Animal symbolism in Starčevo culture

RepResentations, signs and

symbols

Proceedings of the Symposium on Religion and magic

Editura Mega │ Cluj-Napoca │ 2015

Editors:Nicolae Cătălin Rişcuţa

Iosif Vasile FerenczOana Tutilă Bărbat

Editors: Nicolae Cătălin Rişcuţa, Iosif Vasile Ferencz, Oana Tutilă Bărbat

Review: Oana Tutilă Bărbat, Iosif Vasile Ferencz, Nicolae Cătălin Rişcuţa, Cătălin Cristescu

Layout: Oana Tutilă Bărbat

Cover Design: Oana Tutilă Bărbat, Nicolae Cătălin Rişcuţa

(Front Cover: Clay Hands from Vlaha, Cluj County; photo: Mihaela Savu)

The authors are responsable for the contents.

DTP:Francisc Baja

e-mail: [email protected]

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a RomânieiREPRESENTATIONS, SIGNS AND SYMBOLS. Simpozion naţional ( 2014 ; Deva)

Representations, signs and symbols : proceedings of the symposium on religion and magic : Deva, 27-29 martie 2014 / coord.: Nicolae Cătălin Rişcuţa, Iosif Vasile Ferencz, Oana Tutilă Bărbat. - Cluj-Napoca : Mega, 2015

Bibliogr.ISBN 978-606-543-579-7

I. Rişcuţa, Nicolae Cătălin (coord.)II. Ferencz, Iosif Vasile (coord.)III. Tutilă Bărbat, Oana (coord.)

902

Representations, Signs and Symbols, 2014 / p. 7–24

Animal Symbolism in Starčevo Culture

Selena VitezovićArchaeological Institute Belgrade, SERBIA

[email protected]

Keywords: animal symbolism, antlers, horns, Early and Middle Neolithic, Starčevo culture

Abstract: For every human settlement, the environment has a very important role, not just in economic aspects, but also in social and cultural life. The perception of both the natural landscape and the animal world has a notable impact on economy and culture, and the animal world has a particularly significant part in creating cosmologies and belief systems. Despite the long tradition of studying diverse

ritual and symbolic aspects in prehistoric archaeology, and although there is a large amount of data from ethnography on the animal symbolism in numerous pre-modern and modern cultures all over the globe, animal symbolism in prehistoric societies is still not sufficiently explored. Despite recent advances in widening the theoretical frameworks, animals are still predominantly analysed through their economic role. In this paper, some of the aspects of the animal symbolism in Early/Middle Neolithic Starčevo culture will be explored, in particular those of two animal species: cattle and deer.

INTRODUCTION

For every human settlement, its environment has a very important role, not just in economic aspects, but also in social and cultural life. Environment is a meaningful part of the world people inhabit and ‘natural things’ such as animals, plants and topography should be included into studies of past societies1. The perception of both the natural landscape and the animal world has a notable impact on economy and culture, and the animal world, in particular, has a significant role in creating cosmologies and belief systems.

Archaeology has a long tradition in studying diverse ritual and symbolic aspects of prehistoric societies, but the animal world was predominantly analysed through its economic perspective. The increasing importance of interdisciplinary studies since the 1960’s led to major advances in faunal studies, which were generally focused on reconstructing hunting strategies, processes of animal domestication, methods of exploiting animals etc., and far less attention has been paid to the sym-bolic role that animals played in ancient societies2.

Despite a large amount of data from ethnography on animal symbolism in numerous pre-mod-ern and modern cultures all over the globe3, animal symbolism in prehistoric societies is still not suf-ficiently explored4. Although recent advances in widening the theoretical frameworks, animal envi-ronment is still usually seen just as the source of food, and even zoomorphic imagery is interpreted as being directly linked to the importance of represented animals in the diet.

1 Cf. TAYLOR, ELLIOTT 2010.2 CRABTREE, RYAN 1995, p. 7, see also HILL 2014.3 Here it will be enough to mention works of Claude Lévi-Strauss, especially influential Le Totemisme aujourd’hui and

his famous citation on animals “good to think”: “Les espèces sont choisies non commes bonnes à manger, mais comme bonnes à penser.” For a list of references of most important works, cf. JONES 1998, p. 303–305.

4 See also HILL 2014, p. 266 ff.

8 / Selena Vitezović

The changes in theoretical approaches with the post-processual critique re-introduced inves-tigations of past belief systems. In the past two decades or so, numerous studies devoted to animal symbolism and human-animal relations appeared5. In fact, the “social zooarchaeology”6, as a con-cept that focuses on the interpretation of human-animal relations, is more and more widespread.

However, sometimes both the symbolic and economic approaches take animals as emblematic of either as object or as food. Furthermore, these approaches tend to use animals as a mirror and a window that offers insight into human society, implying that animals are passive objects of human activity, rather than active subjects or agents in their own right7. Animal motifs may be related in part to ecological conditions and subsistence strategies, however, this link may not always be straightfor-ward; the economically most important animal is not necessarily the most significant one in rituals, and vice versa, abundant evidence of the symbolic value of a certain animal does not always imply it having a prominent economic role. Perceptions of animals are dynamic and reflect the attitudes of the people as the animals themselves evolve within their environment; the conceptualisations/ percep-tions that are attributed to an animal surely echo something of the value the animal has, be that as a commodity or otherwise8.

ANIMALS IN STARČEVO CULTURE

Early and Middle Neolithic in the central Balkans is represented by Starčevo culture, part of the Starčevo-Körös-Criş cultural complex9. Starčevo communities were the earliest agricultural commu-nities in this region. They practiced farming and animal breeding, and hunting and herding were also important activities10. With Starčevo culture, domestic animals are being introduced for the first time into the central Balkans area11. The introduction of agriculture not only brought in new plant and animal species, but it changed the mode of exploitation of some animals, and had large impact on the entire system of supply with food and raw materials of animal origin. The change of animals’ role in economy is tightly linked with the change of the perception of animals and their role in social and cultural life; the two are mutually dependent12.

At the eponymous site of Starčevo-Grad, situated on the banks of the Danube in the vicinity of Belgrade, domestic animals constituted about 65% of the fauna – domestic cattle were the most numerous (about 66% of domestic fauna), ovicaprines comprised up to 30%, and were followed by domestic pig and dog. Large wild animals comprised approximately 33% of the fauna: wild pig 26%, red deer 28%, and aurochs 10%. (However, if we count in the remains of what was identified just as Sus sp. and Bos sp., then pigs are dominant with about 40%, while red deer and Bos were more-less equally presented with about 30%). Also, Equus przewalski, badger, otter and some other carnivores and rodents were found in small numbers, and also fish, birds and mollusc shells. The most impor-tant animal were Bos, both wild (Bos primigenius) and domestic (Bos taurus), and pigs. Low number of domestic pigs is explained by environmental conditions which favoured hunting of wild pigs13.

At Ludaš-Budžak, in Vojvodina, domestic animals were predominant, about 80%: mainly ovi-caprines (68%), followed by cattle (10%), and pigs, dogs, red deer, aurochs, roe deer were discovered in small percentage, as well as fish and birds14.

5 Cf. papers in RYAN, CRABTREE 1995; INGOLD 1995; PLUSKOWSKI 2005; WILLIS 2005; also RUSSELL 1999; MARCINIAK 2005; OMA 2007.

6 Cf. MARCINIAK 2005; RUSSELL 2012. 7 OMA 2007, p. 57.8 SEETAH 2005, p. 6.9 Cf. ARANĐELOVIĆ-GARAŠANIN 1954; GARAŠANIN 1973; for latest AMS dates see WHITTLE ET AL 2002. 10 Cf. GREENFIELD 2008.11 Except for dog, domesticated locally during the Mesolithic period – cf. BÖKÖNYI 1975. 12 SEETAH 2005, p. 613 CLASON 1982. 14 BÖKÖNYI 1974, p. 436.

Selena Vitezović

Animal Symbolism in Starčevo Culture / 9

Also in Vojvodina region is the site of Donja Branjevina, where the faunal analysis, performed on the material from three trenches, showed the predominance of domestic species, with approx. 66%. Among domestic species, most numerous were ovicaprines, which took almost 50% of the total fauna, followed by cattle (15%). Pigs and dogs were noted in small percentages. Among wild species, most numerous were aurochs, followed by red and roe deer. Fish, birds, molluscs and turtles were also noted in considerable quantities15.

Domestic fauna was also predominant at Divostin, in Pomoravlje region, with over 90%: Bos taurus was the most common with 47%, followed by ovicaprines (41%), and in smaller numbers domestic and wild pig, red deer, aurochs, dogs were also discovered16.

In the Iron Gates area, the preliminary analysis at Ušće Kameničkog Potoka, done by S. Bökönyi, showed the predominance of wild fauna, mainly wild pigs and red deer; goats, cattle, fish and birds were also present17. Faunal record from Hajdučka Vodenica was analysed by H. Greenfield, and the predominance of Cervus elaphus was noted (over 50% of NISP), followed by domestic pigs and domes-tic cattle18.

Although the analyses of faunal records from Starčevo culture sites were not systematic and differ in quality (sample bias is present at all sites, since the material is rarely sieved and, at some sites, probably selectively collected and preserved), it may be observed that domestic cattle, aurochs, ovicaprines, wild and domestic pig and red deer were present at all sites, sometimes also roe deer, small carnivores, etc. The percentage of different animals varies from site to site (due to different environmental conditions, but also due to diverse economy and perhaps even local preferences), so we may note that cattle were most numerous at Divostin, ovicaprines at Ludaš-Budžak, and wild and domestic pigs at Starčevo. Fishing and fowling are confirmed for Starčevo and Donja Branjevina, both in marshy surrounding. Keeping in mind that the presence and relative percentages of fish and bird remains are largely dependent on recovery methods, we may assume that fishing and fowling were not rarely practised activities, although their importance was probably mainly linked with environ-mental conditions.

Many of these animals, apart from their economic role, may have had a “special” meaning in worldview. Archaeological data are richest for the symbolic meaning of two of them, Bos and deer, and include figurative representations, use of their skeletal elements as raw materials and use as “special” depositions19.

FIGURATIVE REPRESENTATIONS

Although present at numerous sites throughout the Neolithic and Chalcolithic in Southeastern Europe and Near East, zoomorphic figurines usually receive less attention than aesthetically often more attractive anthropomorphic ones. This may be because they are often quite simple in form and rarely represent what is usually considered to be “prehistoric art”; also, their simple form rarely allows identification of the species, therefore rendering the interpretation more difficult.

Zoomorphic figurines in the Starčevo culture were not found in large number, yet they are pres-ent on numerous sites – Grivac20, Divostin21, Knjepište22, Blagotin23, etc. (Fig. 1).

15 BLAŽIĆ 2005, p. 74–76.16 BÖKÖNYI 1988.17 STANKOVIĆ 1986.18 GREENFIELD 2008.19 Other species, surely, also had a certain symbolic role and value, however, they will not be examined here because of

scarce and ambiguous data. 20 BOGDANOVIĆ 2004, Fig. 6.3.21 LETICA 1988. 22 STANKOVIĆ 1990; STANKOVIĆ 1992. 23 NIKOLIĆ, ZEČEVIĆ 2001.


Fig. 1. Bovine figurines from Knjepište (Iron Gates) (after STANKOVIĆ 1990).

They are made from clay, often from clay with admixtures, with rough surfaces, rarely polished or with decoration, usually simple in form. Usually, they just represent some quadruped animal, some-times with distinctive features such as horns, antlers, or muzzle, and animals identified include bull, deer, goats, sheep, pigs and hybrid animals24.

Cattle presentations are the most common and at the same time easiest for species identifica-tion, thanks to the plastically modelled horns. Sometimes, heads were not even modelled, with horns coming directly from the body25.

At Divostin, for example, several zoomorphic figurines were found, generally representing four-legged animals with cylindrical bodies and short conical legs. Most of them are fragmented, but when the heads are preserved, these are predominantly large horned animals, most likely cattle. Several of them were discovered within huts26.

Similar simple small quadruped clay figurines with plastically modelled horns are known from numerous Early/Middle Neolithic sites in Southeastern Europe. From Körös culture, sites Endröd 3/3927, Endröd 3/4528 may be mentioned.

At Rakitovo in Bulgaria, zoomorphic figurines with conical projections, probably representing horns, were discovered, and also one zoomorphic vessel in the shape of a bull29.

Deer representations are known from Banja and Donja Branjevina30. From Donja Branjevina also comes one zoomorphic vessel or altar – animal with container on the back – that represents either a red deer, or chamois31.

One zoomorphic vessel, presenting some deer-like animal, comes from the Early Neolithic site of Muldava in Bulgaria32. Figurines probably representing red deer were also noted on Körös site of

24 Cf. STANKOVIĆ1990; STANKOVIĆ 1992. 25 STANKOVIĆ 1990.26 LETICA 1988, p. 174–177, Fig. 7.2.27 MAKKAY 2007, p. 108, Fig. 65.28 MAKKAY 2007, p. 190.29 MATSANOVA 1996, tab. 7, 8.30 STANKOVIĆ 1992.31 KARMANSKI 2005, p. 39, Fig. 30.32 НИКОЛОВ 2006, Fig. 105.

0 4cm


Endröd 3/4533. One of the famous presentations of a deer, with large antlers, is on a pot from Körös site of Csépa34, and deer antlers are visible on several other fragments of Körös pottery35.

Another figurative representation characteristic for Starčevo culture are small clay objects, so-called amulets in the shape of bucrania (Fig. 2), also described as “T or Y shaped forms with small horned extensions36” or “eared lobates” and “reel shapes”37. They are known from numerous sites – from Donja Branjevina38, Grivac39, Divostin40, Blagotin41, Ušće Kameničkog Potoka42, Kneževi Vinogradi (Croatia)43.

They are predominantly made from clay (stone bucrania are very rare, few are reported from Blagotin44; there is a mention of bone bucrania as well, but they seem to be natural bones, non-modified). They are generally of small dimensions, in range generally from 1.5 cm up to approximately 10 cm45.

Fig. 2. Amulets in shape of bucrania, from Ušće Kameničkog Potoka (Iron Gates) (after STANKOVIĆ 1992, t. XXV, XXVI, XXVII and XL).

There are two main types, with several variations in shape46. The first type includes variants of oval, circular, elongated or wedge-shaped body with horn-like addings on the upper part (at Divostin, they were classified as bulbous, cylindrical, rectangular and necked47). Rarely, they have decorations in the shape of incised, parallel or zigzag lines48. The second type resembles spools (reel-shapes),

33 MAKKAY 2007, p. 190.34 KUTZIÁN 1947, t. II/1.35 KUTZIÁN 1947, t. XVII, XX.36 VUKOVIĆ 2005, p. 27.37 MCPHERRON ET AL 1988, p. 325–327, see also Fig. 11.1, 11.3.38 KARMANSKI 2005, pl. XXII.39 BOOGDANOVIĆ 2004, Fig. 6.8.40 MCPHERRON ET AL 1988.41 STANKOVIĆ 1992; NIKOLIĆ, ZEČEVIĆ 2001; VUKOVIĆ 2005.42 STANKOVIĆ 1992. 43 RAJKOVIĆ 2004, p. 53, kat. 135, 136.44 STANKOVIĆ 1992, VUKOVIĆ 2005.45 Cf. dimensions from Grivac: BOGDANOVIĆ 2004, 136; Blagotin: VUKOVIĆ 2005.46 CF. STANKOVIĆ 1992.47 CF. MCPHERRON ET AL 1988, p. 325–327.48 E. g., KARMANSKI 2005, pl. XXII, 1–3.


again with horn-like extensions, and is symmetrical, i.e., the upper and the lower part are more-less identical.

Their possible function is difficult to identify, since no traces of use were discovered. They may have been used as tokens and/or amulets49. Also, the context of the finds is unclear in numerous cases, although it seems they are generally discovered within dwellings. At Knjepište, four bucrania were discovered at the bottom of a pit-dwelling50, and one was found on the floor of a dwelling at Ušće Kameničkog Potoka51. The best contextual data come from the site of Blagotin52, where they were connected with dwelling structures, most of them lying at the virgin soil of structure 10 – suggesting a strong link with the house foundations.

The bucrania are not specific for Starčevo culture only, but they are also present at other Early/Middle Neolithic in the region – at sites of Rakitovo53, Belyakovac-Pločite, Džuljunica-Smardeš54, in Bulgaria, at Nea Nikomedeia in Greece55, at Miercurea Sibiului – Petriş56 and Foeni Salaş57 in Romania, at Körös culture sites Endröd 3/3958, Endröd 3/4559 in Hungary etc.60.

USE OF SKELETAL ELEMENTS

Skeletal elements of diverse animals were used for producing tools, weapons and jewellery: bones, teeth, antlers and mollusc shells. Predominant raw material in osseous industry of Starčevo culture were bones, mainly from ovicaprines and cattle, followed by red and rarely roe deer antlers; teeth from pigs were used for tools and other teeth as jewellery pieces, and mollusc shells occur occasionally as personal ornaments61. The choice of raw material was made after specific physical and mechanical characteristics (for example, metapodial bones for pointed tools, antler for punch-ing tools, etc.), however, cultural preferences also had certain significance62. It may be observed that some of the artefacts, carefully made and in long use, were made from strictly determined skeletal elements.

The choice of raw materials for specific items reveals the cultural attitude towards them, further-more, the level of skill, time and labour invested in some reflect the attitude towards used raw mate-rial, people who made them, people who used them and/or tasks they were intended for63. Robert McGhee demonstrated that the choice of raw materials for specific items may have strong links with worldview, animal symbolism and cosmology64, on the case study of Thule culture.

Within Starčevo bone industry, artefacts made exclusively from Bos metapodia are particu-larly interesting: spatula-spoons (Fig. 3) and projectile points65. If we arrange all bone objects from

49 For discussion on their possible function and critique to some of the hypotheses, cf. VUKOVIĆ 2005, 34–36; one possible hypothesis on how they may have been carried cf. ELENSKI 2006.

50 STANKOVIĆ 1992, p. 178–179.51 STANKOVIĆ 1992, p. 178–179.52 VUKOVIĆ 2005, p. 31–32.53 MATSANOVA 1996, 124, tab. 9; NIKOLOV 2006, Fig. 11.54 ELENSKI 2004; ELENSKI 2006; ELENSKI 2008, p. 72, Fig. 48.55 RODDEN 1962.56 LUCA ET AL 2008, p. 332, photo 3.57 CIUBOTARU 1998.58 MAKKAY 2007, p. 108, Fig. 65.59 MAKKAY 2007, p. 190.60 Cf. cited references in VUKOVIĆ 2005, ELENSKI 2004, p. 17–19, LUCA ET AL 2008, p. 332–333, for more details

on other finds; see also KALICZ, RACZKY 1981.61 VITEZOVIĆ 2011a. 62 VITEZOVIĆ 2011a, 343–369; cf. also CHOYKE 2013.63 Cf. CHOYKE, SCHIBLER 2007.64 MCGHEE 1977. 65 VITEZOVIĆ 2011a, p. 274 ff.; these artefacts were probably made mainly from domestic cattle; the hypothesis of

John NANDRIS 1971 on specific use of Bos primigenius only was not supported by the actual evidence from Starčevo culture sites in Serbia – cf. VITEZOVIĆ 2011a.


Starčevo-Körös-Criş culture along manufacturing continuum axis66, bone spoons represent the high-est peak – they were made from strictly, exclusively chosen raw materials, their manufacture encom-passed several stages, which all demanded time and skill, they were in use for a long span of time, often reused and repaired67. Strict, exclusive choice of only one skeletal element as raw material sug-gest careful planning, but also certain meaning attributed to a specific material. The skill and labour investment also had a value of their own, as a carefully made object may be item of display, bringing or showing the prestigious status of its owner. Finally, long use suggests they were not easily discarded, but kept for a long time instead, perhaps even inherited68.

Fig. 3. Spatula–spoons made of Bos metapodials, from Donja Branjevina, Starčevo and Tečić.

These spatula-spoons are of Near Eastern origin; they were noted on Çatal Hüyük69, and sev-eral examples discovered at Hacilar even had zoomorphic heads70. They were also widespread in Southeastern Europe – they were found in Hungary, on sites Endröd, Sarvas71, in Romania, on numer-ous sites including Trestiana, Gura Bacului, Cârcea Hanuri, Cârcea Viaduct, Gălvăneşti, Arad and others72. They are also present in Bulgaria, and examples such as those from Kovačevo73, Kazanluk74, Azmaškata mogila75 etc., and from Greece Dikili Tash76 and Sesklo77 should be mentioned.

66 sensu SCHIBLER, CHOYKE 2007, p. 57.67 VITEZOVIĆ 2011a, p. 322–326; NANDRIS 1971. 68 Cf. CHOYKE 2013. 69 MELLART 1965.70 MELLART 1961.71 MAKKAY 1990, abb. 1–4; TÓTH 2012.72 POPUŞOI, BELDIMAN 1998; BELDIMAN 2007, pl. 152–8; BELDIMAN, SZTANCS 2011, Fig. 6.73 SIDÉRA 2013.74 NIKOLOV 2006, p. 41–42.75 GEORGIEV 1967, abb. 6.76 SÉFÉRIADES 1992.77 PAPATHANASSOPOULOS 1981.


Projectile points were made from large mammal long bones (Bos- or Cervus-sized animals), and one specific subtype is made in the exactly same manner as spoons78, in fact, some broken spoons may be reworked into projectiles. Again, we observe careful shaping and skillful craftsperson. The most interesting find is a projectile with zoomorphic head from Donja Branjevina79, finely made and polished, perhaps never used as projectile, but used instead for display of prestige of its creator and/or owner (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Projectile point with animal head, Donja Branjevina.

Another group of artefacts that should be considered here are personal ornaments. Jewellery is widely used as a symbol of identity, prestige, wealth and status, individual and/or social, therefore, its raw material and skill invested in its manufacture are even more important for achieving or stressing their function.

Animal teeth were particularly used for such purposes, in numerous traditional cultures head-men, chiefs, etc. wear necklaces of large canines, particularly on formal occasions, of the most pow-erful and ferocious animals in their respective environments. Such necklaces are used to symbolize their power, leadership, rank and authority in society80 and their use is noted in geographically varied traditional cultures: in central and west Pacific islands, Central and West Africa, and the lowlands of South America. T. Pickenpaugh suggested that “the great distances between many of the cultures, and the fact that large bodies of water separate a number of them, has made any likelihood of contact between them highly improbable. It is accordingly proposed that the idea of using the canine teeth of large powerful ferocious animals as a means of expressing the concepts of power, rank, authority, and

78 VITEZOVIĆ 2011a, p. 291–294, VITEZOVIĆ 2012a. 79 VITEZOVIĆ 2011a, t. 26.80 PICKENPAUGH 1997.


leadership has occurred, independently, over and over again through time, and is consequently a clear indication that the human mind everywhere functions in essentially the same manner81”.

Within Starčevo culture, personal ornaments were often made from animal skeletal elements, especially from mollusc shells, probably chosen for both their exotic origin and white colour82, and also from antlers, animal teeth and large mammal long bones.

Large mammal (Bos or Cervus) long bones were used for buckles and clasps, while pendants and bracelets were produced from antler (one was discovered at Drenovac83, and similar, better preserved ones are known from Romania84).

Fig. 5. Pendant made from red deer canine and its bone imitation, Divostin.

Among animal teeth used for pendants, red deer canines are particularly interesting, specific in shape, which were the favourite type of ornament throughout prehistory85 and were even copied in other materials86. From Divostin comes the find of one perforated red deer canine and one bone imitation87 (Fig. 5).

SPECIAL DEPOSITS

It is very hard to identify special, intentional deposits with exclusively symbolic meaning in the archaeological record without ambiguity, even when they are associated with graves. Within Starčevo culture, only one possible special deposition is noted so far, on the site of Blagotin. Here, a pit was discovered with the head of red deer carefully placed at its bottom88. Pits containing antlers or horns are also reported from Donja Branjevina89, however, their nature – ritual or not – is not clear.

Graves are extremely rarely encountered in Starčevo culture. Apart from the Iron Gates region, all other finds are isolated finds of one or few graves, most often within settlements, and data on burial customs and grave offerings are scarce and sometimes ambiguous90. However, some informa-tion on animal symbolism may be presented, from two burials discovered in Northern Serbia, at the sites of Golokut and Zlatara.

Golokut is a Starčevo culture settlement researched in several campaigns. Within one of the pit-dwelling investigated at Golokut, a skeleton of a woman with a head of an aurochs in her left hand was

81 PICKENPAUGH 1997, p. 539.82 VITEZOVIĆ 2012b, see also LUIK 207.83 VITEZOVIĆ 2012a, Fig. 3.84 BELDIMAN 2000.85 Cf. D’ERRICO, VANHAERREN 2002; CHOYKE 2001.86 CHOYKE 2001.87 VITEZOVIĆ 2012a. 88 STANKOVIĆ, LEKOVIĆ 1993; NIKOLIĆ, ZEČEVIĆ, 2001.89 KARMANSKI 2005, p. 40 ff. 90 See also BORIĆ 1996.


discovered. The skeleton was placed near the entrance, most likely after the dwelling was abandoned and no longer used for living91.

At the site of Zlatara, two burial constructions were discovered. In Burial construction B a woman was buried and the grave also included a large amount of faunal remains, from diverse spe-cies: domestic cattle, ovicaprines, dog, but also wild animals – pine-marten, brown hare, roe and red deer. Skeletal remains of red deer are particularly interesting, consisting of skull fragments with poorly preserved antlers and few postcranial bones (vertebrae). Also, mollusc shells were discovered – few shells from Unio sp. and a large quantity (over 7000) of snail shells of Helix pomatia92.

Antlers of red deer and horns of Bos were also placed in Late Mesolithic graves in the Iron Gates region93. Grave no. 7a from Lepenski Vir is particularly interesting, situated in the rear of house no. 21. The grave contained a skeleton of a man in extended position, buried with the skull of an elderly woman, the skull of a large bovid and the skull of a red deer, with large antlers94.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Bos Cattle in general were very valued animals and a symbol of wealth and prestige in numerous cul-

tures95. The very word for cattle in Latin, pecos, is also in the root of the word pecunia, wealth. In ancient Greece, cattle were the most important as sacrificial animals, and the largest sacrifice was hecatomb (εκατόμβη), the sacrifice of 100 cattle, reserved for special rituals96.

There are numerous societies, including sub-modern and modern, in which cattle is the synonym for wealth and prestige97. Their symbolic importance is visible in many Neolithic cultures, cattle figu-rines were present in numerous Neolithic sites of the Near East98. Especially the site of Çatal Hüyük’s has rich animal symbolism, and bull had the prominent place – bucrania were placed on walls or used as motifs, horn cores were set on benches, bulls were depicted on walls or made from clay99, etc. The importance of cattle continues in the later Neolithic and Chalcolithic period; in Vinča culture, zoomor-phic figurines are found on many sites100, bucrania made from horns and clay are discovered at several sites (Jakovo-Kormadin101, Vinča-Belo Brdo102, and several others103). In protohistoric and historic soci-eties, bull symbolism continues – for example, bucrania were deposited in graves in the Kush kingdom in Sudan104, Minoan bull frescoes and zoomorphic vessels105 are very famous, and the list may go on and on.

Cattle are ascribed a decisive role in the intensification of agriculture, especially at the beginning of the Neolithic106. Cattle domestication is considered to be one of the most significant animal exploita-tions in human history, very important for the establishment of a sustained meat supply for early human societies and throughout history. Cattle have always been a multipurpose animal, i.e., used for second-ary products (products taken from an animal while it is still alive): traction, dung, dairy products107.

91 PETROVIĆ 1985; PETROVIĆ 1987.92 LEKOVIĆ 1985, p. 161.93 Cf. BORIĆ 1996; RADOVANOVIĆ 1996.94 RADOVANOVIĆ 1996, p. 180.95 Cf. MARCINIAK 2005, p. 40–45.96 Cf. CERMANOVIĆ, SREJOVIĆ 1996.97 MORALES MUÑIZ, MORALES MUÑIZ 1995.98 COLE 1972; HODDER 1990; CAUVIN 1994; COQUENUGNIOT 2003.99 MELLART 1975, 107 ff, Fig. 58; see also MARCINIAK 2005, p. 41; TWISS, RUSSELL 2009.100 E. g. at SELEVAC – MILOJKOVIĆ 1990, p. 416. 101 JOVANOVIĆ, GLIŠIĆ 1961.102 IGNJATOVIĆ 2008, p. 208, 256, kat. 158.103 See also SPASIĆ 2012. 104 CHAIX 2001.105 HOUGHTON BRODERICK 1972.106 MARCINIAK 2005, p. 41.107 SEETAH 2005, p. 1.


Cattle are very often used as a measurement for wealth – economic studies of pastoralists vir-tually always define household wealth in terms of the size of the household herd of cattle, or, rarely, other livestock. Furthermore, in some traditional economies in Africa cattle functioned almost as money108.

Such evident importance of cattle is usually explained through the economic importance, and the explanation of symbolic value is often linked with fertility, virility, with the female principle, etc. However, É. Coquenugniot, in his recent analysis of cattle figurines from Near Eastern Neolithic, noted that there is no evidence of a link between the female principle and the bull as a symbol of viril-ity. A closer look into the data from Starčevo culture also does not support such a hypothesis, for the same reasons. Instead, É. Coquenugniot accepted the interpretation of cattle as figurines of protec-tion and of a divine attribute109. Context of both bucrania amulets and zoomorphic figurines within Starčevo settlements links them closely to the domestic sphere – several figurines from Divostin come from huts, bucrania from Knjepište, Ušće Kameničkog Potoka and especially Blagotin are linked with dwellings, more specifically, with their foundations. Contexts of such finds in Körös and Criş sites are also linked to houses – for example, the bucranium from Miercurea Sibiului – Petriş110 is discovered within the dwelling, thus providing a strong argument for protective function. The use of cattle skel-etal elements for specially valued artefacts suggests they were used to display wealth and/or prestige, but perhaps some apothropaic role as well. The burial context may indicate display of identity, wealth and/or prestige, but also a link between this and the other world.

Cervidae The cult of deer was widespread in traditional societies of deer hunters in the Eurasian for-

ests111, particularly among Mesolithic societies. At Star Carr in UK, for example, come peculiar finds of “frontlets” from red deer skulls and antlers. They consisted of the uppermost part of the skull of a red deer, with the antlers still attached, modified so they could, presumably, be used as headgear, probably during rituals or festivals112. Similar frontlets are known from few other sites as well113.

Some of the burials at Late Mesolithic sites in France, Téviec and Hoëdic114, contained structures with red deer antlers, red deer antlers also noted in graves at Vedbaek in Denmark115.

In the Iron Gates Mesolithic, although symbolic evidence is most conspicuous for Danube fish, deer was also important116 – beside numerous antler artefacts, sometimes even placed in graves117, we may also find skulls and unworked antlers placed in graves118, and red and roe deer antlers with incised decoration119. From Vlasac, nine objects made from antler had incised decoration, including one crown of roe deer antler, which has most of its body covered with incised bundles of parallel lines and net-like motifs120.

Deer figurines and zoomorphic vessels are also known from Near Eastern Neolithic – for exam-ple, one zoomorphic vessel121 originates from Hacilar VI, while a scene of stag- and boar-baiting is depicted at one shire at Çatal Hüyük122.

108 RUSSELL 1998, p. 44.109 COQUENUGNIOT 2003.110 LUCA ET AL 2008, p. 332, photo 3.111 Cf. MIKHAILOVA 2006.112 CLARK 1954; CONNELLER 2004. 113 MIKHAILOVA 2006, p. 190.114 SCHULTING 1996, see also MIKHAILOVA 2006.115 MIKHAILOVA 2006, p. 193.116 Cf. VITEZOVIĆ 2011b.117 At VLASAC – SREJOVIĆ, LETICA 1978.118 RADOVANOVIĆ 199, also see above.119 Cf. RADOVANOVIĆ 1996; BORONEANŢ 1969; BORONEANŢ 1970.120 SREJOVIĆ, LETICA 1978, p. 105–109.121 MELLAART 1975, Fig. 64.122 MELLAART 1975, Fig. 60.


Evidence of special red deer deposits, notably within chambered tombs, from Orkney and Outer Hebrides in prehistoric times suggests that the species may have been used in a number of ritualistic ways123.

The deposits of red deer within chambered tombs may indicate that it may have been conceptu-alised as a totemic animal used to identify with the landscape. Studies of red deer indicate that sepa-rate groups of red deer often stay in the same area, which could mean that people may have associated particular places with red deer, and that these deposits may be linked to the social use of landscape surrounding the location of cairns. People are metaphorically identifying themselves to the landscape and their ancestors with particular places in landscape through the use of animals124.

Furthermore, in the Iron Age red deer were considered capable of shape shifting, forming a lim-inal category between the living and the supernatural worlds and, in fact, those areas where red deer were deposited may be considered liminal in nature – for example, boundaries that circled settle-ments. Deer may also have been viewed as a liminal animal due to the yearly cycle of antler re-growth, and possibly used for displays of wealth and power125.

Similar explanations, of deer as a symbol of yearly cycles, linked with their annual change (cast-ing off and re-growth) of antlers was also offered for the Iron Gates Mesolithic, and ethnographic evi-dence from the region support such a hypothesis. The representations of deer are preserved on some medieval funerary monuments, and today some traces of beliefs related to the deer are preserved in folklore tradition, especially among ethnic Vlach populations in Eastern Serbia126.

Red deer was also used as a symbol of status, wealth and prestige in the historic and modern times, as evident, for example, through hunting trophies127.

Special deposits of red deer within Starčevo culture also suggest red deer was liminal animal, connecting this and the other world, and a symbol of re-birth, but also a totemic animal closely linked to the use of landscape. The use of antlers for ornaments also signifies it was connected with prestige.

In the Eurasian forest zone, after the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic economy, the sig-nificance of deer decreased, but it cult was saved and transformed, it became caretaker of life power, deer antlers or images accompanied powerful deceased people in their graves, and red deer majestic antlers were associated with the tree of life128. The situation we encounter in the Starčevo culture may be similar – some of the deer importance and symbolic value is preserved from the Mesolithic times, although transformed and its importance was in decline.

* * *

Although at first glance cattle and deer are quite different animals, they actually have several physical traits in common129 – they are both large herbivores with prominent decorations on their heads. Antlers and horns differ in their chemical composition, nature, and looks130, but are not neces-sarily perceived as different in every culture’s worldview131. There is also no evidence for the dualism between wild and domestic sphere, in fact, bull symbolism seem to encompass both Bos taurus and Bos primigenius. Therefore, one of the hypotheses is that in the “folk taxonomy”132 these animals were closely connected, through the metonymic connection by their head-decorations. They were con-

123 MORRIS 2005.124 JONES 1998, p. 315, MORRIS 2005. 125 MORRIS 2005, p. 10–11, 14.126 SREJOVIĆ 1955; IVANOVIĆ 1983; MARJANOVIĆ 2008.127 Cf. also MORRIS 2005, p. 12–13.128 MIKHAILOVA 2006, p. 197.129 Cf. JONES 1998, p. 314.130 Cf. REITZ, WING 2008.131 In the English language, horn and antler are labelled with two terms, however, in many languages there is one and

the same word for both, for example, “rog” in Slav languages (Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian). 132 Cf. MARCINIAK 2005, p. 54 ff.


nected with wealth, prestige and value, they were considered as liminal and totemic animals, connect-ing this and the other world and identified with the landscape/ human group, and were also ascribed the role of protective animals. Their importance in the religion and magic practices in Starčevo cul-ture is difficult to assess, due to a lack of clear religious contexts, but portable finds such as figurines, zoomorphic vessels and small bucrania “amulets” were probably used in connection with domestic, household rituals.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper is the result of work on the projects “Archaeology of Serbia: cultural identity, integra-tional factors, technological processes and the role of the central Balkans in the development of the European prehistory”, no. OI 177020, and “Bioarchaeology of ancient Europe: humans, animals and plants in the prehistory of Serbia”, no. III 47001, funded by the Ministry for Education and Science.

Bibliography

ARANĐELOVIĆ-GARAŠANIN 1954

Aranđelović-Garašanin Draga, Starčevačka kultura, Ljubljana.

BELDIMAN 2000 Beldiman C., Obiecte de podoabă neolitice timpurii din materii dure animale descoperite pe teritoriul României: brăţări din corn de cerb, in BMGiurgiu 5–7, p. 31–45.

BELDIMAN, SZTANCS 2011

Beldiman C., Sztancz Diana-Maria, Technology of Skeletal Materials of the Starčevo-Criş Culture in Romania, in Luca S. A., Suciu C. (eds.), The First Neolithic Sites in Central/South-East European Transect, vol II: Early Neolithic (Starčevo-Criş) Sites on the Territory of Romania, Oxford, BAR 2188, p. 57–70.

BOGDANOVIĆ 2004 Bogdanović M., Antropomorfne i zoomorfne figurine, žrtvenici, hlebni kolači, amuleti, in Bogdanović Milenko (ed.), Grivac. Naselja protostarčevačke i vinčanske kulture, Kragujevac: Centar za naučna istraživanja SANU i Univerziteta u Kragujevcu i Narodni muzej Kragujevac, p. 127–144.

BÖKÖNYI 1975 Bökönyi S., Vlasac: An Early Site of Dog Domestication, in Clason Anneke (ed.), Archaeozoological studies: papers of the Archaeozoological Conference 1974, held at the Biologisch-Archaeologisch Instituut of the State University of Groningen, North-Holland, Amsterdam, Oxford, p. 167–178.

BÖKÖNYI 1988 Bökönyi S., Neolithic fauna of Divostin, in McPherron A., Srejović D. (eds.), Divostin and the Neolithic of central Serbia, Pittsburgh, p. 419–445.

BORIĆ 1996 Borić D., Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices in the Neolithic: A Case Study, in Starinar N. S. XLVII, p. 67–83.

BORONEANŢ 1969 Boroneanţ V., Découverte d’objets d’art épipaléolithique dans la zone des Portes-de-Fer du Danube, in RSP XXIV, 2, p. 283–298.

BORONEANŢ 1970 Boroneanţ V., La période épipaléolithique sur la rive roumaine des Portes de Fer du Danube, in PZ 45, 1, p. 1–25.

CAUVIN 1994 Cauvin J., Naissance des divinités. Naissance de l’agriculture: la révolution des symboles au Néolithique, Paris, Editions du CNRS.

CERMANOVIĆ, SREJOVIĆ 1996

Cermanović Aleksandrina, Srejović D., Leksikon religija i mitova drevne Evrope, Savremena adminstracija, Beograd.

CHAIX 2001 Chaix L., Animals as Symbols: the Bucrania of the Grave KN 24 (Kerma, northern Sudan), in Buitenhuis H., Prummel W. (eds.): Animals and Man in the Past. Essays in honour of Dr. A.T. Clason, emeritus professor of archaeozoology Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, the Netherlands, p. 59–66. ARC-Publicatie 41, Groningen, p. 364–370.

CHOYKE 2001 Choyke Alice M., Late Neolithic Red Deer Canine Beads and Their Imitations, in Choyke Alice M., Bartosiewicz L. (eds.): Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space – Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group Budapest, 31 August – 5 September 1999, BAR 937, Oxford, p. 251–266.


CHOYKE 2013 Choyke Alice M., Hidden Agendas: Ancient Raw Material Choice for Worked Osseous Objects in Central Europe and Beyond, in Choyke Alice, O’Connor Sonia (eds.), From these bare bones: raw materials and the study of worked osseous objects, Oxbow Books, Oxford and Oakville, p. 1–11.

CIUBOTARU 1998 Ciubotaru D. L., Plastica neoliticǎ din aşezarea de la Foeni-Sǎlaş (jud. Timiş), in An B S. N. 6, p. 73–82.

CLARK 1954 Clark, J.G.D., Excavations at Star Carr, Cambridge.CLASON 1982 Clason Anneke, Padina and Starčevo: Game, Fish and Cattle, in Palaeohistoria XXII,

p. 141–173. COLE 1972 Cole Sonia, Animals of the New Stone Age, in Houghton-Broderick A., Animals in

archaeology, London, p. 15–41.CONNELLER 2004 Conneller Chantal, Becoming Deer. Corporeal Transformations at Star Carr, in ArchDial

11, 1, p. 37–56.COQUEUGNIOT 2003 Coqueugniot É., Figurines et représentations animales dans les villages néolithiques du

Proche-Orient, in Anthropozoologica 38, p. 35–48.CRABTREE, RYAN 1995 Crabtree Pam J., Ryan Kathleen, Foreword, in Ryan Kathleen, Crabtree Pam J.,

(eds.), The Symbolic Role of Animals in Archaeology, Philadelphia: MASCA Research Papers Vol. 12, p. 7–8.

D’ERRICO, VANHAEREN 2002

d’Errico F., Vanhaeren Marian, Criteria for Identifying Red Deer (Cervus Elaphus) Age and Sex from Their Canines. Application to the study of Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Ornaments, in JAS 29, p. 211–232.

ELENSKI 2004 Elenski N., Frühneolitische zoomorphe Figurinen aus dem zentralen Nordbulgarien, in Nikolov V., Bačvarov K. (eds.), Von Domica bis Drama. Gedenkschrift für Jan Lichardus, Sofia, p. 17–24.

ELENSKI 2006 Еленски Н., Един тип “лабрети“ от ранния неолит на Балканския полуострв – функция и представа (една възможна интерпретация) (One type of “labrets” from the Balkans’ Early Neolithic – function and idea (one possible interpretation)), in Известия на регионален исторически музей – Велико Търново (Bulletin of Regional Historical Museum – Veliko Turnovo) XXI, p. 9–14.

ELENSKI 2008 Еленски Н., Ранонеолитното селищте Беляковец – Плочите, Великотърновско (The Early Neolithic settlement of Belykovec – Plochite, the region of Veliko Turnovo), in Известия на регионален исторически музей – Велико Търново (Bulletin of Regional Historical Museum – Veliko Turnovo) XXIII, p. 7–75.

GARAŠANIN 1973 Гарашанин М., Праисторија на тлу СР Србије [Praistorija na tlu SR Srbije], Београд: Српска књижевна задруга.

GEORGIEV 1967 Georgiev G., Beiträge zur Erfoschung des Neolithikums und der Bronzezeit in Südbulgarien, in ArchAus 42, p. 90–144.

GREENFIELD 2008 Greenfield H. J., The Vertebrate Fauna from Hajdučka Vodenica in the Danubian Iron Gates: Subsistence and Taphonomy from the Early Neolithic and Mesolithic, in Bonsall C., Boroneanţ V., Radovanović Ivana (eds.) The Iron Gates in Prehistory: New perspectives, BAR 1893, p. 205–226.

HILL 2014 Hill Erica, Imagining Animals In Prehistoric Religions, in Meier T., Tillessen P. (eds.), Archaeological Imaginations Of Religion, Archaeolingua, Budapest, p. 265–281.

HODDER 1990 Hodder I., The domestication of Europe, Oxford.HOUGHTON-BRODERICK 1972

Houghton-Broderick A., Animals in the Aegean, in Houghton-Broderick A., Animals in archaeology, London, p. 90–114.

IGNJATOVIĆ 2008 Игњатовић М., Каталог [Katalog], in Николић Дубравка (ed.), Винча – праисторијска метропола. Истраживања 1908–2008. [Vinča, praistorijska nekropola. Istraživanja 1908–2008], Beograd, p. 203–277.

INGOLD ED. 1995 Ingold T., (ed.), What is an Animal?, Routledge, London, New York.


IVANOVIĆ 1983 Ivanović M., Prilozi o spomenicima Metohije, Novobrdske Krive Reke, Sirinićke i Nikšićke župe (Contributions relatives aux monuments de la Metohija, de la Novobrdska Kriva Reka et des joupas (cantons) de Sirinić et de Nikšić), in Saopštenje XV, p. 195–220.

JONES 1998 Jones Andrew, Where Eagles Dare. Landscape, Animals and the Neolithic of Orkney, in JMC 3, 3, p. 301–324.

JOVANOVIĆ, GLIŠIĆ 1961 Jовановић Б., Глишић Ј., Енеолитско насеље на Кормадину код Јакова (Station éneolithique dans la localité de Kormadin près de Jakovo), in Starinar N. S. II, p. 113–139.

KALICZ, RACZKY 1981 Kalicz N., Raczky P., The Precursors to the “horns of consecration” in the Southeast European Neolithic, in ActaArchHung 33, p. 5–20.

KARMANSKI 2005 Karmanski S., Donja Branjevina: A Neolithic Settlement Near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia), Società per la preistoria e protoistoria della regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, quaderno 10.

KUTZIÁN 1947 Kutzián Ida, The Körös Culture, Budapest. LEKOVIĆ 1985 Leković V., The Starčevo Mortuary Practices – New Perspectives, in Godišnjak XXIII,

p. 157–172.LUCA ET AL 2008 Luca S. A., Diaconescu D., Suciu C. I., Archaeological Research in Miercurea Sibiului

– Petriş (Sibiu County, Romania): Starčevo – Criş level during 1997–2005 (a preliminary report), in DP XXXV, p. 325–343.

LUIK 2007 Luik Heidi, Dazzling White. Bone Artefacts in Bronze Age Society – Some Preliminary thoughts from Estonia, in Merkevičius A. (ed.), Colours of archaeology. Material culture and society. Papers from the Second Theoretical Seminar of the Baltic Archaeologists (BASE) Held at the University of Vilnius, Lithuania, October 21–22, 2005,Vilnius, p. 49–64.

MAKKAY 2007 Makkay J., The Excavations of the Early Neolithic Sites of the Koros Culture in the Koros Valley (Hungary), Quaderni Società Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia.

MARCINIAK 2005 Marciniak A., Placing Animals in the Neolithic. Social Zooarchaeology of Prehistoric Farming Communities. London, UCL press.

MARJANOVIĆ 2008 Marjanović Vesna, Osvrt na zabrane nošenja obrednih maski na evropskom i srpskom prostoru, in RVM 50, p. 263–271.

MATSANOVA 1996 Matsanova Velitchka, Cult Objects from the Early Neolithic Site at the Town of Rakitovo, in Poročilo Slovenia XXIII, p. 105–127.

MCGHEE 1977 McGhee R., Ivory for the Sea Women: the Symbolic Attributes of a Prehistoric Technology, in CJA 1, p. 141–149.

MCPHERRON ET AL 1988 McPherron A., Rasson Judith, Galdikas B., Other Artifact Categories, in McPherron A., Srejović D. (eds.), Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia, Pittsburgh p. 325–343.

MELLAART 1961 Mellaart J., Excavations at Hacılar: Fourth Preliminary Report, 1960, in AnatolianSt 11, p. 39–75.

MELLAART 1964 Mellaart J., Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1963, Third Preliminary Report, in AnatolianSt 14, p. 39–119.

MELLAART 1975 Mellaart J., The Neolithic of the Near East, London. MIKHAILOVA 2006 Mikhailova Natalie, The Cult of the Deer and “Shamans” in Deer Hunting Societiy, in

ArchBaltica 7, p. 187–198.MILOJKOVIĆ 1990 Milojković Jasmina, The Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic Figurines, in Tringham

Ruth, Krstić D. (eds.), Selevac. A Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia, Los Angeles, p. 397–436.

MORALES MUÑIZ, MORALES MUÑIZ 1995

Morales Muñiz Lola Carmen, Morales Muñiz A., The Spanish Bullfight: Some Historical Aspects, Traditional Interpretations, and Comments of Archaeozoological Interest for the Study of Ritual Slaughter, in Ryan Kathleen, Crabtree Pam J., (eds.), The Symbolic Role of Animals in Archaeology, Philadelphia: MASCA Research Papers Vol. 12, p. 91–105.


MORRIS 2005 Morris J.T., Red deer’s role in social expressions on the Isles of Scotland, in Pluskowski A. (ed.), Just Skin and Bones? New Perspectives on Human-Animal Relations in the Historical Past, BAR 1410, Oxford, p. 9–18.

NANDRIS 1972 Nandris J., Bos primigenius and the Bone Spoon, in Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, London, 10, 1971, p. 63–82.

NIKOLIĆ, ZEČEVIĆ 2001 Nikolić Dubravka, Zečević Jasna, Blagotin. Istraživanja 1989–1999, Beograd. NIKOLOV 2006 Николов В., Култура и изкуство на преисторическа Тракия [Kultura i

izkustvo na preistoričeska Trakia], Пловдив. OMA 2007 Oma Kristin Armstrong, Human-animal Relationships. Mutual Becomings in

Scandinavian and Sicilian Households 900–500 BC, Oslo Archaeological Series vol. 9, Oslo.

PAPPATHANASSOPOULOS 1981

Pappathanassopoulos G., Neolithic and Cycladic Civilization, Athens, Melissa.

PETROVIĆ 1985 Petrović Jelka, Vizić/Golokut. Neolitsko naselje, in Arh pregled 24, p. 49–50. PETROVIĆ 1987 Petrović Jelka, Zemunica u naselju starčevačke kulture na Golokutu, in RVM 30,

p. 13–27. PLUSKOWSKI ED. 2005 Pluskowski A. (ed.), Just Skin and Bones? New Perspectives on Human-Animal Relations

in the Historical Past, BAR 1410, Oxford. RADOVANOVIĆ 1996 Radovanović Ivana, The Iron Gates Mesolithic, Ann Arbor, Michigan. RAJKOVIĆ 2014 Rajković Dragana, Kneževi Vinogradi – Osnovna škola, in Balen Jacqueline, Hršak

T., Šošić Klindžić Rajna (eds.), Darovi zemlje. Neolitik između Save, Drave i Dunava. Drugi dio: kataloške jedinice, Zagreb, Osijek, p. 50–54.

REITZ, WING 2008 Reitz Elisabeth J., Wing Elisabeth S., Zooarchaeology, 2nd edition, Cambridge.RODDEN 1962 Rodden R. Excavations at the Early Neolithic Site at Nea Nikomedeia, Greek Macedonia

(1961 season), in ProceedingsPS 28, 267–288.RUSSELL 1998 Russell Nerissa, Cattle as Wealth in Neolithic Europe: Where’s the Beef?, in Bailey D. W.

(ed.), The Archaeology of Value: Essays on Prestige and the Processes of Valuation, BAR, Oxford, p. 42–54.

RUSSELL 1999 Russell Nerissa, Symbolic Dimensions of Animals and Meat at Opovo, Yugoslavia, in Robb J. E. (ed.) Material Symbols Culture and Economy in Prehistory, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale, Occasional Paper No. 26, p. 153–172.

RUSSELL 2012 Russell Nerissa, Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory, New York,.RYAN, CRABTREE ED. 1995

Ryan Kathleen, Crabtree Pam J., (eds.), The Symbolic Role of Animals in Archaeology, Philadelphia: MASCA Research Papers Vol. 12.

SCHULTING 1996 Schulting R. J., Antlers, Bone Pins and Flint Blades: The Mesolithic Cemeteries of Téviec and Hoëdic, Brittany, in Antiquity 70/ 268, p. 335–350.

SEETAH 2005 Seetah Krish, Butchery as a Tool for Understanding the Changing Views of Animals: Cattle in Roman Britain, in Pluskowski A. (ed.), Just Skin and Bones? New Perspectives on Human-Animal Relations in the Historical Past, BAR 1410, Oxford, p. 1–8.

SÉFÉRIADèS 1992 Séfériadès M., L’os et le bois de cervidé, in Treuil R. (ed.), Dikili Tash. Village préhistorique de Macédoine orientale I. Fouilles de Jean Deshayes (1961–1975), Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, supplément XXIV, p. 99–112.

SIDÉRA 2013 Sidéra Isabelle, Manufacturing Bone Tools: The Example of Kovačevo, in Miladinović-Radmilović Nataša, Vitezović Selena (ed.), Bioarheologija na Balkanu. Bilans i perspektive. Radovi bioarheološke sekcije Srpskog arheološkog društva, Beograd-Sremska Mitrovica, p. 173–178.

SPASIĆ 2012 Spasić M., Cattle to Settle – Bull to Rule: On Bovine Iconography among Late Neolithic Vinča Culture Communities, in DP XXXIX, p. 295–308.

SREJOVIĆ, LETICA 1978 Срејовић Д., Летица Загорка, Власац. Мезолитско насеље у Ђердапу. (Vlasac. A Mesolithic settlement in the Iron Gates. Vol I, Archaeology), Beograd, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Monographies, vol. DXII.


STANKOVIĆ 1990 Станковић С., Представа бика у старијем неолиту (Bull representations in the Early Neolithic), in Starinar N. S. XL–XLI, p. 35–42.

STANKOVIĆ 1992 Stanković S., Kultna mesta i predmeti u starijeneolitskim kulturama centralnobalkanskog područja, PhD thesis, Belgrade University (mss.).

STANKOVIĆ, LEKOVIĆ 1993

Stanković S., Leković V., Neolithic Settlement at Blagotin, in Glasnik SAD 9, p. 177–179.

TAYLOR, ELLIOTT 2010 Taylor B., Elliott B., Perceptions of the Environment in Prehistory. Paper presented at 16th Annual meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists. Den Haag, Netherlands.

TÓTH 2012 Tóth Zsuszsanna, Bone, Antler And Tusk Tools of the Early Neolithic Körös Culture, in Anders A., Siklósi Zs. (eds.), Central/South-East European Transect, volume III: The Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary, BAR 2334, Oxford, p. 171–178.

TWISS, RUSSELL 2009 Twiss Katheryn C., Russell Nerissa, Taking the Bull by the Horns: Ideology, Masculinity, and Cattle Horns at Çatalhöyük (Turkey), in Paléorient 35(2), p. 19–32.

VITEZOVIĆ 2011A Vitezović Selena, Koštana industrija u starijem i srednjem neolitu centralnog Balkana, PhD thesis, Belgrade University (mss.).

VITEZOVIĆ 2011B Vitezović Selena, Oh, dear! Deer as Material Culture in the Iron Gates Mesolithic (Eastern Serbia), Poster presented at Deer and people conference, Lincolnshire, UK, 8–11. sept. 2011.

VITEZOVIĆ 2012A Vitezović Selena, The White Beauty – Starčevo Culture Jewellery, in DP XXXIX, p. 215–226.

VITEZOVIĆ 2012B Витезовић Селена, Коштани пројектили са локалитета Старчево–Град (Osseous projectiles from the site Starčevo–Grad), in Glasnik SAD 2, p. 233–246.

VUKOVIĆ 2005 Vuković Jasna, The Blagotin Amulets and Their Place in the Early Neolithic of the Central Balkans, in Glasnik SAD 21, p. 27–44.

WHITTLE ET AL 2002 Whittle A., Bartosiewicz L., Borić D., Pettit P., Richards M., In the Beginning: New Radiocarbon Dates for the Early Neolithic in Northern Serbia and South-East Hungary, in Antaeus 25, p. 63–117.

WILLIS ED. 1995 Willis R. (ed.), Signifying Animals: Human Meaning in the Natural World, Routledge, London and New York.

Documents

Animal symbolism in Starčevo culture