You are on page 1of 24

Neolithic Priorities: Ritual and Visual

Preferences within Burials and


Corporeality in the Balkans
GOCE NAUMOV
Archaeological Museum of Macedonia, FYR Macedonia
Neolithic bodies are not only manifestations of subjective principles. Social and symbolic norms are also
incorporated within the bodies of both actual and represented individuals. These norms often relate to
economic and religious notions of society, as well as to effigies. Owing to high population densities in
Neolithic villages, only a select group of the inhabitants were buried within settlements or represented
in images. This generated a category of privileged individuals and body features, which were related to
symbolic principles rather than social hierarchy. Such practices among Neolithic societies in the Balkans
are evident within burials and human representations. Individuals buried inside settlements, anthropo-
morphic house models, and figurines from several sites in Ovc e Pole, Pelagonia, and the Skopje Valley
are used as case studies in this paper. Placing these sites into a wider geographical context, it is argued
that gender, age and body parts were significant criteria in funerary practices and features of
corporeality.
Keywords: anthropomorphic figurines, body, burials, symbolism, Neolithic, Balkans
INTRODUCTION
The body is central to the construction of
social norms. It is also a potent metaphor,
embodying community principles. During
the Neolithic, the body was entwined with
the symbolic definition of the living space,
and was central to the interaction between
individuals and material culture. Both the
body and corporeality were present in
rituals and imagery. Selected individuals
were buried within settlements and were
represented by material culture such as fig-
urines (Parker Pearson, 1999; Bailey,
2005). Burial practices were not just about
perceptions of death, and anthropo-
morphic representations were not just
portrayals of particular individuals.
Instead, burials and corporeal images were
entwined with symbolic principles. These
principles reflected affirmed social norms,
maintained during the use of social spaces
and material culture. The interment of the
dead below or next to dwellings does not
seem accidental. The human body was
also placed in relation to vessels and ovens
(or altars), as well as represented on figur-
ines (Naumov, 2009a). These symbolic
relationships of the body with houses and
objects suggest that the deliberate selection
of the dead occurred.
In this paper, Neolithic findings from
Pelagonia, Ovc e Pole, and the Skopje
Valley are used as case studies (Figure 1).
European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014, 184207
European Association of Archaeologists 2014 DOI 10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000058
Manuscript received 30 July 2013,
accepted 30 January 2014, revised 31 December 2013
It will be highlighted that a number of
local features are present which diverge
from previous generalizations of Neolithic
cultural groups (Garaanin, 1979; Sanev,
1994). Other sites in the wider Balkan
area are also examined, in order to demon-
strate the existence of similar ritual and
visual practices which were independently
manifested. The significance of local prac-
tices will be also elaborated, despite the
presence of broader regional symbolic
norms.
This paper will consider two major cat-
egories of body treatment: burials and
human representations. Ritual and visual
subcategories of body treatment will be
explored, particularly those which high-
light body selection preferences and beliefs
among Neolithic communities. In order to
do so, burial locations, sex and age of indi-
viduals, miniaturism, and hybridism are
analysed. Previous examination of these
categories has suggested that Neolithic
communities shared the concept of
anthropomorphism, which employs the
human body as the main metaphor for
complex social and symbolic processes
(Naumov, 2010a). A preference for par-
ticular genders and mediums of human
representation was observed for the
majority of Neolithic communities. It is
also possible that figurines and anthropo-
morphic house models correlated with
burials of a particular age or sex, but
further archaeological analysis is needed to
confirm this proposition. In some settle-
ments, however, this dominant concept of
anthropomorphism was engaged with, and
autonomously manifested, in different
ways: some communities chose to model
sexless and abbreviated bodies in clay.
This paper further explores how visual
representation and ritual engagement with
the human body during the Neolithic
period in the Balkans is manifested
through local practices.
Figure 1. Map of the Balkan Peninsula with case study sites and regions mentioned in the text.
Naumov Neolithic Priorities 185
PREFERRED BURIALS
Neolithic burials in the Balkans are mainly
found inside settlements and diverse ideas
are suggested regarding the preference for
burial in this active space (Cavanagh &
Mee, 1998; Bac varov, 2003; Bori &
Stefanovi, 2004; Naumov, 2007). As well
as a symbolic component to this defined
and constant ritual tradition, there are also
representations of social processes in
burials. These include individuality, iden-
tity, status, or gender of the deceased
individual (Carr, 1995; Parker Pearson,
1999; Fowler, 2004; Insoll, 2005). Such
ritual practices in the Neolithic were
incorporated into local traditions while
concepts were shared by communities.
Burials in the Balkans in particular illus-
trate how universal ideas of death could
have shared regional principles whilst
being part of a local tradition. Notably,
the relationship between burials and
anthropomorphic representation demon-
strates how the human body was central to
the adaptation of regionally shared con-
cepts into the culture of local Neolithic
communities.
The Neolithic settlement at Amzabe-
govo in Ovc e Pole provides insight into
ritual forms and social tendencies within a
particular Neolithic Balkan population.
Several excavation teams have confirmed
continuous Early to Late Neolithic, as well
as a phase of Roman, occupation at the
site (Koroec & Koroec, 1973; Gimbutas,
1976a; Sanev, 2009). Radiometric analysis
indicates that the earliest site use occurred
between approximately 6510 and 6230 BC
(Reingruber & Thissen, 2005; Whittle
et al., 2005). This site has the typical
characteristics of the first Neolithic settle-
ments in the Balkans, with similar
material culture to contemporary sites in
Thessaly and, to a degree, in Anatolia
(Gimbutas, 1976a; Sanev, 1994; Naumov,
2009a, 2010b). This suggests a strong
relationship with these geographical areas
and partially explains the early occupation
of the site.
At Amzabegovo, alongside the agricul-
tural, architectural, pottery, and visual
traditions similar to the Anatolian and
Thessalian Neolithic, intramural burial
was also practiced. A total of thirty-four
burials were uncovered, twenty-five of
which were associated with its earliest
phase (Nemeskri & Lengyel, 1976). The
number of Middle Neolithic burials is
fewer, with only eight confirmed individ-
uals. Only a single skeleton was found in
the Late Neolithic layers (Figure 2). It
appears, therefore, that intramural burial
was mainly practiced in the earliest phases
of the site. The fewer number of burials in
later stages may be related to social and
symbolic changes. A selective preference
within intramural burial in the Early
Neolithic is suggested from results of
anthropological analysis. The largest
Figure 2. Numbers of Neolithic burials by sex, age, and phase at Amzabegovo.
186 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014
number of burials belongs to infants, chil-
dren, and subadults, with females more
numerous than males (Nemeskri &
Lengyel, 1976). Other individuals, par-
ticularly males and adults, were most likely
buried outside the settlementan area not
yet excavated by archaeologists. This is
also suggested by the estimated size of the
settlement and population density at
Amzabegovo (Gimbutas, 1976a). It
appears that only particular community
members were placed below or next to
dwellings. The high percentage of infants,
sub-adults and females buried within the
settlement may result from higher mor-
tality rates among these groups (stemming
from problems arising during pregnancy
and birth giving), rather than a selective
preference. But if the mortality rate of
males and adults in several generations is
considered, the presence of their bodies
would be more common if selection was
not employed. Selective preference for
intramural burial of individuals of a certain
ages and sex is also observed in other
regions, yet caution has to be taken as
these data are from sites excavated using
just one or a few trenches. Similar ritual
practices have been observed at other Neo-
lithic sites within Ove Pole and regions
in its vicinity, such as Pelagonia and
Skopje Valley (Figure 3). Other examined
burials, fewer in number, were uncovered
at Novo Selo, Madjari, and Optic ari. At
these sites, infants and females were
placed next to or below dwellings (Velja-
novska, 2000, 2006), with the exceptions
of a young adult males mandible and cut-
marked male skeletons found below
houses in Govrlevo and Grnc arica
(Naumov, 2009a; Fidanoski, 2012; Stoja-
novski, 2012). Owing to the infrequency
and small size of archaeological exca-
vations in Ove Pole, Pelagonia, and the
Skopje Valley, more data need to be
obtained through excavation and osteolo-
gical research in order to carry out more
detailed sex and age ratios for intramural
burials.
The preference towards infant and
female intramural burials is also seen in
the wider Balkan area. Of note are the
funerary rituals at Lepenski Vir and Obre,
where the remains of infants were predo-
minantly buried in specific architectonic or
settlement contexts. Forty infants in
Lepenski Vir were buried within buildings,
and eleven children at Obre were buried
in the central part of the settlement. Bio-
logical aspects of the skeleton therefore
determined the space for their placement
(Zlatuni, 2003; Bori & Stefanovi,
2004; Stefanovic & Boric, 2008). The
quantity and concentration of children
buried within buildings at Lepenski Vir
and Obre are relatively high, and are not
Figure 3. Numbers of Neolithic burials by sex, age and site in Ove Pole, Pelagonia and the Skopje
Valley.
Naumov Neolithic Priorities 187
yet confirmed at other Balkan sites,
although males and adults are outnum-
bered by intramural burials of females and
infants. It is also of note that in some
Balkan regions non-adult burials within
settlements are more frequent, while in
other areas adult burials within settlements
are more frequent. Returning to local
Neolithic sites, at Kovac evo only infants
and children were uncovered, similar to
the second phase at the site of Karanovo.
This contrasts to the site of Slatina, where
only adult individuals were found
(Bac varov, 2003). At the Neolithic cave
site of Franchti, the majority of the ident-
ified skeletal remains belong to infants and
females, which are most numerous in
earlier levels of the site (Cavanagh & Mee,
1998; Triantaphyllou, 2001). The picture
at Nea Nikomedeia is similar, which from
radiometric evidence and architectonic and
pottery evidence has similarities with the
aforementioned site of Amzabegovo
(Pyke, 1996; Naumov, 2010b). The
number of buried infants, children, and
juveniles outnumber the adults at Nea
Nikomedeia, with female burials once
again more common than males. Such
ritual practices can also be found at several
Neolithic sites in Cyprus, Anatolia, and
other parts of the Near East, but they go
beyond the regional scope of this paper
(zdoan, 1999; Moore et al., 2000;
Lorentz, 2003). Consequently, one can
consider that the process of Neolithiza-
tion, spreading from Anatolia towards the
Balkan Peninsula, introduced this practice
of intramural burial for selected individ-
uals. Examination of Neolithic sites in the
Balkans suggests that this tradition was
modified and partially embedded into
local social and symbolic culture.
As has been stated above, burial prac-
tices in the Neolithic Balkans were not
always unified, often reflecting local
understandings of death. This might have
caused variation in practices during the
Early Neolithic, when ideas were pro-
moted. Burial took a number of different
ritual forms: inhumation, cremation, body-
part deposition, and dual burial (i.e. two
individuals buried next to each other).
Examination of burial type allows regional
differences and variations employed by the
particular population to be traced.
Although inhumation is dominant, crema-
tion was also performed during the Early
Neolithic (Cavanagh & Mee, 1998;
Bac varov, 2003). Unusual forms of burial
are also observed at the sites of Slatina,
Kremikovci, Agios Petros, Bukovac ka
C

esma, Madjari, and Govrlevo (Stankovi,


1992; Bac varov, 2003; Naumov, 2009a;
Stojanova Kanzurova, 2011). For example,
at Govrlevo a mandible was initially
deposited close to a building, and was
placed inside a pot at a later time.
Although the burial of isolated mandibles
is not documented at Amzabegovo, the
rare practice of using vessels in burials was
employed (Figure 4). A six-month old
infant was placed into a vessel with the
handles and bottom deliberately broken
Figure 4. Jar burial of an infant from Amzabe-
govo.
After Nemeskri & Lengyel (1976: fig. 242).
188 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014
(Nemeskri & Lengyel, 1976). The place-
ment of infants in vessels was rare during
the Balkan Neolithic, but can be traced in
the Near East (Bacvarov, 2008; Georgia-
dis, 2011). In later prehistoric periods,
adult individuals have frequently been
found buried in this way. This ritual prac-
tice asserts more the symbolic aspects of
burial, as well as the implementation of
embodiment and anthropomorphism
within material culture (Naumov, 2010a,
2013). The production of anthropo-
morphic vessels, models of houses, and
models of ovens with human features was
also associated with intramural burials.
This was particularly the case with
deceased community members who were
later memorialized, or involved in sym-
bolic concepts, such as effigies.
The case of Amzabegovo is worth
consideration, to explain the dominant
presence of young individuals and females
within intramural burials in Ovc e Pole.
There is also an observed relationship
between burials and anthropomorphic
material culture (discussed in detail
below). The insertion of an infant inside a
vessel with intentionally broken handles
and base at Amzabegovo is a significant
semiotic action; it embeds particular
meanings both into the individual and
vessel. Within a ritual context, the vessel
itself has a more potent meaning. It was
expected to contribute to the infants
transposition into a different semiotic
stage, such as memorialization, rebirth, or
sacralization. The burial area where the
vessel was placed also intensifies the sym-
bolism of the ritual and the selection of
particular individuals. After the vessel con-
taining the six-month-old infant was
deposited, a female individual (thirty to
fifty-nine years old) was buried with her
pelvis above the vessel. Another female
(twenty-one to twenty-five years old) was
placed next to the older females feet
(Sanev, 2009). It cannot be determined if
there was kinship between these three
individuals, but it is apparent (from their
intentional placing above the vessel with
the buried infant) that these two women
were buried in order to intensify the sym-
bolic process embodied within the vessel
and infant. The ritual focus on infants and
children at Amzabegovo further suggests
that young individuals were considered
significant members of the community.
Specific actions, therefore, were performed
in order to emphasise their presence and
memory within particular dwellings and
settlements. These included funerary
rituals that symbolically simulated
procreation.
As will be elaborated below, Neolithic
settlements did not employ anthropo-
morphic material culture (female figurines,
models, or vessels) in order to support the
funerary ritual act; these objects are never
found as grave goods. When created, the
majority of human representations at
Amzabegovo were sexless and deposited
within pits (Gimbutas, 1976b), thus it is
possible that they were more closely
associated with infants than with certain
male or female individuals. Also the
number of figurines unearthed from Early
Neolithic phases is few compared with
the infants buried within the settlement in
the same period (Figure 5). During the
Middle Neolithic, the frequency of intra-
mural burials decreases, especially that of
infants and children, while the production
of figurines (including the first female rep-
resentations) increases. In contrast to
Amzabegovo, at Porodinone of the
most prominent Pelagonian Neolithic
villagesnumerous corpulent female fig-
urines and anthropomorphic models were
produced, but there are no Neolithic
human burials confirmed so far. This is
despite comprehensive excavation (Grbi
et al., 1960). The different contexts associ-
ated with funerary rituals and figurines at
these settlements indicates that where
Naumov Neolithic Priorities 189
intramural burials of children and women
were numerous, the production of anthro-
pomorphic female effigies was reduced
(and vice versa). For the moment, it
cannot be established whether such a
pattern is common for all sites and regions
in the Balkans, but it is worth further con-
sideration as other settlements produce
similar ratios. At Amzabegovo there are
many more burials in the earlier phases,
suggesting that they had greater symbolic
potency earlier, rather than in the Middle
and Late Neolithic. From the Middle
Neolithic onwards the intramural burials
are largely reduced in contrast to the
increasing figurine production, suggesting
that the burials dynamism was later
replaced by anthropomorphic represen-
tations, which were sometimes deposited
in pits along with other artefacts. Both
burials (in the earliest phases) and figur-
ines (in the later phases) were therefore
intended to preserve the presence of par-
ticular young or female individuals, and to
memorialize the social effect they had, or
could have, within the community. In the
context of the buried body or represented
individual, such depositions or portrayals
were transformed into semiotic acts (i.e.
given the more frequent production of
figurines and the decrease in burials, pit
depositions of figurines might have sym-
bolised burials of the deceased), which
further highlighted the symbolic features
of house, settlement or community.
According to funerary data from Ovc e
Pole, Pelagonia, the Skopje Valley and the
Balkans in general, it is evident in particu-
lar settlements that intramural burial and
infants placed in vessels were not only
formal farewells to the deceased. The pre-
ference for particular age and sex groups
in burials, their placement inside or
between buildings, and the use of vessels
for deposition of infant bodies, suggests
that they were embedded in a complex
symbolic process that implies a potent
relationship between the living and dead
members of the community and the space
they inhabited. If artefacts with anthropo-
morphic features are also considered in
this context, then the existence of several
semiotic principles and social norms could
be suggested, consequently manifested
throughout burials, material culture, and
social relations. An overview of the basic
categories of anthropomorphic represen-
tations, their visual features, and
archaeological contexts follows below, to
provide an insight into these processes,
Figure 5. Numbers of Neolithic figurines divided by representation of sex unearthed at Amzabegovo
during the Yugoslav-American excavation seasons (based on data in Gimbutas, 1976b). Fragments
that could not be identified are included among the sexless figurines.
190 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014
including how the human body was incor-
porated within a broader range of visual,
performative, and ritual acts.
THE MATERIALIZATION OF
CORPOREALITY
The categorization and interpretation of
figurines has frequently been debated
(Bailey, 2005; Hansen, 2007; Lesure,
2011). Besides the establishment of their
basic forms, types, and chronological
determination, there is still no universal
agreement on their meaning, function, or
whom they represent. Some archaeologists
have claimed that figurines are represen-
tations of goddesses, while others have
interpreted them as depictions of individ-
uals (James, 1959; Ucko, 1962; Gimbutas,
1982; Bailey, 1994; Talalay, 1994;
Meskell, 1995; Biehl, 1996; Lesure, 2002;
Golan, 2003). While the discussion of
who was represented by figurines is
beyond the scope of this paper, the social
and symbolic processes manifested
through their visual features and quantity
will be considered here. Other artefacts
modelled after the human body, or any of
its parts, will also be considered, such as
anthropomorphic vessels, models of
houses and ovens.
Three basic stylistic categories of
anthropomorphic objects can defined:
abbreviation, realism, and hybridism.
Abbreviation (involving the visual
reduction of bodily features) and realism
(which portrays the actual body) are
related to figurines, their major character-
istics and their accentuation of particular
bodily features. Hybridism is specific to
models, vessels, altars and other artefacts
depicting or bearing parts of the human
body (Naumov, 2009b). In this paper,
only figurines and models with sufficient
data on their quantity and appearance are
considered; specifically, those from Amza-
begovo, Porodin, Zelenikovo, Govrlevo,
Slavej, Topolc ani, and Rakle. These sites
provide a regional perspective on the pri-
orities emphasized by represented bodies
(Figure 6). Although numerous figurines
from the Balkans are well documented,
the detailed observations in this paper are
based on figurines from the above-
mentioned settlements located in
Pelagonia, Ovc e Pole, and the Skopje
Valley. These sites were chosen due to the
large quantity of figurines and the clear
preference for particular ways of depicting
certain features of the body. Local affi-
nities can be seen through the presence or
absence of corporeal features suggesting
sex and the accentuation of particular body
Figure 6. Anthropomorphic figurines from Ove Pole and Pelagonia: 1. Amzabegovoh. 10.0 cm
(after Koroec & Koroec, 1973); 2. Porodinh. 12.4 cm (after Garaanin, 1979).
Naumov Neolithic Priorities 191
parts. Local variations in the production of
miniature human representations (figur-
ines) or embodied, visual and symbolic,
hybrid relationships with other objects
(vessels, models, altars, etc.) are also
observed.
The issue of the figurines sex has been
frequently debated, resulting in a wide
range of interpretations. The female
aspects of figurines were initially high-
lighted by scholars, who used them to
support the hypothesis that Neolithic
societies were matriarchal with figurines
representing deities and serving as reli-
gious votives (James, 1959; Gimbutas,
1989; Golan, 2003). Reacting against such
interpretations, a more cautious approach
to the interpretation of figurines sex has
developed, reducing the number of ident-
ified female representations and asserting
the dominance of sexless miniatures
(Bailey, 1996; Talalay, 2004; Nanoglou,
2008; Nakamura & Meskell, 2009). The
statistical data on figurines sex in
Pelagonia, Ove Pole, Polog, as well as
the Kumanovo and Skopje Valleys,
however, confirm that the majority are
either female or sexless representations
(Naumov, 2009a, b; Naumov & C

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; Naumov, in


press). The production patterns and ratio
between figurines and anthropomorphic
house models in Pelagonia are almost
identical to those in Skopje Valley
(Figure 8). At the site of Rakle the main
focus are figurines (of which there are
twenty-one), with only one anthropo-
morphic hybrid. Slavej and Topolc ani are
exceptions, as house models with human
features are more frequent (fifty-two and
twenty-three, respectively), outnumbering
the figurines (with frequencies of fourteen
and five, respectively). Considering pub-
lished artefacts from Amzabegovo, it is
noticeable that there was more interest in
miniature body representation, rather than
body incorporation into hybrids with
vessels or models. In addition to fifty-four
published figurines from the site, there are
only six published fragments of anthropo-
morphic vessels/models (Gimbutas,
1976a). It should be noted that authors
often select the most representative arte-
facts for the publications and ignore less
exclusive fragments of models. Conse-
quently, the number of anthropomorphic
objects from Amzabegovo is significant,
but it should be considered with care, as
the ceramic repertoire is not published in
its entirety.
Regarding sexual features, dominance
of female and sexless artefacts is also
common for the figurines at some of the
aforementioned sites; while only four
1
The project Anthropomorphic Objects in the Republic of
Macedonia, coordinated by the author and Nikos Chausidis,
was intended to analyse and document the figurines and
anthropomorphic house models and vessels from Govrlevo and
Zelenikovo, in the Skopje Valley, as well as from Slavej, Topo-
lc ani, and Rakle in Pelagonia. Part of the data are included in
this paper, but also in the monograph summarizing the project
results (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 & Naumov, 2011). As a conse-


quence, more complex ideas could be
manifested through hybrid artefacts, which
went far beyond a common representation
of an individual. The embodiment of a
house suggests that a particular inhabitant,
or mythical character, was associated with
it, and simultaneously incorporated into it:
features symbolic of both the represented
individual and the house. Central open-
ings on floors inside a number of the
anthropomorphic house modelssome
containing figurinessuggest that some
figurines were associated with deceased
members of the community (Naumov,
2009a). Regional features further support
this possibility. Although there are four-
teen excavated Neolithic tells in Central
Pelagonia, only two intramural burials
been found at Optiari. A similar pattern
of burials and human representation
occurs at Ovc e Pole and the Skopje Valley
(Amzabegovo and Zelenikovo in particu-
lar). So, where burials were absent or low
in number, the production of figurines
increased. Figurines, thus, were most likely
used for depicting the deceased. It cannot
be suggested that this was a universal prac-
tice throughout the Balkans, but for the
moment the case studies of Amzabegovo,
Zelenikovo, Porodin, and Veluina suggest
that figurine use occurred where intra-
mural burials were few or absent.
Local priorities are also evident in min-
iature human representations. Among
figurines from the Pelagonian sites, sex is
emphasized more heavily than in Ovc e
Pole. Miniatures from Porodin and Velu-
ina frequently bear primary and secondary
sexual features, contrasting with Amzabe-
govo where the main emphasis is on
sexless bodies (Figure 7). Why the rep-
resentation of sex is neglected in some
communities remains an open question, as
does who these figurines depict when the
key body parts are ignored. At
Naumov Neolithic Priorities 199
Amzabegovo, a relationship between fre-
quent infant/child burial and the
production of sexless figurines might be
suggested. Although it is difficult to find
supporting evidence, the fact that children
might be represented on figurines is worth
consideration; there are many societies
where children are not regarded as socially
or gender-defined individuals until their
initiation or coming-of-age rites. It should
also be noted that at Early Neolithic
Amzabegovo, while the number of infant
burials was most frequent, the quantity of
modelled figurines was quite small
(Figures 2 and 5). Those figurines
depicted sexless individuals which could
be associated with childrens genderless
status prior to their initiation. In the
Middle and Late Neolithic, when intra-
mural funerary rituals decrease, the
number of figurines greatly increases. This
occurred along with other changes in
material culture and architectural facilities
(such as new Middle Neolithic painted
designs and vessel types, house made of
wattle and daub instead of mud-bricks and
stones, larger villages and communities).
Some miniatures were even deposited in
pits or inside houses (Gimbutas, 1976b),
thus further supporting the possible
relationship between sexless schematized
figurines and infant/child intramural
burials. This is also the period when the
first female figurines were found at the
site, although these are few in number.
Consequently, the frequent intramural
burials of females and prevalence of
anthropomorphic artefacts with female
features (vessels, models, altars, etc.) at
various sites should be also be analysed.
The deliberate fragmentation of female
figurines in particular in the Balkans is
also worth consideration, due to the
dynamic practices in which these minia-
tures were involved (Berger, 2004;
Chapman & Gaydarska, 2007; Naumov,
2009a; Tasi, 2011). This concentration
on the female body in representations and
rituals prompts numerous discussions,
although these are not fully elaborated in
this paper, since the regional diversities in
the symbolic treatment of corporeality are
the main focus here. Nevertheless, there
are various possibilities to explain why
female figurines outnumber the male rep-
resentations. The majority of recent
interpretations deal with the social pos-
ition of women, considering them as a
silenced group, members threatened by
diseases, inhabitants faced with the neces-
sity of (re)productive labour, individuals
involved in the arena of power, or as pro-
ducers of figurines representing themselves
(Voigt, 2000; Bolger, 2003; Joyce, 2003;
Bailey, 2005; Lesure, 2011). Some of
these thought-provoking notions could be
applied to figurines in Pelagonia, the
Skopje Valley or Ovc e Pole, but further
examination of the social context and
material culture is first necessary. For the
moment, the prevalence of female burials
in these regions, as well as the quantity
and visual appearance of figurines, is the
only indications for proposing expla-
nations. The association of a woman with
an infant burial in an intentionally
damaged vessel from Amzabegovo, and
the emphasis on buttocks, genitalia,
abdomen, breast, and hand position
among the Porodin and Veluina figur-
ines, indicate similar associations between
figurines and female reproduction, sexu-
ality, and obesity at these sites. It remains
to be seen whether these were also used as
metaphors at other sites where female
burials and images outnumber those of
males, children, or sexless individuals.
Besides the example of women as a sig-
nificant metaphor among particular
Neolithic communities, burials, and figur-
ines from Ovc e Pole indicate that sexless
representations and bodies without
common corporeal features were some-
times emphasized. The favouring of
200 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014
diverse body parts was even employed
among two neighbouring settlements; as
was the case with Pelagonian and Skopje
Valley miniatures and models. It remains
to be discussed whether such production
of anthropomorphic objects was associated
with regional identities. This has been
suggested for painted Neolithic vessels,
which were engaged in various social and
symbolic processes for the affirmation of
autochthonous features (Naumov, 2009a,
2010b). The extensive excavations in Pela-
gonia, Ovc e Pole, Polog, and Skopje
Valley have provided evidence that the
Early Neolithic communities inhabiting
these regions produced vessels with diverse
white painted decorations (Figure 11). In
the Middle Neolithic painted patterns
among Pelagonian vessels remained white
and geometric. This contrasts with those
from Ovc e Pole and the Skopje Valley,
which were changed to brown, black and
more curved (Simoska & Sanev, 1975;
Garaanin, 1979; Sanev, 2004; Fidanoski,
2012). The constant assertion of visual
differences in the material culture from
these regions indicates the intentional
elaboration of their particular regional
identity through material culture. Besides
their social use, both vessels and their
decoration incorporated identity within
more complex symbolic process. Consider-
ing the practical and visual character of the
vessels, their inclusion in these spheres of
society is suggested. However, it still
remains unclear if figurines and models
were manifestations of local identities or
reflections of differing approaches to visual
representation of the social and symbolic
body.
CONCLUSION
Intramural burials and various figurines,
models and vessels demonstrate that there
were diverse understandings of the body in
the Balkan Neolithic. Diversity is also
evident in the bodys incorporation within
symbolic categories related to individuals
and house or household anthropomorphi-
zation. These semantic concepts were not
equally considered in the Neolithic settle-
ments. Some sculptors preferred a simple
depiction of the body, while others added
corporeality to more complex hybrid
relationships with dwellings, vessels,
ovens, etc. Even in the different visual
spheres of miniaturism and hybridism,
there were different approaches among the
Figure 11. The local regional preferences of Early Neolithic white painted pottery in the Skopje Valley,
Ovc e Pole, Pelagonia and Polog.
Naumov Neolithic Priorities 201
micro-regional units of Pelagonia, Ovc e
Pole, and the Skopje Valley. Some of the
communities considered particular body
features as significant while others disre-
garded them. The same occurred with
anthropomorphic models, evidenced by an
emphasis on house details in Pelagonia, in
contrast to the Skopje Valley where the
focus was on their upper parts, depicting
various aspects of the human body
(Figure 10).
Variations in the objects produced were
stimulated by different challenges experi-
enced by communities in the Neolithic
Balkans. The dynamics of social relations,
and mortality as a problem for community
maintenance in particular, established the
human body as a central metaphor that
contributed to their explication. This
complex visual and ritual engagement of
the body generated symbolic images mate-
rialized through the figurines,
anthropomorphic vessels, models and
altars. These symbolic items significantly
affected the construction of new social
relations and statuses, contributing to
acceptance of the early death of particular
community members. Further research
into these categories of anthropomorphic
objects and burials in the micro-regional
context will provide a more thorough
understanding of variations within human
body representations and ritual treatment.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Ljubo Fidanoski
(Museum of Skopje) and Aleksandar Mit-
kovski (Museum of Prilep) for their
understanding and willingness to provide
access to museum collections. My grati-
tude also goes to Nikos Chausidis
(University of Skopje) for his dedicated
collaboration on the research project Neo-
lithic anthropomorphic objects in the
Republic of Macedonia. I am enormously
grateful to the anonymous reviewers and
editors of my English text which signifi-
cantly contributed to strengthening and
clarifying the research results and proposed
interpretations.
REFERENCES
Bac varov, K. 2003. Neolitni pogrebalni obredi.
Sofia: Bard.
Bacvarov, K. ed. 2008. Babies Reborn: Infant/
Child Burials in Pre- and Protohistory.
British Archaeological Reports
International Series 1832. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Bailey, D. 1994. The Representation of
Gender: Homology or Propaganda.
Journal of European Archaeology, 2
(2):21527.
Bailey, D.W. 1996. Interpreting Figurines:
The Emergence of Illusion and New
Ways of Seeing. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal, 6(2):29195.
Bailey, D.W. 2005. Prehistoric Figurines:
Representation and Corporeality in the
Neolithic. London: Routledge.
Baxter, J.E. 2005. The Archaeology of Childhood:
Children, Gender and Material Culture.
Oxford: Altamira Press.
Becker, V. 2010. Anthropomorphe Plastiken
Westbulgariens und ihre Stellung im
sdosteuropichen Frnhneolithikum.
Studia Praehistorica, 13:2340.
Berger, L. 2004. Anthropomorphe und zoo-
morphe Statuetten der Stufen Karanovo
II-III bis III-IV aus dem Nordsd-Schnitt
am Tell Karanovo. In: V. Nikolov,
K. Ba c varov & P. Kalchev, eds. Prehistoric
Thrace: Proceedings of the International
Symposium in Stara Zagora. Stara Zagora:
Institute of Archaeology with Museum,
pp. 17887.
Biehl, P. 1996. Symbolic Communication
Systems: Symbols of the Neolithic and
Chalcolithic from South-Eastern Europe.
Journal of European Archaeology, 4:15376.
Bilbija, M. 1986. Cerje, neolitsko naselje.
Arheoloki Pregled, 1985:3536.
Bolger, D. 2003. Gender in Ancient Cyprus:
Narratives of Social Change on a
Mediterranean Island. Walnut Creek:
Altamira Press.
202 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014
Bori, D. & Stefanovi, S. 2004. Birth and
Death: Infant Burials from Vlasac and
Lepenski Vir. Antiquity, 78:52646.
Carr, C. 1995. Mortuary Practices: Their
Social, Political-Religious, Circumstantial,
and Physical Determinants. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory, 2
(2):105200.
C

ausidis, N. 2011. Neolitski antropomorfni


modeli na kui. In: G. Naumov &
N. C

ausidis, eds. Neolitski antropomorfni


predmeti vo Republika Makedonija. Skopje:
Magor, pp. 1120.
C

ausidis, N. & Naumov, G. 2011. Neolitski


antropomorfni modeli na kui od
Govrlevo. In: G. Naumov & N. 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

ukaj vo Topolc ani kaj Prilep.


Macedonia Acta Archaeologica, 6:920.
Kitanoski, B., Simoska, D. & Jovanovi, B.
1990. Der kultplatz auf der fundstatte
Vrbjanska Cuka bei Prilep. In: D. Srejovi
& N. Tasi, eds. Vinc a and Its World.
International Symposium. The Danubian
Region from 60003000 BC. Beograd:
Serbian Academy of Science and Arts,
Centre for Archaeological Research,
Faculty of Philosophy. Beograd. Bigz,
pp. 10712.
Koroec, P. & Koroec, J. 1973. Predistoriska
naselba Barutnica. Prilep: Arheoloko
drutvo na Makedonija.
Lesure, R.G. 2002. The Goddess Diffracted:
Thinking About the Figurines of Early
Villages. Current Anthropology, 43
(4):587610.
Lesure, R.G. 2011. Interpreting Ancient
Figurines: Context, Comparison and
Prehistoric Art. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lillehammer, G. 2010. Archaeology of
Children. Complutum, 21(2):1545.
Lorentz, K.O. 2003. Cultures of Physical
Modifications: Child Burials in Ancient
Cyprus. Stanford Journal of Archaeology,
2:117.
Meskell, L. 1995. Godessess, Gimbutas and
New Age Archaeology. Antiquity,
69:7486.
Mina, M. 2008. Carving Out Gender in
Prehistoric Aegean: Anthropomorphic
Figurines of the Neolithic and Early
Bronze Age. Journal of Mediterranean
Archaeology, 21(2):21339.
Mitkoski, A. 2005. Sadova keramika od
Vrbjanska C

uka. Macedoniae Acta


Archaeologica, 16:2953.
Moore, A.M.T., Hillman, G.C. & Legge, A.J.
2000. Village on the Euprathes: From
Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nakamura, C. & Meskell, L. 2009. Articulate
Bodies: Forms and Figures at atalhyk.
Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory, 16:20530.
Nanoglou, S. 2008. Representation of Humans
and Animals in Greece and the Balkans
During the Earlier Neolithic. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal, 18:113.
Naumov, G. 2007. Housing the Dead: Burials
Inside Houses and Vessels from Neolithic
Balkans. In: C. Malone &
D. Barrowclough, eds. Cult in Context.
Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 25565.
Naumov, G. 2009a. Patterns and Corporeality:
Neolithic Visual Culture from the Republic of
Macedonia. British Archaeological Reports
International Series 1910. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Naumov, G. 2009b. Neolithic Visual Culture
and Rituals. In: G. Naumov,
L.J. Fidanoski, I. Tolevski & A. Ivkovska,
eds. Neolithic Communities in the
Republic of Macedonia. Skopje: Dante,
pp. 87135.
Naumov, G. 2010a. Neolithic
Anthropocentrism: Imagery Principles and
Symbolic Manifestation of Corporeality in
the Balkans. Documenta Praehistorica,
37:22738.
Naumov, G. 2010b. Symmetry Analysis of
Neolithic Painted Pottery from Republic
of Macedonia. In: T. BiroKatalin, ed.
Data Management and Mathematical
Methods in Archaeology. Archaeologia e
Calcolatori 21. Roma: Dipartimento
Patrimonio Culturale, pp. 25574.
Naumov, G. 2011. Visual and Conceptual
Dynamism of the Neolithic Altars in the
Republic of Macedonia. In: V. Nikolov,
K. Bacvarov & H. Popov, eds.
Interdisziplinre Forschungen zum
Kulturerbe auf der Balkanhalbinsel. Sofia:
Humboldt Union, pp. 89129.
Naumov, G. 2013. Embodied Houses: Social
and Symbolic Agency of Neolithic
Architecture in the Republic of
Macedonia. In: D. Hoffman & J. Smyth,
eds. Tracking the Neolithic House in
EuropeSedentism, Architecture and
Practice. New York: Springer, pp. 6594.
Naumov, G. in press. Together We
Stand-Divided We Fall: Fragmentation of
Neolithic Figurines in Republic of
Macedonia. In: S.E. Kohring &
R. Farbstein, eds. Representation, Image
and the Materiality of Technology. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
204 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014
Naumov, G. & C

ausidis, N. 2011. Neolitskite


antropomorfni predmeti vo Republika
Makedonija. Skopje: Magor.
Nemeskri, J. & Lengyel, L. 1976. Neolithic
Skeletal Finds. In: M. Gimbutas, ed.
Neolithic Macedonia: As Reflected by
Excavation at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia.
Los Angeles: The Regents of the
University of California, pp. 375410.
zdoan, M. 1999. ayn. In: M. zdoan,
ed. Neolithic in Turkey. Istanbul: Arkeoloji
Sanat Yayinlari, pp. 3563.
Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeology of
Death and Burial. Stroud: Sutton.
Perls, C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece.
The First Farming Communities in Europe.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pyke, G. 1996. Structures and Architecture.
In: K.A. Wardle, ed. Nea Nikomedeia I:
The Excavation of an Early Neolithic
Village in Northern Greece 19611964.
London: The British School at Athens,
pp. 3954.
Reingruber, A. & Thissen, L. 2005. Aegean
Catchment (E. Greece, S. Balkans and
W. Turkey) 10,0005500 cal BC. [online]
Formerly available at: <http://www.canew.
org/data.html>
Romero, M.S. 2008. Childhood and
Construction of the Gender Identities
through Material Culture. Childhood in the
Past, 1:1737.
Sanev, V. 1994. Mlado kameno vreme. In:
Arheoloka karta na Repblika Makedonija
Tom I. Skopje: Macedonian Academy
of Science and Arts, pp. 2642.
Sanev, V. 2004. Some Characteristics of the
Amzabegovo Vrnik Cultural Group in
Macedonia. In: S. Peri, ed. The Central
Pomoravje in Neolithization of South East
Europe. Belgrade: Archeological Institute,
pp. 3547.
Sanev, V. 2006. Anthropomorphic Cult Plastic
of Anzabegovo-Vrnik Cultural Group of
the Republic of Macedonia. In: N. Tasi
& C. Grozdanov, eds. Homage to Milutin
Garaanin. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of
Science and Arts, pp. 17191.
Sanev, V. ed. 2009. Anzabegovo: naselba od
raniot i sredniot neolit vo Makedonija. tip:
Nacionalna ustanova za zatita na spome-
nicite na kulturata i muzej tip.
Simoska, D. & Sanev, V. 1975. Neolitska
naselba Veluka tumba kaj Bitola.
Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica, 1:2585.
Sofaer Derevenski, J. 2000. Children and
Material Culture. London: Routledge.
Srejovi, D. 1968. Neolitska plastika
Centralnog Balkana. In: L. Trifunovi, ed.
Neolit Centralnog Balkana. Beograd:
Narodni muzej, pp. 177270.
Stankovi, S. 1992. Sakralna mesta i predmeti
u starijeneolitskim kulturama
Centralno balkanskog podruc ja
(unpublished PhD thesis, University of
Beograd).
Stefanovic, S. & Boric, D. 2008. The
Newborn Infant Burials from Lepenski
Vir: In Pursuit of Contextual Meanings.
In: C. Bonsall, V. Boroneant &
I. Radovanovi, eds. The Iron Gates in
Prehistory: New Perspectives. British
Archaeological Reports International
Series 1893. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp.
13169.
Stojanova Kanzurova, E. 2011. Arhitektonski
nedviz ni objekti od Tumba-Madjari.
Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica, 20:3552.
Stojanovski, D. 2012. Grncharica Pottery
Typology: Contribution to the Early
Neolithic Puzzle on the Balkans (unpub-
lished MA thesis, University of Ferrara).
Talalay, L.E. 1994. A Feminist Boomerang:
The Great Goddess of Greek Prehistory.
Gender and History, 6(2):16583.
Talalay, L.E. 2004. Heady Business: Skulls,
Heads and Decapitation in Neolithic
Anatolia and Greece. Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology, 17(2):13963.
Tasi, N. 2011. Anthropomorphic Figurines
from Vinc a excavations 19982009.
Documenta Praehistorica, 38:14957.
Temelkoski, D. & Mitkoski, A. 2001.
Neolitski antropomorfni statuetki vo pre-
distoriskata zbirka na Zavod i muzej
Prilep. Makedonsko nasledstvo, 17:5369.
Temelkoski, D. & Mitkoski, A. 2008.
Docnoneolitska naselba na lokalitetot
Kutline kaj selo Rakle. Macedoniae Acta
Archaeologica, 18:93108.
Tomaz , A. in press. Depiction of Hairstyle,
Reflection of Identity? Some consider-
ations concerning Neolithic Hairstyle
Depictions in Anzabegovo Vrnik and
Veluina -Porodin Cultural Milieu. In:
D. Boric & P. Miracle, eds. Identities of
the Early Neolithic Balkans. Oxford:
Oxbow Books.
Triantaphyllou, S. 2001. A Bioarchaeological
Approach to Prehistoric Cemetery Populations
Naumov Neolithic Priorities 205
from Central and Western Greek Macedonia.
British Archaeological Reports
International Series 976. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Ucko, P. 1962. The Interpretation of
Prehistoric Anthropomorphic Figurines.
Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute, 92:3854.
Veljanovska, F. 2000. Antropoloki karakteristiki
na naselenieto na Makedonija od neolit do
Sreden Vek. Skopje: Republic ki zavod za
zatita na spomenicite na kulturata.
Veljanovska, F. 2006. Neolitski skeletni naodi
od Pista Novo Selo. Macedoniae Acta
Archaeologica, 17:34150.
Voigt, M.M. 2000. atal Hyk in Context:
Ritual at Early Neolithic Sites in Central
and Eastern Turkey. In: I. Kuijt, ed. Life
in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social
Organization, Identity and Differentiation.
New York: Plenum Press, pp. 25393.
Whittle, A., Bartosiewicz, L., Bori, D.,
Pettit, P. & Richards, M. 2005. New
Radiocarbon Dates for the Early Neolithic
in Northern Serbia and South-East
Hungary: Some Omissions and
Corrections. Antaeus, 28:34755.
Zlatuni, R. 2003. Neolitic ki pogrebni ukopi
na prostoru istoc ne jadranske obale i
njezinu irem zaledu (prijelazna zona),
tipoloka analiza. Vjesnik arheolokog
muzeja u Zagrebu, 36(3):2995.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Goce Naumov is an archaeologist at the
Archaeological Museum of Macedonia
and Associate and Lecturer at the Institute
for Ancient Studies (Euro Balkan Univer-
sity) where he also runs the project on
Neolithic tells in Pelagonia. His archaeo-
logical interests include the Neolithic
Balkans, pottery patterns, history of
archaeology, as well as the representations
and rituals associated with human body.
As a member of the Catalhyk Research
Project he is also concerned with figurines
from the West Mound.
Address: Archaeological Museum of Mace-
donia, Dimitar Vlahov bb, PO Box 125,
1000 Skopje, FYR Macedonia. [email:
gocenaumov@gmail.com]
Priorits nolithiques: prfrences rituelles et visuelles parmi les spultures et la
corporit dans les Balkans
Les corps nolithiques ne sont pas seulement des manifestations de principes subjectifs; aux corps dindi-
vidus rels ainsi que reprsents sont galement associes des normes sociales et symboliques. Ces normes
se rattachent souvent des notions conomiques et religieuses de socit de mme qu des effigies. En
raison de la densit de population leve dans les villages nolithiques, seul un groupe favoris de
dfunts ft enterr au sein des agglomrations ou reprsent en images. Ceci engendrait une catgorie
dindividus et de caractristiques physiques privilgis, apparente des principes symboliques plutt
qu une hirarchie sociale. De telles pratiques au sein des socits nolithiques des Balkans sont videntes
parmi les spultures et reprsentations humaines. Des individus enterrs lintrieur des villages, des
modles de maison et des figurines anthropomorphes provenant de plusieurs sites de Ovc e Pole, Pelagonia
et de la valle de Skopje ont fait lobjet dtudes de cas. En plaant ces sites dans un contexte gographi-
que plus large, on fait valoir que le sexe, lge et les parties du corps taient des critres significatifs pour
les pratiques funraires et caractristiques de corporit. Translation by Isabelle Gerges
Mots-cls: figurines anthropomorphes, corps, spultures, symbolisme, Nolithique, Balkans
206 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014
Neolithische Prioritten: Ritual, visuelle Vorlieben bei Grbern und die
Korporealitt der Balkanhalbinsel
Neolithische Krper sind keinesfalls allein Manifestationen subjektiver Prinzipien; auch soziale und
symbolische Normen sind in die Krper von gleichermaen tatschlichen und dargestellten Individuen
eingeschlossen. Diese Normen beziehen sich hufig auf konomische und religise Auffassungen der
Gesellschaft wie auch auf die Figuralplastik. Aufgrund der hohen Bevlkerungsdichte in neolithischen
Drfern wurde nur eine ausgewhlte Gruppe von Verstorbenen innerhalb der Siedlungen bestattet oder
in Bildern dargestellt. Dies schuf eine Gruppe privilegierter Individuen und Krpermerkmale, die sich
eher an symbolischen Prinzipien als an sozialer Hierarchie orientierten. Derartige Praktiken in den
neolithischen Gesellschaften der Balkanhalbinsel spiegeln sich bei den Bestattungen und menschlichen
Darstellungen deutlich wider. Siedlungsbestattungen, anthropomorphe Hausmodelle und Figurinen von
verschiedenen Fundpltzen im Ovc e Pole, in Pelagonien und der Skopje-Ebene werden in diesem
Beitrag als Fallstudien angefhrt. Indem diese Fundstellen in einen weiteren geographischen Kontext
gesetzt werden, soll dargestellt werden, dass das soziale Geschlecht, Alter und Krperteile bei Bestat-
tungspraktiken und Merkmalen der Korporealitt eine signifikante Rolle spielten. Translation by
Heiner Schwarzberg
Stichworte: anthropomorphe Figurinen, Krper, Bestattungen, Symbolismus, Neolithikum,
Balkanhalbinsel
Naumov Neolithic Priorities 207

You might also like