Neolithic Priorities: Ritual and VisualPreferences within Burials andCorporeality in the BalkansGOCE NAUMOVArchaeological Museum of Macedonia, FYR MacedoniaNeolithic bodies are not only manifestations of subjective principles. Social and symbolic norms are alsoincorporatedwithinthebodiesofbothactual andrepresentedindividuals. Thesenormsoftenrelatetoeconomicandreligiousnotionsof society, aswell astoeffigies. OwingtohighpopulationdensitiesinNeolithicvillages, onlyaselectgroupoftheinhabitantswereburiedwithinsettlementsorrepresentedin images. This generated a category of privileged individuals and body features, which were related tosymbolic principlesratherthansocialhierarchy.SuchpracticesamongNeolithicsocieties intheBalkansare evident within burials and human representations. Individuals buried inside settlements, anthropo-morphichousemodels,andfigurinesfromseveralsitesinOvc ePole,Pelagonia,andtheSkopjeValleyare used as case studies in this paper. Placing these sites into a wider geographical context, it is arguedthat gender, age and body parts were significant criteria in funerary practices and features ofcorporeality.Keywords: anthropomorphic figurines, body, burials, symbolism, Neolithic, BalkansINTRODUCTIONThe body is central tothe constructionofsocial norms. It is also a potent metaphor,embodyingcommunityprinciples. Duringthe Neolithic, the body was entwined withthe symbolic definition of the living space,and was central to the interaction betweenindividualsandmaterial culture. Boththebody and corporeality were present inrituals and imagery. Selected individualswere buriedwithinsettlements andwererepresented by material culture such as fig-urines (Parker Pearson, 1999; Bailey,2005). Burial practices were not just aboutperceptions of death, and anthropo-morphic representations were not justportrayals of particular individuals.Instead, burials and corporeal images wereentwinedwithsymbolicprinciples. Theseprinciplesreflectedaffirmedsocial norms,maintained during the use of social spacesand material culture. The interment of thedeadbelowornexttodwellingsdoesnotseemaccidental. The human body wasalso placed in relation to vessels and ovens(or altars), as well as represented on figur-ines (Naumov, 2009a). These symbolicrelationshipsofthebodywithhousesandobjects suggest that the deliberate selectionof the dead occurred.Inthis paper, Neolithic findings fromPelagonia, Ovc e Pole, and the SkopjeValleyareusedascasestudies(Figure1).European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014, 184207 European Association of Archaeologists 2014 DOI 10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000058Manuscript received 30 July 2013,accepted 30 January 2014, revised 31 December 2013It will be highlightedthat a number oflocal features are present which divergefrompreviousgeneralizationsofNeolithiccultural groups (Garaanin, 1979; Sanev,1994). Other sites in the wider Balkanarea are also examined, in order to demon-strate the existence of similar ritual andvisual practiceswhichwereindependentlymanifested. The significance of local prac-tices will be also elaborated, despite thepresence of broader regional symbolicnorms.This paper will consider two major cat-egories of body treatment: burials andhumanrepresentations. Ritual andvisualsubcategories of body treatment will beexplored, particularly those which high-light body selection preferences and beliefsamong Neolithic communities. In order todo so, burial locations, sex and age of indi-viduals, miniaturism, and hybridismareanalysed. Previous examination of thesecategories has suggested that Neolithiccommunities shared the concept ofanthropomorphism, which employs thehuman body as the main metaphor forcomplex social and symbolic processes(Naumov, 2010a). Apreference for par-ticular genders and mediums of humanrepresentation was observed for themajority of Neolithic communities. It isalsopossiblethatfigurinesandanthropo-morphic house models correlated withburials of a particular age or sex, butfurther archaeological analysis is needed toconfirmthis proposition. Insome settle-ments, however, this dominant concept ofanthropomorphism was engaged with, andautonomously manifested, in differentways: some communities chose tomodelsexless and abbreviated bodies in clay.This paper further explores how visualrepresentation and ritual engagement withthe human body during the Neolithicperiod in the Balkans is manifestedthrough local practices.Figure 1. Map of the Balkan Peninsula with case study sites and regions mentioned in the text.Naumov Neolithic Priorities 185PREFERRED BURIALSNeolithic burials in the Balkans are mainlyfoundinsidesettlementsanddiverseideasaresuggestedregardingthepreferenceforburial inthis active space (Cavanagh&Mee, 1998; Bac varov, 2003; Bori &Stefanovi, 2004; Naumov, 2007). As wellas asymboliccomponent tothis definedand constant ritual tradition, there are alsorepresentations of social processes inburials. Theseincludeindividuality, iden-tity, status, or gender of the deceasedindividual (Carr, 1995; Parker Pearson,1999; Fowler, 2004; Insoll, 2005). Suchritual practices in the Neolithic wereincorporated into local traditions whileconcepts were shared by communities.Burials intheBalkans inparticular illus-trate howuniversal ideas of deathcouldhave shared regional principles whilstbeing part of a local tradition. Notably,the relationship between burials andanthropomorphic representation demon-strates how the human body was central tothe adaptationof regionally shared con-cepts into the culture of local Neolithiccommunities.The Neolithic settlement at Amzabe-govoinOvc e Pole provides insight intoritual forms and social tendencies within aparticular Neolithic Balkan population.Several excavationteams have confirmedcontinuous Early to Late Neolithic, as wellas a phase of Roman, occupationat thesite (Koroec & Koroec, 1973; Gimbutas,1976a; Sanev, 2009).Radiometricanalysisindicates that the earliest site use occurredbetweenapproximately6510and6230BC(Reingruber &Thissen, 2005; Whittleet al., 2005). This site has the typicalcharacteristicsofthefirstNeolithicsettle-ments in the Balkans, with similarmaterial culture tocontemporary sites inThessaly and, to a degree, in Anatolia(Gimbutas,1976a;Sanev,1994;Naumov,2009a, 2010b). This suggests a strongrelationshipwiththesegeographical areasandpartiallyexplainstheearlyoccupationof the site.At Amzabegovo, alongsidetheagricul-tural, architectural, pottery, and visualtraditions similar to the Anatolian andThessalian Neolithic, intramural burialwas alsopracticed. Atotal of thirty-fourburials were uncovered, twenty-five ofwhich were associated with its earliestphase(Nemeskri&Lengyel, 1976).Thenumber of Middle Neolithic burials isfewer, withonlyeight confirmedindivid-uals. Onlyasingleskeletonwasfoundinthe Late Neolithic layers (Figure 2). Itappears, therefore, that intramural burialwas mainly practiced in the earliest phasesof the site. The fewer number of burials inlater stages may be relatedtosocial andsymbolic changes. Aselective preferencewithin intramural burial in the EarlyNeolithic is suggested from results ofanthropological analysis. The largestFigure 2. Numbers of Neolithic burials by sex, age, and phase at Amzabegovo.186 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014number of burials belongs to infants, chil-dren, and subadults, with females morenumerous than males (Nemeskri &Lengyel, 1976). Other individuals, par-ticularly males and adults, were most likelyburied outside the settlementan area notyet excavated by archaeologists. This isalso suggested by the estimated size of thesettlement and population density atAmzabegovo (Gimbutas, 1976a). Itappears that only particular communitymembers were placed belowor next todwellings. The high percentage of infants,sub-adults andfemales buriedwithinthesettlement may result fromhigher mor-tality rates among these groups (stemmingfromproblems arising during pregnancyandbirthgiving), rather thana selectivepreference. But if the mortality rate ofmalesandadultsinseveral generationsisconsidered, the presence of their bodieswouldbemorecommonif selectionwasnot employed. Selective preference forintramural burial of individuals of a certainages and sex is also observed in otherregions, yet caution has to be taken asthesedataarefromsites excavatedusingjust oneor afewtrenches. Similar ritualpractices have been observed at other Neo-lithicsites withinOvePoleandregionsin its vicinity, such as Pelagonia andSkopjeValley(Figure3).Otherexaminedburials, fewer innumber, wereuncoveredat NovoSelo, Madjari, andOptic ari. Atthese sites, infants and females wereplacednext toorbelowdwellings(Velja-novska, 2000, 2006), withtheexceptionsof a young adult males mandible and cut-marked male skeletons found belowhouses in Govrlevo and Grnc arica(Naumov, 2009a; Fidanoski, 2012; Stoja-novski, 2012). Owingtotheinfrequencyand small size of archaeological exca-vations inOvePole, Pelagonia, andtheSkopje Valley, more data need to beobtainedthroughexcavationandosteolo-gical researchinorder tocarryout moredetailedsexandageratiosfor intramuralburials.The preference towards infant andfemale intramural burials is also seeninthe wider Balkanarea. Of note are thefunerary rituals at Lepenski Vir and Obre,wheretheremainsofinfantswerepredo-minantly buried in specific architectonic orsettlement contexts. Forty infants inLepenski Vir were buried within buildings,andelevenchildrenat Obrewereburiedinthecentral partofthesettlement. Bio-logical aspects of the skeleton thereforedeterminedthespacefor their placement(Zlatuni, 2003; Bori & Stefanovi,2004; Stefanovic &Boric, 2008). Thequantity and concentration of childrenburied within buildings at Lepenski VirandObrearerelativelyhigh, andarenotFigure3. Numbersof Neolithicburialsbysex, ageandsiteinOvePole, PelagoniaandtheSkopjeValley.Naumov Neolithic Priorities 187yet confirmed at other Balkan sites,although males and adults are outnum-bered by intramural burials of females andinfants. It is also of note that in someBalkan regions non-adult burials withinsettlements are more frequent, while inother areas adult burials within settlementsare more frequent. Returning to localNeolithic sites, at Kovac evo only infantsand children were uncovered, similar tothesecondphaseatthesiteofKaranovo.This contrasts to the site of Slatina, whereonly adult individuals were found(Bac varov, 2003). At the Neolithic cavesite of Franchti, the majority of the ident-ified skeletal remains belong to infants andfemales, which are most numerous inearlier levels of the site (Cavanagh & Mee,1998; Triantaphyllou, 2001). Thepictureat Nea Nikomedeia is similar, which fromradiometric evidence and architectonic andpotteryevidencehas similarities withtheaforementioned site of Amzabegovo(Pyke, 1996; Naumov, 2010b). Thenumber of buried infants, children, andjuveniles outnumber the adults at NeaNikomedeia, with female burials onceagain more common than males. Suchritual practices can also be found at severalNeolithic sites in Cyprus, Anatolia, andotherpartsoftheNearEast, buttheygobeyond the regional scope of this paper(zdoan, 1999; Moore et al., 2000;Lorentz, 2003). Consequently, one canconsider that the process of Neolithiza-tion,spreadingfrom Anatolia towards theBalkanPeninsula,introducedthispracticeof intramural burial for selectedindivid-uals. Examination of Neolithic sites in theBalkans suggests that this tradition wasmodified and partially embedded intolocal social and symbolic culture.As has beenstatedabove, burial prac-tices in the Neolithic Balkans were notalways unified, often reflecting localunderstandingsofdeath.Thismighthavecaused variation in practices during theEarly Neolithic, when ideas were pro-moted. Burial tookanumberof differentritual forms: inhumation, cremation, body-part deposition, anddual burial (i.e. twoindividuals buried next to each other).Examination of burial type allows regionaldifferences and variations employed by theparticular population to be traced.Although inhumation is dominant, crema-tionwasalsoperformedduringtheEarlyNeolithic (Cavanagh & Mee, 1998;Bac varov, 2003). Unusual formsof burialare alsoobservedat the sites of Slatina,Kremikovci, Agios Petros, Bukovac kaCesma, Madjari, and Govrlevo (Stankovi,1992; Bac varov, 2003; Naumov, 2009a;Stojanova Kanzurova, 2011). For example,at Govrlevo a mandible was initiallydeposited close to a building, and wasplaced inside a pot at a later time.Althoughtheburial ofisolatedmandiblesis not documented at Amzabegovo, therare practice of using vessels in burials wasemployed (Figure 4). Asix-month oldinfant was placedintoa vessel withthehandles and bottomdeliberately brokenFigure 4. Jar burial of an infant fromAmzabe-govo.After Nemeskri & Lengyel (1976: fig. 242).188 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014(Nemeskri & Lengyel, 1976). The place-mentofinfantsinvesselswasrareduringthe Balkan Neolithic, but can be traced intheNear East (Bacvarov, 2008; Georgia-dis, 2011). In later prehistoric periods,adult individuals have frequently beenfound buried in this way. This ritual prac-tice asserts more the symbolic aspects ofburial, as well as the implementationofembodiment and anthropomorphismwithinmaterial culture (Naumov, 2010a,2013). The production of anthropo-morphic vessels, models of houses, andmodelsofovenswithhumanfeatureswasalso associated with intramural burials.This was particularly the case withdeceasedcommunity members whowerelater memorialized, or involved in sym-bolic concepts, such as effigies.The case of Amzabegovo is worthconsideration, to explain the dominantpresenceofyoungindividualsandfemaleswithin intramural burials in Ovc e Pole.There is also an observed relationshipbetween burials and anthropomorphicmaterial culture (discussed in detailbelow). The insertion of an infant inside avessel with intentionally broken handlesandbase at Amzabegovois a significantsemiotic action; it embeds particularmeanings both into the individual andvessel. Withinaritual context, thevesselitself has amorepotent meaning. It wasexpected to contribute to the infantstransposition into a different semioticstage, suchasmemorialization, rebirth, orsacralization. The burial area where thevesselwasplacedalsointensifiesthesym-bolismof the ritual andthe selectionofparticular individuals. After the vessel con-taining the six-month-old infant wasdeposited, a female individual (thirty tofifty-nineyears old) was buriedwithherpelvis above the vessel. Another female(twenty-onetotwenty-fiveyearsold) wasplaced next to the older females feet(Sanev, 2009). Itcannotbedeterminedifthere was kinship between these threeindividuals, but it isapparent (fromtheirintentional placingabove the vessel withtheburiedinfant) that thesetwowomenwere buried in order to intensify the sym-bolic process embodiedwithinthe vesseland infant. The ritual focus on infants andchildrenat Amzabegovofurther suggeststhat young individuals were consideredsignificant members of the community.Specific actions, therefore, were performedinorder toemphasisetheir presenceandmemory within particular dwellings andsettlements. These included funeraryrituals that symbolically simulatedprocreation.As will beelaboratedbelow, Neolithicsettlements did not employ anthropo-morphic material culture (female figurines,models, or vessels) in order to support thefuneraryritual act; theseobjectsareneverfoundasgravegoods. Whencreated, themajority of human representations atAmzabegovo were sexless and depositedwithinpits (Gimbutas, 1976b), thus it ispossible that they were more closelyassociatedwithinfants thanwithcertainmale or female individuals. Also thenumberoffigurinesunearthedfromEarlyNeolithic phases is few compared withthe infants buried within the settlement inthe same period (Figure 5). During theMiddleNeolithic, thefrequencyof intra-mural burials decreases, especiallythat ofinfants and children, while the productionof figurines (including the first female rep-resentations) increases. In contrast toAmzabegovo, at Porodinone of themost prominent Pelagonian Neolithicvillagesnumerous corpulent female fig-urinesandanthropomorphicmodelswereproduced, but there are no Neolithichumanburials confirmedsofar. This isdespite comprehensive excavation (Grbiet al., 1960). The different contexts associ-atedwithfuneraryritualsandfigurinesatthese settlements indicates that whereNaumov Neolithic Priorities 189intramural burialsofchildrenandwomenwere numerous, the production of anthro-pomorphic female effigies was reduced(and vice versa). For the moment, itcannot be established whether such apattern is common for all sites and regionsin the Balkans, but it is worth further con-sideration as other settlements producesimilar ratios. At Amzabegovo there aremany more burials inthe earlier phases,suggestingthat theyhadgreatersymbolicpotencyearlier, ratherthanintheMiddleand Late Neolithic. Fromthe MiddleNeolithic onwards the intramural burialsare largely reduced in contrast to theincreasingfigurineproduction, suggestingthat the burials dynamism was laterreplaced by anthropomorphic represen-tations, whichwere sometimes depositedin pits along with other artefacts. Bothburials (intheearliest phases) andfigur-ines (inthe later phases) were thereforeintendedtopreservethepresenceof par-ticular young or female individuals, and tomemorializethesocial effecttheyhad, orcouldhave,withinthecommunity. Inthecontextoftheburiedbodyorrepresentedindividual, suchdepositions or portrayalswere transformedinto semiotic acts (i.e.given the more frequent production offigurines andthe decrease inburials, pitdepositions of figurines might havesym-bolised burials of the deceased), whichfurther highlightedthe symbolic featuresof house, settlement or community.AccordingtofunerarydatafromOvc ePole, Pelagonia, the Skopje Valley and theBalkans in general, it is evident in particu-lar settlements that intramural burial andinfants placed in vessels were not onlyformal farewells to the deceased. The pre-ferencefor particular ageandsexgroupsin burials, their placement inside orbetweenbuildings, andtheuseof vesselsfor deposition of infant bodies, suggeststhat they were embedded in a complexsymbolic process that implies a potentrelationshipbetweenthe livinganddeadmembers of the community and the spacethey inhabited. If artefacts with anthropo-morphic features are also considered inthiscontext, thentheexistenceof severalsemiotic principles and social norms couldbe suggested, consequently manifestedthroughout burials, material culture, andsocial relations. Anoverviewof thebasiccategories of anthropomorphic represen-tations, their visual features, andarchaeological contexts follows below, toprovide an insight into these processes,Figure5. Numbers of Neolithic figurines dividedbyrepresentationof sexunearthedatAmzabegovoduringthe Yugoslav-Americanexcavationseasons (basedondatainGimbutas, 1976b). Fragmentsthat could not be identified are included among the sexless figurines.190 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014including how the human body was incor-poratedwithinabroader rangeof visual,performative, and ritual acts.THE MATERIALIZATIONOFCORPOREALITYThe categorization and interpretation offigurines has frequently been debated(Bailey, 2005; Hansen, 2007; Lesure,2011). Besides theestablishment of theirbasic forms, types, and chronologicaldetermination, there is still no universalagreement ontheirmeaning, function, orwhom they represent. Some archaeologistshave claimedthat figurines are represen-tations of goddesses, while others haveinterpretedthemasdepictionsofindivid-uals (James, 1959; Ucko, 1962; Gimbutas,1982; Bailey, 1994; Talalay, 1994;Meskell, 1995; Biehl, 1996; Lesure, 2002;Golan, 2003). While the discussion ofwho was represented by figurines isbeyondthescopeofthispaper, thesocialand symbolic processes manifestedthroughtheir visual featuresandquantitywill be considered here. Other artefactsmodelled after the human body, or any ofits parts, will alsobeconsidered, suchasanthropomorphic vessels, models ofhouses and ovens.Three basic stylistic categories ofanthropomorphic objects can defined:abbreviation, realism, and hybridism.Abbreviation (involving the visualreductionof bodily features) andrealism(which portrays the actual body) arerelatedtofigurines, theirmajorcharacter-istics andtheir accentuationof particularbodily features. Hybridismis specific tomodels, vessels, altars andotherartefactsdepictingor bearingparts of the humanbody (Naumov, 2009b). In this paper,onlyfigurines andmodels withsufficientdataontheirquantityandappearanceareconsidered; specifically, those from Amza-begovo, Porodin, Zelenikovo, Govrlevo,Slavej, Topolc ani, andRakle. Thesesitesprovidearegional perspectiveonthepri-orities emphasizedby representedbodies(Figure 6). Althoughnumerous figurinesfromthe Balkans are well documented,thedetailedobservationsinthispaperarebased on figurines from the above-mentioned settlements located inPelagonia, Ovc e Pole, and the SkopjeValley. These sites were chosen due to thelarge quantity of figurines and the clearpreferenceforparticularwaysofdepictingcertain features of the body. Local affi-nities can be seen through the presence orabsence of corporeal features suggestingsex and the accentuation of particular bodyFigure 6. Anthropomorphic figurines fromOve Pole andPelagonia: 1. Amzabegovoh. 10.0 cm(after Koroec & Koroec, 1973); 2. Porodinh. 12.4 cm (after Garaanin, 1979).Naumov Neolithic Priorities 191parts. Local variations in the production ofminiature human representations (figur-ines) or embodied, visual and symbolic,hybrid relationships with other objects(vessels, models, altars, etc.) are alsoobserved.Theissueofthefigurines sexhasbeenfrequently debated, resulting in a widerange of interpretations. The femaleaspects of figurines were initially high-lighted by scholars, who used themtosupport the hypothesis that Neolithicsocieties were matriarchal with figurinesrepresenting deities and serving as reli-gious votives (James, 1959; Gimbutas,1989; Golan, 2003). Reacting against suchinterpretations, amorecautious approachtotheinterpretationof figurines sexhasdeveloped, reducingthenumberofident-ifiedfemalerepresentations andassertingthe dominance of sexless miniatures(Bailey, 1996; Talalay, 2004; Nanoglou,2008; Nakamura&Meskell, 2009). Thestatistical data on figurines sex inPelagonia, Ove Pole, Polog, as well asthe Kumanovo and Skopje Valleys,however, confirmthat the majority areeither female or sexless representations(Naumov,2009a,b; Naumov&Causidis,2011). Theseinterpretationsarebasedonthe presence of primary sexual features(genitalia) and secondary gender attributes(breasts, buttocks, hand position andmodesofdeliberatefragmentation). Fromthe total number of approximately 280 fig-urines published so far, only eight havemale genitalia. The presence of pubis,breasts, largethighs, handsplacedonthetorso, orevendeliberatefragmentationofthelowerbodypartarecommononlyforfemale figurines. Consequently, 128 figur-inesintotal areconsideredtobefemale,while the rest are sexless (forty-nine) orhermaphrodite (three); there are also manyfragments that are difficult tocategorize.Itshouldbenotedthatthedominanceoffemale figurines in publications mightresult fromauthors selectionof themostrepresentative anthropomorphic objects forthe reports. On the other hand, publisheddata on figurines from other Balkanregions include somewhat similar frequen-cies(Srejovi, 1968; Mina, 2008; Becker,2010). Thisshouldbefurthertestedwithcase studies prior totheir inclusioninabroader andmoredetailedreviewof rep-resented sex on anthropomorphic artefactsin the Balkans.Nevertheless, figurines independentlyanalysed and elaborated at each of the sitesdemonstrate entirely different suites ofcharacteristics as well as sex and bodyfeature preferences. Two of the mostextensiveandthoroughlypublishedexca-vations in Ove Pole and Pelagoniaoccurred at Amzabegovo and Porodin,both providing profound insights intofigurine repertoires (Grbi et al., 1960;Koroec & Koroec, 1973; Gimbutas,1976b). There are fifty-four publishedfigurinesfromAmzabegovo, excavatedbyJosipKoroecintheearly1960s. Furtherexcavations were later carried out by aYugoslavian-American teamdirected byMilutin Garaanin, Voislav Sanev, andMarija Gimbutas. Considering the pub-lished figurines in two monographs(Koroec & Koroec, 1973; Gimbutas,1976b), seven are female, nineteen aresexless, andnonearemaleorhermaphro-dite. Therest arefragments that aretoosmall forsextobeinterpreted(Figure7).Regarding corporeal features, only twohave genitalia, four have appliedbreasts,one has a well-developed stomach, and sixhaveover-developedthighs. None of thefigurines fromAmzabegovo have hands.The statistical data indicate that themajorityof theAmzabegovofigurinesaresexless, explaining the scarcity of sex-specific body parts. The ratios for Porodinare the opposite. There are thirty-twopublishedfigurines fromthe excavations.Twenty are female, one is male, and one is192 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014hermaphrodite, butonlythreearesexless;the rest are undefined fragments(Figure 7). Appliedbreasts are observedon thirteen figurines, ten have over-developed thighs, on seven the position ofthehandsisassociatedwiththetorso, onfourthestomachisrepresented, andonlyone has incised genitalia. The attributes ofsex (especially female) are much more fre-quent at Porodin, particularlyintermsofthe secondary gender features (breasts,thighs, hands position).TheAmzabegovoandPorodinfigurinesarepresentedhereasexamplesofdifferentperceptions and representations of thehumanbody(Figure6). AlthoughAmza-begovodates backtotheEarlyNeolithic,both settlements existed in the Middle andLate Neolithic (Whittle et al., 2005), whenthe production of figurines was at its peak.It is evident that communities living indiverse regions during approximately thesame time period had different perspectivesof bodilyrepresentation. ThoseinPelago-niatended to accentuate particular parts ofthe body, producingmore corpulent rep-resentations, especially of women.Inhabitants of Ove Pole conversely tendedto produce sexless schematized bodieswithout clear bodily features. Such differen-tiation resulted from different socialprocesses withinthe settlements, andwasdue to the individuals represented. Female-nesswasthemaintraitamongPelagonianfigurines, andit couldbe associatedwithparticular characteristics, symbolic aspectsof the female body, or the formalization ofa desiredbody type. Further motives foraccentuatingfemalenessinfigurinesmighthave been (re)productive labour, stress frombiological threats, contestsoverpower, orbecause women made the figurines (Lesure,2011). Despite such gender assertation,amongtheOvePolefigurines (includingthose of Tarinci and Gorobinci), sexual fea-tures and limbs are mostly omitted and theFigure 7. Numbers of Neolithic figurines by sex from Amzabegovo, Porodin, Govrlevo andZelenikovo.Naumov Neolithic Priorities 193body is reducedtoanabstractedoutline.Sinceschematizationcannot beassociatedwiththeactual humanbody, therewas arationale other than straightforward por-trayal. Individualization or desired bodynorms werenot aconcern; figurines weremore closely related to characters not sexu-allydefinedor without anyconnectiontospecific individuals. Since there were fewfigurines with female features, it is apparentthat the Ove Pole communities wereaware of gendered body production; yetthey intentionally decided to model humanrepresentation without sex-identifying bodyfeatures. Ashasbeenpreviouslyindicated,such sexless figurines, often depositedinside pits or dwellings (Gimbutas, 1976b),could be related to intramural burials ofinfants and they might also have beenassociated with ancestors and sexuallyambiguous human-like beings. Diverse rep-resentations of the body at Porodin andAmzabegovoprovide evidence for signifi-cantly varied corporeal concepts. Thesevaried concepts are also present amongothercommunitiesinSkopjeValley, Pela-gonia, and Ove Pole, and even amongother categories of anthropomorphicimages embodied in clay.Thisreviewof figurinesfromtwositesin different geographical regions illustratesthatNeolithiccommunitiesintheseareasdid not have the same visual and cognitiveways of representing the human body.This idea is supported when figurines andanthropomorphic models from neighbour-ingsettlements are compared.1Figurinesfromfive archaeological sites suggest theimplementation of different productionmethods employed among neighbouringcommunities (Galovi, 1964; Kitanoskiet al., 1983, 1990; Bilbija, 1986;Garaanin & Bilbija, 1988; Temelkoski &Mitkoski, 2001, 2008; Mitkoski, 2005;Fidanoski, 2011). At Govrlevo in theSkopje Valley (Figure 8), thirteen figurinesand 159 anthropomorphic objects(models, vessels, and stamps) have beenfound. At Zelenikovo, alsointheSkopjeValley, eighty-threefigurineswereuncov-ered, but only twelve fragments ofembodiedmodels andvesselswerefound(Naumov&Causidis, 2011; Naumov, inpress). Theproductionpatternsandratiobetween figurines and anthropomorphichouse models in Pelagonia are almostidentical to those in Skopje Valley(Figure8). AtthesiteofRaklethemainfocus are figurines (of which there aretwenty-one), with only one anthropo-morphichybrid. Slavej andTopolc ani areexceptions, as housemodels withhumanfeatures aremorefrequent (fifty-twoandtwenty-three, respectively), outnumberingthefigurines(withfrequenciesoffourteenandfive, respectively). Considering pub-lished artefacts fromAmzabegovo, it isnoticeablethattherewasmoreinterestinminiature body representation, rather thanbody incorporation into hybrids withvessels or models. In addition to fifty-fourpublished figurines from the site, there areonlysixpublishedfragmentsofanthropo-morphic vessels/models (Gimbutas,1976a). It shouldbe notedthat authorsoftenselect the most representative arte-facts for the publications andignore lessexclusive fragments of models. Conse-quently, the number of anthropomorphicobjects fromAmzabegovo is significant,but it shouldbeconsideredwithcare, astheceramicrepertoireisnotpublishedinits entirety.Regarding sexual features, dominanceof female and sexless artefacts is alsocommonforthefigurinesat someof theaforementioned sites; while only four1The project Anthropomorphic Objects in the Republic ofMacedonia, coordinatedbythe author andNikos Chausidis,was intended to analyse and document the figurines andanthropomorphichousemodelsandvesselsfromGovrlevoandZelenikovo, in the Skopje Valley, as well as from Slavej, Topo-lc ani, andRakleinPelagonia. Partofthedataareincludedinthis paper, but also in the monographsummarizingthe projectresults (Naumov & Causidis, 2011).194 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014figurines bear evident male genitalia(Figure 7). The determination of sexamonganthropomorphic models, suchasmodelsofhouses, ismuchmoredifficult.Theplaceintendedforgenitaliarepresen-tationisoftenintheformofopeningsina simple cube (Figure 9). Most do notcontain any gender resemblance: only afew include female features (genitalia,breasts, and stomach in state of preg-nancy), while norepresentations of malefeatures have been confirmed so far(Naumov, 2009a; Chausidis, 2010). Thefemale house models often bear varioushairstyles and massive hands placed on thethighsi.e. a lower hollowcube, whichcanbe partially consideredas a gender-relatedfeaturethatarealsocommonforfigurines (Naumov, 2009b; Causidis,2011; Chausidis, 2012; Tomaz , in press).Particular regional preferences canalsobeobservedregardingthesebodycharac-teristics. In the Neolithic of the SkopjeValley, amuchgreateremphasisisplacedon upper anthropomorphic parts (thecylinder) where face, hair, breasts,abdomen, or hands are depicted; excludingthe house model whichis simply elabo-rated as a cube with openings (Figure 10).ThePelagonianpractices areentirelytheopposite. The main focus is the modelenrichedwithvariousarchitectural details,whilethecylinder comprises onlyaface.Besides the anthropomorphic models withprominent architectural features, thepro-ductionof altars intheshapeof houseswas also common for Pelagonia (Naumov,2011). It couldbe consideredthat therewas an intense symbolic relationshipbetweencommunitiesandtheir dwellingsin Pelagonia. This is in spite of theabsence of such altars and house rep-resentations on anthropomorphic modelsinother regions. This symbolic relation-ship also results fromthe quantity, andmodes, of establishing and maintainingFigure 8. The quantity and ratio of Neolithic figurines and anthropomorphic house models/vessels fromGovrlevo, Zelenikovo, Topolc ani, Rakle, and Slavej.Naumov Neolithic Priorities 195the Pelagonian settlements (tells); invol-vingconstruction ofnewbuildings ontheexact foundations of earlier dwellings(Naumov, 2013). Althoughsimilar typesof dwellings were built in the SkopjeValley and Pelagonia, the actual house wasnot a crucial paradigm in the Skopjeregion, whereas Pelagonian communitieshad a symbolic association with it.There is alsoanobvious difference infacial representation on models from Pela-goniaandtheSkopjeValley. Thisfurtherindicates local understandings of the visualaspectsof thehumanbody. FacesamongPelagonianhousemodelsregularlyconsistof bulging oval eyes, eyebrows, circularmouth, prominent chin, andfrequentlyears. This contrasts withthose intheSkopje region, which only bear incisedhorizontal eyes and eyebrows with anabsence of the mouth, chin or ears(Naumov, 2009b). Intermsof thebodilyfeatures, it is evident that in Pelagonia themainfocus is onthe face, while intheSkopje Valley, hands, torso and ornamentsareemphasizedmorethanother parts ofhouse models. Such diversity in anthropo-morphic representations indicates thatthere were different regional perceptionsof the human body and its symbolic com-ponentsintheNeolithic. For Pelagoniancommunities, the identity asserted throughthefacewas moreimportant, incontrastto the inhabitants of the Skopje Valley,who were more concerned with thebreasts, belly, andornamentationof neckand hands. The Neolithic miniaturesexhibit the opposite pattern. In Pelagonia,figurines often have protuberant belliesand breasts, while in the Skopje ValleyFigure 9. The basic types of anthropomorphic house models in: (A) Polog; (B) Skopje Valley; (C) Pela-gonia.After Chausidis (2010: fig. 2).196 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014there is oftena lackof suchfeatures onthetorso. This indicates that perceptionsof humanbody components variedbothregionally and by artefact type, evenwithin the same communities. Figurineminiaturismobviously had diverse pur-poses(Bailey, 2005). Thiswasinspiteofmonumentality and hybridity amonganthropomorphic house models, whichintended to incorporate the humanbody into a more complex relationshipwith the man-made environment. Particu-lar bodyparts andfeatures thereforehaddifferent symbolic effects within the use ofmodels or figurines, both locally andregionally.Regional figurine variations are alsonoticeable in the representations offemale genitalia: those from Pelagoniausuallyconsist of roundapplicationswithor without twopunctures, whileinotherareas the pubis is regularly incised as atriangleorV-shapedline. Thisvariabilityalso relates to the type of object onwhichthe humanbody was represented:particular communities favoured minia-ture representations, while otherspreferred the corporeal association withmodels, vessels, altars, or stamps. Themotivesfor suchprioritiesinthedomainof corporeality, and whether they werebased on the regional manifestation ofidentityor thesymbolicprinciples of theNeolithic communities, remains to bediscussed in greater depth in futurepublications.Figure10. Thespatial distributionof themost typical anthropomorphic housemodel types sites andregions mentioned in the text.Naumov Neolithic Priorities 197PRIVILEGED INDIVIDUALSAND PREFERREDFIGURATIONSA regional perspective on intramuralburials in the Balkans, as well as local tra-ditions inmodellingof anthropomorphicobjects, indicate that the human body wasvariously engaged as a medium for reinfor-cing social relationships and symbolicconcepts. Althoughit is not possible toseehowactual bodieswereactivelyincor-porated in these Neolithic ritual and visualprocesses, the consistency of ritual practiceand figurine production provide someinsight intohowtheywerememorializedthrough material culture and burials.Ritual forms and artefacts fromseveralsettlements in the Balkans demonstratehowbroader ideasontheNeolithicbodywerelocallymodified.Forexample,intra-mural burialsas a global phenomenonemerging in the Near Eastern Neolithicgainedtheirownmicro-regional formsinsoutheast Europe. Similarly, diverse con-ceptsof thebodyproduceddifferencesinfigurine production.The Amzabegovo data illustrate thedeliberate selection of individuals buriedwithinthesettlement; apracticenotcon-sistent throughout theNeolithicBalkans.Onlyafewsiteshaveapredominanceofchild and females (both non-adults andadults) remains inside or next to dwellings.For the aforementioned sites, it issuggested that these individuals had adifferent statustomales. Suchstatuswasnot based on social hierarchy, but wasassociatedwiththose persons actual andsymbolic contributiontomaintainingthecommunity. Thestudyof childreninthepast has increased, andtheir significancein prehistoric societies has been morewidelyconsideredinrecent years (SofaerDerevenski, 2000; Baxter, 2005; Crawford& Shepherd, 2007; Dommasnes & Wrig-glesworth, 2008; Romero, 2008;Lillehammer, 2010). If it is consideredthat their earlydeathsignaledapotentialrisk for the continuation of the family, it islikely that the community carried outsafety measures through symbolic activitiesinordertoretainandstimulatethebirthrate. Funerary rituals were one of thosecomponents, particularly those practicedinsidesettlements, suchas burials under-neath buildings. Such privilegedintramural burial was also common forwomen, whoweresignificant communitymembersorpronetohealthriskanddis-eases in the period of pregnancy orchildbirth. Theirburialalongwithinfantsor children, as seenat AmzabegovoandNea Nikomedeia (Perls, 2001; Sanev,2009),opensthequestionofwhether thisritual practice wascommon onlyatsettle-ments with high mortality rates ofchildrenandwomenorwasmorelikelyaselectionof individuals with a particularstatus or merely associated with the build-ings and village in general. Owing to suchselection and inclusion within specificintramural acts, the ritual practices suggestthat these individuals probably gainedgreater symbolic significance.The frequent burial of infants, sub-adults and females below or next to build-ings would have symbolically stimulatedthe maintenance of community. Aritualrelationshipbetweenliving anddeceasedpersons may also have beenmaintained.This idea is partially supported by thedeposition of bodies, or body parts, insidevessels. The example of Amzabegovohighlights the intense symbolic associ-ations between infants and deliberatelydamagedvessels(Figure4)(Nemeskri&Lengyel, 1976). Suchvessel modificationindicates that these objects were embeddedwithintangible anthropomorphic charac-ters inorder tosuccessfullycontributetothe ritual. The conceptual anthropomor-phization of vessels and burials in theEarly Neolithic gradually engaged aspecific group of objects, setting the198 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014humanbodyinahybridrelationshipwithbuildings and households (Naumov, 2007,2013). Their quantityinthesettlements,however, wasnotequal ateveryNeolithicsite. Thisindicatesthattherewerediffer-ent local perceptions of objectsrepresenting the human body. The casestudies from the Skopje Valley suggest thatsuch hybrid associations of bodies withcontainers(housemodelsorvessels) weremore intensive at Govrlevo than at Zeleni-kovo (Naumov & Causidis, 2011;Naumov, in press). This situation is similarat Topolc ani and Slavej in Pelagonia,where hybrid representations also outnum-ber figurines. In contrast, the human bodyis more frequently portrayed on figurines atZelenikovo, Rakle, and Amzabegovo. Thissuggests that, amongthese communities,the concept of miniaturism was moreimportant thanthat of hybridismassoci-ated with house models (Figure 8).Miniaturismappears to be more of astraightforwardprocessthanhybridism. Itinvolvesarelativeportrayal of individualsbaseduponthe basic reproductionof anactual body. The represented bodies in theaforementioned geographical regions areoften schematized and not consistent witha bodys original appearance, and particularpartsareignoredorintentionallyexagger-ated. This was not an attempt ataccurately portraying an individual, butrather confirmedandemphasizedsociallyandsymbolicallyimportant bodyfeatures.Thefigurines(orminiatures)aresmall insize and could have been held in the palmof a hand, used, deliberatelyfragmented,wornwithinclothes, or hungona rope(Bailey,2005).Theyweretoosmalltobeseen from a distance or by many observersat the same time. Thus, communitiesfavouring the production of miniatureswere more focused on figurine manipu-lation than figurine display. In contrast,hybridartefacts suchas anthropomorphichousemodelsweremuchlargerandmorecompositeintheirstructure(Sanev,2006;Causidis&Naumov, 2011). Asaconse-quence, more complex ideas could bemanifested through hybrid artefacts, whichwent far beyond a common representationof an individual. The embodiment of ahouse suggests that a particular inhabitant,ormythical character, wasassociatedwithit, and simultaneously incorporated into it:features symbolicof boththerepresentedindividual andthe house. Central open-ings on floors inside a number of theanthropomorphic house modelssomecontaining figurinessuggest that somefigurines were associated with deceasedmembers of the community (Naumov,2009a). Regional features further supportthis possibility. Althoughthere are four-teenexcavatedNeolithic tells inCentralPelagonia, only two intramural burialsbeenfoundatOptiari. Asimilarpatternof burials and human representationoccurs at Ovc e Pole and the Skopje Valley(AmzabegovoandZelenikovoinparticu-lar). So, whereburialswereabsentorlowin number, the production of figurinesincreased. Figurines, thus, were most likelyusedfordepictingthedeceased.Itcannotbe suggested that this was a universal prac-tice throughout the Balkans, but for themomentthecasestudiesof Amzabegovo,Zelenikovo, Porodin, and Veluina suggestthat figurine use occurred where intra-mural burials were few or absent.Local priorities are also evident in min-iature human representations. AmongfigurinesfromthePelagoniansites, sexisemphasized more heavily than in Ovc ePole. MiniaturesfromPorodinandVelu-ina frequently bear primary and secondarysexual features, contrastingwithAmzabe-govo where the main emphasis is onsexless bodies (Figure 7). Why the rep-resentation of sex is neglected in somecommunities remains an open question, asdoeswhothesefigurinesdepictwhenthekey body parts are ignored. AtNaumov Neolithic Priorities 199Amzabegovo, a relationshipbetweenfre-quent infant/child burial and theproduction of sexless figurines might besuggested. Althoughit isdifficult tofindsupporting evidence, the fact that childrenmight be represented on figurines is worthconsideration; there are many societieswhere children are not regarded as sociallyor gender-defined individuals until theirinitiation or coming-of-age rites. It shouldalso be noted that at Early NeolithicAmzabegovo, whilethenumber of infantburialswasmostfrequent, thequantityofmodelled figurines was quite small(Figures 2 and 5). Those figurinesdepicted sexless individuals which couldbe associated with childrens genderlessstatus prior to their initiation. In theMiddle andLate Neolithic, whenintra-mural funerary rituals decrease, thenumber of figurines greatly increases. Thisoccurred along with other changes inmaterial cultureandarchitectural facilities(such as newMiddle Neolithic painteddesigns andvessel types, house made ofwattle and daub instead of mud-bricks andstones, larger villages and communities).Some miniatures were evendepositedinpits or insidehouses (Gimbutas, 1976b),thus further supporting the possiblerelationship between sexless schematizedfigurines and infant/child intramuralburials. This is alsotheperiodwhenthefirst female figurines were found at thesite, although these are few in number.Consequently, the frequent intramuralburials of females and prevalence ofanthropomorphic artefacts with femalefeatures (vessels, models, altars, etc.) atvarious sites shouldbe also be analysed.The deliberate fragmentation of femalefigurines in particular in the Balkans isalso worth consideration, due to thedynamic practices inwhichthese minia-tures were involved (Berger, 2004;Chapman&Gaydarska, 2007; Naumov,2009a; Tasi, 2011). This concentrationon the female body in representations andrituals prompts numerous discussions,althoughthesearenot fullyelaboratedinthis paper, since theregional diversities inthesymbolictreatmentofcorporealityarethe mainfocus here. Nevertheless, thereare various possibilities to explain whyfemalefigurinesoutnumberthemalerep-resentations. The majority of recentinterpretations deal with the social pos-ition of women, considering themas asilenced group, members threatened bydiseases, inhabitants faced with the neces-sity of (re)productive labour, individualsinvolved in the arena of power, oras pro-ducers of figurines representing themselves(Voigt, 2000; Bolger, 2003; Joyce, 2003;Bailey, 2005; Lesure, 2011). Some ofthesethought-provokingnotionscouldbeapplied to figurines in Pelagonia, theSkopje Valley or Ovc e Pole, but furtherexamination of the social context andmaterial cultureisfirst necessary. Forthemoment, theprevalenceof femaleburialsinthese regions, as well as the quantityandvisual appearanceof figurines, is theonly indications for proposing expla-nations. Theassociationof awoman withan infant burial in an intentionallydamaged vessel fromAmzabegovo, andthe emphasis on buttocks, genitalia,abdomen, breast, and hand positionamong the Porodin and Veluina figur-ines, indicatesimilarassociationsbetweenfigurines and female reproduction, sexu-ality, and obesity at these sites. It remainsto be seen whether these were also used asmetaphors at other sites where femaleburials and images outnumber those ofmales, children, or sexless individuals.Besides the example of women as a sig-nificant metaphor among particularNeolithiccommunities,burials,andfigur-inesfromOvc ePoleindicatethat sexlessrepresentations and bodies withoutcommon corporeal features were some-times emphasized. The favouring of200 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014diverse body parts was even employedamong two neighbouring settlements; aswasthecasewithPelagonianandSkopjeValleyminiaturesandmodels. It remainstobe discussedwhether suchproductionof anthropomorphic objects was associatedwith regional identities. This has beensuggested for painted Neolithic vessels,whichwereengagedinvarioussocial andsymbolic processes for the affirmationofautochthonous features (Naumov, 2009a,2010b). The extensive excavations in Pela-gonia, Ovc e Pole, Polog, and SkopjeValley have provided evidence that theEarly Neolithic communities inhabitingthese regions produced vessels with diversewhitepainteddecorations(Figure11). Inthe Middle Neolithic painted patternsamongPelagonianvesselsremainedwhiteandgeometric. This contrasts withthosefromOvc e Pole and the Skopje Valley,whichwerechangedtobrown, blackandmore curved (Simoska &Sanev, 1975;Garaanin, 1979; Sanev, 2004; Fidanoski,2012). The constant assertion of visualdifferences in the material culture fromthese regions indicates the intentionalelaboration of their particular regionalidentitythroughmaterial culture. Besidestheir social use, both vessels and theirdecoration incorporated identity withinmore complex symbolic process. Consider-ing the practical and visual character of thevessels, theirinclusioninthesespheresofsociety is suggested. However, it stillremains unclear if figurines and modelswere manifestations of local identities orreflections of differing approaches to visualrepresentationof thesocial andsymbolicbody.CONCLUSIONIntramural burials and various figurines,models andvesselsdemonstratethat therewere diverse understandings of the body inthe Balkan Neolithic. Diversity is alsoevident inthebodysincorporationwithinsymbolic categories relatedtoindividualsandhouseorhouseholdanthropomorphi-zation. ThesesemanticconceptswerenotequallyconsideredintheNeolithicsettle-ments. Somesculptorspreferredasimpledepictionofthebody,whileothersaddedcorporeality to more complex hybridrelationships with dwellings, vessels,ovens, etc. Even in the different visualspheres of miniaturism and hybridism,there were different approaches among theFigure 11. The local regional preferences of Early Neolithic white painted pottery in the Skopje Valley,Ovc e Pole, Pelagonia and Polog.Naumov Neolithic Priorities 201micro-regional units of Pelagonia, Ovc ePole, andtheSkopjeValley. Someofthecommunities considered particular bodyfeatures as significant while others disre-garded them. The same occurred withanthropomorphic models, evidenced by anemphasis on house details in Pelagonia, incontrast to the Skopje Valley where thefocus was ontheir upper parts, depictingvarious aspects of the human body(Figure 10).Variations in the objects produced werestimulatedbydifferent challenges experi-enced by communities in the NeolithicBalkans.Thedynamicsofsocialrelations,and mortality as a problem for communitymaintenanceinparticular, establishedthehumanbody as a central metaphor thatcontributed to their explication. Thiscomplex visual andritual engagement ofthe body generated symbolic images mate-rialized through the figurines,anthropomorphic vessels, models andaltars. Thesesymbolicitemssignificantlyaffected the construction of new socialrelations and statuses, contributing toacceptanceoftheearlydeathofparticularcommunity members. Further researchintothese categories of anthropomorphicobjects andburials inthe micro-regionalcontext will provide a more thoroughunderstandingofvariationswithinhumanbody representations and ritual treatment.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI would like to thank Ljubo Fidanoski(Museum of Skopje) and Aleksandar Mit-kovski (Museum of Prilep) for theirunderstandingandwillingness toprovideaccess to museumcollections. My grati-tude also goes to Nikos Chausidis(University of Skopje) for his dedicatedcollaboration on the research projectNeo-lithic anthropomorphic objects in theRepublic of Macedonia.I am enormouslygrateful tothe anonymous reviewers andeditors of myEnglishtext whichsignifi-cantly contributed to strengthening andclarifying the research results and proposedinterpretations.REFERENCESBac varov, K. 2003. Neolitni pogrebalni obredi.Sofia: Bard.Bacvarov, K. ed. 2008. Babies Reborn: Infant/Child Burials in Pre- and Protohistory.British Archaeological ReportsInternational Series 1832. Oxford:Archaeopress.Bailey, D. 1994. The Representation ofGender: Homology or Propaganda.Journal of European Archaeology, 2(2):21527.Bailey, D.W. 1996. Interpreting Figurines:The Emergence of Illusion and NewWays of Seeing. Cambridge ArchaeologicalJournal, 6(2):29195.Bailey, D.W. 2005. Prehistoric Figurines:Representation and Corporeality in theNeolithic. London: Routledge.Baxter, J.E. 2005. The Archaeology of Childhood:Children, Gender and Material Culture.Oxford: Altamira Press.Becker, V. 2010. Anthropomorphe PlastikenWestbulgariens und ihre Stellung imsdosteuropichen Frnhneolithikum.Studia Praehistorica, 13:2340.Berger, L. 2004. Anthropomorphe undzoo-morphe Statuetten der Stufen KaranovoII-III bis III-IV aus dem Nordsd-Schnittam Tell Karanovo. In: V. Nikolov,K. Ba c varov & P. Kalchev, eds. PrehistoricThrace: Proceedings of the InternationalSymposiuminStaraZagora. StaraZagora:Institute of Archaeology with Museum,pp. 17887.Biehl, P. 1996. Symbolic CommunicationSystems: Symbols of the Neolithic andChalcolithic fromSouth-EasternEurope.Journal of European Archaeology, 4:15376.Bilbija, M. 1986. Cerje, neolitsko naselje.Arheoloki Pregled, 1985:3536.Bolger, D. 2003. Gender in Ancient Cyprus:Narratives of Social Change on aMediterranean Island. Walnut Creek:Altamira Press.202 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014Bori, D. &Stefanovi, S. 2004. BirthandDeath: Infant Burials fromVlasac andLepenski Vir. Antiquity, 78:52646.Carr, C. 1995. Mortuary Practices: TheirSocial, Political-Religious, Circumstantial,and Physical Determinants. Journal ofArchaeological Method and Theory, 2(2):105200.Causidis, N. 2011. Neolitski antropomorfnimodeli na kui. In: G. Naumov &N. Causidis, eds. Neolitski antropomorfnipredmetivoRepublikaMakedonija. Skopje:Magor, pp. 1120.Causidis, N. &Naumov, G. 2011. Neolitskiantropomorfni modeli na kui odGovrlevo. In:G. Naumov & N. Causidis,eds. Neolitski antropomorfni predmeti voRepublikaMakedonija.Skopje:Magor,pp.2136.Cavanagh, W. &Mee, C. 1998. APrivatePlace: Death in Prehistoric Greece. Jonsered:Paul strm Frlag.Chapman, J. & Gaydarska, B. 2007. Parts andWholes: Fragmentation in PrehistoricContext. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Chausidis, N. 2010. Neolithic CeramicFigurines inthe Shape of a WomanHouseFromtheRepublicof Macedonia.In: D. Gheorghiu &A. Cyphers, eds.Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic MiniatureFigures in Eurasia, Africa andMeso-America: Morphology, Materiality,Technology, Functionand Context. BritishArchaeological Reports InternationalSeries 2138. Oxford: Archaeopress,pp. 2535.Chausidis, N. 2012. Mythical Representationsof Mother Earth inPictorial Media. In:T.G. Meaden, ed. An Archaeology ofMother Earth Sites and Sanctuaries Throughthe Ages: Rethinking Symbols and Images,Art and Artefacts From History andPrehistory. BritishArchaeological ReportsInternational Series 2389. Oxford:Archaeopress, pp. 519.Crawford, S. & Shepherd, G. eds. 2007.Children, Childhood and Society. BritishArchaeological Reports InternationalSeries 1696. Oxford: Archaeopress.Dommasnes, L.H. &Wrigglesworth, M. eds.2008. Children, Identity and the Past.Cambridge: Cambridge ScholarsPublishing.Fidanoski, L.J. 2011. Arheoloki iskopuvanjana neolitskata naselba Cerje-Govrlevovo2004 godina. Macedonia Acta Archaeologica,20:5376.Fidanoski, L.J. 2012. Cerje-Govrlevo and MiloBilbija. Skopje: Museum of Skopje.Fowler, C. 2004. The Archaeology ofPersonhood: An Anthropological Approach.London: Routledge.Galovi, R. 1964. NeueFundederStarcevoKultur in Mittelserbien und Makedonien.Bericht der Romisch GermanischenKommision, 4344 (19621963). Berlin:Walter De Gruyter & Co.Garaanin, M. 1979. Centralnobalkanskazona. In: A. Benac, ed. Praistorijajugosla-venskih zemalja II neolit. Sarajevo:Academy of Science and Art of Bosniaand Hercegovina, pp. 79212.Garaanin, M. & Bilbija, M. 1988. Kua 1 voZelenikovo. Macedonia ActaArchaeologica,9:3141.Georgiadis, M. 2011. Child Burials inMesolithic and Neolithic SouthernGreece: A Synthesis. Childhood in the Past,4:3145.Gimbutas, M. 1976a. Neolithic Macedonia: AsReflectedbyExcavationat Anza, SoutheastYugoslavia. Los Angeles: TheRegents ofthe University of California.Gimbutas, M. 1976b. Figurines. In:M. Gimbutas, ed. Anza, NeolithicMacedonia: As Reflected by Excavation atAnza, Southeast Yugoslavia. Los Angeles:The Regents of the University ofCalifornia, pp. 198241.Gimbutas, M. 1982. The Goddesses andGodsof Old Europe. London: Thames andHudson.Gimbutas, M. 1989. The Language of theGoddess. London: Thames and Hudson.Golan, A. 2003. Prehistoric Religion. Jerusalem:Golan.Grbi, M., Mac ki, P., Nadj, ., Simoska, D.& Stalio, B. 1960. Porodin:kasno-neolitskonaselje na Tumbi kod Bitolja. Bitolj:Narodni muzej Bitolj i Arheoloki insti-tut Beograd.Hansen, S. 2007. Bilder vomMenschen derSteinzeit: Untersuchungen zur anthropomor-phenPlastikderJungsteinzeitundKupfzeitin Sdosteuropa I und II. Mainz: VerlagPhilipp von Zabern.Insoll, T. 2005. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion.London: Routledge.James, P.O. 1959. The Cult of the MotherGoddess: An Archaeological andNaumov Neolithic Priorities 203DocumentaryStudy. London: ThamesandHudson.Joyce, R.A. 2003. Making Something ofHerself: Embodiment of LifeandDeathat Playa De Los Muertos, Honduras.Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 13:24661.Kitanoski, B., Simoska, D. &Todorovi, J.1983. Novi arheoloki istraz uvanja nanaselbta Cukaj vo Topolc ani kaj Prilep.Macedonia Acta Archaeologica, 6:920.Kitanoski, B., Simoska, D. &Jovanovi, B.1990. Der kultplatz auf der fundstatteVrbjanska Cuka bei Prilep. In: D. Srejovi&N. Tasi, eds. Vinc a and Its World.International Symposium. The DanubianRegion from 60003000 BC. Beograd:Serbian Academy of Science and Arts,Centre for Archaeological Research,Faculty of Philosophy. Beograd. Bigz,pp. 10712.Koroec, P. &Koroec, J. 1973. Predistoriskanaselba Barutnica. Prilep: Arheolokodrutvo na Makedonija.Lesure, R.G. 2002. TheGoddess Diffracted:Thinking About the Figurines of EarlyVillages. Current Anthropology, 43(4):587610.Lesure, R.G. 2011. Interpreting AncientFigurines: Context, Comparison andPrehistoric Art. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Lillehammer, G. 2010. Archaeology ofChildren. Complutum, 21(2):1545.Lorentz, K.O. 2003. Cultures of PhysicalModifications: Child Burials in AncientCyprus. Stanford Journal of Archaeology,2:117.Meskell, L. 1995. Godessess, Gimbutas andNew Age Archaeology. Antiquity,69:7486.Mina, M. 2008. Carving Out Gender inPrehistoric Aegean: AnthropomorphicFigurines of the Neolithic and EarlyBronze Age. Journal of MediterraneanArchaeology, 21(2):21339.Mitkoski, A. 2005. Sadova keramika odVrbjanska Cuka. Macedoniae ActaArchaeologica, 16:2953.Moore, A.M.T., Hillman, G.C. & Legge, A.J.2000. Village on the Euprathes: FromForaging to Farming at Abu Hureyra.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Nakamura, C.&Meskell,L.2009. ArticulateBodies: Forms and Figures at atalhyk.Journal of Archaeological Method andTheory, 16:20530.Nanoglou, S. 2008. Representation of HumansandAnimals inGreece andthe BalkansDuring the Earlier Neolithic. CambridgeArchaeological Journal, 18:113.Naumov, G. 2007. Housing the Dead: BurialsInsideHousesandVesselsfromNeolithicBalkans. In: C. Malone &D. Barrowclough, eds. Cult in Context.Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 25565.Naumov, G. 2009a. Patterns andCorporeality:Neolithic Visual Culture from the Republic ofMacedonia. BritishArchaeological ReportsInternational Series 1910. Oxford:Archaeopress.Naumov, G. 2009b. NeolithicVisual Cultureand Rituals. In: G. Naumov,L.J. Fidanoski, I. Tolevski & A. Ivkovska,eds. Neolithic Communities in theRepublic of Macedonia. Skopje: Dante,pp. 87135.Naumov, G. 2010a. NeolithicAnthropocentrism: Imagery Principles andSymbolic Manifestation of Corporeality inthe Balkans. Documenta Praehistorica,37:22738.Naumov, G. 2010b. Symmetry Analysis ofNeolithic PaintedPottery fromRepublicof Macedonia. In: T. BiroKatalin, ed.Data Management and MathematicalMethods in Archaeology. Archaeologia eCalcolatori 21. Roma: DipartimentoPatrimonio Culturale, pp. 25574.Naumov, G. 2011. Visual and ConceptualDynamismof theNeolithicAltarsintheRepublic of Macedonia. In: V. Nikolov,K. Bacvarov & H. Popov, eds.Interdisziplinre Forschungen zumKulturerbe auf der Balkanhalbinsel. Sofia:Humboldt Union, pp. 89129.Naumov, G. 2013. EmbodiedHouses: Socialand Symbolic Agency of NeolithicArchitecture in the Republic ofMacedonia. In: D. Hoffman&J. Smyth,eds. Tracking the Neolithic House inEuropeSedentism, Architecture andPractice. New York: Springer, pp. 6594.Naumov, G. in press. Together WeStand-Divided We Fall: Fragmentation ofNeolithic Figurines in Republic ofMacedonia. In: S.E. Kohring &R. Farbstein, eds. Representation, ImageandtheMaterialityof Technology. Oxford:Oxford University Press.204 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014Naumov, G. &Causidis, N. 2011. Neolitskiteantropomorfni predmeti vo RepublikaMakedonija. Skopje: Magor.Nemeskri, J. &Lengyel, L. 1976. NeolithicSkeletal Finds. In: M. Gimbutas, ed.Neolithic Macedonia: As Reflected byExcavationat Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia.Los Angeles: The Regents of theUniversity of California, pp. 375410.zdoan, M. 1999. ayn. In: M. zdoan,ed. Neolithicin Turkey. Istanbul: ArkeolojiSanat Yayinlari, pp. 3563.Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeology ofDeath and Burial. Stroud: Sutton.Perls, C. 2001. TheEarlyNeolithicinGreece.The FirstFarmingCommunitiesinEurope.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pyke, G. 1996. Structures and Architecture.In: K.A. Wardle, ed. Nea Nikomedeia I:The Excavation of an Early NeolithicVillage in Northern Greece 19611964.London: The British School at Athens,pp. 3954.Reingruber, A. &Thissen, L. 2005. AegeanCatchment (E. Greece, S. Balkans andW. Turkey)10,0005500cal BC. [online]Formerlyavailableat: Romero, M.S. 2008. Childhood andConstruction of the Gender Identitiesthrough Material Culture. Childhood in thePast, 1:1737.Sanev, V. 1994. Mlado kameno vreme. In:Arheoloka karta na Repblika MakedonijaTomI. Skopje: MacedonianAcademyof Science and Arts, pp. 2642.Sanev, V. 2004. Some Characteristics of theAmzabegovo Vrnik Cultural Group inMacedonia. In: S. Peri, ed. The CentralPomoravje inNeolithizationof SouthEastEurope. Belgrade: Archeological Institute,pp. 3547.Sanev, V. 2006. Anthropomorphic Cult Plasticof Anzabegovo-VrnikCultural GroupoftheRepublicof Macedonia. In: N. Tasi&C. Grozdanov, eds. HomagetoMilutinGaraanin. Belgrade: SerbianAcademyofScience and Arts, pp. 17191.Sanev, V. ed. 2009. Anzabegovo: naselba odraniot i sredniot neolit vo Makedonija. tip:Nacionalnaustanovazazatitanaspome-nicite na kulturata i muzej tip.Simoska, D. &Sanev, V. 1975. Neolitskanaselba Veluka tumba kaj Bitola.Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica, 1:2585.Sofaer Derevenski, J. 2000. Children andMaterial Culture. London: Routledge.Srejovi, D. 1968. Neolitska plastikaCentralnog Balkana. In: L. Trifunovi, ed.Neolit Centralnog Balkana. Beograd:Narodni muzej, pp. 177270.Stankovi, S.1992. Sakralnamestaipredmetiu starijeneolitskim kulturamaCentralno balkanskog podruc ja(unpublished PhDthesis, University ofBeograd).Stefanovic, S. & Boric, D. 2008. TheNewborn Infant Burials fromLepenskiVir: InPursuit of Contextual Meanings.In: C. Bonsall, V. Boroneant &I. Radovanovi, eds. The Iron Gates inPrehistory: New Perspectives. BritishArchaeological Reports InternationalSeries 1893. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp.13169.Stojanova Kanzurova, E. 2011. Arhitektonskinedviz ni objekti od Tumba-Madjari.Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica, 20:3552.Stojanovski, D. 2012. Grncharica PotteryTypology: Contribution to the EarlyNeolithicPuzzleontheBalkans (unpub-lished MA thesis, University of Ferrara).Talalay, L.E. 1994. AFeminist Boomerang:TheGreat Goddess of GreekPrehistory.Gender and History, 6(2):16583.Talalay, L.E. 2004. Heady Business: Skulls,Heads and Decapitation in NeolithicAnatolia and Greece. Journal ofMediterranean Archaeology, 17(2):13963.Tasi, N. 2011. Anthropomorphic Figurinesfrom Vinc a excavations 19982009.Documenta Praehistorica, 38:14957.Temelkoski, D. & Mitkoski, A. 2001.Neolitski antropomorfni statuetki vopre-distoriskata zbirka na Zavod i muzejPrilep. Makedonsko nasledstvo, 17:5369.Temelkoski, D. & Mitkoski, A. 2008.Docnoneolitska naselba na lokalitetotKutline kaj selo Rakle. Macedoniae ActaArchaeologica, 18:93108.Tomaz , A. inpress. Depiction of Hairstyle,Reflection of Identity? Some consider-ations concerning Neolithic HairstyleDepictionsinAnzabegovoVrnikandVeluina -Porodin Cultural Milieu. In:D. Boric&P. Miracle, eds. Identities ofthe Early Neolithic Balkans. Oxford:Oxbow Books.Triantaphyllou, S. 2001. A BioarchaeologicalApproach to Prehistoric Cemetery PopulationsNaumov Neolithic Priorities 205from Central and Western Greek Macedonia.British Archaeological ReportsInternational Series 976. Oxford:Archaeopress.Ucko, P. 1962. The Interpretation ofPrehistoric Anthropomorphic Figurines.Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute, 92:3854.Veljanovska, F. 2000. Antropoloki karakteristikinanaselenieto naMakedonija odneolit doSreden Vek. Skopje: Republic ki zavod zazatita na spomenicite na kulturata.Veljanovska, F. 2006. Neolitski skeletni naodiodPista NovoSelo. Macedoniae ActaArchaeologica, 17:34150.Voigt, M.M. 2000. atal HykinContext:Ritual at EarlyNeolithicSitesinCentralandEasternTurkey. In: I. Kuijt, ed. Lifein Neolithic Farming Communities: SocialOrganization, Identity andDifferentiation.New York: Plenum Press, pp. 25393.Whittle, A., Bartosiewicz, L., Bori, D.,Pettit, P. &Richards, M. 2005. NewRadiocarbon Dates for the Early Neolithicin Northern Serbia and South-EastHungary: Some Omissions andCorrections. Antaeus, 28:34755.Zlatuni, R. 2003. Neolitic ki pogrebni ukopina prostoru istoc ne jadranske obale injezinu irem zaledu (prijelazna zona),tipoloka analiza. Vjesnik arheolokogmuzeja u Zagrebu, 36(3):2995.BIOGRAPHICAL NOTEGoce Naumov is anarchaeologist at theArchaeological Museum of Macedoniaand Associate and Lecturer at the Institutefor Ancient Studies (Euro Balkan Univer-sity) where he also runs the project onNeolithictellsinPelagonia. Hisarchaeo-logical interests include the NeolithicBalkans, pottery patterns, history ofarchaeology, aswell astherepresentationsandrituals associatedwithhumanbody.AsamemberoftheCatalhykResearchProject he is also concerned with figurinesfrom the West Mound.Address: Archaeological Museum of Mace-donia, Dimitar Vlahovbb, POBox125,1000 Skopje, FYR Macedonia. [email:gocenaumov@gmail.com]Priorits nolithiques: prfrences rituelles et visuelles parmi les spultures et lacorporit dans les BalkansLes corps nolithiques ne sont pas seulement des manifestations de principes subjectifs; aux corps dindi-vidus relsainsi que reprsents sontgalement associes des normes socialeset symboliques. Ces normesserattachentsouventdesnotions conomiquesetreligieusesdesocitdemmequdeseffigies. Enraisonde la densit de populationleve dans les villages nolithiques, seul ungroupe favoris dedfunts ftenterrauseindes agglomrations oureprsentenimages. Ceci engendrait unecatgoriedindividus et de caractristiques physiques privilgis, apparente des principes symboliques pluttqu une hirarchie sociale. De telles pratiques au sein des socits nolithiques des Balkans sont videntesparmi les spultures etreprsentations humaines. Des individus enterrs lintrieurdes villages, desmodles de maison et des figurines anthropomorphes provenant de plusieurs sites de Ovc e Pole, Pelagoniaet de la valle de Skopje ont fait lobjet dtudes de cas. En plaant ces sites dans un contexte gographi-que plus large, on fait valoir que le sexe, lge et les parties du corps taient des critres significatifs pourles pratiques funraires et caractristiques de corporit. Translation by Isabelle GergesMots-cls: figurines anthropomorphes, corps, spultures, symbolisme, Nolithique, Balkans206 European Journal of Archaeology 17 (2) 2014Neolithische Prioritten: Ritual, visuelle Vorlieben bei Grbern und dieKorporealitt der BalkanhalbinselNeolithische Krper sindkeinesfalls alleinManifestationensubjektiver Prinzipien; auchsoziale undsymbolischeNormensindindieKrpervongleichermaentatschlichenunddargestelltenIndividueneingeschlossen. Diese Normen beziehensich hufig auf konomische und religise Auffassungen derGesellschaft wieauchauf dieFiguralplastik. AufgrundderhohenBevlkerungsdichteinneolithischenDrfern wurde nur eine ausgewhlte Gruppe von Verstorbenen innerhalb der Siedlungen bestattet oderinBilderndargestellt.DiesschufeineGruppeprivilegierterIndividuenundKrpermerkmale,diesicheher ansymbolischenPrinzipienals ansozialer Hierarchie orientierten. Derartige PraktikenindenneolithischenGesellschaftender Balkanhalbinsel spiegelnsichbei denBestattungenundmenschlichenDarstellungen deutlich wider. Siedlungsbestattungen, anthropomorphe Hausmodelle und Figurinen vonverschiedenenFundpltzenimOvc e Pole, inPelagonienund der Skopje-Ebene werdenindiesemBeitragals Fallstudienangefhrt. IndemdieseFundstellenineinenweiterengeographischenKontextgesetzt werden, soll dargestellt werden, dass das sozialeGeschlecht, AlterundKrperteilebei Bestat-tungspraktiken und Merkmalen der Korporealitt eine signifikante Rolle spielten. TranslationbyHeiner SchwarzbergStichworte: anthropomorphe Figurinen, Krper, Bestattungen, Symbolismus, Neolithikum,BalkanhalbinselNaumov Neolithic Priorities 207