ta Miletos Kolonizasyonuna Dair Buluntular. AMİSOS,
5/9, p. 513-551
Tarhan, M. T. 1972. Eskiçağ’da Kimmer Problemi. Ph.D. Thesis. İstanbul University.
Tavukçu, A. Y. 1999. Troas Bölgesi Terrakotta Figürinleri. Ph.D. Thesis. Atatürk University.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2026, № 280
Tsakos, K., Viglaki-Sofianou, M. 2012. Samos: The Archaeological Museums. Athen: John S. Latsis Public Benefit Foundation.
Tsetskhladze, G. R. 1992. Greek Colonization of the Eastern Black Sea Littoral (Colchis). Dialogues d’histoire ancienne, 18, 2,
p. 223-258.
Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2005. Karadeniz’in Tarih ve Arkeolojisi Üzerine. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları.
Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2008. Greek Colonisation an Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, 2. Boston: Brill.
Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2010. Hellen Kolonizasyonu Karadeniz. Aktüel Arkeoloji Dergisi, 18, p. 76-83.
Tuchelt, K. 1970. Die archaischen Skulpturen von Didyma, Beiträge zur frühgriechischen Plastik in Kleinasien. IstForsch, 27.
Berlin: Gebr. Mann.
White, M. E. 1961. Greek Colonization. The Journal of Economic History, 21, 4, p. 443-454.
Winter, F. 1903. Die antiken Terrakotten im Auftrag des Archäologischen Instituts des Deutschen Reichs, herausgegeben
von Reinhard Kekulé von Stradonitz. Band III1. Die Typen der figürlichen Terrakotten. Berlin; Stuttgart: Verlag von
W. Spemann.
Zervos, C. 1937. L’art en Grece des temps préhistoriques au début du XVIIIe siècle: Troisieme edition. Paris: Éditions Cahiers
d’art.
|
| id | arheologia-com-ua-article-450 |
| institution | Chemistry, Physics and Technology of Surface |
| issn | 2616-499X |
| keywords_txt_mv | |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2026-08-07T01:06:26Z |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine |
| record_format | ojs |
| resource_txt_mv | arheologiacomua/72/68905c558dcd82eb1b1dd7e3fa19c972.pdf |
| spelling | arheologia-com-ua-article-4502026-07-07T18:29:26Z A Group of Archaic Period Terracotta Figurines in the Samsun Museum Група теракотових фігурок архаїчного періоду в музеї Самсуна Temür , Akın Kanca, Selahattin Southern Black Sea region, Amisos (Samsun), Çakalca-Karadoğan Mound, archaic period, terracotta figurine. Чорне море, Амісос (Самсун), курган Чакалджа-Карадоґан, архаїчний період, теракотові фігурки. This study focuses on a group of terracotta figurines discovered during a rescue excavation conducted in 2009 at Çakalca-Karadoğan Mound, located in Atakum District of Samsun (ancient name Amisos), situated on the southern coast of the Black Sea in northern Turkey. A total of 11 figurines found in a votive pit have been analysed and dated through typological and iconographic evaluations. Це дослідження зосереджено на групі теракотових фігурок, виявлених під час рятувальних розкопок, проведених у 2009 році на кургані Чакалджа-Карадоґан, розташованому в районі Атакум міста Самсун (давня назва Амісос), що знаходиться на південному узбережжі Чорного моря в північній Туреччині. Загалом 11 фігурок, знайдених у вотивній ямі, були проаналізовані та датовані за допомогою типологічного та іконографічного аналізу. Встановлено, що ці фігурки демонструють паралелі розвитку з великими скульптурними творами того періоду, що ця взаємодія посилювалася та продовжувалася протягом архаїчного періоду, особливо в VI ст. до н. е. Незважаючи на значні технічні відмінності між скульптурою і теракотовими фігурками, використання обох типів як вотивних пожертв, їх хронологія і типологічна схожість підкреслюють ступінь цієї взаємодії. З огляду на те, що монументальні скульптури були важливими артефактами, які демонстрували статус у релігійному та соціальному житті людей в античності, отримані дані свідчать, що теракотові фігурки відігравали подібну роль. Їх аналіз показує, що типи богині сидячи, кори та одягненого куроса, знайдені в цій групі, аналогічні монументальним скульптурам, створеним у східноіонійських центрах, таких як Самос та Мілет, що свідчить про поширення цих стилів із вказаних центрів і що фігурки з Аміса, зокрема з кургану Чакалджа-Карадоґан, продовжують цю традицію. Теракотові фігурки, знайдені на кургані Чакалджа-Карадоґан, служать важливим ресурсом, що відображає як художній розвиток того періоду, так і культурні взаємодії того часу. Розуміння місця цих фігурок у художньому та релігійному житті Аміса сприяє ширшому розумінню соціально-культурної динаміки того періоду, виходячи за межі їх ідентичності як суто археологічних артефактів. Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine 2026-06-27 Article Article application/pdf https://arheologia.com.ua/index.php/arheologia/article/view/450 10.15407/archaeologyua2026.02.062 Arheologia; No 2 (2026): Arheologia; 62-80 Археологія ; № 2 (2026): Археологія; 62-80 Археология; № 2 (2026): Arheologia; 62-80 2616-499X 0235-3490 en https://arheologia.com.ua/index.php/arheologia/article/view/450/462 Copyright (c) 2026 Arheologia https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.en |
| spellingShingle | Чорне море Амісос (Самсун) курган Чакалджа-Карадоґан архаїчний період теракотові фігурки. Temür , Akın Kanca, Selahattin Група теракотових фігурок архаїчного періоду в музеї Самсуна |
| title | Група теракотових фігурок архаїчного періоду в музеї Самсуна |
| title_alt | A Group of Archaic Period Terracotta Figurines in the Samsun Museum |
| title_full | Група теракотових фігурок архаїчного періоду в музеї Самсуна |
| title_fullStr | Група теракотових фігурок архаїчного періоду в музеї Самсуна |
| title_full_unstemmed | Група теракотових фігурок архаїчного періоду в музеї Самсуна |
| title_short | Група теракотових фігурок архаїчного періоду в музеї Самсуна |
| title_sort | група теракотових фігурок архаїчного періоду в музеї самсуна |
| topic | Чорне море Амісос (Самсун) курган Чакалджа-Карадоґан архаїчний період теракотові фігурки. |
| topic_facet | Southern Black Sea region Amisos (Samsun) Çakalca-Karadoğan Mound archaic period terracotta figurine. Чорне море Амісос (Самсун) курган Чакалджа-Карадоґан архаїчний період теракотові фігурки. |
| url | https://arheologia.com.ua/index.php/arheologia/article/view/450 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT temurakın agroupofarchaicperiodterracottafigurinesinthesamsunmuseum AT kancaselahattin agroupofarchaicperiodterracottafigurinesinthesamsunmuseum AT temurakın grupaterakotovihfígurokarhaíčnogoperíoduvmuzeísamsuna AT kancaselahattin grupaterakotovihfígurokarhaíčnogoperíoduvmuzeísamsuna AT temurakın groupofarchaicperiodterracottafigurinesinthesamsunmuseum AT kancaselahattin groupofarchaicperiodterracottafigurinesinthesamsunmuseum |