227

UDK 903.26(292.46) "634">2-5

Documenta Praehistorica XXXVII (2010)

Neolithic anthropocentrism> the principles of imagery andsymbolic manifestation of corporeality in the Balkans

Goce NaumovInstitute for History of Art and Archaeology, University of Skopje, Republic of Macedonia

gocenaumov@gmail.com

The numerous archeological studies in the Balkanshave provided a significant quantity of Neolithic ce-ramic objects modeled in the form of the humanbody. Some of these anthropomorphic artifacts werecommon to a particular region, or certain Neolithicphases, thus indicating their area of distribution, aswell as chronological determination. Beside theseelementary features, figurines and other types of an-thropomorphic objects go much further than strati-graphical and regional classification, and signify ageneral Neolithic approach to the conceptualizationof material culture i.e. anthropomorphism as a fun-damental principle employed for the explication ofhumans themselves, as well as for their surround-ings. The abundance of archaeological data enablesdetailed research and analysis of corporeality as im-plemented through these artifacts, thus allowing new

knowledge of the level of cognitive accomplishment,including characteristics of Neolithic visual percep-tion or even religious behavior. Hence, corporealityas one of the most potent agents of complex visualinformations might be used in attempts to decipheressential aspects of Neolithic communities.

The aim of this paper is to make a brief general-ization of the concept of anthropomorphism, andseek to detect entire forms and media used for itsmanifestation in the Balkans. Since elements of thehuman body are not present only on figurines, onthis occasion the significance of another visual prin-ciple will be accented, which is often applied withinNeolithic material. Namely, this considers the imple-mentation of imagery hybridism, which in the do-main of anthropomorphism aims to link particular

ABSTRACT The body in the Neolithic was used as adequate symbolic medium which on the onehand strengthened the crucial features of individuals, while on the other was capable to explicatethe essential function of particular objects and constructions. As result to this also the concept of ima-gery hybridism was deployed which incorporate human body within more complex segments of vi-sual culture and symbolic communication. Considering the variety of human representations it canbe deduced that anthropocentrism was one of the main visual principles in the Neolithic Balkanswhich established corporality as major cognitive reference in explication of human agency and itsrole in understanding the fundamental symbolic processes.

IZVLEEK Telo je bilo v neolitiku uporabljeno kot simbolni medij, ki je na eni strani krepil temelj-ne elemente individualnosti, na drugi pa pojasnjeval bistvene funkcije posameznih predmetov instruktur. Razvil se je koncept hibridnega imaginarija, ki je vgradil loveko telo v razline segmentevizualne kulture in simbolne komunikacije. Iz raznolikega upodabljanja lovekovega telesa lahkosklepamo, da je bil antropocentrizem glavno vizualno vodilo, ki je v neolitik na Balkanu uvedlo te-lesnost kot glavni kognitivni napotek pri pojasnjevanju lovekovega delovanja in razumevanja te-meljnih simbolnih procesov.

KEY WORDS Neolithic; visual hybridsm; figurines; burials; anthropomorphic vessels and models

DOI> 10.4312\dp.37.20

Goce Naumov

228

parts of the human body with objects belonging tothose that do not originally have corporeal features.In this way, numerous vessels, models, stamps andaltars were produced which include human ele-ments, thus employing their decorated exterior totranspose the substances deposited in their interiorinto another symbolic category. By involving theseartifacts, the concept of anthropomorphism is consi-derably extended to spheres which do not only ex-ploit the body as a component of identification. Onthe contrary, within this context, the body obtainsa more complex symbolic role with the designationof every details specific function in the domain ofideas and messages that should be transmittedthrough these objects. Therefore, it might be noticedthat in the Balkans, anthropomorphism exploits se-veral ceramic forms which are engaged as agents be-tween the principles of Neolithic communities andthe essence of substances deposited inside or in thevicinity of these embodied artifacts.

The body as medium

The conception of the human body and the materialculture employed for its manifestation induced adeveloped capability among Neolithic populationsfor the explicit perception of their own corporeal fea-tures, and also for developing a specific approachtowards an anthropomorphic definition of space. Itshould be noticed that Neolithic visual culture isone of the earliest human activities to involve theskillful production of abstract, anatomical and geo-metrical forms, thus allowing us a deep insight intothe cognitive structure of embodied vessels, models,altars, figurines etc. The apparent approach towardshow painted and sculptural media were envisagedoffers a possibility of accessing the principles of de-coration and modeling in Neolithic material culture.These principles indicate a crucial component forthe explication of the most specific objects of the pe-riod. The geometric organisation of patterns incised,applied or painted on vessels, and anthropomorphicrepresentations, as well as the symbolic engagementof corporeality, are fundamental categories whichcould be used in the clarification of figurines andother anthropomorphic objects which depict com-plete or parts of the human body (Naumov 2009a).In this context, analogous examples from the entireBalkan region are considered, thus enabling a morecoherent determination of cognitive maps and thesymbolic significance of anthropomorphic images.

Defining the character of the cognitive backgroundlying behind anthropomorphic representations, weare able to comprehend the essential features of Neo-lithic corporeality and figurative art. This makes itpossible to establish the elemental structures appliedwithin media which most often emphasize the sym-bolic components of the human body, consideringalso the whole repertoire of stylized or actual pat-terns and details disposed on figurines and anthropo-morphic objects. These artifacts expound the mentalprocesses involved within the symbolic communica-tion among communities inhabiting the whole of theBalkan Peninsula. Therefore, the body has been usedas an agent which extrapolates common principlesincorporated within corporal functions manifested inthe domain of visual culture through various objects,accentuating specific elements of humanity.

Attempting to understand the human body and es-pecially its employment in the imagery of diversecultures, numerous researchers have contributedabundant on the complex character of the humananatomy and its exact role in social and symbolicrelationships (Hamilakis et al. 2001; Chausidis2005; Bori and Robb 2008). Hence, they resolveexternal body features and the manner of its imple-mentation within visual communication and realmexplication. Consequently, a diversity of theses arededuced which profoundly elaborate an entire spec-trum of possible variations and concepts manifest-ed through the body, and which can be used in thisendeavor to comprehend Neolithic corporeality.1

Due to the vast number of artifacts with anthropo-morphic representations, it is possible to define theforms of Neolithic corporeal engagement. On theone hand, there are miniature figurines where thetendency towards actual portrayal of the humanbody is practiced; while on the other, there is a va-riety of vessels, models and altars which also bearselements of anthropomorphism. The principles in-corporated in the production and perception of theseobjects allows a determination of the heterogeneouscomponents of Neolithic iconography. Thus, the pre-sence of heads with unified stylized facial features,standardized representation of the male and femalebody, the distinct position of upper extremities, frag-mentations of figurines, their coating with whitecolouring, as well as the manner of individuals dis-position in burials indicate the thorough treatmentof the body as a medium in the Neolithic Balkans.

1 Here should be accented the works of Benac 1990; Talalay 1993; Skeates 1994; Biehl 1996; Chapman 2000; Bailey 2005; Sa-nev 2006; Chausidis 2007; Hansen 2007; Fowler 2008.

Neolithic anthropocentrism> the principles of imagery and symbolic manifestation of corporeality in the Balkans

229

Anthropomorphic figurines

This group comprises the most numerous categoryof anthropomorphic objects reflecting Neolithic cor-poreality (Fig. 1). The figurines represent the basicelements of the human body, thus establishing theprinciples which Neolithic communities in the Bal-kans imply as understanding, perception and depic-tion of their bodies (Bailey 2008; Nanoglou 2005;Naumov 2009a.4758). Analysis of such objects in-dicates that there are several elemental forms of re-presenting the human body, each specific to parti-cular Neolithic phases. This includes the stylizationand reduction of details in the Early Neolithic, de-spite the accentuation of physical features and in-cised decoration in the Late Neolithic (Benac 1990;Biehl 1996; Tasi 2009). Such observation confirmsthe diverse approach towards modeling bodies ofdifferent gender. Thus, female bodies are usually re-presented with emphasized genitalia, corpulent but-tocks, breasts and upper extremities placed overbreasts or genitalia, or onto hips; while those of ma-les often bear only genitalia as a gender indicatorand, are rarely depicted as a seated figure or withhand placed on head (Naumov 2009b.92). Regar-ding a case study of sexually determined miniatures,statistical data on published figurines unearthed inthe Republic of Macedonia confirm that the produc-tion of female miniatures was predominant (Nau-mov 2009a.49). In contrast, the research on the com-plete figurine repertoire from atal Hyk demon-strates the abundance of asexual representations(Nakamura and Meskell 2009), which should alsobe tested with further case studies on each Neolithicsettlement in the Balkans.

The affinity for female representations in the Balkansspecify several social and symbolic aspects incorpo-

rated within the production, employment and sig-nificance of these artifacts. Their sculptural treat-ment (including modeling and decoration) pointsto data which explicate the social status of certain in-dividuals within Neolithic communities, as well astheir symbolic character in rites of passage (Talalay1993). This is also confirmed by the deliberate frag-mentation of figurines especially female whichare most often excavated in a damaged state, usual-ly broken into several pieces which are rarely foundin their entirety. Although all these miniatures werepreviously considered as unintentionally broken byprocesses of decomposition, the latest research illu-strates that some were deliberately fragmented. Du-ring modeling, certain body parts (head, and mostoften buttocks) were attached with wooden rods orsimply attached to their equivalent or torso (Han-sen 2004; Naumov 2009a.53). Later, when the figu-rines were used, this method of construction enabledeasier breakage and the separation of particular partsfrom the torso. This deliberate fragmentation of mi-niatures was associated with the symbolic treatmentof the human body, which in this case is observed as:(i) a process of intentional body dismemberment,confirmed by certain burial practices (Gheorghiu2001); (ii) using such objects within various formsof mediation between individuals and communities(Chapman 2000); (iii) their use in rites of passage,when particular individuals change their social sta-tus and enter take on a new status (Talalay 1993;Naumov 2009a).

In addition to this aspect of the actual use of figuri-nes, their decorated exteriors also induce a complexsymbolic perception incorporated within the princi-ples of corporeality. In Early Neolithic, only a fewpatterns are depicted on figurines, mainly resem-bling genitalia, while in Late Neolithic the incision

of motifs is much more fre-quent. The abundance of def-inite patterns is often associ-ated with their equivalentsbeing present on various ob-jects (vessels, stamps, altars),which gives rise to questionsof their significance and pos-sible mutual relations (Biehl1996). Detailed analysis ofpatterns engraved or paintedon particular anthropomor-phic artefacts confirms thatconcrete motifs were dispo-sed on exact parts of the rep-resented body, thus accentua-

Fig. 1. Figurines from Veluka Tumba, Madjari and Grgur Tumba (Ko-litrkoska-Nasteva 2005.Fig. 3, Fig. 5; Sanev 2006.Fig. 11). Dimensions:1. 6.0cm high; 2. 6.8cm high; 3. 5.5cm high.

Goce Naumov

230

ting the symbolic character of the actual anatomicalzone (Naumov 2009b.9396).

Intramural burials and their relation to corpo-real principles

The burials seem to have no essential associationswith Neolithic visual culture, yet they are closely re-lated to the symbolic treatment of the human bodyand its capacities as a social agent. Even in death,the body has been employed as a unit comprisingseveral crucial components regarding both the de-ceased individual and community associated withthem throughout the burial. The unified manner oftreating the body during such ritual practices, man-ifested in the definite positions in which corpseswere buried, indicates that particular ideas were tobe implemented or transmitted on the basis of cor-poreal principles. The placing of corpses laterally, aswell as the bending of hands and legs towards thetorso, is related to perceptions of the body after life,and how it can further contribute to symbolic pro-cesses related to death.

In this context, burials within Neolithic dwellingsand those practiced inside vessels and sacks or inthe interior or vicinity of ovens are particularly sig-nificant (Bavarov 2003; Naumov 2007). The actu-al position of deceased individuals and the predo-minance of the skeletal remains of infants and chil-dren in the Neolithic Balkans correlated with the an-thropomorphic transformation of the space wherethese rituals were performed (Fig. 2). The ritualswere mostly related to ideas of life after death andthe symbolic regenerative aspects that such ritualsshould obtain. Consequently, not infrequently theywere partly performed within objects associated withthe interior of the female abdomen, thus initiatingthe production of artifacts which would moreover

support and explicate such cognitive principles. Itshould be noted that burial practices within houses,vessels and ovens were symbolically strengthenedby the conception of anthropomorphic vessels orhouse and oven models, thus establishing a morepotent hybrid relationship between the body andparticular objects.

The implementation of visual hybridism in Neo-lithic anthropomorphic objects

Besides the actual body representations, there aremore complex forms of corporeality within Neolithicvisual culture. Images of the body are involved inparticular hybrid relations with utilitarian objects orconstructions intended for preparing and storingfood and substances, or in those used as miniaturereplicas of dwellings (Naumov 2009a). Thus, vari-ous types of anthropomorphic vessel, models (ofhouses and ovens), altars and stamps were develo-ped and employed to stress the symbolic function ofthese objects, as well as the broader semiotic aspectsof human body. Consequently several componentsof visual hybridism were applied: (i) equalizing thehuman abdomen with the inner space of the embo-died objects; (ii) personification or incarnation ofparticular individuals or mythical characters by theseobjects and (iii) objectifying the person being repre-sented. All or some of these components can be in-corporated throughout the use of an anthropomor-phic object depending on the context and detailsdisplayed on the surface. Since such human elementsare found on different types of object, the actual lin-kage between the represented character and concreteobject (vessel, house, oven etc.) should be conside-red. The abundant repertoire of anthropomorphicitems indicates the complexity of ideas and messa-ges transposed throughout their exterior, use andcognitive potency.

Anthropomorphic vessels

The representation of thebody is not confined only tosolid figural objects; it is alsoapplied throughout the mo-deling of other artifacts, whichare seemingly not in anato-mical correlation with thebody. Among this group ofobjects, anthropomorphic ves-sels should be considered onwhich parts of the human face,breasts, pubis or upper extre-

Fig. 2. Infant burials inside deliberately fragmented vessel and ovenfrom Amzabegovo and Curmatura (Nemeskri and Lengyel 1976.Fig. 242;Gimbutas 1989.Fig. 233).

Neolithic anthropocentrism> the principles of imagery and symbolic manifestation of corporeality in the Balkans

231

mities are incised, painted orfastened to their exterior (Nau-mov 2006; 2008a). Althoughthere are numerous anthropo-morphic vessels without gen-der indication, the majorityof those of confirmed genderdepict elements of genitalia,breasts or other female fea-tures, thus providing furtherinformation of perception offemale body in the Neolithic(Fig. 3). So far, no vessel hasbeen found in the Balkans onwhich male genitalia are de-picted, indicating the favoring of a certain genderwithin these forms of representation. The abundantethnographic data suggests that the symbolic incor-poration of female body into such media was re-flected not only in how they were perceived, but alsoin how they were named, thus using terms relatedto womens social status or biological aspects of theirabdomen (Gordon 1977. 224, 225; Elijade 1984.342; Chausidis and Nikolov 2006; Naumov 2006;Haaland 2007.165; Fowler 2008.51).

Nevertheless, lacking further data on residue analy-sis, it is still uncertain in which contexts these ves-sels were used, although burials practiced in the in-terior of some anthropomorphic or utilitarian equi-valents broaden their symbolic perception and use(Nemeskri and Lengyel 1976.375410; Hodder1990.52; Bavarov 2003.141142; Naumov 2008a.97). Despite questions regarding their use, the abun-dance of visual elements confirmed on these objectsenable a thorough insight into spheres in which thehuman body is consistently or stylistically represen-ted. Therefore, the variety of the repertoire of an-thropomorphic vessels provides a new perspectivefor understanding corporeality and its complexitywithin Balkans. The presence of such objects through-out the Balkans and South-East Europe in general,substantiate the persistence of human body integra-tion within media which reciprocally display thesymbolic aspects of both body and object.

Anthropomorphic house models

The linking of the human body and the house is oneof the most complex symbolic categories in Neolithicvisual culture. It has been confirmed on various con-ceptual levels in Anatolia and South-East Europe(Hodder 1990), but its prominent manifestation was

realized through specific artefacts unearthed in theRepublic of Macedonia. Namely, an abundance ofanthropomorphic house models were produced fromthe Early to Late Neolithic in this area which encom-pass diverse components of corporeality and archi-tecture. In general, these objects are house modelsatop which a long cylinder with a human face,breasts, pregnant belly or arms is applied, thus in-corporating the house into the composite body ofthe depicted figure (Fig. 4). As with the anthropomor-phic vessels, these artefacts mainly embody femalecharacters, although the possibility that some asex-ual models might be related to male individuals orbeings should not be dismissed, despite the fact thatthere has been no confirmed application of male fea-tures recently. Regarding the concentration of detailson these artefacts, there were regional variations;thus, architectonic elements were mostly favored insouth-western areas (Pelagonia), despite the anthro-pomorphic exaggeration which is much more com-mon in the north (Naumov 2006).

Anthropomorphic house models have been underconstant analysis, and various attempts have beenmade to define their significance, which mainly con-sidered the predominance of female feature in theirvisual and religious conceptualization (Sanev 1988;2006; Chausidis 1996; 2007; 2008; Naumov 2006;2009a; 2009b; Temelkoski and Mitkoski 2001).Recently, their symbolic relationship with the prac-tice of burial inside dwellings and settlements hasbeen emphasized, broadening the spheres of theirinvolvement in Neolithic cognitive processes (Nau-mov 2006; 2007; 2009b). This observation wasmainly based on the crucial association of the corpseand the house, as well the quantitative abundanceof anthropomorphic house model fragments withinsettlements. As a case study of these objects in Govr-levo confirmed, their frequency is higher than that

Fig. 3. Anthropomorphic vessels from Tarinci, Orlavat and Drenovac (Ko-litrkoska-Nasteva 2005.Fig. 27; Gimbutas 1989.Fig. 83; Stalio 1977.Fig.203). Dimensions: 1. 7.5cm high; 2. 8.6cm high; 3. no scale.

Goce Naumov

232

of miniature figurines.2 Despite the previous inter-pretation on the exclusivity and rarity of anthropo-morphic models, the latest research underlines thatthey were quite often present and used in settle-ments, suggesting that they represented deceasedindividuals or mythical beings.

Nevertheless, although these artefacts require furtherand much more profound analysis, there are elemen-tary data which enable a general understanding oftheir visual appearance and significance. The hybridrelationship between house and human incorpora-ted within these anthropomorphic models especiallyemphasizes that the body in the Neolithic was per-ceived in a more complex manner, and that the dwel-ling was not understood only as an object. Surelythis could be a reflection of a much more commonexplication of the living space, which was clarifiedby means of an anatomical mechanism, or associatedwith a specific individual.

The embodiment of a significant community mem-ber (inhabiting actual or spiritual world) in the ce-ramic medium additionally strengthens their memo-ry and respect within society, as well as implemen-ting the symbolism of corporeality within the ob-jects (constructions) associated with them and rep-resented by anthropomorphic house models. Thepresence of several layers of clay coating on some ofthese artifacts indicates that they were used for longperiods and underwent constant treatment and care.Further analysis will confirm whether they wereused as lamps, incense burners or altars, althoughtheir character as containers for deposited miniaturefigurines is recently strengthened with new data(Naumov 2009a.56).

Anthropomorphic oven models

The implementation of anthropomorphism in the li-ving space was not confined only to dwellings, butis also found on objects used for daily purposes. Be-sides anthropomorphic containers for cereals in Top-tepe, other actual constructions featuring human ele-ments are not yet confirmed (zdogan and Dede1998), but considering the ideas of anthropomor-phism induced by miniature equivalents, it can bededuced that similar concepts were also applied tothe actual constructions. In this context, models ofovens contribute greatly to understanding the com-ponents of corporeality involved in such construc-

tions. Most of the models with anthropomorphic fea-tures have been found in Serbia, although indica-tions of human aspects on ovens are present in otherBalkan regions (Petrovi 2001; Chausidis et al.2008). On these models, hands and breasts are mostoften engraved around the opening, while the headwas at the top (Fig. 5). As with the previous hybri-dized objects, the female gender is accentuatedamong these models, which indicates that the func-tions of these constructions were explained through-out the female anatomy of certain individuals or be-ings identified with ovens.

Along the symbolic aspects of ovens, burials practi-ced in their vicinity or interior contribute further-more in favor. Some child burials in ovens or in ves-sels next to ovens found in Romania and Bulgariaimply that this area was symbolically able to realizereligious processes intended throughout burials(Bavarov 2006; Naumov 2007). In this context,the female body was more adequate for the explica-tion of such processes, so it was manifested througha hybrid relationship of body and oven. Surely, thissymbolic association was not defined only duringburials, but also in the basic use of ovens, i.e. bak-

Fig. 4. Anthropomorphic house models from Ma-djari, Suvodol, Porodin and Govrlevo (Kolitrkoska-Nasteva 2005.Figs. 42, 45, 43; Chausidis 1995.Fig.6). Dimensions: 1. 39.0cm high ; 2. 16.0cm high;3. 25.5cm high; 4. 35.0cm high.

2 I would like to thank Milo Bilbija (Museum of Skopje) for the understanding and supporting my research on anthropomorphicobjects from Govrlevo.

Neolithic anthropocentrism> the principles of imagery and symbolic manifestation of corporeality in the Balkans

233

ing. There is abundant ethnographic data indicatingthe identification of the female body with the oven,so this should be considered concerning Neolithiccommunities (Naumov 2006; Chausidis et al. 2008).It is still to be examined whether these models wereassociated with concrete individuals or were indica-tors for the humanization of actual objects and con-structions used in everyday and ritual life.

Anthropomorphic altars

Although objects generally termed altars are mostlyfamiliar due to their unified table-like appearanceand engraved surface patterns (Nikolov 2007), thereare some which feature parts of the human body.These include artifacts on which the conventionalform (table) is supplemented with head protomes,the torso in a particular activity, or simple applica-tions of the human face to the exterior (Fig. 6). Con-sidering that the altars do not depict miniaturemodels of any authentic object, they do not repre-sent a direct lineage between a human and particu-lar form, as is the case with other anthropomorphicmodels. Therefore, the primary function of altarsimplies several ways in which anthropomorphismwas used in these objects.

In particular, these altars are not utilitarian itemstherefore were used for deposition of certain sub-

stances (liquid and vegetal) or miniature figurineswhich should be symbolically transposed into ano-ther realm (Naumov in print/a). Consequently, theapplication of human elements to such artifacts indi-cates that this symbolic transposition was done underthe patronage of a definite character who observes ormotivates such activity. This is further strengthenedby the attachment of four protomes to the altar cor-ners, emphasizing that some of these objects were notassociated with one, but with a number of individu-als or mythical beings. Regarding the anthropomor-phic altars from Donja Branjevina and Porodin, therange of imagery is much broader, so it is hard to de-fine without any accurate archaeological observation.

Anthropomorphic rhyta

Only one rhyton with corporeal features has beenfound recently in a Neolithic site at Smili; it re-presents a human in kneeling position, which essen-tially outlines the entire object (Peri 1996; Mleku2007). Unlike other anthropomorphic objects, it hasno depiction of the head or upper extremities; onlythe lower part of the body is modelled, with evidentcutting in the area of stomach in order to make alarger opening (Fig. 6.4). The interior of the recep-tacle is colored in red, particularly accentuating thesymbolic significance of the area (Marijanovi 2007;Chausidis in print).

Fig. 5. Anthropomorphic model ovens from Medvednjak, Progar and Vina (Petrovi 2001.Fig. 3.1; Va-si 1936.Pl. I.1). Dimensions: 1. 10.0cm high; 2. 6.5cm high ; 3. 10.1cm high.

Fig. 6. Anthropomorphic altars from Fafos, Porodin, Donja Branjevina and Smili (Garaanin 1979.T.XXXIII: 4; Naumov 2009a.XXXVII: 4; Karmanski 2005.Pl. VIII; Batovi 1979.T. XCII: 4).

Goce Naumov

234

Considering the primary non-utilitarian function ofrhyta, as well as the position of the character repre-sented, it can be induced that the purpose of theobject and image was closely related to that of al-tars, and intended to offer the substances in therhyton (Naumov 2009b.116; in print/a). Concer-ning the area for the deposition of substances i.e.the stomach, such symbolic transpositions of mate-rial were supposed to occur within the abdomen,which further strengthens the hybrid relationshipbetween the human body and particular rhyta.

Anthropomorphic stamps

These artefacts themselves unify the most elemen-tary aspects of Neolithic miniature figurines andstamps. Their handles are modelled as the upper partof a figurine, while the base or top of some representheads are decorated with precisely determined pat-terns (Fig. 7). They were used as stamps, thus themotif on the base or top being imprinted on a softsurface.

The context of their position within sites indicatethat they were used during activities concerningbread production or were intended to transmit thesemiotic features of represented characters onto ma-terial which had to be decorated and symbolicallyprotected throughout by patterns (Naumov 2008b).Although small in dimensions, these anthropomor-phic stamps embodied potent cognitive significance,which was spread by the repetition of certain pat-terns on different products or individuals. Moreover,the representation of human and sometimes animalbeings (Trkcan 2007) contributed to the concreteideas embodied by these artefacts.

The universality of Neolithic concepts of hybri-dism

Neolithic visual culture, besides anthropocentricforms of hybridism, often employs the animal bodyto establish particular hybrid relationships with ves-sels, altars, models, stamps etc. Although anthropo-logical research has mostly concentrated on the treat-ment of the human body, zoomorphic hybridismshould also be noted, due the suitability of the sym-bolic potential that some animals possess, which canbe embodied by objects, as well used to define cer-tain mythical aspects of these objects.

Although the appearance of hybridism as imagery inthe domain of material culture (but not in painting)was primarily a Neolithic advantage, it continued to

be an appropriate visual conceptualization in Prehi-story, and also in the later epochs of the Classicalperiod and Middle Ages (Naumov in print/b). It canbe considered that hybrid forms established in theNeolithic existed among other cultures and civiliza-tions, mostly due to the functionality of such ima-gery, and the cognitive category and its universalfeatures, which have been common in different pe-riods and in various parts of the world. Conse-quently, as a result of historical sources and ethno-graphic data, the context of use of these artefacts hasbeen determined, as well as the repertoire of charac-ters represented by/on them.

Neolithic anthropocentrism

The concept of corporeality and its development inseveral categories indicate that the treatment of thebody was accurately defined and closely related toideas associated with it. No matter whether the useof a real (i.e. deceased) or modelled body is in ques-tion, it was included in several spheres of interactionwhich functioned throughout particular symbolic at-tributes: emphasizing, gesticulation, fragmentation,and disposition i.e. deposition in certain contexts.This metaphorical, but determined use of the bodyin visual and ritual communication was the result ofdistinct associations regarding the manner and de-tails engaged in body representations. Therefore,they were commonly manifested through compre-hensible components incorporated within the trans-position of definite messages and sensual implica-tions. In this domain, visual culture most consis-tently realized its function i.e. its purposes, by meansof several imagery media to transmit ideas whichshould be perceived by individuals present in a par-ticular place. In addition, clay artefacts were promo-ted as the most suitable objects which could be ad-ditionally affected through the application of detailsthat supplement the visual and symbolic implicationthat they emanate.

Statistical data suggest that the majority of sexuallyconfirmed figurines were female, not considering thenumerous complete and fragmented miniatures withno gender features. This information alludes to thefact that the female body was more suitable for em-bodying particular ideas, which could either refer toportrayed individuals or mythical characters. Thepredominance of the female gender within Neolithicvisual culture is also present in other media. Thusthe modelling of anthropomorphic vessels and mo-dels of houses or ovens frequently feature elementsof the female body. The affinity for representations

Neolithic anthropocentrism> the principles of imagery and symbolic manifestation of corporeality in the Balkans

235

of women provides information on the social rela-tions that individuals established in a given com-munity, and their associations with mythological cha-racters and concepts closely linked with the mostcrucial cognitive spheres.

Although it is difficult to give conclusive explicationsof the semiotics of anthropomorphic representations,several considerations might be contributed. Most ofthe generally confirmed anthropomorphic artefactsare associated with symbolic features of female body,but depending on the object on which they are rep-resented, they were employed in diverse contexts.Miniature figurines usually concern social relationsbetween concrete individuals, rather than the objec-tification of some Neolithic pantheon. Consequently,particular visual attributes provide information ondynamic changes in status and rites of passage inwhich the women of a certain community were in-volved.

Anthropomorphic vessels and house or oven modelswere included in the sphere of more complex ima-gery, or even mythological definitions of the objectsand the materials deposited in them. Thus, the entirerepertoire of anthropomorphic vessels, models andaltars due to their hybrid and exceptionally po-tent symbolic character were conceived as beingswhich were intended to preserve and stimulate thesubstances or inhabitants deposited in them or in-

side the actual constructionsthey represent. In this con-text, it might be deduced thatNeolithic communities, in or-der to explain themselves andthe functioning of their sur-roundings, employed theirown bodies as the most logi-cal matrix for defining spaceand the processes developedthrough the objects and struc-tures they produced.

Such anthropocentrism hasplayed its role in a commonworld perception in which itwas explicated with the innerspace, functions, dimensions

and symmetry of human body. Considering the enga-gement of their own bodies, Neolithic populations,mainly throughout their corporeality, clarified the li-neages between the members of one or several com-munities, or the complex relationship between themand their realm. They most often perceived and un-derstood better their own bodies, which were mani-fested as an elementary reference for comprehen-ding the world. Thus, Neolithic anthropomorphism isa logical response to those cognitive positions whichhumanity supports in the prehistoric phases of itsexistence. The variations of human body representa-tions in the Neolithic Balkans indicate several prin-ciples employed for the clarification of the crucialontological state of the period. Therefore, it can beconsidered that the elucidation of such principlesmanifested throughout corporeality and developedhybrid relationships might contribute towards un-derstanding the complex symbolic processes and es-sential ideas which were engaged in the explicationof Neolithic individuals, communities and their sur-rounding.

Fig. 7. Anthropomorphic stamps from Medvednjak, Govrlevo and Kurilo(Gimbutas 1989.Fig. 21; Naumov 2008b.Fig. 8: 9; Todorova and Vaisov1993.Fig. 175.15). Dimensions: 1. 6.2cm high; 2. and 3. no scale.

This paper is dedicated to the memory of Milo Bil-bija, with whom I shared many discussions on Neo-lithic anthropomorphic objects. I am grateful for hisunderstanding and willingness to share his expe-rience and knowledge on Neolithic life in Govrlevo.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Goce Naumov

236

dicijama. In D. Zuni (ed.), Tradicionalna estetska kul-tura: hleb. Univerzitet u Niu, Ni.

CHAUSIDIS N. and NIKOLOV G. 2006. Crepna i vrnik. Mi-toloko-semiotika analiza. Studia Mythologica Slavica9: 97160.

CHAUSIDIS N., RAHNO K. and NAUMOV G. 2008. Pe kaoena i majka u slovenskoj tradicionalnoj kulturi: semioti-ka, mitologija, obredi, lingvistika, dijahrone komparacije.Kodovi slovenskih kultura 9: 13114.

ELIJADE M. 1984. Joga, besmrtnost i sloboda. Beogradskiizdavaki grafiki zavod. Beograd.

FOWLER C. 2008. Fractal bodies in the past and present.In D. Bori, and J. Robb (eds.), Past Bodies: Body Cen-tered Research in Archaeology. Oxbow, Oxford.

GARApiANIN M. 1979. Centralno balkanska zona. In A.Benac (ed.), Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja II neo-lit. Academy of Science and Art of Bosnia and Hercego-vina, Sarajevo: 79212.

GHEORGHIU D. 2001. The Cult of Ancestors in the EastEuropean Chalcolitic. A Holographic Approach. In P. Biehland F. Bertemes (eds.), The Archaeology of Cult and Re-ligion. Archaeolingua, Budapest: 7388.

GIMBUTAS M. 1989. The Language of the Goddess. Tha-mes and Hudson. London.

GORDON S. 1977. Haananeskaja mifologija. In V. A. Ja-kobson (ed.), Mifologii drevnego mira. Nauka, Moskva:199232.

HAALAND R. 2007. Porridge and Pot, Bread and Oven:Food Ways and Symbolism in Africa and the Near Eastfrom the Neolithic to the Present. Cambridge Archaeolo-gical Journal 17(2): 165182.

HAMILAKIS Y., PLUCIENNIK M. and TARLOW S. 2001.Thinking through the Body. Archaeologies of Corporea-lity. Kluwer academic/Plenum Publishers. New York.

HANSEN S. 2004. Neolithische Statuetten aus Asagi Pinarin Trkisch-Thrakien. In Nikolov, V., Bacvarov K. and Kal-cev P. (eds.), Prehistoric Thrace: Proceedings of the In-ternational Symposium in Stara Zagora. Institute of Ar-chaeology with Museum, BAS. Sofia: 193197.

2007. Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit: Untersu-chungen zur anthropomorphen Plastik der Jungstein-zeit und Kupfzeit in Sdosteuropa I und II. VerlagPhilipp von Zabern. Mainz.

BAVAROV K. 2003. Neolitni pogrebalni obredi. Bard.Sofia.

2006. Early Neolithic jar burials in Southeast Europe:a comparative approach. In M. Budja (ed.), 12th Neo--lithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 32: 101106.

BAILEY D. 2005. Prehistoric Figurines: Representationand corporeality in the Neolithic. Routledge. London.

2008. The corporal politics of being in the Neolithic. InD. Bori and J. Robb (eds.), Past Bodies: Body-Cente-red Research in Archaeology. Oxbow Books. Oxford:918.

BATOVI pi. 1979. Jadranska zona. In A. Benac (ed.), Pra-istorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja II, Neolitsko doba. Aka-demija Nauke i Umetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo:473635.

BENAC A. 1990. Neki problemi odnosa Makedonije i Za-padnog Balkana u neolitskom dobu. Macedoniae ActaArchaeologica 10: 924.

BIEHL P. 1996. Symbolic communication systems: Sym-bols of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic from south-easternEurope. Journal of European Archaeology 4: 153176.

BORI D. and ROBB J. 2008. Past Bodies: Body-CenteredResearch in Archaeology. Oxbow Books. Oxford.

CHAPMAN J. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: Peo-ple, places and broken objects in the prehistory of South-eastern Europe. Routledge. London.

CHAUSIDIS N. 1995. Predistorija. In Makedonija kultur-no nasledstvo. Misla. Skopje: 1745.

1996. The House and its Symbolic Meanings. Macedo-nian Heritage 2: 3752.

2005. Cosmological Images. Skopje.

2007. enata kako personifikacija na prostorot za ive-enje (od neolitot do sovremeniot folklor). In J. Luina(ed.), Makedonskiot teatar vo kontekst na Balkanska-ta teatarska sfera. Fakultet za dramski umetnosti, Skop-je: 45101.

2008. Otvorite na neolitskite rtvenici od tipot Majka-Kukja. Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 18: 7592.

in print. Mati hleba. enski aspekti navi, pei i crepu-lje u slovenskom folkloru u relaciji s praistorijskim tra-

REFERENCES

Neolithic anthropocentrism> the principles of imagery and symbolic manifestation of corporeality in the Balkans

237

HODDER I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe Struc-ture and Cognistency in Neolithic Societes. Basil Black-well Ltd. Oxford.

KARMANSKI S. 2005. Donja Branjevina: A Neolithicsettlement Near Deronje in The Vojvodina (Serbia). So-cieta per la Preistoria e Protoistoria della Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia. Venezia.

KOLIpiTRKOSKA-NASTEVA I. 2005. Praistoriskite dami odMakedonija. Muzej na Makedonija. Skopje.

MARIJANOVI B. 2007. Kultni riton iz Crnog vrila prilogproblematici kultnih ritona u neolitiku istonog Jadrana.Situla 44: 5765.

MLEKU D. 2007. Sheep are your mother: rhyta and theinterspecies politics in the Neolithic of the eastern Adria-tic. In M. Budja (ed.), 14th Neolithic Studies. DocumentaPraehistorica 34: 267280.

NAKAMURA C. and MESKELL L. 2009. Articulate Bodies:Forms and Figures at atalhyk. Journal of Archaeolo-gical method and Theory 16: 205230.

NANOGLOU S. 2005. Subjectivity and material culture inThessaly, Greece: the case of Neolithic anthropomorphicimagery. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 15: 141156.

NAUMOV G. 2006. Sadot, pekata i kukjata vo simbolikarelacija so matkata i enata (neolitski predloki i etnograf-ski implikacii). Studia Mythologica Slavica 9: 5995.

2007. Housing the Dead: Burials inside houses andvessels from Neolithic Balkans. In C. Malone and D.Barowclough (eds.), Cult in Context. Oxbow Books,Oxford: 255265.

2008a. The Vessel as a Human Body: Neolithic anthro-pomorphic vessels and their reflection in later periods.In I. Berg (ed.), Breaking the Mould: challenging thepast through pottery. British Archaeological Reports IS1861. Archaeopress, Oxford: 93101.

2008b. Imprints of the Neolithic Mind: clay stampsfrom the Republic of Macedonia. In M. Budja (ed.), 15thNeolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 35: 185204.

2009a. Patterns and Corporeality: Neolithic VisualCulture from the Republic of Macedonia. Oxford: Bri-tish Archaeological Reports IS 1910, Archaeopress, Ox-ford.

2009b. Neolithic visual culture and rituals. In G. Nau-mov, Lj. Fidanoski, I. Tolevski, A. Ivkovska (eds.), Neo-

lithic Communities in the Republic of Macedonia.Dante, Skopje: 87135.

in print/a. Visual and Conceptual Dynamism of the Neo-lithic Altars in the Republic of Macedonia. In V. Niko-lov (ed.), Interdisziplinre Forschungen der Kultur-erbe auf dem Balkan. Sofia.

in print/b. The Objectified Corporeality: Prehistoric Im-plications of Anthroporphism and Hybridism WithinChristian Iconography. In L. Dolezalova (ed.), Retel-ling the Bible. Prague.

NEMESKRY J. and LENGYEL L. 1976. Neolithic SkeletalFinds. In Gimbutas M. (ed.), Neolithic Macedonia: As Re-flected by Excavation at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia. TheRegents of the University of California, Los Angeles: 375410.

NIKOLOV V. 2007. Neolitni kultovi masiki. Nacionalenarheologicheski institut i muzej. Blgarska akademija nanaukite. Sofia.

ZDOGAN M. and DEDE Y. 1998. An AnthropomorphicVessel from Toptepe. In M. Stefanovich, H. Todorova andH. Hauptmann (eds.), James Harvey Gaul In Memo-riam. The James Harvey Gaul Foundation, Sofia: 143152.

PERI S. 1996. Kult-Rhytone der neolitischen Viehzchterder Balkanhalbinsel. Starinar 47: 2166.

PETROVI B. 2001. Model neolitske pei iz Progara. Go-dinjak grada Beograda 4748: 1121.

SANEV V. 1988. Neolitskoto svetilite od Tumba vo Ma-djari. Macedoniae acta archaeologica 9: 930.

SANEV D. 2006. Anthropomorphic Cult Plastic of Anzabe-govo-Vrnik Cultural Groups of the Republic of Macedo-nia. In N. Tasi and C. Grozdanov (eds.), Homage to Milu-tin Garaanin. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts andMacedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade: 171192.

SKEATES R. 1994. Ritual, context, and gender in Neolithicsouth-eastern Italy. Journal of European Archaeology2(2): 199214.

STALIO B. 1977. Neolit na tlu Srbije. Narodni Muzej. Beo-grad.

TALALAY E. T. 1993. Deities, Dolls and Devices, NeolithicFigurines from Franchthi Cave. In T. W. Jacobsen (ed.),Excavation in Franchthi Cave, Greece, Fascicle 9. India-na University Press, Indianapolis.

Goce Naumov

238

TASI N. 2009. Nemi svedoci jednog vremena: figuralnaumetnost Vine. In Nikoli D. (ed.), Vina praistorijskametropola: istaivanja 19082008. Filozofski fakultet uni-verziteta u Beogradu. Narodni muzej u Beogradu; Muzejgrada Beograda, Beograd: 139163.

TEMELKOSKI D. and MITKOSKI A. 2001. Neolitski antro-pomorfni statuetki vo predistoriskata zbirka na Zavod imuzej Prilep. Makedonsko nasledstvo 17: 5369.

TODOROVA H. and VAISOV I. 1993. Novo kamennataepoha v Blgarija. Nauka i Izkustvo. Sofia.

TRKCAN A. U. 2007. Is it goddess or bear? The role ofatalhyk animal seals in Neolithic symbolism. In M.Budja (ed.), 14th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehi-storica 34: 257266.

VASI M. 1936. Preistoriska Vina: III. Dravna tam-parija Kraljevine Jugoslavije. Beograd.