Goce Naumov and Nikos ausidis

NEOLITHIC ANTHROPOMORPHIC
OBJECTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Publisher
MAGOR DOO Skopje
For the publisher
Gorjan Lazarevski

Summary translation into English

Andrijana Dragovi
Proof reading
Verka Mealova

Editing
Andrijana Dragovi

Cover design
Nikos ausidis

( )



o

Cover photo
Neolithic figurine from Govrlevo
(Museum of the City of Skopje)
Photographer
Goce Naumov
Graphic Editing
Filip Mitrov

This publication has been supported

by the Ministry of Culture
of the Republic of Macedonia

Goce Naumov and Nikos ausidis

NEOLITHIC
ANTHROPOMORPHIC
OBJECTS IN THE
REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

MAGOR DOO
Skopje, 2011

Goce Naumov and Nikos ausidis

NEOLITHIC ANTHROPOMORPHIC
OBJECTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
(Summary)
The Neolithic attracts a particular interest among the
researchers of Prehistoric archaeology, as the innovations this period brought on the territory of the Republic of Macedonia and the Balkans in the second half
of the seventh millennium BC, have major role in the
manner in which the society was formed, functioned
and existed. Building the first houses, organization
of the earliest settlements, cultivation of plants and
domestication of animals are Neolithic acquisitions
which changed the course of human development
and still remain crucial segments for any community.
These social, economic and building innovations also
reflect how the Neolithic people perceived the world
that surrounded them and their place within. To define
and explicate this relation they used clay i.e. ceramics as material which was already present as a new
technological discovery. In addition, they employed
pottery as medium where their own ideas about the
world were registered, as well as those related to
their own bodies. For the first time in the Balkans
there were artifacts representing human figure not
only as a reflection of their actual appearance, but
also as manifestation of mythical characters which
were constituent elements of their life.
These anthropomorphic objects in particular
are the subject of this monograph. A general overview of Neolithic finds in Macedonia is made where
complete human body is represented or just parts of
it. The anthropomorphic house models, vessels and
figurines in all Neolithic phases are elaborated. They
were rarely considered in Macedonian publications
so far, especially not assembled as unit, but merely
in chronological and typological perspective and
sometimes through history of art. However, recent
archaeological tendencies indicate that these aspects
are not sufficient for a profound insight into their
complex character and meaning. Therefore, we have
established the aims of this book i.e. the elementary

directions of our research project which resulted in

realization of this publication.
At the beginning it was necessary to make a detailed inspection of the presence and quantity of such
objects on a regional and on a local level i.e. within
the complete territory of the Republic of Macedonia
and also in particular geographical units, cultural
areas and specific sites. Afterwards, we approached
towards typological classification of any group of
anthropomorphic finds, gathering data related to their
technological features and also information on their
position and context during excavations. Due to these
facts and information by previous researchers, entire
set of explications was gathered and systematized
concerning the use and the function of these objects.
The observations on the symbolic and semiotic aspects of these artifacts comprise the last stage of
this research, as does their employment within social and religious realm of Neolithic communities
in Macedonia.
As stated above, this small monograph is a
result of the research realized in the project supported by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic
of Macedonia entitled Neolithic anthropomorphic
objects in the Republic of Macedonia. Although it
was intended to realize this project with examinations
in all Macedonian museums where such materials are
exhibited and deposited, still due to its small funding
only several stages were finalized. The chronological
and regional disposition of these finds was obtained
by the publications where they are included. In the
second stage of the project the archaeological collections of the Skopje City Museum, NI Office and
Museum Bitola and NI Cultural Heritage Protection
Office and Museum Prilep were part of a thorough
insight.
The comprehensive research and documentation
of finds is done only in the Skopje City Museum

57

Goce Naumov and Nikos ausidis

where anthropomorphic house models, vessels and

figurines from Govrlevo and Zelenikovo were analyzed in detail and therefore have a major role in this
publication. Such research and documentation included selection of adequate finds, their measurement and
description, technical drawings in 1:1 scale, digital
processing of drawings and photographs, grouping of
illustrations into tables, clarifying the chronological
position and context of finds, statistical overview,
observation on technological features of clay and
modeling, as well as confirming the potential analogies of corresponding finds in the Balkans.
This research provided a detailed insight into
the typological, chronological, technical and contextual features of anthropomorphic house models,
vessels and figurines which significantly contributed
towards more profound and consistent understanding
of their social and symbolic significance. Although
the realization of this project enabled huge amount of
new data and information, still it was concluded that
further chemical and physical analyses are necessary
for more thorough clarification of use and conceivement of Neolithic anthropomorphic objects.
On this occasion we would like to thank Mr.
Aleksandar Mitkoski, custodian and researcher at the
NI Cultural Heritage Protection Office and Museum
Prilep and Mrs. Marija Vasileva, custodian and
researcher at the NI Office and Museum Bitola for
enabling a complete approach to the collection and
documentation in their institutions. We also thank
Mr. Jovan urbanovski, director of the Skopje City
Museum for his understanding of our detailed research and documentation of museum artifacts and
for providing the documentation necessary for working in the depots. We owe a special gratitude to Mr.
Ljubo Fidanoski, custodian and researcher in Skopje
City Museum who enabled a complete inspection of
finds and documentation from Zelenikovo and Govrlevo and for being constantly devoted to our analysis
and discussions related to artifacts and excavations
of these Neolithic sites. We also thank Aleksandar
Dimovski and Violeta Cvetanovska, potters from
Skopje who shared their experience and significantly
contributed in detecting some technological aspects
on the objects we have researched. The results of
our project and this publication would have been
significantly reduced without the contribution of these
colleagues and their suggestions, ideas and willing
for collaboration.
Due to the small funding it is not accidental
that our project was most profoundly realized with
analysis of Neolithic finds from Govrlevo and Zelenikovo. These sites in particular are closely related
to our friend and colleague, Mr. Milo Bilbija, who
ever since 1980s till his death in 2010 was directing

58

and was dedicated to excavations and artifacts found

in these settlements. As a person he was of a huge
importance to us as we had the possibility and the
pleasure of working with Milo durring Govrlevo
excavations in various campaigns in 1980s and the
first decade of 2000s. We both had the opportunity
to get to know him in different millenia and to witness the identical manner of sharing his love towards
Neolithic, as well as its understanding and conceivement. Considering that both of us were embraced
by his explication of anthropomorphic artifacts we
do believe that this monograph will also follow the
direction of his principles and concepts. Therefore,
in the name of our friendship and gratefulness we
dedicate this publication to Milo.

Nikos ausidis
Neolithic anthropomorphic house
models in the Republic of Macedonia
The Prehistoric ceramic house-shaped objects are
well-known among the Neolithic and Eneolithic sites
in the Balkans, Southeastern Europe and the Mediterranean. In the last fifty years, a new type of such
objects, which are combination of a house model
and a human figure ( .II-T.VII), was being found at
Neolithic sites in the Republic of Macedonia (see map
on T.I). They are composed of two basic elements: a
hollow cubic part which represents the house (realistic or schematized) bellow and an anthropomorphic
hollow cylinder with opening on its upper part above.
The cylinder is applied onto the house model roof
and it is shaped as a human head or a body, often
with female gender features (schematized breasts).
The average height of these anthropomorphic house
models is between 15 and 50 cm. Nearly one hundred
of these mostly fragmented and rarely complete artifacts were published till 2010. So far, most of them
are dated in Middle Neolithic, while there are some
which could have belonged even to Late Neolithic
phases. On this occasion, all of the published models
are incorporated and organized according to the sites
where they were found.
The finds review
Based on the geographical and cultural features of
the settlement where they were unearthed these finds
could be divided in two groups:
Veluina-Porodin cultural group
The Pelagonian Plain (Bitola region). The anthropomorphic house models from Porodin are specific

Neolithic anthropomorphic objects in the Republic of Macedonia

by their realistic house representation with gabled

roof where head with dominant nose is applied and
supplemented with ornaments or dress (T.II: ; T.III:
1, 3, 4, 6-9; T.IV: 4, 5). The serrated lateral openings
(door or windows) and segments similar to shoulders
distinguish one example as unique (T.V: 6). There is
also a cylinder as female bust with a well-modeled
arm which is typical for Skopje Plain (T.VII: 2).
Similar artifacts were found at the neighboring site
of Veluka Tumba (T.III: 2, 5). The cubic part of one
of the models is with huge vaulted roof and M-like
openings (T.IV: 8; T.II: F). Analogous cylinders were
found in Optiari where necklase with spherical beads
and earrings are also applied (T.IV: 1, 2). Similar
objects are confirmed in Grgur Tumba (T.IV: 3) and
Dobromiri (T.IV: 9; T.II: F) where a building with
domed roof and unusual doors (or windows) is also
represented.
A rope design (jewelry or dress?) on the chin is
added on one of the Mogila fragments (T.V: 4). The
model from ivojno (T.V: 5) has no distinguished
chin and neck and has a round opening bellow the
mouth. The complete anthropomorphic model from
Suvodol is crucial for tracing the typology of such
artifacts (T.V: 7; T.II: A). Here the house is stylized
in the cubic shape with eye-like openings and pubic
triangle incised into one wall. The cylinder is modeled
as female torso with breasts, head and arms, along
with rows of half-rounded bulging.
The Pelagonian Plain (Prilep region). The
model from Slavej represents a house schematized as
a cube with four pairs of moon-like openings placed
on its angles (T.V: 8; T.II: , D). Along with the
huge quadrangular openings they resemble mouth and
eyes. At the roof angles, four small round openings
are perforated, which is more typical for Skopje and
Polog regions. There are also three more fragments
unearthed at this site (T.IV: 6; T.VI: 3; T.II: G; T.XII:
6). The second one is without anthropomorphic features while the third one is specific by its notched
vertex. In Topolani there are also three fragments
of head-cylinders confirmed (T. IV: 7; T.V: 1, 2), the
second one being the smallest one in Pelagonia so
far, with only 7 cm height. The fragments of cube
base with huge central perforations are found as well
(T.XII: 8). Smaller fragments of cylinders are also
unearthed in Gjumuica.
Amzabegovo-Vrnik cultural group
In the last thirty years a new group of anthropomorphic house models has been confirmed in the regions
of Skopje and Polog Plain, Ove Pole and Middle
Povardarie, mostly as part of Amzabegovo-Vrnik
cultural group.

Skopje Plain. The largest number of published models were found in Madjari, while only
one complete artifact was unearthed in situ on the
floor of the building. It belongs to the most specific
cathegory of models for Skopje Plain with cylinder
as female body, arms decorated with bracelets and
hands placed over the stylized house roof (T.VII:
10; T.II: C). Moreover, an unknown type of models
was confirmed at the same site, where the hands
are placed onto the figures abdomen (T.VI: 7;
T.II: B). Also worth mentioning is a cylinder completely painted in red and polished (T.V: 3). In this
region cylinders which depict only head and neck
are present as well as those in Pelagonia (T.VI: 8
and probably 1; T.II: D). Tendency towards detailed
modeling of hair and eyes accentuation is present
among Madjari cylinders (T.V: 3; T.VI: 1, 4). Despite the relative realism and variety of house cubes
in Pelagonia, in Skopje Plain they are steady and
perforated with quadrangular, round, oval and other
more complex openings in the walls or roof angles
(T.VI: 8; T.VII: 10, 11).
There is a huge quantity of fragmented and
almost complete house models from this site which
are not published and well documented yet (T. XIII:
2-6, 8). In Mrevci two models typical for this region
have been unearthed (T.VII: 4, 6; T.II: C). In air
area, during building activities one cylinder with
head representation and serrated opening on its cube
was found (T.VI: 5; T.II: D compare to T.VI: 1, 8;
T.III-T.V). During the last decade, numerous smaller
or larger fragments and only one published specimen
(T.VII: 11) have been unearthed in Govrlevo which
are broadely elaborated in one of the book chapters.
There is a new variant in Zelenikovo, with a cube
more similar to the vessel outline than to house
representation and with lateral walls covered with
incised patterns (T.IX: 9, 10; T.II: I). Regarding the
recent interpretations, this type is more common
for Late Neolithic and analogous objects found in
Bulgaria, Serbia and Bosnia (compare to .IX: 7,
8; T.X: 6). There is one more published fragment
from this site with representation of a hand (T.VII:
5) which was misinterpreted as anthropomorphic
vessel. The recent documentation of Zelenikovo anthropomorphic material revealed the presence of ten
more fragments of anthropomorphic house models.
Polog Plain. Anthropomorphic house models
from this region are common to those from Skopje
Plain and Pelagonia. Anthropomorphic cylinder similar to those from Skopje Plain was found in Dolno
Palite (T.VII: 1 compare to 10, 11). The excavations in Stene provided several fragments and one
complete model without corporal traits analogous
to the one from Topolani (compare T.VI: 6 to 3)

59

Goce Naumov and Nikos ausidis

and openings on the cube identical to those from

Veluka Tumba (compare: T.VI: 6 to .IV: 8). The
eye-like openings similar to the ones from Suvodol
and Slavej ( .V: 7, 8) are also present on the fragmented cube (T.XII: 7).
The remains of anthropomorphic house models were found in Eastern and Western part of the
Republic of Macedonia. The small quantity and the
fragmentation of these finds induced their grouping
into two provisional entities which also belong to
the Amzabegovo Vrnik cultural group.
Ove Pole. One fragment from Amzabegovo
could have belonged to a figure with a hand placed
onto the cube/house roof ( .VII: 3; T.II: C), as well
as to the category of anthropomorphic vessels. In
Gorobinci several minor fragments were unearthed:
a cube bottom, a part of a hand and a cylinder top
(T.VII: 7-9).
Middle course of the Vardar River. A fragment
of an arm was found in Damjan (T.XII: 10) which
could have belonged to some of the models and more
probably to the miniature models of anthropomorphic oven (compare to T.XII: 9). Late Neolithic cubes
were also found with two M-like openings (T.IX:
12, 13). There are no traces of cylindrical or any
other application which would indicate a distinct
type ( .II: H) to which the fragments from Izvor
could have belonged (T.XII: 4, 5). Parts of cubes
probably associated with anthropomorphic house
models are detected in Novo Selo .
Analogies with the Balkan regions
Models analogous to the ones from Republic of
Macedonia have not been found out of its borders.
The most similar are the following finds: (1) a hand
fragment from Donja Branjevina, Vojvodina/ Serbia
( .X: 4; .I: C); (2) a cube from Rakitovo, Bulgaria
(T.IX: 8); (3) a cylinder from Dunavec, Albania ( .X:
3); (4) a vessel from Butmir, Bosnia (T.X: 6).
Typology and transformation
Lately there are sufficient finds to make a typological scheme of anthropomorphic house models, but
without chronologic determination due to uncertain
dating of settlements and cultural layers where they
were found (T.II: A-I). Such shortage was supplemented by the actual researchers with particular logically based conclusions: (1) simpler/geometrical as
older (T.II: G), while complex/anthropomorphic as
later (T.II: H-G-D-A-B-C); (2) anthropomorphic
finds as primary, while the geometric one as a product
of their reduction (T.II: C-B-A-D-G-H); (3) realistic
house representations as primary (T.II: F-E-A-D)

60

and realistic house representations as result to cube

naturalization (T.II: A-D-E-F).
We have started with the principle of types
which are universal i.e. spread in most of the regions. According to this typology the earliest would be
models with schematized house/cube and cylinder
modeled in shape of a human head or a stylized figure
(T.II: A, D; T.V: 7; T.VI: 5). This is the main core
from where, synchronically or not, several different
directions of transformation follow: (1) emphasis on
realistic house features (South Pelagonia) (T.II: A-DE-F; T.III: 8, 9; T.IV: 8, 9); (2)_emphasis on female
anthropomorphism (Skopje and Polog Plains) (T.II:
A-B-C; T.V: 7; T.VI: 7; T.VII: 2, 4, 6, 10, 11); (3)
transformation of house/cube (supplemented with
neck and head) into enclosed cube/vessel (Zelenikovo) (T.II: A-D-I; T.IX: 9, 10); (4) reduction of
anthropomorphic parts into cylinder without applications (Stene and Slavej) (T.II: A-D-G; T.VI: 3, 6);
(5) complete cylinder elimination and more intense
cube schematization (Damjan) (T.II: A-D-G-H; T.IX:
12, 13). Surely, these schemes are only suggestions
which should be reconsidered in relation to new
data obtained by future research and thus accepted,
amended or rejected.
Iconographic parallels
Considering their iconographic concept, the anthropomorphic vessels and oven models (T.XXIX-T.
XXXII; T.XII: 9) could be highlighted as analogies
or even as prototypes of anthropomorphic house
models. If the accent is further on iconographical
and symbolic elements than parallels could be found
among ceramic objects from Trueti and Vdastra
in Romania which represent pair of figures related
to houses or other types of buildings (T.X: 1, 2). In
the second example, similar to some Macedonian
house models, the heads are modeled as recipients.
Such parallels could be found among Neolithic and
Eneolithic finds from Bulgaria and Hungary ( .X: 5)
and Chalcolithic ossuaries from Azor, Izrael (T.X:
7-10) with distinct zoomorphisation or anthropomorphisation of the house.
The woman-house concept has surprising similarities with the folk embroideries from Eastern
Europe (19th-20th century AD) where the representation of woman with spread legs composes the crosssection of a house with gabled roof and a plant in
its enterior (T.VIII: 2, 3). In the same region, the
anthropomorphisation of churches is also present
(T.VIII: 1, similar variant: T.IX: 5). Such parallels
can be found in less obvious variants among textile
patterns in the Balkans and Asia Minor (T.VIII: 4; T.
IX: 1, 2), Medieval jewelry ( .IX: 3, 4, 6) and grave

Neolithic anthropomorphic objects in the Republic of Macedonia

monuments steci in Western Balkans (T.VIII:

10-12). There is a representation of a woman from
Donja Branjevina (Serbia) whose legs are modeled
in a quadrangular shape (T.VIII: 9). Although the
presence of vulva resembles spread legs (compare
T.VIII: 9 to 5-8), still their form can allude a skirt or
a vertical cross-section of schematized house. The
wall paintings and reliefs from atal Hyk should
not be ignored, and especially the figure in a birthgiving position represented on the roof parts of the
buildings (T.XI: 3). On some of the Etruscan houselike urns, the womans head is placed on the roof
which represents a deceased person or some female
mythical character (T.XI: 6).
Iconographic and semiotic analysis
The uterus is the first prenatal spatial ambient, so the
house is experienced as mother i.e. a womb where
the man is enclosed, warmed, nourished and safe.
Therefore, if the cube of the anthropomorphic house
models in Macedonia symbolizes the body, torso and
entrails i.e. womb, than the head would represent
the identity of the figure. This archetypical symbolic
relation is woven through the pagan traditions in Classical, Medieval and contemporary cultures which
could be traced in the line of Athena-Hestia-VestaCybele-Sofia-Virgin. These characters are protectors
of the settlement i.e. city as higher state of dwelling.
Their virginity guarantees the impenetrable city i.e.
its security from the enemy attacks. Virgin and Sofia
are metaphors of the Christian church, represented as
the mother who accepts and takes care of the believers
in its interior (T.XI: 1a, 1b, 2, 4, 5).
Consequently, the elaborated anthropomorphic
house models represent the spiritualized and personalized Neolithic house (Mother-House) with its
common categories: to give birth, reproduce, protect
and nourish i.e. to maintain life, to gather and organize people, and probably to give rebirth/resurrect
the dead. Despite the actual discussions on the cube
representation as a dwelling or a cult building, due
to undefined division of the utilitarian and sacred
categories within archaic culture, here it is suggested
that they were probably Neolithic dwellings which
functioned as cult objects. Such example could be
found among actual female houses where the women were separated from the community during their
menstrual cycle. The lateral M-like openings (T.IV:
8; T.VI: 6) are in relation to womans legs depicted
in birth-giving pose (door = female genitalia) while
those serrated (T.IV: 9; T.V: 6; T.VI: 5) and others
with an open mouth, indicated by small openings
in pairs, were considered as house eyes (T.V: 7,
8; T.XII: 7). These significances correlate the rep-

resented house with the house of the deceased or

the house for initiation which on a ritual level eat
the one who enters inside.
Ritual use
Considering the shape of anthropomorphic house
models and their comparison to other adequate folk
traditions, several assumptions for their ritual use
could be suggested. The numerous openings on the
cube could be used for putting objects i.e. substances
(food, plants, figurines, fire etc.) in order to stimulate
the represented house to be fulfilled with such goods
or whatever they symbolized (T. XII: 1-3). The four
openings in the corners on cubes top were also for
putting particular substances, so that the four angles
indicated the complete house area (T.V: 8; T.VI: 6,
8; T.VII: 10,11; T.IX: 11). The opening on the top of
the cylinder might have had two purposes (T.XII: 1,
2): (a) pouring liquids (milk, oil, blood etc.) which
were entering into the cube; (b) emanating smoke or
steam produced by burned or glimmering material
within the cube.
The opening perforated on the bottom of models
could be associated with the floor or earth where these
substances were poured. Analogous ritual actions
in the Balkans were practiced within actual houses
(during settling or each new year etc.) or with the
employment of ritual breads named as house which
represented the dwelling (T.XIII: 1). Some ethnographic examples suggest that these models might
have been used for housing and feasting the souls
of the deceased who were former inhabitants of a
particular house.

Nikos ausidis and Goce Naumov

Neolithic anthropomorphic house
models from Govrlevo
The site of Cerje is located in the Skopje region, 5
km South-East of Govrlevo village. It is positioned
on the southern slopes of Vodno, on a well-flooded
terrace (500m high) suitable for agricultural activities. On this terrace a Neolithic settlement has been
confirmed which continued to exist in Bronze Age,
Iron Age and in the Roman period. From 1982 until
2010 the excavations were mainly concentrated on
two trenches/sections where several layers dating
from Early to Late Neolithic were determined.
There is only one anthropomorphic house
model from Govrlevo published so far, while the
others, which are presented in this publication, were
observed and documented in 2010. Consequently,

61

Goce Naumov and Nikos ausidis

these finds were identified in museum depots and

inventory documents and then they were measured,
photographed, drawn and digitally processed. There
were 157 fragments in total, confirmed in various
years of excavations excluding those from the last
campaign, in 2010, and the published one from 1982
(XIV: 1-3). Recently, this is the most numerous unit of
such finds in the Republic of Macedonia, something
which should also be expected at other sites after
careful analysis. This quantity of anthropomorphic
house models could be much higher as during former
excavations smaller fragments were ignored. Despite
the previous indications, our analysis confirmed that
these objects were not rare and exclusive, but common for almost all phases of the settlement. Such
observation is contrary to the opinion of the archaeologist who excavated Madjari, a site also located
in Skopje region, stressing that these artifacts were
related to exclusive objects (sanctuaries) and used
for 2 or 3 generations due to the several thin layers
on their surface.
The precise chronological determination of anthropomorphic house models from Govrlevo is not
feasible at this moment due to undefined strata in
particular phases of the settlement. Their dating in
Early Neolithic can not be confirmed as these layers
are still not precisely defined by the archaeologists.
Nevertheless, several white painted vessels and analogous similarities with the early Pelagonian anthropomorphic models indicate such possibility. Most of the
fragments were found in Middle Neolithic contexts,
while some of them might be of Late Neolithic origin
considering their similarity to several Zelenikovo
fragments already determined by the excavators of
this site as belonging to this phase (T.XV: 1; T.XIX:
1, 2, 4 compare to T.IX: 9-10).
There is only one published anthropomorphic
house model from Govrlevo, found during well-drilling and which is partially preserved, without head,
right radius and the larger part of the cube (XIV:
1-3). It was later reconstructed according to a better
preserved model from Madjari (T.VII: 10). Regarding
our insight into this kind of artifacts we are able to
stress several irregularities related to this restoration:
(1) shape and eye-modeling, which was more probably made with incision; (2) the cube proportion,
which was much higher; (3) the size and shape of
the cube openings. With the exception of this find, all
others are fragmented, so that the typological classification is possible only for a small number of models.
Type C. This type is confirmed among larger
number of fragments mostly due to the hand positioned onto the cube cover (T.II: C). There are 19
fragments of this type, mostly parts of cube without
openings and decorated with engraved patterns cov-

62

ered with white layer of engobe (T.XV: 1a-b, 2, 3) or

complete cube with thick walls, triangle applications
and two lateral openings (T.XV: 5a-b). Seventeen
different parts of hands (T.XXI: 5-8) could be contributed to this type and especially the one with large
dimension and applied bracelets (T.XXI: 8).
Type D. One complete anthropomorphic cylinder representing a character with large neck and
hairstyle with wisps pressed with fingers (T.XVI:
1a-b compare to T.II: D) could be incorporated in
this type, as well as another one similar to the previous (T.XVI: 4a-c). Due to absence of hands onto the
cube cover, another fragment could also belong to
this type or to typesG, A and B (T.XVIII: 2a-b).
Type G. Several fragments of anthropomorphic
cylinders could be categorized into this type (T.XIV:
11-13 compare to T.II: G), although their belonging to
this type can not be completely confirmed considering their damage.
Typological features of the cube
Bottom. Sixteen bottom fragments were confirmed
as cube parts due to their quadrangular base, rounded
walls (T.XVII: 1, 5) and remains of lateral openings.
The edges between bottom and walls of these fragments are usually pointed (T.XVII: 4, 7a), rounded
(T.XVII: 1, 3, 5) or ribbed (T.XVII: 6; T.XX: 7).
Cover. The most numerous group is consisted
of fragments (35) whose outline is similar to the cube
bottoms (T.XVIII: 2b; T.XIX: 1b, 2b) and sometimes
has a circular shape (T.XVIII: 1b, 7b). The most common features are quadrangular openings (T.XVIII: 1,
2, 7), sometimes widened with round protuberances
(T.XIX: 1, 2) or applied hand (T.XXI: 5, 6, 8). On
the edge of some fragments a roof eaves could be
detected (T.XIX: 4a) or they are in the area where
the cover and cylinder were fastened.
Lateral walls. The cube walls are usually
slightly sloped towards outer side (T.XV: 5; T.XIX:
1, 2) and the area where they are joined is consisted of
rounded angles (T.XVIII: 2b) which gives an impression of round cube on some models (T.XVIII: 1, 7).
Openings. Most of the cube fragments bear
openings which, in relation to the house significance, could be interpreted as windows, doors or
ventilation. But in context of symbolic identification of the house as a human body and space, these
openings have other meanings (eyes, mouth, female
genitalia, sun and crescent). Quadrangular openings
might have had acute or rounded angle (T.XVII: 6,
7; T.XVIII: 5, 6; T.XIX: 3b, 5b). Regarding the high
level of their damage, some openings could have had
arch or oval shape or most frequently a M-shaped
outline (T.XVIII: 3, 7). In several cases these open-

Neolithic anthropomorphic objects in the Republic of Macedonia

ings are so large that lateral walls were modeled as

thin columns (T.XVIII: 3), which could be related
to their visibility or insertion of larger items into the
cube (T.XII: 2, 3).
Arch-shaped openings probably represent the
actual windows of the dwellings (T.XVIII: 2a;
T.XX: 5a). There are examples where they are uplifted (T.XVIII: 2a), sprained ( .XVIII: 1 ) or gabled
(T.XVIII: 4). The round openings are detected only
on several models (T.XV: 5b; T.XVII: 5 ), which
could be associated with sun and full moon as they
are bringing the light into the house. The oval opening
which could be related to an egg or female genitalia
is confirmed on three fragments (T.XIX: 3a, T.XX:
2 compare to T.VII: 10), while its position in pairs
sometimes might be related to eyes. The eye-shaped
openings were registered on five fragments and they
were usually in pairs (T. XX: 3, 4, 5 and 7). There is
one example with multiplication of two such pairs on
one wall and their combination with huge opening on
the next wall which is quite similar to a model from
Madjari (T.XX: 3 compare to T.VI: 8). The indentation of openings is confirmed in Pelagonia (T.IV:
9; T.V: 6) and Skopje Plain (T.VI: 5; T.XIII: 2 and
probably 8), and it can be noticed on two examples
in Govrlevo (T.XVII: 3, 4). The small rounded openings which are common for the roof angles are also
present on the upper angles of the lateral wall on few
fragments (T.XVII: 2).

(4) rear part with a bun (T.XIV: 8, 9). There are also
seventeen fragments of hands placed onto the cube
cover, thus belonging to type C (T.XV: 1; T.XXI:
5-8). They can be roughly or well-produced with
bracelets on the humerus or radius (T.XXI: 7, 8).
The fingers were usually engraved (T.XXI: 5, 8), but
also there are hands with precisely modeled fingers
(T.XXI: 6).
In Govrlevo there are also fragments of a new
type of anthropomorphic house models. The first one
belongs to the left upper part of the cylinder with
preserved shoulder, a part of a breast and humerus
(T.XXI: 1a-b). Although it seems that it belongs to
type C (T.II: C), yet it is different due to: (1) channel at the neck intended for lid; (2) it has thin and
well-modeled wall with polished interior. The other
fragment (T.XXI: 2a-b) belongs to the frontal part of
the cylinder whose breasts were supplemented with
bulging (ornaments). Exactly as the previous fragment, this one also has a polished interior, but without
preserved channel. Another fragment is probably a
piece of the same anthropomorphic model where fingers were represented as part of a hand positioned
onto the cube. According to this, the new type is in
relation to type C which is distinguished by cylinder
with polished inner wall. Some of them had channels
for lids which most likely were also anthropomorphic
i.e. the face of the represented individual. Such lids
with facial features (eyes, nose) were identified in
Govrlevo (T.XXI: 3, 4).

Typological features of cylinder

Technology of production
The horizontal section of cylinders is always round,
but in the head area it is usually slightly quadrangular, triangular or pentagonal. Eleven fragments with a
preserved face bear standard features of models from
the Skopje region, such as high stylization, stoutness, massive neck (T.XVI; T.XX: 1, 6), modeled
eyebrows etc. The eyes were made of deep grooves
(T.XVI: 1, 2, 5; T.XX: 6), with only two exceptions
where they were applied (T.XVI: 3; T.XX: 1). The
nose has been noticed on five fragments and it is
temperately accented (T.XVI: 5; T.XX: 6), while
the beard consists of a slight protuberance (T.XVI:
1, 4). Only one head fragment has an open mouth
and ears which is unique representation for Skopje
region (T.XVI: 4).
A new type of cylinder for the same region was
also confirmed in Govrlevo and it has three or four
faces in the upper part (T.XVI: 6a-b). Fourteen fragments have remains of hairstyle: (1) straight incised
wisps (T.XVI: 2, 4a); (2) curly hair made of pressed
rounds (T.XIV: 5b) and oval hollows (T.XIV: 9a;
T.XX: 1b), or with small clay balls (T.XIV: 10; T.XVI:
5b); (3) tufts of parallel pressed stripes (T.XVI: 1b);

At this stage of research, the technological aspects

were only detected according to visual observation
which is not yet confirmed by adequate chemical
analysis. The usage of different types and quality
of clay are confirmed, mixed with tiny stones, chaff
or other organic additives intended for ceramics improvement. Most of the fragments have core made
of solid and roughened clay in order to be dried
faster and to enable statics. Then a finer layer was
applied (1-2 or 4-5 mm thick) which was polished
or used for adding plastic details as improvement
for visual effect (T.XIV: 4; T.XV: 4). One fragment
has engraved patterns covered with light and loose
material (engobe?) as second phase of its surface
treatment (T.XV: 1).
Several fragments have a polished surface with
or without adding compact pasty color in ocher
(T.XVI: 5), red (T.XX: 5) and nuances of brown
and black (T.XVIII: 2, 3, 4; T.XX: 4). There are
also coverings with emaciated red-purple (T.XIX:
3), brown (T.XVIII: 1) and white (T.XV: 1) without polishing. Painting of the models is not noticed

63

Goce Naumov and Nikos ausidis

so far except for two fragments where emaciated

color was used on a particular decorated part of the
cubes (T.XIX: 1, 2). The plasticity of these artifacts
is achieved with engraved wavy (T.XIX: 4), zigzag
and unorganized curvy lines (T.XV: 1), complex refracted patterns (T.XX: 1, 2) or zigzag zone bulged
over the surface (T.XV: 5).
The already prepared parts of these anthropomorphic models (cube, cylinder or hands) were additionally joined. There are interpretations which
induce that in the process of modeling, drying or
even firing of these objects, organic materials (wood,
bundle of branches or straw) were placed within the
cylinder which should have hindered its descending
before drying. Two of Govrlevo fragments have such
deformation (T.XVIII: 3, 6). Other fragment (T.XV:
1) has obvious traces of binding the hands with the
cube cover by using the clay screw (T.XV: 1a, 2,
3), probably for preventing the division or cracking
during the drying or firing. The small openings on the
angle of the cubes cover and the one onto cylinders
top were externally perforated (T.XVII: 2; T.XVIII:
2; T.XX: 4, 5b). The lateral openings on the walls
were cut and then smoothed with fingers or pulled
inwards (T.XIX: 5b; T.XX: 4, 5b).
Regarding firing, the observations confirmed
huge differences: (1) diverse temperatures; (2) aerobic or non-aerobic firing; (3) often presence of black
and gray clay core; (4) various surface nuances which
could also be a result of secondary factors (models
use or house fire).
The spatial context of
anthropomorphic house models
The exact position of most fragments of the anthropomorphic models could not have been detected so
far. During excavation campaigns in 1980s such
finds were found inside or next to House 1 and House
2, or even next to oven and the so-called altar. In
the excavation campaigns during 2000s numerous
fragments were found above, inside, next to or bellow the house and other areas. Most of them have
an exact GPS position which will be available after
the data are processed and published.
Traces of usage
There is not much information on these aspects of
models. Considering the limited funding of our project it was not possible to conduct chemical analysis
of residues and the specifications of the inner structure of models. According to visual observations
the most intense traces of burning could be noticed,
especially on the upper part of the cylinder i.e. on its

64

top and opening. One fragmented cube cover bears

marks of carbonization which are absent on lateral
walls (T.XVIII: 2). We have not registered any organic residues and secondary firing inside interior
of cubes. However, such organic remains should be
expected regarding the actual suppositions for ritual
use of these models (lanterns, libation or deposition
of groceries) (T.XII: 1-3).
Fragmentation
Due to their large size, hollow interior and thin walls,
the anthropomorphic house models were frequently
broken which explains the absence of a complete
model in Govrlevo. This is confirmed by two best
preserved fragments produced with exceptionally
thick and firm walls (T.XV: 5; T.XVI: 1). As a result
to their specific construction, several typical areas
and lines of their breakage could be detected. Such
an example are the arms of the represented individual
which most often have preserved elbow, without
shoulder joints and hand (T.XXI: 7, 8). The hand is
usually still attached to the cube cover (T.XXI: 5, 6).
With the exception of the first and the most exclusive model accidentally found in the early 1980s
(T.XIV: 1-3) there is no other completely preserved
model or only partially fragmented one and found in
situ. The motives for great fragmentation and dispersion of these finds should not be perceived only as
a result of throwing them after their usage, fire or
house destruction, but also in ritual breaking and deposition. In addition, several ethnographic examples
from Balkan folklore could be used where particular
attention is given to production of some objects, as
well as to their planned demolition.
In the vicinity of Skopje, during the spring ritual
production of crepna (ceramic vessel), a clay male
figurine (ovee) was also modeled which was kept
for a whole year and the following spring it was
fragmented and thrown, or left on the attic. In similar
way the male figurine was treated in Bulgaria during
German holiday where the figurine was broken
and dispersed over the field or into water as part
of the rituals for evoking rain. Comparable ritual
fragmentation was also practiced with kuarici
small seasonal huts of branches and straw used
during the winter period (as precursor of female
or virgin houses). Their demolishion and firing in
spring was considered as prerequisite for marriage
of girls who made and use them. In Eastern Europe
(region of Polesje), during the acceptance of the first
bride into the house, a cooking pot was placed onto
mother-in-laws stomach and than ritually smashed
thus signifying the end of its role as birth giver and
transposition of this function onto the bride.

Neolithic anthropomorphic objects in the Republic of Macedonia

Regarding these analogies we indicate the possibility of intentional ritual fragmentation of anthropomorphic house models and their dispersion in houses,
yards or settlements. This could be performed during
important events crucial for the community (such as
moving into a new house, establishment of a new
marital or family community, death or first birth giving of particular women etc.). The suppositions for
intentional and frequent fragmentation of models
intended to explicate their frequency and dispersion within larger area of the Neolithic settlement
in Govrlevo.

Goce Naumov
Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines in
the Republic of Macedonia
Not much has been written on the Neolithic figurines in the Republic of Macedonia, thus resulting
in most of them being still unpublished. This greatly
effects on how we elaborate and understand such
finds and surely do not provide complete insight into
their appearance, quantity, context and even less on
technology of their production. Surely, those unpublished can not be discussed at all, although numerous
figurines from Zelenikovo are among them, hereby
elaborated for the first time.
Most of the figurines were made of refined clay
without additives indicating that there was unified
tradition and selection of material for their modeling. Most often they were shaped of small piece of
clay, with hands or facial features applied (T.XXII
- XXV). Some of the figurines were covered with
white and rarely red thus not excluding possibility
for painting of details over backround.
According to several completely preserved figurines in Macedonia their average height is about
ten centimeters. These dimensions mostly refer to
published figurines although they vary among those
from Zelenikovo. However, their average height sugests that they were not concieved as monumental
artifacts i.e. sculptures, quite contrary, their purpose was absolutely intergrated into the concept
of miniaturism. These objects were not intended to
be static i.e. seen from a distance and by a larger
group of people. They were of much more dynamic
character and probably were carried or exposed in
places where they were intermediated within more
complex visual unit. The employment of miniaturism
concept enabled intentional neglect of body details
which indicates that the manner of their use was more
important than authentic portrayal of represented
characters.

There were three elementary body projections in

the Neolithic: relative realistic portrayal (T. XXII;
T. XXIII); column-like (T.XXV: 1, 4) and rarely,
tabular disposition (T.XXIV: 2; T.XXV: 3). All these
body forms are present in Macedonia, although those
resembling authentic corporal features are more often. Most of the figurines are standing, but there
are also several which represent seated individuals.
The head is usually minimized with facial details
neglected or reduced. The eyes are simply engraved
while the nose is often protruging. Such stilization
was result of the small head dimensions which do
not enable consistent representation of the entire human face. Regarding the stomach, it is often in line
with the torso, although there are exceptions where
it is emphasized. Such stomach was only applied
to female figurines indicating their pregnancy (T.
XXII: 4). Considering these gender characteristics,
breasts should also be asserted, as they are present
only in female figurines.
The gender features also concern the specific
position of limbs. Among female figurines the hands
are often placed onto breasts, stomach and rarely
on their genitalia (T. XXII; T. XXIII), while among
those representing males they are short and spread
i.e. not in relation to the body (T. XXV: 4). Even
the legs bear diverse gender characteristics. Male
figurines rarely have legs, and if modeled they are
column-like or twisted and spread if in a seating
position. Among stending female figurines legs could
be spread or joined while if seating they are usually
fastened.
Miniature figurines from Zelenikovo
The Neolithic settlement of Zelenikovo has been
excavated by various archaeologists between 1950s
and 1980s. Middle and Late Neolithic phases were
confirmed at this site, but also several finds imply
the presence of Early Neolithic traditions regarding
pottery production. In older publications the settlement was simply divided into Younger and Older
Neolithic.
Compared to other sites in Macedonia, the
number of figurines in Zelenikovo is much bigger.
A total of 83 anthropomorphic figurines have been
unearthed in three campaigns and only one realistic is completely preserved which raises questions
on their treatment among Neolithic communities
(T.XXVI T.XXVIII). This quantity is incomparable
to the total number of figurines found in the entire Skopje region, so that a more consisted analysis
of their most specific features could be performed.
Considering the specific corporal characteristics it
is quite interesting that there is strong uniformity

65

Goce Naumov and Nikos ausidis

in standardization of their form and technological

approach of modeling. This indicates that several
Neolithic settlements which were close to each other
and existed in Middle and Late Neolithic employed
different traditions and principles regarding figurine
production.
It should be asserted that from a total number of figurines (83) only one realistic is complete
while 16 belong to completely or partially preserved
column-like and tabular figurines. Although there are
similarities in the figurine fabric, unfortunately it can
not be confirmed if split heads (19) were composite
part of fragmented legs/thighs (29) and torsos (12),
neither if they were dispersed within particular area
(dwellings or parts of the settlement). If further research provides RAMAN and XRF analyses of the
clay composition for any of the fragments then the
probability for belonging to a same figurine could
be tested. That way the possibility for distribution
of fragments in particular settlement area will be
confirmed or rejected.
Only 13 figurines of total quantity are complete
which enables basic preview of preferred forms in
this settlement (T.XXVI; T.XXVII). Twelve are
column-like or tabular stylized figurines which remained undamaged due to their simple form. Other
applications to their bodies are not present except
the hands which were not broken due to their small
dimensions. In spite of this tradition only one miniature bears certain tendency for realistic representation thus following the basic lines of entire body.
Although the rest of the figurines are merely in fragments still the components of realism are present in
the modeling of legs and torso. Most of Zelenikovo
figurines are in standing position, although two pairs
of split legs could be considered as belonging to seating miniatures. Such affinity for particular pose indicates that they do not imply concrete narration and do
not represent certain activity. On the contrary, they
mostly portray actual or mythical individuals who
were static and were not engaged in some movement.
Due to numerous figurines found in Zelenikovo
a detailed insight is feasible for any of the body
parts. There are 29 heads determined of which 19
are split fragments. The specific modeling of the
nose and the ears (i.e. the head decoration) induced some researchers to define these miniatures
as bird-faced. It is interesting that most of them
have large foreheads and elongated edges which
are interpreted as ears. Such features seemingly
suggest untypical and nonhuman face, but there are
numerous ethnographic examples where the head
is often stylistically represented and which is not
always in relation to the contemporary perception
of human head and body.

66

Regarding the head, worth mentioning is that

the eyes, usually made of horizontal incised lines,
are present in only ten figurines. Rare presence of
eyes, as well as the complete mouth absence, are
related to the social or symbolic position that the
figurine might have had or at least the individual it
represented. The hair is also rarely present, usually
as engraved vertical wisps or zigzag lines, while
only few figurines have pairs of perforation at scruff.
If represented, the arms are always static, short
and spiky, with only one exception where they are
obliquely raised and suggest certain movement
(T.XXVI). In this context of arms dynamism another
figurine should be asserted as its upper limbs are bent
and touching the thighs. Considering its hollowness
and specific modeling of the lower part it is possible
that this object was a variant of anthropomorphic
house model, especially concerning the position of
hands. Another figurine has tabular and perforated
hands, which indicates that it was hanged or used
for inserting some organic additives. The legs are
absolutely neglected among column-like figurines
while among others they are realistic, but still not
enough wide to enable stable statics (T.XXVIII). This
was probably related to the figurine employment and
its exposing which is particularly obvious by their
intentional fragmentation in the legs area.
The torso is mostly concentrated on decoration,
not associated with actual body part specific for this
component. Namely, the large number of column-like
figurines bears incised zigzag and oblique stripes
circling around the body or rarely engraved short
lines disposed in several rows. Such decoration distinguishes these figurines from others as they represent
patterns which reflect other visual aspects not usual
for composite anatomical parts. A question remains
open if these stripes and lines display the equipment
or ornaments typical for Neolithic communities or
they embody abstract insignia which are associated
with symbolic character of represented individual?
The torsos of several figurines have applications
of male or female gender features. Regarding male
figurines (3), their genitals are usually placed in the
middle or in the lower part of the torso, although there
should be certain degree of carefulness when this
detail is determined as male (T.XXVII: 2). Only two
female figurines have incised pubis, while the others
(40) are signified by the secondary gender features.
They are usually consisted of applied breasts, bulging stomach or fragmented legs with more or less
accented thighs. It is interesting that among split legs
on figurines from Zelenikovo there is completely
different approach of modeling and fragmentation
compared to that practiced on other Neolithic settlements in Skopje region.

Neolithic anthropomorphic objects in the Republic of Macedonia

As a result of figurine breaking, there is a possibility for a thorough insight into their inner structure and technology of production. The analysis of
the split remains suggests that most of them were
modeled in order to be easily broken. Intentional
or occasional figurine fragmentation should be discussed further, but large number of particular broken
body parts indicates that such fragmentation was
deliberate. The majority of fragments belonged to
legs/thighs (29) and heads (19), while much less are
torsos with head (3), torsos without limbs and head
(9) and pairs of legs split from the torso (3). One
figurine with cylindrical torso and cone-like dress
and seven of those with broken torsos should be
distinguished among Zelenikovo figurines.
It should be asserted that all fragmented legs
were found in a smaller area of the settlement and
considering the technical features, they were produced in particular period (T.XXVIII). Although
recent explications have concidered wider distribution of figurine legs, still several broken pairs of
legs in Zelenikovo indicate that they were broken
and dispersed within the settlement. Whatever the
motive behind the figurine fragmentation, the main
intention was to be realized in a smaller social range
and most probably among community members inhabiting this settlement. It remains to be answered if
such fragmentation intended to finalize the process
of figurine use, followed by their throwing, or it was
aimed towards distribution and deposition of broken
parts associated with this act?
This preview of visual features, technology
and fragmentation among Zelenikovo fi gurines
illustrates the determined traditions of their production practiced throughout several generations.
Such standardization of figurine appearance, as
well as their employment, confirms that they were
not treated as objects with secondary significance
among inhabitants of this settlement. The constant
repetition of imagery approach and technology of
modeling suggest the evident objective and idea
related to the significance and function of these
artifacts. Although it is hard to answer who/what
did these figurines represent and in which occasions were they used, still the fragmentation and
domination of female gender in this visual form
take us one huge step forward into the possibilities
for more consistent explication. This indicates that
particular actual or mythical female individuals had
important role and position within society which
resulted in their portrayal but also in their integration within certain ritual context. The braking
of such female images was associated with characters that changed their status within community
or finalized their function in domain of particular

symbolic or mythical sphere. A further analysis of

figurines among other Neolithic settlements could
illustrate if the same principle was present in various regions. This would significantly contribute
towards our understanding of social and symbolic
components of these artifacts.

Goce Naumov
Neolithic anthropomorphic vessels
in the Republic of Macedonia
In the last six decades of archaeological excavation
of Neolithic sites in Macedonia only one complete
anthropomorphic vessel has been found and several
fragments belonging to various settlements. Although
it is not much, still it is sufficient for recognizing the
forms and types preferred in this region. Due to the
similar approach towards face representation these
fragments were identified as anthropomorphic house
models. However, most of them clearly belong to this
specific form of vessels, so that a general preview
of types produced is possible.
All of the anthropomorphic vessels are made
of clay, material which enabled easy modeling of
desired forms and details representing human body
or its parts. They usually follow the anatomical disposition thus in the area of the vessel neck the facial
features are applied, while on the belly or the bottom arms and breasts are modeled and rarely legs.
In context of such vessels in Southeastern Europe it
might be noticed that there are various approaches
and variations in their production still not confirmed
in Macedonia. Therefore, a short typological preview
is necessary in order to define how the human body
was integrated in a hybrid relation with the vessel
and how it was perceived by the Neolithic communities in Macedonia.
There are 16 fragments of anthropomorphic vessels unearthed so far, mostly in Amzabegovo (6),
Govrlevo (3), Angelci (3), Zelenikovo (2), Trn (1),
Damjan (1), one complete in Tarinci, as well as one
miniature three-legged vessel from Porodin which
can also be regarded as altar (T.XXIX T.XXXII).
Although this number is seemingly small, still it demonstrates that Neolithic communities in Macedonia
did not prefer only one form during vessel embodying. According to the appearance of anthropomorphic
vessels, there are those which represent complete
body or its general shape, then vessels depicting
the lower half of the body (legs and thighs), as well
as those portraying only the head. Such diversity in
transposition of complete body or its parts indicates
that they accented multiple symbolic components
related to body or represented characters.

67

Goce Naumov and Nikos ausidis

So far, there are only two vessels representing

complete bodies, although such possibility should not
be excluded for fragments of other vessels . One of
them was found in Amzabegovo and its form is suggested by the researchers reconstruction (T.XXIX:
7). The human face is modeled in the neck area of
this high vessel (approximately 90cm), while in other
parts there are no elements indicating body, except
for a few patterns which could be symbolically associated with regenerative area. The other complete
anthropomorphic vessel was unearthed in Angelci
with the questionable reconstruction due to two incorrectly conservated vessels belonging even to two
different sites (T.XXX: 2). However, its upper half,
belonging to other vessel, resembles complete or part
of human body with applied breasts.
Regarding other types of anthropomorphic vessels the one from Tarinci should be considered as it
represents the lower part of the human body (T.XXX:
1). It depicts robust female thighs and short legs thus
suggesting symbolic components it manifests. Despite the expectation granular or liquid victuals to be
preserved within, a river shell necklace was found. Its
semantic character is not emphasized only by deposited necklace, but also by engraved zigzag patterns
circling around the globular surface.
The last category of anthropomorphic vessels
represents only the head. Although Southeastern
Europe is familiar with complete vessels modeled
as head with dominant face, this concept is realized
in more specific manner in Macedonia. Namely, the
head on the vessel (cup) from Trn is applied on its foot
while its belly, although damaged, does not resemble
any anthropomorphic elements (T.XXX: 3). The nose
and almond-like eyes are disposed where some other
body parts would be expected if anatomical structure
was followed. This opens numerous questions on how
this vessel was perceived among settlement inhabitants, although several Late Prehistoric equivalents are
in favor of its iconographical explication. In domain
of complex semantic structure, the vessel from Govrlevo is quite similar as it represents head on its handle
i.e. the application separated from vessels corpus
(T.XXXII: 1). Several ceramic lids should be asserted
regarding typological defining of anthropomorphic
vessels as head representations. There are only two
such fragments from Angelci and Govrlevo which
were published as lids (T.XXIX: 2, 4; T.XXXII: 4).
The curved fragment found in Angelci was identified
as object for covering the vessel, while the one from
Govrlevo, was set over particular container due to
the rim bellow its modeled eye.
In other vessels the face is represented by certain standards common for anthropomorphic objects
with larger dimensions. The nose and eyebrows are

68

executed with one application while the eyes are

shaped in round, lozenge and oval form, or incised
by long horizontal line. Such face standardization
is result of determined iconographical and semantic
traditions present in a wider Balkan area, as well
as on anthropomorphic house models which often
provoke misinterpretations. This iconographical
consistency could also be noticed in domain of eyes
and ears absence among all anthropomorphic vessels
and models.
Regarding the other body parts, they are rarely
present on anthropomorphic vessels, which is partly a
result of their fragmentation and impossibility for an
insight into their complete appearance. Only vessels
from Angelci and Amzabegovo have arms and are
modeled like those of anthropomorphic house models (T.XXX: 2; T.XXXII: 2). So far, the vessel from
Angelci is the only one bearing applied breasts which
are not so rare detail on these objects in Southeastern
Europe. Due to its complete preservation the Tarinci
vessel is one of the rare examples with legs, although
in this context the miniature Porodin altar could be
included (T.XXX: 4). There are not distinct male or
female genitalia present on the vessels, thus breasts
and thighs are the only reference for defining the
gender of these vessels.
Besides their appearance, the context of vessels deposition might also be considered as important in defining their significance and use. Some of
the Amzabegovo fragments were found in pits with
painted pottery and marble figurines confirming their
particular importance when incorporated in such assemblage. Even if this refers to a waste pit, it still
indicates concentration of objects with highly aesthetical and technical values distinguished from other
forms of material culture. Unfortunately, there are not
elementary data in published reports for the context
of other anthropomorphic vessels and majority of
them are not documented well in excavation notes
or inventory books. Still the cautious registering of
these objects during excavations could notably contribute towards understanding of their significance
and function.
However, the data on symbolic relations between vessel and human body are not only provided
by the content and context of the vessel but also
by their treatment. A utilitarian vessel was found in
Anzabegovo where infant was buried, whose bottom
and handles are deliberately broken in order to be
identified with uterus and to stimulate its reproductive potential on a symbolic level. If it is considered
that the vessel was found bellow a mature woman
in the vicinity of her pelvis, then such context furthermore contributes towards its symbolic definition.
Although this refers to a vessel which partially be-

Neolithic anthropomorphic objects in the Republic of Macedonia

longs to regular forms of utilitarian pottery, still by

its implementation into funerary ritual and specific
disposition, it was identified with female regenerative
area which should finalize the eventual rebirth of the
buried individual in other spiritual or material form.
In domain of anthropomorphic vessel iconography it should be asserted that there are three general
types confirmed in Macedonia so far: i. vessels which
represent complete body; ii. vessels modeled as lower
body half; and iii. vessels completely shaped as human head (including lids with faces). All these forms
consider three different corporeal concepts and more
probably three diverse types of characters embodied
throughout vessels. One crucial question is raised in
benefit of defining the essential role of these artifacts:
were they used for objectification of humans or were
employed for humanization of vessels?
Although the first concept seems as barely logical still it should not be ignored that some vessels
were used as objects for affirmation of particular community identity or that of certain individuals. In that
context these vessels represented actual individual
significant for the family or the whole village community or a person involved in economical processes
related to preserving groceries. Such portrayal of
actual individuals is common in later Prehistory, the
Classical period and among contemporary tribes and
nations where particular individuals were buried or
formalized by the vessels with their image. This indicates that the process of people objectification
equally was integrated within the sphere of social
relations and rituals which further extends the anthropomorphic vessel category of meanings.
In this sense, the second concept of vessel
humanization is worth asserting as it seems more
reasonable and supported by numerous imagery and
ritual contexts. According to this concept the vessel
itself represents symbolic unit, especially if its shape,
decoration and employment in funerary burials are
considered. With capacity to contain something in
its interior the vessel gains specific symbolic function related to accumulation of particular substances. Therefore, it is not a surprise that vessels were
employed only for infant burials although similar
practice could have been applied among mature deceased individuals as there were vessels with large
dimensions unearthed at various sites in Macedonia.
The semantic background of the vessels manifested
throughout human body is emphasized by this ritual context in particular. Consequently, the vessel is
conceived as space equaled with regenerative area
of female body and which should realize the same
functions as actual organs.
Among anthropomorphic vessels this concept is
additionally accented with the presence of corporal

features familiar only for female representations in

the Neolithic. Namely, the breasts and robust thighs
are modeled on such vessels, which was a practice
also common for female figurines. There is no single
vessel in Macedonia with male genitalia, moustaches
or beard applied so far. Therefore, it could be considered that most of these vessels represent female
individiduals who on a symbolic level transpose their
symbolic functions onto the vessel. As a result, it
was expected that everything in the interior of such
vessels should be symbolically regenerated i.e. to
insure and multiply the quantity of substances within.
The represented individual is of huge importance as
it can depict actual or mythical individual in order
to realize this symbolic effect onto the vessel. Unfortunately it is still early to identify the represented
individuals, but subsequent excavations and semantic
analysis could significantly contribute towards defining social and religious aspects incorporated within
these objects.
The typological classification of vessels into the
three general forms stated above is also in favor of
identification of the represented characters. Nevertheless, although they share universal vessel semantics,
the vessel representing complete body is not fully corresponding to the one modeled without head or only
with legs or thighs. The fact that they depict diverse
categories of figures is in the core of imagery essence.
The vessels modeled only as head (including lids)
are in other iconographic and semantic direction in
contrast to the one of other anthropomorphic vessels.
Particular anthropomorphic vessels were intended to
assert the identity of represented individual while
among others this segment is completely neglected.
While in the first group the vessel suggests particular
actual or mythological character the other emphasizes
features common for all anthropomorphic vessels.
Consequently, these seemingly abstract vessels are
more in relation to body nature probably reflected
onto symbolic significance of the vessel.
Almost entire repertoire of anthropomorphic
vessels in Southeastern Europe is represented in
standing position, although there are several exceptions in seating pose. All completely preserved vessels in Macedonia follow the tradition of depicting
standing figures. It is questionable if the vessels with
only a head or arms applied represent a particular
individual who is standing or they indicate an individual in abstract manner, regardless of its pose or
movement? If it is present, the movement is associated only with arms, if they are placed onto stomach or breast or raised upwards. There are not such
vessels in Macedonia so far, although the one from
Amzabegovo bears a hand without any indication
for its position.

69

Goce Naumov and Nikos ausidis

Regardless of the individuals they represent the

anthropomorphic vessels are unified in one common essential idea i.e. the employment of human
body mechanism in order to explicate the symbolic
functions of vessels. The continuity of this iconographical and semantic principle in later periods
asserts that it was deeply rooted into human imagery paradigms. Even more, these associations
between vessel and corporeality are still present

70

among archaeologists when they describe pottery

elements named with terms related to body parts.
Due to such interaction between vessel appearance
and the manner of its perception we can penetrate
much deeper in its local and temporal significance
moreover supported by successive methodological
excavations, consistent documentation and publication, as well as residue analysis of these complex
Neolithic artifacts.

, . . 1972.
.

): 25-49.
, . . 1982.
,

VIII .
.
(

:
.

.
.
.)
V-VIII

VII
. .

:
165-192.
, . 2003.
.
:
.
, . 2005.
.
:
.
, . 1993.
.
, .
, .(
.),
: 188-211.
.
, .1967.
.
V: 127-167.
.
, .
, . 1988.
1
. Macedonia Acta Archaeologica
9: 31-42.
.
, .
, . 1959.
. I: 61-65.
.
, .
, . 1961.

.
II: 7-40.
.
, .
, . 1976.
. Macedoniae
Acta Archaeologica 2: 85-115.
.
, .,
, .,
, .
, . 1971.
(
).
.

, .

. 1984.
. ,
IX (1982): 39-48.
.
, . 2000.
.
, 5 / II: 5-26.
.
, . 1954.

. -
1-2: 19-21.
.
, . 1954.
. I-9: 100-142.
.
, . . 1947.
.
1947/2: 67-94.
.
, . . 1951.
.

,
2: 465-491.
:
.
, . 1993.

.
,
. Macedoniae
Acta Archaeologica 13: 19-30.
.
, . 2003. (
,
,
).
, . 2005.

.
(
).
() 2: 25-31.
.
, . 2006.
. Folia archaeologica
Balkanica 1: 53-61.
.
, . 1993.
I

. Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 13: 31-41.

.

71

. .

, . 2008.

,
. Macedoniae
acta archaeologica 18: 109-114.
.
, . 2010.
. , .
XXI
,
.
, . . 2001.

.
:
.
, . .
, . . 1995.
.
. .
.(
.),

(
),
1: 498-500.
:
.
, K. 2007.
. .
(
).
:
.

, . 2005. ().
:
.
, J. 1954.
.
-
8: 89-98.
.
, . 1995.
.
, . I: 177-184.
.
, . 1982.
.
:
.
, . 1984.
.
:
12-21.
:
.
, . 1997.
.
:
.
, . 2006.
,
(
).
Studia Mythologica Slavica 9: 59-95. Ljubljana.
, . 2009a.
.
, .,
, .,
, .
, .
: 87-153.
:
.
, . 2009 .
:
.
, .(
.)
: : 41-77.
:
.
, . 2009 .

. M

72

.(
)
.
, . 2009 .
.
, .,
, .,
, .
, .
: 87-153.
:
.
, . 2010 .
.
XXI
.
.
, . 2010 .
:
VII
V
. . .
, ;
, ;
,
.(
.) XLIII
,
: 183-194.
.
, . 2011.
.
36-37: 73-96.
.
, . 1974.
.
37: 179-228.
.
, . 2001.
/
(
). 58-59:
167-186.
.
, . 2002.

.
:

.
, . 2001.
. 2000-2001:
11-21.
.
, .
, .
, . 2009.
: :

.
:
.
, .,
, .,
, .
. 2002.
.
XXIX.
.
, . . 1981.
.
:
.
, . 1975.
.
(
).
IV-V (1964-74):
203-246.
.
, . 1988.
,

1981 .. Macedoniae
acta archaeologica 9: 9-30.
.

, . 1989.

,
. Arheoloki Pregled 1987: 36-37.

Ljubljana.
, . 1994.
.
I: 2642.
. 1994.
, . 1995.
.

2:

.
:
.
, . 2009 .
.
, .(
.) :
.
:
.
, . 2009 .

.
,
.(
.) :
.
:
.
, .
, . 1989.

"
.
: 9-63,
.
, .,
, .,
, .
, . 1976.
(
).
.
, .
, . 1975.
. acedoniae acta
archaeologica 1: 25-88.
.
, .
, . 1976. .
:
.
, . . 1990.
.
:
.
, .
, . 2001.
. 17: 53-69.
.
, .
, . 2005.

. () 2:
47-56.
.
, . . 1980.
.
, .
.
, .(
.)

: 327-417.
:
.

, . 2008.
,
. 32: 52-82.
.
, . 2009.
.
, .,
, .,
, .
, .
: 35-47.
:
.

, . . 2000.
(
,
6).

2000: 9-24.
.
, . 2001. .
:
.
, . 2009.
.
, .,
, .,
, .
, .
: 109-153.
:
.
, .
, . 2010.
:

.
36-37: 61-72.
.
, .
, . 2004.
.
:
.
, . 1994.
.
:
.
, ., 1995.
.

: 14-45.
.
, . 1996.
/ The house and its symbolic meanings.
/ Macedonian Heritage
2: 37-52.
.
, . 2007.
(
).
, .(
.),
: 45-101.
:
.
, . 2008.

(
). Macedoniae acta
archaeologica, 18: 75-92.
.
, . 2009 .

.
.
(ed.)
, XIII: 53-72.
.
, . 2009 .

,
.
(
),
:
: 202-233. Ni: SANU.
, . 2009 .
:
.
. .
(
.)
10
.
.
: 97-105.
:
.
, . 2010.
(
), , 2010 / 1-2: 8-21.
.
, . .
,
.
.

73

. .

(
.): V:
,
:
.
, .
, . 2006.
(
), Studia
mythologica Slavica, 9: 97-160. Ljubljana.
, .
, . 2010.
,
XXI
,
.
, .,
, .
, . 2008.
:

,
,
,
,
.
.
, .
, J. Bartminsky,
M. Mencej, .
(
.)
, . 10 (): 13-114.
: CLIO.

Adam, L. 1963. Primitivna umetnost. Beograd:

Kultura.
Ba varov, K. 2008. Babies Reborn: Infant/Child
Burials in Pre- and Protohistory. Oxford. BAR
International Series. Archaeopress.
Bailey, D. 1994. The Representation of Gender:
Homology or propaganda. Journal of European
Archaeology 2.2: 215-227. Aldershot.
Bailey, D. 2005. Prehistoric Figurines: Representation and corporeality in the Neolithic. London:
Routledge.
Bartel, B. 1981. Cultural Associations and Mechanisms of Change in Anthropomorphic Figurines
during the Neolithic in the Eastern Mediterrean Basin. World Achaeology 13/1: 73-86.
Abingdon.
Benac, A. 1991. Iz problematike neolitske antropomorfne plastike u Jugoslaviji. Starinar 50/51:
25-34. Beograd.
Belagi, . 1978. Niani XV i XVI vijeka u Bosni
i Hercegovini. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i
umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.
Biehl, P. 1996. Symbolic communication systems:
Symbols of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic from
south-eastern Europe. Journal of European
Archaeology 4: 153-176. Aldershot.
Biehl, P. F. 2006. Figurines in Action: Methods and
Theories in Figurine Research. In Layton, R.,
Shenan, S. and Stone, P. (eds), A Future for
Archaeology: 199-215. London.
Bilbija, M. 1986. Cerje, neolitsko naselje. Arheoloki
Pregled 1985: 35-36. Ljubljana.
Braithwaite, G. 1984. Romano-British Face Pots
and Head Pots. Britannia 15: 99-131. London.

74

Budja, . 2006. The transition to farming and the

ceramic trajectories in Western Eurasia: from
ceramic figurines to vessels. Documenta Praehistorica XXXIII: 183-201. Ljubljana.
Cameroon, E. L. 1997. In Search of Children: Dolls
and Agency in Africa. African Arts 30/2: 18-93.
Los Angeles.
Chapman, J. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, places and broken objects in the
prehistory of South-eastern Europe. London:
Routledge.
Conkey, M. W. and Tringam, R. E. 1998. Rethinking
figurines: a critical view from archaeology of
Gimbutas, the Goddess and popular culture.
In Goodison, L. and Morris, C. (eds.), Ancient
Goddesses: The Myths and the Evidence: 22-45.
London: British Museum Press.
Curtis, E. S. 1997. The North American Indian: The
Complete Portfolios. Kln: Taschen.
ausidis, N. 1995. Prehistory. In Macedonia Cultural Heritage: 14-45. Skopje: Misla.
ausidis, N. 2009a. Prozorioi i vratausta
na neolitskim rtvenicima tipa MatiKua s
podruja Republike Makedonije. Histria antiqua, 18/1: 113-128. Pula.
ausidis, N. 2009b. The Black Man in the Mythical
Tradition of Macedonia. In Kulavkova, K. ( d.)
Interpretations, Vol. 3, Figures of Memory:
Black Arab, Skopje: MANU, 73-104.
ausidis, N. 2010. Neolithic Ceramic Figurines
in the Shape of a Woman House from the
Republic of Macedonia. In Gheorghiu, D.;
Cyphers, A. ( ds), Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic Miniature Figures in Eurasia, Africa
and Meso-America. Morphology, materiality,
technology, function and context: 25-35. Oxford:
BAR International Series.
Dimitrijevi, S. 1974. Problem stupnjevanja Starevake kulture s posebnim obzirom na doprinos
junopanonskih nalazita, reavanju ovih problema. Materijali, 10: 59-123. Beograd.
Elijade, M. 1984. Joga, besmrtnost i sloboda. Beograd.
Eptajn, E. 2008. Mwana Hiti: vie od lutke. Beograd:
Muzej afrike umetnosti.
Feest, C. F. and Kann, P. 1992. Des Alterum der
Neuen Welt: Voreropische Kulturen Amerikas.
Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
Felix, M. 1990. Mwana Hiti: Life and Art of the
Matrilineal Bantu of Tanzania. Munchen: Verlag
Fred Jahn.
Fowler, C. 2008. Fractal bodies in the past and
present. In Bori, D. and Robb, J. (eds) Past
Bodies: Body-Centered Research in Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Galovi, R. 1964. Neue Funde der Starcevo - Kultur in Mittelserbien und Makedonien. Bericht
der Romisch-Germanischen Kommision 43-44
(1962-1963). Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co.
Garaanin, M. 1971. Anzabegovo Barutnica: site
nolithique plusieurs couches (fouilles de
1969-1970). In Benac, A., Garaanin, M. et
Tasi, N. (reds.) Epoque prhistorique et protohistorique en Yougoslavie: recherches et rsultats: 136-138. Beograd: VIII UISPP Congrs.
Garaanin, 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.
Garaanin M. 1982. Praistorija (Umetnost na tlu
Jugoslavije). Beograd Zagreb Mostar:
Jugoslavija-Spektar - Prva knjievna komuna.
Gheorghiu, D. 2001. The Cult of Ancestors in the
East European Chalcolithic. A Holographic
Approach. In Biehl, P. et al. (eds.) The Archaeology of Cult and Religion: 73-88. Budapest:
Archaeolingua.
Gheorghiu, D. and Cyphers, A. 2010. Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic miniature figures in
Eurasia, Africa and Meso-America: morphology,
materiality, technology, function and context.
BAR International Series. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Gimbutas, M. 1974. The Gods and Goddesses of Old
Europe. London: Thames and Hudson.
Gimbutas, M. 1976. Neolithic Macedonia. Los Angeles: The Regents of the University of California.
Gimbutas, M. 1989. The Language of the Goddess.
London: Thames and Hudson.
Gimbutas M. 2001. The Language of the Goddess.
New York: Thames and Hudson.
Grbi, M., Maki P., Nadj ., Simoska D. i Stalio
B. 1960. Porodin: kasno-neolitsko naselje na
Tumbi kod Bitolja. Bitolj: Narodni muzej Bitolj
i Arheoloki institut Beograd.
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
17:2, 165-182.
Hansen, S. 2007. Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit:
Untersuchungen zur anthropomorphen Plastik
der Jungsteinzeit und Kupfzeit in Sdosteuropa
I und II. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Hardie, R. 2007. Gender Tensions in Figurines in
SE Europe, in Malone, C. and Barowclough,
D. (eds.), Cult in Context, 82-89. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Hoernes, M. 1925. Urgeschichte der Bildenden
Kunst in Europa. Wien: Kunstverlag Anton
Schroll and Co.

Hodder, I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe:

Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies: Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Karmanski, S. 2005. Donja Branjevina: A Neolithic
Settlement Near Deronje in the Vojvodina
(Serbia). Milano: Societa per la preistoria
e protoistoria della regione Friuli Venezia
Giulia.
Kitanoski, B. 1989. Vrbjanska uka neolithic
settlement. Arheoloki pregled 1987: 47-48.
Ljubljana.
Korkuti, M. 1995. Neolitikum und Chalkolithikum in
Albanien. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.
Kuijt, I. and Cheson, M. 2004. Lumps of Clay
and Pieces of Stone: Ambiguity, Bodies and
Identity as Portrayed in Neolithic Figurines. In
Bernbeck, R. and Pollock, S. (eds.), Archaeologies of the Near East: Critical Perspectives:
152-183. London: Basil Blackwell.
Lesure, R. G. 2002. The Goddess Diffracted: Thinking about the Figurines of Early Villages.
Current Anthropology 43/4: 587-610. Chicago.
Mantu Lazarovici, C. - M. 2004. Sanctuarele Precucuteni-Cucuteni. Arheologia Moldovei, XXV:
47 - 67. Bucuresti.
Marangou, C. 1997. Neolithic Micrography: Miniature Modeling at Dimitra. In Grammenos,
D. (ed.), Neolithike Makedonia: 227 - 265.
Athena: Ekdose Ton Tameion Arhailogikon
Poron Kai Apallotrionseon.
Marcus, J. 1996. The importance of context in interpreting figurines. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 6: 285-291. Cambridge.
Mella rt, . 1967. atal Hyk: A Neolithic Town
in Anatolia. London: Thames and Hudson.
Meskell, L. 2008. The nature of beast: curating
animals and ancestors at atal Hyk. World
Archaeology 40/3: 373-389. Abingdon.
Mina, M. 2008. Carving Out Gender in the Prehistoric Aegean: Anthropomorphic Figurines of
the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Journal
of Mediterranean Archaeology 21/2: 213-239.
London.
Mller-Karpe, H. 1968. Handbuch der Vorgeschichte
- Band II. Mnchen.
Mller-Karpe, H. 1974. Handbuch der Vorgeschichte
- Band III. Mnchen.
Nakamura, C. and Meskell, L. 2009. Articulate
Bodies: Forms and Figures at atalhyk.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
16: 205-230. New York.
Nanoglou, S. 2006. Regional Perspectives on the
Neolithic Anthropomorphic Imagery of Northern Greece. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19/2: 155-176. London.

75

. .

Naumov, G. 2008a. Together We Stand-Divided We

Fall: Fragmentation of Neolithic Figurines in
Republic of Macedonia. Paper presented on
6th W rld Archaeological Congres Dublin.
Naumov, G. 2008b. The Vessel as a Human Body:
Neolithic anthropomorphic vessels and their
reflection in later periods. In Berg, I. (ed.), Breaking the Mould: challenging the past through
pottery: 93-101. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Naumov, G. 2009. Patterns and Corporeality: Neolithic visual culture from Republic of Macedonia.
British Archaeological Reports International
Series. Oxford. Archaeopress.
Naumov, G. 2010a. Neolithic Anthropocentrism:
imagery principles and symbolic manifestation of corporeality in the Balkans. Documenta
Praehistorica XXXVII: 227-238. Ljubljana.
Naumov, G. 2010b. Symmetry analysis of Neolithic
painted pottery from Republic of Macedonia.
In Biro Katalin, T. (ed.) Data Management
and Mathematical Methods in Archaeology.
Archaeologia e Calcolatori 21: 255-274. Roma:
Dipartimento Patrimonio Culturale.
Naumov, G. 2011. Visual and Conceptual Dynamism
of the Neolithic Altars in the Republic of Macedonia. In Nikolov, V., Bacvarov, K. and Popov,
H. (eds.) Interdisziplinre Forschungen der
Kulturerbe auf dem Balkan: 89-129. Sofia: Nice.
Naumov, G. in print (a). Together We Stand-Divided
We Fall: Fragmentation of Neolithic Figurines
in Republic of Macedonia. In Sheila E. Kohring
and Rebeca Farbstein (eds.) Representation, Image and the Materiality of Technology. Oxford:
Oxbow University Press.
Naumov, G. in print (b). White Painted Identities:
Stylistic diffusion of the white painted decoration and development of Early Neolithic local
identities from the Republic of Macedonia. In
Boric, D. and Miracle, P (eds.) Identities of the
Early Neolithic Balkans. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Naumov, G. in print (c). The Objectified Corporeality:
Prehistoric Implications of Anthropomorphism
and Hybridism Within Christian Iconography.
Anthropos 106 2/11. Fribourg.
Naumov, G. in print (d). Embodied houses: social
and symbolic agency of Neolithic architecture
in the Republic of Macedonia. In Hofmann,
D. and Smyth, J. (eds.) Tracking the Neolithic
house in Europe: sedentism, architecture and
practice. New York: Springer.
Neumann, E. 1963. The Great Mother. New York:
Bollingen Foundation.
Njegovanovi-Risti, N. 1982. Keramika Zapadne
Afrike. Beograd: Muzej afrike umetnosti.

76

Oelmann, F. 1959. Pfahlhausurnen. Germania 37:

205-223. Berlin.
Pavuk, J. 1981. Umenie a ivot kamennej. Tatran.
Profantova N. 2004. Rane stredoveka bronzova kovani ze zamosti, Hradite Prachovske Skaly,
okres Jiin. In (no eds.) Zbornik na poest
Dariny Mialekovej: 293-302. Nitra.
Radau - Ribari, Szenczi, B. i Konan, M. 1978.
Narodni vezovi Hrvatske. Zagreb: Grafi ki
zavod Hrvatske.
Sanev, V. 1989. Sredselo / Mrevci Neolithic
settlement. Arheoloki pregled 1987: 41-42.
Ljubljana.
Sanev, V. 2006. Anthropomorphic Cult Plastic of
Anzabegovo-Vrnik Cultural Group of the
Republic of Macedonia. In Tasi, N. and
Grozdanov, C. (eds.), Homage to Milutin
Garaanin: 171-191. Belgrade: SASA.
Simoska, D. i Kuzman, P. 1990. Tumba / Optiari
Multistrata Neolithic Settlement. Arheoloki
pregled 1988: 63-66. Ljubljana.
Skeates, R. 1994. Ritual, context, and gender in
Neolithic south-eastern Italy. Journal of European Archaeology 2.2: 199-214.
Stalio, B. 1968. Naselje i stan neolitskog perioda. In Trifunovi, L. (ed.) Neolit Centralnog
Balkana: 77-106. Beograd: Narodni muzej
Beograd.
Stalio, B. 1977. Neolit na tlu Srbije. Beograd.
Narodni muzej.
Stankovi, S. 1986. rtvenici i prosopomorfni poklopci iz Vine. Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogradu Filozofski fakultet.
emrov, A. and Turk, P. 2008. Neolithic Art in the
Republic of Macedonia. Ljubljana: Narodni
muzej Slovenije.
Talalay, L. 1987. Rethinking the Function of Clay
Figurine Legs from the Neolithic Greece: An
Argument by Analogy. Journal of American
Archaeology 91/2: 161-169. Boston.
Talalay, E. T. 1993. Deities, Dolls and Devices,
Neolithic Figurines from Franchthi Cave. In
T. W. Jacobsen (ed.). Excavation in Franchthi
Cave, Greece, Fascicle 9, Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press.
Talalay, L. 2004. Heady Business: Skulls, Heads
and Decapitation in Neolithic Anatolia and
Greece. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 17/2: 139-163. London.
Tasi, N. 2009. Nemi svedoci jednog vremena:
figuralna umetnost Vine. In Nikoli, D. (ed.)
Vina - praistorijska metropola: istaivanja
1908-2008: 139-163. Beograd: Filozofski
fakultet univerziteta u Beogradu; Narodni
muzej u Beogradu; Muzej grada Beograda.

Ucko, P. 1962. The Interpretation of Prehistoric Anthropomorphic Figurines. The Journal of Royal
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
Ireland 92/1: 38-54. London.
Ucko, P. 1968. Anthropomorphic Figurines of Predynastic Egypt and Neolithic Crete, with Comparative Material from the Prehistoric Near East and
Mainland Greece. London: Andrew Szmilda.
Valcarenghi, D. 1994. Storia del kilim Anatolico.
Milano: Electa.
Voigt, M. 2007. The Splendour of Women: Late Neolithic Images from Central Anatolia. In Renfrew,
C. and Morley, I. (eds.) Image and Imagination:
a global prehistory of figural representation:

151-169. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for

Archaeological Research.
Watrous, L. V. 1991. The Origin and Iconography
of the Late Minoan Painted Larnax. Hesperia
60/3: 285-307.
Wenzel, M. 1965. Ukrasni motivi na stecima. Sarajevo: Veselin Maslea.
Zdravkovski, D. 2008. Neolitska umetnost na obmoju
epublike Makedonije / Neolithic art in the region of the Republic of Macedonia. Ljubljana:
Narodni muzej Slovenije.
Zdravkovski, D. i Saroski, S. 1989. Tumba / Palite,
Neolithic, Eneolithic and Bronze Age Settlement. Arheoloki pregled 1987: 43. Ljubljana.

77

. .

T.I

78

T.II

79

. .

T.III

80

T.IV

81

. .

T.V

82

T.VI

83

. .

T.VII

84

T.VIII

85

. .

T.IX

86

T.X

87

. .

T.XI

88

T.XII

89

. .

T.XIII

90

T.XIV

91

. .

T.XV

92

T.XVI

93

. .

T.XVII

94

T.XVIII

95

. .

T.XIX

96

T.XX

97

. .

T.XXI

98

T.XXII

99

. .

T.XXIII

100

T.XXIV

101

. .

T.XXV

102

T.XXVI

103

. .

T.XXVII

104

T.XXVIII

105

. .

T.XXIX

106

T.XXX

107

. .

T.XXXI

108

T.XXXII

109

T.I.

,
,

,
,

,
,

,
j ,

,
,

,
,

,
,

.

,
,

,
,

,
,

,
,

,
,

,
,

,
,

,
,

,
,

,
,

,
,

,
,

,
,

,
,

,
,

,
, .
( .

T.II.
A-I.
T.III.
1, 3, 4, 6-9.
1, 2, 3); 5. (
2005, 59
.

:
).

, .
:
. 1, 2. (ausidis 1995, 31, 30); 3, 4, 7. (Grbi i dr. 1960, T.VIII:
1976, . 43); 6. (Gimbutas 1974, 62 Fig. 34); 8. (
. 43); 9. (Garaanin 1979, T.XVI: 7).
; 2, 5.

111

. .

T.IV.
1.
19); 4, 5.
3); 7.

, .
:
1984, 13); 2.
(
2005, 33); 3.
(Grbi i dr. 1960, T.VIII: 5, 4); 6.
(
(
2005, 51 T.IV: 5); 8.
:
2007, T.III: 6); 9.
(
:
2007, T.III: 7.

1984,
2005, 51 T.IV:
(
2005, 26);
2003, 191);

, .
:
2005, 51 T.IV: 7, 4); 3.

(
(
2005, 63
. . 47); 5.
(
1976, . 91); 7.
(
(Kitanoski 1989, 48 sl.4).

T.V.
1, 2.
(
2005, 55
. . 39); 4.
1976, . 116); 6.
2005, 61
. . 45); 8.

, .
:
(
2005, 54
. . 38, 56
. . 40); 3.
(
2005, 51 T.IV: 1); 4.

(Sanev 2006, 185 Fig. 26); 5.

(Sanev 2006, 186 Fig.
(Zdravkovski 2008, 221); 7.

(Zdravkovski 2008, 185); 8.

(
2005, 60
. . 44).

T.VI.
1, 2.

29); 6.

, .
:
(
, 68
. . 52); 2.
(
2005, 39); 3.
(Garaanin 1982, 9 sl. 4); 4.
(
2005, 64
. . 48); 5.
(
1976, 90 . 7; 6.
(Sanev 1989, 42 Fig. 4); 7, 8, 9.
(
1975, T.XIV: 4, 3, 5). 10.

(ausidis 1995, 15); 11.

(ausidis 1995, 33).

T.VII.
1.

T.VIII.

,
19 20
: 1.
,
(
1951, 489
. 267); 2, 3.
(
1981, 491, 515); 4.
(Radau
Ribari i dr. 1978, 102).
,
: 5. Sarva, Osijek,
(Gimbutas
1974, 176 Fig. 128); 6. Sarva, Osijek,
(Dimitrijevi 1974, T.IV: 9); 9. Donja Branjevina,
Deronje, Vojvodina (Karmanski 2005, Pl.V: 1). 7.
(
),
,
Kasteli Pedeada,
(Gimbutas 1974, 182 Fig.140); 8.
,
,
,
(
1981, 477).
,
: 10. Cista, Sinj,
(Belagi 1978, sl. 66); 11. Donje Bare, Blidinje,
(Wenzel 1965, T.XLIII: 16); 12. Ravno, Kupres,
(Wenzel 1965, T.XLIII: 14).
T.IX. 1, 2.
3, 4.

,
,

,
: 9, 10.
12, 13.
,

, 2008 .).

,
,9
,

, 19-20
,A
(Valcarenghi 1994, 196: 135, 174: 115);
,
,
(
1982, 169
. 2: 7,13); 5.
, 19-20
,
(
1947, 83
. 14); 6.
, Blatnica,
(Profantova 2004, 296 Obr. 3: 3); 7.
,
(Gimbutas 2001, 38 Fig. 62); 8.
( ),
(
. 2002,
. 8).
,
, .
(Garaanin 1979, T.XXXVII: 7, 8); 11.

(Zdravkovski 2008, 223);

,
(

T.X.
,
: 1. Vdastra,
(Mller-Karpe 1968, Taf. 179: B-1);
2. Trueti,
(Mller-Karpe 1968, Taf. 173: A-1); 3.
, Dunavec,
(Korkuti
1995, Taf. 41: 10); 4.
, Donja Branjevina, Deronje,
(Karmanski 2005, Pl.XXX: 3); 5.
Hodmezevasharhej Kekenjdomb,
(
1980, 363
. 220); 6.
,
(Hoernes
1925, 281); 7 10.
, Azor,
(Mller-Karpe 1968, Taf. 107: D-1, Taf. 108: 1, 10, 12, 13).
T.XI. 1a, 1b.
Pl.177); 2.
,

112

, Vierge Ouvrante, 15
,
(Neumann 1963, Pl.176,
,
:
, 15
,
; 3.
,
, atal Hyk,
(Mellaart 1967, 125 Fig. 38); 4.
(Neumann 1963, Pl. 174); 5.

.
(
),

:
6.

,
. . ., Veio,

16.
,

; 6.
1990, 130
. 75).

T.XII. 1, 2, 3.
.
(
2008, 86 T.I: 1, 2, 3); 4, 5.
(
2008, 112- .IV).
2005, 51-T.IV: 2); 7.
(
2003, 144-99); 8.
2005, 55-T.X: 1); 9.
,
,
,
. 19); 10.
,
T.XIII. 1.

(
216 . 15: 2); 2-6, 8.
(Sanev 2006, 187 Fig. 30, 189 Fig. 31 a, b; 3.
,
Fig. 7.13).

),

:
. 6,8 cm (Sanev 2006, fig. 11).
. 5,5 cm (

. 12,4 cm (

. 7,0 cm (

.XXIII.
1.
2.
3.
4.

. 6,0 cm (
. 10,1 cm (
. 12,4 cm (
. 6,0 cm (

.XXIV.
1.
2.
3.
4.
.XXV.
1.
2.
3.
4.

, .

(
(

. 2009, 160 .
(Zdravkovski 2008, 199).
,

(
2003, 69
, Plateia Magoula Zarku,

.XXII.
1.

2.
3.
4.

,
: 6.

T.XIVT.XXI.

(
, 1974,
, .
. 43). 7.
(Bailey 2005, 170

2005, . 3).
2005, . 26).
2005, . 7).

2005, . 5).
2005, . 17).

2005, . 26).
. 1976, . 202).

:
. 8,4 cm (
. 10 cm (
. 8.,5 cm (
. 6,2 cm (

2005, . 6).
2005, . 14).
2005, . 4).
2005, . 15).

:
. 12 cm (emrov and Turk 2008, fig. 36).
. 10 cm (

2005,
. 7,2 cm (

2005,

(Sanev 2006, fig. 18).

.XXVI.
1. . 4,1 cm. (
2. . 5,0 cm. (

: .
: .

).
).

.XXVII.
1. . 6,5 cm. (
2. . 5,0 cm. (

: .
: .

).
).

.XXVIII.
1. . 8,3 cm. (
2. . 6,4 cm. (
3. . 7,1 cm. (
4. . 3,9 cm. (

:
:
:
:

).
).
).
).

. 12).
. 9).

:
.
.
.
.

113

. .

.XXIX.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

. 9,1 cm (Gimbutas 1976c, fig. 191).

(
1989, .VI: 7).
. 3,9 cm (Gimbutas 1976, fig. 160).
(
1989, . VI: 5).
. 4,8 cm (Gimbutas 1976, fig. 194).
. 5,9 cm (Gimbutas 1976, figs. 189, 190).
. 92 cm (Gimbutas 1976, figs. 209).

.XXX.
1.
. 7,5 cm (
2.

(
3.
. 6 cm (
4.
. 6,7 cm (
.XXXI.
1.
2.
.XXXII.
1.
2.
3.
4.

114

. 5,7 cm (
. 5,3 cm (

2005,
1996, 325).
1976, . 191).
.
).
:
: .
: .

).
).

:
(
: .
).
. 9,3 cm (
: .
).
. 5,0 cm (Galovi 1964, . 17: 3).
. 7,7 cm (
: .
).

. 27).

CIP
. ,
903.23/.29-023:599.89(497.7)634
,
/
; [ ] = Neolithic
antropomorphic objects in the Republic of Macedonia / Goce Naumov and Nikos ausidis ;
[summary translation into English Andrijana Dragovi]. : = Skopje : Magor,
2011. 114 . : . ; 30
. . 71-77. : . 78-114.
ISBN 978-608-223-066-5
1. . . . 2. , []. I. Naumov, Goce ,
) ,
COBISS.MK-ID 89718026