Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ausidis,
2011). These interpretations are based on
the presence of primary sexual features
(genitalia) and secondary gender attributes
(breasts, buttocks, hand position and
modes of deliberate fragmentation). From
the total number of approximately 280 fig-
urines published so far, only eight have
male genitalia. The presence of pubis,
breasts, large thighs, hands placed on the
torso, or even deliberate fragmentation of
the lower body part are common only for
female figurines. Consequently, 128 figur-
ines in total are considered to be female,
while the rest are sexless (forty-nine) or
hermaphrodite (three); there are also many
fragments that are difficult to categorize.
It should be noted that the dominance of
female figurines in publications might
result from authors selection of the most
representative anthropomorphic objects for
the reports. On the other hand, published
data on figurines from other Balkan
regions include somewhat similar frequen-
cies (Srejovi, 1968; Mina, 2008; Becker,
2010). This should be further tested with
case studies prior to their inclusion in a
broader and more detailed review of rep-
resented sex on anthropomorphic artefacts
in the Balkans.
Nevertheless, figurines independently
analysed and elaborated at each of the sites
demonstrate entirely different suites of
characteristics as well as sex and body
feature preferences. Two of the most
extensive and thoroughly published exca-
vations in Ove Pole and Pelagonia
occurred at Amzabegovo and Porodin,
both providing profound insights into
figurine repertoires (Grbi et al., 1960;
Koroec & Koroec, 1973; Gimbutas,
1976b). There are fifty-four published
figurines from Amzabegovo, excavated by
Josip Koroec in the early 1960s. Further
excavations were later carried out by a
Yugoslavian-American team directed by
Milutin Garaanin, Voislav Sanev, and
Marija Gimbutas. Considering the pub-
lished figurines in two monographs
(Koroec & Koroec, 1973; Gimbutas,
1976b), seven are female, nineteen are
sexless, and none are male or hermaphro-
dite. The rest are fragments that are too
small for sex to be interpreted (Figure 7).
Regarding corporeal features, only two
have genitalia, four have applied breasts,
one has a well-developed stomach, and six
have over-developed thighs. None of the
figurines from Amzabegovo have hands.
The statistical data indicate that the
majority of the Amzabegovo figurines are
sexless, explaining the scarcity of sex-
specific body parts. The ratios for Porodin
are the opposite. There are thirty-two
published figurines from the excavations.
Twenty are female, one is male, and one is
192 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014
hermaphrodite, but only three are sexless;
the rest are undefined fragments
(Figure 7). Applied breasts are observed
on thirteen figurines, ten have over-
developed thighs, on seven the position of
the hands is associated with the torso, on
four the stomach is represented, and only
one has incised genitalia. The attributes of
sex (especially female) are much more fre-
quent at Porodin, particularly in terms of
the secondary gender features (breasts,
thighs, hands position).
The Amzabegovo and Porodin figurines
are presented here as examples of different
perceptions and representations of the
human body (Figure 6). Although Amza-
begovo dates back to the Early Neolithic,
both settlements existed in the Middle and
Late Neolithic (Whittle et al., 2005), when
the production of figurines was at its peak.
It is evident that communities living in
diverse regions during approximately the
same time period had different perspectives
of bodily representation. Those in Pelago-
nia tended to accentuate particular parts of
the body, producing more corpulent rep-
resentations, especially of women.
Inhabitants of Ove Pole conversely tended
to produce sexless schematized bodies
without clear bodily features. Such differen-
tiation resulted from different social
processes within the settlements, and was
due to the individuals represented. Female-
ness was the main trait among Pelagonian
figurines, and it could be associated with
particular characteristics, symbolic aspects
of the female body, or the formalization of
a desired body type. Further motives for
accentuating femaleness in figurines might
have been (re)productive labour, stress from
biological threats, contests over power, or
because women made the figurines (Lesure,
2011). Despite such gender assertation,
among the Ove Pole figurines (including
those of Tarinci and Gorobinci), sexual fea-
tures and limbs are mostly omitted and the
Figure 7. Numbers of Neolithic figurines by sex from Amzabegovo, Porodin, Govrlevo and
Zelenikovo.
Naumov Neolithic Priorities 193
body is reduced to an abstracted outline.
Since schematization cannot be associated
with the actual human body, there was a
rationale other than straightforward por-
trayal. Individualization or desired body
norms were not a concern; figurines were
more closely related to characters not sexu-
ally defined or without any connection to
specific individuals. Since there were few
figurines with female features, it is apparent
that the Ove Pole communities were
aware of gendered body production; yet
they intentionally decided to model human
representation without sex-identifying body
features. As has been previously indicated,
such sexless figurines, often deposited
inside pits or dwellings (Gimbutas, 1976b),
could be related to intramural burials of
infants and they might also have been
associated with ancestors and sexually
ambiguous human-like beings. Diverse rep-
resentations of the body at Porodin and
Amzabegovo provide evidence for signifi-
cantly varied corporeal concepts. These
varied concepts are also present among
other communities in Skopje Valley, Pela-
gonia, and Ove Pole, and even among
other categories of anthropomorphic
images embodied in clay.
This review of figurines from two sites
in different geographical regions illustrates
that Neolithic communities in these areas
did not have the same visual and cognitive
ways of representing the human body.
This idea is supported when figurines and
anthropomorphic models from neighbour-
ing settlements are compared.
1
Figurines
from five archaeological sites suggest the
implementation of different production
methods employed among neighbouring
communities (Galovi, 1964; Kitanoski
et al., 1983, 1990; Bilbija, 1986;
Garaanin & Bilbija, 1988; Temelkoski &
Mitkoski, 2001, 2008; Mitkoski, 2005;
Fidanoski, 2011). At Govrlevo in the
Skopje Valley (Figure 8), thirteen figurines
and 159 anthropomorphic objects
(models, vessels, and stamps) have been
found. At Zelenikovo, also in the Skopje
Valley, eighty-three figurines were uncov-
ered, but only twelve fragments of
embodied models and vessels were found
(Naumov & C
ausidis, 2011).
194 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014
figurines bear evident male genitalia
(Figure 7). The determination of sex
among anthropomorphic models, such as
models of houses, is much more difficult.
The place intended for genitalia represen-
tation is often in the form of openings in
a simple cube (Figure 9). Most do not
contain any gender resemblance: only a
few include female features (genitalia,
breasts, and stomach in state of preg-
nancy), while no representations of male
features have been confirmed so far
(Naumov, 2009a; Chausidis, 2010). The
female house models often bear various
hairstyles and massive hands placed on the
thighsi.e. a lower hollow cube, which
can be partially considered as a gender-
related featurethat are also common for
figurines (Naumov, 2009b; C
ausidis,
2011; Chausidis, 2012; Tomaz , in press).
Particular regional preferences can also
be observed regarding these body charac-
teristics. In the Neolithic of the Skopje
Valley, a much greater emphasis is placed
on upper anthropomorphic parts (the
cylinder) where face, hair, breasts,
abdomen, or hands are depicted; excluding
the house model which is simply elabo-
rated as a cube with openings (Figure 10).
The Pelagonian practices are entirely the
opposite. The main focus is the model
enriched with various architectural details,
while the cylinder comprises only a face.
Besides the anthropomorphic models with
prominent architectural features, the pro-
duction of altars in the shape of houses
was also common for Pelagonia (Naumov,
2011). It could be considered that there
was an intense symbolic relationship
between communities and their dwellings
in Pelagonia. This is in spite of the
absence of such altars and house rep-
resentations on anthropomorphic models
in other regions. This symbolic relation-
ship also results from the quantity, and
modes, of establishing and maintaining
Figure 8. The quantity and ratio of Neolithic figurines and anthropomorphic house models/vessels from
Govrlevo, Zelenikovo, Topolc ani, Rakle, and Slavej.
Naumov Neolithic Priorities 195
the Pelagonian settlements (tells); invol-
ving construction of new buildings on the
exact foundations of earlier dwellings
(Naumov, 2013). Although similar types
of dwellings were built in the Skopje
Valley and Pelagonia, the actual house was
not a crucial paradigm in the Skopje
region, whereas Pelagonian communities
had a symbolic association with it.
There is also an obvious difference in
facial representation on models from Pela-
gonia and the Skopje Valley. This further
indicates local understandings of the visual
aspects of the human body. Faces among
Pelagonian house models regularly consist
of bulging oval eyes, eyebrows, circular
mouth, prominent chin, andfrequently
ears. This contrasts with those in the
Skopje region, which only bear incised
horizontal eyes and eyebrows with an
absence of the mouth, chin or ears
(Naumov, 2009b). In terms of the bodily
features, it is evident that in Pelagonia the
main focus is on the face, while in the
Skopje Valley, hands, torso and ornaments
are emphasized more than other parts of
house models. Such diversity in anthropo-
morphic representations indicates that
there were different regional perceptions
of the human body and its symbolic com-
ponents in the Neolithic. For Pelagonian
communities, the identity asserted through
the face was more important, in contrast
to the inhabitants of the Skopje Valley,
who were more concerned with the
breasts, belly, and ornamentation of neck
and hands. The Neolithic miniatures
exhibit the opposite pattern. In Pelagonia,
figurines often have protuberant bellies
and breasts, while in the Skopje Valley
Figure 9. The basic types of anthropomorphic house models in: (A) Polog; (B) Skopje Valley; (C) Pela-
gonia.
After Chausidis (2010: fig. 2).
196 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014
there is often a lack of such features on
the torso. This indicates that perceptions
of human body components varied both
regionally and by artefact type, even
within the same communities. Figurine
miniaturism obviously had diverse pur-
poses (Bailey, 2005). This was in spite of
monumentality and hybridity among
anthropomorphic house models, which
intended to incorporate the human
body into a more complex relationship
with the man-made environment. Particu-
lar body parts and features therefore had
different symbolic effects within the use of
models or figurines, both locally and
regionally.
Regional figurine variations are also
noticeable in the representations of
female genitalia: those from Pelagonia
usually consist of round applications with
or without two punctures, while in other
areas the pubis is regularly incised as a
triangle or V-shaped line. This variability
also relates to the type of object on
which the human body was represented:
particular communities favoured minia-
ture representations, while others
preferred the corporeal association with
models, vessels, altars, or stamps. The
motives for such priorities in the domain
of corporeality, and whether they were
based on the regional manifestation of
identity or the symbolic principles of the
Neolithic communities, remains to be
discussed in greater depth in future
publications.
Figure 10. The spatial distribution of the most typical anthropomorphic house model types sites and
regions mentioned in the text.
Naumov Neolithic Priorities 197
PRIVILEGED INDIVIDUALS AND PREFERRED
FIGURATIONS
A regional perspective on intramural
burials in the Balkans, as well as local tra-
ditions in modelling of anthropomorphic
objects, indicate that the human body was
variously engaged as a medium for reinfor-
cing social relationships and symbolic
concepts. Although it is not possible to
see how actual bodies were actively incor-
porated in these Neolithic ritual and visual
processes, the consistency of ritual practice
and figurine production provide some
insight into how they were memorialized
through material culture and burials.
Ritual forms and artefacts from several
settlements in the Balkans demonstrate
how broader ideas on the Neolithic body
were locally modified. For example, intra-
mural burialsas a global phenomenon
emerging in the Near Eastern Neolithic
gained their own micro-regional forms in
southeast Europe. Similarly, diverse con-
cepts of the body produced differences in
figurine production.
The Amzabegovo data illustrate the
deliberate selection of individuals buried
within the settlement; a practice not con-
sistent throughout the Neolithic Balkans.
Only a few sites have a predominance of
child and females (both non-adults and
adults) remains inside or next to dwellings.
For the aforementioned sites, it is
suggested that these individuals had a
different status to males. Such status was
not based on social hierarchy, but was
associated with those persons actual and
symbolic contribution to maintaining the
community. The study of children in the
past has increased, and their significance
in prehistoric societies has been more
widely considered in recent years (Sofaer
Derevenski, 2000; Baxter, 2005; Crawford
& Shepherd, 2007; Dommasnes & Wrig-
glesworth, 2008; Romero, 2008;
Lillehammer, 2010). If it is considered
that their early death signaled a potential
risk for the continuation of the family, it is
likely that the community carried out
safety measures through symbolic activities
in order to retain and stimulate the birth
rate. Funerary rituals were one of those
components, particularly those practiced
inside settlements, such as burials under-
neath buildings. Such privileged
intramural burial was also common for
women, who were significant community
members or prone to health risk and dis-
eases in the period of pregnancy or
childbirth. Their burial along with infants
or children, as seen at Amzabegovo and
Nea Nikomedeia (Perls, 2001; Sanev,
2009), opens the question of whether this
ritual practice was common only at settle-
ments with high mortality rates of
children and women or was more likely a
selection of individuals with a particular
status or merely associated with the build-
ings and village in general. Owing to such
selection and inclusion within specific
intramural acts, the ritual practices suggest
that these individuals probably gained
greater symbolic significance.
The frequent burial of infants, sub-
adults and females below or next to build-
ings would have symbolically stimulated
the maintenance of community. A ritual
relationship between living and deceased
persons may also have been maintained.
This idea is partially supported by the
deposition of bodies, or body parts, inside
vessels. The example of Amzabegovo
highlights the intense symbolic associ-
ations between infants and deliberately
damaged vessels (Figure 4) (Nemeskri &
Lengyel, 1976). Such vessel modification
indicates that these objects were embedded
with intangible anthropomorphic charac-
ters in order to successfully contribute to
the ritual. The conceptual anthropomor-
phization of vessels and burials in the
Early Neolithic gradually engaged a
specific group of objects, setting the
198 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014
human body in a hybrid relationship with
buildings and households (Naumov, 2007,
2013). Their quantity in the settlements,
however, was not equal at every Neolithic
site. This indicates that there were differ-
ent local perceptions of objects
representing the human body. The case
studies from the Skopje Valley suggest that
such hybrid associations of bodies with
containers (house models or vessels) were
more intensive at Govrlevo than at Zeleni-
kovo (Naumov & C
ausidis, 2011;
Naumov, in press). This situation is similar
at Topolc ani and Slavej in Pelagonia,
where hybrid representations also outnum-
ber figurines. In contrast, the human body
is more frequently portrayed on figurines at
Zelenikovo, Rakle, and Amzabegovo. This
suggests that, among these communities,
the concept of miniaturism was more
important than that of hybridism associ-
ated with house models (Figure 8).
Miniaturism appears to be more of a
straightforward process than hybridism. It
involves a relative portrayal of individuals
based upon the basic reproduction of an
actual body. The represented bodies in the
aforementioned geographical regions are
often schematized and not consistent with
a bodys original appearance, and particular
parts are ignored or intentionally exagger-
ated. This was not an attempt at
accurately portraying an individual, but
rather confirmed and emphasized socially
and symbolically important body features.
The figurines (or miniatures) are small in
size and could have been held in the palm
of a hand, used, deliberately fragmented,
worn within clothes, or hung on a rope
(Bailey, 2005). They were too small to be
seen from a distance or by many observers
at the same time. Thus, communities
favouring the production of miniatures
were more focused on figurine manipu-
lation than figurine display. In contrast,
hybrid artefacts such as anthropomorphic
house models were much larger and more
composite in their structure (Sanev, 2006;
C
ausidis,
eds. Neolitski antropomorfni predmeti vo
Republika Makedonija. Skopje: Magor, pp.
2136.
Cavanagh, W. & Mee, C. 1998. A Private
Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece. Jonsered:
Paul strm Frlag.
Chapman, J. & Gaydarska, B. 2007. Parts and
Wholes: Fragmentation in Prehistoric
Context. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Chausidis, N. 2010. Neolithic Ceramic
Figurines in the Shape of a Woman
House From the Republic of Macedonia.
In: D. Gheorghiu & A. Cyphers, eds.
Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic Miniature
Figures in Eurasia, Africa and
Meso-America: Morphology, Materiality,
Technology, Function and Context. British
Archaeological Reports International
Series 2138. Oxford: Archaeopress,
pp. 2535.
Chausidis, N. 2012. Mythical Representations
of Mother Earth in Pictorial Media. In:
T.G. Meaden, ed. An Archaeology of
Mother Earth Sites and Sanctuaries Through
the Ages: Rethinking Symbols and Images,
Art and Artefacts From History and
Prehistory. British Archaeological Reports
International Series 2389. Oxford:
Archaeopress, pp. 519.
Crawford, S. & Shepherd, G. eds. 2007.
Children, Childhood and Society. British
Archaeological Reports International
Series 1696. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Dommasnes, L.H. & Wrigglesworth, M. eds.
2008. Children, Identity and the Past.
Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Fidanoski, L.J. 2011. Arheoloki iskopuvanja
na neolitskata naselba Cerje-Govrlevo vo
2004 godina. Macedonia Acta Archaeologica,
20:5376.
Fidanoski, L.J. 2012. Cerje-Govrlevo and Milo
Bilbija. Skopje: Museum of Skopje.
Fowler, C. 2004. The Archaeology of
Personhood: An Anthropological Approach.
London: Routledge.
Galovi, R. 1964. Neue Funde der Starcevo
Kultur in Mittelserbien und Makedonien.
Bericht der Romisch Germanischen
Kommision, 4344 (19621963). Berlin:
Walter De Gruyter & Co.
Garaanin, M. 1979. Centralno balkanska
zona. In: A. Benac, ed. Praistorija jugosla-
venskih zemalja II neolit. Sarajevo:
Academy of Science and Art of Bosnia
and Hercegovina, pp. 79212.
Garaanin, M. & Bilbija, M. 1988. Kua 1 vo
Zelenikovo. Macedonia Acta Archaeologica,
9:3141.
Georgiadis, M. 2011. Child Burials in
Mesolithic and Neolithic Southern
Greece: A Synthesis. Childhood in the Past,
4:3145.
Gimbutas, M. 1976a. Neolithic Macedonia: As
Reflected by Excavation at Anza, Southeast
Yugoslavia. Los Angeles: The Regents of
the University of California.
Gimbutas, M. 1976b. Figurines. In:
M. Gimbutas, ed. Anza, Neolithic
Macedonia: As Reflected by Excavation at
Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia. Los Angeles:
The Regents of the University of
California, pp. 198241.
Gimbutas, M. 1982. The Goddesses and Gods
of Old Europe. London: Thames and
Hudson.
Gimbutas, M. 1989. The Language of the
Goddess. London: Thames and Hudson.
Golan, A. 2003. Prehistoric Religion. Jerusalem:
Golan.
Grbi, M., Mac ki, P., Nadj, ., Simoska, D.
& Stalio, B. 1960. Porodin: kasno-neolitsko
naselje na Tumbi kod Bitolja. Bitolj:
Narodni muzej Bitolj i Arheoloki insti-
tut Beograd.
Hansen, S. 2007. Bilder vom Menschen der
Steinzeit: Untersuchungen zur anthropomor-
phen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit und Kupfzeit
in Sdosteuropa I und II. Mainz: Verlag
Philipp von Zabern.
Insoll, T. 2005. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion.
London: Routledge.
James, P.O. 1959. The Cult of the Mother
Goddess: An Archaeological and
Naumov Neolithic Priorities 203
Documentary Study. London: Thames and
Hudson.
Joyce, R.A. 2003. Making Something of
Herself: Embodiment of Life and Death
at Playa De Los Muertos, Honduras.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 13:246
61.
Kitanoski, B., Simoska, D. & Todorovi, J.
1983. Novi arheoloki istraz uvanja na
naselbta C