Mle Kuz 2007

7/29/2019 Mle Kuz 2007

1/14

267

UDK 903'1(450.36+497.4)''633\634''>330.342

Documenta Praehistorica XXXIV (2007)

Sheep are your mother> rhyta and the interspecies politicsin the Neolithic of the eastern Adriatic

Dimitrij Mleku/Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, SI

[email protected]

Introduction

The four-legged cult vessel or rhyton is a vessel ofspecific and distinctive shape, found in middle andlate Neolithic contexts of the western Balkans. Its cu-rious shape and decoration has puzzled many resear-ches; most of them agree that their distinctive shapehad a specific purpose.

Recent theories have suggested that artefacts aremuch more than just objects: they are active subjectsin a web of relationships between persons and things(Gell 1998; Latour 2005). I develop the argumentthat persons in the Neolithic of east Adriatic inclu-ded not only humans, but also animals. Thus rela-tionships between animals and humans must be un-derstood as social relations. Animals also had thepower to act back and influence human lives, there-fore making relations between species political.

I explore the role of rhyta in the politics of human-animal relations in the Neolithic of the western Bal-kans. The main issues I tackle are: what makes rhyta

agents, and how they can transform and modify so-cial relations between people and animals?

Traditional studies of rhyta

The origins of rhyta are blurred, and it is not my in-

tention in this paper to make them any clearer (formore recent detailed discussion of the chronologyand origins of rhyta see Biagi 2003; Marijanovi2007).

Rhyta are probably connected with the zoomorphicvessels and altars which are a common feature ofthe early Neolithic contexts of the southern and cen-tral Balkans, together with monochrome or paintedpottery, figurines, zoomorphic amulets, clay tripodsand stamp seals (Nea Nikomedeia in Greece Macedo-nia, Rakitovo in Bulgaria and Donja Branjevina in

Serbia). This particular form of zoomorphic vessel,the rhyton, seems to appear after 6000 calBC some-where in the southern or western Balkans.

ABSTRACT This paper explores the relations between humans and animals through material cul-

ture, or more specifically, four-footed vessels also called rhyta (sing. rhyton). I want to suggest thatrhyta are not merely artistic representations of something or some kind of cult paraphernalia, butthat they embody effective social agency. I place them in the context of human-animal or interspe-cies politics in the Neolithic of the eastern Adriatic.

IZVLEEK Vlanku raziskujem odnose med ljudmi inivalmi skozi materialno kulturo, preko ti-rinogih posod, imenovanih tudi ritoni. Ritoni niso le umetnike upodobitve neesa ali nekaki kultnipripomoki, temveuteleajo mono delovanje. Njihovo delovanje raziskujem v kontekstu politikeodnosov med ljudmi in ivalmi v neolitiku vzhodnega Jadrana.

KEY WORDS rhyton; animals; archaeology; art; cult; Neolithic; east Adriatic

7/29/2019 Mle Kuz 2007

2/14

Dimitrij Mleku/

268

Possibly the earliest dated frag-ment comes from Achileion, mid-dle Neolithic phase IIIb, dated toaround 6000 calBC (Gimbutas

et. al 1989.Fig. 7.69). A few frag-ments of rhyta were found ineastern Albanian early Neolithicsites such as Vashtmi (Korkuti1982.145; Korkuti 1995.Taf. 15)and Bar (Lera 1993.31). Alba-nian rhyta are often found in con-texts with Impressed Ware (sug-gesting Mediterranean influen-ces) on the one hand, and paintedpottery, clay tripods or cult tab-les, anthropomorphic and zoo-

morphic figurines, split-leg figuri-nes, clay pins and stamp seals (as-semblages common in the centraland eastern Balkans; see for ex-ampleBudja 2003) on the other.

Some recent finds of rhyta from early Neolithic Im-pressed Ware contexts from Dalmatia (Crno Vrilo;Marijanovi2007) and Italian Apulia (Caverna Elia,Le Macchie;Biagi 2003) are keeping the discussionof their origins alive.

In a few hundred years after 6000 calBC the rhytabecame a characteristic element of the Middle Neoli-thic cultures of the western Balkans, such as Daniloand Kakanj on the eastern Adriatic coast and Bosnia,and Cakran, Dunavec and Topoljan in Albania. After5600 calBC they can be found at a wide range ofsites from the Peleponnese in the south to the Tries-tine Karst in the north, from Kosovo and centralBosnia in the east and the Italian mainland and theLipari Islands to the west (Fig. 1).

Their curious shape has provoked many interpreta-tions of their function. Almost every commentatoron these vessels agrees that they have some specificpurpose. They have been called scoops (Ihde 1995),salt-pots (Chapman 1989) or coal-scuttle vases(Weinberg 1965). However, most authors have gran-ted them cult status, therefore calling them cultrhyta or four-footed vessels.

Most authors put them in the context of fertility cults.Josip Koroec (1958.5559; 1964.7374) saw themas vessels used in libation-like rituals used in the

worship of water, and later see them as stylized re-presentation of the (human) female lower torso, andas female pendants to a male phallus cult. ime Ba-

tovi interpreted them as lamps used in the worshipof ancestors. In his later works he points to the zoo-morphic qualities of rhyta and connects them withpastoralists and animal fertility (Batovi1958; 1979.560). Alojz Benac (1964.6566; 1973.38; 1979.403405) saw them as symbols of life and fertility of ani-

mals and fields. He interprets ring handles as rep-resentations of curved animal horns. In the sameway, Borivoj ovi (1976.2224) explained them asinstruments used in a cult of fertility of women, ani-mals and land. The oval receptacle, often paintedred, represents the uterus, where the legs stand forthe teats of the udder. He believes that they are partof Near Eastern mother goddess worship.

Slavia Peri (1996), in his detailed interpretation ofrhyta, follows the same line of thought. He sees them

as a representation of the womb, udder and teats ofdifferent species of animals, especially sheep andgoats, pigs and cattle. He uses the shape of the legs(which he interprets as teats) to differentiate the ani-mals which were represented by the rhyta, such ascows (common in Kakanj culture) or sows (in Thes-saly).

We might argue that the fact that researches haveseen many things in them testify that they are notsimple representation, but ambiguous depictions in-volving powerful imagery composed of elements

composed of attributes animal/female/fertility/nur-ture attributes. But can this abundance of female/ani-mal-fertility imagery condensed in rhyta be under-

Fig. 1. Geographical distribution of rhyta.

7/29/2019 Mle Kuz 2007

3/14

Sheep are your mother> rhyta and the interspecies politics in the Neolithic of the eastern Adriatic

269

stood in simplistic terms of fertility rites and mothergoddess worship? Their ambiguity suggests that arepolyvalent and multi-referential; they mean not onething, but can condense a whole range of different

meanings (see Thomas 2005).Researchers have sought to create trans-regional cul-tural connections based on the similarities of rhytafrom a wide area. Their wide distribution is oftenseen as an effect of the seasonal or nomadic migra-tions of pastoralists (for examplePeri1996; Mon-tagnari Kokelj 2003), an idea deriving from richethnographic data from the Balkans (such as Vlachsor Sarakatsani).

However, we might question the assumption that re-

semblance over a wide area necessarily means thatthey were used in the same way. Modern ethnogra-phically documented pastoral practices, used to ex-plain the distribution of rhyta, are not remnants fromthe deep past, or timeless adaptations to the Mediter-ranean landscape. Modern pastoralism is a complexresult of adaptations to different natural and histori-cal rhythms, economic conjectures, political processesand events, and above all, the emergence of capita-lism. The projection of modern pastoral practices intothe past to explain Neolithic social processes is there-fore utter anachronism (seeMleku2003; 2005).

East Adriatic Neolithic communities

Rhyta can be found in a variety of contexts alongthe eastern Adriatic coast. The Neolithic on the east-ern Adriatic coast is not a homogenous and totali-zing entity. It has different forms, the results of diffe-rent historical processes which accompanied andmodulated the adoption of novel resources and life-styles. A useful heuristic device for distinguishingdifferent historical processes along the east Adriatic

coast is the division of sites into two groups: campsand villages (Mleku2005).

Cave sites are located in mountainous hinterland,away from lowlands suitable for cultivation. Theyare marked by low densities of pottery and animalbone, the majority of which are ovicaprine. Cavesites are usually deep, with long occupational histo-ries, often extending back into the Paleolithic. Cavescan be interpreted as seasonal hunting or herdingcamps. Archaeological, geoarchaeological and archa-eozoological data suggest that they were used as

sheep pens and shelters for small, autarchic andvery mobile (nomadic) groups, which relied heavilyon large flocks of ovicaprines (Mleku2005).

This archaeological record is in striking contrast tothe lowland settlements located near water sourcesand land suitable for agriculture (Mller 1994).These sites usually yield evidence of architecture,

large quantities of pottery, and domesticated plantsand animals. They can be identified as villages, prac-ticing a mixed farming subsistence economy. Low-lands are settled by predominately small-scale, dis-persed settlement units, often abandoned or reloca-ted (Chapman et al. 1996.335343). Most Neolithicstock keeping in villages seems to have been smallscale, involving localized movements around settle-ments, predominately in the lowlands. Althoughsome faunal assemblages are dominated by small-stock, most display a mixture of livestock speciesmore reminiscent of small-scale mixed farmers.

Interspecies politics

In contemporary western societies, the functions ofraising, slaughtering, and consuming is usually sub-ject to a division of labour, where the consumer ofmeat does not meet the slaughterer or the raiser ofthe livestock. But among Neolithic societies everyperson was a herder, sacrificer, slaughterer and con-sumer of the animal at the same time:

Neolithic lives and worlds were undoubtedly dif-ferent from our own. Their relations with animalswere closer, part of everyday life, a substantial partof economic/social relations. Relations with ani-mals may have been mediated through relationswith other persons (and vice versa), but the con-nections between one person and another, oneperson and their domestic animals or prey, mayhave been extremely important for the identity ofthat person (e.g. through food taboos, or throughshared aspects of identity between people and cer-tain animals). Neolithic personal experience may

have been greatly shaped by the animals they bred,exchanged, hunted with, hunted, ate (Fowler 2001.160).

Our relations with animals are specific to our histo-rical context, and rooted in Western ontological as-sumptions which distinguish between people (agents,subjects), animals (non-intentional, prey, predators,pets), and objects (non-sentient things) (Nadasdy2007.26).

Human and non-human persons

Irving Hallowell observed that the Ojibwe, withwhom he worked, thought of animals (not to men-

7/29/2019 Mle Kuz 2007

4/14

Dimitrij Mleku/

270

tion inanimate objects) as sentient and intelligentpersons. For the Ojibwe (and other circumpolar peo-ples) the concept of the person transcends humanbeings:

All animate beings of the person class are unifiedconceptually in Ojibwa thinking because they havea similar structure an inner vital part that is en-during and an outward form (e.g.human, animal,stone, etc.) which can change. Vital personal attri-butes such as sentience, volition, memory, speechare not dependent on outward appearance, butupon the inner vital essence of being (Hallowell1960.21, my emphasis).

Hunting in these societies is a long-term relation-

ship of reciprocal exchange between animals andhumans. Hunter-gatherers believe that they can onlycatch animals when the animal gives itself to themvoluntary. Hunting is understood as a rite of regene-ration: consumption follows the killing of an animal,just as birth follows intercourse, and both acts areintegral to the reproductive cycles of animals andhumans. However, animals can be offended. Theywill not return to a hunter who has treated thembadly in the past, and they can be offended if theirmeat is not properly shared among all those in thecommunity who need it.

Regeneration of lifeworld depends upon a mainte-nance of balance in the reciprocal give-and-take ofvital forces. Animals give life to humans, but humansshould receive only what is offered, rather than seekto extract vitality by force (Ingold 2000.123).

Trust and domination

Robert Brightman (1993) argues that there exists a

tension between two distinct and mutually contra-dictory principles governing human-animal relationsamong the Rock Cree. These are the principles ofreciprocity on one hand, and domination on theother. He argues that although Cree hunters do sub-scribe to the notion that animals surrender themsel-ves to hunters, at other times these same huntersthink of themselves as locked in an advisory relation-ship with animals, who are conceived as powerfulbeings that must be overcome and dominated if thehunters are to survive (Nadasdy 2007.27).

Tim Ingold (2000.6176) developed this idea in themutually exclusive principles of trust and domina-tion.

On the other hand, Paul Nadsady (2007.2628) ar-gues that there is no theoretical need to make suchas distinction; moreover, to do so is to artificially se-parate aspects which form a coherent whole: they

must be understood within a general theory of giftand exchange (for exampleMauss 1954; Godelier1999).

The notion that the principle of domination is some-how opposed to the principle of reciprocity is incon-sistent with anthropological understandings of ex-change. Altruistic giving is rare: gifts are neither spon-taneous, nor freely given. There are many examplesof reciprocal exchange systems that embroil theirparticipants in unequal, competitive, and even adver-sary relations:

There is a tension, but it is a tension inherent inthe gift relationship itself, rather than arising froma contradiction between two distinct principles oftrust and domination. animals must be viewedas powerful and dangerous trading partners (Na-dasdy 2007.28).

Pastoralism

When hunters became pastoralists they began to re-late to animals, and to one another, in different

ways. The incorporation of tame animals in a hu-man household, where animals gain the status ofquasi-persons, is the first pre-condition for pastora-lism. Tame animals are ubiquitous in hunter-gathe-rer societies, where they have the role of hunting as-sistants, transport animals, or decoys (Ingold 1980.95112). Pastoral property relations become expli-cit when the status of animals changes from agentsof production to sources of food. It is also a changein the animals status from quasi-persons to resour-ces. Animals in the pastoral mode of production be-

come means of reproducing the social relations ofpastoral production. Reproduction and the multipli-cation of domestic animals make possible the accu-mulation of wealth (Ingold 1980.144). The slaugh-ter of domestic animals frees people from the obli-gations of sharing that apply in the case of huntedanimals. Social fragmentation into autonomous, self-sufficient domestic units is therefore not the cause,but the effect of drawing on domestic herds for sub-sistence.Tim Ingold describes the new relations between hu-mans and animals in pastoralism as domination:

It is the herdsman who takes life-or-death deci-sions concerning what are now his animals, and

7/29/2019 Mle Kuz 2007

5/14


271

who controls every other aspect of their welfare,acting as he does as both protector, guardian andexecutioneer. He sacrifies them; they do not sac-rifice themselves to him (Ingold 2000.72).

But pastoral animals are not only good to eat orthink, they are also to follow Donna Harraway(2003) good to live with. The social relations be-tween domestic animals and people are different,but also much closer and intimate than relations withwild animals. Animals are not only socialized in hu-man societies, but they also socialize people in theirherds. This sociability affects both species, humanand non-human, and new social forms emerge, withanimal and human peoples societies acting uponeach other and creating new social relations.

Thus in the upland caves of the eastern Adriatic hin-terland, humans and sheep shared living spaces,smells and sounds, and herds dictated the movementfrom cave to cave in search of pasture. However, liveanimals were probably less involved in the exchangeand social relations between isolated and autarkichouseholds.

This sociability might have been different in perma-nent lowland settlements, where animals were pro-bably physically separated from humans, but more

involved in relations between families through giftsor bridewealth.

Pastoralists, when asked about their animals, talkabout them in the same way as hunters do. Navajouse the metaphor of mother, generalized reciprocity,when they speak about their sheep: those calledsheep are your mother, sheep are life (Wither-spoon 1973.1442). And even if we accept that thereare elements of domination in human-animal rela-tions under pastoralism, they are not prevalent. Ani-

mals and people are involved in tight social rela-tions, and in order to maintain long term relation-ships, politics of reciprocity between humans andanimals must be maintained.

Pastoralists depend on herds, their growth and accu-mulation. They live in constant fear of epidemics andnatural disasters that might exterminate the herd(seeIngold 1980.163176). To protect against futurecatastrophes and to maintain the reproduction andgrowth of herds, humans must rely on maintaininga balance in the reciprocal give-and-take of life-force

(see Witherspoon 1973). Animals (or their spiritualmasters) can be offended and they will not returnherders who have treated them badly or wasted the

life-force. This means that animals have the powerto act back and alter human life. Relations betweenanimals and humans are therefore political. The po-litics between animals and humans is not based on

human domination, but rather on balanced recipro-cal relations derived from an animistic ontology oflife-force flow.

The slaughter of an animal incurs a spiritual debtthat must be repaid through the observance of awhole series of different ritual attitudes and practi-ces. Thus among pastoralist, animals are never slau-ghtered, but sacrificed. Sacrifice, like hunting, is con-nected with many taboos and must be performed inthe proper way, otherwise it might disrupt relationsbetween humans and animals (seeEvans-Pritchard

1956.196230; Abbink 2003).

Animals are therefore simultaneously sacrificial vic-tims (as cooked meat, consumed by the humans)and, among the sacrificial recipients, as the life-forceor inner vital essence of being of sacrificed animalis returned to animals. This reciprocity often inclu-des middle persons, such as the spirits and spiri-tual owners of animals; however, the principle of ex-change of life-force is the same as in hunting.

This might have very deep implications for our un-

derstanding of Neolithic herd management strate-gies, as derived from faunal records and kill-off cur-ves. Neolithic herd management might not havebeen aimed at optimizing the production of meator milk. Instead, it might have been based on theprinciple of the reciprocal flow of the life-force andthe idea that more (proper) slaughtering (e.g. sacri-fice) produces more animals.

Hunting and pastoralism must be understood as aset of social relations not only among humans, but

also between human and animal persons (Nadasdy2007.29). These relations have profound political di-mensions. In the following chapters I am going todevelop the argument that rhyta were intertwinedin this network of relations between people and ani-mals, held it in place and modified it through theirown agency.

Iconicity of rhyta

Main point of departure of this paper is to treat rhytanot as mere representations. They might have some

often ambigous iconic resemblance to animals,humans, or body parts, but this resemblance is notin the function of representing them, but rather in

7/29/2019 Mle Kuz 2007

6/14

Dimitrij Mleku/

272

revealing the hidden properties of animals and hu-mans and their relations.

Depictions of animals

Tim Ingold, in his essay Totemism, Animism and theDepiction of Animals (Ingold 2000.111131) showsthat depictions of animals by hunter-gatherers fromAustralia and the circumpolar North explain and canbe explained by their respective totemic and animi-stic ontologies.

In the Australian totemic ontology, the life force isconcentrated in the land, set down in the era of theDreaming by powerful ancestral beings who movedacross landscape and deposited their life-force in the

processes of creation and transformation of places.The land embodies the creative powers of the ance-stors, and humans and animals relate primarily tothe land.

By contrast, Ingold argues, the vital force in animi-stic ontology is distributed among beings that inha-bit the world. These beings are mutually engagedwith one another, creating a complex network of re-ciprocal interdependence based on the exchange ofsubstances and vital force. The life of one being ispredicated on the mortality of another, making the

transformation and becoming essential for the main-tenance of the flow of life.

The difference is also expressed in ceremonial prac-tices and depictions of animals. In Australia, animalsare portrayed as static and associated with the mor-phology of the landscape, a world which is alreadymade, not in the making (Ingold 2000.120). Songs,dances and storytelling re-enact ancestral activity,stressing their co-substantiality with the ancestors.

In the circumpolar north, carved wooden mask re-veal the agencies of animals. They are not realisticrepresentations of animals, but use distorted humanfeatures to capture the underlying character of the

animal (Ingold 2000.124). Masks have the power toinvoke the spirits of animals during rituals.

Rhyta as depictions

Rhyta are not aniconic. Rhyta imagery is composedof attributes and features of animal and human bo-dies. There is obviously a high degree of ambiguitypresent. Some rhyta are explicitly anthropomorphic.Most have zoomorphic qualities. Some are human-animal hybrids, and some resemble animals fromone viewpoint, but can also be like part of an animal,

perhaps the udder, from another (Fig. 2).

The most distinctive and recognizable features arethe four legs which support the torso and ring han-dle. Legs can appear in many shapes, from thin andlong to short and swollen. Some even have elabora-ted tips, shaped as animal hoofs or (rarely) as humanfeet. Wide voluminous legs are often pointed, ambi-guously suggesting that they can also represent fullteats.

There is a class of rhyta which is obviously anthro-

pomorphic (Fig. 3). They represent part of the hu-man torso in a kneeling or crouching position, withlegs widely apart. An enormous rounded belly restson thighs. The abdomen is opened. There is no up-per torso; instead, a large ring is fixed on the backof the rhyta.

When a rhyton is positioned on a level surface infront of us, the legs are hidden from view, and onlytwo features become prominent: the large ring and

the empty volume of the

interior of the abdomen.They clearly show whatrhyta primarily display:the interior of the bodyor abdomen.

Alfred Gell (1998.141142) states that idolsor sculptural works in-tended for cult use ra-ther than mere repre-sentations are often me-

rely hollow envelopes,possessing significantinteriors. He cites the

Fig. 2. Some examples of rhyta: 1, 2 Obre I (Benac 1979.Tab. LVIII); 3, 4 Smil-i (Batovi 1979.Tab. LXXXV).

7/29/2019 Mle Kuz 2007

7/14


273

examples of hollowmauri stones, hollow sorcery-images, or a class of medieval sculptures calledvie-rges ouvrantes, an image of the Virgin which canbe opened to reveal a representation of the Trinity

in her abdomen.Also appropriate examples are the masks of circum-polar peoples (Ingold 2000.111131, see above),with hinged doors that open to reveal a face, effect-ing a transformation which reveals the true face ofthe animal. Other masks achieve the same effect byexploiting ambiguous imagery using figure-groundreversal illusions. A mask may look realistic fromone angle, but from another can show entirely diffe-rent features and a different face (Ingold 2000.124).Again, it is the interior of the idol which hides the

true face and the mask is merely a surface whichkeeps it contained until the dramatic event of trans-formation: [t]he metamorphosis is not coveringup, but an opening up, of the person to the world(Ingold 2000.94).

Artefacts that resemble the body have the particularpower to be attributed with agency. They achievetheir effectiveness in invoking a projection of themind through an iconicity of internality/externality.Rhyta can be seen as containers, skins around signi-ficant interiors. Their agency is attributed through

the invocation of an interior beyond the beyond thesurface of the artefact. This correspond to the animi-stic view of personhood, where vital personal attri-butes such as sentience, volition, memory and speechare not dependent on outward appearances, butupon the inner vital essence of being.

The most important modes to communicate the pro-perty internal to the artefact are orifices and enclo-sures. Especially agentive are artefacts with eyes, aparticularly effective icon of mind. Rhyta do not have

eyes. Instead, they have a large ring, a circular ope-ning that might resemble a vagina or wound, espe-cially as the ring is often covered with red pigment(see below). Rings thus communicate an internalproperty of rhyta which can be connected to the in-ner vital essence of being.

However, containment is of little value if substan-ces contained inside the container can not pass tothe outside and vice versa. This opening might havea temporal dimension, as an act of opening, perhapsthrough the deliberate breaking of a rhyton. It can

also be communicated through the iconicity of a rhy-ton. Anthropomorphic rhyta which depict women gi-ving birth in a kneeling or crouching position there-

fore communicate the process of transformation orflow of life-force contained in a rhyton (Fig. 3).

Skins and envelopes

Rhyta can be therefore understood as skins or en-veleopes around significant interiors. Some of themhave bare skin, with smooth, polished surfaces. How-ever, large numbers of rhyta are ornamented withincised decoration covering the whole surface (skin)of the vessel (Figs 4, 5). Some parts are omitted: in-side parts of the legs, the interior of the receptacle,the interior part of the handle. The repertoire of mo-tifs is shared with contemporary pottery, such ashatched triangles, spirals, chess-boards, zigzags, andrunning spirals etc. However, they are used in a dif-

ferent way than on pots, as they cover the whole sur-face and not only the perimeter of the pot. The ringreceives special attention; it is emphasized with diffe-rent decoration from the rest of the rhyta (Fig. 4).

According to Gell (1996;1998.7394), ornamentalart is much more than a function of aesthetic plea-sure. Objects decorated with skilfully executed geo-metrical and decorative patterns appear animated ina non-representational way, as parts of the patternrelate to neighbouring motifs, thus testifying to theagency of the pattern and object as a whole. This

dance of complex patterns, their multiplicity andthe difficulty we have in grasping the logic of inter-play between them, draws our attention and catches

Fig. 3. Anthropomorphic rhyton from Smili(Ba-tovi 1979.Tab. XCII).

7/29/2019 Mle Kuz 2007

8/14

Dimitrij Mleku/

274

it in the unfinished business of de-ciphering its logic.

However, this unfinished business

of unravelling the geometric patterncauses us to relate to an artefact in aspecial way. The inexhaustible pat-tern, always in a state of being deci-phered, creates a long-term, biogra-phical relation between the decora-ted artefact and the person looking atit, in the same way as watching andcontemplating animals create bondof domestication and close social re-lations. Evans Pritchard describeshow the bond between the Nuer and

their cattle is created and maintainedthrough acts of looking:

The men wake about dawn at camp in the midstof their cattle and sit contentedly watching themtill milking is finished. Then they take them topasture and spend the day watching them graze When the cattle return in the evening they tethereach beast and sit in the windscreens to contem-plate them and watch them being milked (Evans-Pritchard 1940.3637, cited inIngold 1980.181).

Complex geometric patterns can serve as mind-trapsand can be used in a apotropeic role as demon-traps(Gell 1996; 1998.8690).

Colour

The color of rhyta made of fired clay ranges frombuff through brown to grey or almost black. How-ever, it looks as if most, if not all, rhyta were paintedwith red pigment. In some cases the whole fragment(or perhaps the whole vessel) was painted. However,

in most cases, only parts of the vessels were colou-red. These include mainly the ring (or more preci-sely, the interior part of the ring), the receptacle, andthe interior part of the legs (Fig. 5).

Again, colours are more than mere representationor decoration. They are agentive; capable of trans-forming things. Victor Turner, in his highly influen-tial essay on red, white and black (1967) proposedthat, based on a universal human organic experi-ence, red has a universal significance related to blood.The association of red with blood has been much dis-

cussed in the literature. There are many exampleswhich do not support Turners universalist theory(see Young 2006). For example, red may also be as-

sociated with ambiguity, magical powers and trans-formation.

Instead of seeing colour as a static propriety of thevessel, we may try to consider its temporal aspects.Rhyta were covered with pigment after firing, as pig-ment rubs off easily. Painting the vessel may havebeen a part of its lifecycle and associated with speciallimnic events such as use in rituals or end of life

deliberate breaking.

A colour change might also be thought as transfor-mation in itself, not only symbolically. Colour, or itsmaterial form, pigment, has an agency, transformingobjects. Anthony Forge wrote of the yam cult, whereall magical substances are classed as paint, and paintis a ceremonial medium through which initiates areturned into men (Forge 1962).

Fig. 5. Traces ofred pigment onthe rhyton leg

from Smili(Ar-chaeological Mu-seum Zadar).

Fig. 4. Geometric patterns on the rhyton fragments from Danilo(Koroec 1964.Tab 9, 10, 11).

7/29/2019 Mle Kuz 2007

9/14


275

By the act of applying the dye to the surface and in-side of the rhyton, it entered into a process of trans-formation. Here, the agency of red can create awhole network of analogies which place the rhyton

in a web of relations between people and animals:Killing, hunting, eating, and menstruation, sex,conception and birth are the constituents of a fun-damental metaphor likening the provisioning ofsociety to its reproduction. The explicit sex (wo-men) and hunting (animals) likeness in dreamsand verbal polysemy are the potent expression ofthis metaphor. Menstrual blood possesses multiplevalues in this scheme. A symbol of female fertility,because coextensive with it in the life cycle, men-strual blood is simultaneously the material cause

of fertility as the substance out of which foetal fleshis formed. Some Cree men say that menstruatingwomen are especially likely to conceive. Womenbiologically reproduce the human community,their ability to do so evidenced by the flow of bloodthat, however, in the event of conception, they be-gin to retain within their bodies. Human life is alsovisibly reproduced by killing and eating animals.Hunting and trapping are paradigmatically maleoccupations through which men enact a reproduc-tive role complementing that of women. The ani-mal blood spilled at kill sites and trap sets corre-

sponds to menstrual blood, which is a preconditionof female fertility. (Brightman 1993.128129)

Red can serve as a marker and agent of transforma-tion of a rhyton, but it can also have an apotropeicrole. Red pigment can act as an additional layer ofprotection of vital body parts in the process of trans-formation; thus the interior of the recipient, themeaningful emptiness, the opening of the ring andinterior part of the legs, and area around the geni-talia. Bori (2002.28) cites many examples of the use

of red in folk costumes associated with fertility andprotection.

Thus red dye contains a powerful agency transfor-ming the rhyta. It is a marker, agent and protectorof transformation of the rhyta.

Fractal depictions

There are a few rhyta from lowland villages whichare decorated with small animal heads, added to the

body or ring of the rhyta. Those animal heads looklike small animals sprouting from the rhytons sur-face (Fig. 6).

Alfred Gell (1998.137141) discusses the carving ofthe deity Aa by the Rurutu in the Austral Isles, wherethe features of the god are represented by small fi-gures which repeat in miniature the overall form of

the god as a whole. It is a fractal image, which dis-plays self-similarity at different scales. Its body isdepicted as composed of other bodies. Aa is not anindividual in the sense that there is a clear boundarybetween it and others. Instead, it is a fractal person,represented as an aggregate of external relations in-stantiated in the inside persons. There is no borderbetween internal and external.

This notion of fractal person is based on the an-thropological analyses of Melanesian societies byMary Strathern (1988) and Roy Wagner (1991). Peo-

ple, objects and non-human beings are therefore in-dexes of relations they are made up of, or consti-tuted by, their relations or connections. They are notso much individuals as dividuals: who they are andwhat they do is generated by their transactions witheach other, with animals and with artefacts (seeFow-ler 2001; 2004; Jones 2005).

Animals are involved in social relations between hu-mans through gifts or bridewealth. Animals circulateamong households. Wealthy owners whose holdingsexceed the maximum manageable size will find it

mutually advantageous to loan or give some animalsto other households. Conversely, if someone is shortof animals, they may seek gifts or loans from the bet-ter-off (Dahl and Hjort 1976.136137; Ingold 1980).Animals produce milk for the household where theyare situated, irrespective of who owns a particularanimal; however, the owner retains control over theslaughter of an animal and over its offspring. Alter-natively, complementary types of animals allow po-orer households to exploit the high reproductive po-tential of small stock to build their herds and then

exchange them for larger stock (Dahl and Hjort1976.230234). Households spread their interests bydistributing animals as gifts and loans to a range ofstock-associates. Such herds typically consist of ani-mals from a number of separate owners under themanagement of a single household. This establishesa network of social relations between households,which are reflected in herds. (Ingold 1980.17; Evans-Pritchard 1940.6667, 153154).

Thus someones personhood is separable into rela-tions with other persons, humans and animals. These

are constitutive of people and animals, who are there-fore composed of the sum of the relations betweenthem. But it is not only the flow of animals and hu-

7/29/2019 Mle Kuz 2007

10/14

Dimitrij Mleku/

276

mans between households whichconstitutes personhood.

When an animal is sacrificed at a

wedding, the meat is distributed onthe same pattern as a bridewealthherd. Like the bridewealth herd, thesacrificial victim is the focus of mul-tiple claims which derive from the cu-mulative history of prior transactionsspanning generations of both hu-mans and animals (Evans-Pritchard1951.6667, 153154). Humans andanimals are therefore mutually enga-ged with one another, creating acomplex network of reciprocal inter-

dependence based on the exchangeof substances and vital force. Thuswhen an animal is sacrificed, the ob-ject of sacrifice is not the individualanimal, but a fractal person whostands for the whole network ofanimals and humans.

Rhyta are persons, too just like animals and humans not individuals, but fractal persons composedthrough many relations between people and ani-mals, or mediated through animals.

Paradoxically, I have described rhyta as if they werewhole, although no unbroken rhyta has been foundyet. Only fragments, parts of rhyta are found in ar-chaeological contexts. One can only agree with JohnChapmans statement (2000.67) that the process offragmentation is vital to their understanding.

Transformation, breaking and deposition

John Chapmans innovative study (2000) focused on

the practices of fragmentation and accumulation inthe Neolithic of Balkans as processes which link peo-ple to object through production, exchange and con-sumption.

Chapman has pointed out that rhyta are highly frag-mented. He states that only about 8 % of publishedrhyta are complete. But even this is an overestimate,as most published whole rhyta are reconstructionsbased on a few fragments. It is safe to state that most,if not all, rhyta are broken.

Open-air sites have yielded much higher number ofrhyta; for example, in Smili, around 200 fragmentsof rhyta were excavated, while in the Caput Adriae

caves only 22 fragments were found (MontagnariKokelj and Crismani 1993).

Chapman explains the absence of whole rthyta andtheir low number in peripheral areas of rhyta distri-bution such as the Caput Adriae caves and Lipari, as

a result of the down-the-line movement of fragmentscreating enchained relations between people alongthe path.

However, the fragmentation analysis of rhyta fromSmili and Caput Adriae caves shows that they arecomparable (Fig. 7). Rhyta from the Caput Adriaecaves are not more fragmented than those fromopen-air settlements at Smili. There are pieces thatcan be fitted together, and most fragments are bro-ken at the weak point at the junction of the body

and leg. While in Smili

there are more legs whichwere broken below the weak point, indicating thatthey were broken at least twice or took more effortto break.

Two provenance studies from Triestine karst caves(Edera; Spataro 1999 and Mala Triglavca; ibratGapari 2004) have clearly demonstrated thatrhyta were produced locally in the Karst plateauand not traded or brought from elsewhere, not evenfrom coastal villages only a few kilometres away. Onthe other hand, based on one typological criteria,

one fragment of a ring handle from the Bosnian siteObre I was identified as an import from the Adria-tic coast (Benac 1973.84, Fig. 16).

Fig. 6. Fractal rhyta. 1 Smili(Batovi 1979.Tab. LXXXV) and2 Danilo (Koroec 1964.Tab 5.7, 6.3).

7/29/2019 Mle Kuz 2007

11/14


277

The deliberate breaking of rhyta is an efective ritual,where it is transformed into something else. In theprocess of breaking, the significant interior, the vi-tal force of a rhyton, is revealed and released, while

the rhyton is fragmented into parts. The resultingfragments may now have different quality as a wholerhyton, and may be circulated among the partici-pants, perhaps in the same pattern as meat or a bri-dewealth herd. Births, marriages, deaths and epide-mics may have formed the context for the deliberatebreaking of rhyta.

Fragments of rhyta were then moved around thesettlement (or camp) and deposited in the same de-posits as the body parts of slaughtered animals andpottery fragments. Rhyta fragments in lowland villa-

ges are often associated with anthropomorphic andzoomorphic figurines and decorated lids or phallu-ses (seeBatovi1968).

Rhyta fragments from upland caves were most pro-bably found in contexts which were the result of pe-riodic cleaning of the cave interior (after or before vi-sit of a herd), with pottery, animal and human bonesmixed together in the sediment and deposited at thecave wall.

The metonymic qualities of many deposited objects

(such as parts of rhyta, human and animal bones)suggest that they were concerned mainly with themaintenance of the flow of vital force and not withpracticalities of living floor maintenance (Brck1999; Chapman and Gaydarska 2006.7179). Thesedeposits are not generalized, de facto refuse, but ra-ther special, structured deposits, which maintain orestablished relations between humans and animalherds, place and previous occupations.

Conclusions

Rhyta are highly ambiguous depic-tions composed from many attribu-tes derived from animals and hu-mans, especially the female body.However, they are not mere depic-tions as such, or some kind of ritualor cult paraphernalia, but also power-ful agents. They do not represent,they do, act, and change relations be-tween persons.

Rhyta have a life history. They aremodelled from clay, incised with de-coration, fired. Their potency is crea-

ted through the effective arrangement of iconic ele-ments. In the process of being made, a rhyton is trans-formed from raw materials into an object of power.

But the rhyta are not only powerful by themselves:their potency is acted out and enhanced through ri-tual and performance. We have already noted therole of red pigment, which was applied after the fi-ring, effectively starting and marking the process oftransformation of rhyta. But the most powerful trans-formation of rhyta was their deliberate breakingwhen their vital force, contained in a significantinterior was released, and the resulting fragmentswere exchanged and deposited.

Animals in the Neolithic societies of eastern Adriatic

are not just passive meat packages, waiting to beslaughtered and consumed. They are persons, invol-ved in a complex network of exchange of substancesand vital force with other animals and humans. Assuch, they have power to act back and alter humanlife. The politics between animals and humans istherefore not based on human domination, but ra-ther on balanced reciprocal relations derived fromthe an animistic ontology of life-force flow. Doinggood politics involves the maintenance of social re-lations. The making and deliberate breaking of rhytamight have been a way of reciprocating the flow of

vital force. They invoke the presence of non-humansources of power, animal spirits, with which humansmust perforce transact in order to keep vitality incirculation. Births, marriages, deaths, epidemics,points in the animal reproduction cycle or otherevents where the balance of vital force was distur-bed, may have formed the context for the deliberatebreaking of rhyta. There might be subtle differencesin the context of breaking and deposition of rhyta,based on different social relations between humansand animals in the Neolithic communities of the east-

Fig. 7. Fragmentation analysis of rhyta from Caput Adriae (datafrom Montagnari-Kokelj and Crismani 1993) and Smili.

7/29/2019 Mle Kuz 2007

12/14

Dimitrij Mleku/

278

ern Adriatic. Thus rhyta from the lowlands empha-size the fractal nature of persons, humans and ani-mals, created through the exchange of animals andpersons, while upland pastoral communities might

be focused more on the flow and exchange of vitalforce.

Rhyta are made by humans, and imbued with lifethrough a variety of iconic properties and externalactivities. They embody complex belief about the

connections between animals and humans. Rhyta arethe human/animal politics made durable. They lite-rally render the social negotiation between humansand non-humans visible and tangible.

ABBINK J. 2003. Love and Death of Cattle: The Paradoxin Suri Attitudes Towards Livestock.Ethnos 68: 341364.

BATOVI. 1958. Neolitske kultne posude iz Smilia.Ar-heoloki vestnik 9-10(2): 7993.

1968. Problem kulta phallosa u danilskoj kulturi.Dia-dora 4: 551.

1979. Jadranska zona. In A. Benac (ed.),Praistorija ju-goslovenskih zemalja vol. 2: neolitsko doba. Svetlost.Sarajevo: 473635.

BENAC A. 1964.Studije o kamenom i bakrenom dobuna sjeverozapadnom Balkanu. Veselin Maslea. Sarajevo.

1973. Obre I Neolitsko naselje starevako-impressoi kakanjske kulture na Raskru. Glasnik Zemaljskogmuzeja Bosne i Hercegovine XXVII/XXVIII: 1102.

1979. Prelazna zona. In A. Benac (ed.),Praistorija ju-goslovenskih zemalja vol. 2: neolitsko doba. Svetlost.Sarajevo: 363469.

BIAGI P. 2003. The Rhyton of the Balkan Peninsula: Chro-

nology, Origin, Dispersion and Function of a Neolithic CultVessel.Journal of prehistoric religion XVI-XVII: 1626.

BORI D. 2002. Apotropaism and the temporality of co-lours: colourful Mesolithic-Neolithic seasons in the DanubeGorges. In A. Jones and G. Macgregor (eds.), Coloring thePast: The Significance of Colour in Archaeoogical Re-cord. Berg. Oxford: 23-43.

BRIGHTMAN R. 1993. Grateful prey: Rock Cree Human-Animal Relationships/. University of California Press.Berkeley.

BRCK J. 1999. Ritual and rationality: some problems ofinterpretation in European archaeology.European Jour-nal of Archaeology 2(3): 313344.

BUDJA M. 2003. Seals, contracts and tokens in the Bal-kans Early Neolithic: where in the puzzle? In M. Budja(ed.), 10thNeolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica30: 115130.

CHAPMAN J. 2000.Fragmentation in Archaeology. Rout-ledge. London, New York.

1989. Ceramic production and Social Differentaiation:the Dalmatian Neolithic and the Western Mediterra-nean. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 1(2):225.

CHAPMAN J. and GAYDARSKA B. 2006.Parts and Wholes:Fragmentation in Prehistoric Context. Oxbow Books.Oxford.

CHAPMAN J., SHIEL R. and BATOVI. 1996. The chang-ing face of Dalmatia. Leicester University Pres. Leicester.

OVI B. 1976. Od Butmira do Ilira. Veselina Maslea.Sarajevo.

DAHL G. and HJORT A. 1976.Having herds: pastoral herdgrowth and household economy. University of Stock-

holm. Stockholm.EVANS-PRITCHARD E. E. 1940. The Nuer: A Descriptionof the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions ofa Nilotic People. Claredon Press. Oxford.

1951.Kinship and Marriage Among the Nuer. Clare-don Press. Oxford.

1956.Nuer religion. Claredon Press. Oxford.

FORGE A. 1962. Paint a magical substance.Palette 9:916.

FOWLER C. 2001. Personhood and Social relations in theBritish Neolithic with a Study from Isle of Man.Journalof Material Culture 6(2): 137163.

REFERENCES

I would like to thank Natalija ondi, custodian fromthe Archaeological Museum Zadar who kindly gaveme access to the rhyta from Smili.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

7/29/2019 Mle Kuz 2007

13/14


279

2004.An Archaeology of Personhood: An Anthropo-logical Approach. Routledge. New York.

GELL A. 1996. Vogels net. Traps as artwork and artworkas traps.Journal of Material Culture 1(1): 1538.

1998.Art and Agency. Claredon Press. Oxford.

GIMBUTAS M., WINN S. and SHIMABUKU D. 1989.Achi-leion: A Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece. Monu-menta Archaeologica 14. Insititite of Archaeology. Los An-geles.

GODELIER M. 1999. The Enigma of Gift. Universiity ofChichago Press. Chichago.

HALLOWELL I. 1960. Ojibwa Ontology, Behavior, and

Worldview. In S. Diamond (ed.), Culture in History: Es-says in Honor of Paul Radin. Columbia University Press.New York: 1952.

HARAWAY 2003. The Companion Species Manifesto:Dogs, People and Significant Otherness. Prickly Para-digm. Chichago.

IHDE C. 1995. Die Elefantendarstellungen der Hvar-Lisi-ii Kultur und das Problem ihrer Herleitung. Arheolo-ki vestnik 46: 5388.

INGOLD T. 1980. Hunters, pastoralists and ranchers.

Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays inLivelihood, Dweling and Skill. Routledge. New York.

JONES A. 2005. Lives in fragments? Personhood and theEuropean Neolithic.Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2):193224.

KORKUTI M. 1982. Vashtmia nj Vendbanim I Neolititt Hershm.Iliria 12(2): 91146.

1995.Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum in Albanien.Philipp von Zbern. Mainz am Rhein.

KOROEC J. 1958.Neolitska naseobina u Danilu Bitnju.Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Zagreb.

1964.Danilo in danilska kultura. Univerza v Ljublja-ni, Arheoloki oddelek filozofske fakultete. Ljubljana.

LATOUR B. 2005.Reassembling the Social: An Introduc-tion to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press.Oxford.

LERA P. 1993. Vendbanimi I Neolitit t Hershm n Bar(Bar I).Iliria 23: 531.

MARIJANOVI B. 2007. Kultni riton s Crnog Vrila prilogproblematici kultnih ritona u neolitiku istonog Jadrana(Cult rhyton from Crno vrilo a contribution to the topicof cult rhyta of the Neolithic period in the East Adriatic.)In M. Blei, M. renar, B. Hnsel, A. Hellmuth, E. Kaiserand C. Metzer-Nebelsick (eds.), Scripta praehistorica in ho-norem Biba Teran.Situla: Dissertationes Musei natio-nalis Sloveniae VII: 5768.

MAUSS M. 1954. The Gift: Forms and functions of ex-change in archaic societies. Free Press. Glencoe.

MLEKU D. 2003. Early herders of the Eastern Adriatic. InM. Budja (ed.), 10thNeolithic Studies. Documenta Prae-historica 30: 139151.

2005. The ethnography of the Cyclops: Neolithic pas-

toralists in the eastern Adriatic. In M. Budja (ed.), 12thNeolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 32: 1551.

2006. Meat or Milk? Neolithic economies of Caput Ad-riae. In A. Pessina and P. Visentini (eds.),PresistoriadellItalia Settentrionale. Studi in ricordo di Bernar-dino Bagolini. Comune di Udine, Museo Friulano distoria naturale. Udine: 453458.

MONTAGNARI KOKELJ E. 2003. Why settling a KarsticArea? Considerations on the Trieste Karst (nort-easternItaly) in the Late Prehistory.Histria Antiqua 11: 7593.

MONTAGNARI KOKELJ E. and CRISMANI A. 1993. La pre-senza di vasi a quatro gambe nel neolitico del carso Tri-estino.Aquileia nostra 64: 966.

MLLER J. 1994. Das ostadriatische Frhneolitikums.Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adria-raumes. Berlin.

NADASDY P. 2007. The gift in the animals: The onthologyof hunting and human-animal sociality.American Ethno-logist 43(1): 2543.

PERI S. 1996. Kulth-Rhytone der neolitischen Viehzch-ter der Balkanhalbinsel.Starinar 47: 2166.

SPATARO M. 1999. La caverna dellEdera di Aurisina (Ts):studio archeometrico delle ceramiche.Atti della Societper la Preistoria e la Protoistoria del Friuli-Venezia Giu-lia 11: 6389.

STRATHERN M. 1988. The Gender of the Gift. Universityof California Press. Berkeley.

THOMAS T. 2005. Ambiguous symbols: why there were

no figurines in Neolithic Britain. In M. Budja (ed.), 10thNeolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 32: 167175.

7/29/2019 Mle Kuz 2007

14/14

Dimitrij Mleku/

280

TURNER V. 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndem-bu Ritual. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

WAGNER R. 1991. The Fractal Person. In M. Godelier (ed.),Big Men and Great Men. Cambridge Univeristy Press.Cambridge: 159173.

WEINBERG S. 1965. Ceramics and the Supernatural: Cultand Burial Evidence in the Aegean World. In F. Matson(ed.), Ceramics and Man. Viking Fund Publications inAnthropology 41: 187201.

WITHERSPOON G. 1973. Sheep in Navajo Culture and So-cial Organization.American Anthropologist, New Series75(5): 144147.

YOUNG D. 2006. The Colours of things. In C. Tilley, W.Keane, S. Kuechler, M. Rowlands and P. Spyer (eds.),Handbook of Material Culture. Sage Publications. Lon-don: 173185.

IBRAT GAPARI A. 2004. Archaeometrical analysis ofNeolithic potery from the Divaa region in Slovenia. In M.Budja (ed.), 11thNeolithic Studies. Documenta Praehi-storica 31: 205220.

Documents

Mle Kuz 2007