Birth and death: infant burials fromVlasac and Lepenski VirDusan Boric' & Sofija Stefanovic^

Why were infants buried beneath house-floors at the Mesolithic and early Neolithic site of LepenskiVir? Undertaking a new analysis of the neonate remains at Vlasae and Lepenski Vir the authorsreject the idea of sacrificial infanticide, and demonstrate a consistency of respect in these burials.They suggest that the deaths were mourned and the dead, like the living, were given protection bythe houses they were buried in. The treatment of mothers and children suggests increasing socialcohesion from the Mesolithic at Vlasac to the early Neolithic at Lepenski Vir

Keywords: Mesolithic, Neolithic, Danube Gorges, Lepenski Vir, infant burial

Introduction

Vlasac and Lepenski Vir are key sites for the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in south-eastEurope that feature rich burials, including many infants and subaduits. Both sites providethe possibility of examining social attitudes to the death of the young and shed light on theimportance of these age groups for the reproduction of social units over time. In spite ofseveral analyses of human osteological material from tbe area of the Danube Gorges, therehas been little integration ot the results from physical anthropology and tbe archaeologicalcontext of the burials. In a programmatic step to overcome this research bias, we initiated are-analyses of infant burials from Vlasac and Lepenski, focussing on this group because of alarge number of infant burials and their striking spatial patterning. Mortuary data fromVlasac and Lepenski Vir provide the possibility of defining transformations in cultural attitudestowards infant deaths.

The archaeology of the Danube Gorges

The archaeological sites in the Danube Gorges were excavated through rescue projects in the1960s-1970s on both the Serbian and the Romanian sides of tbe Danube (see Figure 1).Sequences at sites such as Lepenski Vir, Vlasac, Padina and Schela Cladovei document thetransformation of fisher-hunter-gatherers of the Mesolitbic period (c. 10 000-6300 CalBC)to early pottery users of the Early Neolithic (c. 6300-5500 CalBC) (e.g. Srejovic 1969,1972; Chapman 1992; Radovanovic 1996; Bonsall et al 2000; Boric 1999, 2002a, 2002b;

/ Center for Archaeology, Colunibta University, 96! Sihermerhurn Hxtensioii 1190 Amsterdiini Avenue, MC 5538,New York, NY 10027, USA. (Email: dh2l28iPcolumbia.edu)

2 Department ofArehaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Be/grade. Cika Ljubimt 18-20, 11000 Belgrade,Serbia and Montenegro, (Email: smstefan@f.bgac.yu)

Received: 2 /aniiary 2003; Revised: 8 March 2004; Accepted: 5 November 200.3

526

Boric & Sofijd Stefanovic

'Iringham 2000). Sites in dieUpper Gorge (Vlasac,Lepenski Vir and Padina)contained remains oFtrapczoidiil floors withrectiingular stone hearths,sculptured boulders andcomplex sequences of humanburuils. Subsistence focusedon boch the river and chehintcrlatid areas, and iaunalremains included red deer,pig, aurochs and abundantFish bones. The mostproblematic issue at LepenskiVir is the presence of KariyNeolithic potter)' in thetrapezoidal buildings, andtheir absolute dating (cF.Boric' 1999, 2002a;Garasanina & Radovanovic2001; Tringham 2000).

Isotopic measurements ofstable carbon and nitrogensuggest a possible dietary

\ ^ -

•j, - •" Vlasac

N

s

Lepenski Vir

Figure !. M/i/> shmciiig the Upper Gorge sites with Mesolithic-Early Neolithicieijiiences in the Danube Gorges.

shift in the Neolithic, i.e. after c. 6100 GalBG {cF. Bonsall et al 2000; see also Grupe et al.2003 and Boric' etal. in press). Although isoropic measurements were analysed for ten childrenFrom Lepenski Vir and 7 from Vlasac by Bonsall et ai (2000: 125-6) it is not possihle torelate palaeodietary results to particular individuals as information on what skeletons wereanalysed was not published in their report. (For new stable isotope analyses of this materialsee Grupe et iiL 2003 and Boric et al. in press).

There are more than 500 burials in che Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites on both sides ofthe Danube in this region (Roksandic 1999, 2000; Radovanovic 1996; Boroneant^ri?/. 1999;Boroneant 2001), and the buried individuals represent only a selected portion oFthc populationthat inhabited tbe region over several millennia. A variet)' oFburial positions is recorded: extendedinhumations, burials in a sitting position with crossed legs, crouched/flexed burials, groupburials, cremations and partial burials witb disarticulated cranial and postcranial bones. 'Lhereis a pronounced tiianipulation and circulation of detached skulls and mandibles. A relativelylarge number of inflint and subaclult individuals are attested at Vlasac and Lepenski Vir. Thecategory 'inflmt' here designates individuals up to one-year old. A large majority oFVlasac andLepenski Vir infant burials are neonates. There are two foetuses at Vlasac and there are severalpossibly older infants at both Vlasac and Lepenski Vir on the basis oFsizeoFlong bones. Ageinginfant burials on the basis of size of long bones must be considered only as an approximateestimate (± several weeks). Here, we describe infant burials from these two sites.

527

Birth and death

Vlasac

Some 640 m- were cxcaviired at Vlasac in 1970-1971 (Srejovic & Letica 1978). The site islargely dated to the Mesolithic phase, with some possible Early Neolithic features and burials.The excavators reported three stratigraphic phases (Vlasac Mil). Burials are Found aroundrectangular hearths and structures with the trapezoidal base {Figure 2). AMS dates on someof tbe human burials suggest an occupation at this site as early as c. 9800 CalBC, whichmight have lasted continuously at least up to c. 6900 CalBC (Bonsall et al 2000: Table 3).

* - •

* c-icndeda

If cDntratii^d a I

lion (pa

ed tegs

Figure 2. VLisac — urchiieciuml feiiiurei iiiiel buri.ili from all phases (modified iifier Srejot'ic & Leiica 1978}. AMS dates onhuman burials corrected for the fresh wnier reserroir effect ace. to Method 2 as described by Cook et al. 2002.

100-

Two physicalanthropologists studied thehuman remains from Vlasac(Nemeskeri 1978; Roksandic1999, 2000). There are 87graves at the site. The sex andage structure shown in Figure "3 is based on the most recentre-analyses of the humanbones (Roksandid 1999, 20^2000).

On the basis of our re-analvses of infant burials,

Vlasac: sex and age

40-

males ?

males

females ?

females

unknown

Neonates Subadults Adults Unknown age

1 1 r c \ \ Fiptire 3. A?ea>idifx iiruitiire/il tlie human remaiiii from Vlasac (N - 165) (afterthere are IG foetal and ^\ ,., ,r,oo /i/i/., ' w

Roksandic 1999. 2000).neonate burials at Vlasac (seeTable 1) and their age structure is shown in Figure 4. The estimated gestational age is basedon the maximum length of femur and/or humerus (Bass 1987; Mays 1999), biLt in four

528

Du^an Boric & Sofija Stefanovit

26-28 29-31 32-34 35-37 38-40 41-43 44-46

Age in gestational weeks

Figure 4. Infants and neonatei from Vlann -(N = 26}.

in gesiarionaa! weeks

instances we cstmiLUed theage also on the basis of tibiaand radius lengths.According to their burialcontext, foetal and neonatcburials at Vlasac can beseparated into four groups: a)found in the pelvic area of apregnant woman (Burial 67),b) fo Li n d \v i t h adultindividuals during

anthropological analyses,some possibly pregnantwomen (Burials 50[ 1 ],50a[l], 55[21,4b[l],36[l],49[2], 60[l!, 84[1]}, c) clearly buried with an adult individual after [he birth (Burials 58b bythe legs of Burial 58 and Burial 6a on the right chest of Burial 6) and d) found as separateburials (Burials 10. 12, 12b, 19, 21, 21 [1 ], 35a, 36[1 ], 42a, 42b, 59, 61, 62, 66b). Note thatin previous anthropological analyses, adult Burials 6 (Figtux* 5), 50, 50a, 58, 60, 84, whichhave associated remains of neonates, were sexcd as male individuals (Nemeskeri 1978). 1 hemain criteria used to attribute sex to these individuals were robusr features of their skulls. Inthe tnost recent re-analyses with more restrictive criteria used in the attribution of sex, Burials6, 5()a, and 84 were sexed as "males?" (see Figure 3) only on the robusticity criteria whileBurial 60 was sexed as clearly male and 50 was left unsexcd (Roksandic 1999: appendix 1).

In Btirial 67, l"oetal bones were found in the pelvic area and mother and child most likelydied prior to the birth. Other individuals are much closer to the expected time of birth, i.e.aged at around 38-40 gestational weeks. It is possible that some of the individuals foundwiih adults died together with their mothers immediately prior to birth or during birth. Twoindividuals of neonate age. Burials 58h and 6a, clearly died after birth and were buriedtogctber with adult individuals who could have been their mothers or, if males, acting asprotective maternal figures (see Figure 5). There are a number of infant burials that wereburied separately. These include both neonates and infants between 2 and 4 months old.Ibis older age is partly reflected in the special body treatment and offerings. For instance.Burial 21 was placed next to Hearth 4 (see Figure 2) with 50 perforated shells of Cyclopeneritea Linnaeus snails and covered by Cyprtnidae teeth (Srejovic & Letica 1978: 58), whileBurial 42 was found beheaded and covered by Cyprhiidae teeth and red ochre (ibid.: 58).

'I be body treatment of adult burials with neonates is telling - Burial 67 with foetal boneswas covered with red ochre over the groin area and the deceased's right hand was placed onthe lower belly (ibid.: 57) while on the bones of Burial 6, with neonate Burial 6a on its chest(Figtire 5), red ochre was fotind on the ribs and vertebrae, i.e. where the child was placed(ibid.: 68). Red ochre was noted on adtilt Burial 50 (ibid.: 59) and red ochre and Cyprinidaeteeth were found covering adult Burials 49 and 50a. In a particularly interesting context,adult Burial 60 was found with neonate bones (Burial 60| 11) and was covered by Cyprinidaeteeth over the groin area, while neonate Burials 59, 61 and 62 were found in small oval pits

529

Birth and death

VW ' 4 /

H -J

I,bO C

< • • • = '

S

E

3 -£

-a o0 f

00

j_. ij jj _c

- « r' =

Z

o U-,

00

COU

aoa

-^

3 0

I — 3

•>:I-

• Ien5

-a-2 -^"2 S ^ ^

^ • - — - n b - — ^ ^ - 1

2 S - ca cQoX X

530

Bnnc dr Sofija Stejanovit

I

o

- C

O o c-5 e

c c

coU

h2

CD c

OG11--,

3

ca ^

^ 'I

O

•Bu

r

3T3

CQ CQ

— -a -a

s I3 --= "3 -d

-ac

^3 ^ ^

^ j=

551

Birth and death

next to Burial 60 completelycovered with red ochre (ibid.;60) (Figure 6).

Lepenski Vir

Lepenski Vir is the type-sitefor the entire Iron Gates/Danube Gorges regionalgroup. The preserved area ofthe settlement (c. 2400 m-)was completely excavatedbetween 1965 and 1970(Srejovic' 1969a, 1972,1981). There are at least 73structures, termed 'houses' or'shrines' with trapezoidalfloors plastered with redlimestone (Figure 7).Rectangular hearths made ofvertical stone slabs wereplaced in the centre of eachdwelling and sculpturedboulders with fish-humanfeatures were found onbuilding floors, primarilyaround the hearth area. Theexcavator reported fourmajor phases with severalsub-phases (Proto-LepenskiVir, Lepenski Vir la-e,Lepenski Vir II and LepenskiVir 11 la-b). However,radiometric dates from this site and material culture associations realistically indicate twodistinct periods in the occupation at the site - Proto-Lepenski Vir, representing a Mesolithicphase around 7500 Gal BG and Lepenski Vir I represented by the trapezoidal buildings ofEarly Neolithic age, c. 6300-5500 GalBG (Boric 2002a, Whittle et d. 2002) - while thereremains a possibility for a contintious seqtience between the two periods.

Nemeskeri (1972), Zoffmann (1983) and Roksandic (1999, 2000) have studied the humanremains from this site arriving at different sex and age estimates. 'Fhe 134 reported gravescontained the remains of c. 190 uidividuals. The sex and age structure shown in Figure 8 isbased on the most recent re-analyses of human bt)nes.

On the basis of our re-analyses, there are 41 neonate burials at Lepenski Vir (Table 2) andtheir age structure is shown in Figure 9. "Fhe estimated gestational age is based on the maximumlength of femur and/or humerus (Bass 1987; Mays 1999). Neonate burials from Lepenski

l-i^ure 5- Neonate Burial 6a found on tin- tiu-si nf Burial (-< ai \'lasi/c (j-'hoio: Centre

for Archaeological Research. Belgrade).

532

Du^an Boric & Sofija Stefaywvit

Vir were found underneathfloors of trapezoidalbuildings (cf. Radovanovtc]996;Srejovic 1969a, 1981;Stefanovic & Boric in press).These burials arcstrarigraphically connectedwicb 19 trapezoidal structuresand were placed exclusively inthe rear of the buildings(Figures 10 and U ) . Thehuria! pits either cut thelimestone floors or were dugimmediately off the floor edge,frequently between theconstruction stones Figure 6. Bones of neomite Ihiilal 6! buried in an oval pit

surrounding the floor, hi one ''"""'''^ ""' ^ '''^ '"'^'"^ "' ^^"'"'•

1 .uil Miiii'imi'

m 39

40'

' ' • :

60 * «

• i ' ^ ? f e - ^ V ' ' *'V.v-•••;•'• ^ f r ''

••'-• ' i s • \

? ••• ' ' I S

•" - \ I ' " B

O I _

•d V ith tlcrjth^ti skull

Figure 7. Trapezoidal huitdingi and construction stones ofLepemki Vir I phase according (o Srejovic (after Srejovic 1981:20-21) and types of burial on/beneath building floors and ouiside buildings from all phases. Large arabic numbers indicatebuildings ofLepemki Vir I. small arabic numbers burials (all phases). Some features ofLepenski Vir 11 are also shown here andare marked by roman numbers. AMS d/ues on human burials corrected for the fresh water reservoir ejfect ace. to Method 2 asdescribed by Conk et al. 2002.

533

Birth and death

c

a •"

I .i!

6Ji C

J

c1

0 0

•o

o1

CO

•o

1

CH ^

tr- 1

•o

- , c "~j r-.5i - ^ - ^ irT i l lj j . 00 — U^f rn ^ fn,^. O+ CM Ot-

— o o o o r--T 1" T "T t 700 CO 00 00 CO ir\

X:) -O X3 XD -OXD

O I O O I

I r-.

UJ

Z toI

2 2 i2

I

1= _i! g —

ligh

-ac

O O O — —

2 2UJ UJ

S E

-r °X c

554

DuUari Boric CT Sofijn Stefanovic

11

3 -SB 2P

CQ C

X D o t X D X D O t O O f C H

2 2on on

I o 'C

r-- r-. r--. i

2UJ T

on -H- 4-!-

co

sit

o-a

j j

a.

S;u

rtCQ

O

-aOJ

rt'

a.

St)

urt

CQ 44-

O

•ri

a.si)

44- CC

—

o

c

_§

-a

-5u

rt

C

44- 0

_c• -

5- 0

-nI

u

Io

2

2

44- CQ -H- 4-i- -W-

:=;X r=; X ^3IJ

mc

2 ,.Z 5-3 2

1

535

Birth and death

Infants

case neonate Burial 63 wasfound at the front corner ofHouse 26 (Boric 1999: Figure19). 7 his exception is due tothe unusual orientation of thisbuilding - parallel to theDanube along its longer axis(see Figure 7). 'I'he clearestexample of burials being cutthrough rhe limestone floorand not interred beforeplastering the floor {contraSrejovic 1969: 136; 1972:119; contra Radovanovic'2000,340, n. 7) is Burial 113in House 63' - a burial pit cut through thefloor is clearly visible with a stone blockplaced over it (Figure 11). In a number ofinstances, burial pits of oval and rectangularshape were visible in the virgin soil only afterthe floor was removed (Burials 94, 103,106,107, 128-131 and 132) (e.g. Figtire 12). Thisis due to the very small diameter of thesepits and, frequently, extensive damage of thelimestone floor. A number of neonare burialswere oriented with the heads toward thesouth-east or the south, i.e. approximatelyparallel to the Danube with their headspointing downstream. This position/

Lepenski Vir: sex and age

males

females

unknown

Subadults Adults Unknown age

Figure 8. Age and se.\- structure of the human remains at Lepenski Vir (N ~ 190)(after Roksandic 1999. 2000).

35-37 38-40 41-43 44-46

Figure 9. Neotiatcs at Lepenski Vir (without Burials I3'L 83band 83b[}j) with estimated age in gestational weeks(N . 38).

orientation is similar to some adult burials from Lepenski Vir and other sites in the DanubeGorges and might have been imbued with some ideological and/or religious significance (cf.Radovanovic 1997). Still, within the same building, neonate burials were also found orientedwith their heads pointing to the north-wesc, north or north-east (see Table 2). In some cases,stones bordered particular burials (Burials 63, 106, 125). 1 here were few exceptions to thecontext of burial beneath the floor: Burials 83b and 83b(l) were not associated witharchitectural features and are possibly of a different chronological age. The remains of infantBurial 134 found in the rear of House 48 were not preserved after the excavation (LepenskiVir Field Diary, 1970).

No grave offerings were found in neonate burials at this site. Only in the infill of Burial1 13 (House 63') were two small fragments of Early Neolithic pottery found (Lepenski VirField Diary 1970). It is unUkely that these fragments represent intentional deposition butwere rather residually present in the burial infill (for discussions about the presence of potteryin trapezoidal buildings see Boric 1999, 2002a; Garasanina & Radovanovic 2001).

536

Dufau Boric & Sofija Stefanovic

/A

•• 7

94

/ ' - ' T<-<\- • •'

• " ! • ' '

95 u

< 7

I limestone floor

^ H infant burials / preserved skeletal partsoutline of features underneath the floor

- (app. the same level as infant burials)

iiiijgil sculptured boulder

Figure 10. Home 2-4 and ricoihuc Biiriuts 94, 95. 101 and 102 iii Lepenski Vir.

537

Birth and death

outlme of the limestone floor and stonesof later House 63

limestone floor of older House 63'

^ H infant burials / preserved skeletal parts

Q _ I outline of features from House 63'

^ ^ ^ remain; of the hearth of House 63

Figure 11. Home 63 ' and a croa-section of the burial pit for neonuie Burial 113 covered by 11 none block iit lepensl't Vir,

In a number of instances, it was not possible to establish the exact position of the skeleton(see Table 2). Although the taphonomic condition of neonate burials on the whole is good atLepenski Vir, later disturbances might have been responsible for these unclear positions. Forinstance, placing a new interment in the same area could have disturbed earlier skeletons,affecting their preservation (e.g. Burial 98a disturbed by Burial 98 in House 19, Burial 110disturbed by Burial 107 in House 4 and Burial 109a disturbed by Burial 109 in House 4'). Itis possible that interment of Burials 129, 130 and 131 (House 27) and Burials 120 and 121(House 29) took place at the same time in the respective buildings (see Stefanovic & Boricin press). Recorded burial positions include: a) extended, b) contracted/flexed and c) a positionwith legs splayed outwards (see Table 2). In some burials only legs were contracted while thetorso was lying on the back. The third group in the position with legs splayed outwards (withthe heels below the pelvis and noted in the 1970 Field Diary as 'sitting') is especially interesting.It is possible to explain this position by reference to the process of re-enacting, i.e. re-fleshing

538

Didajt Boric & Sofija Stefanovic

the body (cf. Hawkes withMolleson 2000), thusdiscerning a specific bodytreatment prior to the burial.This specific burial positioncould be :i consequence ofplacJEig neonates in a hagprior to their interment in ;ismall burial pit. In tht-process of decay the bones olthe skeleton would slumpdepending on how the bat;cotuniniiig the neonau--body was placed in the

ground. If nconate's bodywas put contracted in a bagand placed on its hack, thelegs would slump eitheroutw.irds to the sides, orboth legs would slump toone side. In addition toneonate burials iound in chisposition, child Burial 9""(around 2-6 years old} inHouse 31 was found in asimilar position too (Figurc1.3). It is worth noting thaipossihly chronological I \older hotises containedburials in this position. On[he other hand, hoi licontracted (Burial 123) aiulextended (Burial 124) burialswere noted in House 47 andit is unclear wherhcr theseafter positions cacchronologically h^

differentiated (see Stefanovic& Boric in press}.

''-'• A'.v^y/,;;, liui:.i! W afu-r liftiiig the jlo.n

(-'•""•^'fi'-Archaeological Research. Betgrade).

i'J. Vir

llgiire /.>. (.'.hild Biirid! 9- uiuieriwiith the floor of House 31. Lepenski Vir

(pholo: (.emri: for Archneobff^iiiil Raearch. Hflgri/e/e).

Similar to the pattern of neonate interments in the rear of 19 btiildings, another olderchild Burial 92 (around 2 years old) was found in the rear of House 28, under a large stonehlock flanked hy two stone sculptures (Stefanovic & Boric in pres.s; cf. Srejovlc 1972: Figure10, l4). We shall coiiiextLialise this instance in the followine, discussion.

539

Birth and death

Discussion and interpretation

Taphonomically, neonate burials from Lxpcnski Vir are better preserved than those FromVlasac. This differential preservation is due to a different deposition and archaeological contextat the two sites. We noted some signs of classically described nutritional deficiency at LepenskiVir, such as cribra orbitidia on Burial 120 (House 29). Burials 106 and 107 in House 4 hadirregular growth ot claviculae. Irregular growth of long bones and porosity were noted onBurials 108 in House 4, 109 and 109a in House 4', 114 in House 36 and 121 in House 29.There are 19 male and 14 female neonates from Lepenski Vir on the basis of the DNAanalyses {Table 2; Culjkovic et at. in press) and hence no clear preference for only one sex.The DNA analyses further suggest a heterogeneous structure of the population among thehouses on the basis of this material (ibid.).

There is a clear difference between Vlasac and Lepenski Vir in the burial treatment ofinfants. At Vlasac, the prevalence of neonate burials with mothers (but also with, in oneinstance, at least one male adult too) indicates a pronounced concern for the death of pregnantwomen, some of who might have died giving birth or during pregnancy. In several cases itseem."; that both mother and a child died immediately after the birth and were buried together(e.g. Burials 6-6a, Figure 5). The pronounced concern for both the mother and child isemotionally moving in the instance where the hand of individual in Burial 67 was placedover the lower belly with the unborn baby. It seems that the practice of covering the pelvicarea or the whole body with red ochre relates to mothers and infants in particular. Similarly,after re-exaiiiiuing Cyprinidae teeth found in burials, otic of us (UB) noted that a number ofthese had small perforations on the root and might have been attached as part of a garment(possibly to some kind ofapron or string skirt) (Boric 2002b). These again could specificallyrelate to women and infants. Infant Burial 21 (2-4 months old) was buried separately with50 perforated snails and this probably reflects its stage of social embodiment, which sharplydiffers from neonates.

A different treatniciu of Lepenski Vir neonates can be explained as a consequence of culturechanges affecting thccommiuiity in the Gorges in adiachronic perspective. One of the maindifferences at Lepenski Vir is that neonates are no longer buried with adults in the spacearound open-air hearths and stone constructions but as separate burials under red limestonefloors of trapezoidal buildings, always in the rear of a building. 'Lhis change in the burial ritepossibly suggests some major social and ideological restructuring in the Danube Ciorges, orat least in the Upper Gorge, at the beginning of tbe Early Neolithic, i.e. c. 6300 CalBC, atthe time when, also, the first elaborate trapezoidal buildings appear at Lepenski Vir. Thereare no ' 'C . dates for neonate burials and we date them stratigraphically, i.e. in relation to thedating of a particular building.

The association of infant and subadult burials with architectural/dwelling structures isrecurrent throughout the Neohthic Balkans and eastern Mediterranean (e.g. Whittle et at.2002; Zoffmann 1988; Brukncr 1960; Benac 1973; Gimbutas [ed.] 1976; Demoule &Lichardus-Itten 1994; Rodden 1965; Gallis 1996; Jacobsen 1976; le Brun 1989, 1997;Mellaart 1967; Hodder 1999; Molleson et at. http://www.catalboyuk.com/). With regard tothe frequently debated issue as to whether we are dealing with the practice of infanticidewhen encountering a large number of infant burials in an archaeological record, we see no

540

Duian Boric & Softja Stefanovic

reason to interpret burials at Vlasac and Lepenski Vir as victims ot infanticide, regardless ofa high death peak between 38-40 gestational weeks (cf Mays 1998: 66). This conclusion isbased on the following:• there is a considerable communal concern expressed towards infants and pregnant women "5

at chronologically earlier Vlasac, which can hardly speak in favour of an infanticide ^tradition in this cultural context w

• neonate burials at Lepenski Vir were not buried before the floor of a building wasfurnished [contra the scenario regarding pt)ssible 'sacrificial deposits') but burial pitswere cut through already existing floors

• infant and children burials were also found underneath floors of buildings in a numberof pre-Neolithic and Neolithic contexts of the eastern Mediterranean, and the meaningssurrounding these practices might have been shared.

Why were neonates especially selected for burial in this particular way under floors of theLepenski Vir trapezoidal buildings? This question can perhaps be answered by looking atsome other burials also found interred into cuts made through tbe floors of buildings ofLepenski Vir. Adult Male Burials 26 (House 34) and 7/I-a (House 21) and child Burials 61(House 40) and 92 (House 28) were cut through the floors of their respective buildings (cf.Srejovic 1969, 1972; Radovanovic 1996; Stefanovic & Boric' in press). These ari! all extendedinhumations, lying parallel to the Danube, heads pointmg downstream. Adult Male Burials26 and 7/I-a were placed immediately behind the back area of the hearths while subadultBurials 61 and 92 were found placed more to the rear of their respective buildings, similar tothe position of neonates. This .spatial patterning reflects differences in rank and gender, possiblyinscribed onto the division of building space (see Stefanovic & Boric in press).

A possible interpretation for burials cut through building floors can be related to ideasabout 'houses' as places that embodied ancestral powers. Disarticulated cranial and postcranialbones were foimd on building floors at Lepenski Vir, and in the case of Burial 7/I-a a detachedhuman skull with a pronouncedly robust features (perhaps considered as 'ancestral') wasplaced to accompany the burial (ct. Srejovic 1972: Figure 61; Radovanovic 1996: Figure4.3), possibly acting as a beirlooni or relic (Borid 2003). Sculptured boulders found in manybuildings are also possibly sacred heirlooms that indicate ambiguous meanings of these spaceswith both sacred and profane connotations. To bury neonates within the 'house' space mighthave been seen as both protective for their ungendered souls in the spirit world of the afterlifeand important for the reproductive potency of the building seen as an embodiment of alineage. One instance from Balkan ethnography may be particularly evocative in this context.Among the Saracatsans, pastoral nomads in the Balkans, in the case of the death ol a new-born or a miscarriage there was a widespread custom up until 1940 to put the child in a bagfull of salt and to hang it above the parents' marital bed for approximately forty days, untilthe child's corpse dries out. After this period tbe corpse of the deceased child in the bag isburied in a pit dug in a corner of the hut XaTtr)uLXf(? Tl 1957: 68 cited by Antonijevic 1982:1.34).

Similar examples of the connection between new-borns and bouses are found in othercultures (e.g. Bloch 1995;Riviere 1995;Gibson 1995; Gillespie 2000: 219, note8; Waterson1990, 2000), while some comparative studies of folk dress in the Balkans and Anatolia identifyconcerns that connect issues of the protection and fertility with mothers and children (cf.

54}

Birth and deiith

Welters 1999). In Ian;iToraja, South Sulawesi, Indonesia, through successive generations,fathers would bury placentas (seen as a 'twin' to the baby) of new-born babies always at thesame spot at the east side oFa house that is associated with life and the rising sun (Waterson1990: 198, 2000: 180, 182). In other Indonesian societies, such as the Timorese, the umbilicusand placenta would be placed in a bag and hung on the central (ancestral) pillar of the mainroom in a house. Similarly, in Timinibar the placenta would be buried in the house floor(ibid.: 180). In another example from the same region, in the village of Ara, among theMakassarese of South Sulawesi, Indonesia, the birth is surrounded by extensive magic ritualsintended to facilitate the delivery and protect the baby (but also the mother) from evil forcesand spirits that can harm the baby while still "m the extremely vulnerable condition of havingan unhealed navel and soft fontanelle" (Gibson 1995: 137).

Or one may evoke the notion of "boneless" baby that comes from the Ve/.o of Madagascar(Asriiti 1998). The Vezo think thut people are not born as himians, but become human asthey get older. They see new-born babies as strongly tied with mothers, vulnerable and notfully human. Moreover, new-born babies are malleable and plastic, especially with regard totheir facial features, and their bodies are soft and weak, i.e. 'boneless', and only have thepotential to become 'fully-boned' adults (ibid.: 36). Both mother and baby are vulnerableafter the event of birth as their bodies can be penetrated by the deadly "air" and babies mustbe protected by being wrapped up in layers of clothes (ibid.: 35). Such small babies muse notbe left alone as they are unprotected from the harmful influence of abound kind of spirits -angatse, which are the reason that eyelids of babies tremble and roll sideways every time thespirits are around. Another kind of cianger comes from vengeful ancestors that can be bad-tempered and can easily harm a "boneless" baby. If a baby dies bctore it is one year old, iteannot be buried in a family ancestral tomb as it has not become a human, i.e. its socialperson has not been '\'reated' yet (ibid.: 36-37). It is interesting to note that in the case of theZafimamry of Madagascar, houses, as people, also acquire 'bones' through their slow buildup with more permanent material (from woven bamboo to massive wooden planks) andelaboration of specific decorative wood carvings, where the process of'beautifying' the timbersmakes a part in the process of the growth and successful marriage of the founding couple(Bloch 1995: 78ff).

In this context, could we maintain the idea that in our case study the described burialpractices at Lepenski Vir are ^^the domestication ojthe death" by bringing the dead body intothe house as suggested by Hodder (1990: 29)? Our analysis suggests that instead of the issueof control over the dead body, infant burials from Lepenski Vir may rather indicate anemotional response to the death of a new-born that is also constitutive of a concern andemphasis on the reproduction of more permanent social units embodied in trapezoidalbuildings. These concerns might have also been expressed in one of the representationalboulders found in House 57/XLIV, which is most likely a depiction of a hybrid fish/womangiving birth (Srejovic & Babovic 1983: 1 H-l 1 5).

We suggest that the protective role of houses might have been seen as important for thedead as for the living at Lepenski Vir. 1 he neonate, subadult and adult burials found placedin burial pits cut through building floors might have needed the protection of these structures,likely understood as lineage/ancestral focal points. The situation is different at Vlasac whereinfiint burials are largely found in relation to an adult burial, and it could possibly indicate

542

Didan Boric & Sofijn Stefanovic

an expression of less nuclear social groupings during the Mesolithic period. The changeseems to be related to new social and ideological frameworks that were promoted in theEarly Neolithic context at Lepenski Vir. However, this apparent change in mortuary treatmentof infants is rather an extension of the process that may already be observed at Vlasac where y

burials of various age groups were clustered around open-air rectangular hearths, possiblystanding for a particular social group of a wider community.

On the other hand, the apotropaic character of infant burial practices might have beenalso directed towards the living community in order to appease possibly vengeful infantsouls, trapped in the liminality of death experienee for which they have not been prepared(cf Bloch & Parry 1982; Metcalf & Huntington 1991; Bandic= 1997). Hence, these practicesmight have been surrounded with possibly ambiguous but not contradictory concerns.

CxTtain elements related to the protective, i.e. apotropaic, principle of mortuary rites seemto remain the same in the diachronic perspective. 'Thus, it could be instructive to note thatthe colour of building floors at Lepenski Vir is red and that red ochre at Vlasac was extensivelyused in relation to deceased pregnant women (and some other adtilts) and infants; in bothcases the colour red possibly marked a protective arena (Boric 2002).

Conclusion

"The contextual study of neonate and inflmt burials from Vlasac and Lepenski Vir opens upa potential to discern specific stages of social embodiment related to age in these societies. Italso provides the possibility of describing aspects of lived experience (cf. Meskell 1994, 1996)with a glimpse over the emotional side of disruptive life events, such as the death of new-borns and pregnant women. On the basis of our findings, we are compelled to reject theinfanticide/sacrificial deposit explanation for infant burials at the two sites, which is frequentlyrelated to a research practices of imposing savage stereotypes onto the past record (see Schrire& Stciger 1974). "This conclusion is based both on the stratigraphic position of infant burialsat Lepenski Vir that were interred into burial pits cut through the floor and not sacrificiallydeposited before the floor was furnished and, also, on the diachronically retained aspects ofmortuary rites, which both at Vlasac and Lepenski Vir suggest a will to protect, directed bothtowards deceased infants and the living community.

Recently, there have been burgeoning fields of study, at least partly influenced by thirdwave feminism, that focus on varied aspects of childhood in the archaeological record (e.g.Sofaer Derevenski 1997; Scott 1999; Politis 1999; Joyce 2000). The previous disctissionwith regard to examples of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic infant burials from Vlasac andLepenski Vir indicates that in both contexts a significant proportion of those selected forburials were infants and siibadtilts. Moreover, it seems that the social and symbolic importanceof new-born infants might have been equal to that of the 'big men' of the communityconcerning the reproduction of social units equated with particular houses.

Acknowledgments

We cliank Professor Or Zivko Mikic (haLiilty of Philo^opliy, Univcrsiiy ot Belgrade) for pcrmissitni i<> work onin[;irit burials trom Vlasac and Lepcnski Vir and i lifvu Mollt:M»n, )ohn Robb, and Ann.) Boozer for valuablecomments on earlier drafts ot ilic paper.

543

Birth and death

References

ANTONljlvii; D. 1982. Obredii obitaji balhinskihstocara. Beograd: Balkanoloski insticui.

Aviuii. R. 1998: "Its a boy," "ir's a girl!" Reflections ansex and gender in Madagascar and beyond, inM. Lambek & A. Strathern (eds.) Bodies andpersons. Comparative perspectives from Africa andMelanesia: pp. 29-52. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

BANDI^; D . 1997. Carstvo zemalpko i carstvo nebeiko.Ogledi 0 mirodnoj retigiji. Beograd: Biblioteka XXvek.

BASS, W. 1987. Human osteology. New York: MissouriArchaeological Society.

BENAC, A. 1973. Obre I. A Neolithic settlement ot theStarfevo-Impresso and Kakanj ciiliiire atRaskrasce. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen desBosnisch-Hcrcegowinisch Ldndesrnuseuins [IIA: 327-430.

Bi.ocH, M. 1995. The resurrection of the house amongst[he Zafimaniry of Madagascar, in J. Carsten &S. Hiigh-joties (eds.): pp. 69-83. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

B:.(iCH, M. &J. PARRY, 1982. Death and theRegeneration of Life. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

BoN.SAi.1.. C , G. Coot,, R. LRNNON, D . HARKNKSS,

M. StxiiT, L. BARTOSII'WKV, & K. MCSWEENFY.

2000. Stable isoropes. Radiocarbon and theMesolirhic-Neolithic Transition in tbe Iron Caces.Documenta Praehistorica 27: 119-32.

BONSAII, C , V. BORONFANI, & 1. RADOVANOVK' (eds)

m press. Ihe Iroti Gates Prehistory: New Perspectives.Oxford: BAR.Int.Ser.

BORONI-:AN"J; V. 2001. Palaeoliihique superieur etEpipaUolithicjue dam la zone des Portes de Fcr,Bucureji: Silex.

BORON1-.AN";; V , C. BONSAI.L, K. MCSWKI'.NLV,

R. PATRIM & M. MACIKI.IN. 1999. A Mesolithic

Burial Area at Scbela Cladovei, Rotnania, in A.Thevenin (ed.), L'Europe des derniers chasseurs.Epipaieoitthique et Mesolithique: pp. 385-90. Paris:Editions du CTHS.

D. 1999. Places chat created time in the DanubeCorges and beyond, c. 9000-5300 BC. DocumentaPraehistorica 26: 41-70.

2002. Apotropaism and the temporalitj' ol colours:colourful Mesolithic-Neolithlc .seasons in tbeDanube Gorges, in A. Jones & C. MacGregor(eds.). Colouring the Past. The Significance of Colourin Archaeological Research, pp. 23-43. Oxford: Berg.

2002a. Tbe Lepenski Vir coiiimdrum: reintcrprerationof tbe Mesolithic and Neolithic sequences in theDanube Ciorges. Antiquity 7G: 1026-1039.

—2002b. Seasons. Lije Cycles and Memory in the DanubeGorges, e. 10000^5500 BC Gal Unpublished Ph.D.Dissertation, University oFCambridge,Cambridge.

-2003. 'Deep time' trietaphor: mnemonic andapotropaic practices at Lepenski Vn. Journal ofSocial Archaeology 3(1): 46-74.

Boi!i(:, D., C. Cfiui't:, J. I'F.TI RS, & T . MiK:f;. in press.Is Mesoiithic-Neolitbic subsistence dichotomy real?lsotopic evidence from the Danube Gorges.Archaeometry.

BRtJXNKR, B. I960. Rezuhati zastitnog iskopavanjalokaliteta "Bastine" kod sela Obrcza. Hadvojvodjanskih muzeja 9: 81-1 I I .

Le BRL'N. A . 1989. Touilles Recent a Khirokitia (Chypre)

1983-1986. Paris: [-ditions Recherche stir lesCivilisations,

-1997. Khirokttia. A Neolithic Site. Nicosia: Bank ofCyprus Cultural Foundation.

CARSIIN, J. & S. HUCH-JONIS. (eds.) ]^95. About the

House, Levi-Strauss and Beyond. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

GHAI'MAN, J. C . 1992. Social Power in the Iron GatesMesolithic, in j . Chapman and P Doluklianov(eds.), Cultural Transformations and Interactions inEastern Europr. pp. 71-121. Alder.shot: Avebury.

GixiK. G., C. BtiNSAu, R. E. M. HLDGIUS, K.McSwhr.NHV, V. BoRONKANj; L. BARIDSUWKV. &P B. PL.nirr, 2002. Problems of dating humanbones frotn the Iron Gaies. Antiquity 76: 77-85.

DF.MOUI h, )-P & M. Lit:HARnu.s-lTTKN. 1994. FouiilesFranco-Bulgares dti site neolithique ancien deKovarevo (Bulgarie du sud-ouest). Rapportpreliminairc (campagnes 1986-1993). Bulletin decorespondance helenique 118(1994). 2 EtudesChroniques et rapports: 561-618.

(i tJiiKOVit, B., S. STF.FANOVIC:, & S. ROMAC- in press.

DNA-based sex identification ot the infant remainsfrom Lepenski Vir, in C. Bonsall et at.

GALLIS, K. 1996. Burial cusioms, in C. A.Papatbanassopoulos (ed.). Neolithic Gulture inGreece: pp. 171-4. Athens: Nicholas P CoulandrisFoundation, Museum of Cycladic Art.

GARA.<ANLN, M . & I. R.MX)VAN()vif. 2001. A poi in

house 54 at Lepen.ski Vir !. Antiquity 75(287):118-125.

N, T. 1995. Having your bouse and eating it:houses and siblings in Ara, south Sulawesi, in J.C^arsten &c S. Hugh-Jones (eds.): pp. 129-48.

Gi: l.KSinh, S. D. 2000. Maya "Nested Houses": TheRitual C^ionstruction of Place, in R. A. )oyce &S. D. Gillespie: pp. 133-60.

544

Dii!/ni Boric & Sofija Stefanovic

GlMliL:rA,s, M. (cd,). l'^76. Nmtilhic Mna'doiiui: asreflected by excaratioH at Atizii. southeast Yugoslavia.Los Angeles: The Instiiiitc nf Archaeology,UniviTsity ol Ciililoriiia :i[ l.os Arigfk-s.

, G., H . MANHAKI , Z. MiKi^ & j . Pi'ihu.s, 2003.Vertebrate food webs sukiiistence strategics o[Meso- and Neolithic populations of centralEurope, itl G. Grupc & J. IVters (cd.) Dociimi-nluArchaeoOilogiae I. Yearbook ofihe State Co/kaioii ojAnthropology and Palneoanatomy, Miiiicheri,Germany: pp. 193-213. Rnhd^Ti/Wcstf: Verlag M.I.eidorf.

XT|, A. 1957. X, u£poo A, B, AHiiv(u.

HAWKKS, L. witb T. M01.1.KS0N. 2000. Rellashing thePast, in !. Hodder (ed.). Towards reflexive method inarchaeology: the example of Qatalhoyiik: pp. 153-66.Cambridge: McDonald Institute forArcbaeological Rescatch.

HoDDKi!, I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe.Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies.Oxliird: Basil Bhickwell."

-1999. Symbolism at (^atalhiiyiik, in J. Cdk-s, R.Benlcy & P. Mirllars (eds.). World Prehistory. Studiesin Memory oj Grahame Clark: pp. 177-19!.(.)xlord; Oxford University Ptess.

JA( OI.SKN, T. W. 1976. 17,000 Years ofGreekPrehistory, in Hunters. Farmers and Cirilizatiorts:Old World Archaeology. Headings from ScientificAmerican: pp. 133-151. San Ftaiicisco: W. H.Frct-maii and Company.

J(w:i;, R. A. 2000. Girling the girl atid boying the boy:the production of adulthood in ancientMesoamerica. World Archaeology 31(3): 423-41.

Jc.vci;. R. A. & S.D. GiL.Lh,si'ii-.. (eds.). 2000. BeyondKinship. Social and Material Reproduction inHouse Societies. University of Pentisylvania Press,Philadelphia.

MAYS, S. 1 998. The archaeology of human bones. London& New York: Routledge.

Mil I A.-\kl', J. 1967. Qtlid Hiiyiik: A Neolithic Town inAnatolia. London: Thames & Hudson.

KLi., L. 1994. Dying Young: The Experience ofDeath at Deir el Medina. Archaeological Reviewfrom Cambridge 13(2): 35-45.

-1996. The Somatization of Archaeology: Institutions.Discourses, Corporeallry. Norwegian ArchaeologicalReview 2%\):]'\6.

Ml K All, P & R. HllNriNT,io\. 1991. Celebrations ofDeath. The Anthropology ofMorttiary RitualCambridge: Cambridge University Ptess,

Ni.Mi-.sKi.Ri, J. 1972. The inhabitants of l.L-pcnski Vir. inD. Srejovic 1972: pp. l'JO-204.

-1978. Demographic siruciurc of the VbsacEpipalaeolithic populaiion, in M. Garasanin (ed.),Vlasac - mczolitsko naselje u D/erdapu (11): p p . 9 7 -

133. Bcogtad: .Stpska akademija njuka iumetnosti.

Poi.lllS, G. C. 1999. l,a actividad infantil fii laproduccion del regisiro arqucologico de Cazadores-Recolectores. Rerista do Museit di- Artjueologia etjnologia Siiplemento 3: 263-83.

[lAixiVAMAit; L 1996. The Iron Gates Mesolithic.International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor:Archaeological Series 11.

-1997. The Lepenski Vir Culture: a contribution tointerpretation of its ideological aspects, inAntidoron DragosLivo Srejovit completis l.XVannisab amicis collegis disciptdis ohlatum: pp. 85-93.lieograd: Centar/.a arheoliiska isirazivanja,Filozofski fakultet.

-2000. Houses and butials at l.epeii.ski Vir, Europeanjournal of Archaeology 3(3): 3.50-349.

Roiii Kis, C. . & K. MAN(:IIHSII R. 1995. 'The Archaeologyoj Disease. New York: Itbaca.

RoiiDi.N, R. J. 1965. An Early Neolithic Village inGreece, \n Avenues to Antiquity. Readings fromScientific American: pp. 151-59. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Comp:iny.

R()K.sAN[)i(\ M. 1999. Transition ji-om Mesoltthic toNeolithic in the Iron Gates gorge: Physicalanthropology perspective. Unpublished I'b.D.disseriation. Department ot Anthropology, SimonFrLiser Llniversiiy, Vancouver.

-2000. Between Foragers and Farmers in the IronGates (iorge: Physical Anthropology Perspective.Djerdap Population in 'Ftatisition from Mesolithicto N e o l i t h i c . Docuntenta Pnichistorica 2 7 : l - l O O .

Rivit.Ul, P 19'>5. Houses, places and people:comnuiniiy and continuity in Guiana, in J.Cansten & S. Hugh-Joiics (eds.): pp. 1H9-205.(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

, C. & W. L. SihKiiR. 1974. A matter of lifeand death: an investigation into the practices offemale intaniicide in the Arctic. Man (n.s.) 9: 161-184.

S<:oi"[,E. 1999. The Archaeology of Infancy and InfantDeath. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAR Internaiional

'Series 819).

SniAiR Dl.RlvrNSKi, |. 1997. Engendering children,engendering archaeology, in J. Moore &; E. Scort(eds.). Invisible people and processes. Writing genderand childhood into European archaeology: pp. 192-202. London & New York: Leicester UniversityPress,

SKI |(i\'l(, D. 1969. Lepenski Vir - Novapraistorijskakultura u I'odunavljii. Beograd: Srpska knji/evnazadruga.

1

545

Birth and death

- 1 9 6 9 J . TliL' Roots oFtlie Lepcnski Vir Cukure.Anh/ieologia lugosLivica 10:13-21.

-1972. Europe's First Monumental Sculpture: NewDiscoveries at Lepenski Vir. Londtin: Thames &Hudson.

— 1981. Lepenski Vir: Menschetihilder einerjruhencuroptiisfhen Kultur. Maiiiz am Rht-in: VerlagI'hilipp von Zabern.

SRi-.l(ivif:, D. & Z. Lnic.A. 1978. Vksac. Mezolilskondselje u Djcrdapu (I arheologija). Beograd: Srpskaakademija nauka \ umccnosti.

SRhjovi(:, D. & Ll. BABOVI;:. 1983. Umetnnst LepenskogVira. Bcograd: Jugoslavija.

STEFANOVI;:, S. & D. BdRiC in press. The new borninfant burials from Lepen.iki Vir: in pursuit ofcontextual meanings, in C. Bonsall et al.

TRIMIHAM, R. 2000. Sourheastern Europe In thetransition to agriculture in Europe: hridgc, bufferor moMLc. in T.D. Price (ed.). Europe's first farmers:pp. 19-56. Cambridge: C^ambridge UniversityPress.

WAIFRSON, R- 1990. The Living House: An Anthropologyof Architecture in South-East Asia. Kuala i.umpur &Singapore: Oxford University Press.

-2000. House, Place, and Memory in Tana Toraia(Indonesia), in R.A. Joyce, & S.D. Gillespie,pp. 177-88.

Wt.i:i fc.Ks, L. (ed.), 1999. Folk Dress in Europe andAnatolia: Beliefs about Protection andEertility.O%fordlNew York: Berg.

W i l l riLf-;, A . . E . B A R r o s l t ^ X ' l c z , D . BoRiif : , P P i r i i r i ,

&c M. RK:HARD.S, 2002. In tbe beginning: newradiocarbon dares for the Early Neoliiliic innorthern Serbia and south-east Hungary. Antaeus25:63-117.

Zoi i-MANN, Z.S. 1983. IVehistorica! skeletal remainsFrom Lepenski Vir. Homo 34(3/4): 129-48.

— 1988, Human Skeletal Remains from Divostin, in A.Mcl'herron & D. Srejovic(eds.), Divostin and theNeolithic of central Serbia: pp. 447-55. PitLsburgh:Universic\' of Pittsburgh.

546