Southampton archaeologists have unearthed more than 300 prehistoric figurines.

Daily Echo: "Extraordinary" prehistoric figurines unearthed by Southampton archeaologists "Extraordinary" prehistoric figurines unearthed by Southampton archeaologists

Southampton archaeologists have unearthed more than 300 prehistoric figurines.

The team from the University of Southampton made the “extraordinary” find during work in Greece.

The clay figures were found at the site of Koutroulou Magoula and are believed to date back to the Middle Neolithic period – which was almost 8,000 years ago.

Experts say the figurines depict the community’s society and culture.

Project Co-Director Professor Yannis Hamilakis said: “Figurines were thought to typically depict the female form, but our find is not only extraordinary in terms of quantity, but also quite diverse – male, female and non-gender specific ones have been found and several depict a hybrid human-bird figure.

"We still have a lot of work to do studying the figurines, but they should be able to give us an enormous amount of information about how Neolithic people interpreted the human body, their own gender and social identity and experience.”

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:36pm Mon 7 Jan 13

bobbyboy says...

No wonder they want to close them down swanning off to Greece why can they not concentrate on our own history in our own back yard when i've tried researching where and what the Romans landed and did we have a blank why.
No wonder they want to close them down swanning off to Greece why can they not concentrate on our own history in our own back yard when i've tried researching where and what the Romans landed and did we have a blank why. bobbyboy
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Stephen J says...

bobbyboy wrote:
No wonder they want to close them down swanning off to Greece why can they not concentrate on our own history in our own back yard when i've tried researching where and what the Romans landed and did we have a blank why.
Close them down? This is the university archaeology department, not the city council archaeology unit.
[quote][p][bold]bobbyboy[/bold] wrote: No wonder they want to close them down swanning off to Greece why can they not concentrate on our own history in our own back yard when i've tried researching where and what the Romans landed and did we have a blank why.[/p][/quote]Close them down? This is the university archaeology department, not the city council archaeology unit. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

3:13pm Mon 7 Jan 13

southy says...

bobbyboy wrote:
No wonder they want to close them down swanning off to Greece why can they not concentrate on our own history in our own back yard when i've tried researching where and what the Romans landed and did we have a blank why.
Which Roman Landing was you looking for, there was a number of attemps, if your looking for Julius then don't bother he never made any landing on this side of the Channel.
[quote][p][bold]bobbyboy[/bold] wrote: No wonder they want to close them down swanning off to Greece why can they not concentrate on our own history in our own back yard when i've tried researching where and what the Romans landed and did we have a blank why.[/p][/quote]Which Roman Landing was you looking for, there was a number of attemps, if your looking for Julius then don't bother he never made any landing on this side of the Channel. southy
  • Score: 0

3:39pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
bobbyboy wrote:
No wonder they want to close them down swanning off to Greece why can they not concentrate on our own history in our own back yard when i've tried researching where and what the Romans landed and did we have a blank why.
Which Roman Landing was you looking for, there was a number of attemps, if your looking for Julius then don't bother he never made any landing on this side of the Channel.
So all the sources that quote Julius Caesar's landings in Britain in 55 and 54 BC are wrong?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bobbyboy[/bold] wrote: No wonder they want to close them down swanning off to Greece why can they not concentrate on our own history in our own back yard when i've tried researching where and what the Romans landed and did we have a blank why.[/p][/quote]Which Roman Landing was you looking for, there was a number of attemps, if your looking for Julius then don't bother he never made any landing on this side of the Channel.[/p][/quote]So all the sources that quote Julius Caesar's landings in Britain in 55 and 54 BC are wrong? Stephen J
  • Score: 0

4:16pm Mon 7 Jan 13

southy says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
bobbyboy wrote:
No wonder they want to close them down swanning off to Greece why can they not concentrate on our own history in our own back yard when i've tried researching where and what the Romans landed and did we have a blank why.
Which Roman Landing was you looking for, there was a number of attemps, if your looking for Julius then don't bother he never made any landing on this side of the Channel.
So all the sources that quote Julius Caesar's landings in Britain in 55 and 54 BC are wrong?
We now know that to be true, he did not land here, after conquering the Gauls in Britiany he return back to Rome, where he became Caesar,and never came any more west ward than present day France, Historians are pretty sure now that there was a mix up in translations, Before the Romans invaded our shores we was known by a totally different name, we got the name Brittian after the Roman invaders because there was a close likeness between Brittiany and our shores at the time, Even Nero claimed to have conquered Britian, pinning down who was the conquer of Britian is not going to be easy but Claudius is looking to be favourit at the moment, because of where they think the first Roman invasions landings took place (on the east coast of Kent), and him being in Germany fighting puts him in the prime location to set up an invasion force to land on Kent eastern shores, Part of the problem also is that there was Romans here and we was trading with the Romans before the Roman Invasion.
The Romans only stayed a short time it was the last place they conquered and the first place for them to leave
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bobbyboy[/bold] wrote: No wonder they want to close them down swanning off to Greece why can they not concentrate on our own history in our own back yard when i've tried researching where and what the Romans landed and did we have a blank why.[/p][/quote]Which Roman Landing was you looking for, there was a number of attemps, if your looking for Julius then don't bother he never made any landing on this side of the Channel.[/p][/quote]So all the sources that quote Julius Caesar's landings in Britain in 55 and 54 BC are wrong?[/p][/quote]We now know that to be true, he did not land here, after conquering the Gauls in Britiany he return back to Rome, where he became Caesar,and never came any more west ward than present day France, Historians are pretty sure now that there was a mix up in translations, Before the Romans invaded our shores we was known by a totally different name, we got the name Brittian after the Roman invaders because there was a close likeness between Brittiany and our shores at the time, Even Nero claimed to have conquered Britian, pinning down who was the conquer of Britian is not going to be easy but Claudius is looking to be favourit at the moment, because of where they think the first Roman invasions landings took place (on the east coast of Kent), and him being in Germany fighting puts him in the prime location to set up an invasion force to land on Kent eastern shores, Part of the problem also is that there was Romans here and we was trading with the Romans before the Roman Invasion. The Romans only stayed a short time it was the last place they conquered and the first place for them to leave southy
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Cyber__Fug says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
bobbyboy wrote:
No wonder they want to close them down swanning off to Greece why can they not concentrate on our own history in our own back yard when i've tried researching where and what the Romans landed and did we have a blank why.
Which Roman Landing was you looking for, there was a number of attemps, if your looking for Julius then don't bother he never made any landing on this side of the Channel.
So all the sources that quote Julius Caesar's landings in Britain in 55 and 54 BC are wrong?
He'll probably come back and tell you that it's false right wing propaganda !
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bobbyboy[/bold] wrote: No wonder they want to close them down swanning off to Greece why can they not concentrate on our own history in our own back yard when i've tried researching where and what the Romans landed and did we have a blank why.[/p][/quote]Which Roman Landing was you looking for, there was a number of attemps, if your looking for Julius then don't bother he never made any landing on this side of the Channel.[/p][/quote]So all the sources that quote Julius Caesar's landings in Britain in 55 and 54 BC are wrong?[/p][/quote]He'll probably come back and tell you that it's false right wing propaganda ! Cyber__Fug
  • Score: 0

4:45pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
bobbyboy wrote:
No wonder they want to close them down swanning off to Greece why can they not concentrate on our own history in our own back yard when i've tried researching where and what the Romans landed and did we have a blank why.
Which Roman Landing was you looking for, there was a number of attemps, if your looking for Julius then don't bother he never made any landing on this side of the Channel.
So all the sources that quote Julius Caesar's landings in Britain in 55 and 54 BC are wrong?
We now know that to be true, he did not land here, after conquering the Gauls in Britiany he return back to Rome, where he became Caesar,and never came any more west ward than present day France, Historians are pretty sure now that there was a mix up in translations, Before the Romans invaded our shores we was known by a totally different name, we got the name Brittian after the Roman invaders because there was a close likeness between Brittiany and our shores at the time, Even Nero claimed to have conquered Britian, pinning down who was the conquer of Britian is not going to be easy but Claudius is looking to be favourit at the moment, because of where they think the first Roman invasions landings took place (on the east coast of Kent), and him being in Germany fighting puts him in the prime location to set up an invasion force to land on Kent eastern shores, Part of the problem also is that there was Romans here and we was trading with the Romans before the Roman Invasion.
The Romans only stayed a short time it was the last place they conquered and the first place for them to leave
"A century before, in both 55 and 54 BC, Julius Caesar had invaded Britain with the aim of conquest." 2011, Dr Neil Faulkner, Research Fellow at the University of Bristol, a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, the Editor of Military History Monthly, and a Lecturer for NADFAS.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bobbyboy[/bold] wrote: No wonder they want to close them down swanning off to Greece why can they not concentrate on our own history in our own back yard when i've tried researching where and what the Romans landed and did we have a blank why.[/p][/quote]Which Roman Landing was you looking for, there was a number of attemps, if your looking for Julius then don't bother he never made any landing on this side of the Channel.[/p][/quote]So all the sources that quote Julius Caesar's landings in Britain in 55 and 54 BC are wrong?[/p][/quote]We now know that to be true, he did not land here, after conquering the Gauls in Britiany he return back to Rome, where he became Caesar,and never came any more west ward than present day France, Historians are pretty sure now that there was a mix up in translations, Before the Romans invaded our shores we was known by a totally different name, we got the name Brittian after the Roman invaders because there was a close likeness between Brittiany and our shores at the time, Even Nero claimed to have conquered Britian, pinning down who was the conquer of Britian is not going to be easy but Claudius is looking to be favourit at the moment, because of where they think the first Roman invasions landings took place (on the east coast of Kent), and him being in Germany fighting puts him in the prime location to set up an invasion force to land on Kent eastern shores, Part of the problem also is that there was Romans here and we was trading with the Romans before the Roman Invasion. The Romans only stayed a short time it was the last place they conquered and the first place for them to leave[/p][/quote]"A century before, in both 55 and 54 BC, Julius Caesar had invaded Britain with the aim of conquest." 2011, Dr Neil Faulkner, Research Fellow at the University of Bristol, a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, the Editor of Military History Monthly, and a Lecturer for NADFAS. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Subject48 says...

So romans were here for a short while huh southy and had no intention of staying? I feel sorry for the people who built hadrians wall as obviously there was no point to it...
So romans were here for a short while huh southy and had no intention of staying? I feel sorry for the people who built hadrians wall as obviously there was no point to it... Subject48
  • Score: 0

10:39pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Stillness says...

bobbyboy wrote:
No wonder they want to close them down swanning off to Greece why can they not concentrate on our own history in our own back yard when i've tried researching where and what the Romans landed and did we have a blank why.
What is "a blank why"? Why does it matter if we had one?
[quote][p][bold]bobbyboy[/bold] wrote: No wonder they want to close them down swanning off to Greece why can they not concentrate on our own history in our own back yard when i've tried researching where and what the Romans landed and did we have a blank why.[/p][/quote]What is "a blank why"? Why does it matter if we had one? Stillness
  • Score: 0

7:28pm Wed 9 Jan 13

southy says...

Subject48 wrote:
So romans were here for a short while huh southy and had no intention of staying? I feel sorry for the people who built hadrians wall as obviously there was no point to it...
No 48
its all guest work at the moment, but Roman writings say that Julius before he became a Caesar never crossed the channel after conquering the Gauls in Britiany, after which he was ordered back to Rome and never returned back in the area again and became Caesar and from then on he did not go far from Rome, so the indications is that he never got to Britian, we also know a number of other Empirors claimed to have conquered Britian, only ever 1 did, also concider this Julius was in Britiany and if he did cross the channel then he would of laned some where along the Southern Coast and there are no signs that any invading force landed on the South coast untill Wiliam I, but there are signs that there was landings on the Eastern Coast and that would of putting who ever it was set sail from Saxony, Angles, Daneland or Jutland, and in Julius time all this area was still in control of the Germanic tribes, it was not untill Claudius put down the Germanic Saxony tribes could any sailing from this part take place.

But like I said there where Romans here before the Roman Invasion of Britian. they was here even before Julius time.

54 BC Julius led a three-month expedition to Britiany (here is where the translation error is Britiany and Britian at this era Britian would of been called Tyrine or some thing close to that and not Britian) that started the 4 year wars with the Gauls (the Gauls wars), Julius war with the Gauls endded in 50 BC, and from there a year later he cross the boarders of his province starting the Civil war and took Rome and declared him self himself dictator in 49 BC, and in 44BC he was killed.

The invasion of Britian started in 43 AD under the command of Aulus Plautius, Claudius who was all ready Emperor at the time was in Britian for 16 days when he took command of the crossing of the River Thames, about 100 years after Julius death.
Claudius days endded in 54 AD

Hadrian was a Roman Emperor in 117-138 AD.
[quote][p][bold]Subject48[/bold] wrote: So romans were here for a short while huh southy and had no intention of staying? I feel sorry for the people who built hadrians wall as obviously there was no point to it...[/p][/quote]No 48 its all guest work at the moment, but Roman writings say that Julius before he became a Caesar never crossed the channel after conquering the Gauls in Britiany, after which he was ordered back to Rome and never returned back in the area again and became Caesar and from then on he did not go far from Rome, so the indications is that he never got to Britian, we also know a number of other Empirors claimed to have conquered Britian, only ever 1 did, also concider this Julius was in Britiany and if he did cross the channel then he would of laned some where along the Southern Coast and there are no signs that any invading force landed on the South coast untill Wiliam I, but there are signs that there was landings on the Eastern Coast and that would of putting who ever it was set sail from Saxony, Angles, Daneland or Jutland, and in Julius time all this area was still in control of the Germanic tribes, it was not untill Claudius put down the Germanic Saxony tribes could any sailing from this part take place. But like I said there where Romans here before the Roman Invasion of Britian. they was here even before Julius time. 54 BC Julius led a three-month expedition to Britiany (here is where the translation error is Britiany and Britian at this era Britian would of been called Tyrine or some thing close to that and not Britian) that started the 4 year wars with the Gauls (the Gauls wars), Julius war with the Gauls endded in 50 BC, and from there a year later he cross the boarders of his province starting the Civil war and took Rome and declared him self himself dictator in 49 BC, and in 44BC he was killed. The invasion of Britian started in 43 AD under the command of Aulus Plautius, Claudius who was all ready Emperor at the time was in Britian for 16 days when he took command of the crossing of the River Thames, about 100 years after Julius death. Claudius days endded in 54 AD Hadrian was a Roman Emperor in 117-138 AD. southy
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree