Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group: Occasional Paper 6

Breaking the Mould:

Challenging the Past through
Pottery




Edited by

Ina Berg





















BAR International Series 1861
2008










This title published by

Archaeopress
Publishers of British Archaeological Reports
Gordon House
276 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7ED
England
bar@archaeopress.com
www.archaeopress.com



BAR S1861
Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group: Occasional Paper 6



Breaking the Mould: Challenging the Past through Pottery




the individual authors 2008



ISBN 978 1 4073 0344 4



Printed in England by Alden HenDi, Oxfordshire


All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd
122 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7BP
England
bar@hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available
free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com
93
THE VESSEL AS A HUMAN BODY: NEOLITHIC ANTHROPOMORPHIC VESSELS
AND THEIR REFLECTION IN LATER PERIODS

Goce NAUMOV


Abstract: In many publications from the Balkan region, archaeologists use practical terms with which to describe their objects of
research. When analyzing pottery, for example, they often utilize idioms familiar from human anatomy in order to describe vessel
parts, such as body, mouth, neck, throat, shoulder, belly, foot, and leg. The use of these terms suggests that vessels can
and have been conceptualised as human bodies regardless of whether or not their shape actually resembles that of a human.
Ethnographic data from the Balkans shows that this naming practice has continued into modern times.

In addition, in almost all phases of the Neolithic in the Balkans, there are vessel features that set up an association with parts of the
human body. These kinds of vessels are usually painted, incised or have patterns applied, and represent typical corporeal elements,
for example, face, extremities, breasts, belly, or genitalia. They are referred to as anthropomorphic vessels and are present in most
of the Neolithic cultures in the Balkans as well as those of central and northern Europe. While there are a great number of published
fragments, this paper, with the exception of fragments from the Republic of Macedonia, will present only complete examples. Most of
these fragments were found at sites that belong to the so-called Amzabegovo Vrsnik group in eastern Macedonia. Parallels will
be drawn with Neolithic vessels from Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, Hungary, Czech Republic and later prehistoric periods in Turkey and
Germany.


TYPOLOGY OF ANTHROPOMORPHIC VESSELS

The presence of anthropomorphic vessels has been noted
at a few Early Neolithic sites (Perles 2001: 264;
Radunceva et al. 2002: 139, fig. 41.2-5; Todorova &
Vaisov 1993: 99, 104, fig. 8), but their quantity increases
during the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic in southeast
Europe and western Anatolia. Their production continues
into later prehistoric periods and, in some parts of
Europe, they can be traced even into the classical period
(Figures 6-7). The quantity of these vessels is much
smaller than that of other types of vessels, and there is
considerable regional variation in form and variation
(Naumov 2006). Nevertheless, mostly because of their
apparent similarities, it is feasible to establish one general
typology for the whole region.



Figure 1: Map of the Balkans.

Most of the discovered anthropomorphic vessels are of
amphora-like shape or with contours that resemble
Neolithic figurines (Figures 2.1-4,7; 3.1-4,6). The
number of shallow vessels with anthropomorphic features
is much smaller and they are more common in central and
northern parts of Europe than in its southeast region. The
details which resemble the human anatomy, mostly
contours of the human face, hands, breasts, genitalia and
hips, are represented by decorative techniques (incision,
appliqu and painting). Most of the discovered
anthropomorphic vessels have features typical of the
female body. At the present time, there exist no examples
which show characteristics typical of the male body (for
example, moustache, beard, genitalia, hairs); a possible
exception are fragments from Nea Nikomedeia where the
applied beard is, however, not yet visually proven (Pyke
& Yiouni 1996: 88).

Anthropomorphic vessels can be divided into two zones:
the upper zone where elements of the identity (the face)
are visible, and the lower zone where extremities and
other details are represented. Both zones need not be
present on a vessel, and typologies distinguish between
two basic types: those where both zones are present
(Figures 2; 4.7,8) and those where the upper zone is
intentionally omitted (Figures 3; 4.1,3,5).

Lower zone

On the lower part of the vessel, almost all elements
typical of this part of the human body can be represented
or they can be reduced to a few details which indicate
some concrete bodily characteristics. The shape of some
of the vessels focuses on hips, buttocks and legs, making
an interpretation of their use and function difficult.
According to the reports of the excavations in Vrshnik
(Republic of Macedonia), one anthropomorphic vessel
with incised decoration (Figure 3.1) was used for the
keeping of jewellery (Garasanin & Garasanin 1961: 24).
However, it is unlikely that such a storage function could
be extended to culinary or other domestic uses. In several
94
of the examples, this lower zone is richly decorated with
patterns placed over the entire body or, more rarely,
concentrated in the pubic area and around the navel.
Mostly, the patterns are incised or painted vertical
zigzags and V-lines, spirals, lozenges, meanders and
triangles. Whether these ornaments were just decoration
or whether they also had a symbolic function has to await
further semantic analysis, although the shape and position
of some of the motives make a symbolic character likely
(Chausidis 2005: 93-130). Likewise, some observed
patterns correspond to decoration found on Neolithic
painted vessels, walls of houses, figurines, house models
and ceramic stamp seals, opening up discussion about the
relationship between decoration and different material
classes (Hodder 1990: 62; Naumov 2005: 66-77).



Figure 2: Anthropomorphic vessels. 1) Amzabegovo,
Macedonia (Gimbutas 1976: fig. 209). 2) Vinca, Serbia
(Gimbutas 1989: fig. 88). 3) Bekasmegyer, Hungary (Gimbutas
1989: fig. 35). 4) Gradesnica, Bulgaria (Todorova & Vaisov
1993: pl. 446). 5) Vinca, Serbia (Garasanin 1982: fig. 21). 6)
Szombately, Hungary (Gimbutas 1989: fig.61). 7) Vinca, Serbia
(Stalio 1977: fig. 69). 8) Svodina, Czech Republic (Pavuk 1981:
fig. 24). 9) Orlavat, Serbia (Gimbutas 1989: fig. 83).

Some of the later vessels from Turkey and Germany hold
smaller vessels in their hands, usually positioned next to
the breasts (Figures 3.6; 6.1-3). And for some of the
Neolithic and later anthropomorphic vessels from central
Europe there is a practice of modeling the hands on the
vessels in an upward adoration position (Figures 2.8;
4.1,5; 7.3; 11.1-3). However, an interpretation of these
unusual gestures as well as the presence of the little
vessels near the breasts of anthropomorphic vessels
remains suggestive.



Figure 3: Anthropomorphic vessels. 1) Vrsnik, Macedonia
(Kolistrkovska-Nasteva 2005: fig. 42). 2) Drenovac, Serbia
(Stalio 1977: fig. 203). 3) Rakitovo, Bulgaria (Radunceva et al.
2002: pl. 41.3). 4) Gorzsa, Hungary (Mller-Karpe 1968: pl.
186.1). 5) Svodina, Czech Republic (Pavuk 1981: fig. 24). 6)
Erfurt, Germany (Mller-Karpe 1968: pl. 223.13).

Upper zone

This zone incorporates the neck and face of the vessel.
Near the rim, eyes, nose and eyebrows have been applied
or, as in one case, hands, breasts and navel can be
represented here. Regarding the eyes, they can be
circular, rhombus-shaped, horizontal, oblique or rounded.
Representations of the mouth are usually lacking, except
in a small number of examples where they are modeled,
incised or painted in a stylised manner (Figures 2.3,7;
4.7). It remains uncertain as to why in Neolithic
figurative sculpture representation of the mouth is usually
avoided. Nevertheless, it is likely that the presence or
absence of some facial elements on anthropomorphic
vessels is not coincidental.

In these vessels of most of the Neolithic and later cultures
in the Balkans, eyebrows and noses are joined in a
particular manner that created a recognizable
iconography of the human face: the bulging of these
facial features caused scholars to associate them with
bird faces (Gimbutas 1989: 51-57). However, if we
consider that this stylistic characterisation of the face is
also present on objects of confirmed anthropomorphic
construction (figurines and vessels where a mouth is
present), then it is likely that this was one of the variants
Neolithic potters used to represent human faces. This
suggestion is supported by ceramic house-models, where
face depictions are identical to those on anthropomorphic
vessels (Figure 8). Thus, house-models form part of a
wider anthropomorphic tradition and can be drawn on to
95
elicit the function and character of anthropomorphic
vessels.


THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FIGURINE-
HOUSE MODELS AND ANTHROPOMORPHIC
VESSELS

Recent research of anthropomorphic vessels and figurine-
house models of the Balkan Neolithic indicates that
typological and conceptual similarities exist between
these two artefact groups (Naumov 2006: 66-68).
Typological parallels are particularly strong between
those from the Republic of Macedonia where the vast
majority of the house-models originate (Figure 1).
However, as fragments from the Dunavec I phase and
Kolsch I phase in Albania contemporaneous with the
Middle Neolithic phases of the Amzabegovo-Vrshnik
group in Macedonia suggest, their distribution may
reach beyond this region (Korkuti 1995: pl. 41.10; Sanev
2004: 42, 46).



Figure 4: Anthropomorphic vessels. 1) Rckeve, Hungary
(Gimbutas 1989: fig. 66). 2) Galabnik, Bulgaria (Todorova &
Vaisov 1993: pl. 8). 3) Kknydomb, Hungary (Gimbutas 1982:
fig. 210). 4) Vrsac, Serbia (Gimbutas 1989: fig. 89.3). 5)
Medvednjak, Serbia (Stalio 1977: fig. 165). 6) Tell Azmak,
Bulgaria (Gimbutas 1982: fig. 63). 7) Kknydomb, Hungary
(Whittle 1996: fig. 4.16). 8) Toptepe, Turkey (zdogan & Dede
1998: pl. 1).

Figurine-house models present a specific type of
anthropomorphic sculpture which combines Neolithic
figurines and house models from that period. In some
way, models of figurine-houses can be conceived as a
hybrid that consists of two different clay artifacts: the
upper part represents a figurine, while the lower part is a
model of a house instead of the anticipated hips and legs
(Figure 8). The typology and function of these models
has been discussed by Sanev and Chausidis (Chausidis
2004; Sanev 1988: 15-18). In the early Neolithic they
emerged in their rudimentary form with highly stylized
features (Zdravkovski 2005: 27). A more developed type
was produced in the Middle Neolithic of the
Amzabegovo Vrshnik group. Few examples come from
the Late Neolithic; the ones that occur show a high level
of stylisation as already evidence in the first phase.


Figure 5: Fragments of anthropomorphic vessels. 1)
Amzabegovo, Macedonia (Gimbutas 1976: fig. 191). 2)
Zelenikovo, Macedonia (Galovic 1964: pl. 17.3). 3)
Amzabegovo, Macedonia (Gimbutas 1976: fig. 160). 4)
Angelci, Macedonia (Sanev & Stamenova 1989: pl. VI.7). 5)
Amzabegovo, Macedonia (Gimbutas 1976: fig. 194). 6)
Angelci, Macedonia (Sanev & Stamenova 1989: pl. VI.5). 7-7a)
Amzabegovo, Macedonia (Gimbutas 1976: fig. 189, 190).

Just like the anthropomorphic vessels are divided into an
upper and lower zone, so are the figurine-house models:
in some examples from the south of Macedonia, the
upper zone contains the representation of an identity (i.e.
the face), while models from northern Macedonia also
show hands, belly, navel and breasts (Figure 8.1-3). The
lower zone of the anthropomorphic vessels, the belly, is
paralleled in the figurine-house models by the house
model itself. This similarity in conceiving and executing
a basic form and the mixing of features across different
artefact groups is not coincidental. Fragments from
Macedonia show that the representation of the face was
almost identical in both the anthropomorphic vessels and
figurine-house models (Figure 5). In addition, figurine-
house models are partly closed in the upper cylindrical
area, so that only one small central hole remains. The
presence of the same features can be detected on the
anthropomorphic vessels from Chavdar and Kazanlak
(both in Bulgaria), and Radajce (Serbia) sites which are
near the distribution area of figurine-houses (Figure 9.1-
3).

96
In this context, the example from Radajce confirms one
more feature that is common to both the artefact types,
namely that the shape of the vessels belly tends to be
square, so that it resembles some of the models with
completely or partly closed houses. Examples of similar
models, but without anthropomorphic features, are found
in Early Neolithic phases of Stenche (Macedonia), in the
Late Neolithic period of Zelenikovo (Macedonia) and
Butmir (Bosnia) (Figures 8.5, 8; 9.5). These similarities
indicate that in almost all phases of the Balkan Neolithic
anthropomorphic vessels and figurine-house models co-
existed. Therefore, cross-fertilisation with regard to
concept and form is likely.


THE FEMININE ASPECTS OF THE
ANTHROPOMORPHIC VESSELS

According to the recent analysis, most of the recorded
and published anthropomorphic vessels have been
identified with female bodies and so, by association, have
been the figurine-house models. This recognition invites
a discussion of the motif in the production of these
vessels, and the ideas that stand behind these
representations. Unfortunately, little is know about the
archaeological context in which most anthropomorphic
vessels were found. Frequently, publications only assign
them to chronological phases and give a basic
description, making an analysis of their function within
Neolithic dwellings problematic.



Figure 6: Anthropomorphic vessels. 1) Hailar, Turkey (Mellart
1970: fig. 1). 2) Hailar, Turkey (Mellart 1970: fig. 2). 3) Troy,
Turkey (Hoernes 1925: fig. 7). 4) Sultana, Romania (Gimbutas
1989: fig. 327). 5) Vidra, Romania (Mller-Karpe 1968: pl.
177.11). 6) Manastir, Macedonia (Kolistrkovska-Nasteva 2005:
fig. 81).

However, some general conclusions can be drawn from
the information available at this current time and
semantic studies of these vessels. As most of the vessels
are found inside dwellings, this indicates that they were
used for domestic activities, such as storage and ritual
purposes. The way they are modeled, the use of fine clay
and their rich decoration indicate that they received
special treatment treatment different from that of
utilitarian vessels for everyday culinary use. The presence
of female features, especially of genitalia, alerts us to the
possibility that they might have been identified with
regenerative characteristics of the female body.



Figure 7: Anthropomorphic vessels. 1) Karatas Semayk,
Turkey (Sengl 2006: fig. 61). 2) Afyon Bavurdu, Turkey
(Sengl 2006: fig. 44). 3) Marz, Austria (Hoernes 1925: fig. 1).
4) Cyprus (Neumann 1963: pl. 33a). 5) Protokorinthian vase
(Cermanovic-Kuzmanovic 1977: fig. 6). 6) Peru (Neumann
1963: pl. 40). 7) Peru (Chausidis 2005: pl. V15.12). 8) New
Guinea (Adam 1963: pl. 18).

It is also interesting to note that the vessels and figurine-
house models are tied to a womans domain of domestic
activities. The interior of the house was a space where the
most important activities related to the existence and
continuity of the community were performed. Children
were born and raised there, foodstuff stored, food was
cooked and the members of the family gathered here and
sometimes were even buried underneath the dwellings.
Due to this association of women and houses and a
number of rites related to the house, a woman is called
house among some modern Balkan populations. There
is even an old saying which provides a metaphor for the
close link between a womans domain and the house:
the house does not lie on the ground, but on the woman
(Malesevic 1995: 178-182). In fact, numerous complex
rites in Macedonia related to weddings positioned the
oldest woman (the mother-in-law) as a representation of
the house, therefore introducing the bride into the
household (Petreska 2001: 171-180, 2002). Even in
Mordvinian mythology, the house is looked after by and
identified with Kudawa (kud house, ava woman,
mother), the female deity of the home, household and
family, which is closely related to Kastomava and
Velyawa, patronesses of the stove and village
(Devyatkina 2004: 67, 70). Although the oldest man is
treated as the head of the house in the patriarchal
Balkan societies, the house is often related to the mother-
in-law because of a womans command over domestic
activities. Therefore, despite domestic space being
gendered by reference to a male and female part, the most
important and crucial points in the house (such as the
hearth, nokjvi place where bread is prepared) were
97
positioned in womans part (Ristevski 2005: 152;
Vrazinovki 2000: 248).



Figure 8: Models of figurine-houses. 1) Madjari, Macedonia
(Kolistrkovska-Nasteva 2005: fig. 42). 2) Govrlevo, Macedonia
(Chausidis 1995: fig. 6). 3) Mrsevci, Macedonia
(Kolistrkovska-Nasteva 2005: fig. 48). 4) Porodin, Macedonia
(Kolistrkovska-Nasteva 2005: fig. 43). 5) Stence, Macedonia
(Zdravkovski 2005: fig. 10). 6) Madjari, Macedonia
(Kolistrkovska-Nasteva 2005: fig. 44). 7) Suvodol, Macedonia
(Kolistrkovska-Nasteva 2005: fig. 45). 8) Zelenikovo,
Macedonia (Garasanin 1979: pl. XXXVII.7).

Since the Early Neolithic, the house is manifest as a
symbol of domestication and all that was wild was
tamed in the feminine part of the house (Hodder
1990). Concentration of feminine representations inside
the house (wall reliefs, figurines, anthropomorphic
vessels, etc.) mark the house as a place where most of the
vital female functions were realized: pregnancy, birth,
breeding, nursery and upbringing. In the context of the
Neolithic Balkans this is supported by the production of
numerous models of houses and ovens with feminine
bodily features (Naumov 2007a: 260; Petrovic 2001: 12-
14), the vast number of figurines with female genitalia
(Naumov 2007b), huge quantity of grinding stones for the
production of bread inside dwellings (Naumov in press)
and the practice of infant and adult burials inside the
house with infants sometimes buried inside vessels
(Bacvarov 2004; Naumov 2007a).


BURIALS INSIDE VESSELS

The practice of human burials inside vessels (Figure 10)
was present in almost all Neolithic cultures of southeast
Europe. The tradition probably originated in the Levant
and is linked to the Near Eastern Hasuna and Tell
Sotto cultures where a large number of vessel burials
have been found. Their number decreased as the tradition
spread through central Anatolia. In the Balkans, there are
six examples of inhumations inside vessels (Bacvarov
2004: 153; Gimbutas 1976: 396; Radunceva et al. 2002:
35, 150). These are outnumbered by the quantity of
cremated remains found inside vessels. In southeast
Europe alone there are examples of 80 such vessel
cremations. Some of these urn-vessels had modeled
breasts which clearly indicate their feminine character
(Bacvarov 2003: 141, 142; Hodder 1990: 52; Titov &
Ergeli 1980: 102, 104). These feminine urns were also
used in funerary rites of the Bronze and Iron Ages in
western Anatolia, the Aegean and western Europe (Figure
11). Continuity of this funerary practice can be traced to
Etruria and, as ethnographic records show, even to
relatively contemporary tribes (Adam 1963: pl. 18;
Brendel 1978: 107).



Figure 9: Anthropomorphic vessels (1-6). 1) Cavdar, Bulgaria
(Todorova & Vaisov 1993: pl. 29). 2) Kazanlak, Bulgaria
(Todorova & Vaisov 1993: fig. 204). 3) Radajce, Serbia
(Gimbutas 1989: fig. 62). 4) Rakitovo, Bulgaria (Radunceva et
al. 2002: fig. 28.7). 5) Butmir, Bosnia (Hoernes 1925: 281). 6)
Kurilo, Bulgaria (Todorova 2003: fig. 10a). 7) Vessel/Model of
figurine-house, Zelenikovo, Macedonia (Garasanin 1979: pl.
XXXVII.8). 8) Vessel/Model of figurine-house, Rakitovo,
Bulgaria (Radunceva et al. 2002: fig. 8).

However, inhumations, including infant burials, have also
been found in undecorated vessels of more or less similar
shapes (Figure 10). Therefore, we can assume that both
the anthropomorphic and the regular utilitarian vessels
used for this purpose were conceived as part of a
womans body, most likely her womb, expressed
symbolically through the regenerative features. One
example from Macedonia provides further support for
this interpretation: in Amzabegovo, an infant aged 4-6
weeks was placed inside a vessel with broken handles
and a fractured base (Gimbutas 1976: 396). The vessel,
which previously had fulfilled an utilitarian function, was
intentionally damaged: the handles were broken to create
a smooth surface and flowing shape while the base was
opened up presumably for activities related to the
funerary rites (Figure 10.1,2). What is particularly
interesting, is that the vessel was buried upside-down,
with the pierced base facing upwards and the rim facing
downwards, so as to symbolically represent a uterus
within the funeral context. Until the first half of the 20
th

century, similar burial practices are also associated with
non-ceramic objects in Balkan populations. In the Serbian
linguistic area, the cradle for babies was called beshika,
that is bladder. This term etymologically designates the
space inside the abdomen where, with the exception of
the urinal bladder, the regenerative organs of a woman
were believed to have resided. When an infant died, it
was buried in the same cradle the beshika was turned
upside down or, as was the custom during funeral rites in
Montenegro and Bosnia, a hole was made in the bottom
98
of the beshika, so that the mother can give birth again
(Blagojevic 1984: 224, 225; Lozanova 1989: 27). In
Macedonia, the cradle due to its basic shape is named
kolepka (Nazim 2002: 148), which linguistically
originates from kolibka/koliba i.e. dilapidated house or
hut, furthermore asserting the important role of
motherhood in relation with the house and babies.



Figure 10: Burial vessels. 1) Amzabegovo, Macedonia (Sanev
et al. 1976: fig. 42). 2) Same vessel as Figure 10.1 (Gimbutas
1976: fig. 242). 3) Rakitovo, Bulgaria (Bacvarov 2004: fig.1.1).
4) Plateia Magoula Zarkou, Greece (Bacvarov 2004: fig. 4.1). 5)
Tell Soto/Tell Hazna (?), Near East (Bacvarov 2004: fig. 3). 6)
Tell Soto/Tell Hazna (?), Near East), Bacvarov 2004: fig. 3).


ETHNOGRAPHIC AND ETYMOLOGICAL
IMPLICATIONS

The link between shape and female character of vessels
has been traced through ethnographic records, myths and
vessel terminology known from the Balkans. In addition,
in Mahabharata, Rig-Veda, Egyptian and Greek
mythology, as well as in myths from South America and
northern Europe, some of the humans were born in or
emerged from vessels (Eliade 2005: 136; Marazov 1992:
242; Neuman 1963: 162, 163, pl. 75a). Perception of
vessels as deities can be found in Canaanite mythology,
and in some of the local Indian languages (Tamoul,
Sanskrit and Kannara), the words Kumbattal,
Kumbahamata Garigadevara indicate a goddess-vessel
(Elijade 1984: 342; Gordon 1977: 224, 225). In western
Sudan, pots used for ceremonial drinking of beer are
referred to as eja (mother) and are sometimes decorated
with nansu, i.e. breasts (Haaland 2007: 165). In the
Balkans, during wedding ceremonies some vessels are
equated with the bride and are perforated at the bottom,
designating that the bride is not longer a virgin.
Alternatively, the vessel could be smashed onto the floor,
signaling that the young couple has had their first sexual
encounter (Petreska 2002: 109, 142, 203; Uzeneva 1999:
146).



Figure 11: Burial urns. 1) Center, Hungary (Gimbutas 1989: fig.
291). 2) Lemnos, Greece (Gimbutas 1989: fig. 292.1). 3) Troy,
Turkey (Gimbutas 1989: fig. 292.2). 4) Friedensau, Germany
(Hoernes 1925: fig. 8). 5) Pomerania, Poland (Gimbutas 1989:
fig. 383.2). 6) Sampohl, Germany (Hoernes 1925: fig. 7). 7)
Hoch-Redlau, Germany (Hoernes 1925: fig. 3). 8) Hoch-
Redlau, Germany (Hoernes 1925: fig. 6). 9) Chiuisi, Italia
(Janson 1975: fig. 189).

The equation of a vessel with a woman was present in
some other rites in Macedonia. In its southern part (the
Resen and Prespa regions), young girls were practicing a
rite called Ivanka on Ivanden, i.e. St. Johns Day
(Chausidis 1988: 73; Kiselinov 1942: 52-54). On that
day, adolescent girls were making a doll (bride) out of
decorated ceramic vessels. During the preparations, the
girls were placing water as well as objects inside the
vessel; another vessel was placed on the previous one
upside down to represent the head of the doll. These
vessels were decorated with anthropomorphic details and,
99
during the procession, were carried by the girls on their
heads. It is believed that this idol will bring prosperity
and suitable husbands to the girls, whilst the water
splashing around will bring health and children. Similar
vessels with decorated bodies and lids in the form of a
heads were also produced in the Late Neolithic (Figure
12.2; 4.4). Fragments or whole vessels of this kind are,
among others, found at Neolithic sites in Macedonia,
Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania. Whether we should
picture these vessels in similar rites as the Prespan
brides ritual is impossible to conclude, but it possible
that the Neolithic examples were similarly conceived.

Ethnographic parallels can also be drawn on for the
practice of Neolithic burials in shallow vessels (Figure
10.5,6). In the last two centuries, shallow vessels called
crepna existed in the Slavic linguistic area and can be
linked to the domain of hand-built ceramics
conventionally associated with women potters. The
creation of these vessels is related to a number of rites
that indicate their feminine features. On the other hand,
the same cultural group uses vessels called lonec, karlice,
zdjelica, bochvi, etc. expressions which etymologically
relate to regenerative organs or the genital area of
women. These vessels were used for the preparation of
bread, milk storage, as well as in a number of rites related
to birth and symbolic death (Blagojevic 1984: 224, 225;
Chausidis & Nikolov 2006; Eliade 2004: 105; Filipovic
1951: 125-153; Tomic 1976: 45-80).


CONCLUSION

The association of vessels with feminine features appears
to have been a long-standing tradition among different
cultures and throughout different periods. Numerous
representations of feminine features were seen to
correspond to the idea of the vessel as a space that
receives and contains, and also as a space that enables
foodstuffs to be stored. It was probably this feature which
resulted in equating the vessel with a womans functions:
that is her ability to nurture and regenerate. In this
context, the emergence of anthropomorphic vessels in the
socio-religious context of the Neolithic played a large
role in the construction of the concept of femininity. The
presence of numerous female features in different media
and the focus on symbolism resulted in a comparable
conception of anthropomorphic vessels across different
regions. Therefore, it is not surprising to notice that these
vessels were made with hand-building techniques
commonly associated with female potters, especially if
we consider that the vessels, because of their
construction, were more in line with the cognitive system
than Neolithic sculpture or models of figurine-houses. It
is difficult to see whether this symbolic concept finds
reflection in other types of vessels, but the possibility of
its existence should not be excluded.





AUTHORS ADDRESS

Goce NAUMOV
Institute for History of Art and Archaeology
University of Skopje
Kiro Krstevski Platnik 11 2/7
1000 Skopje
Republic of Macedonia
gonaumov@mail.net.mk


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Nikos Chausidis for sharing with
me his research results and for indicating the useful
references. I am also grateful to Orhideja Zorova, Ina
Berg and the anonymous reviewer for their helpful
comments on an earlier draft of this paper.


REFERENCES

ADAM, L. 1963. Primitivna umetnost. Beograd: Kultura.
BACVAROV, K. 2003. Neolitni pogrebalni obredi.
Sofia: Bard.
BACVAROV, K. 2004. The birth-giving pot: Neolithic
jar burials in southeast Europe, in V. Nikolov, K.
Bacvarov & P. Kalcev (eds.) Prehistoric Thrace:
151-160. Sofia/Stara Zagora: Institute of
Archaeology/Museum-BAS/Regional Museum of
History-Stara Zagora.
BLAGOJEVIC, N. 1984. Obicaji u vezi sa rodjenjem,
zenidbom i smrcu u titovouzickom, pozeskom i
kosjerickom kraju. Glasnik Etnografskog Muzeja
48: 209-310.
BRENDEL, O. J. 1978. Etruscan art. Kingsport: Penguin
Books.
CERMANOVICKUZMANOVI, A. 1977. Grcke slikane
vaze. Beograd: Naucna knjiga.
CHAUSIDIS, N. 1988. Simbolikata i kultnata namena na
makedonskite bronzi. Ziva Antika 38: 69-89.
CHAUSIDIS, N. 1995. Predistorija, in Makedonija
kulturno nasledstvo: 17-45. Skopje: Misla.
CHAUSIDIS, N. 2004. Majka Kukja Atena Sofia,
tipologija i semiotika na eden tip neolitski zrtvenici
od R. Makedonija. Paper presented at the XVIII
Symposium of the Macedonian Archaeological
Science Association, Gevgelija.
CHAUSIDIS, N. 2005. Kosmoloski sliki. Skopje: Nikos
Chausidis.
CHAUSIDIS, N. & NIKOLOV, G. 2006. Crepna i
vrsnik. Mitolosko semioticka analiza. Studia
Mythologica Slavica 9: 97-160.
DEVYATKINA, T. 2004. Mordvinian mythology.
Ljubljana: ZRC Publishung, SAZU.
ELIJADE, M. 1983. Kovaci i alkemicari. Zagreb:
Graficki zavod Hrvatske.
ELIJADE, M. 2004. Sveto i profano. Beograd: Alnari
Tabernakl.
ELIJADE, M. 2005. Istorija na veruvanjata i na
religiskite idei II. Skopje: Tabernakul.
100
FILIPOVIC, S. M. 1951. Zenska keramika kod
balkanskih naroda. Beograd: Serbian Academy of
Science.
GALOVIC, R. 1964. Zelenikovo neolitsko naselje.
Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja V: 127-167.
GARASANIN, M. 1979. Centralno - balkanska zona, in
A. Benac (ed.) Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja
II neolit: 79-212. Sarajevo: Academy of Science
and Art of Bosnia and Hercegovina.
GARASANIN, M. 1982. Umetnost na tlu Jugoslavije
praistorija. Beograd: Izdavaki zavod Jugoslavija.
GARASANIN, M. & GARASANIN, D. 1961. Neolitska
naselba Vrsnik kaj selo Tarinci. Zbornik na
stipskiot Naroden Muzej II: 7-40.
GIMBUTAS, M. 1976. Neolithic Macedonia. Los
Angeles: The Regents of the University of
California.
GIMBUTAS, M. 1982. The goddesses and gods of old
Europe. London: Thames & Hudson.
GIMBUTAS, M. 1989. The language of the goddess.
London: Thames & Hudson.
GORDON, S. 1977. Haananeskaja mifologija, in V.A.
Jakobson (ed.) Mifologii drevnego mira: 199-232.
Moskva: Nauka.
HAALAND, R. 2007. Porridge and pot, bread and oven:
Food ways and symbolism in Africa and the Near
East from the Neolithic to the present. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 17, 165-182.
HODDER, I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe.
Structure and cognistency in Neolithic societes.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
HOERNES, M. 1925. Urgeschichte der bildenden Kunst
in Europa. Wien: Kunstverlag Anton Schroll &
Co.
JANSON, H.W. 1975. Istorija umetnosti. Beograd:
Izdavacki zavod Jugoslavija.
KISELINOV, G.Y. 1942. Ivanka. Blgarski Narod 2: 52-
55.
KOLISTRKOVSKA-NASTEVA, I. 2005. Prehistoric
ladies from Macedonia (catalogue). Skopje:
Museum of Macedonia.
KORKUTI, M. 1995. Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum in
Albanien. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.
LOZANOVA, G. 1989. Osobenosti na obredite pri
pogrebanie na deca u juznite slavjani v kraja na
XIX i nacaloto na XX v. Blgarska Etnografija 1:
17-30.
MALESEVIC, M. 1995. Odnos svekrve i snahe u
svadbenom ritualu. Etno-kulturoloski Zbornik za
Proucavanje Kulture istocne Srbije i Susednih
Oblasti I: 177-184.
MARAZOV, I. 1992. Mit, ritual i izkustvo u Trakite.
Sofia: Univerzitetsko Izdatelstvo Sv. Kliment
Ohridski.
MELLART, J. 1970. Excavation at Hacilar. Edinburg:
Edinburgh University Press.
MLLER-KARPE, H. 1968. Handbuch der
Vorgeschichte. Mnchen: C. H. Beck.
NAUMOV, G. 2005. Neolitski slikani ornamenti.
Kulturen Zivot 3: 66-77.
NAUMOV, G. 2006. Sadot, peckata i kukjata vo
simbolicka relacija so matkata i zenata (neolitski
predloski i etnografski implikacii). Studia
Mythologica Slavica 9: 59-95.
NAUMOV, G. 2007a. Housing the dead: Burials inside
houses and vessels in the Neolithic Balkans, in D.
Barrowclough & C. Malone (eds.). Cult in context:
Reconsidering ritual in archaeology. 257-268.
Oxford: Oxbow Books.
NAUMOV, G. 2007b. Small breasts - big buttocks:
Gender determination of the figurines from the
Balkans. Paper presented at 13
th
Annual Meeting
of the European Association of Archaeologists,
Zadar.
NAUMOV, G. (in press). Imprints of the Neolithic mind:
Clay seals from the Neolithic Macedonia.
Documenta Praehistorica XXXV. Ljubljana.
NAZIM, J. 2002. Upotrebata na kilimot vo Makedonija.
Zbornik na Muzejot na Makedonija (Etnologija) 2:
145-154.
NEUMANN, E. 1963. The Great Mother. New York:
Bollingen Foundation.
ZDOGAN, M. & Y. DEDE. 1998. An anthropomorphic
vessel from Toptepe, in M. Stefanovic, M.
Dtefanovich, H. Todorova & H. Hauptmann. (eds.)
James Harvey Gaul In memoriam: 143-152.
Sofia: The James Harvey Gaul Foundation.
PAVUK, J. 1981. Umenie a zivot kamennej. Tatran: Ars
Slovaca Antiqua.
PERLS, C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece The
first farming communities in Greece. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
PETRESKA, V. 2001. Odnosot svekrva/snaa vo
makedonskiot svadben obred (memorija i
perspektivi), Makedonski Folklor 58-59: 167-186.
PETRESKA, V. 2002. Svadbata kako obred na premin
kaj Makedoncite od brsjackata etnografska celina.
Skopje: Institut za folklor Marko Cepenkov.
PETROVIC, B. 2001. Model neolitske peci iz Progara.
Godisnjak grada Beograda XLVII-XLVIII: 11-21.
PYKE, G. & P. YIOUNI. 1996. Nea Nikomedeia I: The
excavation of an Early Neolithic village in
northern Greece 1961 1964. London: The
British School at Athens.
RADUNCEVA., MACANOVA, V., GACOV, I.
KOVACEV, G., GEORGIEV, G., CAKALOVA,
E. & E. BOZILOVA. 2002. Neolitnoto seliste do
grad Rakitovo (Razkopki i proucvanija XXIX).
Sofia: Izdatelstvo Gal-Iko.
RISTEVSKI, Lj. 2005. Kategoriite prostor i vreme vo
narodnata kultura na makedoncite. Skopje: Matica
Makedonska.
SANEV, V. & M. STAMENOVA. 1989. Neolitska
naselba Stranata vo selo Angelci. Zbornik na
Trudovi: 9-63.
SANEV, V., SIMOSKA, D., KITANOSKI, B. & S.
SARZOSKI (eds.) 1976. Praistorija vo
Makedonija. Skopje: Arheolosko drustvo na SR
Makedonija.
STALIO, B. 1977. Neolit na tlu Srbije. Beograd: Narodni
Muzej.
ENGL, A. 2006. Mysterious women of the Bronze Age
(catalogue). Istanbul: Yapi Kredi.
101
TITOV, V. S. & I. ERGELI. 1980. Arheologija Vengrii.
Moskva: Nauka.
TODOROVA, H. 2003. Prehistory of Bulgaria, in D.V.
Gramenos (ed.) Recent research in the prehistory
of the Balkans. Thessaloniki: Archaeological
Institute of Northern Greece.
TODOROVA, H. & I. VAISOV. 1993. Novo
kamennata epoha v Blgarija. Sofia: Nauka i
Izkustvo.
TOMI, P. 1976. Tipoloko terminoloka klasifikacija
zbirke narodnog granrstva. Glasnik Etnografskog
Muzeja 39/40: 45-83.
UZENEVA, E. S. 1999. Bova bez dno: K simvolike
devstvennosti v bolgarskom svadebnom obrjade.
Kodovi Slovenskih Kultura 4: 145-157.
VRAZINOVSKI, T. 2000. Recnik na narodnata
mitologija na makedoncite, Prilep Skopje: Istitut
za Staroslovenska Kultura & Matica Makedonska.
WHITTLE, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ZDRAVKOVSKI, D. 2005. Neolitska naselba Pod selo
Tumba s. Stence. Zbornik na Muzejot na
Makedonija 2 (Arheologija): 25-31.