Naumov 2008, The Vessel as a Human Body

8/12/2019 Naumov 2008, The Vessel as a Human Body

1/11


2/11

This title published by

ArchaeopressPublishers of British Archaeological ReportsGordon House276 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 [email protected]

BAR S1861Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group: Occasional Paper 6

Breaking the Mould: Challenging the Past through Pottery

the individual authors 2008

ISBN 978 1 4073 0344 4

Printed in England by Alden HenDi, Oxfordshire

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd122 Banbury RoadOxfordOX2 [email protected]

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is availablefree from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com


3/11

93

THE VESSEL AS A HUMAN BODY: NEOLITHIC ANTHROPOMORPHIC VESSELSAND THEIR REFLECTION IN LATER PERIODS

Goce NAUMOV

Abstract: In many publications from the Balkan region, archaeologists use practical terms with which to describe their objects ofresearch. When analyzing pottery, for example, they often utilize idioms familiar from human anatomy in order to describe vessel

parts, such as body, mouth, neck, throat, shoulder, belly, foot, and leg. The use of these terms suggests that vessels canand have been conceptualised as human bodies regardless of whether or not their shape actually resembles that of a human.

Ethnographic data from the Balkans shows that this naming practice has continued into modern times.

In addition, in almost all phases of the Neolithic in the Balkans, there are vessel features that set up an association with parts of thehuman body. These kinds of vessels are usually painted, incised or have patterns applied, and represent typical corporeal elements,

for example, face, extremities, breasts, belly, or genitalia. They are referred to as anthropomorphic vessels and are present in mostof the Neolithic cultures in the Balkans as well as those of central and northern Europe. While there are a great number of published

fragments, this paper, with the exception of fragments from the Republic of Macedonia, will present only complete examples. Most ofthese fragments were found at sites that belong to the so-called Amzabegovo Vrsnik group in eastern Macedonia. Parallels willbe drawn with Neolithic vessels from Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, Hungary, Czech Republic and later prehistoric periods in Turkey andGermany.

TYPOLOGY OF ANTHROPOMORPHIC VESSELS

The presence of anthropomorphic vessels has been notedat a few Early Neolithic sites (Perles 2001: 264; Raduncevaet al . 2002: 139, fig. 41.2-5; Todorova &Vaisov 1993: 99, 104, fig. 8), but their quantity increasesduring the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic in southeastEurope and western Anatolia. Their production continuesinto later prehistoric periods and, in some parts ofEurope, they can be traced even into the classical period(Figures 6-7). The quantity of these vessels is much

smaller than that of other types of vessels, and there isconsiderable regional variation in form and variation(Naumov 2006). Nevertheless, mostly because of theirapparent similarities, it is feasible to establish one generaltypology for the whole region.

Figure 1: Map of the Balkans.

Most of the discovered anthropomorphic vessels are ofamphora-like shape or with contours that resemble Neolithic figurines (Figures 2.1-4,7; 3.1-4,6). Thenumber of shallow vessels with anthropomorphic featuresis much smaller and they are more common in central andnorthern parts of Europe than in its southeast region. Thedetails which resemble the human anatomy, mostlycontours of the human face, hands, breasts, genitalia andhips, are represented by decorative techniques (incision,appliqu and painting). Most of the discoveredanthropomorphic vessels have features typical of the

female body. At the present time, there exist no exampleswhich show characteristics typical of the male body (forexample, moustache, beard, genitalia, hairs); a possibleexception are fragments from Nea Nikomedeia where theapplied beard is, however, not yet visually proven (Pyke& Yiouni 1996: 88).

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

Lower zone

On the lower part of the vessel, almost all elementstypical of this part of the human body can be representedor they can be reduced to a few details which indicatesome concrete bodily characteristics. The shape of someof the vessels focuses on hips, buttocks and legs, makingan interpretation of their use and function difficult.According to the reports of the excavations in Vrshnik(Republic of Macedonia), one anthropomorphic vesselwith incised decoration (Figure 3.1) was used for thekeeping of jewellery (Garasanin & Garasanin 1961: 24).However, it is unlikely that such a storage function could be extended to culinary or other domestic uses. In several


4/11

94

of the examples, this lower zone is richly decorated with patterns placed over the entire body or, more rarely,concentrated in the pubic area and around the navel.Mostly, the patterns are incised or painted verticalzigzags and V-lines, spirals, lozenges, meanders andtriangles. Whether these ornaments were just decoration

or whether they also had a symbolic function has to awaitfurther semantic analysis, although the shape and positionof some of the motives make a symbolic character likely(Chausidis 2005: 93-130). Likewise, some observed patterns correspond to decoration found on Neolithic painted vessels, walls of houses, figurines, house modelsand ceramic stamp seals, opening up discussion about therelationship between decoration and different materialclasses (Hodder 1990: 62; Naumov 2005: 66-77).

Figure 2: Anthropomorphic vessels. 1) Amzabegovo,Macedonia (Gimbutas 1976: fig. 209). 2) Vinca, Serbia(Gimbutas 1989: fig. 88). 3) Bekasmegyer, Hungary (Gimbutas1989: fig. 35). 4) Gradesnica, Bulgaria (Todorova & Vaisov1993: pl. 446). 5) Vinca, Serbia (Garasanin 1982: fig. 21). 6)Szombately, Hungary (Gimbutas 1989: fig.61). 7) Vinca, Serbia(Stalio 1977: fig. 69). 8) Svodina, Czech Republic (Pavuk 1981:fig. 24). 9) Orlavat, Serbia (Gimbutas 1989: fig. 83).

Some of the later vessels from Turkey and Germany holdsmaller vessels in their hands, usually positioned next to

the breasts (Figures 3.6; 6.1-3). And for some of the Neolithic and later anthropomorphic vessels from centralEurope there is a practice of modeling the hands on thevessels in an upward adoration position (Figures 2.8;

4.1,5; 7.3; 11.1-3). However, an interpretation of theseunusual gestures as well as the presence of the littlevessels near the breasts of anthropomorphic vesselsremains suggestive.

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

Upper zone

This zone incorporates the neck and face of the vessel. Near the rim, eyes, nose and eyebrows have been appliedor, as in one case, hands, breasts and navel can berepresented here. Regarding the eyes, they can becircular, rhombus-shaped, horizontal, oblique or rounded.Representations of the mouth are usually lacking, exceptin a small number of examples where they are modeled,incised or painted in a stylised manner (Figures 2.3,7;4.7). It remains uncertain as to why in Neolithicfigurative sculpture representation of the mouth is usuallyavoided. Nevertheless, it is likely that the presence orabsence of some facial elements on anthropomorphic

vessels is not coincidental.In these vessels of most of the Neolithic and later culturesin the Balkans, eyebrows and noses are joined in a particular manner that created a recognizableiconography of the human face: the bulging of thesefacial features caused scholars to associate them withbird faces (Gimbutas 1989: 51-57). However, if weconsider that this stylistic characterisation of the face isalso present on objects of confirmed anthropomorphicconstruction (figurines and vessels where a mouth is present), then it is likely that this was one of the variants Neolithic potters used to represent human faces. This

suggestion is supported by ceramic house-models, whereface depictions are identical to those on anthropomorphicvessels (Figure 8). Thus, house-models form part of awider anthropomorphic tradition and can be drawn on to


5/11

95

elicit the function and character of anthropomorphicvessels.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FIGURINE-HOUSE MODELS AND ANTHROPOMORPHIC

VESSELS

Recent research of anthropomorphic vessels and figurine-house models of the Balkan Neolithic indicates thattypological and conceptual similarities exist betweenthese two artefact groups (Naumov 2006: 66-68).Typological parallels are particularly strong betweenthose from the Republic of Macedonia where the vastmajority of the house-models originate (Figure 1).However, as fragments from the Dunavec I phase andKolsch I phase in Albania contemporaneous with theMiddle Neolithic phases of the Amzabegovo-Vrshnikgroup in Macedonia suggest, their distribution may

reach beyond this region (Korkuti 1995: pl. 41.10; Sanev2004: 42, 46).

Figure 4: Anthropomorphic vessels. 1) Rckeve, Hungary(Gimbutas 1989: fig. 66). 2) Galabnik, Bulgaria (Todorova &Vaisov 1993: pl. 8). 3) Kknydomb, Hungary (Gimbutas 1982:fig. 210). 4) Vrsac, Serbia (Gimbutas 1989: fig. 89.3). 5)Medvednjak, Serbia (Stalio 1977: fig. 165). 6) Tell Azmak,Bulgaria (Gimbutas 1982: fig. 63). 7) Kknydomb, Hungary(Whittle 1996: fig. 4.16). 8) Toptepe, Turkey (zdogan & Dede1998: pl. 1).

Figurine-house models present a specific type ofanthropomorphic sculpture which combines Neolithicfigurines and house models from that period. In someway, models of figurine-houses can be conceived as ahybrid that consists of two different clay artifacts: theupper part represents a figurine, while the lower part is amodel of a house instead of the anticipated hips and legs(Figure 8). The typology and function of these modelshas been discussed by Sanev and Chausidis (Chausidis2004; Sanev 1988: 15-18). In the early Neolithic theyemerged in their rudimentary form with highly stylizedfeatures (Zdravkovski 2005: 27). A more developed typewas produced in the Middle Neolithic of the

Amzabegovo Vrshnik group. Few examples come fromthe Late Neolithic; the ones that occur show a high levelof stylisation as already evidence in the first phase.

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

Just like the anthropomorphic vessels are divided into anupper and lower zone, so are the figurine-house models:in some examples from the south of Macedonia, theupper zone contains the representation of an identity (i.e.the face), while models from northern Macedonia alsoshow hands, belly, navel and breasts (Figure 8.1-3). Thelower zone of the anthropomorphic vessels, the belly, is paralleled in the figurine-house models by the housemodel itself. This similarity in conceiving and executinga basic form and the mixing of features across differentartefact groups is not coincidental. Fragments fromMacedonia show that the representation of the face wasalmost identical in both the anthropomorphic vessels andfigurine-house models (Figure 5). In addition, figurine-house models are partly closed in the upper cylindricalarea, so that only one small central hole remains. The presence of the same features can be detected on theanthropomorphic vessels from Chavdar and Kazanlak

(both in Bulgaria), and Radajce (Serbia) sites which arenear the distribution area of figurine-houses (Figure 9.1-3).


6/11


7/11

97

positioned in womans part (Ristevski 2005: 152;Vrazinovki 2000: 248).

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

Since the Early Neolithic, the house is manifest as asymbol of domestication and all that was wild wastamed in the feminine part of the house (Hodder1990). Concentration of feminine representations insidethe house (wall reliefs, figurines, anthropomorphicvessels, etc.) mark the house as a place where most of the

vital female functions were realized: pregnancy, birth, breeding, nursery and upbringing. In the context of the Neolithic Balkans this is supported by the production ofnumerous models of houses and ovens with feminine bodily features (Naumov 2007a: 260; Petrovic 2001: 12-14), the vast number of figurines with female genitalia(Naumov 2007b), huge quantity of grinding stones for the production of bread inside dwellings (Naumovin press )and the practice of infant and adult burials inside thehouse with infants sometimes buried inside vessels(Bacvarov 2004; Naumov 2007a).

BURIALS INSIDE VESSELS

The practice of human burials inside vessels (Figure 10)was present in almost all Neolithic cultures of southeastEurope. The tradition probably originated in the Levantand is linked to the Near Eastern Hasuna and TellSotto cultures where a large number of vessel burialshave been found. Their number decreased as the traditionspread through central Anatolia. In the Balkans, there aresix examples of inhumations inside vessels (Bacvarov2004: 153; Gimbutas 1976: 396; Raduncevaet al. 2002:35, 150). These are outnumbered by the quantity ofcremated remains found inside vessels. In southeast

Europe alone there are examples of 80 such vesselcremations. Some of these urn-vessels had modeled breasts which clearly indicate their feminine character(Bacvarov 2003: 141, 142; Hodder 1990: 52; Titov &

Ergeli 1980: 102, 104). These feminine urns were alsoused in funerary rites of the Bronze and Iron Ages inwestern Anatolia, the Aegean and western Europe (Figure11). Continuity of this funerary practice can be traced toEtruria and, as ethnographic records show, even torelatively contemporary tribes (Adam 1963: pl. 18;

Brendel 1978: 107).

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

However, inhumations, including infant burials, have also been found in undecorated vessels of more or less similarshapes (Figure 10). Therefore, we can assume that boththe anthropomorphic and the regular utilitarian vesselsused for this purpose were conceived as part of awomans body, most likely her womb, expressedsymbolically through the regenerative features. Oneexample from Macedonia provides further support forthis interpretation: in Amzabegovo, an infant aged 4-6weeks was placed inside a vessel with broken handlesand a fractured base (Gimbutas 1976: 396). The vessel,which previously had fulfilled an utilitarian function, wasintentionally damaged: the handles were broken to createa smooth surface and flowing shape while the base wasopened up presumably for activities related to thefunerary rites (Figure 10.1,2). What is particularlyinteresting, is that the vessel was buried upside-down,with the pierced base facing upwards and the rim facingdownwards, so as to symbolically represent a uteruswithin the funeral context. Until the first half of the 20th century, similar burial practices are also associated withnon-ceramic objects in Balkan populations. In the Serbianlinguistic area, the cradle for babies was called beshika ,that is bladder. This term etymologically designates thespace inside the abdomen where, with the exception ofthe urinal bladder, the regenerative organs of a womanwere believed to have resided. When an infant died, itwas buried in the same cradle the beshika was turnedupside down or, as was the custom during funeral rites inMontenegro and Bosnia, a hole was made in the bottom


8/11

98

of the beshika , so that the mother can give birth again(Blagojevic 1984: 224, 225; Lozanova 1989: 27). InMacedonia, the cradle due to its basic shape is namedkolepka (Nazim 2002: 148), which linguisticallyoriginates fromkolibka/koliba i.e. dilapidated house or hut , furthermore asserting the important role of

motherhood in relation with the house and babies.

Figure 10: Burial vessels. 1) Amzabegovo, Macedonia (Sanevet al. 1976: fig. 42). 2) Same vessel as Figure 10.1 (Gimbutas1976: fig. 242). 3) Rakitovo, Bulgaria (Bacvarov 2004: fig.1.1).4) Plateia Magoula Zarkou, Greece (Bacvarov 2004: fig. 4.1). 5)Tell Soto/Tell Hazna (?), Near East (Bacvarov 2004: fig. 3). 6)Tell Soto/Tell Hazna (?), Near East), Bacvarov 2004: fig. 3).

ETHNOGRAPHIC AND ETYMOLOGICALIMPLICATIONS

The link between shape and female character of vesselshas been traced through ethnographic records, myths andvessel terminology known from the Balkans. In addition,in Mahabharata, Rig-Veda, Egyptian and Greekmythology, as well as in myths from South America andnorthern Europe, some of the humans were born in oremerged from vessels (Eliade 2005: 136; Marazov 1992:242; Neuman 1963: 162, 163, pl. 75a). Perception ofvessels as deities can be found in Canaanite mythology,

and in some of the local Indian languages (Tamoul,Sanskrit and Kannara), the words Kumbattal , Kumbahamata Garigadevara indicate a goddess-vessel(Elijade 1984: 342; Gordon 1977: 224, 225). In western

Sudan, pots used for ceremonial drinking of beer arereferred to aseja (mother) and are sometimes decoratedwith nansu , i.e. breasts (Haaland 2007: 165). In theBalkans, during wedding ceremonies some vessels areequated with the bride and are perforated at the bottom,designating that the bride is not longer a virgin.

Alternatively, the vessel could be smashed onto the floor,signaling that the young couple has had their first sexualencounter (Petreska 2002: 109, 142, 203; Uzeneva 1999:146).

Figure 11: Burial urns. 1) Center, Hungary (Gimbutas 1989: fig.291). 2) Lemnos, Greece (Gimbutas 1989: fig. 292.1). 3) Troy,Turkey (Gimbutas 1989: fig. 292.2). 4) Friedensau, Germany

(Hoernes 1925: fig. 8). 5) Pomerania, Poland (Gimbutas 1989:fig. 383.2). 6) Sampohl, Germany (Hoernes 1925: fig. 7). 7)Hoch-Redlau, Germany (Hoernes 1925: fig. 3). 8) Hoch-Redlau, Germany (Hoernes 1925: fig. 6). 9) Chiuisi, Italia(Janson 1975: fig. 189).

The equation of a vessel with a woman was present insome other rites in Macedonia. In its southern part (theResen and Prespa regions), young girls were practicing arite called Ivanka on Ivanden , i.e. St. Johns Day(Chausidis 1988: 73; Kiselinov 1942: 52-54). On thatday, adolescent girls were making a doll (bride) out ofdecorated ceramic vessels. During the preparations, the

girls were placing water as well as objects inside thevessel; another vessel was placed on the previous oneupside down to represent the head of the doll. Thesevessels were decorated with anthropomorphic details and,


9/11

99

during the procession, were carried by the girls on theirheads. It is believed that this idol will bring prosperityand suitable husbands to the girls, whilst the watersplashing around will bring health and children. Similarvessels with decorated bodies and lids in the form of aheads were also produced in the Late Neolithic (Figure

12.2; 4.4). Fragments or whole vessels of this kind are,among others, found at Neolithic sites in Macedonia,Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania. Whether we should picture these vessels in similar rites as the Prespanbrides ritual is impossible to conclude, but it possiblethat the Neolithic examples were similarly conceived.

Ethnographic parallels can also be drawn on for the practice of Neolithic burials in shallow vessels (Figure10.5,6). In the last two centuries, shallow vessels calledcrepna existed in the Slavic linguistic area and can belinked to the domain of hand-built ceramicsconventionally associated with women potters. The

creation of these vessels is related to a number of ritesthat indicate their feminine features. On the other hand,the same cultural group uses vessels calledlonec , karlice ,

zdjelica , bochvi , etc. expressions which etymologicallyrelate to regenerative organs or the genital area ofwomen. These vessels were used for the preparation of bread, milk storage, as well as in a number of rites relatedto birth and symbolic death (Blagojevic 1984: 224, 225; Chausidis & Nikolov 2006; Eliade 2004: 105; Filipovic1951: 125-153; Tomic 1976: 45-80).

CONCLUSION

The association of vessels with feminine features appearsto have been a long-standing tradition among differentcultures and throughout different periods. Numerousrepresentations of feminine features were seen tocorrespond to the idea of the vessel as a space thatreceives and contains, and also as a space that enablesfoodstuffs to be stored. It was probably this feature whichresulted in equating the vessel with a womans functions:that is her ability to nurture and regenerate. In thiscontext, the emergence of anthropomorphic vessels in thesocio-religious context of the Neolithic played a largerole in the construction of the concept of femininity. The presence of numerous female features in different mediaand the focus on symbolism resulted in a comparableconception of anthropomorphic vessels across differentregions. Therefore, it is not surprising to notice that thesevessels were made with hand-building techniquescommonly associated with female potters, especially ifwe consider that the vessels, because of theirconstruction, were more in line with the cognitive systemthan Neolithic sculpture or models of figurine-houses. Itis difficult to see whether this symbolic concept findsreflection in other types of vessels, but the possibility ofits existence should not be excluded.

AUTHORS ADDRESS

Goce NAUMOVInstitute for History of Art and ArchaeologyUniversity of SkopjeKiro Krstevski Platnik 11 2/7

1000 SkopjeRepublic of [email protected]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Nikos Chausidis for sharing withme his research results and for indicating the usefulreferences. I am also grateful to Orhideja Zorova, InaBerg and the anonymous reviewer for their helpfulcomments on an earlier draft of this paper.

REFERENCES

ADAM, L. 1963. Primitivna umetnost. Beograd: Kultura.BACVAROV, K. 2003. Neolitni pogrebalni obredi .

Sofia: Bard.BACVAROV, K. 2004. The birth-giving pot: Neolithic

jar burials in southeast Europe, in V. Nikolov, K.Bacvarov & P. Kalcev (eds.) Prehistoric Thrace :151-160. Sofia/Stara Zagora: Institute ofArchaeology/Museum-BAS/Regional Museum ofHistory-Stara Zagora.

BLAGOJEVIC, N. 1984. Obicaji u vezi sa rodjenjem,

zenidbom i smrcu u titovouzickom, pozeskom ikosjerickom kraju. Glasnik Etnografskog Muzeja48: 209-310.

BRENDEL, O. J. 1978. Etruscan art . Kingsport: PenguinBooks.

CERMANOVICKUZMANOVI, A. 1977.Grcke slikanevaze . Beograd: Naucna knjiga.

CHAUSIDIS, N. 1988. Simbolikata i kultnata namena namakedonskite bronzi. Ziva Antika 38: 69-89.

CHAUSIDIS, N. 1995. Predistorija, in Makedonijakulturno nasledstvo : 17-45. Skopje: Misla.

CHAUSIDIS, N. 2004. Majka Kukja Atena Sofia,tipologija i semiotika na eden tip neolitski zrtvenici

od R. Makedonija . Paper presented at the XVIIISymposium of the Macedonian ArchaeologicalScience Association, Gevgelija.

CHAUSIDIS, N. 2005. Kosmoloski sliki . Skopje: NikosChausidis.

CHAUSIDIS, N. & NIKOLOV, G. 2006. Crepna ivrsnik. Mitolosko semioticka analiza.Studia

Mythologica Slavica 9: 97-160.DEVYATKINA, T. 2004. Mordvinian mythology .

Ljubljana: ZRC Publishung, SAZU.ELIJADE, M. 1983. Kovaci i alkemicari . Zagreb:

Graficki zavod Hrvatske.ELIJADE, M. 2004.Sveto i profano . Beograd: Alnari

Tabernakl.ELIJADE, M. 2005. Istorija na veruvanjata i nareligiskite idei II . Skopje: Tabernakul.


10/11

100

FILIPOVIC, S. M. 1951. Zenska keramika kodbalkanskih naroda. Beograd: Serbian Academy ofScience.

GALOVIC, R. 1964. Zelenikovo neolitsko naselje. Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja V: 127-167.

GARASANIN, M. 1979. Centralno - balkanska zona, in

A. Benac (ed.) Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja II neolit : 79-212. Sarajevo: Academy of Scienceand Art of Bosnia and Hercegovina.

GARASANIN, M. 1982.Umetnost na tlu Jugoslavije praistorija . Beograd: Izdavaki zavod Jugoslavija.

GARASANIN, M. & GARASANIN, D. 1961. Neolitskanaselba Vrsnik kaj selo Tarinci. Zbornik na

stipskiot Naroden Muzej II : 7-40.GIMBUTAS, M. 1976. Neolithic Macedonia . Los

Angeles: The Regents of the University ofCalifornia.

GIMBUTAS, M. 1982.The goddesses and gods of old Europe . London: Thames & Hudson.

GIMBUTAS, M. 1989.The language of the goddess .London: Thames & Hudson.GORDON, S. 1977. Haananeskaja mifologija, in V.A.

Jakobson (ed.) Mifologii drevnego mira : 199-232.Moskva: Nauka.

HAALAND, R. 2007. Porridge and pot, bread and oven:Food ways and symbolism in Africa and the NearEast from the Neolithic to the present.Cambridge

Archaeological Journal 17, 165-182.HODDER, I. 1990.The Domestication of Europe.

Structure and cognistency in Neolithic societes .Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

HOERNES, M. 1925.Urgeschichte der bildenden Kunstin Europa. Wien: Kunstverlag Anton Schroll &Co.

JANSON, H.W. 1975. Istorija umetnosti. Beograd:Izdavacki zavod Jugoslavija.

KISELINOV, G.Y. 1942. Ivanka. Blgarski Narod 2: 52-55.

KOLISTRKOVSKA-NASTEVA, I. 2005. Prehistoricladies from Macedonia (catalogue). Skopje:Museum of Macedonia.

KORKUTI, M. 1995. Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum in Albanien . Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

LOZANOVA, G. 1989. Osobenosti na obredite pri pogrebanie na deca u juznite slavjani v kraja naXIX i nacaloto na XX v. Blgarska Etnografija 1:17-30.

MALESEVIC, M. 1995. Odnos svekrve i snahe usvadbenom ritualu. Etno-kulturoloski Zbornik za

Proucavanje Kulture istocne Srbije i SusednihOblasti I: 177-184.

MARAZOV, I. 1992. Mit, ritual i izkustvo u Trakite .Sofia: Univerzitetsko Izdatelstvo Sv. KlimentOhridski.

MELLART, J. 1970. Excavation at Hacilar . Edinburg:Edinburgh University Press.

MLLER-KARPE, H. 1968. Handbuch derVorgeschichte . Mnchen: C. H. Beck.

NAUMOV, G. 2005. Neolitski slikani ornamenti. Kulturen Zivot 3: 66-77.

NAUMOV, G. 2006. Sadot, peckata i kukjata vosimbolicka relacija so matkata i zenata (neolitski

predloski i etnografski implikacii). Studia Mythologica Slavica 9: 59-95.

NAUMOV, G. 2007a. Housing the dead: Burials insidehouses and vessels in the Neolithic Balkans, in D.Barrowclough & C. Malone (eds.).Cult in context:

Reconsidering ritual in archaeology . 257-268.

Oxford: Oxbow Books. NAUMOV, G. 2007b.Small breasts - big buttocks:Gender determination of the figurines from the

Balkans . Paper presented at 13th Annual Meetingof the European Association of Archaeologists,Zadar.

NAUMOV, G. (in press). Imprints of the Neolithic mind:Clay seals from the Neolithic Macedonia.

Documenta Praehistorica XXXV. Ljubljana. NAZIM, J. 2002. Upotrebata na kilimot vo Makedonija.

Zbornik na Muzejot na Makedonija (Etnologija) 2:145-154.

NEUMANN, E. 1963.The Great Mother . New York:

Bollingen Foundation.ZDOGAN, M. & Y. DEDE. 1998. An anthropomorphicvessel from Toptepe, in M. Stefanovic, M.Dtefanovich, H. Todorova & H. Hauptmann. (eds.)

James Harvey Gaul In memoriam : 143-152.Sofia: The James Harvey Gaul Foundation.

PAVUK, J. 1981.Umenie a zivot kamennej . Tatran: ArsSlovaca Antiqua.

PERLS, C. 2001.The Early Neolithic in Greece The first farming communities in Greece . Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

PETRESKA, V. 2001. Odnosot svekrva/snaa vomakedonskiot svadben obred (memorija i

perspektivi), Makedonski Folklor 58-59: 167-186.PETRESKA, V. 2002.Svadbata kako obred na preminkaj Makedoncite od brsjackata etnografska celina .Skopje: Institut za folklor Marko Cepenkov.

PETROVIC, B. 2001. Model neolitske peci iz Progara.Godisnjak grada Beograda XLVII-XLVIII: 11-21.

PYKE, G. & P. YIOUNI. 1996. Nea Nikomedeia I: Theexcavation of an Early Neolithic village innorthern Greece 1961 1964 . London: TheBritish School at Athens.

RADUNCEVA., MACANOVA, V., GACOV, I.KOVACEV, G., GEORGIEV, G., CAKALOVA,E. & E. BOZILOVA. 2002. Neolitnoto seliste do

grad Rakitovo (Razkopki i proucvanija XXIX).Sofia: Izdatelstvo Gal-Iko.RISTEVSKI, Lj. 2005. Kategoriite prostor i vreme vo

narodnata kultura na makedoncite . Skopje: MaticaMakedonska.

SANEV, V. & M. STAMENOVA. 1989. Neolitskanaselba Stranata vo selo Angelci. Zbornik naTrudovi : 9-63.

SANEV, V., SIMOSKA, D., KITANOSKI, B. & S.SARZOSKI (eds.) 1976. Praistorija vo

Makedonija . Skopje: Arheolosko drustvo na SRMakedonija.

STALIO, B. 1977. Neolit na tlu Srbije . Beograd: NarodniMuzej.ENGL, A. 2006. Mysterious women of the Bronze Age (catalogue). Istanbul: Yapi Kredi.


11/11

101

TITOV, V. S. & I. ERGELI. 1980. Arheologija Vengrii .Moskva: Nauka.

TODOROVA, H. 2003. Prehistory of Bulgaria, in D.V.Gramenos (ed.) Recent research in the prehistoryof the Balkans. Thessaloniki: ArchaeologicalInstitute of Northern Greece.

TODOROVA, H. & I. VAISOV. 1993. Novo kamennata epoha v Blgarija. Sofia: Nauka iIzkustvo.

TOMI, P. 1976. Tipoloko terminoloka klasifikacijazbirke narodnog gr anrstva.Glasnik Etnografskog

Muzeja 39/40: 45-83.UZENEVA, E. S. 1999. Bova bez dno: K simvolike

devstvennosti v bolgarskom svadebnom obrjade. Kodovi Slovenskih Kultura 4: 145-157.

VRAZINOVSKI, T. 2000. Recnik na narodnatamitologija na makedoncite , Prilep Skopje: Istitutza Staroslovenska Kultura & Matica Makedonska.

WHITTLE, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic .

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.ZDRAVKOVSKI, D. 2005. Neolitska naselba Pod selo Tumba s. Stence. Zbornik na Muzejot na Makedonija 2 (Arheologija): 25-31.

Documents

Naumov 2008, The Vessel as a Human Body