New-Born Infant Burials Underneath House Floors at Lepenski Vir: in Pursuit of Contextual Meanings

New-born infant burials underneath house floors at
Lepenski Vir: in pursuit of contextual meanings

Soja Stefanovi and Duan Bori
Abstract
There are 40 infant (infans an individual under one year of age) burials underneath houses at Lepenski Vir. Although there have been
several studies of these individuals in the course of physical anthropological analyses, no special attention has been paid to the numerous
burials of children at this site. Moreover, little attention has been focused on interpreting these interments in a wider social context. Our intention is to contextualize fully this phenomenon, primarily in connection with the stratigraphic and architectural features and paying particular attention to the osteometric properties of the buried bodies. The physical properties are: estimation of age at death, examination of
possible pre-mortem injuries on the skeletons, a detailed evaluation of represented body parts, and a discussion about taphonomic and
methodological problems in preservation and recovery of certain body parts in this context. Also, a general discussion of the mortality proles of infants is contrasted with the picture of infant burials from Lepenski Vir concluding that these 40 individuals (with a predominant
age at death of 3840 gestational weeks) cannot represent a natural mortality prole of a human population. We analyze these burials as
socially embodied and engendered individuals. In interpreting this phenomenon different spatio-temporal scales are considered: a building
with a burial, the site of Lepenski Vir with its respective phases, the region of the Danube Gorges with its Mesolithic and Neolithic sequences,
and the wider region of the central Balkans in the course of the Neolithic. Particular attention is paid to dening a chronological framework
for the phenomenon.
Keywords: burials, neonates, houses, Lepenski Vir, Mesolithic, Neolithic
What dimensions of life at Lepenski Vir do the new-born infant burials open up? Buried mainly underneath the rear of
trapezoidal buildings at Lepenski Vir, their large number and
striking spatial patterning is unique to this site among the
other regional sites with chronologically (c. 95005500 cal
BC) overlapping sequences in the Danube Gorges (northcentral Balkans). Infant burials have remained underrecognized for a long time unlike those other unique and
well-known features of Lepenski Vir abundant artworks of
sculpted boulders and limestone building oors. Some questions spring immediately to the mind. Do the uncovered infant burials reect appalling religious/ritual practices of sacrice made by family groups objectied through particular
houses/shrines, or is this determined inclusion into domestic space the expression of a specic care and of what
kind? For what reasons did only certain buildings accommodate the deceased new-borns and how might this have related to the subsequent life history of these architectural
spaces? How do infant burials relate to the other burials at
this and the neighbouring sites? Where can we situate this
phenomenon historically and what diachronic changes occurred? What sort of meanings might have surrounded the
practice and how xed might these have been?
We shall aim at answering here a series of questions by
looking into the contextual richness of the site and the area.
However, this journey will take us away from Lepenski Vir,
also aspiring to its relevance for other places and times, exploring ways of making sense of the web of relations we have
started constructing below.
It is only recently that a more dedicated approach has
crystallized in the study of past infant lives, their social roles,
signicance and embodiment (e.g. Meskell 1994; Moore &

Scott 1997; Scott 1999). Burials are the most visible and most
effectively discussed aspect of the archaeological record relating to children, although other material traces may have
some potency for revealing dimensions of infants/childrens
actions (e.g. Finlay 1997; Politis 1999b) or actions specically related to children (e.g. Politis 1999b). Within our discussion of Lepenski Vir we shall highlight a possible example of this kind, reaching to infants not only through the
perspective of mortuary data.
Infant burials, despite physical problems related to their
survival, do not represent a rare phenomenon among numerous archaeological examples. Still it may be possible to
identify reasons that might have deterred archaeologists from
engaging fully in discussing and interpreting burials of this
age group (which should rather be viewed as consisting of
several age stages, cf. Sofaer Derevenski 1997). Possible
reasons would account for a frequent low elaboration of lack
of detail for infant burials when compared to adult burials,
difculties in attributing sex to children and subadults (up to
the age of 1520 years) on morphological grounds, which
blurs picturing infants social persona clearly, and a general
perception of infants lesser role in the (adult) life of a past
society that is studied by adult archaeologists.
In the case reported below, we have tried to overcome
some of these problems, such as that of the determination of
sex by using the newly acquired results of DNA analysis
(PCR method) on the studied material (uljkovi et al., this
volume). Other potential obstacles in the study of infants
roles and meanings of their burials are solved by contextualizing their place and signicance, i.e. by looking at relational
1
The Iron Gates in Prehistory
Figure 1 Lepenski Vir houses and burials (supplemented after: Srejovi 1981: 2021, and field documentation).
features of the studied site and the stratigraphic contexts, and

connecting existing evidence from neighbouring and contemporaneous sites in the wider region.
A more complex understanding is reached by examining
how different temporal and spatial contexts of human societies, described through numerous ethnographic records, respond to, but also protect from, an infants death. This perspective, on the level of general analogies, explores
emotional (e.g. a period of bereavement and a need for the
physical proximity of the corpse), social (e.g. practices of
negotiation of meanings in delaying the act of burial) and
practical dimensions (e.g. the issue of reproduction in a descent group) that constitute culturally inscribed attitudes specically related to infants, which are context sensitive in response to existential anxiety of this kind. A number of general
similarities transparently visible across various ethnographic
and archaeological contexts emphasize the need to bring and
discuss these examples together and to compare them. While
archaeological examples, such as the infant burials of
Lepenski Vir discussed here, with the addition of those from
the neighbouring and earlier site of Vlasac, can open up diachronic depths in viewing localized transformations of particular practices, ethnographic records with thick observations of social life can in turn indicate new possibilities for
understanding the main themes of material culture rhetorics
of the archaeological examples studied.
The following discussion is in three main parts. Firstly, we

provide a discussion from the perspective of physical anthropology with related issues in the study of osteological
remains of infant burials. This includes taphonomic concerns, details of identication, metric procedures aimed at
precise ageing of the burials and a discussion of subsequent
construction and interpretation of mortality proles, as well
as an inquiry into the possible cause of death. Secondly, we
examine the archaeological context of these burials and their
relation to the architecture of hearths and trapezoidal building oors and cycles of their use and abandonment, other
burials of different age groups at the site and the possible
connection with the representational artworks of sculptured
boulders. By drawing attention to the stratigraphic and chronological contexts of the infant burials at Lepenski Vir, we
touch upon the problem of a historically contested signicance of the phenomenon. Lastly, possible meanings of the
phenomenon are sought through both a diachronic regional
perspective and across a wider anthropological background,
drawing upon local Balkan ethnographies.
Physical anthropology of infant burials
The meaning of the Latin word infantia is unable to speak,
and until recently infants remained quite silent in the eld of
physical anthropology. It remains an open question at what
2
New-born infant burials at Lepenski Vir

Table 1 Infant burials/houses at Lepenski Vir, their positions and orientations, and available long bone measurements
used for providing estimated age in gestational weeks.
House no.
Burial no. Position
112
109
Back/flexed legs
109a
106
Back/legs splayed outwards
3
4
One bone only
Orientation
Femur
length (mm)
Humerus
length (mm)
Age (gestational
weeks) & Sex
(PCR DNA)
65
3840
SENW
72
63
3840
82
4143
c. SWNE
81
74
4446
? 4143
106(1)
107
Back (legs missing)
NS
67
3840
108
Back/flexed legs
NS
67
? 3840
110
70
4143
13
116
10
19
98
Flexed/left side
11
98a
12
103
13
24
3840
62 (fibula)
c. NWSE
61
3537
62
3537
Back/contracted legs
SN
75
65
3840
??
79
66
3840
79
3840
94
Flexed/left side
14
95
15
101
Flexed/right side
NWSE
79
71
? 3840
16
102
Flexed/left side
SENW
79
67
3840
SENW
83
70
63 (tibia)
78
68
3840
74
66
3840
75
65
3840
79
3840
SENW
76
65
3840
62
3537
17
26
63
Extended/slightly bent legs
18
27
128
19
129
20
130
21
131
29
these three burials were placed one over the other
119
23
120
one placed on the top of the other
24
121
22
25
36
26
27
37
28
29
38
30
4143
3537
114
SN
72
64
3840
115
SN
76
65
? 3840
132
65
3840
133
75
67
3840
111
SN
76
3840
70
? 3537
111(1)
One bone only
31
43
96
c. SENW
78
69
3840
32
47
123
Contracted/left side
SENW
77
3840
124
Extended on its back
SN
74
64
3840
125
74
65
3840
69
3840
33
34
54
127
36
62
118
37
63
113
38
63
117
39
48
40
41
35
3537
NWSE
77
66
3840
80
3840
134
See note 4
83b
82
? 4850
See note 4
83b(1)
65
?3840
position or orientation unclear
Not preserved
served material. According to Zoffmann (1983), there are 80

individuals buried at Lepenski Vir and 36 individuals belong
to Inf.Inf. I. age groups (Zoffmann 1983: 131). Without
indicating a precise number of new-born infant skeletons,
Roksandi (1999: 78) notes the presence of 190 individuals
from 134 graves plus 42 individuals from unidentied contexts. Among them, there are 51 infant skeletons, 27% of all
buried individuals. We re-examined only the skeletons of
neonates and came up with 41 individuals at Lepenski Vir,
accounting for over 20% of the entire burial assemblage (the
exact percentage cannot be given before all the skeletons
from the site are re-examined).
As Zoffmann (1983) does not list individual burials, the
discrepancy between our results and the two previous accounts can be discussed only in relation to Roksandis
(1999: 7880) ndings. The difference in the number of
neonates present relates to those buried under Houses 4, 4,
24, 35 and 47 at Lepenski Vir. The differences come from the
estimations made in the course of the osteological analyses
when in a few cases individual bones of several individuals
(often represented by only one extra bone) are identied
within the material of a single archaeological burial and subsequently marked as separate individuals (the identications
were made by M. Roksandi). However, as burials of
neonates are found underneath building oors often close to
one another, excavated at the same time and re-packed and
analyzed several times we must account for all these potential
biases. Thus, we concentrated on discerning how these extra bones/individuals might relate not only to the bones of
the burial within which they were found, but also to the bones
of other burials underneath the same house. These instances
are as follows:
Houses 4 and 4 (Burials 106, 107, 109, 109a, 108, 110)
(see Fig. 7). Among the archaeologically identied burials of
this building, the following individuals were added: 106(1)
one right humerus, 108(1) one right femur, 110(1)
one right scapula. The additionally marked Burial 108(1),
found among the bones of Burial 108, may belong to either
Burial 107 or 110 both lacking the right femur. Similarly,
the right scapula marked as Burial 110(1) may belong to
either Burial 109 or 109a, both lacking the right scapula.
However, it is not clear how to explain one extra right humerus in Burial 106, marked as Burial 106(1), as this burial
was found on the other side of House 4 (corner C). This may
be a sorting mistake; however, we have to account for this
individual (see Table 1).
House 24 (Burials 94, 95, 101, 102) (see Fig. 16). Two
more burials were separated: 101(2) one right tibia and 4
ribs, and 102(1) one pelvis. However, as there is no right
tibia among the bones of Burial 102, the extra right tibia in
Burial 101 may well belong to Burial 102, buried close to one
another (although initial sorting and subsequent re-packing
and analyses must be accounted for again). The burial
marked as 101(1) is represented only by a rib of an adult individual. The pelvis fragment (ischium) marked as 102(1)
was rightly separated from Burial 102, but could belong to
Burial 101.
House 36 (Burials 114 and 115) (see Fig 9). Burial 114(1)
one right ulna clearly belongs to Burial 115. These two
burials are buried one on top of the other.
age infant becomes child, and denitions of these age stages

vary across cultural contexts (Scott 1999: 2). Here, we use
one of the most common denitions, that an infant is an individual under the age of one year (Saunders 1992).
Most of the infant skeletons from Lepenski Vir discussed
here belong to the category neonata, new-born infants, i.e.
individuals who died during birth or soon after. We may expect some sort of special treatment in those instances when
the number of neonates is high in the archaeological record.
Although infant skeletons from Lepenski Vir were examined rst by Zsuzsanna Zoffmann (1983) and subsequently by Mirjana Roskandi (1999), few details are given
in those accounts. Zoffmann (1983) focused on the demographic facts, making the generalization that the great number of newborn skeletons reects the well-known high infant
mortality in earlier times (Zoffmann 1983: 131). A more
detailed account was intended for the nal publication on
Lepenski Vir that has never appeared (Zs. Zoffmann, pers.
comm.). Research on the Lepenski Vir human osteological
material by Mirjana Roksandi (1999) led to a revision of the
number of infant skeletons present in the assemblage whilst
concentrating on other aspects of the collection.
In this paper we offer a more detailed osteobiography of
infants at Lepenski Vir through taphonomic analysis, more
accurate estimation of age at death, new DNA ndings on sex
attribution (cf. uljkovi et al. this volume), plotting, comparing and interpreting their mortality rate, and indicating
possible causes of death.
Taphonomy
To understand taphonomic processes and the extent of their
severance in relation to osteological remains may help in determining sample bias (Eldredge 1991). For instance, the low
mineralization of bones of infant skeletons may lead to poor
preservation in the archaeological record. It is the relationship between mineral and mechanical properties of bones
that explains the brittle nature of the bones of younger children (Guy et al. 1997) their tensile strength is fairly low
while their compressive strength and hardness are extremely
low (Currey & Butler 1975). Under some pressure these
skeletons would rarely escape being crushed in the ground. In
addition, even at marginal soil pH ranges it may be expected
that all or most of the infants would be eliminated systematically from the burial sample (Gordon & Buikstra 1981).
These generally pessimistic remarks in relation to the preservation of infant skeletons do not apply to the infants discovered at Lepenski Vir. Bones of almost all infants excavated at Lepenski Vir are well preserved with a fairly high
percentage of bones present in individual skeletons and with
generally good preservation of single bones (even in the case
of fragmentary skeletons single bones are in a very good
state). Exceptions to these general rules are the bones of
Burials 98a and 119, which are poorly preserved (Figs 13 &
14). Cranial bones are frequently crushed, related to the fact
that these are not fused in the skull and are highly fragile.
Also, hand and foot bones are very rare most likely due to
hand-collecting and lack of sieving during excavation.
As Zoffmanns (1983) and Roksandis (1999) estimates
of the number of infants present at Lepenski Vir differ, we
need to resolve their exact number on the basis of the pre4
House 38 (Burial 111) (see Fig. 5). The burial marked as

111(1) is a left femur and since Burial 111 has both femora
and is the only burial in House 38, this is clearly an extra
bone whose inclusion can be explained by some of the factors
already mentioned. However, we shall treat it as a separate
individual (see table 1).
House 47 (Burials 123 and 124) (see Fig. 4). Two more
individuals were separated: Burials 123(1) a fragment of a
right femur and 124(1) a fragment of a humerus and a
fragment of a left ulna. A fragment of a right femur marked
as Burial 123(1) most likely belongs to Burial 124 where
there is no right femur. Also, a fragment of humerus marked
as 124(1) rets with the humerus of Burial 124. A fragment of
a left ulna most likely belongs to Burial 123, which is missing
both ulnae. Although Burials 123 and 124 are not buried in
the immediate vicinity of one another, some of the factors
discussed may have caused the evident mixing.
Having in mind these corrections, the number of new-born
infants present in the assemblage is 40, to which may be added infant burial 134 (House 48) which was noted and described in the eld documentation (see below) but was not
physically preserved after the excavation (noted in Field
Diary, 5/10/1970). Although there remains a possibility that
some of the extra bones described do represent separate individuals, disturbed through activities upon the oors of the
Lepenski Virs buildings, the data currently available indicate
41 burials of neonates at this site. We see no reason to suggest
a different scenario to explain these instances (e.g. the possibility that the extra bones were incorporated into the burials
intentionally).
present, was the age estimated according to the maximum

length of either bula (Burial 116) or tibia (Burial 128),
which were then compared to the length of these bones respectively in other skeletons where estimations were based
upon femora and humeri. On the basis of these metrical
comparisons, the greatest number of those present indicate an
age of 3840 gestational weeks ( two weeks), i.e. an average
gestational age of an infant at birth, indicating neonates.
Generally the mandibles of neonates are not well preserved in
the material studied and it was not possible to infer age on the
basis of dental development. There still remains the possibility of employing X-ray analyses on some of the wellpreserved mandibles of this age group.
In addition, we examined two other individuals (children)
buried within buildings Burials 92 (House 28; Fig. 18) and
97 (House 31; Figs 19 & 20). As Burial 92 is well preserved,
it was possible to infer its age on the basis of dental development (Ubelaker 1978: g. 62) and the age is around 2 years
and 8 months. Burial 97 indicates age around 26 years on
the basis of the postcranial skeleton, as the mandible is not
well preserved.
Sex determination
The reliability of morphometric analyses in sex identication
of infants is low, and although pelvic sex differences are
present in infants at birth, they become obscured soon after
birth (Mays 1998). As a reliable substitute, DNA-based sex
identications of 30 sampled infant burials from Lepenski
Vir were conducted. Out of 36 samples tested, 33 specimens
provided results indicating 19 males and 14 females (see
Table 1; uljkovi et al., this volume). For further discussion
on the sex identications and their relations to the spatial
patterning at the site see the discussion below.
Age estimation
Bone size is a good indicator of age in perinatal skeletons.
Bone growth in the foetus may be inuenced by extrinsic
factors, such as poor maternal nutrition, but these factors may
inuence bone growth less after birth (Mays 1998). Maternal
malnutrition has to be quite severe to retard growth in the
developing foetus as in this situation the foetus is protected at
the expense of the mother (Bagchi & Bose 1962).
Scheuer et al. (1980) indicated the relationship between
length of long bones and age, using foetal material from
medical collections in England. Measuring the length of limb
bones, they came up with a relationship between age at death
and long bone length in foetal remains, thus giving an estimated age at death within about two weeks (Mays 1998). Some
additional information on the growth of long bones in infants
and children has been gathered from the study of the Indian
Knoll skeletal sample by Johnston (1962) and a consideration
of the problem of estimating age at death only from a diaphysis by Stewart (1968). It has been accepted that the gestational ages of the foetal skeletons ranged from 2746 weeks,
where an average gestational age at birth is 3841 weeks
(Tanner 1989). This contrasts with Scotts (1999: 67) scepticism that it remains difcult to determine the precise gestational age of infant skeletal material from antiquity.
Estimates of the gestational age of infants from Lepenski
Vir were made according to the maximum length of
both/either femora and/or humeri (Bass 1987; Mays 1998).
Only in the cases of infant skeletons 116 (House 13) and 128
(House 27; Fig. 12), where femora and humeri are not
Mortality
It is commonplace in discussions of infant mortality to emphasize high infant mortality in the past, and especially in
earlier prehistory. Similar generalizations indicate that high
infant mortality in earlier and modern developing societies
contrasts with lower infant mortality in modern Westernized
societies (Malhorta 1990: 315). Obviously, we can hardly
estimate the real number of infant deaths within the rst year
of their lives in a population on the basis of the archaeological sample. Also, a burial sample may be biased as in a
number of societies infants may be excluded from cemetery
burials (Mays 1998), with their bones usually being underrepresented in the studied assemblages (Roberts &
Manchester 1995). High chronological resolution of excavated burials would be desirable before any attempt is made at
forming a synchronic picture of population demography.
Therefore, any attempt to calculate infant mortality rate for
an archaeological cemetery/burial site is a risky procedure, as
this hardly reects a true picture of a past population, bringing under scrutiny the relevance of sophisticated palaeodemographic statistics (contra Roksandi 1999).
However, we may try to offer a qualitative, comparative
and fairly general assessment of the high percentage of infant
burials at Lepenski Vir. For instance, in archaeological
cemeteries the proportion of infants often uctuates around
56% of the whole assemblage (Guy et al. 1997: 221). We
5
have already indicated that the presence of infants at

Lepenski Vir is around 20% out of the total number of burials
uncovered (bearing in mind the considerable time span probably represented by these burials, see below). It seems that
more new-born infants were chosen to be buried at Lepenski
Vir in comparison to all other age groups. But it can hardly
prove a higher mortality rate of neonates at Lepenski Vir over
a particular period of time. And as it is hard to imagine that
the scarcity of infant remains in our cemeteries can be a true
reection of a demographic fact (Guy et al. 1997), we nd
it hard to imagine that a large percentage of neonates at
Lepenski Vir is a true reection of a demographic dictum.
Although generalizations about high infant mortality in
prehistory due to diseases and accidents (Scott 1999) may
hold some truth, with considerable uctuations over historic
periods, we have to remind ourselves that the reasons for an
evident bias in the presence of any age group in the archaeological burial record are primarily functions of particular
and context-sensitive cultural practices.
regular growth of long bones and porosity) were noticed on

Burials 108 (House 4), 109, 109a (House 4), 114 (House 36)
and 121 (House 29), and also on infant Burials 83b and
83b(1). However, the archaeologically visible palaeopathology in the case of anaemia is still questionable (StuartMacadam 1989).
Another cause of infant deaths may be infanticide. It has
been suggested that some societies practise infanticide as a
method of population control owing to the traditional requirement to control the number of females, or for general
population control (Roberts & Manchester 1995). Scott
(1999: 12), indicating appalling feelings held in relation to
the question of infanticide, notes: It has struck me on a
number of occasions how discussion of infants in the past,
and especially infant burials, invariably turns to discussion of
infanticide. As some sort of infanticide is for the most part
legal today through abortion, we can hardly reject the fact
that infanticide occurred in the past, in various forms and
with different reasons and connotations. There remains a
problem with its detection on the osteological material since
this might have included drowning, smothering, strangling,
exposure, or neglect (cf. Scott 1999). One of the indicators of
infanticide may be a strong peak of individuals aged about
3840 weeks, following the logic that infanticide usually occurs immediately after birth, and the age distribution of victims of this practice would be expected to mimic the gestational age of all live births, i.e. between 3840 weeks (Mays
1998: 66).
Although the gestational age of infants from Lepenski Vir
has a strong peak between 3840 weeks (see Fig. 2), we
cannot comment with any certainty about infanticide here.
Cultural and contextual reasons for this opinion are provided
below. Although it is to be expected that most births in the
past as well as in the present took place commonly between
3840 gestational weeks, there may be a signicant discrepancy in the survival rate of new-born babies in the past and
today. It is almost certain that in the past the rate of infant
mortality in the course of delivery was much higher. In addition, as some authors have suggested, infanticide is evident
through the skewing pattern in relation to one sex. Data from
Lepenski Vir with 19 males and 14 females of successfully
DNA-analyzed infants (see Table 1; uljkovi et al., this
volume) do not t this proposition.
Presently, the only ambiguous trace is a cut mark on the
left humerus of Burial 112 (in House 3 male, 3840 gestational weeks). The cut mark is located above the distal end
of the humerus, at its lateral side (length 10 mm, breadth
3 mm). It was made by a sharp tool, possibly int. However,
rather than seeing this as proof of a violent death of this
neonate, it may be related to the practice of deeshing the
body. Equally, the skeleton may have been affected by postburial disturbance.
Cause of death
Perinatal deaths indicate foetal deaths plus deaths of infants
who die within the rst 28 days of life, while neonatal deaths
occur after 28 days of life but within the rst year. Today,
some major factors associated with infant deaths include:
congenital malformations, perinatal conditions and infections, and SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), with peaks
between the second and fourth month of life remaining
unexplained.
It may be assumed that in the past the percentage of infant
deaths attributable solely to congenital disease was probably
low and that many infants probably died from widespread
infections of gastroenteritis and pneumonia, deaths which
affected both normal and congenitally malformed infants
(Roberts & Manchester 1995). Since infants remain vulnerable to acute gastrointestinal and respiratory infections today,
deaths in this age group may have been much higher in antiquity without the availability of antibiotics (Roberts &
Manchester 1995). None of this would leave any visible trace
on the osteological material. Another natural cause of infant
deaths may be nutritional deciency diseases (scurvy, rickets
and iron deciency anaemia). Possible traces of classically
described nutritional deciency are present. Burials 106 and
107 (House 4) had irregular growth of claviculae. Burial 120
(House 29) displays cribra orbitalia. Some other signs (ir-
Stratigraphic and contextual relations

The following observations on the stratigraphic and contextual position of the burials of new-borns at Lepenski Vir are
made on the basis of published information from the site
(Srejovi 1969a, 1969b, 1970, 1972, 1981; Srejovi &
Babovi 1983; Radovanovi 1996) and unpublished archive
Figure 2. Absolute number of infant individuals (N=38)

studied at Lepenski Vir across stages of estimated age
in gestational weeks (Burials 83b and 83b[1] excluded).
eld documentation from the excavation campaigns at

Lepenski Vir.1
Most of the infant skeletons from Lepenski Vir were uncovered in the course of the protection-excavation work
throughout August, September and the start of October of
1970. During this period, a number of building oors and
hearths uncovered at Lepenski Vir were lifted from their original in situ location and relocated to a higher terrace where
the Museum of Lepenski Vir is situated today (anak-Medi
1970, 1971).2 During that campaign c. 40 new-born infant
burials were found at Lepenski Vir below the level of building oors in the rear parts of 19 buildings at the site. Although
these burials were mentioned briey on several occasions by
the excavator (e.g. Srejovi 1969b: 15, 1981: 40, 42 attributing this group of burials to phases LV Ib-e) and listed in
relation to buildings by I. Radovanovi (1996: 175185),
based on her insights into unpublished burial descriptions,
the whole phenomenon has escaped further attention. The
infant burials were not mentioned in the monographs published about Lepenski Vir. One reason was the fact that their
discovery came after the rst version of the Lepenski Vir
monograph the Serbian edition published in 1969 was
completed, with subsequent translations (into English, 1972;
and German, 1975) largely following the original text with
only minimal additional editing of paragraphs and with appendices to the previous text. However, the fact that infant
burials regardless of their large number and striking patterning at Lepenski Vir, have not been studied and described with
the same care and detail as some other features (such as artworks), possibly reafrms the already mentioned general
pattern of neglecting infants as a subject of lesser archaeological importance and interest.
ded by stone tables) of the trapezoidal buildings, with restriction of movement in this area related to social boundaries, and the rest of the building space serving profane
functions see below, for similar suggestions regarding the
sacred/profane aspects of building space and social implications of indicated oppositions (e.g. Eliade 1957; Bourdieu
1990[1970]; Hodder 1990). Interpretative attempts of this
kind remain largely synchronous and idealized, only a
frozen view of one moment in the case of Lepenski Vir
most likely the moment of abandonment. Fixing oppositions
in this way puts little emphasis on the historical contingency
of these features and their individualized characters, the varied practices involved in their furnishing, and the ways in
which generations of humans who visited or inhabited these
structures understood, made sense of and altered their embodied and objectied social and cultural norms. Other suggestions have been made along the lines of a more complex
transformational character of these spaces, seeing their life
cycle trajectories as going through a full circle from domestic areas with a clearly profane character to tombs and
perhaps spaces for special ritual purposes, all depending on
their individual biographies, i.e. events that took place in the
course of individual histories of these structures and their
visitors/inhabitants (Bori 2003, 2005).
We will seek to understand the complex signicance and
character of the features where infant burials occurred by
examining contextual associations reported within these
structures and by unfolding the web of possible meanings and
narratives created in the sequence of events that took place
during their histories their life cycles. This is highly relevant in interpreting a large number of infant burials at this
site and for tackling the issue of their restriction to only 19
out of at least 73 architectural structures uncovered at the
site.3
The term house will be retained as it perhaps can best
capture the possible signicance that these features may have
had for the complexity of kinship relations at Lepenski Vir.
Also, C. Lvi-Strausss (1983, 1987) original formulation of
house societies carries signicant relevance, despite the degree of difference expressed on the matter of its accuracy,
pointing to buildings as complex objects that frequently mirror social relations and cultural identity (cf. Carsten &
Hugh-Jones 1995; Joyce & Gillespie 2000). We shall explore
this perspective here in relation to the signicance of the existing association of infant burials and buildings found at
Lepenski Vir, especially regarding the fact that the buildings
at this site are the rst examples of elaborated and localized
building forms that appeared in a specic historic period.
Burials found in the course of protection works in 1970,
when the oors were lifted, were assigned numbers between
94 and 134 (only neonate Burial 63 [Fig. 3] was found earlier
in 1968). Apart from 19 buildings with neonate burials
underneath their oors, two more buildings are considered
closely (Houses 28 and 31), with burials of children of other
age groups.
Houses vs shrines: the signicance of domestic space

In the following discussion, referring to places where infant
burials were discovered we shall use the term house to describe uncovered architectural features at Lepenski Vir with
trapezoidal bases and centrally-located rectangular hearth
slabs and front thresholds. This kind of terminology is not
without problems. We still lack in a published form detailed
knowledge of the contextual associations at these oor surfaces that would say more about both the character of occupational activities that took place in connection with these
spaces and about scheduling of acts of abandonment of the
structures, witnessed through the intentional deposition of
animal bones and objects over the limestone oors or thrown
into the inll of these features (cf. Bknyi 1969, 1972; Bori
2002a; 2002b; Bori & Dimitrijevi 2005; Radovanovi
1996).
One view is to see and interpret these features exclusively
as shrines (also reected in the terminology used in some
source publications, cf. Srejovi & Babovi 1983; see also
Babovi 1997) where the supposedly sacred character of
activities and material culture associations completely exclude mundane aspects of life (Babovi 1997: 103). On the
other hand, the excavator of the site, Dragoslav Srejovi
(1969a: 6769; 1972: 6667), in a rather structuralist fashion, interprets the space of a recurrent architectural form of
the structures found across the site, seeing the sacred part
conned to the area around the hearth (sometimes surroun-
Spatial patterning
The striking pattern in relation to the infant burials at
Lepenski Vir is that all of them are found exclusively in connection with buildings. A number of burials of different age
7
Figure 3 House 26 and neonate Burial 63.
On the other hand, there was again no clear-cut spatial

patterning in the distribution of infants in relation to their sex
(enabled by recent DNA analyses; see Table 1, cf. uljkovi
et al., this volume); neither in relation to a possible clustering
across the site nor within those buildings that contained more
than one infant interment. Only in two buildings, with more
than one infant burial, were individuals of exclusively one
sex found House 29 (3 males) and House 37 (2 males).
Seven buildings contained infant burials of both sexes
House 4 (one male and one female), House 4 (two males and
one female), House 19 (two males and one female), House 24
(two females and one male), House 27 (three males and one
female) House 47 (one male and one female) and House 54
(one male and one female); in addition, in House 36, with two
burials, there is one male and the other of unknown sex, and
another nine buildings had only one infant burial respectively. The number of male infants slightly outnumbers the
female ones (19 males, 14 females and 3 or more individuals
of unknown sex). There are no indications of a burial prefer-
groups (134 in all) found at the site were either placed in relation to the trapezoidal buildings or were found in the space
around these structures (see Fig. 1). However, burials of
new-born infants were found below the rear ends of 18
buildings at Lepenski Vir only.4
There was no specic spatial clustering of neonate burials
to any particular area of the site (Fig. 1). Also, there was no
clear-cut patterning in relation to building size they were
equally present in fairly small and less elaborate buildings,
such as House 43 (Fig. 11), as well as in much larger structures with elaborate architectural features, such as Houses 54
(Fig. 8) and 37 (Fig. 6), which are among the largest buildings at the site. One clear spatial pattern that is not only conned to this age group but relates to all other burials at the
site, is their absence from the area with a cluster of individual
and overlapping buildings of the north-east part of the site
(superimposed Houses 10, 11 and 12, Houses 5 and 6, Houses
7, 8, 9 and 17, House 16 and House 64 see Fig. 1; cf.
Radovanovi 1996; Bori 2002a: fig. 7).
8
ence in relation to one sex among the studied individuals.

This fact may nd its relevance within an overall interpretation of the phenomenon.
Another striking spatial pattern is that all infant burials,
except one (Burial 63), were found below the rear of the
buildings (the area behind the rectangular hearth). The
neonates and children were found a) underneath the limestone oorings at the rear of buildings, b) in the area next to
the limestone oorings at the rear of buildings, sometimes
below the construction stones, which at certain buildings
surrounded the limestone oors, and c) in one case (Burial
63) below the south-west corner (corner A), i.e. in the front
part of the building (House 26; Fig. 3).
such as wood and possibly reeds and/or hides (Bori 2002a:

figs 79).
This description of the three-dimensional outline of the
main architectural features of the buildings at Lepenski Vir,
especially in relation to the offered re-interpretation of some
of their constructional elements, is intended to better contextualize the possible signicance of neonate and child burials
in the rears of the buildings.
Although the rear of the building might have been inscribed with meanings in relation to the structural normative
division of space at Lepenski Vir (prescribed for certain embodied actions, although with possibly uid and transient
boundaries in space division), it might have gained some
signicance relating to its cave atmosphere (Srejovi 1981:
22; Srejovi & Babovi 1983: 43), placed deep into the slope,
i.e. cut into the virgin, sterile deposits of the original sloping
terrace. The fact that infant (and other) burials were not found
within the buildings of the north-east part of the site may relate to the relatively at terrain and shallow deposits (quickly
reaching bedrock) in this area, where buildings would have
lacked the darkness and protection of steeply cut sides.
The importance of this spatial dimension becomes even
more evident through the example of the only deviation from
the rule of placing infants in the rear of the building. This is
the case of Burial 63 interred at the front corner (corner A) of
House 26 (Fig. 3) the only building at Lepenski Vir (except miniature House 49, which will be discussed below) that
was orientated parallel to the Danube, in contrast to the other
buildings at the site the wider front parts of which mainly
faced the Danube. This unusual orientation may have been a
consequence of the topography of the north-central area of
the site where House 26 was situated, which slopes slightly
toward the south-east. Also, several very large rocks originally surrounded the building on its north-east side (see Fig.
1), i.e. the side its front part would have been had it followed
the way other buildings were oriented. Thus, we have some
reasons to speculate that the way this building was oriented is
related to the unusual and exceptional interment of Burial 63
in the south-west, front corner of the building. A part of the
oor in this corner was cut in order to place the burial into the
virgin sandy loessic soil of the slope (Bori 1999: g. 20).
Having in mind a topographic spatial dimension, placing
Burial 63 in this area of the building is not different from
other infant interments, i.e. away from the Danube and cut
into the slope of the terrace. This instance indicates the importance of the topographic rule behind the way of reasoning of where to inter an infants body at Lepenski Vir.
a) Experience of building space at Lepenski Vir

In order to add a contextual dimension to these patterns, it
would be necessary to describe briey the original topography of the site and some of the constructional elements of
the buildings at Lepenski Vir.
The site is placed on a sloping alluvial terrace covered by
deposits of loessic sand (for the further discussion on the
geological formation of this deposit see MarkoviMarjanovi 1969, 1978; Brnnacker 1971). As the excavator
described (Srejovi 1969a: 62, 1972: 62) and as emphasized
recently (Bori 1999, 2002a, 2002b), the structures with the
trapezoidal footprints were actually objects cut into the slope.
In this way, their builders made a semi-subterranean levelled
space that had a trapezoidal shape, making an elaborate reference to the trapezoidal Treskavac Mountain that is situated
across the Danube in front of Lepenski Vir, being an impressive landmark (for discussions on the signicance of this
landmark, see Srejovi 1969a, 1972; Chapman 1993, 2000;
Bori 1999, 2003). The base of the space dug out in this way
was further furnished with a limestone ooring of red to
white colour c. 525cm thick (Srejovi 1969a: 57, 1972: 54;
for a discussion on the possible technology used for this
ooring, see Ney 1971). In a number of instances the limestone ooring did not cover the entire area levelled for the
floor. Instead, rows of irregular stone blocks surrounded the
oors in a number of buildings assigned by Srejovi to the
Lepenski Vir I phase. On the other hand, the Lepenski Vir II
phase, as dened by the excavator, represents a later phase
(Srejovi 1969a: 92 calls it maniristic), overlying the settlement of phase I. This phase was dened as consisting of
buildings with a trapezoidal shape that is dened by rows of
irregular stone blocks only, but without specic limestone
ooring and mostly lacking rectangular hearths. However, it
has been suggested that this stratigraphic interpretation is
perhaps misleading (Bori 2002a). This can be shown clearly
by superimposing outlines of stone walls of supposedly
Lepenski Vir II phase buildings (marked in Roman numbers)
over the outlines of limestone building oors of Lepenski Vir
I phase. As the outlines of phase II buildings strikingly match
the outlines of limestone building oors of phase I, the features identied as belonging to the Lepenski Vir II phase can
rather be seen as walls made in a dry stone technique to protect the dug loessic sides of the cuts of Lepenski Vir I buildings, forming part of the lower wall portion of a building.
Also, probably, these served to support the upper part of the
construction and the roof, made of more perishable materials
b) Engendered space and its interpretations

The last point does not undermine the fact that all other infants were restricted exclusively to the rear end of the buildings. This may indicate the presence of embodied social, age
and gender boundaries in the use of building space (both in
life and death), restricting activities and social rights in relation to differences that were mapped onto the building space.
Ethnographic records abound with examples indicating spatial relations of this kind (e.g. Bourdieu 1990[1970]; Lane
1994; Carsten & Hugh-Jones 1995; Joyce & Gillespie 2000).
Also, for instance, on the basis of detailed micromorphological analyses of oor use at the Early Neolithic site of
9
Figure 4 House 47 and neonate Burials 123 and 124.
atalhyk (south-central Anatolia), similarly prescribed engendered restrictions in the use of a building are suggested
(Hodder & Cessford 2003). Different building parts may
have had very different meanings and complex connotations,
as will be discussed in more detail below in the context of the
scale of building associations.
Despite the suggested general patterning, where the rear of
the building at Lepenski Vir frequently served for infant interments, in the case of each building the decision of where to
place a burial was made according to the topography of the
surrounding terrain and constructional elements of each
house. Moreover, specic meanings assigned to particular
areas of houses, their constantly shifting and individualized
re-interpretation and the events that took place in the course
of the house history, all inuenced decisions about where to
inter a deceased infant. Although people at Lepenski Vir must
have obeyed culturally determined spatial norms, burial
practices following an infants death probably reected a
particular constellation of events within the house and the

community. More general or collective reasons for the special and patterned burial rite in the case of this age group at
Lepenski Vir, shared among the houses and over generations,
are constituted by the noise of individual actors. The provision of burials may release to some extent the noise spectrum
of individual/house (re-)interpretations of these collective
and shared norms, including dimensions of diachronic
changes.
Body treatment and elaboration of burials
The neonate and child burials at Lepenski Vir are relatively
poorly furnished. This is not surprising as generally this age
group is rarely accompanied by rich grave goods (e.g. Scott
1999: 90ff.). None of the infant burials at Lepenski Vir was
accompanied by any sort of non-perishable grave offering.
However, we can focus on other elements of the burial, such
as the orientation and position of a skeleton and elements of
10
burial construction.
There were problems in determining the exact orientation
and especially the position of the easily disturbed infant
burials (see Table 1). This is due to the taphonomic processes
that may have affected these burials regardless of their good
preservation, as indicated in the taphonomic description
above. Also, in several cases it seems that the placing of a
new interment in the same area disturbed some of the earlier
skeletons, affecting their preservation, as in the cases of
Burial 98a disturbed by Burial 98 (House 19; Fig. 13), Burial
110 disturbed by Burial 107 (House 4; Fig. 7) and Burial
109a disturbed by Burial 109 (House 4; Fig. 7); this is also
evident from the nomenclature used in marking these burials
with an additional letter a to the number of burial that disturbed them. Moreover, even in those houses where there was
only one infant burial, we may assume that their occasional
poor preservation is a consequence of later occupational and
building activities that disturbed them. These later disturbances might have caused the reportedly poor preservation of
Burials 95 (House 24; Fig. 16), 112 (House 3; Fig. 10), 117
(House 63), 118 (House 62), 119 (House 29; Fig. 15), 132
and 133 (House 37; Fig. 6), 125 and 127 (House 54; Fig. 8)
and 128 (House 27; Fig. 12). In the case of Burials 129, 130
and 131 (House 27; Fig. 12) and Burials 120 and 121 (House
29; Fig. 15), it remains an interesting possibility that their
interments took place at the same time, although the very
complicated and to some extent messy position in which they
were found may still be a consequence of sequential interments, with a time lapse, at the same spot within the building.
a) Re-enacting the body position
In those cases where it was possible to detect and reconstruct
the anatomical position of infant skeletons, the excavators
noted the following positions: a) extended, b) contracted/
11
Figure 6 House 37 and neonate Burials 132 and 133.
exed and c) a position with legs splayed outwards (see Table

1). Only two burials were found in the extended position
63 (House 26; Fig. 3) and 124 (House 47; Fig. 4; cf.
Radovanovi 1996: g. 4.4). In addition, around 2 years and
8 months old child Burial 92 (House 28; Fig. 18) was found
in the extended position on its back. A number of skeletons
were found in exed/contracted positions Burials 94
(exed/left), 101 (exed/right) and 102 (exed/left) in House
24 (Fig. 16), Burials 98 (exed/left) and 103 (on the back,
contracted legs) in House 19 (Fig. 13), Burial 108 (on the
backs, contracted legs) in House 4 (Fig. 7), Burial 109 (on its
back, exed legs) in House 4 (Fig. 7) and Burial 123
(contracted/left) in House 47 (Fig. 4). From the description of
these burials it is difcult to discern any pattern that would
relate to the difference between those exed burials lying on
the side and those lying on their back with only the legs con-
tracted. Also, there is no clear pattern in the choice of the side

for placement of the exed/contracted burials. The third
group of burials are infant skeletons found on their backs
with legs splayed outwards and heals below the pelvis (in the
1970 Field Diary noted as sitting) new-born Burials
11House 37 and neonate Burials 132 and 133.4 and 115
(House 36; Fig. 9), 113 (House 63; Fig. 17), 111 (House 38;
Fig. 5) and 106 (House 4; Fig. 7). Child Burial 97 (26 years
old) in House 31 was found in this last position too (Figs 19
& 20).
To interpret this variety of positions we nd the procedure
of re-enacting and re-eshing the body a very useful one (cf.
Hawkes & Molleson 2000). The manipulation of the body
prior to its burial (e.g. excarnation, dismemberment,
binding/wrapping or burials in bags and baskets), processes
of decay as well as later disturbances may all be relevant for
12
Figure 7 House 4 and neonate Burials 106, 107, 108 and 110 and House 4 and neonate Burials 109, 109a.
the position in which we nd the body (Hawkes & Molleson

2000). In addition, it is reasonable to assume that in some
instances the position of the deceased can be explained by a
chronological difference between interments, where customs
about the way the deceased infants, as well as adults, are

placed change through time. The position of infants with
their legs splayed outwards at Lepenski Vir indicates that
possibly we need to account for some sort of treatment of the
13
body prior to the burial. We suggest that at least some infants

might have been placed in a bag (which would hardly leave
any visible trace) prior to their interment in a small burial pit.
In the process of decay when a movement of the body parts
reduces a corpse to bones that slump in a certain way, depending on the way the bag with the neonates body was
placed in the ground, we may expect to nd the deceased infants in varied positions. This would solve the unusual position of the legs splayed outwards, as in these burials an infants body was put contracted in a bag and might have been
placed on its back; in the process of the decay of the bag and
the body the bones of the legs would slump either outwards
to both sides or both legs to one side. The latter instance, also,
explains burials with the torso on the back while only the legs
were found in contracted positions, as well as the reported
unclear body positions. Furthermore, the bag might have reduced the immediate disturbance of the body, thereby accounting for the relatively good preservation of infant skeletons at Lepenski Vir.
However, there remains a possibility that not all neonates
and older infants were placed in bags prior to burial and
treated in the same way, with or without chronological signicance. Extended burials may have been placed directly in
the ground. Also, is it a coincidence that three infant burials
in House 24, all three found in the exed/contracted position,
are in the same building where two adult burials were placed
on the oor (or possibly one in the inll) in exed/contracted
positions (Burials 8 and 9, cf. Srejovi 1969a: g. 72)? In
chronological terms, the contracted/exed position largely
connects to the burial practices that characterize the Early
Neolithic of the wider region (cf. Stankovi 1992; Bori
1999; Minichreiter 1999). On the other hand, in House 47,
Burial 123 was placed in the contracted position (perhaps
placed in a bag) and Burial 124 in the extended position (cf.
Radovanovi 1996: g. 4.4). Can this mean a change of
burial custom/norm during the life cycles and rebuilding of
House 47? Also, burials found with their legs laying splayed
outwards were found mainly in possibly older buildings,
completely or partly overlapped by later buildings (Burials
114 and 115 in House 36, Burial 113 in House 63, Burial 111
in House 38 and Burial 97 in House 31 see Fig. 1, cf.
Radovanovi 1996). In this case does the treatment of the infants body by putting it in a bag prior to burial represent a
relatively older burial practice? All these questions related to
the chronological signicance of any patterning can best be
answered through the application of AMS dating to infants
bones. However, later we shall discuss the signicance of the
practice possibly identied here of putting the dead infants
body into a bag in relation to an instance from recent Balkan
ethnography.
(Radovanovi 1996), or even may indicate a hybrid reinvention that kept its potency through narratives about past
practices, preserving certain beliefs and conveying particular
meanings. However, in several cases infant burials were
placed with their heads pointing to the north west, north or
north east. These variations were also noticed among the
skeletons within the same building. These differences possibly reect the noise of individualized actions, realizations,
and re-interpretations of memories about past practices, their
effectiveness and potency (cf. Bori 2003).
c) Burial pits
Infant burials at Lepenski Vir were placed in pits that were
dug a) mostly immediately behind the rear part of the limestone ooring (a number of instances), b) through the damaged parts of ooring in the rear end of a building, such as
Burials 128131 (House 27; Fig. 12) and 96 (House 43; Fig.
11), c) through the limestone oors, for example in the cases
of Burials 111 (House 38; Fig. 5), 113 (House 63; Fig. 17),
103 (House 19; Fig. 13), or d) within the stones of the rear of
the building, as Burials 94, 95, 101 and 102 (House 24; Fig.
16). A number of burial pits were clearly visible in the virgin
soil and had different shapes the pits for Burials 113
(House 63) and 94 (House 24) were rectangular, Burial 103
(House 19) was placed in an oval burial pit, while pits for
Burials 106 and 107 (House 4), 128131 (House 27) and 132
(House 37) were reported by the excavators as having irregular shapes. Burial pits were most clearly visible in those
cases where a skeleton was placed in the virgin soil. It was
much more difcult to spot the outline of a burial pit in the
case of Burials 123 and 124 (House 47) that were dug
through the oor of House 47 and placed in deposits that
were covering an older building (House 47) (see photo in
Radovanovi 1996: g. 4.4). The same goes for those burials
interred into deposits of occupational activities, possibly
considerably older from those of the building oors (cf. Bori
1999: 5354; Bori & Dimitrijevi 2005; Whittle et al.
2002), such as neonate Burials 116 (House 13; Fig. 10), 119
(House 29), 133 (House 37) and child Burial 97 (House 31;
Fig. 19). The burials were placed at differing depths, measuring from the level of the oor from as little as 10 cm in
the case of Burial 63 (House 26), 2030 cm in the case of
Burials 128131 (House 27), 118 (House 62), 132 (House
37) and 134 (House 48), up to 60 cm in the case of Burial 116
(House 13).
d) Use of stone in burials
In several instances stones were used in different ways in the
elaboration of a burial. In the case of Burial 63 (House 26)
stones were placed vertically, two on the sides of the head and
one on the side of the legs. In two more instances special
concern for the infants head was expressed the head of
Burial 106 (House 4) was xed between two stones and two
small stones were placed next to the head of Burial 125
(House 54). There was a stone construction in the case of the
rear of House 24 (Fig. 16) where Burials 94, 95, 101 and 102
were placed. A similar stone construction was found within
the rear of House 43 where Burial 96 was interred. In the case
of Burial 113 (House 63), where the rectangular burial pit
was cut through the oor of the building, the burial was
b) Orientation
In those cases where it was possible to establish their orientation, it seems that a number of burials were oriented with the
head toward the south east or the south, i.e. approximately
parallel with the Danube with the head pointing downstream
(see Table 1). This is important in connecting infant burials to
other burials at this and other sites in the Danube Gorges.
This particular orientation may have a chronological signicance and may relate to an older phase of burial practices
14
Figure 8 House 54 and neonate Burials 125 and 127 and mandible Burial 126.
covered by a stone slab after placing the body (Fig. 17). Also,
child Burial 92 (House 28; Fig. 18) was partly lying on a
small stone slab of irregular shape while above it, on the level
of the building oor, there was a large stone block. The excavators note that a piece of oor, with a depression on its
upper side, was used to cover Burial 103 (House 19, Fig. 13;
1970 field diary).
Discussion
An important conclusion to be drawn from the described instances of elaboration of infant burials at Lepenski Vir suggests that probably all of these burials were dug from already
existing buildings with furnished limestone oors. On the
basis of data presented, it is difcult to sustain the opposing
15
Figure 9 Houses 35 and 36 and neonate Burials114 and 115.
view that the burials were placed before the buildings were
furnished, i.e. before the oors were laid (contra
Radovanovi 2000: 340, note 7), as some kind of foundation
deposits (similar to the examples from Neolithic settlements
in the Carpathian Basin, cf. Makkay 1983), or even as some
sort of ritual sacrice, indicating a practice of infanticide
for instance, Benac (1973) offered an interpretation along
these lines for infant burials at the Early Neolithic site of
Obre in central Bosnia. Although burial pits for infant interments were not recognized immediately from the oor level
during the excavation of Lepenski Virs buildings, this can be
attributed to the fact that the burial pits were small, perhaps
wide and deep enough just to place an infants body (possibly

in a bag). Also, as indicated above, in many instances infants
were buried just off the oor area in the rear of a building,
frequently under the stone wall, which would tend to obscure
an unexpected and small burial pit. To these reasons, one
should add the occasionally crude excavation method. Here,
we have to disagree with Srejovis opinion that infant Burial
63 (House 26) (see Bori 1999: g. 20) and an older child
Burial 61 (House 40) were buried prior to the construction of
these buildings (Srejovi 1969a: 136; 1972: 119). Both burials were clearly recognized and excavated in the course of the
excavation of these buildings. This would suggest that the
16
Figure 10 House 13 and neonate Burial 116. [#13]
burials were noticed from the level of the building oors, and
indicates that they were dug from this level. Furthermore, a
representational boulder was placed above Burial 61 (see below), which is not a coincidence (contra Srejovi 1969a:
136), and the limestone oor in the rear of House 40, where
the burial took place, was signicantly damaged (see Fig. 1;
Srejovi 1969a: g. 65). It seems that in some instances infants were placed in already existing damaged areas of the
building oor (e.g. House 27 Fig. 12, House 43 Fig.
11). These damaged areas may indicate that buildings were
used over a long period of time prior to the burial of an infant.
On the other hand, it is difcult to ascertain if perhaps these
damaged parts of the oor expanded exactly as a consequence of digging a burial pit. Also, at present we have no
way of telling if the buildings continued to be used after the
burial of an infant took place. Combined AMS dating of the
abandoned animal bones on building oors and infants skeletons may be a solution to the problem.
A nal point in this part concerns two small fragments of

Early Neolithic pottery found in the ll of Burial 113 (House
63). As already indicated, this pit was covered with a stone
slab and by the oor of later House 63 (Fig. 17). In the original eld notes it was indicated that the pottery fragments
within the burial inll were found in the part of the burial pit
that was not covered with the stone slab and the possibility
was advanced that these were deposited by the Danube. In
our opinion, there is a slim chance for this scenario, and the
fragments may represent either an accidental content of the
pit inll or some sort of (fragmented) grave goods (cf.
Chapman 2000). This instance, also, opens up the very contentious issue of the chronological position of the infant
burials and buildings of Lepenski Vir I phase (cf. Bori 1999,
2002a, 2002b; Bori & Dimitrijevi 2005; Whittle et al.
2002; Radovanovi 2000). We shall return to this question.
The contextualization of infant burials at Lepenski Vir
takes us further to consider other features found within the
17
Figure 11
House 43 and neonate Burial 96.
buildings. Here we focus on two types of nds in particular

which may relate to the infant burials on the level of building
associations. These are articulated and disarticulated burials
of other, non-infant, age groups found placed on or below
limestone oors and the artworks of ornamented boulders
and altars (most likely serving as pestles) found in connection with building oors.
of the hearth of House 47 (Fig. 4), underneath the oor of

House 47 that had neonate Burials 123 and 124 (cf.
Radovanovi 1996: g. 4.4). It is important to emphasize the
connection of human mandibles/skulls with building hearths.
In other buildings with infant burials, disarticulated or
semi-articulated and partly preserved extremital bones of
human adults were found, again closely related to building
hearths, and only rarely found in the other parts of buildings.
In House 43, where neonate Burial 96 was buried, partly
preserved and probably articulated bones of a human torso
(Burial 104 consisting of clavicle, sternum and ribs) were
found below the oor on the rear part of the hearth (Fig. 11).
Also, in House 19 with neonate Burials 98, 98a and 103, on
the sides of a shallow pit dug for the sculpted boulder and
placed behind the hearth, disarticulated human bones (Burial
99 consisting of scapula and clavicle on one side and broken
humerus on the other side of the pit) were found (Fig. 13). In
House 24, with neonate Burials 94, 95, 101 and 102, besides
three adult burials placed on the building oor or alternatively dug into the already existing inll of the building (these
are articulated contracted Burials 8 and 9 and human skull
Burial 10 Srejovi 1969a: g. 72, 1972: g. 63), partly
preserved and semi-articulated human adult bones (Burial
100) were found below the rear of the building (Fig. 16).
Another disarticulated human humerus (no burial number)
was found in the occupation layer of dark soil (with animal
bones) below the oor of House 29 with neonate Burials
119121. Bones of a human foot were found below the oor
of House 62 in the north corner (corner B). This instance
a) Adult burials/disarticulated bones in buildings

Disarticulated bones of adult individuals were found frequently in relation to the rectangular hearths in buildings. For
instance, a human mandible (Burial 22) was found next to
Proto-Lepenski Vir Hearth a (see Fig. 1; cf. Srejovi 1969:
132). A striking case is Burial 21, a human mandible placed
next to the hearth slab of House 40, the teeth facing down
with a at stone plaque blocking the open area between the
caudal rami of the mandible (Srejovi 1969a: g. 70, 1972:
119, g. 64; Radovanovi 1996: g. 3.48). This made a recognizable A-support which, in the case of all other buildings, is made out of stone plaques only. These supports were
placed in varying numbers around a number of the building
hearths at Lepenski Vir.5
A human mandible (Burial 126) was found lying on a large
rock below the rear of the hearth of House 54, with neonate
Burials 125 and 127 buried under its rear (Fig. 8). Below the
oor of House 31, where child Burial 97 was found, another
isolated human mandible (Burial 105) was found approximately below the area of the hearth (Fig. 19). Also, a human
skull with no mandible (Burial 122) was found in the rear part
18
Figure 12 House 27 and neonate Burials 128, 129, 130 and 131.
may relate to neonate Burial 118 found below the rear of

House 62 that overlapped older House 62. Also, Srejovi
(1969a: 134135, 1972: 118) mentions that in both Houses 3
(neonate Burial 112) and 54 (neonate Burials 125 and 127)
one human femur was embedded in the oor behind the
hearth construction. In some instances, disarticulated human
bones were placed over building hearths. A disarticulated
humerus (Burial 23) was placed over the hearth of House 48
with neonate Burial 134. On the oor of House 36 (neonate
Burials 114 and 115), at the rear side of the hearth, disarticulated human adult bones were found (Burial 70) together with
a dog mandible (cf. Radovanovi 1999: 74).6
Certainly, some of these examples of disarticulated and
semi-articulated burials found below the building oors may

come from burials considerably older than the occupation
inside these spaces (Bori 1999: 59), disturbed by subsequent
building activities. For instance, Burial 100, below the rear of
House 24, or the bones of a human foot found underneath
House 62 may perhaps represent older, disturbed burials.
However, the intentional placement of disarticulated human
bones is indicated by their frequent placement in the area at
the rear, narrow end of the hearth (below or over it). These
bones possibly both circulated during the life of a building
and/or are a consequence of an intentional deposition indicating the event of building abandonment (Bori 2003; 2005).
Considering the choice of manipulated body parts, as pre19
Figure 13 House 19 and neonate Burials 98, 98a and 103.
viously noted (Srejovi 1969a: 143144), one can underline

a special concern in the manipulation of heads and mandibles
of the deceased. Mandibles and skulls of the deceased in
many cases were found separated, as mentioned in some of
the described examples of disarticulated burials. However,
some kind of dismemberment of skulls from mandibles was

noticed in articulated burials too. For instance, a skull of
child Burial 92 (House 28) was detached from the mandible
and adult Burial 26 (House 34) was found with the skull detached from the body and turned to face the east, i.e. the
20
Figure 14 Neonate Burials 98, 98a and 103 after lifting the floor of House 19.
Danube,7 while the mandible slumped as if left in the anatomical position (Srejovi 1969a: 135; cf. Radovanovi
1996: g. 4.5). Also, articulated Burial 28 (House XXXIII)
was found with the mandible, but no skull (Srejovi 1969a:
g. 68). At Lepenski Vir, several burials were found in their
anatomical position but with complete skulls detached from
their bodies, such as extended Burial 54e (House 65/XXXV,
Srejovi 1969a: 137, g. 67), extended Burials 15 and 16
(marked as in House XXVII of Lepenski Vir II phase,
Srejovi 1969a: 137, g. 18) and contracted Burial 19 (House
54/XLIV) where the skull of the deceased was placed on the
stone slab that covered the burial (Srejovi 1969a: 165, 1981:
8).
All these instances, together with the practices mentioned
in relation to infant burials, point to the possible metonymic
importance of the head and the mandible, standing for the
deceased individuals. The importance of human (but also
animal) skulls and mandibles that stand for the whole body
and the person, and their manipulations though cultural
practices were widespread in the whole eastern
Mediterranean during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods
(e.g., Mellaart 1967; Hodder 1990; Cauvin 1994).
We may nd some relevance in Srejovis (1969a: 140,
1972: 117) inclination to see some disarticulated burials
connected to building hearths as hearth guardians. Indeed,
these might have been individuals whose death occurred long
before the time of their deposition in buildings of Lepenski
Vir. Their actual antiquity and possible place(s) of origin may
be deduced in the future by applying AMS dating and trace
element analyses. Although skulls and mandibles had a special signicance among the body parts, other skeletal parts
were also manipulated and similar practices have been observed in other contexts of the European Neolithic (cf.
Whittle 1996). At Lepenski Vir, we may claim with some
certainty that these might have been observed as ancestors,
whose identity and recognition varied extensively from
those very recognizable to members of a building through
direct memory and/or generational narratives to almost anonymous individuals from a distant past. Furthermore, we
may speculate that placement of parts of ancestors bodies
next to the hearths might have meant that the area of the
hearth was particularly inhabited with ancestral potency.
These bones might have acted as second-class agencies (cf.
Gell 1998) with powerful apotropaic potencies (Bori 2003).
These, possibly protective, ancestors might have had special
signicance and importance for buildings and their
members/visitors, perhaps especially for those building lineages where infants and children were dying frequently or
were faced with other misfortunes. We shall elaborate further
on this argument, but rst we need to pay attention to the
sculpted boulders that might have anchored ancestral potencies in a similar way, focusing social and collective attention.
b) Artworks and their potencies
sculpted and aniconic boulders and pestles (altars) were
found mostly in the apparently xed contexts of buildings at
Lepenski Vir and only occasionally in a loose context (cf.
Srejovi & Babovi 1983). They were found concentrated
21
Figure 15 Houses 21, 22 and 29 and neonate Burials 119, 120 and 121.
22
Figure 16 House 24 and neonate Burials 94, 95, 101 and 102.
mainly at the rear of the hearths (similar to the disarticulated

burials). In several cases, boulders were found also at the rear
of the building and only rarely in its front part. Also, some
buildings (including a few of those with infant burials) lacked
both/either boulders and/or pestles. Their placement in
buildings at Lepenski Vir, as well as their spatial patterning,
must have depended on specic events related to the prac-
tices that took place immediately before a building was

abandoned.
The representational, purely ornamented and aniconic
boulders and so-called altars (i.e. pestles, sometimes ornamented too) might have been conceived as important heirlooms of individual buildings, closely xed to the building
hearths. We may underline the monumentality of some of the
23
boulders, being architectural parts of buildings, as in the case

of the hearth of House 43 (Srejovi & Babovi 1983: 133)
where the boulder acted as a side of the stone hearth. Srejovi
(1969a, 1972) drew attention to the perfectly spherical and
closed boulder as pregnant with a mysterious sacredness.
We may also view them as bodies with animate characteristics, objectifying narratives and myths about past events, related to the whole community as well as individual buildings
(Bori 2005). In particular, they might have been connected
to mythical dimensions of anadromous sh (cf. Radovanovi
1997), but also to heroes and petried ancestors from the
distant past. Being artworks with a special investment of intention and desire (cf. Gell 1998), these objects might have
embodied special powers important for building members,
both deceased and living.
Here, we shall focus on those instances where sculpted
boulders were placed on the level of the building oor immediately above the head of the deceased buried within
buildings. In the case of Burial 7/I, a decorated boulder
(Srejovi & Babovi 1983: 136, cat. no. 30; Srejovi 1967)
was placed on the forehead of the deceased male. The already
indicated connection of sculpted boulders and disarticulated
burials as pregnant with ancestral (protective) potencies may

be further afrmed, as a detached human (ancestral?) skull
(Burial 7/II), with strong eyebrow ridges and heavily worn
(possibly from handling), was placed next to the head of the
deceased, facing him. Also, an aurochs skull was placed over
the other shoulder of the deceased (Srejovi 1969a: 136137,
g. 69, 1972: g. 61, 1981: 43a; Srejovi & Babovi 1983:
136; Radovanovi 1996: g. 4.3). Both the boulder and the
human and animal skulls may have accompanied the deceased for apotropaic reasons. In addition, he was placed next
to the hearth, behind its rear. Also, the burial pit for 7/I was
clearly cut through the oor of House 21, while the skeleton
was placed in the extended position with the head pointing
downstream. In another instance already discussed, child
Burial 61, around 7 years old (see above and note 7), was
placed in the extended position with the head pointing
downstream in a similar way, within a burial pit cut through
the oor in the rear of House 40. Above the head of the deceased, a small sculpted boulder was placed, representing a
human (child?) face with schematic mouth, nose and engraved eye circles (Srejovi 1969a: g. 65; 1972: g. 59;
Srejovi & Babovi 1983: 108). In both examples (with the
24
Figure 18 House 28 and child Burial 92.
addition of Burial 26 cut through the oor of House 34 and

placed in the extended position with its head pointing downstream, see above and note 7) the building oor was cut to
place the deceased. This may be relevant for the way infants
were buried by cutting through the oor or though the virgin
soil in the area next to the oor, in a similar fashion and in
some cases with the same orientation of the body, i.e. with the
heads pointing downstream. We may underline that Burials
7/I, 61 and 26 were treated in a particular way and were specically furnished/manipulated.
Only child Burial 92 (House 28; Fig. 18) clearly shares
this orientation, position and association with a sculpted
boulder. Approximately above Burial 92 two sculpted
boulders were placed on both sides of a large stone block in
the rear of House 28 (Srejovi 1969a: g. 24, 1972: g. 14;
Srejovi & Babovi 1983: 107). This skeleton was found

without its skull (only the mandible was present), placed in
the extended position with the head pointing downstream.
The representational boulder Adam (Srejovi & Babovi
1983: 107, cat. no. 1) placed in relation to this burial is of
particular interest. It shows a human (childs?) face with a
schematic representation of its mouth and nose similar to
those represented on the sculpture above the head of Burial
61. What appears different is the way the eyes are represented. Instead of carved circles, only two horizontal lines were
carved, possibly indicating shut eyes. In this context, one
must emphasize the fact that all other representational
boulders found at Lepenski Vir showing a human face bear
eyes as carved circles (cf. Srejovi & Babovi 1983).
The differences mentioned may have some importance in
25
Figure 19 House 31 with child Burial 97 and isolated mandible Burial 105.
indicating cultural attitudes toward infants lives and deaths

at Lepenski Vir through the medium of their representation,
breaking down age stages of childhood at this site. There may
be an important connection between the way the eyes are
represented in the case of boulders above Burials 61 and 92
and the respective age stages of these individuals. Seen from
an anthropological perspective in the treatment of artworks,
eyes are orices that rst open up the aniconic form of an
idol and do not have representational signicance only
(cf. Gell 1998: 132, 147). First and foremost they serve to
penetrate the mind, into the invisible inwardness of an idol
(Gell 1998: 132). From all the representational features of the
sculpted face, eyes most strongly express the personhood
represented. Hence it is no coincidence that an older child
Burial 61 had eyes carved as circles, possibly indicating that
on death it had reached a socially recognizable personhood,
as a consequence of the rites of passage he experienced on the
way to adulthood (cf. van Gennep 1960; Turner 1974).
Although other representational boulders found at Lepenski
Vir were not associated with any burial in particular, it may
be possible to assume that they represent metamorphosed
adults/elders/ancestors and this state of being might have
been emphasized with two semi-circled carved lines that appear immediately below the engraved eyeholes on these
sculptures (Srejovi & Babovi 1983: 113, 116, 118).
Younger child Burial 92 in House 28 can be meaningfully
connected to the sculpted boulder with shut eyes, represented as two carved horizontal lines. At the time of the childs
death, it might have been lacking socially achievable personhood, although recognizable in the social world of the
community. Metaphorically and socially at the time of death,

its worldly persona was not fully formed and hence the eyes
could not have been represented opened up, facing the world.
We may possibly indicate that it might have been still partly
conceived as boneless (cf. Astuti 1998; see below), prone
and vulnerable to the malevolent forces abounding in the
world.
c) Identication of ancestral potencies
The examples of disarticulated burials and boulders described above indicate a possible connection of these features
in the buildings of Lepenski Vir with the function of anchoring ancestral powers and elaborating the arena of domestic
space with strong apotropaic associations. The placement of
infant burials in a patterned way may have accounted for
these potencies in the expression of lineage and communal
care toward the deceased. Moreover, this care for the descent
group is obvious in examples of the burials of other age
groups, possibly depending on the constellation of events that
surrounded their deaths. Considerable age differences of
these deceased individuals and the infants were played out
through spatial patterning of their respective burials within
the building space. Some of the child and adult burials were
commemorated with sculpted boulders, the iconographic
representational features of which were context sensitive.
Infants of neonate age were never accompanied with a
boulder and the memory of their short existence was almost
neutralized by placing them back into the earth (possibly in a
bag). However, signicantly this happened within the space
of the building.
26
Figure 20 Child Burial 97 (House 31).
ons in mind. Some indications for the scope of reasons can be

gathered from an ethnographic case describing the Nukak
hunter-gatherers from the Amazonian rainforest (cf. Politis
1999a, 1999b). An instance was recorded among the Nukak
where they constructed a miniature hut at a residential camp
which in every specic constructional detail followed the
outline of a normal size hut. Also, a photograph was taken of
a child sitting within this miniature hut. The anthropologist
notes a special reason for the construction of this hut and
placement of the child under the hut as it may have been sick
or faced with some other sort of danger, indicated by the
childs red painted face (Politis, pers. comm.; see the picture
on the back cover of Crdenas & Politis 2000). In the case of
House 49 we may speculate about a possible window into
practices at Lepenski Vir that might have related to children
during their lives, involving issues of protection with a strong
reference to the building space.
Before continuing to draw upon wider meanings of similar
cultural practices through examples of other ethnographies,
we turn to the diachronic perspective in relation to the phenomenon of infant burials at Lepenski Vir, their regional and
historical context.
d) House 49 visible infants?

One example that possibly opens a perspective on the visibility of infants in the society of Lepenski Vir and, at the same
time, makes reference to the elaborate building space is
House 49. This is a miniature structure (1.4 m2) that is a proportionally reduced image of a normal-size building
(Srejovi 1969a: g. 37, 1972: g. 27). House 49 was placed
below a large rock on the north-west side of House 47 and
was conspicuously and exceptionally oriented with its front
part facing the north-west, i.e. almost completely opposite to
the way all other buildings at the site were oriented (see Fig.
1). The function of this building, along with another example
of a miniature building, though less well preserved and
slightly bigger, House 55 (1.9 m2), remained an enigma for
the excavator of Lepenski Vir (Srejovi 1969a: 71, 1972: 69).
Srejovi notes that nothing was found on the building oors
although the small plaques, that formed the hearth, were
burnt by re. He suggests that these examples are architectural prototypes for other buildings at the site, representing
blueprints (Srejovi 1969a: 71, 1972: 69). However, a different interpretative account is offered here. Their construction may relate to children at Lepenski Vir with various reas27
mortality prole is different from and less uniform than the

infant interments from Lepenski Vir, but also the treatment of
their bodies prior to the burial and their burial contexts are
considerably different (Bori & Stefanovi 2004).
At Vlasac, the mortality prole is not dominated by any
particular category of infants expressed in gestational weeks
on the basis of the morphometric analyses (see above) and we
shall discuss elsewhere the results of these ndings. It is sufcient to say that the age in gestational weeks of the infants
from Vlasac varies between 2628 and 3537 weeks for
those that would correspond to the foetal category, and 3840
to more than 47 weeks for neonates and older infant categories. Infants of foetal age most likely indicate miscarriages
and in some instances this is reected through the burial rite.
The most dramatic example is Burial 67, a female who probably died during pregnancy or in giving birth, found with the
bones of a foetus in the pelvic area. The skeleton was covered
with ochre, also buried in the red earth (Srejovi & Letica
1978: 57). In other cases, infant bones were frequently found
within the burials of adults (Burials 4b, 6a on the shoulder
of Burial 6 ochre, 50/1 ochre, 50a(1) ochre and
Cyprinidae teeth, 49(2) completely covered with ochre,
55(2), 58b adjacent to the legs of Burial 58, 60(1) pelvic
area covered with Cyprinidae teeth). These infant burials
were sprinkled with red ochre over the pelvic area or over
other body parts and/or placed in red soil, with addition of
Cyprinidae (sh) teeth in several cases. On the basis of previous morphological analyses some of these burials were
sexed as males and it remains necessary to re-examine their
sex determination in this light. For instance, in Burial 60,
determined as male and with the pelvic area covered with
Cyprinidae teeth, a foetus Burial 60(1) was found.
Furthermore, this individual was lying on the right side, facing three small pits in the immediate proximity with infant
burials completely covered with red ochre Burials 59, 61
and 62, containing more individuals (Srejovi & Letica 1978:
6061). Burial 6262a with an adult individual and an infant
was covered with red ochre and Cyprinidae teeth, with the
addition of a int nucleus (Srejovi & Letica 1978: 61). In
other instances there was no obvious connection between the
burials of infants and those of older individuals (infant
Burials 21, 42, 5, 10, 12b, 35ab, 19 and 66a). Some of these
were furnished in a particular way. For instance, particles of
graphite were found within Burial 5 (Srejovi & Letica 1978:
68). Infant Burial 42 was found without its head and accompanied with ochre and Cyprinidae teeth over its pelvis
(Srejovi & Letica 1978: 58, g. XXXV/2). Also, infant
Burial 21 was accompanied by some Cyprinidae teeth around
its abdomen and with a necklace of 50 perforated snails
(Cyclope neriteia) on its chest (Srejovi & Letica 1978: 58).
Infant burials from Vlasac indicate cultural practices that
are different from those at Lepenski Vir, and among other
things this is the function of diachronic changes. We may account for a considerable importance of expressing a
motherchild tie in a number of burials at Vlasac, an emphasis on the danger of pregnancy and possibly a communal
focus on a misfortune in respect to miscarriages. Some of the
accents of practices, thus, differ from the underlying conceptual schemes at work in Lepenski Vir. Yet we may recognize a
much wider underlying theme in these practices that might
Chronological and regional perspectives

We arrive at the question of the chronological position of infant burials at Lepenski Vir. Clearly, this is inseparable from
the question of the chronological position of buildings with
trapezoidal limestone oors of Srejovis Lepenski Vir I
phase. It has already been noted that the previously suggested
schemes for stratigraphic phasing of buildings and other
contexts at this site by both Srejovi (1969a, 1972) and
Radovanovi (1996) are problematic in a number of points
(see above, notes 3 and 6; Bori 1999, 2002a, 2002b; Bori
& Dimitrijevi 2005). Also, their schemes partly ignore the
existing radiometric 14 C dates on charcoal (Quitta 1975;
Bori 1999: g. 7, 2002a: g. 5) which indicate a time span
of c. 63005500 cal BC, i.e. the period that coincides with the
appearance and the duration of the Early Neolithic in the
wider region of the central Balkans. This chronological position of occupation on the building oors was further reafrmed by new AMS dates (Whittle et al. 2002). Among the
new dates, one date (OxA-9055: 844560 BP), also, gives
the rst clear indication of much older deposits concealed by
limestone oors and represented by a number of contexts
across the site.
There have been a few published accounts that discussed
the presence of Early Neolithic pottery at Lepenski Vir in relation to the trapezoidal buildings, particularly by analogy
with the neighbouring and contemporaneous site of Padina
(Jovanovi 1969; Bori 1999; 2002a), but also by revealing
photos of in situ pottery on building oors of Lepenski Vir
(Garaanin & Radovanovi 2001). This contextual association that has a chronological signicance may further be
supported by the instance of the Early Neolithic pottery
fragments found in neonate Burial 113 in House 63 which, as
already mentioned, is difcult to understand as intrusions
from a separate and overlying Early Neolithic layer.
By analogy with the buildings at Lepenski Vir and considering the fact that the deceased infants were buried by
cutting through their oors, we can largely relate these interments to the same period that is attributed to the dated building, i.e. 63005500 cal BC. A recent extensive AMS dating
programme even suggests that the period can be confined to
63005900 cal BC (Bori & Dimitirjevi 2007).
Localized diachronic changes
However, changes in cultural practices of infant burial rites
considering much deeper time depths may be observed in the
micro-regional context of Lepenski Vir, within the Upper
Gorges of the Danube. This is related to the site of Vlasac,
situated c. 3 km downstream from Lepenski Vir. The deposits
of this site are of considerable antiquity, especially in view of
some of the AMS dated burials (Bonsall et al. 1997; Bori
2006) and possibly cover the period from at least 9500 to
5900 cal BC, indicating a Mesolithic as well as
transitional/Early Neolithic development in the region.
Around 87 burials with more then 119 individuals of different
age groups were found at Vlasac (Srejovi & Letica 1978:
5382), buried over the indicated time span. There are 22
burials of infants (re-examined by S.S.). However, their
28
as Burial 4, covered with a thin layer of clay. In the case of

Burial 2, stones were placed around the skeleton, and Burial
5 was also surrounded with a circle of burned stone slabs.
Burial 7, even more elaborately, was placed on a stone base
and surrounded by stone slabs (representing a stone construction of some kind). Scattered bones of Burial 8 were
found on the clay oor, surrounded with stone slabs and the
whole area covered by small stone pebbles, almost forming a
small tumulus. Burial 8 with nds of two stone axes, largely
inuenced the excavator to interpret all the burials as sacrices, possibly related to a sun cult (Benac 1973: 357363).
This interpretation may be regarded as rather nave and
without a serious grounding in the described instances. In the
context of the present discussion we may assume some signicance for the elaboration of clay oorings and, perhaps,
the practice of covering some of the buried infants with clay.
Single infant burials were found at several other Early
Neolithic sites in the Balkans. At Obre in the region of
Vojvodina, a contracted burial of an infant with no grave offerings was found, being the only burial found at the site
(Brukner 1960). Also, an infant burial was discovered at the
site of Divostin in central Serbia (Zoffmann 1988). In the
same region, at the site of Blagotin, an infant burial was
found in the inll of a large pit-dwelling, covered with a thick
layer of ash. This burial is AMS dated (OxA-8609: 727050
BP; Whittle et al. 2002), being contemporaneous with the
earliest dates for occupation remains on building oors of
Lepenski Vir (see above). In the layers of this feature some
other nds were exceptional two large gurines of red
clay, a grain model with incisions, a clay altar above the
layer of ash and amulets (Stankovi & Lekovi 1993; Whittle
et al. 2002).
In the described examples across the central and northern
Balkans, roughly in the same historical context, an occasional focus on infants and children is evident. At some of the
sites infant burials, as at Lepenski Vir, are related to building
oorings or less elaborated areas, but frequently to special
features of some sort. The focus of these practices may be of
wider regional as well as cross-cultural importance.
At other sites of the eastern Mediterranean infant burials
are similarly found in buildings and below their oors in the
pre-NeolithicEarly Neolithic phases. At the Early Neolithic
site of Nea Nikomedeia in northern Greece, a woman and two
children were found underneath the oor of one building
(Rodden 1965; Hourmouziadis 1973; Gallis 1996). At
Franchthi Cave in southern Greece, burials were found in
both Mesolithic and Early Neolithic levels. Among nine articulated Mesolithic burials two were infants (Cullen 1995).
However, in the Early Neolithic levels of the cave, eight
burials belonged to infants or children. Also, one of these
burials, a several weeks old infant, was accompanied by a
ne marble vessel and a broken-in-half clay pot (Jacobsen
1969: 373374, 380381, 1976: 140, 142).
In south-central Anatolia at the site of atalhyk (c.
72006300 cal BC) infant burials were found during excavations in 1960s (Mellaart 1967). Describing burials with red
ochre painting over the skull or the body (mostly females),
Mellaart (1967: 207208) singles out a burial of a prematurely born infant (VI.A.14) and a female burial with a child
on top of her (VIII.1) which, among other goods in the burial,
have been shared over a considerable time span with powerful elements of signication. Red ochre in particular, as well
as some other elements present, such as Cyprinidae teeth and
possibly graphite, might have been used as powerful means
of acting upon the body of the deceased infant and the accompanied adult (in some cases possibly mothers) with the
intention of guarding their liminal experience of death, guiding them toward the underworld. The use of red ochre at
Vlasac almost exclusively relates to infants and adult burials
accompanied by an infant. Signifying qualities of red colour
imminently relate to the body (cf. Turner 1967). The concepts
of care, protection, but also danger in connection with birth,
infants and pregnant women, are clearly present at Lepenski
Vir too. We can advance the hypothesis that there remained a
residual signicance of red, used at Vlasac through the use of
red ochre and reproduced at Lepenski Vir through the quality
of red limestone oors, acting as the elaborated and powerful
domestic arena. Still, this connection might have rather come
from an unconscious production of signication, than as a
conscious and meaning-laden realization (cf. Deleuze &
Guattari 1984).
Wider regional context
Presently, no other infant burials are known from contemporaneous sites in the Danube Gorges. Infant burials do appear among a number of other sites in the central Balkans and
across south-east Europe, dated to the Early Neolithic (e.g.
Benac 1973; Stankovi 1992; Minichreiter 1999; Bori
1999). These sites are largely contemporaneous with the
elaboration and occupation of trapezoidal oors at Lepenski
Vir, also sharing similar pottery styles (cf. Whittle et al.
2002).
For instance, a new-born infant burial was placed in a
pithos that was found at the Early Neolithic site (c.
61005500 cal BC) of Anzabegovo in FYR Macedonia
(Gimbutas 1976: plate 47; Garaanin 1982: 89; Nemeskri &
Lengyel 1976: 396, g. 242). The pithos itself, with intentionally broken bottom and handles, was placed beneath the
two adult burials arranged symmetrically in contracted positions. Also, infant bones were found in a central hole of one
of two smaller quadrangular buildings of tamped clay excavated at this site.
Another striking example is the Early Neolithic site of
Obre in central Bosnia (Benac 1973). At this site 8 burials
were found, and all belonged to infants and children
(Nemeskri 1974). Burials 14 were placed in contracted or
exed positions, Burial 5 was represented by a skull, while
Burials 68 were largely scattered or it was difcult to determine their exact positions and orientations (Benac 1973:
347363). It was suggested that Burial 7 was placed in the
seated position (Benac 1973: 351). Grave offerings were
found possibly accompanying Burial 1 (Starevo type clay
altar) and Burials 5 and 6 (most likely residual remains
potsherds, int tools and animal bones), and clearly in Burial
7 (sun discs one from red clay and one from stone and
potsherds) and Burial 8 (broken amber ornament, semicircular Spondylus ornament, two polished stone axes and two
pots one of the Adriatic type and another ornamented with
barbotine decoration with stone pebbles inside). Also,
Burial 3 was placed over the area of burned clay and, as well
29
had fresh water mussels lled with red ochre. Also, red
ochre covered the whole body of a young girl who had
suffered a broken femur, with addition of cinnabar paint over
her skull (IX.1). Another childs skull and the upper part of
the body were again painted with red ochre (E.IV.8). In the
course of new excavations at this site, more burials were
found underneath building oors. For instance, in Building 1
in the North Area of the site a very large number of infants,
young children and juveniles (more than half of all buried in
this building) were found (especially conned to the early
phases of the buildings use) among around 60 buried individuals (Hamilton 1996, 1997; Molleson and Andrews 1997:
g. 3234; Hodder 1999; Archive Reports 19962000, http:
//www.catalhoyuk.com/). In Building 1 under the north-west
platform, an adult burial (1924) with an infant on top of it was
uncovered (Hamilton 1996) while, similarly, in the foundation layers of Building 1, a neonate (2532) was placed on the
head of an adult (2527), with a fragment of red painted plaster
found next to the head of this individual (Hamilton 1997;
Hawkes & Molleson 2000: g. 13.6). Infant burial 2105,
found under the north-west platform, was possibly wrapped
with several hundred white and pink limestone beads
(Hamilton 1997). It was suggested that the posture of neonate
burial 2197, found buried on a grinding stone in the foundation layer of Building 1 (Hamilton 1997), with legs and arms
splayed outwards, indicates that it was placed in a bag
(Hawkes & Molleson 2000: 160). Another practice related to
infants in this building is the placement of three neonates
(2199, 2197 and 2515) in a row at the threshold of the crawl
hole (connecting two parts of the room). A specic physical
intimacy is also seen in placing an infant (1450) facing an old
female skeleton (1450) (Molleson & Andrews 1997). Also,
continued work within the South Area of atalhyk (where
Mellaarts excavation took place) conrmed the same pattern
of a relatively high proportion of neonates/infants found in
buildings (Hamilton 1999). In Building 6 of the South Area,
six infants, two adults and one adolescent were excavated.
Two infants had red pigment (ochre) applied over them,
while three of them were placed in baskets. One of these
(4406), covered with ochre too, had strings of beads around
each wrist and an ankle. Another infant placed in a basket
(4927) was covered by a yellow substance (ochre?). In
Building 17, two other babies were covered one with a yellow substance and the other with red pigment; the latter was
placed in a basket. Also, it was indicated that in several instances infants were placed behind ovens and re installations (such as the only neonate burial in Building 18, i.e.
Mellaarts shrine X.8). In the South Area, in Space 112
(Mellaarts Shrine VII.9) a partly preserved infant 2017 and,
also, infant 2779 were found associated with a re installation. Within the same space, again, the posture of infant
burial 2728 indicated that it was possibly placed in a bag
prior to its burial. Within Space 109, a neonate (2772) was
placed between the platform and the re installation. Its legs
were splayed and it was overlaid with a horncore (Molleson
et al. 1998). It is interesting to note that some of the burials
with traces of chronic bone pathologies had red ochre applied
to their skulls (Molleson et al. 1999). A very similar pattern
of a relatively large number of buried infants, children and
juveniles has been conrmed also in the course of the ongo-
ing excavations of Building 3 (BACH Area) at the site

(Hamilton 1999; Molleson et al. 2000).
At sites of the Natuan culture, such as Mallaha (Eynan)
(Boyd 1995), infant burials were found associated with architectural features too.
There is an important connection in the accentuated appearance of infant burials within elaborated
structures/buildings, spaces with both domestic and sacred
elements, across the eastern Mediterranean in the period prior
to and in the course of the development of the Neolithic phenomenon. All the differences and specic developments involved in these shared practices and meanings would merit a
much more detailed discussion elsewhere. Now, we need to
go beyond the temporal and spatial context of our case study
and beyond archaeological vestiges that limit accessing immaterial aspects of social life in their contextual richness and
diversity.
Possible meanings: Balkan ethnographies and beyond
It does not require moving far from the hinterlands of the
Danube Gorges and the central Balkans to start an ethnographic pursuit for the meanings of infant burials at Lepenski
Vir. The ethnography of the Saracatsans and the Vlachs, pastoralist groups of the various mountainous regions of the
Balkans (eastern Serbia, Thrace, Macedonia, Epirus,
Thessaly), who culturally (and possibly genetically) represent one of the oldest surviving populations of the Balkans, is
extremely rich (Heg 1925; Kavadias 1965; Campbell 1964;
Antonijevi 1982; for a general history of the Vlachs see
Winnifrith 1987). In our opinion, this ethnography carries
specic signicance for understanding numerous practices
and patterns seen throughout the prehistory of the Balkans.
Although it would be difcult or even impossible to pin down
the ways of transmission of distant cultural practices and
memories through narrative and material forms or to follow
their genealogies in ne detail, it seems that in many instances the former practices stay rooted in the local landscapes long after the generations of past inhabitants are gone
and their dwelling places abandoned (cf. Connerton 1991;
Fentress & Wickham 1992). We are left with two legitimate
possibilities in this context, that is either to create imaginary
genealogical narratives (cf. Tringham 2000: 126)8 or to study
rich details of local ethnographies against archaeological examples in a more conventional way. We explore the latter
possibility here.
The religious beliefs of the Saracatsans and Vlachs are
overwhelmingly occupied with issues of death and protection
from evil forces. Their mythology, although under strong inuence from Christianity, took a specic eclectic form with
numerous hybrid features. Firstly, there are intrinsic elements
that connect domestic hearth and re to mother and new-born
child in the ethnography of these groups. Thus, among the
customs of the Saracatsans a woman would give birth on the
ground next to the hearth and re, which is believed to protect
the mother and the child. Another noted custom is to draw a
hearth on the body of a new-born child with a stone, previously put in re. These customs, together with many others,
may fall under the rites of protection and it has been noted for
some time now that among the Bulgarians and the Slavs in
30
general, but also other European peoples, the emphasis was

frequently placed on practices that serve to shelter pregnant
women, foetus and children from the dangers of malevolent
forces (van Gennep 1960: 45). For these reasons, a number of
rites of separation and incorporation that frequently relate to
buildings, i.e. to the time of their occupation, show incredible
richness across ethnographic contexts. The main aim of these
practices is, rst, to introduce a woman and the society into
the abnormal state caused by a womans pregnancy and,
after the birth, to slowly incorporate the mother back into the
normal ow of life, as a social return from childbirth (van
Gennep 1960: 46).
However, in the event of a new-borns death, more dramatic practices may take place. According to one recorded
custom that was widespread among the Saracatsans up to
1940 (Hatzimichali 1957: 68, cited by Antonijevi 1982:
134), in the event of the death of a new-born or a miscarriage
the child would be put in a bag of hide full of salt and hung
above the parents marital bed for approximately forty days,
until the childs corpse dried out. A rite of separation of the
mother (she could not leave the hut during this period) from
the community is involved in the custom. Also, every morning, the mother would draw a cross (a sign believed to possess special protective powers) on the earthen oor of the hut.
After this period the corpse of the deceased child in the bag
is buried inside the hut, in a burial pit dug in one corner.
This custom strikingly resembles the pattern of the previously described infant burials from Lepenski Vir. But apart
from a possible formal similarity, we may discern elements
that can be of wider importance. Firstly, the burial takes place
inside the hut, where life continues, and may relate to a belief
that by this practice the fertility of the conjugal couple would
be increased and facilitate a future delivery of a healthy child.
The practice of keeping the deceased child in the domestic
hut and spatially close to the parents for forty days (but also
its subsequent burial inside this space) indicates a strong tie
of the deceased child with the parents, and especially the
mother. It is possible to interpret this as an act of specic care
and solidarity, among the Saracatsans and the Vlachs very
pronounced in relation to all the dead (Antonijevi 1982:
137) and specically in relation to children. Secondly, although the salt used in this custom may have the practical
function of embalming the childs body to some extent
(Antonijevi 1982: 135), in relation to local beliefs the salt
also has a strong demonic power and through its use positive
contact would be established with the demons (on the similar
signicance of salt in other parts of the eastern
Mediterranean, see Welters 1999c: 64). Hence, the issue of
protection is involved again. The third element in this particular ethnographic example that may be of some relevance for
our archaeological case relates to the meaning of the earthen
oor of the hut under which the corpse of the deceased infant
is buried. As the earth may be conceived of as the place of the
dead, by burying the deceased through/under the earthen
oor of the hut the deceased infant is returned to the place of
its origin.
Van Gennep (1960: 52) points out that similar practices of
protection in relation to mother and infant may relate to the
fact that the infant who dies before its introduction to and incorporation into both social and celestial worlds lacks spir-
itual powers, i.e. a layered social persona gained through

social experience. It relates primarily to the age of an infant,
and across ethnographic examples world wide (including the
Saracatsans and the Vlachs) special care is expressed in relation to the liminal (transitional) period after the birth. Thus,
by customs such as preserving the umbilical cord or placenta
after the birth and burying them in a distant place (where
nobody can touch it) or under the threshold, hearth, etc., it
was intended to preserve the childs personality, its soul (van
Gennep 1960: 52, see below). In various ethnographic examples, the crucial emphasis is on the time that elapses before an infant acquires full individuality, which can take days
or weeks after the birth, and sometimes also can be relevant
much later throughout the period of the childs growth toward
adulthood. During this whole period, the child remains
highly vulnerable and different rites of protection are needed.
This may equally apply to the soul of the deceased infant that
requires special care in the liminal/transitional phase on the
journey to the underworld. Another signicance of the custom whereby the deceased new-born stays above the marital
bed for forty days may relate to the belief held across the
Balkans that forty days represent the rst phase on the way to
the underworld, a voyage that ends only after one year (e.g.
Bandi 1997). For instance, a crucial event after birth that
determines the treatment of an infant among the Slavic inhabitants of the Balkans and eastern Europe relates to
whether the infant is baptized or not at the moment of its
death (ajkanovi 1924: 60-61, 128).
Beliefs among the Saracatsans and the Vlachs focus on the
supernatural and on practices that involve black magic, with
a specic belief about the evil eye as a source of danger
(Antonijevi 1982). The belief in a harmful evil eye (especially threatening those in liminal stages of their lives, such
as new-borns, newly-married, pregnant women, etc.) is
widespread across the Mediterranean (cf. Welters 1999c:
64ff.; Mladenovi 1999: 101ff.). As already emphasized
above in the discussion on the signicance of the representation of eyes on the artworks of Lepenski Vir, these orices of
the body can both expose the hidden interior of the
being/mind (Gell 1998: 147) but also penetrate the body and
possibly harm it.
The world of the Balkan pastoralists and their whole
mythology can be described as inhabited by demons, ghosts,
monsters and fairies, with both malevolent and benevolent
intentions, although the Saracatsans believe that malevolent
forces are dominant. Such forces inhabit the landscape and
are present in the air, mountains, rocks, streams, wells, trees,
leaves almost everywhere and are called different names
and possess powers that can be in varying degrees harmful to
human health, good fortune or life (Antonijevi 1982:
162170).
It has been recorded that in the region of Homolj (eastern
Serbia) among the Christian Serbs, during the periods when
frequent deaths of new-borns occur in a buildinghold, immediately after a birth, a midwife takes the new-born and passes
it though the circle frame of a wheel, sways it three times toward the east and asks the mother while standing on the
buildings threshold (where the ancestors of the building
reside): Do you like the sun or the moon?. And the mother
each time answers from the building: the sun (ajkanovi
31
1924: 130), i.e. this world. In the mythology of the Balkan

pastoralists, the moon, although sometimes signifying fertility, equally relates to the underworld since it goes through
periodical changes, indicating the termination of life cycles
and rebirth (Antonijevi 1982: 6061). The practice of
passing the child through, in the previous example, indicates
the performance of an early, prematurely evoked rite of
passage to achieve the transference of evil (cf. van Gennep
1960: 52, 59). It ensures the childs smooth incorporation into
the society as the rst step in preparation of later rites of
passage on the way to gaining a personhood.
However, a different connotation of the rites of protection
among Balkan pastoralist groups, but also the Slavic inhabitants of these areas, in relation to new-borns and pregnant
mothers is the notion that these individuals can be dangerous
for other members of the society (Bandi 1980, 1997). This
comes from the ambiguous associations of pregnant women
and infants who, although vulnerable and in need of protection, can be of considerable danger for the community, causing serious illness and even death. In order to protect the
collectives, a number of customs relate to the isolation of a
mother and child during the period of pregnancy and for
some period after the birth (Bandi 1980, 1997).
The custom of presenting children to ancestors of the
building among some groups (van Gennep 1960: 61) is
grounded in the notion of apotropaic powers held by the ancestors, that can protect the child. In Balkan ethnographies
the threshold and the hearth are the main places in a building
where the spirits of the ancestors reside (e.g. ajkanovi
1924: 127ff.; for a cross-cultural example of the signicance
of the threshold, see Eliade 1957: 2527, 181).
The cultural attitudes toward pregnant mothers, new-born
babies and deceased infants in the aforementioned examples
from Balkan ethnographies indicate a very strong emphasis
on rites of protection. Similarly, a recent comparative study
of folk dress in numerous examples across the Balkans and
Anatolia, also explicitly emphasizes the obsession with the
intertwined issues of protection and fertility, especially related to mothers and children (Welters 1999a, 1999b).
Going beyond the Balkan ethnographies, there are two
relevant issues that can enrich the present discussion with a
wider cross-cultural and comparative perspective. The rst
concerns the powerful place of architecture, domestic spaces
and buildings in transcending issues about protection and
apotropaic potency anchored at these places. As already
noted, if we accept that buildings objectify social units, serve
the role of outer shells to descent groups that belong to these
places, both dead and alive, reminding of complex biographies of places and past inhabitants, their multifaceted nature
reafrms the signicance of the notion of building societies
formulated by C. Lvi-Strauss (cf. Carsten & Hugh-Jones
1995; Gillespie 2000a). Houses encapsulate tensions of
complex social webs of blood and afnal kin relations and
transcend long memories, in a way xing the essence of a
descent group. Still their gendered and androgynous images
remain unxed as they move through transformations that
alter their essence, inseparable from the ux of the lives of
people that inhabit or visit these places.
The building of a new building is the birth and growth of
an objectied descent group and this notion is transparent in
the rituals involving the placenta of new-born babies. For instance, in Tana Toraja, South Sulawesi, Indonesia, through
successive generations, fathers would bury placentas (seen as
a twin to the baby) of new-born babies always at the same
spot at the east side of a building, which is associated with
life and the rising sun (Waterson 1990: 198, 2000: 180, 182).
In other Indonesian societies, such as the Tetum, the umbilicus and placenta would be placed in a bag and hung on the
central (ancestral) pillar of the main room in a building.
Similarly, in Tanimbar the placenta would be buried in the
building oor (Waterson 2000: 180). In another example
from the same region, in the village of Ara, among the
Makassarese of South Sulawesi, Indonesia, the birth is surrounded by extensive magic rituals intended to facilitate the
delivery and protect the baby (but also the mother) from evil
forces and spirits that can harm the baby while still in the
extremely vulnerable condition of having an unhealed navel
and soft fontanelle (Gibson 1995: 137). The following birth
customs make a reference to the building:
The bloodied banana leaf on which the child was born is folded up
and placed in a bamboo pole with a basket at one end called a tompong. ... The tompong is planted in the ground beneath the building
with its mouth open to the sky. It is thus able to catch the dalle,
good fortune, that descends from heaven. ... The tompong is left
under the building for seven days, by which time the childs navel is
healed and the next ritual can be performed. During this time, the
child must remain in the building, and the mother is not supposed to
leave it either, for fear her open state may attract evil spirits to enter
her which she would then bring back with her into the building.
(Gibson 1995: 136137)
In Ara, a number of apotropaic rituals that are performed

in the construction, i.e. closure of the building are closely
analogous to those rituals that are performed with the newborns in attempts to close their navel and fontanelle (Gibson
1995: 144145).
Away from Indonesia, among the Mam Maya of
Chimaltenango in highland Guatemala, to bury the afterbirth
in the fathers sweat building (the focal ritual structure of a
family) emphasized the patrilateral extended family in which
future ritual activities would take place (Gillespie 2000b:
219, note 8).
Differently in terms of kinship associations, among the
Zamaniry of Madagascar a woman, who is pregnant for the
rst time, leaves the husbands building and goes to her natal
building. Here, another protective layer is made by creating a
building on the bed after the woman gives birth. The child
is connected to the mothers building as the ritual of putting
the soot from the hearth of the building on the childs forehead and burying of the placenta (here, as in Indonesia, believed to represent a twin) are done in the mothers parents
building. Only the third child would be born in the parents
own building and through the same ritual materially associated with that building, which at the same time becomes
complete (Bloch 1995: 77). In the same society, Bloch (1995:
83) records an instance where the ill new-born was cured
through a ritual medicine soup cooked on the place of the
hearth of the holy building (where previously the head of the
village was buried) by feeding the baby with the soup and
pouring it in places where the posts once stood.
Frequently, reasons to abandon a building are related to
events that are interpreted as the result of misfortune. Thus,
among the Yecuana of Venezuela, the building is abandoned
32
if either illness or the deaths of infants or a village leader is

associated with the building. Also, the deceased can be buried
under the oor of the building (Rivire 1995: 197).
The second relevant cross-cultural issue relates to the social construction of age and gender in human societies. As the
examples from Lepenski Vir indicate, there was a signicant
difference in the way that neonates of the same age are buried
in comparison to the burial rite that accompanied other age
groups. As emphasized, the construction of these age (and
possibly gender) differences (Bori 2005) might have been
inscribed in the boulder artworks found at this site.
It is of relevance here to describe the notion of a boneless
baby that comes from the Vezo of Madagascar (Astuti 1998).
The Vezo think that people are not born as humans, but they
become humans, with a rather non-essentialist view on identity. They see new-born babies as strongly tied with mothers,
vulnerable and not fully human. Moreover, new-born babies
are malleable and plastic, especially in regard to their facial
features, and their bodies are soft and weak, i.e. boneless,
and only have the potential to become fully-boned adults
(Astuti 1998: 36). Both mother and baby are vulnerable after
the event of birth as their bodies can be penetrated by the
deadly air and the babies must be protected by wrapping up
in layers of clothes (Astuti 1998: 35). The babies must not be
left alone as they are unprotected from the harmful inuence
of passing spirits known as angatse, and the angatse are the
reason that eyelids of babies tremble and roll sideways every
time the spirits are around. Another kind of danger comes
from vengeful ancestors who can be bad-tempered and can
easily harm a boneless baby. If the baby dies before it is one
year old, it cannot be buried in a family ancestral tomb as it
has not become a human, i.e. its social person has not been
created yet (Astuti 1998: 3637). It is interesting to note
that in the case of the Zamaniry of Madagascar, buildings,
like people, also acquire bones through their slow build up
with more permanent material (from woven bamboo to
massive wooden planks) and elaboration of specic decorative wood carvings, where the process of beautifying the
timbers forms a part in the process of the growth and successful marriage of the founding couple (Bloch 1995: 78ff.).
The views held by the Vezo in regard to infants are instructive and this example triggers a more complex discussion on the way the social person is constructed in different
cultural contexts, relations of sex and gender, individuality
and dividuality of personhood, etc., which we do not pursue
directly here. However, this example shows some aspects of
a non-essentialist view of identity that the Vezo themselves
maintain, related to both collective and individual selfrealization, with the body as the arena of this expression. It
points to a constant ux of becoming in the construction of a
social person, in this respect similar to the way the
Melanesian personhood is constructed (cf. Strathern 1988;
LiPuma 1998).
Vlasac, brings an invaluable corpus of data that triggers

questions of much wider signicance. We have tried to trace
an ethnography of neonates and childrens burials in the
Upper Gorge of the Danube that probably involves at least
part of the timerange from 9500 to 5500 cal BC.
We can point to several important ndings that the data
and their contextual analyses imply:
1. On the basis of osteometric analyses of 38 infant burials
found underneath the oors of buildings at Lepenski Vir, it
is possible to conrm a high peak of individuals aged at
3840 gestational weeks ( 2 weeks) (see Fig. 2), indicating that most if not all of the infants buried underneath the
rear of building oors at this site were neonates, i.e. newborn babies who died soon after birth.
2. The neonates were conned to 19 (out of c. 73) buildings
at Lepenski Vir, with the addition of two younger children
Burials 97 (House 31) and 92 (House 28) buried in
two other buildings in a similar way. As with other burials,
neonates and infants are absent from groups of buildings
in the north east of the site. Houses accommodated from
one to six neonate burials and there was no clear patterning related to the deceaseds sex, as mostly individuals of
both sexes were found in buildings with more than one
interment.
3. Almost all neonates were buried in the rear of buildings,
either through their oors or immediately next to the
limestone oors into the virgin deposits of the loessic
slope into which the trapezoidal buildings were dug. The
only exception, Burial 63 (House 28), relates to the unusual orientation of this building, indicating that the topographic perspective was of considerable signicance concerning the burial rite of this age group. On the basis of
present ndings, we reject the possibility that the infant
burials were interred before the building oors were furnished (contra Srejovi 1969a: 136; Srejovi 1972: 119;
contra Radovanovi 2000: 340, note 7).
4. There were no grave offerings in neonates burials. On the
basis of the varied positions in which they were found, and
with the help of the perspective of re-enacting the buried
body, we suggest that some, if not all neonates, and possibly younger children as well, might have been buried in
bags. These were buried in small burial pits, sometimes
covered with stones and stone slabs, or in one case with
part of the oor. Both their positions and orientations varied even within the same building.
5. In a number of buildings with neonate burials, both articulated burials on the oor level and, especially, disarticulated bones of adult individuals were found in the area
around the hearth of the building. In the latter case, these
were detached skulls and mandibles, but also other disarticulated bones of the postcranial skeleton. We suggest
that these bones might have encapsulated powerful, apotropaic forces and agencies that might have served varied
purposes in the lives of the inhabitants of, and/or visitors
to, these spaces, and possibly specically relating to the
buried remains of the neonates. However, signicantly, no
disarticulated adult (ancestral?) bones were found in the
neonate burials.
6. Apart from the neonates and children, only three other
burials at Lepenski Vir (7/I, 26 and 63) were dug through
Conclusions
The study of burials of neonates and children from Lepenski
Vir, together with apparent diachronic changes at the microregional level in burial rite and its elaboration in relation to
these age groups at the neighbouring and earlier site of
33
the building oor. Strikingly, all three were placed in extended positions on their backs oriented with the heads
pointing downstream, and behind/next to the rear of the
hearths of the buildings, respectively. We suggest that this
patterning in their placement signicantly relates to their
age (probably socially fully embodied persons), hence the
difference compared to the neonates and younger childrens burials. However, rites involved in their burial
might have carried the same prophylactic concerns toward
the deceaseds corporeal selves, similar to the neonates
burials. Incorporation of ancestral bones, such as the
skull (Burial 7/II) in Burial 7/I points in this direction.
7. There were no representational/decorated boulders
(mainly concentrated around hearths) commemorating
any of the buried neonates. In contrast, above two- to
three-year-old child Burial 92 two sculpted boulders were
found, one with a unique iconic expression (visible but
closed eyes carved horizontal lines), possibly related
to his unnished social embodiment. Signicantly, Burial
63 (House 40) of an approximately seven-year-old child
was commemorated with a small boulder, representing a
(child?) face with eyes opened up as engraved circles, as
on all other representational boulders (cf. Srejovi &
Babovi 1983), possibly indicating stages of socially inscribed personal embodiment.
8. At the neighbouring site of Vlasac, there are proportionately fewer infants and children among the discovered
burials (Bori & Stefanovi 2004). On the basis of osteometric parameters there is no dominant infant category
expressed in gestational weeks. A number of foetuses and
neonates were found, in several cases spatially closely tied
to adult individuals, possibly mothers (also within the
mothers pelvic area), indicating miscarriages that may
have caused the death of the mother too. A number of
whole infant burials and frequently groin areas of females
were sprinkled with red ochre and/or in several cases sh
(Cyprinidae) teeth. The red ochre might have been of
apotropaic signicance. We may assume that there is intrinsic, if only not fully consciously-made, connection
between the ochre of red colour used in Mesolithic burials
at Vlasac and the red colour of later limestone oors at
Lepenski Vir. The Vlasac examples indicate signicant
diachronic changes within the same cultural milieu.
9. The neonates and children discovered at Lepenski Vir
were buried from already existing building oors.
Considering a number of radiometric dates for the occupation and wooden posts of upper structures of these
buildings, we may assume an Early Neolithic date for the
discussed burials, i.e. 63005500 cal BC. This is also
conrmed by the reported presence of fragments of Early
Neolithic Starevo-type pottery in the hardly disturbed
context of neonate Burial 113 (House 63). This conclusion can be of signicance in the attempt to situate historically (and possibly culturally) the particular phenomenon
of infant/child burials and buildings, i.e. their placement
within the elaborated domestic space. This is related to a
number of examples of infant/child burials found underneath building oors across Pre-Neolithic and Early
Neolithic societies of the eastern Mediterranean.
10. Cross-culturally, C. Lvi-Strausss notion of building
societies brings fruitful perspectives in considering the

connection of the paradoxical and illusory struggle to
achieve xed descent groups, objectied through buildings (more precisely through the acts of their
creation/becoming), and the ways in which social persons
are constructed in a society, involving negotiation of personal and group identities and their engendered embodiments. These issues are central to the practices that surrounded the burials of infants and other age groups at
Lepenski Vir.
In addition to the exclusivity of the conclusions listed
above, we offer several less sharply dened concluding
comments on the basis of the forgoing discussion.
In his discussion of Lepenski Vir, Ian Hodder (1990: 25)
indicates that death dominates the buildings of this site. In his
opinion, at Lepenski Vir, like atalhyk, the domestication
of death takes place by bringing the dead body into the
building (Hodder 1990: 29). The power discourse is involved
in this interpretation and the dead body is controlled and acted upon. Hodder (1990: 40) sees a signicant relationship
between the dying and decaying individual body and more
permanent social units. As Meskell (1996: 7) argued in her
critique of the social constructionists view of the body, especially in relation to the works of Michel Foucault, this is
the body as the scene of display. Meskell (1996: 9) suggests that archaeological inquiries into lived and experienced
bodies should escape the discourse of domination and control, something that was so frequently applied in interpreting
evidence from the Danube Gorges and Lepenski Vir (e.g.
Handsman 1991; Chapman 1993, 2000). The emotional force
that might have surrounded the death of a new-born baby in
a building of Lepenski Vir, causing feelings such as grief,
bereavement and rage (cf. Rosaldo 1989[1993]: 120), although not directly penetrable for an archaeological study,
must be emphasized, indicating a possible porosity of all
previously established xed cultural patterns.
We offer an alternative to the discourse of power and control over both the dead and the living body. We emphasize
that the proliferation of neonate burials in buildings of
Lepenski Vir expresses particular care in the face of a disrupting existential anxiety of facing the death of a new-born
baby. On the other hand, it is believed that the deceased infant, already partly embodied, needs the protection of the
building, ancestral powers and apotropaic potencies
anchored in these structures, their hard limestone oors,
hearths and sacred heirlooms, such as sculpted boulders.
Personal embodiment probably played a signicant part in
determining the rites performed at Lepenski Vir. For instance,
several older age burials placed within cuts made through the
building oor were close to the hearths and were literally accompanied by ancestral bones (Burial 7/I), while neonate
and child burials were always placed away from the hearths,
avoiding their direct contact with ancestral bones. This may
indicate a realization of a harmful inuence of a direct physical contact between the deceased neonates and younger
children with possibly easily angered ancestors (cf. Astuti
1998).
We may assume that neonates and very young infants at
Lepenski Vir were not born with an already formed social
persona. It is possible that individuals who died immediately
34
after birth were seen by society as not fully human and, had
they lived longer, only with the passage of time would they
have layered their respective social personae, creating the
essence of their selves and socially formed personhood.
Still, there must have been some essence of their embodied
selves that was socially invested in by burying them within
buildings. Future work on the DNA-based formulation of relatedness among the burials of Lepenski Vir will provide
further clues to the direction of what inuenced the structuring of infant and other burials at the site in particular
buildings.
It may also be that although perceived as humans,
neonates, infants and younger children were not considered
capable of being protected on a dangerous journey to the underworld. This brings us to the question, what elements might
have constituted a person at Lepenski Vir? Some of the ethnographic examples (e.g. Astuti 1998; LiPuma 1998) as well
as those archaeological examples aided by textual information (e.g. Meskell 1996) indicate that persons might have
been multiply constituted throughout life and death and that
the spiritual and corporeal selves were inextricably bound,
rather than the Classical notion of the soul as entity imprisoned within esh (Meskell 1996: 13). This perspective
gives signicant weight to the materiality of the dead body as
simultaneously it belongs both to the world of the living and
to the other world. As the body is invested through varied
forms of social actions (e.g. initiation rites, tattoos) during its
life, and rites that transform and guide the individual through
the stages of social becoming (cf. Gell 1998: 86ff.), it remains
similarly important to help the deceased body, inextricably
connected with immaterial components that constitute it, to
pass the thresholds of its metamorphosis in death.
Although Meskell (1996: 11) critiques the preoccupation
of current archaeological discourse with the exteriority, surfaces, treatment, elaboration and decoration of the body,
which in her opinion neglects the embodied individuality,
exactly these practices are central in the creation/becoming
of the socially embodied person. All these practices of layering and wrapping of the human body (also by the building)
bring to the forefront the processes of becoming and indicate
the apotropaic salience of cultural practices.
Particular examples of burials at Lepenski Vir may indeed
indicate drama and performance of some plot (Hodder
1990: 29). This drama may be obvious in adult Burial 7/I as
it was accompanied by animal and human skulls that might
have been intended to aid his journey to the underworld. We
may only assume that this individual might have died in a
violent or unusual way, not ready for the perils of the journey
to the other world, desperately needing the guiding of this
possibly ancestral skull in particular. It seems that similarly
the burials of infants and children at Lepenski Vir needed the
sheltering proximity of the building and anchored potencies
that were spatially played out in a specic way for this age
group.
As Balkan and other ethnographies inform us, a safe journey to the underworld was not of importance for the deceased
only but also for the living, as the spirits of those deceased
that are trapped in the liminal plane of existence, between the
world of the dead and the living, can be of a considerable
danger to the living.
The notion of apotropaism underlying a number of cultural practices is emphasized in the offered interpretation of
neonate and infant burials at Lepenski Vir. Prophylactic concerns related to the human body are also signicantly connected to the construction and elaboration of building and
domestic area. This may be related to the pronounced emphasis on the descent-group and concerns on its xation,
historically constituted (Bori 2003). However, we must not
stay detached, only looking at the transcended cross-cultural
issues of political and social strategies at large. It is also necessary to approach empathy, admitting that practices such as
events of infant burials at Lepenski Vir, were constituted by
acts that are individual, emotional and experiential (cf.
Meskell 1994). Thus, the ontology of care is highlighted in
this interpretation, connecting concerns of larger social
structures, buildings as objectied lineages on one side, with
very individual and noised actions of experiencing and
emotionally driven individuals on the other. People at
Lepenski Vir intentionally engaged in signicant repetition
of cultural practices, subscribing to and believing in their
potencies.
Acknowledgements: We are grateful to Prof. Dr. ivko Miki for his kind
permission to work on the infant burials from Lepenski Vir. We also thank
the organizers and participants of the conference, The Iron Gates in
Prehistory (Edinburgh, 31 March2 April, 2000) for their reactions and
comments on the presentation of this paper. For valuable comments and information we would like to thank Katarina Novakovi.
Notes:
1. The archive eld documentation used is stored at the Centre for
Archaeological Research of the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of
Philosophy, University of Belgrade. The late Prof. D. Srejovi, principal excavator of Lepenski Vir, was afliated to this Department. Permission to use
the archive documentation was kindly granted by the Head of the
Department of Archaeology, Prof. ivko Miki.
2. The oors of almost all excavated buildings were relocated in the course
of protection work in 1970 (anak-Medi 1971). It is important to note that
the oors of Houses 13, 18, 27, 32, 37, 48 and 51 were moved as complete
blocks (whereas some of the buildings owing to their large size were cut into
several blocks), together with c. 0.75 m thickness of the deposits underneath
the oor (anak-Medi 1971: 14). Although infant burials were also found
underneath some of the buildings moved in this way (13, 27, 37 and 48), one
could speculate that those buildings like Houses 18 and 51, where the whole
building was moved in a single block, still conceal unexcavated infant burials together with other nds.
3. It is not possible to indicate the exact number of buildings for several
reasons. First, some of the open-air hearths (e.g. Hearth a and d, see Fig. 1)
have no oor around them and perhaps are much older than the later limestone oorings (Srejovis Lepenski Vir I phase) and although these do not
correspond to the notion of an elaborate house, they may indicate a domestic space. Second, in the cases when an older feature is overlaid with a
later ooring (e.g. Houses 62/62, 63/63, 37/37, 47/47 and 26/26; see Fig.
1) it is difcult to specify if the earlier features should be regarded as separate
buildings. And third, as we largely reject Srejovis Lepenski Vir II phase
(Bori 2002a) the separate Roman numbers that he assigned to the phase II
buildings do not indicate separate buildings but dry stone walls around the
cuts of Lepenski Vir I buildings (see discussion in the text).
4. The only exception to this is Burial 83ab. This burial was found in the
occupation layer (quad. d/II, next to the corner of point c, excavation level
XI, in the virgin soil; Field Diary 30/06/1970). Burial 83a is an older child
(around 5 years old) placed in a contracted position, NWSE orientation.
Several potsherds, two pieces of int, and snail shells were found in the
burial. Together with this individual, bones of two infants (83b and 83b(1);
see Table 1) were also found, partially preserved. After a taphonomic examination of the bones from this burial by one of us (S.S.), it was noted that their
fossilization (colour and bone consistency) is markedly different from the
rest of the infants at this site.
5. There is again no clear-cut pattern in the relationship between these sup-
35

Srpska knjievna zadruga, 224228.[S&B]
BKNYI, S. 1972: The vertebrate fauna. In Srejovi, D. Europes First
Monumental Sculpture: New Discoveries at Lepenski Vir. London:
Thames and Hudson, 186189.[S&B]
BONSALL, C., LENNON, R., M C SWEENEY, K., STEWART, C.,
HARKNESS, D., BORONEAN, V., BARTOSIEWICZ, L., PAYTON,
R. & CHAPMAN, J. 1997: Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in the Iron
Gates: a palaeodietary perspective. Journal of European Archaeology
5(1): 5092.[S&B]
BOURDIEU, P. 1990 [1970]: The Kabyle House, or the world reversed. In
Bordieu, P. (ed.) The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press, appendix [S&B]
BORI, D. 1999: Places that created time in the Danube Gorges and beyond,
c. 90005500 BC. Documenta Praehistorica 26: 4170.
BORI, D. 2002a: The Lepenski Vir conundrum: reinterpretation of the
Mesolithic and Neolithic sequences in the Danube Gorges. Antiquity 76:
10261039.[S&B]
Bori, D. 2002b: Seasons, Life Cycles and Memory in the Danube Gorges,
c. 10,0005500 BC. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Cambridge.[S&B]
BORI, D. 2003: Deep time metaphor: mnemonic and apotropaic practices
at Lepenski Vir. Journal of Social Archaeology 3(1): 4175.[S&B]
BORI, D. 2005: Body metamorphosis and animality: volatile bodies and
boulder artworks from Lepenski Vir. Cambridge Archaeological Journal
15(1): 3569.[S&B]
BORI, D. 2006: New discoveries at the MesolithicEarly Neolithic site of
Vlasac: preliminary notes. Mesolithic Miscellany 18(1): 714.[S&B]
BORI, D. & DIMITRIJEVI, V. 2005: Continuity of foraging strategies in
MesolithicNeolithic transformations: dating faunal patterns at Lepenski
Vir (Serbia). Atti della Societ per la preistoria e protoistoria della regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia XV (2004-05): 33107.[S&B]
BORI, D. & DIMITRIJEVI, V. 2007. When did the Neolithic package
arrive at Lepenski Vir? Radiometric and faunal evidence. Documenta
Praehistorica 35:.5372.[S&B]
BORI, D. & STEFANOVI, S. 2004: Birth and death: infant burials from
Vlasac and Lepenski Vir. Antiquity 78(301): 526546.[S&B]
BOYD, B. 1995: Houses and hearths, pits and burials: Natuan mortuary
practices at Mallaha (Eynan), Upper Jordan Valley. In Campbell, S. &
Green, A. (eds) The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East.
Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1723.[S&B]
BRUKNER, B. 1960: Rezultati zatitnog iskopavanja lokaliteta Batine
kod sela Obrea. Rad vojvodjanskih muzeja 9: 81111.[S&B]
BRNNACKER, K. 1971: Geologischpedologische Untersuchungen in
Lepenski Vir am Eiserner Tor. In Schwabedissen, H. (ed.) Die Anfnge
des Neolithikums vom Orient bis Nordeuropa, Teil 2: stliches
Mitteleuropa. Kln: Bhlau, 2032.[S&B]
CAMPBELL, J.K. 1964: Honour, Family and Patronage. Oxford.[S&B]
CRDENAS, D. & POLITIS, G. 2000: Territorio, movilidad, etnobotnica
y Manejo del Bosque de los Nukak orientales. Bogot: Universidad de los
Andes.
CARSTEN, J. & HUGH-JONES, S. (eds) 1995: About the House, LviStrauss and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.[S&B]
CAUVIN, J. 1994: Naissance des divinits, Naissance de lagriculture: La
Rvolution des symboles au Nolithique. Paris: ditions CNRS.[S&B]
CHAPMAN, J.C. 1993: Social power in the Iron Gates Mesolithic. In
Chapman, J. & Dolukhanov, P. (eds) Cultural Transformations and
Interactions in Eastern Europe. Aldershot: Avebury, 71121.[S&B]
CHAPMAN, J.C. 2000: Fragmentation in Archaeology. People, Places and
Broken Objects in the Prehistory of South-eastern Europe. London:
Routledge.[S&B]
CONNERTON, P. 1991: How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.[S&B]
CULLEN, T. 1995: Mesolithic mortuary ritual at Franchthi Cave, Greece.
Antiquity 69: 270289.[S&B]
CURREY, J.D. & BUTLER, G. 1975: The mechanical properties of bone
tissue in children. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 57 A :
810814.[S&B]
AJKANOVI, V. 1924: ivot i obiaji narodni. Studije iz religije i folklora.
Beograd: Srpska Kraljevska Akademija.[S&B]
ANAK-MEDI, M. 1970: Projekat za spasavanje Lepenskog Vira.
Saoptenja 7: 712.[S&B]
ANAK-MEDI, M. 1971: Radovi na spasavanju Lepenskog Vira u 1970.
godini. Dopunska istraivanja. Saoptenja 9: 517.[S&B]
DELEUZE, G. & GUATTARI, F. 1984: Anti-Oedipus. London:
Athlone.[S&B]
ports and buildings with infant burials. For example, in some buildings, such
as Houses 24, 47, 27, 43, 19 and 4, there were a number of these supports
surrounding the hearths and, at the same time, there were from one to four
or more new-borns buried in each building. On the other hand, infants were
also buried in buildings with no supports found around the hearths (Houses
54, 37, 38, 29, 62, 26, 36 and 48). We may simply observe that relatively
more infants were buried in buildings with more hearth supports (Houses 19,
4, 24 and 27). Srejovi (1969: 140141, 1972: 121122) suggested that these
supports stand for the deceased members of a building regardless of whether
or not they were buried in the buildings. In his opinion, the community cared
for the deceased who were represented by the supports (as schematic mandibles) and by placing the supports around the hearth the deceased would be
able to enjoy the warmth of the hearth and the food prepared on it (Srejovi
1969: 141, 1972: 122). Radovanovi (1996) used the supports and the form
of building thresholds as the main architectural features of the buildings for
her re-phasing of Lepenski Virs stratigraphy, assuming uniform change
through time reected especially through the quantity of these supports
around hearths. In her division, buildings with a large number of hearth
supports would represent chronologically later features, while their smaller
number or absence would suggest older buildings. This can only be partly
relevant as it is obvious from the published photographs that a number of
buildings that once had stone plaques were left with triangle holes as the
stone plaques were removed (Bori 2000b). Although some profane function
for these supports cannot be excluded (cf. Jovanovi 1969), it may be that
they were not placed once and forever and their presence or absence to some
extent could indicate the changing status of a building in its life history, while
indeed they can perhaps be connected to the burials and/or the deceased
members of a building (Bori 2003, 2005).
6. Ivana Radovanovi (1999: 74) discusses Burial 70 in connection with
dog burials, i.e deposition of dog bones at Lepenski Vir and Vlasac.
Radovanovi incorrectly attributed, discussed and phased this burial in relation to House 32 at Lepenski Vir, although it was actually found in House 36
(see Radovanovi 1996: 185).
7. A similar practice of turning the head to the east, i.e. to the Danube, is
expressed differently in relation to Burial 61 in House 40. Although the skull
of this burial is in the anatomical position, the sculpted boulder in the form
of a human head that was placed directly above the skull of the deceased
child was turned to face the Danube (cf. Srejovi 1969a: g. 6566; Srejovi
& Babovi 1983: 108) in the same way as the skull of Burial 26.
8. Since the local Vlachs represented the excavation team in the course of
excavation work at Lepenski Vir, this fact could have been used to view their
interaction with and interest in the excavated residues of the past excavated
in their local surrounding. This possibility is now largely lost.
References
ANTONIJEVI, D. 1982: Obredi i obiaji balkanskih stoara. Beograd:
Balkanoloki institut.[S&B]
ASTUTI, R. 1998: Its a boy, its a girl!: reections on sex and gender in
Madagascar and beyond. In Lambek, M. & Strathern, A. (eds) Bodies and
Persons. Comparative Perspectives from Africa and Melanesia.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2952.[S&B]
BABOVI, LJ. 1997: Poloaj i funkcija svetilita na Lepenskom Viru. In
Antidoron Dragoslavo Srejovi completis LXV annis ab amicis collegis
discipulis oblatum. Belgrade: Centre for Archaeological Research,
University of Belgrade, 95108.[S&B]
BAGCHI, K. & BOSE, A.K. 1962: Effect of low nutrient intake during
pregnancy on obstetrical performance and offspring. American Journal
of Clinical Nutrition 11: 586592.[S&B]
BANDI, D. 1980: Tabu u tradicionalnoj kulturi Srba. Beograd: Beogradski
izdavaki zavod.[S&B]
BANDI, D. 1997: Carstvo zemaljsko i carstvo nebesko. Ogledi o narodnoj
religiji. Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek.[S&B]
BASS, W. 1987: Human Osteology: a Laboratory and Field Manual (3rd
edition). Columbia, Mo: Missouri Archaeological Society.[S&B]
BENAC, A. 1973: Obre I. A Neolithic settlement of the StarevoImpresso
and Kakanj culture at Raskre. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen des
BosnischHercegowinisch Landesmuseums IIIA: 327430.[S&B]
BLOCH, M. 1995: The resurrection of the building amongst the Zamaniry
of Madagascar. In Carsten, J. & Hugh-Jones, S. (eds) About the House,
Lvi-Strauss and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
6983.[S&B]
BKNYI, S. 1969: Kimenjaci (prethodni izvetaj). In Srejovi, D.
Lepenski Vir Nova praistorijska kultura u Podunavlju. Beograd:
36

Freeman, 133151.[S&B]
JOHNSTON, F.E. 1962: Growth of the long bones of infants and young
children at Indian Knoll. Human Biology 23: 6681.[S&B]
JOVANOVI, B. 1969: Chronological frames of the Iron Gate group of the
Early Neolithic period. Archaeologica Iugoslavica 10: 2338.[S&B]
JOYCE, R.A. & GILLESPIE, S.D. (eds) 2000: Beyond Kinship. Social and
Material Reproduction in House Societies. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.[S&B]
KAVADIAS, G.B. 1965: Pasteurs-nomades Mditerranens, Les
Saracatsans de Grce. Paris: GauthierVillars.[S&B]
LANE, P.J. 1994: The temporal structuring of settlement space among the
Dogon of Mali: an ethnoarchaeological case study. In Parker Pearson, M.
& Richards, C. (eds) Architecture and Order. Approaches to Social
Space. London: Routledge, 196216.[S&B]
LVI-STRAUSS, C. 1983: The Way of the Masks. London: Jonathan
Cape.[S&B]
LVI-STRAUSS, C. 1987: Anthropology and Myth: Lectures 19511982.
Oxford: Blackwell.[S&B]
LIPUMA, E. 1998: Modernity and forms of personhood in Melanesia. In
Carsten, J. & Hugh-Jones, S. (eds) About the House, Lvi-Strauss and
Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 5379.[S&B]
MAKKAY, J. 1983: Foundation sacrices in Neolithic buildings of the
Carpathian Basin. Valcamonica Symposium 3 (1979): 157167.[S&B]
MALHORTA, K.C. 1990: Changing patterns of disease in India with special
reference to childhood mortality. In Swedlund, A. & Armelagos, G. (eds)
Disease in Populations in Transition. Anthropological and
Epidemiological Persectives. London: Bergin & Garvey, 313332.[S&B]
MARKOVI-MARJANOVI, J. 1969: Geologija i stratigraja. In Srejovi,
D. Lepenski Vir Nova praistorijska kultura u Podunavlju. Beograd:
Srpska knjievna zadruga, 185192.[S&B]
MARKOVI-MARJANOVI, J., 1978: Geologija i stratigraja. In In
Srejovi, D. & Letica, Z. (eds) Vlasac: Mezolitsko naselje u Djerdapu,
vol. II. Beograd: Serbian Academy of Science and Arts, 1127.[S&B]
MAYS, S. 1997: New directions in the scientic study of infant skeletons
from archaeological sites. Paper presented to the TAG Conference,
University of Bornemouth 1997.
MAYS, S. 1998: The Archaeology of Human Bones. London:
Routledge.[S&B]
MELLAART, J. 1967: atal Hyk: a Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London:
Thames & Hudson.[S&B]
MESKELL, L. 1994: Dying young: the experience of death at Deir el
Medina. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 13(2): 3545.[S&B]
MESKELL, L. 1996: The somatization of archaeology: institutions, discourses, corporeality. Norwegian Archaeological Review 29(1):
116.[S&B]
MINICHREITER, K. 1999: Ranoneolitiki ukopi i pogrebni obiaji u
naseljima starevakog kulturnog kompleksa. Prilozi instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu 15/16: 517.[S&B]
MLADENOVI, V. 1999: Threads of life: red fringes in Macedonian dress.
In Welters, L. (ed.) Folk Dress in Europe and Anatolia: Beliefs about
Protection and Fertility. Oxford: Berg, 97110.[S&B]
MOLLESON, T. & ANDREWS, P. 1997: The human remains. atalhyk
1997 Archive Report. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/[S&B]
MOLLESON, T., ANDREWS, P., BOZ, B., SOFAER DEREVENSKI, J. &
PEARSON, J. 1998: Human remains up to 1998. atalhyk 1998
Archive Report. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/[S&B]
MOLLESON, T., ANDREWS, P. & BOZ, B. 1999: Report on human remains recovered from the South Area, together with a summary of material from the BACH area and the KOPAL trench. atalhyk 1999
MOLLESON, T., ANDREWS, P., BOZ, B. & HAGER, L. 2000: Human remains. atalhyk 2000 Archive Report. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/
archive_reports/[S&B]
MOORE, J. & SCOTT, E., eds. 1997: Invisible People and Processes.
Writing Gender and Childhood into European archaeology. London:
Leicester University Press.[S&B]
NEMESKRI, J. 1974: Outline on the anthropological nds of a Neolithic
site. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen des BosnischHerzegowinischen
Landesmuseums, Archologie IVA: 3746.[S&B]
NEMESKRI, J. & LENGYEL, L. 1976: Neolithic skeletal nds. In
Gimbutas, M. (ed.) Neolithic Macedonia as Reected by Excavation at
Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology,
University of California, 375410.[S&B]
NEY, P. 1971: Mineralogische Analyse einer Fussbodenprobe von Lepenski
Vir I. In Schwabedissen, H. (ed.) Die Anfnge des Neolithikums vom
ELDREDGE, N. 1991: Fossils: the Evolution and Extinction of Species.

New York: Harry N. Abrams.[S&B]
ELIADE, M. 1957: The Sacred and the Profane. The Nature of Religion.
New York: Harvest.[S&B]
FENTRESS, J. & WICKHAM, C. 1992: Social Memory. Oxford:
Blackwell.[S&B]
FINLAY, N. 1997: Kid knapping: the missing children in lithic analysis. In
Moore, J. & Scott, E. (eds) Invisible People and Processes. Writing
Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology. London: Leicester
University Press, 201212.[S&B]
GALLIS, K. 1996: Burial customs. In Papathanassopoulos, G.A. (ed.)
Neolithic Culture in Greece. Athens: Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation,
171174.[S&B]
GARAANIN, M. 1982: The Stone Age in the central Balkan area. In
Boardman, J., Edwards, I.E.S., Hammond, N.G.L. & Sollberger, E. (eds)
The Prehistory of the Balkans; the Middle East and the Aegean world,
Tenth to Eighth Centuries BC. (The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume
III, Part I. 2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
75135.[S&B]
GARAANIN, M. & RADOVANOVI, I. 2001: A pot in building 54 at
Lepenski Vir I. Antiquity 75: 118125.[S&B]
GELL, A. 1998: Art and Agency. An Anthropological Theory. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.[S&B]
GIBSON, T. 1995: Having your building and eating it: buildings and siblings
in Ara, south Sulawesi. In Carsten, J. & Hugh-Jones, S. (eds) About the
House, Lvi-Strauss and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 129148.[S&B]
GILLESPIE, S.D. 2000a: Beyond kinship: an introduction. In Joyce, R.A. &
Gillespie, S.D. (eds) Beyond Kinship. Social and Material Reproduction
in House Societies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
121.[S&B]
GILLESPIE, S.D. 2000b: Maya nested buildings: the ritual construction of
place. In Joyce, R.A. & Gillespie, S.D. (eds) Beyond Kinship. Social and
Pennsylvania Press, 133160.[S&B]
GIMBUTAS, M. (ed.) 1976: Neolithic Macedonia as Reected by
Excavation at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia. Los Angeles: Institute of
Archaeology, University of California.[S&B]
GORDON, C. & BUIKSTRA, J. 1981: Soil pH, bone preservation and
sampling bias at mortuary sites. American Antiquity 46: 566571.[S&B]
GUY, H., MASSET, C. & BAUD, C-A. 1997: Infant taphonomy.
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 7: 221229.[S&B]
HAMILTON, N. 1996: The gurines and other small nds. atalhyk 1996
HAMILTON, N. 1997: Figurines. atalhyk 1997 Archive Report.
http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/[S&B]
HAMILTON, N. 1999: Figurines, burials/grave goods and beads.
atalhyk 1999 Archive Report. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/
archive_reports/[S&B]
HANDSMAN, R.G. 1991: Whose art was found at Lepenski Vir? Gender
relations and power. In Gero, J. & Conkey, M.W. (eds) Engendering
Archaeology: Women in Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell, 329365.[S&B]
HATZIMICHALI, A. 1957: Sarakatsanoi [Sarakatsans], 2 volumes.
Athens.[S&B]
HAWKES, L. with MOLLESON, T. 2000: Reeshing the past. In Hodder, I.
(ed.) Towards Reexive Method in Archaeology: The Example at
atalhyk. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research, 153166.[S&B]
HODDER, I. 1990: The Domestication of Europe. Structure and
Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Oxford: Blackwell.[S&B]
HODDER, I. 1999: Symbolism at atalhyk. In Coles, J., Benley, R. &
Mellars, P. (eds) World Prehistory. Studies in Memory of Grahame Clark
(Proceedings of the British Academy 99). Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 177191.[S&B]
HODDER, I. & CESSFORD, C. 2004: Daily practice and social memory at
atalhyk. American Antiquity 69(1): 17-40.[S&B]
HEG, C. 1925: Les Saracatsans. Une Tribu nomade Grcque.
ParisCopenhague.[S&B]
HOURMOUZIADIS, G. 1973: Burial customs. In Theocharis, D.T. (ed.)
Neolithic Greece. Athens: National Bank of Greece, 201212.[S&B]
JACOBSEN, T.W. 1969: Excavations at Porto Cheli and vicinity, preliminary report, II: the Franchti Cave. Hesperia 38: 343381.[S&B]
JACOBSEN, T.W. 1976: 17,000 years of Greek prehistory. In LambergKarlovsky, C.C. (ed.) Hunters, Farmers and Civilizations: Old World
Archaeology. Readings from Scientic American. San Francisco: W.H.
37

SREJOVI, D. 1981: Lepenski Vir: Menschenbilder einer frhen europischen Kultur. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.[S&B]
SREJOVI, D. & BABOVI, LJ. 1983: Umetnost Lepenskog Vira. Beograd:
Jugoslavija.[S&B]
SREJOVI, D. & LETICA, Z. 1978: Vlasac: Mezolitsko naselje u Djerdapu,
vol. 1 arheologija. Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti.[S&B]
STANKOVI, S. 1992: Kultna mesta centralnobalkanskog podruja.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Archaeology, University
of Belgrade.[S&B]
STANKOVI, S. & LEKOVI, V. 1993: Neolithic settlement at Blagotin.
Glasnik Srpskog arheolokog drutva 9: 177179.[S&B]
STEWART 1968: [S&B]
STRATHERN, M. 1988: The Gender of the Gift. Problems with Women and
Problems with Society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California
Press.[S&B]
STUART-MACADAM, P.L. 1989: Nutritional deciency diseases: a survey
of scurvy, rickets and iron-deciency anaemia. In Iscan, M.Y. &
Kennedy, K.A.R. (eds) Reconstruction of Life from the Skeleton. New
York: Alan Liss, 201221.[S&B]
TANNER, J.M. 1989: Foetus into Man (2nd edition). Ware:
Castlemead.[S&B]
TRINGHAM, R. 2000: The continuous building: a view from the deep past.
In Joyce, R.A. & Gillespie, S.D. (eds) Beyond Kinship. Social and
Pennsylvania Press, 115134.[S&B]
TURNER, V. 1967: The Forest of Symbols. Aspects of Ndembu Ritual.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.[S&B]
TURNER, V. 1974: Dramas, Fields and Metaphors. Symbolic Action in
Human Societies. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.[S&B]
UBELAKER, D.H. 1978: Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis,
Interpretation. Chicago: Aldine.[S&B]
VAN GENNEP, A. 1960: The Rites of Passage. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.[S&B]
WATERSON, R. 1990: The Living House: an Anthropology of Architecture
in South-East Asia. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.[S&B]
WATERSON, R. 2000: House, place and memory in Tana Toraja
(Indonesia). In Joyce, R.A. & Gillespie, S.D. (eds) Beyond Kinship.
Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 177188.[S&B]
WELTERS, L. (ed.) 1999a: Folk Dress in Europe and Anatolia: Beliefs
about Protection and Fertility. Oxford: Berg.[S&B]
WELTERS, L. 1999b: Introduction: folk dress, supernatural beliefs, and the
body. In Welters, L. (ed.) Folk Dress in Europe and Anatolia: Beliefs
about Protection and Fertility. Oxford: Berg, 112.[S&B]
WELTERS, L. 1999c: The Peloponnesian Zonari: a twentieth-century
string skirt. In Welters, L. (ed.) Folk Dress in Europe and Anatolia:
Beliefs about Protection and Fertility. Oxford: Berg, 5370.[S&B]
WHITTLE, A. 1996: Europe in the Neolithic. The Creation of New Worlds.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.[S&B]
WHITTLE, A., BARTOSIEWICZ, L., BORI, D., PETTITT, P. &
RICHARDS, M. 2002: In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the
Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary. Antaeus 25:
63117.[S&B]
WINNIFRITH, T.J. 1987: The Vlachs: The History of a Balkan People.
London: Duckworth.[S&B]
ZOFFMANN, ZS. 1983: Prehistorical skeletal remains from Lepenski Vir.
Homo 34(3/4): 129148.[S&B]
ZOFFMANN, Z S . 1988: Human skeletal remains from Divostin. In
McPherron, A. & Srejovi, D. (eds) Divostin and the Neolithic of Central
Serbia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 447455.[S&B]
Orient bis Nordeuropa, Teil 2: stliches Mitteleuropa. Kln: Bhlau,

3334.[S&B]
POLITIS, G.G. 1999a. Plant exploitation among the Nukak hunter-gatherers
of Amazonia: between ecology and ideology. In Gosden, C. & Hather, J.
(eds) The Prehistory of Food. Appetites for Change. London: Routledge,
99125.[S&B]
POLITIS, G.G. 1999b. La actividad infantil en la produccin del registro
arqueolgico de Cazadores-Recolectores. Revista do Museu de
Arqueologia e Etnologia Suplemento 3: 263283.[S&B]
QUITTA, H. 1975: Die Radiocarbondaten und ihre historische
Interpretation. In Srejovi, D. Lepenski Vir. Eine vorgeschichtliche
Geburtssttte europischer Kultur. Bergisch Gladbach: Gustav Lbbe,
272285.[S&B]
RADOVANOVI, I. 1996: The Iron Gates Mesolithic. Ann Arbor, MI:
International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 11.
RADOVANOVI, I. 1997: The Lepenski Vir Culture: a contribution to interpretation of its ideological aspects. In Antidoron Dragoslavo Srejovi
completis LXV annis ab amicis collegis discipulis oblatum. Belgrade:
Centre for Archaeological Research, University of Belgrade,
8593.[S&B]
RADOVANOVI, I. 1999: Neither person nor beast dogs in the burial
practice of the Iron Gates Mesolithic. Documenta Praehistorica 26:
7187.[S&B]
RADOVANOVI, I. 2000: Houses and burials at Lepenski Vir. European
Journal of Archaeology 3(3): 330349.[S&B]
RIVIRE, P. 1995: Houses, places and people: community and continuity in
Guiana. In Carsten, J. & Hugh-Jones, S. (eds) About the House, LviStrauss and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
189205.[S&B]
ROBERTS, C. & MANCHESTER, K. 1995: The Archaeology of Disease.
Ithaca (N.Y.): Cornell University Press.[S&B]
RODDEN, R.J. 1965: An Early Neolithic village in Greece. In Avenues to
Antiquity. Readings from Scientic American. San Francisco: W.H.
Freeman, 151159.[S&B]
ROKSANDI, M. 1999: Transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic in the Iron
Gates Gorge: Physical Anthropology Perspective. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Simon Fraser University,
Vancouver.[S&B]
ROSALDO, R. 1989 [1993]: Culture and Truth. The Remaking of Social
Analysis. Boston: Beacon Press.[S&B]
SAUNDERS, S.R. 1992: Subadult skeletons and growth related studies. In
Saunders, S.R. & Katzenberg, M.A. (eds) Skeletal Biology of Past
Peoples: Research Methods. New York: Wiley-Liss, 120.[S&B]
SCHEUER, J.L., MUSGRAVE, J. & EVANS, S.P. 1980: Estimation of late
foetal and perinatal age from limb bone lengths by linear and logarithmic
regression. Annals of Human Biology 7: 257265.[S&B]
SCOTT, E. 1999: The Archaeology of Infancy and Infant Death (BAR
International Series 819). Oxford: Archaeopress.[S&B]
SOFAER DEREVENSKI, J. 1997: Engendering children, engendering archaeology. In Moore, J. & Scott, E. (eds) Invisible People and Processes.
Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology. London:
Leicester University Press, 192202.[S&B]
SREJOVI, D. 1967: Lepenski Vir. Katalog izlobe. Beograd: Narodni
muzej.[S&B]
SREJOVI, D. 1969a: Lepenski Vir Nova praistorijska kultura u
Podunavlju. Beograd: Srpska knjievna zadruga.[S&B]
SREJOVI, D. 1969b: The roots of the Lepenski Vir culture. Archaeologia
Iugoslavica 10: 1321.[S&B]
SREJOVI, D. 1970: Lepenski Vir, Boljetin predneolitska i neolitska
naselja i nekropole. Arheoloki pregled 12: 7273.[S&B]
SREJOVI, D. 1972: Europes First Monumental Sculpture: New
Discoveries at Lepenski Vir. London: Thames & Hudson.[S&B]
38

New-Born Infant Burials Underneath House Floors at Lepenski Vir: in Pursuit of Contextual Meanings

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New-Born Infant Burials Underneath House Floors at Lepenski Vir: in Pursuit of Contextual Meanings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

New-born infant burials underneath house floors at

Lepenski Vir: in pursuit of contextual meanings

signicance and embodiment (e.g. Meskell 1994; Moore &

The Iron Gates in Prehistory

features of the studied site and the stratigraphic contexts, and

The following discussion is in three main parts. Firstly, we

New-born infant burials at Lepenski Vir

Burial no. Position

Back/legs splayed outwards

One bone only

Back (legs missing)

Extended/slightly bent legs

these three burials were placed one over the other

one placed on the top of the other

Back/legs splayed outwards

Back/legs splayed outwards

Back/legs splayed outwards

One bone only

Extended on its back

Back/legs splayed outwards

position or orientation unclear

The Iron Gates in Prehistory

served material. According to Zoffmann (1983), there are 80

age infant becomes child, and denitions of these age stages

New-born infant burials at Lepenski Vir

House 38 (Burial 111) (see Fig. 5). The burial marked as

present, was the age estimated according to the maximum

The Iron Gates in Prehistory

have already indicated that the presence of infants at

regular growth of long bones and porosity) were noticed on

Stratigraphic and contextual relations

Figure 2. Absolute number of infant individuals (N=38)

New-born infant burials at Lepenski Vir

eld documentation from the excavation campaigns at

Houses vs shrines: the signicance of domestic space

The Iron Gates in Prehistory

Figure 3 House 26 and neonate Burial 63.

On the other hand, there was again no clear-cut spatial

New-born infant burials at Lepenski Vir

ence in relation to one sex among the studied individuals.

such as wood and possibly reeds and/or hides (Bori 2002a:

a) Experience of building space at Lepenski Vir

b) Engendered space and its interpretations

The Iron Gates in Prehistory

Figure 4 House 47 and neonate Burials 123 and 124.

particular constellation of events within the house and the

New-born infant burials at Lepenski Vir

Figure 5 House 38 and neonate Burial 111.

The Iron Gates in Prehistory

Figure 6 House 37 and neonate Burials 132 and 133.

exed and c) a position with legs splayed outwards (see Table

tracted. Also, there is no clear pattern in the choice of the side

New-born infant burials at Lepenski Vir

the position in which we nd the body (Hawkes & Molleson

about the way the deceased infants, as well as adults, are

The Iron Gates in Prehistory

body prior to the burial. We suggest that at least some infants

New-born infant burials at Lepenski Vir

The Iron Gates in Prehistory

Figure 9 Houses 35 and 36 and neonate Burials114 and 115.

wide and deep enough just to place an infants body (possibly

New-born infant burials at Lepenski Vir

Figure 10 House 13 and neonate Burial 116. [#13]